Political parties are a group of people who seek the mandate of the people through the ballot box in order to implement their programs and policies. Their mandate to govern arises from the consent of the electorate, and for that matter they are obligated to seek and promote the wishes and aspirations of the people. Though, it is assumed that political parties obtain political power on the basis of the programs captured on their manifestoes, this assumption is not always the reality. This is because electorates exercise their franchise base on other reasons, apart from the manifestoes politicians propose. For example, most people vote strictly according to party lines and not because they believe in the agenda of their parties. Others also vote on factors such as ethnicity, religion, personality of the aspirants, sympathy, inter alia, meaning that governments should not always stick to their manifestoes when they are not going to be in the interest of the people. They do so at their peril.

Regardless of whichever side of the political aisle the citizenry fall, most of them wish the government well. If anything at all, we want them to succeed so that future governments can build on the good legacy that they leave behind. Forward ever, backward never. But, then, some of these agendas and the willingness of our governments to pursue them irrespective of their adverse impact on the economy are worrying. They seem to say that my way or the highway. This is absolutely disastrous and has the ability of drawing us back. The government should understand that they will never be in power eternally no matter how hard they try to pursue this agenda. What they need to do is to strive to leave behind an enduring legacy, and stop living under the illusion that no matter what they do or don’t do, the electorates will be so “stupid” to renew their mandate come 2012. Winning the next elections should not be their sole preoccupation, but rather transformations that can bring improvements in the lives of the citizenry.

The electorates in Ghana are getting it, and doing so big-time. They are now interested in their well-being and not just political rhetoric. They don’t believe in words, but action. They expect their politicians not only to talk the talk, but also walk the walk. They don’t only look at the seemingly “good” intentions of politicians, but instead how these intentions could contribute to the improvements in their lives – nothing more, nothing less. Savvy? The government, since attaining power has taken some actions which have not been in the interest of the nation, not at all. The first major mistake they committed was their reduction of the price of fuel about a month into their mandate, when they knew that the country was going to lose a whopping 50 million dollars. The most unfortunate angle to this decision was the subsequent upward adjustment of the price of fuel only a few weeks later. Their end will obviously be determined by their beginning. Their desire and quest to stick to the agendas on their manifesto even when they do not fly in the minds of the folks will come to hound them, if they don’t listen to the voice of reasoning.

What even crossed their minds to revert the duration at the Senior high school to 3 years? What were they thinking? For me the reasons they have put forward for embarking on such a move are laughable. This action taken by the government is unfortunate and smacks of high ego. They are just flexing their muscles, behaving like Napoleon in Animal Farm. This is what they are saying in the nutshell- we had it at 3 years, you changed it to 4 years, and since we are back again, we must take it to where we had it! This is power play, dudes. It defies common sense. For instance, is it reasonable to change a system which has been in operation for barely a year without assessing its efficacy and effectiveness? Come on, are we serious at all? I was expecting them to allow the current system to run for at least a few years, let say 5 (middle-range), evaluate it before taking any action, when it is really needed. What they have done indicates that because they opposed it whilst in opposition, and even have it on their manifesto, they have to “kill” it no matter what. In fact, this decision does not make sense, to say the least. Second, the argument that countries like Sierra Leone, Nigeria, etc. operate the 3 year system and as such there is no need for us to change ours is atrocious. The question is, are the needs of these countries the same us ours? Why do we compare our system to that of countries that are no better than ours? What is the educational standard in these countries? When we are ferreting out ways of improving the educational standards of our country, we should do so dispassionately and not with the aim of discrediting what a prior administration has done. We need to transcend partisanship if we want to transform our socio –economic fortunes. No “politricks” when it comes to education. Who told them that the educational systems in the sub-region should be the same? Germany has a different educational system as compared to the other countries in Western Europe. What is the government talking about?

Third, the talk about quality and not quantity is hilarious. I agree that we should not sacrifice quality for quantity, but does it not make sense to put in measures in improving the quality of education in terms of 1) making the teaching profession attractive, 2) developing teachers, 3) providing efficient supervision, 4) focusing on technology, and 5) evaluating the performance of teachers before doing what they have done? Listen, putting in these measures will surely take years and not just talk. We have to start laying the foundation for an efficient and sustainable educational system. Sirs, your prescription is a recipe for the further destruction of our already destroyed educational system. What about if a different government is formed in 2012 and also decides to revert to the 4 years? You should not be hell-bent in pushing aside what your predecessor has done if it will help in addressing some of the ills in the educational sector, though you might be holding a contrary opinion. What the government has done is just putting the cart before the horse. Finally, is the issue of cost. What is confusing about the hullabaloo about the duration of education at the senior high school is the question about cost. It is interesting that the same people, who are saying that the 4 years duration at the SHS level is going to burden our economy financially, are also talking about doing our best in improving the educational standards in the country. What is the difference here? How are we going to incur the additional cost they are talking about? By incurring additional cost, are they insinuating that we are going to increase the salaries of the already impoverished teachers, which for me is a good idea or going to recruit more teachers to the field? What is wrong if both are done? The point is this; the duration at the senior high school level is not going to be related to cost, not at all. If even the additional year at that level demands that we incur extra cost, what is the wrong about that? Didn’t the government approve a 50,000 dollar car loan each for the 230 member parliament? Which is more important, the hen or the egg? Come on, let us think into the future and stop this political gimmickry. The bottom line is that quality education demands huge financial commitment. The moment you sacrifice cost in educational improvements, you can never ever achieve quality. If one of the reasons for changing the 4 years to 3 years is to reduce cost, then we should as well reduce it further to 2 years. This is because the cost will be lesser! But no country can ever succeed without investing hugely in education. Even the United States of America, the most developed and successful country in the world still invests hugely in education and devotes much money for research. As a matter of fact, the focus of the Obama administration hinges on 3 sectors of their economy: Education, Energy, and Health. When Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the house of representatives was asked to comment on the above indicators by John King, the host of the State of the Union a couple of weeks back, her answer was that it is good to have energy efficiency, it is equally good to transform health care, but these two indicators cannot be achieved without an efficient and effective education (State of the Union, 26. 7. 2009). I got it, I believe you as well, but not sure about our government.

We change educational systems based upon scientific research and not just on forums and opinions charted along predetermined ends. President Mills, let the current system run, at least until we can prove scientifically that it was a white elephant. God bless Ghana!!

Source: Kingsley Nyarko, PhD, Educational Consultant, IAF- Munich (kingpong73@yahoo.com)