After reading a www.ghanaweb.com (26/2/2011) story by a Seth Krampah, entitled: "B&FT sets agenda for rural economic development" the gentleman who brought this to my attention, was so incensed that he apparently had to pause for a moment, and count up to ten, to calm himself down - as any sensible anger management book would suggest. He then asked himself the rhetorical question: "When, O, when, will Ghana's educated urban elite, ever stop dreaming up sundry schemes, designed to rip Mother Ghana off, one smart way or the other?"
I agreed with him that if the story was a true reflection of the outcome of the meeting, then it would really be interesting to know what the reaction of right-wing Danish politicians would be, for example, when they discover that their taxpayers' money, rather than being used to directly fund the growth of micro-enterprises and SME's in Ghana, has consistently been hijacked by clever- types-in-high-places, using consultancies as rip-off vehicles, to enable them play the system: and siphon off what is Danish foreign aid - sent by donors who think that somehow, they are encouraging private enterprise, as a way of alleviating poverty in Africa.
Now try making sense of this quotation from Mr Krampah's story, dear reader: "The Business & Financial Times and a coalition of media partners across the country at an advocacy workshop in Accra have adopted a policy to establish a Development Organ for the media. This is to establish a basis for an advocacy action aimed at developing a Home-Grown Mass-Scale planning model for a Sustainable Solution to Rural Economic Development in the country to be implemented by the media under the development organ."
What do the state-owned media, and the Information Services Department
(ISD), marginalised by the geniuses at the information ministry for years, all exist for, I ask, for starters? Just who are the politically well-connected equivalent of gangsters, who came up with this pure nonsense on bamboo stilts - and what exactly does all that waffle mean?
Why should poor rural people, desperate to escape poverty, have to depend on the paid-for "advocacy" of a fickle Ghanaian media, unable to recruit intellectuals and full of clueless semi-literate mercenary types (some even with university degrees, incredibly!), who have seldom shown any interest in their survival, other than to exploit rural Ghana for sensational stories about farmers shooting their love rivals, farmers committing incest, and the like, I ask?
Why should anyone ask rural folk to rely on the genius of media houses, using esoteric la-la land advocacy methods, to make rural Ghana's cash-starved economy prosperous - when so many media houses themselves face bankruptcy because those who manage those corporate equivalent of begging-bowls, lack the nous and imagination to grow those poorly-managed businesses and make them profitable entities?
Would it not be more realistic to ask the media to simply point it out to those who oversee funds like the Business Sector Advocacy Challenge Fund (BUSAC), that if they want to help alleviate rural poverty, and offer rural dwellers practical help, they can do so by directly providing cash-strapped grass-roots organisations like the Rural Enterprises Project (REP), with funds, which will make it possible for rural dwellers to have easy access to their economically empowering alternative income generation training courses?
Would Danish taxpayers not rather that that happened with the money they give to DANIDA to support private enterprise in Ghana, than it being dished out to clueless journalists? How many of those lazy and unprofessional journalists, who have not shown any creativity in growing their own sinking establishments, even know what entities like the REP, for example, do for rural people, to begin with - let alone have ideas about "home-grown development models" for transforming rural Ghana? The story goes on to say:
"The initiative dubbed: Media Corporate Response Initiative (M-CRI) would serve as the development vehicle for the media to host home-grown development models for implementation as the Media corporate response initiative. The project is under the auspices of DANIDA-EU sponsored Business Sector Advocacy Challenge Fund".
How can a disparate media, all of its constituent establishments' with set political agendas of their own, and in bed with their favourite political parties, have an effective collective "development organ", I ask - and how can people who presumably have different ideas about how society ought to be organised to create sustainable wealth, buy into a collective " Media Corporate Response Initiative (M-CRI)"? Is this egregious example of wanton waste of foreign aid that is meant to grow private sector micro-enterprises and SME's not a pipe-dream and an expensive exercise in futility?
If they were genuine in their aim, would those too-clever-by-half media folk not rather volunteer their services freely, as compassionate professionals who want to give back to society, in response to a perceived need in rural Ghana - instead of jumping on the lets-get-some-free-grant-cash-whiles-it-lasts bandwagon?
According to their critics, funds set up by the well-intentioned, such as the BUSAC, invariably end up dishing out cash to politically well-connected would-be fraudsters, instead of to productive organisations like the National Board for Small Scale Industries (NBSSI), the REP, the Ghana Chamber of Commerce, and the Association of Ghana Industries (AGI).
This is one of the most outrageous examples of using a lofty idea to obtain "chop-chop" that I have ever come across, thus far, since the honest, humble and selfless President Mills, came into office in January 2009. Why don't the participating media houses and B&FT do this as their respective media organisation's corporate social responsibility (CSR) project?
Does genuine CSR not provide socially-responsible corporate entities the opportunity to give back to the society from which they make their profits, and from their own generated surpluses - not other people's hard-earned money dished out to them, from a well-endowed grant-dispensing Father Christmas fund?
If Ghanaian media houses fail to generate surpluses because they are badly managed basket cases, why should they be subsidised by hapless Danish and EU taxpayers' to engage in a "Media Corporate Response Initiative (M-CRI)" at rural Ghana's expense?
Is this outrageous wheeze, not simply a case of the outcome of a project proposal designed by a self-interested consultant, partnered by an equally self-interested media house for their mutual benefit? And in a society in which integrity has become such a scarce personal attribute, will it not end up as a typical Ghanaian story of favouritism and nepotism, in which funds are dished out to certain selected media houses (and selected journalists, one presumes), most of whom have seldom shown any interest in rural Ghana's economy, and don't give a toss about rural poverty, either, if truth be told?
What has been the track record of the Business and Financial Times, and its media partners in advocating for rural development, all these years that rural people have struggled without their support?
And why does the Business and Financial Times and its so-called media partners not volunteer their advocacy for free in the columns and pages of their respective newspapers, and on the airwaves of their radio stations and television stations, I ask?
Why is this insidious " take-take-take-and-never-once--give-or-sacrifice-for-others" ethos so prevalent in Ghanaian society, today, I ask? From the foot soldiers of political parties to greedy and selfish bosses of state-owned entities, who grab perk after perk and allowance after allowance (even when the entities they run make losses!), it seems that everyone in this nation of ours, is on the make and on the take. Why?
Do those proposing this outrage, not have any conscience, at all? It is time DANIDA stopped providing business advocacy money - and used the money allocated to support business advocacy in Ghana, to set up a fund, which will enable organisations like the Rural Enterprises Project (REP) to continue offering free training to rural people, and to provide them with seed money to start their own micro-enterprises, such as snail-farming; mushroom farming; bee keeping; fish farming, etc. etc. That, and using community-based eco-tourism as a tool for the conservation of what is left of our fast-dwindling natural heritage, at a time of global climate-change, are the surest ways of creating sustainable wealth in rural Ghana. Period.
Is it not typical of our times that whiles millions of poor rural youth in Ghana daily seek ways of accessing training courses of the Rural Enterprises Project (REP), the clever-folk-in-high-places have come up with yet another wheeze to grab foreign assistance meant to create a climate in which micro-enterprises and SME's can thrive? Danish and EU taxpayers must find out precisely where their taxes end up in Ghana as aid, and demand that their taxes go directly to alleviate poverty in rural Ghana - not to enrich Ghana's educated urban elite. Hmm, Ghana - enti yewiewe paa, eniea? Asem ebeba debi ankasa!
Tel (powered by Tigo - the one mobile phone network in Ghana that actually works!): + 233 (0) 27 745 3109.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment