GOVERNMENT’S SOCIAL POLICIES: A NON-LIBERAL MONSTER

I intend to share my views on the subject of social policy by governments (both past and present) and its overwhelming acceptance by political parties and other civil society groups. These stakeholders have only queried the modus operandi of the various policies ignoring the logic justifying the establishment of these policies. Fellow liberals, some of these policies include government’s National Youth Employment Programme (NYEP) and its baby for revenue the Communications Service Tax (CST); FCUBE and the School Feeding Programme with their source of revenue the GetFund and the Capitation Grant; Free Maternal Health Care and the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) with source of revenue as the National Health Insurance Levy (NHIL). Ladies and gentlemen of the liberal family, the situation looks dangerous for lovers of freedom considering the fact that the Parliament house of Ghana, the official law making body in this country has representatives from the four major political parties in this country, i.e. the NPP, NDC, CPP, and PNC. The ruling NDC declared their support for most of these programmes and has shown goodwill towards the programmes from the way their foot soldiers (or cadres) are struggling for their share. The party only decried how the programmes were being carried out and so have set forth to run it their way but this should not be surprising as they claim to be social democrats. The other two minor parties cannot be faulted neither if I consider their strong socialist past, both are offshoots of Nkrumah and socialist in nature. So why did the political party which claims to be liberally democratic initiate a convoy of ‘Free Goodies wagon’? The 2008 December presidential and parliamentary elections saw uncontrolled allegations of misinterpreting the liberal belief to mean ‘property grabbing’, and perhaps the response of the NPP was to point towards these policies as in indication of their care for the poor. Parties promised an expansion and/or improvement in these programmes. Unfortunately, these four leading political parties and their presidential candidates all have it wrong on the way forward for solving pertinent social problems in this country.



Fellow liberals, it is my strongest conviction that the freedom of the individual (you, me, and all other citizens within the territory) is supreme to any other interest in this country. It is by no coincidence that the coat of arms boldly displays the phrase FREEDOM AND JUSTICE. Our dear motherland has always been touted as “Ghana: land of freedom.” My observation is that freedom of individuals in this country is under threat from our law makers and government through the establishment of these social policies.


This is even surprising when those who profess to share liberal democratic beliefs join in singing the bizarre chorus: “when I come to power, there would be free this, free that.” Why or what justifies these policies and who pays for these free goodies? Is it government; our donor friends (or donor enemies); or the hardworking tax payers in the formal sector?



The argument from those who have supported these programmes is that there are so many people who cannot pay for these services: basic education, healthcare, transportation, etc; and so some BIG DADDY somewhere must help them. But if today it is ok to tax workers to pay for the school fees of others who cannot pay; if it is ok to tax workers to pay unemployed persons; if it is ok to tax workers to pay the hospital bills of women who cannot afford; perhaps tomorrow, it would be ok to tax workers to buy milk for children who cannot afford; perhaps tomorrow it would be ok to tax workers to buy condoms for those who cannot afford; perhaps tomorrow it would be ok to tax workers to buy cotton shirts, Italian shoes, German beer and French wine for those who cannot afford.


Fellow liberals, it must be made clear to the BIG DADDY advocates that it is not the way to go, and that these policies punish creativity, hard work and entrepreneurship, and limit the freedom of individuals. The role of government is not to provide free goodies but to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Big Daddy must ensure that when individuals pursue their freedom, their interests, it rewards them. Development comes about when free individuals engage each other in a free market on a free basis. Free here means very little or no interference from government. The attempt to solve social problems through taxation is itself contradictory, for what would be the consequences if everyone could not afford one thing or the other, if every one was unemployed nor did no business? Where would Big Daddy generate the needed revenue to provide all the free goodies?






THE WAY FORWARD


Big Daddy should channel resources to the empowerment of individuals to pursue their interests. A large chunk of the working population operates within the informal sector and has very little to do with government. From the kenkey seller by the street to the Akpeteshie brewer in the village, they operate purely on market principles. The cost plus intended profit determines their selling price. If government makes it much smoother for fresh entrants into this sector, it minimises the unemployment situation and its resultant social vices, increases the purchasing power of individuals and empowers them to determine how to use incomes they have generated without thinking of severe punishment from Big Daddy through unnecessary taxes. The requirement of the registration of new businesses should be freed from unnecessary bureaucracy. The availability of grants and loans for SMEs should be strengthened with fool proof methods of recovering debts. The commercial courts and commercial laws should be strengthened so that individuals who freely engage in a free market would not suffer unnecessary risks through exploitation, bribery, and fraudulent activities. Individuals who engage each other must have the guarantee that there is a free and fair system to resort to in the case of industrial disputes. The security agencies should be strengthened so that they can protect those who choose to take risk in such free market. If they justifiably perceive the risk of armed robbery attacks, very few people would take business risk. The protection not of the market but of individuals must be paramount. Those who choose to participate in the free market must be guaranteed their security, knowing that the only available risks are market risks. The past interference by the Bank of Ghana in the Stock Market - Cal Bank saga was most unfortunate and must not be encouraged. This would be in line with government’s role of protecting life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.


Big Daddy cannot provide all the free goodies, and nothing justifies the provision of a few free goodies to the neglect of other free goodies. The wealthiest men in the country today are not beneficiaries of government free goodies but took huge risks and invested heavily which paid off well for some of them. Not everybody succeeds in the market but those who succeed do not enjoy the benefits alone, they reduce unemployment by at least two persons and their dependents. Is the result of their success to be punishment from Big Daddy through establishment of bogus policies which taxes hard work? Definitely, alternative ways of wealth creation should be developed by government officials who enjoy benefits to guarantee their freedom to think and propose better and realistic functions in line with the role of government everywhere. If they can only think of punishing hard work through proposing programmes which inhibit my freedom, your freedom, our freedom, they do not deserve our sympathy. Fellow liberals, as we champion the freedom cause in Ghana, let us say no to all Big Daddy advocates intending to attack our pocket.






Long Live Liberalism
Long Live Free States
Long Live Free Markets 
Long Live  Free People