THE HISSES OF A VEEP: SOCIAL INTERVENTIONS IN PROPER CONTEXT.
By Issifu Seidu Kudus Gbeadese
0244198031
On the 12th of July, 2018, I authored an article titled; WHEN A NATION GETS ITS POLITICS WRONG. In that article, I attempted to expose the rots in the system caused by the kind of politics we have chosen for ourselves. In it was the simple analogy of a class society where the ruling class mostly dictates to the masses (proletariat) as to what to discuss (the smaller things) while the( bourgeois) engage in the bigger things that will make them remain more powerful and forever consolidate power. The current happenings in our political space is just but a microcosm of that analogy.
H.E Dr Bawumia, has grown from an exalted technocrat in 2008 to a crafty but smart political propagandist who knows how to manipulate his political opponents for his political gains. The 2016 elections was won by Dr Bawumia with his embellished and well crafted propaganda and juicy but unrealistic promises. He got the NDC talking about theories while he targeted the ordinary Ghanaian with a simple catchy message wounded around the unrealistic 1V1D, 1D1F, $1m1C slogans. This perfectly worked for him and his party. Even in government, Dr Bawumia from time to time still gets the NDC talking for the bad reasons. He has just thrown one jab and my party is struggling to keep pace with his jabs.
I laugh sometimes and weep down my heart in most cases, when I watch my people helping Dr Bawumia to achieve his goal. Little did we know that this call for a headcount of “social intervention programs” was designed to take the attention of the Ghanaian from the painful increases in fuel prices, the over 1million job loses which the NPP attempted to shelve with the ailing NABCO, increases in tariffs as a result of increase in taxes (VAT, NHIL, GETfund levy etc) and many other genuine challenges the ordinary Ghanaian is facing. We have fallen for this prank just like we did in the Nana Addo and his Kalypo prank. While I wonder in my lonely world as to why the NDC has always played on the periphery, my mind chanced on a quote in a letter written by Niccolo Machiavelli to his friend, Francesco Vettori in December 10, 1513...”for whoever let’s go off his own convenience for the convenience of others, only loses his own and gets no thanks for them”—THE PRINCE.
Social policies go with social infrastructure, so while they play the social policy (intangibles) card, the NDC has a bigger opportunity to also play the social infrastructure (tangibles) card especially at a time when the people of Ghana have been made aware of the enormous benefits of the massive social and economic infrastructure President Mahama pursued. What happened to the many hospitals and schools built? What happened to the many rural roads constructed to boost local economic activities? What happened to the many CHPS compounds in very remote villages to ease the stress of having to commute between villages and towns in search of one single bed for a pregnant woman to deliver? Sad!
Let me try this small brain of mine on the subject matter; Small brain which was trained in the confines of some village schools. My Public Policy Professor told me that all policies (social economic etc) are designed to solve identified problems (social, economic etc) in a society. I also learnt on the sidelines that these policies could be temporary(short to medium term) or permanent (long term). Ordinarily, any interventionists program(s) is/are designed to solve socioeconomic problems; They are designed to solve a social problem in the short run but cause an economic impact (positive) in a long run. They could be regulatory in nature so that a government deliberately take actions to interfere with the decisions and actions of individuals, groups, organizations to cause a social change and an ultimate economic benefit. They could be a response to an emergency situation like provision of relief items to disaster affected persons, etc.
Social interventions are mostly targeted at socially excluded groups (minorities, the destitute, less privileged etc). The targeted clause embedded in most of these policies are used as performance indicators to measure the impact of same. So that if LEAP beneficiaries are supposed to be the “poor” in rural Ghana, policy implementors are tasked to use same indicator to measure the policy outcomes. So that Free SHS policy which is supposed to be targeted at the “poor” which is not so in the case of the present implementation model anyway...then overtime, policy implementors are tasked to evaluate the impact of the policy using the “poor” as the standard measure. In the case of the Free SHS, it would be difficult to measure its social benefit relative to its economic payoff because of its undefined target group. Both the poor and the rich are treated equally (government should pay the school fees of the daughter of the minister of finance just as it will pay the school fees of the son of that widow in my village who sells cola in the village market)...inequality entrenched?
In the foregoing needless debate which I have joined anyway, I chanced upon several NDC members trying hard to mention the likes of free distribution of school uniforms, exercise and text books, the community day senior high school program and the likes as social interventions. Others tried to go as far back as the establishment of GETfund, PAMSCAD, etc as cases in point. I would try to deviate from that exercise of a headcount into some selected area on this subject matter. That is not to say the above list isn’t and can’t be part of the interventionists list.
The education and health sub sectors are mostly the areas successive governments focus their attention, once their impacts are felt in rural communities which are mostly poor. Let me attempt this scenario; So in 1995 the FCUBE policy was adopted to make basic education not only free but compulsory. The policy committed the government of Ghana within a period of 10 years (1995-2005) to put in place measures to ensure the total eradication of all forms of fees (Cultural and sports fees, PTA dues, exams fees, etc). This provided the framework upon which the capitation grant policy was introduced by President Kuffour in 2005. Subsequent governments have made it better although the grants is still being abused by the education system and its agents which is making it difficult to achieve the desired results after more than a decade of its implementation. If we were to list as some of the social interventions and we conveniently choose the capitation grant without recourse to the policy framework that gave birth to this, we would have been doing a great disservice to the Ghanaian.
The mutual health insurance scheme that was piloted since the mid 1990s and was finally adopted by President Kuffour is yet another fine example to set. The NDC under Rawlings accepted the pilot programs in some selected Districts of which my own District (West Gonja, Damongo) was one. Although it was resisted by the then Ranking Member for Health, Hon Addo Kuffour who didn’t see the viability of the scheme and charged government to consider other sectors and policies other than the NHIS. After assuming power, the NPP government was obliged to implement the policy within the framework of the HIPC initiative. The HIPC initiative had provided a policy guideline for proper coordination and monitoring of policy alternatives. After assuming power in 2009, the NDC under Prof Mills didn’t only refined the scheme into a universal National Health Insurance scheme, but enrollment increased and utilization increased from about 9million Ghanaians to about 29million. This is policy continuity.
Within the transport sub sector; the Omnibus Service Authority (OSA) was introduced by the NDC government under Rawlings. This was to provide public transport to rural Ghana irrespective of nature of roads. The NPP came to power in 2001 and decided to rebrand it into the Metro Mass Transit system. The Mahama administration also added the Ayalolo transport system as a means of serving a social good. So what is the point to say the NPP government initiated the public transport system in Ghana (MMT)? Are we serious?
The NDC under Rawlings started a deliberate rural electrification program to get Northern Ghana (rural communities) hooked up onto the national grid. The program fed into an already existing national electrification scheme. This provided several communities (especially the District Capitals) with electricity). Successive governments continued with the program and the latest one the government of Ghana is implementing (SHEP 5) was initiated in July 2015 by Former President Mahama to extend electricity to 556 rural communities in 5 regions in Ghana. Ask those communities whether this intervention never came to solve any social problem or boosted local economies to improve the lives of rural folks.
Per the above and many other cases, it will be an exercise of mediocrity to circumscribe social intervention programs/projects/policies to some selected few and call on some patronized Ghanaian Youth who have become tools for manipulation because of some one-way party loyalty to join in that chorus. Let’s elevate our discourse as a nation especially those in higher authorities. Social interventions go beyond freebies. Any strategy/policy/program/project that is aimed at causing a social change in society can be termed a social intervention.
Just a scenario: In 1962, the government of the United Kingdom created a system out of a statute to extend bursaries (grants) to full-time UK students studying for a first degree. And this was means tested according to parental income (targeted at black and minority ethnic groups). This policy lasted between 1962 and 1990 until when some changes were effected. But in 2015 when times had changed and the need for manpower gradually lost its value, former Chancellor George Osborne announced the government’s intention to abolish the grants and replaced same with loans payable over time. This was done to abate the impact of any economic pay off as a result of the social intervention which had lasted for over 6 decades. Import; social policies are good but they come with economic pay offs overtime. They must be supported with well coordinated economic programs/projects for them to yield their desired outcomes. They must be targeted and must have a lifespan depending upon the economic condition at a time. In most cases, social welfare program make a society lazy and economically unproductive.
The story of Ghana is just one surrounded by cheap populists whose agenda is to consolidate and expand their power base, and not any agenda to root out poverty. I ask again, why must the state pay the school fees of the daughter of the minister for finance in the name of some Free SHS policy the same way it pays the school fees for the son of my auntie who sells koko by the roadside? Is that equity? Can we weigh the social benefit and the relative economic cost to the citizenry by way of higher taxes and lost of quality to our human resource development? Another topic for another day.
If YES (Youth Enterprise Support) program is not a social intervention, then I am still looking for a discrete definition of social intervention.
What is a social intervention program?
