LIGHT BILLS: Akufo-Addo’s Government Can Reduce It

President Elect of Ghana, Nana Akufo Addo

By Ekow Mensah

The Akufo-Addo Administration has an uphill task to perform as it struggles to fulfill its campaign promises from 7^th January, 2017.

Interestingly leaders of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and persons tipped to play key roles in the new administration insist that all the promises will be kept.

For many voters, one of the Key promises was the substantial reductions in utility tariffs especially for water and electricity.

Financial and energy experts contacted by “The Insight” say that the promise to bring down electricity bills is doable but could lead to other very serious consequences.

Currently, the cost of generating electric power is increasing and if government decides to reduce electricity tariffs, it would have to find the money to pay subsidies.

Ghana depends on both hydro and thermal power in a generation mix which is increasingly becoming more reliant on thermal.

In the 1970’s hydro generation contributed more than 80 per cent of electricity supply but this has shifted dramatically with thermal generation contributing close to 80 percent or more of the national electricity need.

The cost implication of this shift is huge.

Hydro generation of power cost a maximum of three cents per unit whiles the maximum cost for thermal generation could very easily hit the 36 cents mark.

This means that the range of policy options for reducing the cost of electricity to the consumer are limited.

The Government can substantially reduce the levels of taxes or even abolish some taxes on electricity consumption.

This will also lead to substantial loss of revenue for a government which has promised to reduce the Value Added Tax (VAT), corporate Tax, the lending rate and some import duties.

Already only 600,000 public sector workers consume more than 50 per cent of national revenue as remuneration.

It must also be remembered that the Government is indebted to the Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG) to the tune of more than Gh₵500 million.

There can be no doubt that the Akufo-Addo administration can reduce the cost of electricity to the consumer but the most important question is, at what other cost?

Time and only time will tell!

Editorial

IMF PROGRAMME

The Insight has serious doubts about the willingness of an Akufo-Addo administration to break free from the stranglehold of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank notwithstanding the campaign rhetoric of the New Patriotic Party (NPP).

However, if Nana Akufo-Addo and his government stay true to their posturing on these two institutions, Ghana can begin to make some progress.

Indeed at the insistence of the two institutions, Ghana has been firmly placed on the neo-liberal path since 1983 with disastrous consequences for the working people.

The current rate of unemployment is partly the result of the privatization of more than 400 state enterprises developed by the Nkrumah Government.

It is also the direct result of a freeze in public sector employment and what has largely been referred to as the rationalization of labour.

Over the last 30 years or more, the national currency has been devalued by more than 26,000 percent and the state has reneged on its responsibility to provide social services to the people.

The Insight will fully support any move by the Akufo-Addo administration to break free from the impositions of the IMF and the World Bank.

AKUFO ADDO ASSURES NDC MEMBERS

Asiedu Nketsia, NDC General Secretary

President-elect Nana Akufo Addo has promised not to victimize political opponents adding that “No member of the NDC has anything to fear from my future government” as the New Patriotic Party prepares to take over the governance of Ghana.

In a letter written to former president Rawlings to thank him for congratulating he [Akufo Addo], the president-elect said in part that “… I would need the unalloyed support of every Ghanaian, irrespective of their ethnic groups or religious or political affiliation.

“There can be no room in such an undertaking for witch-hunting or acts of political vendetta or harassment. No member of the NDC has anything to fear from my future government.” Already some members of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) say they fear acts of victimization from the NPP which was declared the winning party after the December 7 polls.

A transition process has began to hand over power to the New Patriotic Party (NPP) which would be co-chaired by President Mahama and President-elect, Nana Akufo Addo. The thank you statement by Nana Addo further indicated that “I am fully committed to pursuing an anti-corruption drive across the board.” 

The 2016 US presidential elections and the Electoral College

Hillary Clinton, Democratic Presidential Candidate in 2016 elections

By Allison Drew, Nov 24, 2016

The US electoral system shows a profound disjuncture between law and legitimacy. A system that so disenfranchises the masses of Americans is illegitimate. Democratic elections must be based on the popular vote.

 ‘The people have spoken. Donald Trump will be the next president,’ President Obama told the American people on November 14. The people indeed spoke. The majority elected Hillary Clinton, who leads Trump by over two million votes. This will be the second time in sixteen years that America’s popular vote has been superseded by the Electoral College.

Yet most American political leaders remain silent about the seeming irrelevance of the popular vote. The best Senator Sanders has offered is: ‘We may want to take a look at the whole Electoral College, which is seating a man for president who didn’t get the most votes. This is something we need a serious discussion on’ (USA Today, November 14).

However, the slogan chanted across the country – ‘Not my president’ – suggests that irrespective of the Electoral College’s legality, millions of Americans no longer believe in its legitimacy.

Legitimacy concerns the right of an authority to govern. In a democracy, the acceptance of that authority’s right to govern and the belief in the political process reflect popular perceptions that the elected government follows democratic principles and is accountable to the people, who express their will through the vote.

To take a well-known international example, nowhere has the disjuncture between law and legitimacy been more apparent than in apartheid South Africa. The apartheid system – an elaborate legal edifice to ensure white racial domination in all areas of life – was illegitimate, both in the eyes of black South Africans and, increasingly over the 20th century, in the eyes of much of the world. Its lack of legitimacy reflected its denial of equal rights and political representation to the black population.

The US electoral system, too, shows a profound disjuncture between law and legitimacy, a disjuncture that is today reaching a crisis. Historically, African-Americans have faced repeated obstacles to their electoral participation. Now, the Electoral College is effectively disenfranchising millions of Americans of all colors and ethnic backgrounds.

The Electoral College originated at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. In a direct popular election, the northern states would have outnumbered the southern slave-holding states, whose slaves could not vote. However, a compromise allowed the southern states to count each of their non-voting slaves as 3/5 of a person in order to increase the number of their electors. The more slaves, the more electors.

After the Civil War, the freed slaves achieved the right to vote through the 15th constitutional amendment. But white southerners imposed local and state barriers impeding African-Americans from voting. A century later, the 1965 Voting Rights Act overturned those barriers. However, in 2013 the US Supreme Court struck down section 4 of the act, which stipulated which states were required to have changes to their voting laws cleared by a federal authority. The impact of the Supreme Court decision was immediate. Freed from federal oversight, North Carolina, for example, passed regulations restricting the African-American vote. Barely were these overturned in July 2016 than local election boards implemented other restrictions. The concerted efforts across many states to suppress the African-American vote has been compounded by the American system of mass incarceration, which disproportionately impacts African-Americans, since those convicted of felonies lose their right to vote. As the black vote has been eviscerated in one community after another, whites have gained disproportionately in political influence.

The forthcoming Electoral College vote will be legal under the current law. But that does not mean that it will be seen as legitimate by millions of Americans. The African-American struggle for the franchise and the struggle for the popular vote to be paramount in choosing our president have converged.

Just as those who oppose the Electoral College and its decision must respect the law – while not forgetting the honorable history of non-violent civil disobedience against unjust laws – so politicians must respect the belief of millions of Americans that a system that so systematically disenfranchises masses of Americans is illegitimate. The Supreme Court must put a definitive end to the endless attempts to disenfranchise African-Americans, and the Electoral College must be abolished. Our democratic elections must be based on the popular vote.

It is ironic that just as South Africa gained its universal democracy at the end of the 20th century, so the disregard of the popular vote in the United States is becoming a major issue in the 21st century. The struggle for democracy in the US may well become, this century, what the South African struggle represented in the past.

* Allison Drew is Honorary Professor, University of Cape Town, and Professor Emeritus, University of York.

Three ways to rethink youth livelihoods in agriculture

By Grace Mwaura

At a time when human well-being is measured not only in terms of economic development, but also on the resilience of the environment and the society we live in, it is important to question the nature of livelihood opportunities that young people are being encouraged to pursue and their implications for the future.

Assume that three in five African youth are meaningfully engaged in agriculture. Assume they are investing across the value chain – in production, processing, manufacturing, distribution and, of course, are also the major consumers. This could not only address the global food demand (which FAO estimates will increase by 70 percent by 2050), but also would translate into a significant 60 percent of the much needed youth jobs. This notwithstanding, the World Bank, Sumberg et al, and my earlier analyses on African youth in agriculture already suggest that young people are more likely to engage in agriculture as a transition into other off-farm rural/urban work opportunities. Thus, it is equally important to understand the very nature of youth livelihoods in agriculture, temporary or otherwise.

The point here is, increasing the number of (young/new) farmers will indeed address an immediate need for employment and food security in Africa; but it will also illuminate the systemic challenge concerning the future of farming. For how long can young/new farmers sustainably engage in the agricultural sector, securing their livelihoods, improving the economy, while also safeguarding the environment? I will highlight three key issues that the narrative of enticing young people into agriculture has not yet considered: - the ecological footprint, markets and the policy incentives.

The footprint

My argument is that, in addition to real incomes and enhanced capabilities, youth opportunities agriculture must also contribute to ensuring that the agricultural landscapes remain resilient to the changing environment. To achieve such transformative work opportunities, what we really need to be addressing is the ecological footprint of young/new farmers in relation to increasing agricultural productivity, decent employment opportunities amidst environmental changes. Cleland & Machiyama argue that a demographic dividend could turn into a challenge as the growing rural and urban populations put more pressure on remaining arable land, soil and water resources are exhausted as we increase production, and more land is degraded due to over-cropping and over-grazing among other intensive activities.

Globally, 13 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions come from the agriculture sector, with Africa contributing about 15 percent of that. These emissions will grow substantially in Sub-Saharan Africa, given the increasing demand for food and the availability of land in these countries that could be put under crop and livestock production. Essentially, this means that the current young/new farmers will be faced with the future challenge of reducing emissions from their agricultural practices. Yet, current efforts to engage them in agriculture do not inform or prepare them for such realities. Away from emissions reduction, let’s approach the issue from the perspective of soil and water conservation strategies, the conservation of agrobiodiversity, and the resilience of agricultural landscapes.

Better still, let’s employ systems thinking, and appreciate the food, water, energy, and environment nexus in an agricultural landscape. Even with all these approaches, sadly, the current narrative to entice young people into agriculture rarely addresses how young farmers can participate in a climate-smart agriculture. This makes the current youth agricultural opportunities a time bomb for future agricultural contribution, and vulnerability, to the impacts of climate change.

The markets

Proponents of youth entrepreneurship and employment rarely respond to the question of whether labour markets and free trade facilitate or hinder sustainable youth livelihoods in the agriculture sector. Until now, young people work in agriculture as part of a household and as informal sector employees. These work opportunities are largely categorized as un(der)employment. The current narrative and approach seeks to increase youth engagement by encouraging them to establish agribusinesses. The shifting of goalposts from un(der)employment to self-employment is a complex twist of youth opportunity spaces and as well a disguise of the reality of the marginalization of young people in the formal and informal economies.

First, there is an assumption that young people will earn decent incomes from agriculture if they become entrepreneurs; yet there is little evidence that entrepreneurship is a solution to the eminent agricultural challenges. Second is the assumption that un(der)employed young people are willing to become entrepreneurs; yet there is little evidence that entrepreneurship is a solution to existing youth unemployment challenges. Evidently, we have not addressed the challenges of current farmers and unemployed youth: why do we then anticipate that unemployed young people can enter the agriculture sector and become successful agripreneurs without addressing existing systemic challenges?

On the other side, there is an idealized view that production is indeed the problem of African agriculture. However, markets and infrastructure to facilitate access and affordability of food are equally important. Against the backdrop of a projected green revolution in Africa, staple food imports continue to increase on the continent and in most cases are cheaper than locally produced foods. On the contrary, Africa feeds the world with the some of the best and high-value crops. It is obvious that this market inequality hurdle remains a geopolitical battle that African countries could barely win. Under such a context, what incentive would a new/young farmer get for participating in the current agricultural markets? Would young/new farmers perpetuate the existing market trends that exacerbate global food crisis, or would they have the opportunity to participate in a food sovereignty movement that increases opportunities for social equity and inclusion?

Policy incentives

We could argue that the solutions to the above two issues lie in the political will to implement existing policies. Nevertheless, we do not currently have adequate policies that favour sustainable youth work opportunities. At the heart of national and regional policy reforms to achieve these transformations is the need to prioritize safeguarding the sovereignty of local farmers, their seeds, and their land resources; establishing agricultural processing and manufacturing industries so that more young people are absorbed across the agriculture value chains; and enhancing rural infrastructure to facilitate distribution, access and affordability even in the most remote areas of Africa.

Additionally, policies that promote research and localized innovations to increase crop productivity and resilience of agriculture to climate change, while also being supported by policies that allow exportation of African-processed foods, would further widen the opportunity space for young/new farmers.

Most importantly, there is need to implement policies that favour innovative financing mechanisms for young people, promote intra-trade, and facilitate environmental integrity and social equity in agriculture and across all sectors. Above all, the implementation of these policies is reliant on peaceful countries and stable governments that invest in agricultural sector reforms for the benefit of their citizens.

Moving forward, our ability to capture the potential of the youth will determine whether we address the global food crisis and the interconnected challenge of climate change, thus attaining sustainability. Essentially, envisioning a sustainable future for young farmers helps demystify the narrative that unemployed youth, provided with financial support and enticed to use ICTs, will be attracted and retained in agricultural livelihood opportunities. Our attention should focus then on whether indeed our efforts to increase employment opportunities in agriculture align with our overall vision of sustainable development.

* Dr Grace M. Mwaura is a Non-residential Research Fellow at African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS).

The “Left” Is No Longer Left or Progressive. It Has Been Co-Opted

Syrian President Bashar Assad

By Mark Taliano

An effective form of suppression and control is the co-optation of the so-called “progressive left” in such a way that self-described “progressives” or “leftists” find themselves unwittingly supporting terrorism.

Well-documented facts pertaining to the 9/11 wars, all supported by sustainable evidence, have barely made inroads into the collective consciousness of Western media consumers. Despite the presence of five years of sustainable evidence that contradicts the Western narratives, people still believe the “official” lies.

The consensus of ignorance is sustained by what Michel Chossudovsky describes as an “American Inquisition”. Beneath the protection of this psychological operation, the engineered enemy is Islam, and the Global War On Terrorism (GWOT) has become a brand to disguise imperial wars of aggression as “humanitarian”.

Thus, huge sums of public monies are diverted from worthwhile, domestic projects such as healthcare schools and roads, to support a criminal Project for a New American Century (PNAC) that is globalizing death, poverty, and destruction as the U.S led empire tries to impose a unilateral model of control over the world. The U.S is said to be “exceptional”, and therefore the rightful ruler. Manifest Destiny writ large.

Dissent is suppressed within the framework of corporate media monopolies. Predominant narratives are supported by corrupt “NGOs” – totally bereft of objectivity — and intelligence agency “fronts”. Real investigative journalism offering historical context and legitimate evidence are relegated to the fringes, far outside the domain of the broad-based “consensus of misunderstanding.” So-called “progressives” (presumably unwittingly) support Canada’s close relationships with Wahabbi Saudi Arabia, Apartheid Israel, and even the foreign mercenaries currently invading Syria (ie ISIS and al Nursra Front/al Qaeda).

Some of the more pernicious lies covering the escalating war on Syria include unsubstantiated memes that fit neatly into the propagandists’ toolbox of false representations, and of projecting the West’s crimes onto the victims (Syria and Syrians).

To clarify: the War on Syria is not a “civil” war; the “uprising” was not “democratic”; Assad does not “starve his own people”; Assad, does not “bomb his own people”; Assad is the democratically-elected president of Syria, and not a “brutal dictator”.

Conclusive evidence demonstrates, and has demonstrated for years, that the war is an invasion by Western proxies, which include ISIS and al Qaeda/al Nursra Front, and that there are no “moderates”.

The initial uprisings were marred by armed, foreign-backed criminals, against unarmed, innocent people, unarmed soldiers, and unarmed police. Peaceful grassroots protests were hijacked by these murderous foreign-backed elements (as was the case in Ukraine) – all consistent with “hybrid war” as elaborated by Andrew Korybko. The illegal sanctions imposed by the West – including Canada – coupled with terrorist practices of theft and hoarding of humanitarian aid – are responsible for the starvation.

Claims that Assad “kills his own people” were further debunked when the so-called “Caesar photos” evidence was proven to be a fraud. In fact, many Syrians criticize Assad for not carpet bombing terrorist occupied areas (as US occupiers did in Fallujah, for example). They sometimes refer to Assad as “Mr. Soft Heart”.

The disillusionment of the so-called “left” and “progressives” is exemplified by a piece from the “Socialist Project”: Solidarity With the People of Syria! Build the Antiwar Movement! where journalist Richard Fidler writes,

In that country,[Syria] the rebel cities that rose up four years ago in revolt against the brutal Bashar al- Assad dictatorship are now under a genocidal siege, bombed and assaulted from the air by Assad’s military, aided and abetted by Russian fighter jets and bombers. Their desperate fight for survival, if unsuccessful, will put paid to the Arab Spring and with it the potential for building a democratic, anti-imperialist governmental alternative in the Middle East for an extended period to come. Socialists everywhere have every interest in supporting the Syrian people and opposing that war.

This inversion of the well-documented truth is commonly accepted by so-called “progressives” and “leftists”. Thus, a firm foundation of lies that serves as a sanctified justification for global war and terror, remains strong.

The taboos need to be lifted, and the repeated lies contradicted.

We need to shatter the “Inquisition” which subverts freedom of thought and expression as it protects the criminal cabal perpetrating and orchestrating this global catastrophe. Truth and justice must prevail over lies and crimes. Currently, the opposite is the case.

The original source of this article is Global Research