DISTORTED REALITY…

The first question most married couples get to answer if they don’t have kids already, has to do with when they plan on having one. I find this societal pressure on married couples having kids quite intriguing. There is then the unfathomable supreme value the Ghanaian society places on the married couple (but women especially) for these children to be biological. Indeed, I find the Ghanaian society’s attitude to the question of marriage itself perplexing. I think we need to, as a society, place more value on raising kids rather than just the biological process of conceiving a child. Love rather than biological attachment should form the basis of family formation. I know this notion challenges the age-old saying we have grown accustomed to; ‘blood is thicker than water.’

It is interesting how adoption isn’t a widely discussed subject in my country. In a society where childlessness seems to be a hush-hush topic as though it is an aberration, it is quite intriguing to observe the stigma associated with adoption and the wider issue of infertility especially female infertility or barrenness as it is called.

A couple of years ago I was engaged in a conversation with a South Korean friend who was on an educational visit to Ghana. She asked about my views on adoption and if I would be open to legal adoption in future. I said yes without giving much thought to the question. However, it was the rude interjection of an elderly Ghanaian woman sitting across my table that got me wondering what the fuss was about concerning adoption. This Ghanaian woman, in the casual manner, strangers adopt with each other in ‘trotro’ buses in Ghana, thought I was being stupid in thinking I could just adopt if I was faced with childlessness in marriage. She offered little in telling me her own story, but she was pretty emphatic that such a decision could not be made by just a man and the wife in a society like ours. You needed to involve the extended family and even one’s religious leader in making such a decision.

It got me curious about what the process of legal adoption in Ghana entails. The department of social welfare is the government agency responsible for handling cases of adoption. The department requires all prospective adoptive parents to fill the adoption application form which provides the department with a brief background information of the applicants. Did you know, single men are barred from adopting a child in Ghana unless it’s his biological son or special cases such as the unfitness of the mother of the child. Also, anyone who wants to adopt must be at least 25years old and 21 years older than the child he or she wants to adopt. In cases where the applicant is a relative of the child the applicant must be at least 21 years of age. 

The process for legally adopting a child in Ghana can stretch as long as two years. This is a long, torturous process that will turn away most prospective couples from adopting. The laws governing adoption itself needs review to bring it into conformity with the modern Ghanaian society. The law should not become an impediment that lowers and slows down the rate of adoption.

According to UNICEF Ghana: “more than 4,000 children still live-in orphanages” in Ghana. This figure does not include the thousands more who are homeless in our urban centres.

The Children’s (Amendment) Act, 2016 (Act 937) recognize the importance for every child to grow in a family, because that is the best place for children to be nurtured. However, the implementation has left much to be desired. The department of social welfare is still chronically underfunded in terms of human resource capacity. It is important to strengthen these offices, especially at the district level and retrain staff on more modern, proactive approach to children protection with its related functions such as adoption. Act 937, despite its imperfections, is a step in the right direction and its implementation must be a priority for the Ministry of Gender and Social Protection in order to streamline and make the adoption process more transparent.

The National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE) as part of its activities for 2021 is engaging organized groups in the Eastern Region on the duties of Members of Parliament (MPs). I would say this is a step in the right direction. You probably know my strong views on the weak nature of our parliament already. It is time we recognize the simple fact that Members of Parliament are essentially lawmakers, not development workers. The way our legislative election is focused is not only wrong but an impediment to development. We need to understand the distinction between the roles of the legislator and metropolitan/municipal/district chief executive. Legislators are not responsible for the building of roads, providing water or electricity systems for communities.

It was the 18th-century Genevan philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who captured the essentiality of the legislative branch to any effective functioning of government. He wrote in his 1762 influential work, ‘The Social Contract’ with staringly clarity: “…the legislative power is the heart of the State; the executive power is its brain, which causes the movement of all the parts. The brain may become paralysed and the individual still live. A man may remain an imbecile and live; but as soon as the heart ceases to perform its functions, the animal is dead.”

The moment parliament ceases to function as the legislative body of the state, the whole democratic experiment will come tumbling down.

In a survey titled’ “The Role of MPs” conducted by a researcher with the University of Ghana Political Science department in June 2019, it became obvious what the Ghanaian electorate expected of their Members of Parliament. 51% of respondents surveyed thought the primary duty of their legislative representative was to “advocate for development”. 28% expected their legislators to represent their “interest”. Only 7% thought the primary role of the MP had anything to do with legislation. 4% of respondents thought it was the job of their MPs to “create employment” (funny, right?).

As depressing as these statistics look, one can not really fault the respondents. Their idea of who the model MP should be was probably shaped by the campaign messages of parliamentary aspirants over the years. Since most parliamentary aspirants of all parties over the years have decided to promise people jobs, promise infrastructural projects (which they sometimes deliver), giving freebies including cash on the campaign trail, you cannot blame the people when they assume that is the core functions of a Member of Parliament. It is common to find politicians contesting to become MPs standing on campaign platforms campaigning on issues that you would struggle to associate with their office. I have often wondered how those who end on the opposition benches, with no lobbying power in government, can fulfil some of those promises. These days, it is even common to find aspirants buying streetlights’ bulbs for communities, organising health screening supposedly for constituents, hiring graders to give temporary fix to community roads etc. I have often wondered where the source of financing for all these come from but that is a conversation for another day.

The question of how many jobs a Member of Parliament has created; roads he has constructed etc. are things that can be achieved through bills and legislation they support or oppose. Private member bills can be used to pursue causes that are passionate to MPs with the corresponding benefits of such bills quantified for all constituents to assess. That would be a better benchmark in assessing MPs than the current razzmatazz, haphazard manner we witness during elections.

Constituency surgeries and community town hall meetings should be a consistent feature on the calendar of our MPs. This idea of representation without consultation and feedback must cease.

Why must young people have to seek favours from MPs when looking for jobs? Why must parents chase MPs for handouts to pay school fees? Why must young people be forced by circumstances of their fate to get party cards (when they may not even believe in the ideology of such parties) in order to have a fair shot in competing for public-sector jobs? Why can’t we, in the abundance of resources, lift the majority of our people out of poverty so they fend for themselves? Why can’t we provide the platform to unleash the talents of our youths rather than keeping them in this Orwellian web?

It is high time we recognize the fact that our political system is broken and needs a fix. That call for change isn’t some sort of entitled, youthful fantasy but a question of the existential survival of the fourth republic. I commend the NCCE in taking these little steps in the right direction though admittedly more needs to be done.

We can decide to fix this broken system or do nothing about it. But, without doing anything to fix it, we can be certain of one outcome: the rupturing of the whole system. This is certain because no system that leaves out so many can survive for long. The left-behinds will get fed-up and rise and, on that march, nothing can stop the wrath of the people. That may ultimately define the political direction of this country. As an absolute believer in democracy, I believe this country’s best chance at development is through the liberal democratic framework, however, this fourth republican democracy urgently needs salvation, or it may not survive for long. That salvation can come about when we get the men and women within our political space with the required philosophical grasp and intellectual vision to seek these reforms or the masses may yet foist it on the ruling class.

The government must solidify our democracy by going back to the question of election of mayors. As a compromise, the government should drop the partisan requirement of the bill they were seeking last year and postpone that for some time in the future. Compromises are part of politics and governance and this one must be a cause worth compromising on. This will be one way of fixing our dysfunctional governance architecture.