Why Ghana is not stable (Part 1)
Colonel Annor Odjidja (rtd).
This article is not a critique of the conduct of any particular government or of any groups in Ghana's history. It is hoped that at the conclusion of this study, the problem of instability will have been laid bare. That way future political leaders will be able to formulate solutions and options for dealing with this perennial problem.THERE HAVE been eight governments in Ghana since we attained independence in 1957. Five of these governments have been forcibly removed from office by the armed forces. We should however bear in mind that the causes of these disruptive changes are not only due to military considerations but also spring from political, economic and social factors. The coups d'etat which have occured in Ghana since 1966 must be seen as a direct consequence of these. They are symptomatic of the conditions which give rise to the upheavals which we have witnessed for much of our post-colonial history.
Stability is described as a situation which can not be easily overturned. A state is said to be stable when it is not subjected to sudden and structural changes. When a country enjoys stability, the situation therein is described as peaceful. In such a state the citizens are said to be satisfied with the systems devised for their governance. Problems are and can be solved within the frame work of the established national institutions. Arguments and disputes confronting the state are seen as challenges to be diffused by the use of the existing mechanisms and national organs.
The acid test for instability in any country is whether national problems have the potential for producing crises which can overturn government or destroy the national institutional framework. Instability occurs when military, economic, political and social factors combine to provide the stimuli for sudden and sometimes unexplained violent change.
There is a tendency to confuse the efficiency of elaborate security mechanisms with stability. Repression does not ensure permanent peace. The preservation of law and order in the state should have the basic aim of creating an atmosphere within which its citizens can go about their business in peace and without fear, governments can have the time and peace of mind to formulate and implement their plans and programmes. Thus Law and Order can be said to provide a firm foundation for constructing an orderly environment in the state. In this connection we should note that the most extensive security systems can be in place in a country that is potentially unstable. For example the PNDC is reported to have set up extensive security structures in Ghana to assure its survival and give an impression that all is well. Yet no serious analyst of the current situation can claim that Ghana is stable.
A remarkable trend in post colonial Ghana is the view that governments should be the source of all our needs. This means that when things are not what they should be, the government becomes the target of criticism and the butt of abuse.
There are certain conditions which have given rise to instability in Ghana for sometime now. What then are the causes of this problem? They are many but for the purpose of this article we will concern ourselves with examining some of them in an effort to explain the cycle of violent disruptions in our contemporary political history. This article is not a critique of the conduct of any particular government or of any groups in Ghana's history. It is an attempt to analyse the reasons for the uncertainties in our country. It is hoped that at the conclusion of this study, the problem of instability will have been laid bare. That way future political leaders will be able to formulate solutions and options for dealing with this perennial problem.
The problem of expectations is central to instability in Ghana. Since 1957 all governments have been guilty of raising public expectations. They have always promised more than they could deliver. As a means of obtaining popular support, these promises always seem to do the trick. As a basis of a programme, however, they have a way of not being fulfilled. They have the effect rather of raising popular expectations to high levels. Once these cannot be met, disappointment sets in. The people then begin to complain. They then start to search for new ruling groups to invest their hopes and confidence in.
Over the years, Ghanaians have come to expect such promises without a thought of how they can be fulfilled. The ruling elite cannot admit that, given the scale of our economic deterioration, they cannot deliver on their promises. Thus the clash between intentions and realities ensures that the performance of the government is soon seen as flawed, encouraging the perception that the government is ineffective. As public disaffection grows, turmoils occur and violent change soon takes place.
A remarkable trend in post-colonial Ghana is the view that governments should be the source of all our needs. This means that when things are not what they should be, the government becomes the target of criticism and the butt of abuse. Failure by any Ghanaian government to provide what we think we must have, becomes identified in our minds with a lack of concern. Popular dissatisfaction grows in direct proportion to government's inability to fulfil this role as the primary source of all needs. But then this perception has been enhanced by the concentration of power in the government.
The changes in political, economic and social activity in Ghana has resulted in the creation of an overmanned public bureaucracy which is ossified and therefore not efficient. The bureaucracy therefore stultifies initiative and imagination. On the other hand the political leadership do not give an impression that they have the experience and skills to provide the strategic thinking and all round management balance required for effective government. Consequently public resources are wasted.
Inefficient utilisation of these res- ources postpones the realization of the political leadership's programmes and helps to encourage the view that our governments are incompetent and un caring. Because central government is caught in the vortex of activities over which it cannot have effective control, it becomes identified with stagnation. This lack of dynamism creates frustra- tion and contributes to popular discon- tent. Thus the danger has always been that one result of this centralisation is the justification the interventionist needs to overthrow the government. Witness how the military always use ineffective government as a reason for their actions.
Centralisation of authority is synonymous with power. Power in Ghana is attractive because so many political and economic advantages are seen to flow from its use. It therefore seduces the ambitious and the adventurer, tempting them to seize it and substitute themselves for the ruling elite so as to enjoy all the attractions that this confers on whoever exercises it. Were power to be effectively decentralised in the political and economic spheres, its seizure would be made much more difficult because its levers would be diffused in our society.
One of the reasons why Ghana is unstable is that there is no national consensus on the system of government we should have. There are Ghanaians who believe that a no-party government is the answer to our problems. Others have asked for a one-party government with a clearly defined ideology. Then there are those who feel that a multi-party democracy is the best form of government for Ghana. There is also the group who have always believed that the military possess the skills to rule Ghana. These differing attitudes are a cause of much of the political turbulence in Ghana for over twenty years now. Were an agreed political formula for our governance to be in place, there may perhaps have been less argument and more commitment to the use of the national problems. In the confusion of views on this matter, the Armed Forces have always been able to exploit the situation and seize power. The military dominance in the political equation is a factor for uncertainty in Ghana.
Knowing the Ghanaian's passion for the cut and thrust of argument and his love of his freedoms, I feel that a multi-party democracy is a suitable national option. That democracy in the generally accepted sense has failed in Ghana is due, among other reasons, to the conflict between those who believe in its practice and those who feel that some form of dictatorship usually under the military's aegis is relevant to our problems.
Thus, anytime a constitutional democratic framework has been established in Ghana, it has always come under challenge from the non-believers. What makes the permanency of this model a problem is that this group tries by every possible stratagem to make it fail and invite their military allies in. They are usually aided by those who are unable to become part of the pol- itical power structure, in the hope that once the democratic framework is overthrown, they will be rewarded with positions in the military regime. One of the reasons why the Third Republican Constitution failed was that there were people committed to its overthrow right from its inauguration.
That democracy in the generally accepted sense has failed in Ghana is due, among other reasons, to the conflict between those who believe in its practice and those who feel that some form of dictatorship usually under the military's aegis is relevant to our problems.
We have also seen that one-party government or a military dictatorship in Ghana creates instability in the long- term because the inability of Ghanai- ans to express views contrary to the prevailing wisdom has been a cause of violent change.
The practice of politics should be a serious activity, worthy of pursuit by all those who want to serve their country. A basis for constructing a stable and prosperous society should be the healthy competition of ideas between rival political groupings to persuade our people to decide freely which one of them has the most credible set of ideas for dealing with our problems. The popular conception of our politicians is that they are in politics for power and the attractions that these bring.
This unfortunate view is given strength by well-publicised tales of corruption and irresponsible use of power. In a politically mature society, these tales need not cause concern and arouse negative reaction because there are many ways of confirming them. But in our relatively inexperienced situation, stories and perceptions like these breed envy and cause anger, when these are added to the view that our politicians can not solve our problems, they provide cause for military intervention.
The rise of the Ghana Armed Forces and Rawlings to power can also be explained by the popular perceptions of the failure of politics and politicians to provide answers to our problems. But this method of changing our governments should NOT be applauded. Politics can be the source of national inspiration and the means by which we can build a stable society. Whatever the popular perceptions of the drawbacks of politics and politicians, it is time we learnt to accept the good with the bad if we want to be led by people of our choice.
What military intervention has done is to deny our politicians the experience they need to have in order to be effective. After all, the beauty about democracy is that it gives us the right to throw out PEACEFULLY our governors. If we are not careful, we will forever be condemned to be ruled by groups who do not have the temperament and skills to administer the country. Their hold on power cannot even be guaranteed, subjecting us to long periods of bad government and instability.
Our national institutions were set up to fulfil specific public needs. They are expected to provide the foundation upon which an orderly society can be built. For a long time however the view has grown in Ghana that these institutions do not cater for the needs of our people. Therefore when anyone claims that they do not serve the interests of our people, he strikes a responsive chord. The fact is that the upheavals in Ghana have weakened these institutions and robbed those men and women working in them of much needed experience. The leadership of such institutions is therefore weak. Their effectiveness therefore attracts adverse public comment, leading to the feeling that they are not worth preserving and must be replaced. Unfortunately, we have seen that the replacements create far more confusion and cannot be regarded as effective substitutes. If we are to avoid political uncertainties in Ghana, then the emphasis of our attitude to these national institutions should be evolutionary, and NOT radical overhaul.
