Thursday,
August 14, 2014
In human affairs, especially
those that deal with development, no one needs under-rate the value of
professional development. Much can be achieved if those in charge of affairs
upgrade their skills and apply the requisite knowledge and acumen to tackling
problems. In addition to that is the element of commitment and devotion to one’s
calling. Do we in Ghana value these ideals/skills?
One of the major problems
hindering our efforts at tackling the challenges of development is the
leadership crisis often cited by any Ghanaian complaining that the country’s abundant
human and material resources are not being used to solve problems. The Mahama-led
government is particularly being criticized because of its inability to solve
problems. Now, we are being told something new with which to assess issues:
“The
President of Legal Advocacy Foundation, Dr. Maurice Ampaw, has stated
categorically that about 72% of President John Dramani Mahama’s deputy
ministers are still schooling in various tertiary institutions across the
country.
“I
have done my checks and I can say for a fact that most of the deputy ministers—precisely
about 72% of the current administration—are still in school,” the legal expert
said. The outspoken lawyer could not fathom why tax payer’s monies
should be spent on the education of government appointees.
He
mentioned the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA)
and the University of Ghana, Legon, as some of the institutions where many of
these deputy ministers are having their tertiary programmes. Dr. Ampaw
made these observations on “Ghana, Great and Strong”, a flagship programme on
Ghana’s premier internet-based radio-www.Hejorleonlineradio.com, in Accra.”
MY
COMMENTS
Why
are these government appointees “still in school” and why should their being in
school raise eyebrows at all? As an educator, I appreciate efforts by people to
improve their self-worth by any means possible. Education does it all, as is
often said. I won’t raise any objection to efforts by those aspire to upgrade
themselves and will support them in every way possible.
What
we see happening in the case of these government functionaries may be “novel”
in the sense that it hasn’t happened before that those recruited into
government will choose to attend classes while at the same time performing
duties assigned them. Divided attention? They may have problems, but I trust
that they know how to use time judiciously so they can remain relevant.
Then
comes the question of morality as far as their designation as government
functionaries being supported by the tax payer and their pursuit of goals
verging on self-improvement through education are concerned. A conflict of
interest? Is what they are pursuing aimed at achieving their personal ambitions
of acquiring better education so they can qualify for jobs outside government, assuming
that they have their eyes set on opportunities beyond the politics that they
are doing now, which means that they consider their role in government as
merely temporary? Or is it because they are uncertain of being where they are
in government and must, therefore, prepare for the rainy day? Or are they
simply not sure where to be?
Of
course, in life, there is room for self-actualization, meaning that these
government functionaries have every right to look far afield for whatever will
help them achieve their goals in life for as long as that desire doesn’t
conflict with what they are in office for. Is there any complaint against any
of them in terms of commitment to government business? So, why should their being
in school nettle anybody?
It
must be acknowledged that a lot of them are still young and can be considered
as political neophytes. They cannot be said to have settled definitively on
partisan politics as their lifelong occupation/vocation. And knowing very well
the vicissitudes of Ghanaian politics, it shouldn’t surprise anybody that those
holding positions of trust today may not be there tomorrow. Anything can
happen, which is why some may choose to make hay while the sun shines. If they
have chosen further education as the means to prepare for a better tomorrow, why
begrudge them?
A
fundamental question arises, though: Is their education aimed at helping them
acquire skills to enhance their administrative acumen and improve governance? If
so, why bother? We know that GIMPA does a lot to enhance the professional
development of its students (mostly public officials). After all, its main
objective is to produce management-level personnel for Ghana. And if these
government functionaries enter there for that matter, why should anybody go to
town on them?
Of
course, the fact that they are government functionaries suggests that they are
being supported by the tax payer to a large extent in much of what they do. But
has it been established that the cost of their education at GIMPA and the
University of Ghana is being borne by the tax payer (in terms of fees, logistics,
etc.)? This is where the rub lies. If the government is sponsoring them, it is
certain that public funds are involved; but is there any limitation on who and
where government sponsorship of Ghanaian students should be directed at?
Another
question is: What happens when these government functionaries are removed from
office? Does it mean that the sponsorship or their improved education will go
to waste? Not at all because one can serve one’s country in diverse capacities,
not necessarily as a government functionary.
Why
should anybody, then, be raising this issue to suggest that there is something
fishy going on? I think that Dr. Ampaw’s interest lies in projecting these
government functionaries as “inexperienced” rather than as people exploiting
the situation to gain personal advantage—which introduces the political
element. By telling us that these government functionaries are in school, Dr.
Ampah aims at discrediting them as novices; or, at best, as people who are not
serious about government business. Otherwise, why won’t they devote all their
time, attention, and commitment to government business?
From
a wider angle, then, the implication is that the government itself is not
serious (if it can allow 72% of its functionaries to attend school instead of
devoting themselves to their calling as such). But is government business being
negatively affected as such? Or is Dr. Ampah just raising dust for nothing?
I shall return…
·
E-mail:
mjbokor@yahoo.com
·
Join
me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor
to continue the conversation
No comments:
Post a Comment