Former Unilever Executive Critiques Opacity in Ghana’s Political Financing
Yaw Nsarkoh critiques the lack of transparency in Ghana’s campaign financing, arguing it undermines democracy. He points out the absence of knowledge about candidates’ funding and compares Ghana’s democracy to a “Santa Claus democracy” where money influences elections. His comments stress the need for accountability and systemic reform to address these issues.
In a recent interview, Yaw Nsarkoh, the former Executive Vice President of Unilever Ghana and Nigeria, illuminated what he perceives as a significant flaw in Ghana’s democracy. He spoke on JoyNews’ PM Express about the lack of transparency in political campaign financing, emphasizing, “No one knows who funds our presidents.” This lack of clarity extends not only to the current president’s campaign expenses, but also to those of opposition candidates, raising pressing concerns about the integrity of the electoral process.
Nsarkoh’s frustration was apparent as he expressed that in other democratic nations, details regarding campaign financing are available to the public. He noted, “Even in America, we know how much a presidential candidate raised. Sometimes it’s on TV.” This contrast begged the question: Why is such transparency absent in Ghana? He described the situation as a “Santa Claus democracy,” where elections, he argues, are becoming transactional and driven by untraceable money and dubious influences.
In his lecture, titled “Iniquities of Iniquity in Our Santa Claus Democracy,” presented at the Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences, Nsarkoh echoed the sentiments of Claude Ake, a noted political scientist, who described Ghana’s transition to democracy in the early 1990s as reluctant and superficial. He argued, “Ake used Ghana as an example of a reluctant transition. We opened up space just enough to say the forms of democracy were in place. But the substance? That’s where we’ve failed.” This failure, according to Nsarkoh, can be traced back to a lack of frameworks to properly institutionalize political financing.
The absence of accountability mechanisms has fostered a corrupt political environment, with Nsarkoh warning, “If you and I are in the drug trade, we can carry sacks of money and fund people who will become powerful actors.” This raises serious concerns about who holds power, as he explained that even losing candidates can wield influence through their financial backers. The problem is not confined to Ghana; according to Nsarkoh, these issues are pervasive across the African continent, as he elaborated on the need to address systemic flaws rather than personalizing the debate.
He urged media professionals and the public to ask tough questions about campaign financing, stating, “You probably have more access than I. But even you, can you tell me where the money came from? That’s the problem.” To him, a democracy lacking transparency is no more than a facade, claiming, “If we can’t trace money in politics, then our democracy is not a tool for development. It’s a mechanism for elite enrichment.”
In summary, Nsarkoh’s remarks provoke critical reflection on Ghana’s democratic practices. His compelling arguments highlight the urgent need for transparency in political financing, calling for a broader dialogue among citizens, media, and civil society to address these fundamental issues. Without such changes, he suggests that the integrity of Ghana’s democracy remains in jeopardy.
Yaw Nsarkoh’s remarks underscore a critical gap in Ghana’s democratic framework, highlighting transparency in political financing as a pressing issue. His insights reveal that without accountability and clarity, the democratic process risks becoming corrupted by undisclosed influences and transactional politics. The call to action for media and citizens to demand greater transparency is pivotal for fostering a genuinely representative political environment in Ghana.
Original Source: www.myjoyonline.com
