Inaugural lecture delivered by Charles Abugre at the launch of STAR Ghana Foundation

Active citizenship in a changing Ghana: context, challenges and opportunities

Inaugural lecture on November 13, 2019, to mark the launch of STAR Ghana Foundation delivered by Charles Abugre, Executive Director of TAMA Foundation Universal and former CEO of Savannah Accelerated Development Agency (SADA)

‘I ask you to be citizens: citizens, not spectators; citizens, not subjects; responsible citizens building your communities and our nation.’

President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, Inaugural Address, January 7, 2017

 

Ladies and gentlemen,

First, let me express my profound appreciation to the Steering Committee of STAR-Ghana for the honour of delivering the first inaugural lecture of the newly registered STAR Ghana Foundation – a Ghanaian owned and Ghanaian-led national centre to promote active citizenship and philanthropy. This launch today is a celebration of STAR-Ghana’s great achievements under the stewardship of the Steering Committee, chaired first by Professor Akilagpa Sawyerr and currently by Dr Esther Ofei-Aboagye. But, in a way, it is also a celebration of the cumulative struggles of our people for voice, freedom and dignity, a struggle that pre-dated, and led to, the creation of our nation. Whatever anyone might think, we are a better people by our freedom and by the progress we have made as an independent nation. We live longer, relatively peacefully, we are more educated, we are more cosmopolitan and we have built institutions of governance and of the market that function, by and large.

The Constitution of the Fourth Republic is perhaps the most potent manifestation of the latter stages of this struggle, a struggle waged by ordinary citizens and their organised bodies (civil society) to bring an end to military dictatorship and to set the path to a better society. Therefore, today also puts on notice our dedication to the work yet be done to build a Ghana we can be even more proud to bequeath to our grandchildren, one that is shaped by the collective will of our people: a nation of active citizenship.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am asked to reflect on the theme: Active citizenship in a changing Ghana: context, challenges and opportunities. There is no better place to start than the 1992 constitution. 

The Preamble of our constitution leaves no doubt that the purpose of our nation-state project is to consolidate our freedoms, expand liberties and fundamental rights, opportunities and prosperity for all; and that the system of government on whose shoulders the task of achieving these goals rest derive their authority from the will of ‘we the people’.

The Preamble says:  

‘We the people of Ghana

In exercise of our natural and inalienable right to establish a framework of government which shall secure for ourselves and posterity the blessings of liberty, equality of opportunity, and prosperity…

And in solemn declaration and affirmation of our commitment to Freedom, Justice, Probity, and Accountability.

The principle that all powers of government spring from the sovereign will of the people

The principle of universal adult suffrage

The protection and preservation of fundamental human rights and freedoms, unity and stability of our nation

Do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution.’

Chapter 1, clause 1 re-emphasises the centrality of ‘we the people’ in the very notion of a sovereign Ghana thus:

‘The sovereignty of Ghana resides in the people of Ghana in whose name and for whose welfare the powers of government are to be exercised in the manner in within the limits laid down by the constitution may bring an action in the supreme court for a declaration to that effect.’

Chapter1, clause 2 addresses the Enforcement of the Constitution, and states as follows:

‘A person who alleges that (a) an enactment or anything contained in or done under the authority of that or any other enactment (b) any act or omission of any person; is inconsistent with, or is in contravention of a  provision of this constitution may bring an action in the supreme court for a declaration to that effect.’

Chapter 1, clause 4 states that:

‘All citizens of Ghana have a right and a responsibility to defend the constitution.’ A clear pointer to the intent of the constitution that citizens ought to exercise their citizenship and sovereignty actively through claiming rights and exercising responsibility.

     

So, what is active citizenship?

Put simply, active citizenship is about each of us as individuals and as groups making a difference in one’s community, whether that community is local, national or global. It is about acting individually and collectively to fulfil rights, of self, neighbour and the environment, balanced with one’s responsibilities. It is about recognising that change for the good does not happen, or at least will not endure, when we sit by and observe, minding our own business.  If you don’t like what is happening in your community, the country or the world, quit talking about it and do something to change it. It is about recognising, as Eric Liu (2015)[1] observes in his TedEx talk, that to be an active citizen is to recognise, confront and exercise power with imagination and character.

He defines power simply as the capacity to ensure that others do what you will have them do. Power is not a finite or zero-sum property, like oil under the ground. I heard a young African American activist Britany Packnett[2] liken power to air in open space – we can all breathe it and be individually and collectively healthy without necessarily depriving the other for generations, especially if we individually and collectively protect its purity.

In a talk on Shifting Power: Public engagement & participation in the 21st Century, Jeremy Heimans (2015)[3], an activist who speaks and writes on social movements, describes how power is constantly changing in nature and scope. He distinguishes between old and new. Old power is represented by values of exclusion, is a closed affair, held by a few, is leader-driven and is based on command and control structures. Old power is top-down, largely unaccountable and inflexible. Old power is being replaced by new power which is made by the many, is more open, collaborative, transparent and managed by networked governance.

New power is a winning formula and this is evident in the rise of companies based on these values. New power offers citizens more bottom-up opportunities and has an incredible ability to mobilise. New power however can be fickle (as in social-media driven campaigns and new technologies). Old power, whether in political governance or business organisations, faces the danger of being swept away if it remains stuck in old values. We have seen hitherto untouchable political dictatorship tumble by the power of citizens. In the political sphere, it is active citizenship that can sweep away the stifling, unaccountable and inflexible exercise of old power.

Power is never granted – it is claimed. If you don’t have a seat at the table, bring a stool or a folding chair, and if I may add even a piece of stone large enough to accommodate your bottom, as long as you are at the table. This is the nature of active citizenship – push the door open and expand the players around the table. As noted earlier, the constitution of Ghana clearly pronounces that sovereignty rests with the people, but it is citizens that must make it happen. To do so successfully requires knowledge of one’s agency, knowledge of how decisions are made, knowledge of the tools that are used to make choices, knowledge of how decisions are concealed and skills of how to crack open that black-box.

Power may start with the individual, but it is made visible by numbers. To build numbers, we need to learn how to organise, how to connect spaces, from the top to the bottom, across sectors and geography as well as professions where we operate – we need to build coalitions. We must learn how to lobby effectively, to protest peacefully on the streets when lobbying doesn’t work. We have to make ourselves truly heard to be heard by those to whom we wish to influence and, while we are at it, we need to build solidarity in support of each other’s causes where they don’t contradict. We have to remember, as Eric Liu reminds us, that power is about inclusion and inclusion wins.

Power alone is not enough to bring about a good society. Active citizenship is not always for the good. People who organise discord and violence at community level; preach and mobilise around ethnic or racial, sexual, religious and gender bigotry may be active but they are not creating a civil society. Nor do all means of mobilisation for power or to influence power qualify as civil. Mobilising for and exacting violence may have noble purposes but the means is uncivil. Civil, active citizenship is by nature non-violent. Where violent change is the only means possible, the domain of struggle would have shifted fundamentally.  

Eric Liu also proposes that to harness and influence power for the good also requires the right imagination – the capacity to perceive something audacious that acts as the lodestar guiding our actions. A powerful, transformational imagination is necessary to direct energy to the right causes and to sustain it. Imagination is necessary for empathy and common cause. Imagining a better world – a world free of poverty, inequalities, violence, domination and repression, a fairer world – provides the necessary anchors for our dedication to fight on for, and with, the poor; to fight on for the fulfilment of fundamental human rights and for inclusivity in all spheres of social life.

Failure of imagination can be very costly, with exponential consequences. Without imagination, our actions are linear and we will fail to see one another as one body and the nation as belonging to all of us, rich or poor, men or women. Imagination can be cultivated through exposure, and through argument.

To contribute to the collective good, even imagination is not sufficient. It must be anchored by character – values, norms and behaviour. The type of society we become – whether we are empathic and value equity, or exhibit dog-eat-dog competition; how much we value truth over lies; individual wealth even if it comes at the expense of integrity; whether we always place party over country; fanaticism over civility – are the result of character. It is character that for example distinguishes, say New Zealand, from the United States, although both are founded largely on British culture. Whilst the United States has developed into a society emphasising individual rights and freedom, New Zealand has developed into a society emphasising fairness. Britain may be liberal-democratic but the post-war experience has shaped it into one that tempers capitalism with strong social norms as exemplified by the National Health Service and dominance of the state-financed free primary and secondary education.

Character can be intentionally cultivated. To the extent, the 1992 constitution has effect on our character, we need to remember how we came to that constitution – it was essentially a product of a long fight against autocratic, largely military rule; a fight that also symbolised the power of the Ghanaian civil society. We can deliberately cultivate another character – one that doesn’t only promote prosperity and the mechanics of democracy and the rule of law but one that seeks to shape a fair society. To do so we need to cultivate social responsibility – from community to national, and to connect with the global. We need a contagion of social reciprocity.

What does it mean to live as an active citizen? It means you see a gap, you fill it – you fill it with voice, spirit and mobilisation, protest or voluntary action; policy or legislative reforms all grounded in the imagination of a better society. It means living as if we are perpetually and irresistibly creating a new world.

Active citizenship in Ghana

In his inaugural speech, HE President Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo said:

‘I ask you to be citizens: citizens, not spectators; citizens, not subjects; responsible citizens building your communities and our nation.’

He said: ‘Citizens must be at the centre of the change we want. The change we have voted for will have to start with each of us as individuals. Being a Ghanaian puts an obligation on each one of us to work at building a fair, prosperous and happy nation.’

As a yardstick for measuring politics, he quoted Kofi Abrefa Busia, Prime Minister of the 2^nd Republic, who said: ‘We regard politics as an avenue of service to our fellow men (and women I may add). We hold that political power is to be exercised to make life nobler and happier. Our success or failure should be judged by the quality of the individual, by his knowledge, his skills, his behaviour as a member of society, the standard of living he is able to enjoy and by the degree of harmony and brotherliness in our community life as a nation.’

This imagination of the society we want to build as expressed by Dr Busia, echoes the Preamble of our constitution, and to be fully appreciated, needs to be joined with Chapter 6 of the constitution – the Directive Principles of State Policy – which outlines the type of society we seek to build – one that is both prosperous, democratic and equitable. It speaks to the centrality of the individual as well as social groups in our nation-state project.

 

So how has civil society been fairing in Ghana?

We are, by and large, a very activist society and a politically engaged one, although the extent to which we push our institutions of government to be accountable leaves a lot to be desired. Our activism as citizens shows most prominently in our enthusiasm around electoral politics. We engage in politics with a lot of, even extreme, emotions. We have high level of expectations on the State especially in relation to the delivery of public services. This is despite the assault on the state’s capacity to deliver services and efforts made during the structural adjustment period to make us all less ‘statist and distrustful of the state in order to open up markets for services. With expectations outstripping its ability to deliver, the Ghanaian state has been pushed into excessive borrowing with a new debt burden approaching the level at which Ghana had to apply for HIPC debt relief in the early 2000s. The pressure to borrow is also a reflection of poor tax performance and poor quality of expenditures – or put simply waste, misapplied resources and corruption – over the years. The challenge of civil society in this context is two-fold – to force open the ‘black box’ of public expenditure and to promote equitable burden sharing in the form of revenue mobilisation. These, however, are the areas where the Ghanaian civil society’s weaknesses are obvious both in terms of technical competence and coalition building.

Active citizenship and the civil society are confronted by other pressures and constraints including:

1. An increasingly toxic political context: Political activism has become highly divisive, vitriolic, intolerant and uncivil. It has assumed an enemy approach. Enmity – defined by partisanship – is cutting deeply into the fabric of society from the national to the household. Politics has assumed a Marcian character (after William L Marcy, former Secretary of War and Secretary of State of the United States) who pronounced the doctrine of the ‘to the victor belongs the spoils of war’ in 1832 – the defining character of American politics today. Treating politics as victors versus the vanquished implies that the obligation of office is to gather the spoils of political contests. This happens even as President Nana Addo announced in his inaugural speech that ‘State coffers are not spoils for the party that wins an election, but resources for the country’s social and economic development’.

2. A country of more partisan and less citizens: We increasingly identify ourselves by sharp partisan affiliations. As Jennifer Mercieca (a Professor and Historian of American Political Discourse) said in her TedEx talk, when people become partisans rather than citizens, we must remember that partisans don’t negotiate or consult outside themselves, they pronounce; partisans don’t trust anyone and no one trusts them outside of their own circles; partisans are essentially corrupt (they share the spoils of war and lie about it); partisans are fanatical and portend violence and intolerance; partisans don’t solve problems. We are witnessing policy making without consultation; policy implementation without non-partisan consideration, participation based on partisan lines and public service losing its relative neutrality and professionalism. Politics is losing common ground and this affects the civil society sector. In the political environment in which we find ourselves, we need more citizens and less partisans. We need civil society not partisan society. We need civil society to fact-check, to speak truth to power, to put forward unifying and more enduring values, to bridge social capitals and to make discourse civil.

3. Declining coalitions, movements and solidarity: Civic movements and broad-based campaigns are declining, replaced by single-issue, narrowly technocratic policy organisations. The increasing informalisation of work comes with the decline in the influence of organised labour except in coalition with other civic groups. Also, the progressive strengthening of democratic institutions and institutions of the rule of law, the absence of egregious human rights violation and an obvious enemy such as the ‘dictator’ has deprived activism the mobilising focus it needs, thereby contributing to the splintering of the civic voice. The relative success of neoliberalism in supplanting a narrative of the market works best in the public imagination has hampered movements such as the National Coalition Against the Privatisation of Water (NCAP) that fought successfully against the privatisation of water; the global trade justice movement that galvanised civil society worldwide to moderate trade liberalisation; the tax justice movement that continues heroically the fight against aggressive tax avoidance and illicit financial flows etc. making it difficult for progressive campaigns to take hold in the broader society. This has deprived the civil society sector of the mechanisms of connecting multiple sectors and actors, leaving CSOs atomised and depriving them of the energy that comes with the ‘think global, act local’ partnerships. CSOs are therefore on their own and vulnerable to reputation attacks.

4. False dichotomies: Our discourses are increasingly dichotomous: private sector good for business, public sector bad; the private sector plays the lead role in economic development, the civil society sector’s purpose is social; FDI good, development aid bad. These caricatures undermine plurality and innovation. And in a country bedeviled by the mismatch between economic capacity and development expectations fueled by an informed and increasingly activist youthful population, it is as if civil society is relegated to the backseat as our focus is firmly on the economy. Those who fight for accountability are at best tolerated or their values temporarily expropriated when convenient. But the private sector, broadly defined, includes different types of equity holdings (eg. worker-owned equity) and the civil society sector includes different types of motivations including social entrepreneurship. Government has a responsibility to simultaneously strengthen both sets of actors and to catalyse multiple forms and partnerships. We know what happens to economic growth and equitable development when public sector leaders waste or steal resources and private sector captains avoid paying tax by hiding their wealth in secrecy jurisdictions abroad. These dichotomous discourses undermine efforts to innovate and build coalitions across stakeholder groups.

5. The growing power of business: But we must also realise that businesses dominate the world. The world’s 100 largest economies by revenue are corporations not states and global value chains make up about 80% of world trade. Businesses have a lot to teach civil society, not least values of efficiency and sustainability. But civil society work is equally crucial for businesses. With the growing crisis of the environment, inequalities and poverty, the stakes are high for global and national stability, essential for business. Businesses may apply some business principles for development but they are not development organisations – they cannot invest enough to address social problems and they need civil society for their own accountability, not least their contribution to corruption. The private sector and civil society need each other to shape a society motivated by values beyond profit.

6. Active citizenship is costly in time, logistics, intellectual and financial resources to research, educate, mobilise, engage – but of course not as expensive as the opportunity cost – when society’s values disintegrate and community and collective action becomes monetised. Our constitution expects us ultimately to resort to the law courts when we suspect that rights and the public good are violated. This is ultimately to avoid settling grievances violently or losing trust in the constitution. But as we know from IMANI and the KelniGVG case, defending the public interest against a well-resourced entity with powerful patronage networks takes money, patience, socially conscious and passionate lawyers and a mobilised civil society behind it to sustain such a fight. It takes more than the dedication and brilliance of a single think-tank. The Center for Public Interest Law (CEPIL) fought successfully against a Canadian mining company that forcefully evicted settlements without compensation in the late 1990s. It took the combined long-term commitment of the affected communities, a group of lawyers committed to pro-bono services, and ISODEC’s institutional support to pull it off. Unfortunately, our public interest litigation framework remains undeveloped and yet remains a critical plant of the arena of struggle for accountability. Civic activism is not cheap, whatever level you operate, and must be paid for as a public interest investment.

How do we finance active citizenship and civil society organisations?

The environment for the financing of CSOs is becoming increasingly harsh. First, the development finance context is changing rapidly. Whereas overall, Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) from OECD-DAC (Development Co-operation Directorate – Development Assistance Committee) countries to developing countries remains stable, the grant components have declined. For Ghana, ODA grants have been declining since 2009 and this decline has recently accelerated, especially since we became a LMIC (low and middle-income country). There is less and less to go round. Some donors are withdrawing completely from traditional aid and redirecting their resources into private sector and investment activities or cutting their aid budgets severely. This is encouraged by formulations of Ghana Beyond Aid concepts across the continent that suggest that governments will rather trade concessional financing (aid) for expensive commercial loans and barter schemes – a dichotomous framing of the financing problem.

On the other hand of the declining aid, the share that is directed through, or to, NGOs has increased since 2012 and now commands about 19% of ODA. Most of these resources are, however, channeled to northern CSOs. Funds channeled to southern CSOs are increasing but only modestly. The increased CSOs share is because of a few countries, including the UK and Switzerland.

Not only are volumes changing, the focus and disbursement modalities are also changing. The Ghanaian aid architecture prioritises governance activities and is increasingly emphasising innovation, leveraging for scaling up and increasingly channeled through non-traditional mechanisms, such as private management companies and management consortia in a bid to cut costs. This privileges larger private companies and northern CSOs. STAR-Ghana is a case in point.

Mechanisms such as STAR-Ghana, although foreign-managed, seek a middle way to leverage resources that can reach large numbers of CSOs operating at multiple levels. The risk of such arrangements has always been continuity. The creation of the STAR Ghana Foundation, the second on the continent following Mozambique, is a worthy attempt to address the sustainability question. How might the STAR Ghana Foundation maximise mobilisation of resources and from whom?

1. Framework basket fund agreements: Grow the endowment fund through an aggressive partnership with development partners, including those transitioning out of aid. They should find it necessary to invest in long-term accountability and vibrant civil society.

2. Participate in open competitive processes, such as calls for proposals that are multi-stakeholder focused.

3. Engage philanthropic organisations and support the growth of local philanthropy both to build endowments and to support activities that can leverage impact for the SDGs.

4. A special fund to support public interest litigation.

5. An active citizenship training fund that can be jointly shaped with NCCE.

Ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion let me repeat the President’s declaration at his inauguration: ‘I ask you to be citizens: citizens, not spectators; citizens, not subjects; responsible citizens building your communities and our nation.’

We need a civil society and active citizenship today more than ever. We need civil society not partisan society.

When political discourse becomes intolerant, belligerent and divisive, we need civil society.

When truth no more matters in public discourse, we need civil society.

When money is made without accountability, we need civil society.

When truth no more matters in the exercise of power, we need civil society.

When politics is conducted for the purpose of turning public assets into private wealth for the victors, we need civil society.

When money buys power and power is about rewarding the monied, we need civil society.

When a small elite dominate both the economy and political power endangering both the economy and democracy, we need civil society.

When wealth is concentrated in few hands and opportunities in society are hampered by it, we need civil society.

When there is collusion between the domestic and external elite to loot resources and hide them in secrecy jurisdictions abroad, we need civil society.

When private investments, local or foreign, trample upon the rights of communities and pollute our waters, we need civil society.

When innovation and creativity are needed so that the poorest can have a better life we need a partnership of civil society, philanthropy and the private sector.

In all of these, the state has an obligation to strengthen civil society and citizens have a responsibility to demand it. That is perhaps what the President intended in his speech.

Thank you for your audience and congratulations to STAR Ghana Foundation.

 

References

[1] Eric Liu is  the CEO of Citizen University and Executive Director of the Aspen Institute of Citizenship and American Identity Program.

[2] Brittany Packnett is a young African-American activist, educator and author who speaks on the intersection of culture and justice. Cited by President Barack Obama as a leader who's "voice is going to be making a difference for years to come," She is the author of the forthcoming book, We Are Like Those Who Dream, with One World.

[3] Co-Founder and CEO of Purpose, author of “New Power”, and winner of the Inspired Leadership Award.