By- Mawuli Dake#

“The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end”- Barack Obama.

I cannot agree more with the wisdom in the above words from Barack Obama’s presidential inaugural address. Thus, I find it troubling that the ongoing debate over the composition of Ghana’s new government is focused merely on the NUMBER of ministerial appointments that the arguers deem to be too big or small enough. Neither of the two sides has offered any intelligent or analytical basis for a government size that takes into consideration the country’s needs and aspirations.

Obviously we should all be opposed to the idea of an excessively large government or one that is big for its own sake. If this is the concern of those grumbling about the size of the current government, then they should make it known. But I’m afraid to say nothing suggests that those questioning the size of Mill’s government think that it is excessive. They simply argue that reducing the Ministers and Deputies from 88 in the last administration to 77 today is not enough, and advocate further reduction. It may well be the case that 77 is too large, but on what tangible assessments are these assumptions being made?

On the other hand, those defending the 77-ministerial appointments have not given any justification except that it is not as large as the previous government. During Kufour’s presidency, I was irked by their constant referral to the failures and misconducts of their predecessors as the yardstick for their performance. I pray that NDC doesn’t repeat this appalling mistake. And that is why I find it troubling that the President’s claim of a lean government is based on the fact that their ministerial appointments have “not reached the 88 mark of the former” administration. Of course, it is normal and sometimes necessary to make such retrospective comparisons, but it is problematic when performance and conduct as a society is constantly measured against backward standards. It should be a matter of common sense that Ghanaians, as in 2000, voted for change in 2008 because they find prevailing standards unacceptable. Those who are elected to lead us forward should not be stuck in the past that we rejected.

The debate over whether our government is big or small fundamentally, should be about the allocation and management of our budget and resources in the most effective and efficient way. Appointments and national programs must be first and foremost based on national needs, vision, priorities and resources. We can have a 25-minister government, but wasteful spending, corruption and inefficiency could amount to far greater than having a100-minister government. There are far more fundamental factors that go into determining and ensuring a small or big government, so our discourse should focus on those important issues.

Some people who argue for a further reduction in the number of ministers do so in their quest to hold the President to his campaign promise to create a lean government. Should elected officials be held accountable to their campaign promises? Absolutely. But when it comes to choosing between campaign rhetoric and prudent decisions in the interest of the nation, leaders must have the courage and the common sense to choose the latter. Does that mean they should be left of the hook because they chose to do the right thing in such instances? No. They should be exposed and held accountable for making false or un-informed promises, but not for doing the right thing. In other words, not that we should care less about campaign promises, but we should care more about what is best for our nation.

Therefore, if anyone has any intelligent and informed arguments on what size of government Ghana needs to meet its demands and challenges; what constitutes a small or a big government in the Ghanaian context; or which ministerial appointments are relevant or irrelevant, we would love to hear these debates. Otherwise, both sides should spare us the pointless debate so that we can focus on important matters.