KB Asante: Voice From Afar column

As I watched the proceedings of the National Interest Dialogue I thought of the hard work and many meetings which made the inauguration a success.  Notwithstanding the inexcusable lateness of GBC TV which kept many high personalities much longer from their normal duties, the function was well-organised.

Dr. Esther Ofei-Aboagye exhibited the poise, confidence and sense of humour of a competent moderator.  She made nonsense of the complaint by a woman contributor that there should have been more women on the podium.  

We should get away from the silly idea that we need women to adorn positions.  The practice has produced misfits in important areas of governance.  

We should appoint competent and qualified women to key positions and not just women.  Such appointments will encourage women to excel.  And there are many competent women around.

Multi-party governance reforms require discussions and exchange of views in an organised manner.  These exchanges must come to agreed positions and it needs good chairmen or chairpersons to steer meetings to useful conclusions.  It is therefore necessary to build a corps of respected personalities who can listen, steer discussion along fruitful paths and promote conclusions or consensus.

I would therefore crave the indulgence of readers to dwell a little on the dry subject of committee meetings.  Committee meeting should be carefully structured to enable deliberations to proceed smoothly to a conclusion.  But the structuring would only work to achieve the desired results if they are useful and understood by the members and followed by the chairperson.  In a democracy decisions are taken by the people.  In practice this is done by the representatives of the people.  Often these representatives are large bodies and decisions are ironed out or taken in committees.

Human beings have a tendency to use meetings or organisations to serve their ends.  Therefore organisations usually have notices circulated a week or more before a meeting is held.  Also the notice should specify the agenda.  Dialogue or useful consensus is not promoted when a controversial item is suddenly sprung on a meeting.

Meetings are usually called to order and closed by the chairman.  Here in Ghana it is generally believed that there must be a motion from the floor before a meeting is adjourned.  This is certainly not correct.  It is not the general practice elsewhere and at international organisations.  

 

The chairperson must have the right to open and to close a meeting temporarily or finally.  Many readers are aware of fights or commotion even at parliamentary meetings in some countries.    How do you expect such disorder to end? The chairman or president closes the meeting and then finds a way to resume the meeting or continue proceedings at another time.

Another practice which we erroneously practise is to take it that a decision is reached when a motion is seconded and there is no other proposal on the floor.  The proposition should be put to the meeting.  If the rules do not compel a formal vote the chairperson should ask whether there are any contrary views.  If there is silence he or she should say that in the absence of any contrary views the proposition or motion is carried.

This leads to another common and erroneous practice in Ghana which often leads to confusion.  When a motion is tabled and seconded the chairperson often asks if there are counter motions.  I have not come across the practice anywhere else.  Those who oppose a motion may vote against it or propose an AMENDMENT.  For example, suppose there is a proposition that a sub-committee of ten should have a quorum of eight.  Someone may suggest that since Ghanaians are notorious for not attending meetings or being distressingly late the quorum should be five.   Another person may be of the view that five is too small and therefore propose a quorum of six.

Two AMENDMENTS may therefore be proposed.  Now there are rules about the way in which amendments are put.  The chairperson should be familiar with them.

Generally the amendment furthest removed from the original idea is put first.  The chairperson has to use some discretion to ensure that the will of the committee is upheld.  

For example, at a meeting of 100 people, 51 may vote for a quorum of five while 60 may vote for a quorum of eight .  But 51 out of 100 is a majority.  Therefore if that amendment is put first the meeting decides that the quorum is five even though the majority would prefer eight.  The rules of the debate and the chairperson’s leadership should ensure that the committee or meeting arrives at a true majority decision.  

 

Democracy and good governance cannot function well without appropriate committees and competent chairpersons.  We should encourage such persons to emerge and assist them to help the true wishes of the people to emerge.

 

To return to the National Interest Dialogue meeting it was a most useful meeting and the issues raised should be confronted dispassionately for national cohesion and social and economic progress.  Prof. Akilagpa Sawyer hit the nail on the head when he called for issue-based political platforms.  It is not politics which is the problem but philosophical and ideological emptiness which parade as aims and objectives.  All-inclusiveness would then mean sharing the booty or emptiness together.

President Nkrumah believed in a National Plan.  

He found J.H. Mensah most qualified and competent.  Therefore he included him in the inner circle to be in charge of the National Development Plan even though he new Mensah did not believe in all his ideas.  In my view ‘all-inclusiveness’ will be the norm if we know where we are going.  To come together to ‘chop’ together would be disastrous.  

 

The idea of purpose was brought home by Mr. Tony Oteng Gyasi of the Association of Ghana Industries.  What do we want investment for? To take our raw materials away and leave us poor or to promote and create industries and services to produce employment and enrich the economy?

 

The other week I erroneously referred to Burundi instead of Rwanda.  I apologise to readers.  The country is certainly making enviable progress.  A discussant at The Dialogue remarked that he was surprised at the number of Ghanaians occupying key positions when he visited Rwanda.  The President asked him about our education policy and practice which had produced such competent technocrats and administrators.  Our educational institutions do not seem to be producing such excellent material now!  

But even when they did the opportunity did not exist in Ghana.  This suggests that our policies should form a composite whole.  We do not turn students out of schools and colleges and ask them to go and find unavailable jobs.  Those who are good seek employment outside the country as the discussant found in Rwanda.
The national interest requires policies and plans to make life abundant and meaningful for Ghanaians.  Sharing spoils of election victory will not get us far.