What The Papers Say
People's Daily Graphic, January 24, 1986, Ghana
The tragedy of unlived experience
Recently, a section of the media in Ghana carried a report of an interview by the Nigerian External Affairs Minister in which he was quoted as saying that Nigeria will not take IMF money because no nation which has taken IMF loans has ever made it.This interview has been used by those in Ghana who see nothing, speak nothing, understand nothing, and hear nothing about the national economic recovery effort, except to chant about IMF and devaluation bogies, to mount attacks on our national effort to provide a better life for ourselves.
Answering questions from cadres of the revolution at the just ended National Conference for CDRs in Accra last Wednesday, the PNDC Secretary for Finance and Economic Planning lamented this sad and negative tendency in public debates on the national economy and spoke about what he described as the "Tragedy of Unlived Experience".
By the tragedy of unlived experience, the PNDC Secretary meant that because a timely intervention takes place to avert what would have been an unmitigated disaster or what would have brought about greater hardships, many people fail to see the danger and the untold hardships which have been avoided.
They therefore grumble about relatively minor imperfections of government strategy, whilst being unable to even imagine what WOULD have happened without it.
It is true that Nigeria has decided not to take IMF loans. But Nigeria has reduced salaries of civil and public servants, including the military, by 20 percent.
Nigeria has withdrawn subsidies, including subsidies on fuel products, although it is a major oil producing country. It has also decided to lay off redundant labour.
The important point is that though Nigeria decided not to take IMF money, it has decided to take those harsh measures which are needed to put some sense into its financial affairs. Yet when subsidies were withdrawn or redundant labour is retrenched in Ghana, to some it is because the IMF has dictated to the Ghana Government.
But even though the Graphic does not see any relevance in comparing Ghana and Nigeria in respect of their economic situations, it is important that we examine the background against which the Economic Recovery Programme was introduced in 1983.
All Ghanaians remember the drought, the bushfires, the food shortages, the sudden explosion of 10 per cent increase in our population following the Nigerian Government order, the rationing of fuel, the breakdown in the transport system and the electricity cuts.
Is it being suggested and are we to be made to believe that it would have served the interests of the working people of Ghana to have cut salaries by 25 per cent in 1983? To have withdrawn subsidies and laid off redundant labour under those terrible conditions?
Or is it being suggested that the relatively mild measures now being taken in Ghana to bring order to our economy are being taken on IMF orders, whilst Nigeria is taking even harsher measures on her own initiative? Nigeria at least has petroleum, which is still the biggest single drain on our foreign exchange.
Free Press, Ghana, January 22, 1986
The Standard affair
The Catholic Standard, one of Ghana's oldest papers has since December 14, 1985, been out of the newsstands. A Ministry of Information Order on Friday December 13, 1985, revoked the licence of the Catholic Standard because the Ministry felt the paper was writing in a manner that clearly jeopardised the national interest.From a further elaboration from an editorial from the People's Daily Graphic that sought to justify the government's action, the Standard was pronounced guilty of using its columns to more or less initiate an electoral campaign and dwell on aspects of human rights like detention without trial, writings which to those behind the withdrawal of the paper's licence constitute unpatriotic tendencies and jeopardise the national interest.
The Ministry's statement accuses the Standard of misinformation and slander and sees the clock of conspiracy fanned by certain individuals who use the paper as a religious pulpit to cover their political intentions.
Except the Ghana Journalists Association who has protested and shown its concern about the banning of the Standard, no individual or association have openly come out, notwithstanding silent murmurings against the government's decision.
It may thus sound prudent for us, too, to exercise our golden silence, but since the ripples of the Standard affairs touch very fundamental issues and the ripples would be felt long afterwards, throughout the year, we wish to state our position.
All throughout Ghana history, except in one or two instances, like under Dr Busia and Dr Limann when constitutional provisions made it difficult for governments to legislate the press out of print, many governments have deemed as their easiest line the banning of newspapers who project different political views.
Paradoxically, even journalists who happen to work for the government and are expected through hard work to argue against views that are parallel to government positions see their work easier and done, if they can work rather towards the banning of what in today's parlance may be termed dissident or unpatriotic papers.
Any critical examination of the columns of the Standard indicate clearly that whatever the Standard projected was just one side of the coin and those opposed to the Standard views on national issues could have equally used the state owned papers to project their line.
The Standard stands committed to the view that the basis for political power in Ghana should be elective constitutional rule. Others believe and have a right to hold the view that parliamentary politics is bad and that we should return to our roots. In taking this stand, the Standard was contributing to the public debate on Ghana's political future initiated by the government itself.
The Standard also consistently raised doubts on the detention of several Ghanaians without trial. In fact these are issues that the Free Press have vigorously pursued and would continue to pursue until they are achieved.
While we religiously advocate these views we shall be the last to claim them as absolutes and will freely join any debate in the marketplace of ideas knowing out of debate can emerge the consensus of society.
The Standard has also been accused of devoting too much attention to political issues. A content analysis of the Standard shows it speaks more religion than politics but assuming it does speak more politics, it should not be deemed too strange. Those who glorify liberation theology should be the first to admit that no religion can safely divorce itself from socio-political issues.
In fact, the very ends of religion can only be fulfilled in an ideal political and economic context, hence modern religions consider political issues, too...
Against such a background, we urge the PNDC to exhibit a sense of tolerance by restoring the licence of the Catholic Standard.
