What The Papers Say
Catholic Standard, Ghana, July 28 1985
Consulting the people on the economy
At the beginning of the Revolution we were promised that all citizens would be given the opportunity to participate directly in the taking of decisions affecting the destiny of this country. After three and a half years, there is not much evidence of this "participatory decision-making" especially on economic measures that directly affect each one of us.Certainly, the Economic Recovery Programme (ERP) is not the outcome of consultation with the majority of us. Consultations probably were held at the PNDC level or at the level of the Committee of PNDC Secretaries, and possibly even at the Economic Review Committee level, but individually or together, these bodies cannot be said to be representative of the people of Ghana. It is a matter of grave concern, that discussion on such an important subject is confined to an elite group, hand-picked at that!
It is disappointing enough that the consultation-base of a People's Revolution is so small, but recent speculation by the Finance Secretary that ERP could fail, and that all of us should take the blame if it happened is adding insult to injury. Both insult and injury could, however, be ignored if the Revolution would seriously begin to consult us at least on the economy. We are suggesting that a Provisional or Interim People's Assembly to review all the decisions that amount to the Economic Recovery Programme (ERP) is urgent.
The urgency is underscored by certain policy reversals on which we were not consulted, nor have these been explained to us by those who take such decisions on our behalf. Previously, we were persuaded that on ideological grounds devaluation was anathema, trade liberalisation was an aberration, flirting with the World Bank/IMF and attracting International Finance Capital was diabolical in its implications. This is no longer the case, and we are naturally happy and relieved that policy is now less inflexible.
But a "sell-out" to foreign interests is easily insinuated where policy begins to show sudden twists and turns, and public emotion is easily aroused by allegations of a sell-out. Therefore, lest the country's students and other "concerned" persons and movements should take to the streets in future clamouring for repudiation of foreign debts, a review of all borrowings should assure us that we have the capacity for repayment, and that in the interim we are not satellites of our creditors.
The Investment Code recently passed is in its basic philosophy in the same terms as the one passed by Parliament under the Limann Administration. And yet we recall comments by persons now close to the Revolution that it was a "sell-out". Did we shelve it for three years only so that old wine could be served us in new bottles? We need an Interim/Provisional People's Assembly to confirm that the Investment Code as dressed up now is in the terms that we want it.
The Interim/Provisional People's Assembly should establish also new priorities as to how public money is spent. Disbursement of public money could be such as guarantees a free health service and free education at all levels complete with textbooks, stationery and laboratory requirements. Also, consistent with state policy that allows exporters to retain part of their foreign exchange earnings, the cocoa farmer might also begin to enjoy some of the fruits of his labour in the currency of his choice. If we cannot have any of the above, we are entitled to an explanation.
We appreciate that the structures for national consultation, provisional, interim or otherwise, take time to come into place. Meanwhile, at the very least, proceedings in the PNDC or any of the Committees that report to the PNDC on the economy could be held in public. We want to know the considerations underlying the decisions that are taken on our behalf. And we can be sure a "conscientised" nation will react appropriately if considerations that are unworthy of a People's Revolution come to attention.
In expressing these concerns, we are only exercising our right as citizens to have a say in matters that affect our lives, and in doing this we need no prodding from outside. It is time that the promise of consultation in decision-making was redeemed in a concrete way, beginning with consultation on our economy.
National Concord, Nigeria, August 12
What is political discourse?
The government recently ordered the arrest of the editor of the New Nigerian, Malam Bukar Zarma and Alhaji Sule Katagum for contravening its ban order on public discussions of political matters. The same government, however, has remained silent in the face of a widely- publicised statement credited to General (Rtd) Olusegun Obasanjo that many people would deem highly political in tone and content.There are two possible explanations for this discrepancy in government reaction. One is that Gen Obasanjo, as a former head of state, enjoys certain immunities. If it were correct, however, this explanation would seriously almost undermine the necessity of universal application of laws for the good conduct of our public affairs.
The other possible explanation would be that whereas the government deemed Alhaji Katagum's statement political, Obasanjo's, in its own estimation, did not fall under the same category. This explanation too, is no better. What it really succeeds in doing is to raise afresh the question of just what constitutes a political discussion and what doesn't.
In an earlier comment on the matter, we had indicated that it is far from easy to draw hard and fast lines between issues that are political and those that are not. Unless the administration is deliberately applying double-standards, which would be unfortunate, its contrasting reaction to the aforementioned statements bears out our earlier assertion.
Further, that reaction also indicates that given its ambiguity, the government's ban order on political discourse represents something of a minefield for both media practitioners and those concerned Nigerians who feel a duty to speak out to their fellow countrymen on issues of national interest. The long-term outcome of this state of affairs, an outcome that would not particularly enhance the common good, will be to silence genuine national dialogue.
Worse, in refusing to offer further clarification on the matter, the government may have created room for a lot of arbitrariness in the enforcement of its ban order on political discussions. Nor can Nigerians feel particularly secure in functioning as it were under an order, the contravention of which only the government is in a position to determine. Our candid advice to government therefore is to order the release of Malam Bukar Zarma and Alhaji Katagum . . .
