THE UNSUNG HEROES

How local entreprenuers thrive even in the hostile environment For a couple of years until now there has been a lot of debate about what should be the most appropriate response of the government in the face of the trouble most of the agric and industrial sectors have be going through. The industrial sector led by the textile industrial are looking for higher tariffs on textile import and a cool on strongly and dumping. Manufacturers of consumables want the same. Even giants like Unilever are believed to have sent an SOS for similar relieves. The rice and poultry sub-sector want protection from dumping by subsidized imports from the US, Europe and some Asia countries. Then comes in those into assert that these companies and sector players are living in the past where protectionism was the ruling principle. They assent that these companies are structurally ill-suited to participation in the new global trade system. They contend that Ghanaian companies use out-dated production method and are managed badly. So what they actually need is not protection but a new approach to management and production. They asset that we are in such brave – new world where protectionism has been expunged from the dictionary of economies and international trade. They also contend that the poor Ghanaian consumer should not be made to bear the brunt of gross inefficiency by these companies. They say the prices of Ghanaian companies are uncompetitive due to their inefficiencies and that Ghanaian consumers should not suffer for it through the use tariff, and other protectionist measures. This group is led by very powerful government official, cabinet ministries and is the President himself. Their ideological subscription to the high octane-Smithsonian liberal economics disposes than to oppose protection of any form. They cite the stable macro- economic condition as sufficient and that is all the government can afford to do. So in their perspective those companies crying for protection are merely incompetent industrialist who turn to government to perpetuate their inefficiency. So is it really true that Ghanaian companies are simply inefficient and don’t have any clue about the intricacies of the new global competitions environment? I say a big No! There people who venture and risk all they have to start and maintain these productive business in the most hostile business environment deserve much more praise than that. So lets explore the difficulties these companies go through. I don’t think anybody by any stretch of the imagination will expect companies and firms who operate in an economy where inflation is double digits (13.1% in February 2008). In an era where the macro economic indicators are stable, the headline interest rate is 13.5% in March 2008. This rate is even for below what is actually charged by commercial banks which is 29% on average. How can Ghanaians business involved in risky productive ventures compete in the global marketplace with similar companies elsewhere who produce under interest rate regimes of 5% and below and inflation rate of 6.25% and below? For instance Chinese textiles companies who compete with ours live under interest of 4.75%. Firms in Europe and America operate under even lower interest rates. Save the high interest rates, the Banks are even reluctant to lend to these perceived high risk businesses. Yet these companies have been living under such condition and even higher interest rates and harsher macroeconomic condition for years in the era where interest and inflation rates were hovering above 40%. After going through 5 years of public service reforms and institutional renewal in the golden age of businesses, it takes more than a week to register a business. It takes eternity and a ‘greasing of the palm’ to get documents signed and when it comes to information and up to date data, it would be more cost effective to commission a brand new one than to obtain one from government agencies. In an age where information is such a powerful tool for creating wealth it only goes to show how handicapped Ghanaian business are. Our firms are supposed to compete globally when they don’t’ even have the most vital and basic resource to work with: human resource. Most firms have to spend lots of money and time training the nation’s brightest graduate to make them suitable for employment. In most of the countries that Ghanaian companies are competing against, them government are firm promoters of business. This comes in the form vigorous protection, through tariffs and other trade barrier. Others take the form of subsides and various form of support. There is no gainsaying the amount of subsides granted by us and EU to their firm. One of the most potent vehicles of business development is through research and development (R&D). In most countries government is a leader in R&D that supports even the most profitable industries. For instance the American and British governments gave more than 20% grants to the R&D budget of some of the most profitable multi billion dollar pharmaceutical firms such Merck, GSK, Roche and Pfizer. Nobody can ever forget the spicy details of the huge subsides the governments of US and EU spent to prop up Boeing and Airbus respectively. The US Department of Commerce estimate that the EU spent about $13.5 billion in subsidies on Airbus between 1970 and 1990 while in a counter claim the EU Trade Commissioner put subsidies to Boeing and McDonnell Douglas by the US government at $22 billion between 1976 and 1990. These subsidy claims still continue till date and threaten to more blight trade relation between the two powers. Unlike elsewhere; in Ghana where any remote mention of subsidies is considered an economic heresy.Considering what the biggest and most profitable companies in the large economies receive in terms of support, it begs the question as to whether our local firms can survive. To say that Ghana’s infrastructure is severely business hampering is an understatement. Ghanaian business operate under the most inhospitable and distressing infrastructural environment found anywhere in the world .Imagine a company that has to spend about two months just clearing machinery and raw material from the port and still has to meet inventory requirement and keep production running. How can our businesses remain competitive globally when their phone keeps cutting (both landline and cell phone) in the middle of conversations and when internet connection is miserably unreliable? In this age of hyper-technology, when a minute of technology failure is the thin line between survival and bankruptcy, it is absolutely vital to get communication technology right. We expect Ghanaian business to compute favourably with their counterparts in other parts of world while they spend hours in banking halls just to transact business; precious hours that could have been more productively spent. We are not in an energy emergency situation but most manufacturing firms are used to unannounced power cuts and power surges. Companies that use water are even in a much direr situation… in most cases these companies get access to water a few hours per week and the catch is it flows at midnight! In a country where only less than 30% of all roads are tarred, railroad only stretches to a few kilometer and internal air transport runs between only two cities all be it irregular and expensive; transportation difficulties is an everyday reality. Can you imagine how Ghanaian firms cope when they have to beat deadlines but spend hour to make a few kilometers of road trip? This is really the crust of the matter not the blame game. Then companies have to deal with the almighty bureaucracy of the public services. The least said about this the better. Our government on other hand fails to initiate Research and Development (R & D) and worst still fail to support those undertaken by private concerns. Even as staunch Smithsonians, the Ghanaian government has failed in its most fundamental function of regulating the market. Ghanaian companies have been exposed to dumping and smuggling and his has affected their performance. By Ghanaian firm I’m not referring to the rent-seeking importers and traders and those in the service industry, am referring to farmers and industrialists. These people are real heroes who have distinguished themselves in the face of such crippling handicap. I am not endorsing mediocrity but people have to understand the context in which these businesses are operating and vilifying than for their shortcomings will not help matters. We cannot reach the middle income status we are craving if we do not build home grown successful businesses. These people are the unsung heroes of our time and deserve more praise to inspire other people to start productive ventures.

TAG AND CONTROL

How the Global System use the Tag of Least Developed Country (LDC)to control many countries. Every three years, the Committee for Development Policy (CDP) of the United Nations designates a group of least developed countries (LDCs), which today form a group of fifty states (see table 1). In theory, these countries are the poorest of the poor, “highly disadvantaged in their development process . . . and facing more than other countries the risk of failing to come out of poverty.”[1] As such, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the lead agency charged by the UN to work with the LDCs, has sought to secure various forms of special treatment for them, in particular preferential market access to developed countries. Unfortunately, this experiment has not been successful. The number of LDCs has more than doubled since the concept was first adopted in 1971, and many of the original designees have lower per-capita income today than thirty-five years ago. Only one of them--Botswana--has graduated from the list; another, Cape Verde, is scheduled for graduation in 2007. Part of the problem is that the criteria by which the UN designates LDCs are intellectually flawed despite repeated efforts to refine them (in 1999, 2000, and 2003). As a result, the LDC category obscures far more than it reveals about the needs of the countries it encompasses. In fact, the LDCs represent neither a well-defined group of the poorest countries in the world, nor do they include a majority of the world’s poorest people. Rather, the LDCs are an incredibly diverse group of states--varying in their history, geography, and problems--that are poorly suited to UN’s one-size-fits-all approach. That approach, furthermore, has been at best ineffective and at worst detrimental to the economic development of the LDCs. UNCTAD, in effect, has tried to make the LDCs into its wards, contributing to the specious belief that these countries are simply too poor to reform. As a result, the LDCs have been abetted and encouraged by UNCTAD in their failure to address the misguided policies--in particular, domestic overregulation, weak property rights, skewed trade regimes, and lack of democracy--that have stunted their growth. It is telling that the CDP recently attempted to designate Zimbabwe as an LDC, despite the fact that the country’s devastation is almost entirely the product of its government’s own policy choices, not external structural factors. It is time to acknowledge that the thirty-five-year experiment in designating LDCs has failed to advance their interests and should be discontinued. In fact, the only entity that is served by the LDC concept at this point is the UNCTAD bureaucracy itself, which uses the process as one of the reasons to justify and perpetuate its existence. Neither the World Bank nor the International Monetary Fund nor any of the regional development banks formally recognize the LDC category or treat the LDCs differently from other developing countries. The best approach for the LDCs would be to dispense with the pretense that they form an intellectually justifiable category, to put an end to the UN’s triennial review process and the six-year graduation process, and to begin to address these countries’ individual needs on a case-by-case basis. Because it may be politically infeasible to terminate the LDC concept or wrench these countries from the UN bureaucracy entirely, however, responsible governments should at least push for a radical reform in the way LDCs are treated. The Designation and Graduation of LDCs The United Nations applies three criteria, every three years, to designate LDCs: gross national income, the Human Assets Index, and the Economic Vulnerability Index.[2] To qualify as an LDC, a country must satisfy all three criteria. To qualify for graduation, a country must pass two of the three thresholds in two consecutive triennial reviews.[3] During the latest triennial review in March 2006, a country had to have an average per-capita income from 2002-2004 that was below $745 to qualify as an LDC and over $900 to graduate. Additionally, a country with at least twice the threshold LDC income of $745 in the 2002-2004 period could graduate, even if it did not pass the other two metrics. Because income level is just one criterion, however, there are many countries with per-capita incomes of less than $745 that nonetheless are not considered LDCs. India, for instance, with its average per-capita income of $543, is not on the list, even though it has a quarter of the world’s poor, while Equatorial Guinea, with a per-capita income of $3,393, has been included. To make matters worse, the methodologies that the United Nations uses to estimate a country’s per-capita income, human resource assets, and economic vulnerability are problematic.[4] As a result, the entire LDC edifice rests on a shaky quantitative foundation. To determine a country’s per-capita income, the UN uses per-capita gross national income (GNI) as calculated by the World Bank’s Atlas method.[5] This measure suffers from a number of limitations: it ignores the presence of non- tradable goods in national income, differences in domestic and foreign inflation rates with specific trading partners (other than G8 countries like France, Germany, Japan, Great Britain, and the United States), and changes in the value of the domestic currency in relation to the U.S. dollar. For many LDCs, additionally, there are no reliable data on factor incomes such as foreign remittances--a critical variable in developing countries, which often have large diasporas that send money home from abroad. In 2003, for instance, worker remittances in Nepal amounted to 14 percent of GDP and 23 percent in Haiti. In light of these problems, a better methodology for estimating per-capita income would be the purchasing power parity (PPP) method, which does not suffer from many of the Atlas method’s weaknesses enumerated above. Ethiopia, which had an average per-capita income of $100 for 2002-2004 according to the Atlas method, had an average per-capita income of $701 in PPP terms for the same period (see table 2). To determine a country’s level of human development, the UN uses the Human Assets Index (HAI), which in turn comprises four subindexes that are aggregated, with equal weight given to each subindex. They are: (a) average calorie intake as a percentage of minimum calorie requirements, (b) the mortality rate of children at five years and under five, (c) the gross school enrollment ratio, and (d) the adult literacy rate. There are several problems related to the HAI and its use. First, the equal weight it assigns to each of its four indicators makes it an artificial measure of human resources. In effect, it presumes that societies count a dollar spent on literacy as the equivalent of a dollar spent on health care, despite the fact that preferences for these assets vary among different societies depending on their unique circumstances and needs. Second, each of the subindexes is treated independently by the HAI, while in real life they are highly dependent on each other. For example, a high mortality rate for children is often associated with a low adult literacy rate for women. Third and finally, in most of the poorest countries, data on these metrics are weak, if not altogether absent; consequently, the use of the HAI creates a sense of precision where none actually exists. The final criterion for LDCs--economic vulnerability--is measured by the Economic Vulnerability Index (EVI), which is even more troublesome than the HAI. The EVI is computed by aggregating two broad indexes, the exposure index and the shock index, with each assigned an equal weight. The exposure index has four components: population size; remoteness; merchandise export concentration; and the share of agriculture, forestry, and fisheries in GDP. The shock index has three sub-categories: homelessness due to natural disasters, the instability of agriculture production, and the instability of exports of goods and services. Like the HAI, the EVI mistakenly treats several indicators that are closely correlated, both negatively and positively, as though they were independent of each other. For example, the degree of exposure of an economy determines the nature of shock to the economy. Thus, shocks and exposures are highly correlated; one index could be used for both. More broadly, however, there is a problem with the very notion of an index that purports to measure “economic vulnerability.” Many economic activities are intrinsically uncertain, and there is a limited extent to which effective public policy can reduce this: for instance, a predominantly agricultural economy is more exposed to shock, particularly if its irrigated area is small. Given these methodological flaws, the resulting list of LDCs has little internal coherence, with wide diversity in size, location, and endowments. Thirty-three LDCs are in sub-Saharan Africa, sixteen in Asia, and one in the Americas. Bangladesh is the largest in population, with 141 million, while Tuvalu is the smallest, with only 11,000 persons.[6] Sixteen are landlocked, twelve are remote islands, and twenty-two are littoral (see table 1). None of this is to deny that the LDCs have some features in common. But, as we shall see below, these similarities tend to be broadly shared among all developing countries, rather than uniquely among the LDCs. Certainly, they offer an insufficient basis for the one-size-fits-all approach that the UN has adopted toward these countries. Poor Excuses for Poor People When pressed about the analytic weaknesses in the LDC framework, defenders of the category often fall back on a broader argument about these countries’ exceptionalism. The claim, in brief, is that LDCs constitute a group of countries that are simply too poor to reform on their own. In particular, the countries’ past colonial history, isolation, ethnic fractionalization, and weak human resources are all cited as reasons for assistance over and above what other developing states might receive. Putting aside the fact that neither geography nor history is an explicit part of the matrix for designating LDCs, there are several flaws with this argument. With respect to history, it is true that former colonial status has been found to be an important determinant of future development. Former British colonies have typically enjoyed better property rights and legal systems, as well as greater political stability, while the former French colonies in sub-Saharan Africa have been characterized by greater political upheaval, authoritarian regimes, and corrupt governments. Some researchers have proposed a partial explanation for this in British common law, with its emphasis on precedent, adaptation, and bottom-up feedback, in contrast to French civil law, with its top-down, state-centric approach. Additionally, former colonies with a high degree of ethnic fractionalization tend to do worse today on a range of development outcomes, including literacy, infant mortality, corruption, and government service delivery. The problem, however, is that the colonial experience of the LDCs is not monolithic. Afghanistan, Ethiopia (except for a five-year period under Italy), and Bhutan, for instance, were never formally colonized by a foreign power. Some countries, such as Chad, Haiti, and Senegal, were French possessions; while others, including Zambia and Sudan, fell under the British sphere of influence. The Democratic Republic of Congo was Belgian, and Eritrea was briefly controlled by Italians. There is no clear pattern of colonial history that can be said to define the LDCs, any more than for the rest of the developing world. The same is true when it comes to ethnic fractionalization. Many of the LDCs, for instance, have Balkanized populations--Sudan, Congo, and Rwanda being three of the most obvious examples. But then, so do many other states that are not LDCs, such as India and Nigeria. Other LDCs, meanwhile, such as Cambodia, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu, are near-homogenous. Once again, it is difficult to see a constant at work here. As for geography, advocates of the LDCs typically point to several variables to justify their special status. LDCs, for instance, are predominantly in the tropics, increasing the incidence of disease and constraining economic growth. But several of the best performers among the developing countries are also located in the tropics, such as Singapore, Taiwan, and (as of late) India. Clearly, a tropical climate need not condemn a country to poor development. The same can be said of being landlocked, as sixteen of the fifty LDCs are. Although transportation costs for these countries may be higher compared to states with direct access to the sea, Botswana--one of the best performing countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the only LDC to graduate from the list--is landlocked. Another twelve of the LDCs are small islands, many in remote locations. Although these countries must confront high transportation costs and the inability to achieve economies of scale in the production of non-tradable goods, it is not clear that either factor is a real constraint. Singapore, Hong Kong, and several Caribbean islands--such as Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, St. Lucia, and Barbados--are small, yet they have developed rapidly. Similarly, countries in remote locations such as New Zealand, Fiji, and Tahiti have enjoyed high levels of income by turning their remoteness to their advantage and adopting sound economic policies to overcome the disadvantages of high transport costs. Rewarding Failure If neither history nor geography has prevented LDCs from joining the developed world, what factors are to blame? Unsurprisingly, LDCs suffer from many of the same problems that have inhibited growth across the developing world, including poor governance and bad economic policies. Consider, for instance, governance in the LDCs, which is characterized overwhelmingly by the absence of democracy (see table 3). Freedom House’s annual comparative survey, which ranks countries according to the political rights and civil liberties their citizens enjoy, finds that LDCs received median scores of 4.5 and 4.4 respectively from 1995 to 2005 (with 1 being the most free, and 7 the least).[7] By contrast, the world averages for advanced countries during this period were 1.2 and 1.5, and 3.6 and 3.7 for developing countries. It is no accident that the only LDC ever to graduate prior to 2006, Botswana, is also one of Africa’s few stable democracies. The restrictive nature of the economic policy regimes in LDCs is another important reason why they remain poor. Individual businesses are highly constrained by the absence of clear property rights and government over-regulation, which together inhibit private investment and overall economic efficiency. Instead of encouraging LDCs to overhaul their economic policies and embrace greater political freedom, however, the UNCTAD has downplayed these issues. Specifically, LDCs have been given differential treatment in international trade--a practice whose origins can be traced back to 1968, when UNCTAD recommended the creation of a Generalized System of Tariff Preferences (GSP) under which developed countries would grant preferential access to developing country exports. In 1979, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)--the predecessor of the World Trade Organization--made GSP a permanent provision allowing preferential market access for developing countries, limited reciprocity in multilateral trade negotiations, and the use of trade policies as an instrument of development policy, implicitly accepting that multilateral free trade was not fully consistent with economic development.[8] Since then, UNCTAD has been the main advocate and sponsor of special and differential treatment for developing countries in general, and LDCs in particular. Because trade preferences under GSP were extended to all developing countries, it did not initially prove of any special value to LDCs. Later, however, some developed countries granted special access to LDCs at the behest of UNCTAD. Thus the QUAD group of countries (Canada, Japan, the European Union, and the United States) have extended duty-free and quota-free access to LDCs under different programs. The EU has also introduced a measure for LDCs, plus another twenty-seven countries, under its Economic Partnership Agreements. The net effect of UNCTAD’s advocacy is that LDCs have been encouraged to seek trade preferences rather than to pursue the internal policy reforms that they desperately need. The trade preferences that LDCs have been awarded, furthermore, are ineffective at best--a mere band-aid for the problems these countries face, with no benefits in the long run.[9] Trade preferences are problematic for several reasons. First, they operate on the demand side through market access, while the main problems in LDCs are on the supply side, related to such issues as weak policy and institutional environments and inadequate infrastructure. Second, preferences can only help countries with effective supply facilities and supply chains. Most LDCs, alas, lack the supply facilities needed to increase export volumes and take advantage of preferences. Third, preferences are a value-declining asset. As other exporters gain easier access with lower protection, as is likely to happen with international trade negotiations such as the Doha Development Agenda or with bilateral trade agreements with competing exporters, the value of access declines. Thus, trade preferences only provide a short-term respite over competitors, which could have a comparative advantage in the particular product but are disadvantaged in U.S. and EU markets due to high protection. Fourth, the largest part of the revenues from trade preferences (the difference between the domestic market price in the preference-giving developed country and the duty-free price for the export from the LDCs) is captured by developed country importers rather than LDC exporters.[10] Meanwhile, given domestic supply problems, the pass-through of the revenues from LDC exports to farmers and labor is restricted by weaknesses in trade facilitation, institutional arrangements, and the nature of the policy regimes in which competition within the LDCs is limited. There is even evidence to suggest that trade preferences can inflict harm. Many studies have shown that preferences delay and discourage domestic policy reforms such as the reduction of internal barriers that act as a tax against exports.[11] Moreover, valuable political capital is wasted when LDCs direct their national efforts to preserving preferences, rather than working to address supply-side issues such as poor infrastructure. Preferences can also be harmful by providing a temporary incentive for LDCs to produce goods in which they have no long-term comparative advantage. A New Approach Given the diversity of LDCs with respect to their endowments, history, geography, and infrastructure, it simply does not make sense to treat them all alike. Add to that the UN’s poor stewardship of them over the past thirty-five years, and there is a powerful case to be made in favor of abolishing the LDC designation altogether and instead dealing with these countries on the basis of their individual needs. Of course, such a draconian measure--no matter how intellectually justifiable--would no doubt prove unpalatable in many quarters. Therefore, it is perhaps more productive to consider how LDC methodologies might be reformed and improved. A good place to start would be to simplify the present muddled criteria, replacing them with a simple cap of $1,500 per-capita income, using the PPP method, as the sole criterion. This would reduce the current group of fifty countries by half (see table 2).[12] Rather than treating these newly designated LDCs as an undifferentiated mass, furthermore, developed country governments might put a new emphasis on evaluating their individual needs. Small countries subject to natural disasters, such as the South Pacific islands, for example, would receive a different set of prescriptions than large countries in sub-Saharan Africa that suffer from human resource problems, like HIV/AIDS. There should also be a newfound focus on policy reforms--especially those that liberalize LDC economies in trade, regulation, and their domestic financial sector. Once again, however, the precise approach would differ according to an individual country’s circumstances. There also needs to be greater attention in LDCs to the consistent relationship between economic development and democracy.[13] Most of the LDCs, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, have been marked by authoritarianism, with devastating consequences for property rights, ethnic harmony, and internal stability. Without movement toward greater political freedom, LDCs are condemned to remain poor. The overarching point here, however, is that the problems faced by LDCs are overwhelmingly inside their own borders, not at the borders of the countries that are importing goods from them. Nonetheless, by virtue of being grouped into an artificial category, they have been encouraged to seek ineffective trade preferences, rather than to adopt the internal political and economic reforms they so badly need. Instead of perpetuating this flawed arrangement, it is time to reconsider the LDC concept--and put an end to the tyranny of a definition.

POLITICAL CLASS OVERMILKING THE COW

.... Political Funding in the Offing

If you ever thougth the political class were done milking our revenue dry ;reconsider because they just about to begin. There are feveresh attempts to pass a bill that will authorise tha funding of political parties by the state. After failing to get public support for the idea o fund political parties over the years the cunning groups of Ghanaian politicians have recruited and co-opted very powerful authorities in national affairs to make a case in favour spending state money on political parties. Without any shock ,all the parties with the singular exception of the CPP concurred and stated that it was even long overdue.This was one of the few issues that is bound to elicit unfettered agreement among the parties. In the history of the forth republic the only isues thah is guaranteed to bring agreement among the political class is when resouces are being shared among them. The disturbing fact is the attitude of the so-called "intelligensia" to such a scandalous proposition.Spearheaded by the Institute of Economic Affairs and Centre for Democratic Development, the academics and researchers have been on the the publicity offensive on the importance of "supporting our young democracy" by funding our parties. They have eulogizing on the importance of building our democratic development. Already the state subsidize some activities of the political parties through the elctoral commission and the response of the parties is to flout all the rules taht are required of them such as filing annual report at the electoral commission. The behavoiur of the parties has ruled them out of any consideration for such largesse.They are grossly unacountable and when they wish tehy raise and spend money in very unaccountable manner.A case in point is the just ended NPP presidential race where very huge sums were spent by all the candidates involved in the contests. The level of spending was so mind boggling that even some respected NPP memebers openly questioned the source of the dizzying amounts being spent. I reckon the NPP flagbearership campaign cost the candidates about $20m.

THE BEST REGIME IN GHANA'S ILLUSTRIOUS HISTORY....

..... CANNOT EVEN PROVIDE WATER FOR CAPITAL CITY!!!

This is not a satire ,believe it. The current government is very good at giving itself titles and acolades. Over the last few months this goverenment has been calling itself the Best Governent in Ghana's History spearheaded by their numerous media collaborators.

This hubris has been dismantled in last few days by an embarassing but a very serious episode of an acute water shortage in the country's Capital. The capital has been awash with scenes of desperate people roaming all parts of accra looking for any kind of water. even on the day the president was waxing how briliant his rule has been kids who normally would give anything tpo be at the independence parade , could not turn but to

$100 Million TO BE SPENT ON PRESIDENTIAL JETS AND MILITARY HARDWARE

..... Amids Defeaning Silence

Back in 1999 the then NDC governent purchased a presidential Jet Gulf Stream G111 worth a little ove $16m. it was a sixten seater executive jet. this action provoked a wave of protest and indignation among the public , other political parties and civil society ,the proportion of which can macth any such protests ever undertaken in this country. Urged on the the media and stoked by the then oppossition party, The NPP the public was really angry and show thier anger in the strpongest manner possible... and rightly so. At that time Ghana was in th throes of many crises;gold prices on th inernational market had plumetted to an alltime low,crude prices were slowly rising albeit from the bottom,inflation was high ,unemployment was high , we had missed our GDP growth target etc. Student organisatins led impassioned protests around xthe country and the public space was really charged. The jet was an election issue in 2000, when President John Kufuor defeated the candidate of Mr Rawlings' party. President Kufuor described the $16m jet as "wasteful and frivolous". This led the NPP then in opposition to declare the shoukd come to power it will not use the aircraft.True to his words Kuffour has always refused to travel in the plane. The NPP government went ahead to tarde the aircraft for two chinese planes. This went staelth without any agitaion.

Over the last few days the governmet has droped another jet bombshell and this is in nuclear proportions. It has been revealed that parliament has been given an agreement to ratify to enable the government spend a whopping $100m on presidentail jets and other military hardware. this announcement comfirms a publication that appeared in a french magazine last yaesr taht reported that kuffour has signed an agreement with a frech arms company for the suppley multiple planes and other miliatary hardware to Ghana. the government stridently deneid that it had done any such thing and called the opposition all sorts of unpritable names for raising the issue.

This revelation comes in the wake of an acute water shortage that has hit accrea over the last few weeks. the government has so far failed to give any explainations as to what is happening and much less find solutions to the problem.It is estimated that about $200m is needed just to improve the quality of water for those connected already in Accra alone. In the midst of all this the government has time and resources to engaagein such"wastefull and frivolous"expenditure in Mr. Kuffour's own words.

Whats is most shocking ois the deafening silence that has been met with this information. The media practitioners and civil society groups who agitated in 1999 have kept mute and there not even a murmur in the public sphere. This is all dissapointing given that nothing much has changed since 1999 and we face the same the same problems as we did back then-dare I say even more acute problem. I am at a lost as what is happening to us a nation. we seem to have gone to sleep just as we did in the 1970s and woke up in chaos in the 1980 when faced so many upheavals. This goverment is getting away with a lot of bad decicions while our civil society and media keep mute. So what is the cause of siuch an obvious bout turn that is capable of damaging the image of this image -conscois government? Could it be that the governement geneuinly feels confident about its decision? or are they convinced it is the best decision they have taken? Could it be that they know for a fact taht civil society and media has been blunted enough to take such a roisky decision? Or could the it be that the president and his men were badly advised. Having recently discovered oil and increasing asuming a pivotal role as security spot in the west african sub region, our profile has shot up making us an ideal spot for security bureau in the laest.Despite the laying to rest of the American Base issue. My theory is that the decision to buy the military hardware and the Jets were informed by advice from some of the powerful and influential advisors of the president (i am reliably told that the president does rely heavily on them ) ,some of the influential people in the burgeouning oil industry and some of his foreign friends who weild a lot of leverage over him. i got a sense of this line of thinking when the Minister of defense aserted that "as our economy expands and more foreign investors pour into our country, we need to acquire a military capability to protect private property" during the inauguration of two aircrafts the Governent had recently bought.

Our country is at the crossraods after 50 years of nationhood and the need for a patriotic leader is more acute thna never before. Militarisation without purpose as is happening is only a drain on our scarce resources. The foreign influences dictating our foreign and defense policies are only here for what tey can take out and will leave as soon as our resouces are depleted.

CAN 2008 SOCIAL PROBLEMS IN GHANA

PROSTITUTION SCANDAL

The just ended CAN 2008 was not just a festival of greats football and a celebration of African unity through the power of sports. however a lot more was revealed during the games about some of the major social issues that are festering just beneath the glossy veneer. There has always been a denial among our public policy makers about the increasing prevalence of prostitution in urban and semi urban areas. The disturbing thing is that this denial has led to lack of action to protect the the vulnerable poor caught up in this mess. Before the games got underway there were fears of a major explosion in prostitution during the tournament. These fears materialised when a few days into the tournament a daily newspaper broke a story about an undercover video sourced from a famous investigating journalist. The video had disturbing pictures of kids as young as 13 years engaging in commercial sex.

The police in a reaction response raided a popular drinking joint in the center of Accra called Soja Bar which was alleged to be the pivot of Accra's sex trade. the police rounded up a lot of people in the sting operation including two undercover journalist and dozens of children. following these events it became clear that Ghanaian leaders have been complacent end cocooned themselves in a false believe that Ghana is still the traditional and innocent society that we have known over the years. The shocking aspect of the whole episode was the widespread use of children by pimps for sexual exploitation. This problem has been swept under the carpet for far too long and now it has reached a crisis point.

The Social Welfare issued a terse statement on how they intend to rehabilitate these unfortunate kids who are the victims of the dire problems in our society.The politicians keep telling us that our economy is growing and we are developing ,however when such things happen it goes to confirm how deep we have buried our heads in the sands of the development mirage.These kids are the victims that should prick the conscience of our politicians that a lot is wrong with our society a more needs to be done to solve them.

51st Anivesary of Ghana's Freedom

Ghanaians less hopeful of Next 50 Years

Last year Ghana had a long and glorious 50th anniversary celebtrations of Independence. This years celebrations are much more sober but lacks the reflective mode that sober moments brings.

This year happens to be the last of the the two terms of the current president who presided over the 5oth anniversary celebrations. The somber mood in the country is a reflection of the lack of optimism among the people of the 50 years ahead.The jubilee celebrations were hyped and people bought into it. Again people genuinely were in the mood to celebrate Ghana's tremendous achievement over the last 50years especially during the Nkrumah era.

this year's celebration is more about contemplating what will be the state of Ghana when we celebrate a century of independence. there is desperate lack of hope among many ordinary Ghanaians despite a flurry of massive propaganda of how fortunate we are to have this current government in the helms of our country.However most Ghanaians know better and are not fooled easily by the empty talk. On the day that the president was eulogizing his impressive achievement over the last seven years , a massive water shortage had hit Accra leading massive disruptions in the daily routines of many Accra inhabitants.

Most Ghanaians like myself are very happy to live in such a phenomenal country and we hope for the best for our country ,however we are not enthused at all about the mediocre state that our government has succeeded in making us accept.

GHANA'S CRUDE FIND

How we intend to be Different

Oil is the most popular game in town. Over the last few weeks Ghana's media and public space has been inundated with a lot of oil talk. the topic is not about how we are going to cope in the face of the rise in crude prices to historical levels over the last few weeks, but the talk is all about the massive revenue that will accrue to this country in the coming years.

All these talk comes in the wake of further oil finds in Ghana's offshore oil block that will enable Ghana to produce the "black gold" in commercial quantities. The experts tell us that we have discovered about 3 billion barrels of oil .

This discovery has brought some unheralded excitement into the country with the over bloated government PR machinery over hyping and fanning the oil frenzy. If you just dropped from mars , you will think that this is the first time any mineral of any sort is being found in Ghana and that every Ghanaian will become a million dollars richer within the next hour. The hope of Ghanaians who are naturally optimistic has been raised to a very high level.

I feel happy that we have finally gotten our oil -it was only a matter of time before we discovered oil because our geology is no different from the one found along the west coast of Africa, stretching from Cote Divoire through Nigeria, Cameroon to Angola. I don't want to be a party spoiler or a killjoy but i cant help but be little bit skeptical. This is classic dejavu;we've been down this familiar road before and it did not take us where we wanted.Our experience with the exploitation of natural resources in this country is a bitter one and we(majority of Ghanaians) have been the worst for it. A trip to any gold producing area in Ghana is capable of making even the most hardhearted human weep.

The government tells us that this time things will be done differently. For this reason a huge and highly publicised Forum was organised where all the big and powerful in Ghanaian society were gathered to discuss how we can maximise the benefits of oil we have found. at the forum the people who ostensibly represented Ghanaian interests included the old politicians, minsters heads of Major corporations, Academicians and significantly "foreign experts". Conspicuously missing were representatives from the communities that will host the oil operations.This is typical of how we deal with such issues in this country;quintessential top-down approach.the foreign experts were drafted in to give advice on how best to exploit our resources........does this ring a bell? Its always been that way;white people come and tell us what to do when we have any challenge. That was the same way gold was handled and we ended up ceding control of our most valuable resource to white foreigners while we suffer the consequences of its exploitation.

At the forum it was resolved that Ghana will not go the way other oil producers have gone but rather we will make the oil discovery a blessing not a curse. I am waiting with baited breath for this to oil find to launch our country into a new face of development and economic justice. The beginning seems to be good and the prospects even better but without the proper monitoring and mass participation of the ordinary poor and powerless Ghanaian we will have to devote pages to write about our bitter disappointments 20 years down the line. this oil find is a potential good news but it is far from a done deal and much work needs to be done o make it a reality