My views have been sought by some of the media about signing the Partnership Agreement with Europe. I often ask commentators to go back to history, study events leading to the Lomé Convention between Europe and the African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and find out if and why the Convention is no longer relevant.
Of course, not all journalists are keen about serious study of burning issues. Many want statements which can be turned into ‘bullet points’ and make readers happy to follow the common line.
Issues which seriously affect the national interest however require hard thinking and analysis and informed intelligent public debate. This is what democracy is all about. It is not merely to facilitate idle uniformed discussion in the media without molestation.
Those who have the privilege and opportunity to understand matters affecting the national interest should come out boldly and explain matters to the public so that even powerful politicians are constrained to act in the national interest and not for personal gain or popularity.
Discussions about the proposed Partnership Agreement with Europe now and again descend to a new low which reveals a depressing and deplorable belief in our inability to develop our country without foreign monetary support or donor hand-outs. This belief naturally feeds into an inferiority complex which reduces our capacity to think for ourselves.
We then tend to think and act as donors advise or prescribe and take delight in their praise. The economy moves forwards and backwards from normality to crisis and we fail to realise that we must suffer a little to achieve sustained economic and social progress.
We do not want to accept the harsh reality that no one but Ghanaians can develop Ghana for Ghanaians. In the circumstances we approach a major agreement with Europe not on the basis of the national interest but with the puerile fear that if we do not sign the agreement we shall lose monetary hand-outs and support for our budget.
In fact, that was the fear of the radio official who telephoned me from Tamale. He asked how we could cope without European grants if we did not sign the agreement.
The Tamale correspondent was typical of far too many Ghanaians. Many want the agreement signed so that we do not lose hand-outs from Europe. They fail to see that social and economic development is impeded if we sign the wrong agreements. They fail to realise that the only sure way of arresting the fall of the Cedi is to produce more goods and services and import less.
No amount of orders from the Bank of Ghana can cause the Cedi to appreciate. Perhaps we need to know very little economics like me to realise that the strength of a currency is determined by its demand on the international market. And so let the arrangements we seek with others promote production.
No agreement can save us from working harder and suffering a little now and again to build the better Ghana we all desire. We should stop the general comments and examine the proposed Partnership Agreement clause by clause and assess the implications for our trade, production, economic and social development generally.
Our forebears tightened their belts to send us to secondary schools as they built their own small houses and left the family compound. That was real solid progress.
There is no easy way to prosperity except by the way of the uncertain Lotto or corruption. Our leaders, if they are sincere, should show the true way by the example of devotion to duty, hard work, probity and accountability. Cocoa, gold or oil cannot develop the country for us. We should make these assets work for us even as we labour harder to enrich the contribution of these resources to social and economic life.
No partnership agreement can save us from our indolent unthinking ways. We should study the articles of the partnership. We should know what we really gain and what we lose by the agreement. The organisations which have decided to unravel the facts should be encouraged. We should carefully and seriously listen to what they say. I do not think they should preclude the representation of the European Union from their meetings.
We should not be afraid to listen and dialogue with them. They as usual thoroughly understand the European interest. We should learn from them and insist that our leaders understand and robustly promote our national interest. Above all, we should study the text of the agreement and endeavour to understand its meaning and implications of its various clauses.
