Thinking through Dr Donkor’s resignation
But it would seem Dr Kwabena Donkor was in a unique class. He was not an ordinary minister. We knew the timelines for his continued stay in office. We knew what he was supposed to achieve.
Advertisement
And when the time was drawing near for him to fulfill his promise, everyone knew and there were calls on him to deliver on the specific promise of ending the power crisis. He failed and resigned. But why should the former minister of power be the exception?
In Ghanaian politics, resignations are choice meats that very few can afford. Until the two recent resignations that we’ve witnessed under this government, resignations were occurrences that only the “big boys and girls” could afford to do.
These resignations are spurred on by the desire to achieve something bigger and better. Thus, the first president of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, left the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC) to become leader of the Convention People’s Party (CPP).
The likes of Mohammed Ibn Chambas, for instance, could afford to throw away whatever government position they had for bigger and more lucrative portfolios.
But to resign and be a notch or two lower than you were before is completely unheard of. This might be as a result of the economic perks and benefits that appointees enjoy from being ministers.
And there is evidence pointing to how some individuals place priority on their ministerial positions over their roles as representatives of the people - thus, resulting in their persistent and consistent absence from proceedings in Parliament.
The misconducts, incompetence and ineptitude of government officials and institution and their insistence on still staying on in power is one of the paradoxes of modern politics.
What if we all knew what the various ministers and public office holders were required to achieve within specific timelines. What if we were able to monitor the progress that ministers and heads of institutions of the various public institutions have made? Governance, in my view, would take a turn for the best.
The expression “participatory democracy” which has been trumpeted for centuries, would also begin to make sense. The process leading to the resignation of Dr Donkor should not be the exception. It should be the norm.
Dr Donkor had to resign. He placed his position and head on the line. His word and honour was at stake. He promised to resign by December 31, 2015. The time came. His mission was unachieved. He had no option but to make way – after some scrappy attempts aimed at creating the impression that the power crisis was over.
But in another sense, he was a brave individual and can be credited for sticking his head out. He took the fall in an area where even the President himself had faltered in so many respects.
Dr Donkor was not the first person to declare the end of dumsor. The President was.
There is a close correlation between the desire and willingness of persons to resign and their effectiveness. And having a culture that encourages persons to resign is something that should be lauded.
Of course, there are some cultural battles that have to be fought. An assiduous minister or public official who resigns cannot look back and say “I came, I saw and I conquered.”
For persons seeking further political advancements and positions (especially ministers with an eye on the presidency or the vice presidency), resignation is bad news.
They’d rather give non-committal, vague and senseless assurances since they know that is the only way to be in government.
We are still going to be hearing the good old phrases: “plans are far advanced”; “we are at the drawing board” (when probably they are sleeping on the job); “we are in the process of rolling out an initiative” and so on.
To be certain, the axing of Kwabena Donkor just marked the end of strong and bold political leadership. This is not to say that we’ve had a strong culture to start with.
But we must bear in mind that the whole purpose of governance is to ensure that public goods are delivered as promptly and timely as possible.
This requires that the key performance indicators of the various ministers and government officials should be made public. It doesn’t get better than that.