When Dr. Bawumia aptly dared the NDC operatives some time ago to claim ownership of any successful social intervention, he was referring to “social interventionism” and not “social infrastructure or amenities”.

Nevertheless, since the NDC has an abysmal record in the planning and implementation of social interventions to impact positively on society, it came as no surprise at all to some of us when the NDC operatives failed woefully to give any tangible response to Bawumia’s query.

The overarching question every Ghanaian should be asking then is: do the NDC operatives believe in the provision of social interventions?

Shockingly, however, while the good people of Ghana were struggling endlessly to pay their utility bills and could not even afford their children’s school fees, Mahama incredibly metamorphosed into Father Christmas and doled out Ghana’s scarce resources to party apologists as if tomorrow will never come.

It would thus appear that the NDC loyalists, who take pride in the social
democratic ideology, are not in the business of promoting the welfare of the masses, but rather on a mission to advance their parochial interests by persistently proselytising and hoodwinking the unsuspecting voters to gain electoral advantage.

The phraseology, political ideology, is used as a descriptive label for a set of ideas and values about political parties in a democratic dispensation. Political ideology, therefore, comprises the body of ideas that undergird the conduct of political parties.

This article, therefore, grubs into the National Democratic Congress’s (NDC) much publicised social democratic descriptive tag.

“Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed economy.”

“Social democracy is a political ideology that originally advocated a peaceful evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes (Britannica.com).”

Some experts however maintain that social democrats are of the view that both the economy and society should be run democratically to meet the needs of the vast majority of the citizenry.

In essence, social democrats are against the idea of running the country in such a way that only a few end up benefitting.

There are three main tenets of democratic socialism: freedom, justice and
solidarity.

Based on the preceding ethos and values, social democrats, such as the National Democratic Congress, are expected to take great interest in ‘social interventionism’.

In theory, social interventionism is “a pragmatic action which involves the intervention of a government or an organization in social affairs of society.”

In effect, social interventionism refers to the effective, prudent and appropriate means of ameliorating social or economic difficulties being faced by people.

Social interventionism, therefore, is an umbrella term for social intervention, social protection, social welfare or poverty alleviation.

Social interventionism, so to speak, differs from the provision of social infrastructure and amenities, such as toilets, electricity, schools, hospitals, water, roads, and interchanges, amongst others.

I have always insisted that it would only take a doubting Thomas to challenge the fact that the NDC faithful, who take pride in the social democratic ideology, are not in the business of promoting the welfare of the masses.

One would have thought that individuals who pride themselves as social democrats will be extremely empathetic to the needs of the masses, but this is not the case with the NDC as a party.

The general belief, however, is that the NDC is only good at running down or cancelling crucial social interventions.

It is an illustrative case of social democrats who do not know how to initiate and manage social interventions.

If you may recall, the erstwhile Mahama administration cancelled/collapsed the Nurse’s Allowance, the Teacher’s Allowance, SADA, GYEEDA, NHIS, the Maternal Care, the School Feeding Programme, and the Mass Transport System, amongst others.

It is also true that the NDC operatives campaigned and voted against the poverty reduction Free SHS policy during the 2016 electioneering campaign.

As if that was not enough, the NDC loyalists have persisted in their utter disgust for the poverty alleviation Free SHS, by needlessly attacking its implementation.

Given the circumstances, it will not come as a surprise to some of us at all, if the future NDC government decides to cancel the programme altogether.

Since the inception of the Fourth Republican Constitution, the self-proclaimed social Democrats have been opposing social interventions that have been proposed by the successive NPP governments such as the Free Maternal Care, the NHIS, the Metro Mass Transport, the School Feeding Programme, the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP), the Free SHS, amongst others.

In the grand scheme of things, social protection is often seen as a safeguard for the poor and vulnerable, such as children, women, older people, people living with disabilities, the displaced, the unemployed, and the sick.

In essence, social protection is generally understood as public and private organisations that give means of income to the poor and take care of the vulnerable against bread and butter issues with the main aim of reducing economic and social hardships.

However, the reasons behind social protection differ very broadly, ranging from minimising poverty and vulnerability, building human capital, empowering women and girls, improving livelihoods, and responding to economic and other adversities.

Thus, the form and function of social protection programmes can be quite diverse, according to the particular intervention (Hanlon et al., 2010).

Based on the preceding explicit acceptations of social interventionism, we can confidently delineate some social interventions such as the Nurse’s Allowance, the Teacher’s Allowance, SADA, GYEEDA, NHIS, Maternal Care, the School Feeding Programme, the Mass Transport System, the Free SHS, the Nation Builders Corp (NABCO), the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP), the Disability Common Fund and the Capitation Grant.

It is however worth emphasising that long-term goals of social protection include improving opportunities for inclusive growth, human capital development, equity and social stability.

Some social protection programmes are intended to be transformative, supporting equity, empowerment and human rights.

Some experts nonetheless contend that social protection is not only designed to alleviate poverty but also to transform lives, through the implementation of policies and programmes that normalise the inequalities (Babajanian et al., 2014).

In light of the above, we can conclude that social intervention is an investment in human capital that increases capacities and the accumulation of productive assets.

In the great scheme of things, social intervention contributes to human capital either by providing skills and services or by offering cash and access, which enable households to invest in their development.

A small number of countries (including India, South Africa, and Uruguay) and
organisations recognise social protection as a human right and an entitlement against low standards of living (Jones & Shahrokh, 2013).

In ending, given the party’s appalling track record, we can draw an adverse inference that the NDC government will cancel social interventions such as the Nurses and Teachers Allowances and the Free SHS if presented with another opportunity in 2024.