OF CHALK AND THE WELFARE STATE

“A well-designed welfare state can actually encourage people to take chances with their jobs and be more, not less, open to changes.”

― Ha-Joon Chang, 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism

“The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites.”

Thomas Sowell

Enter Welfare State. The welfare state (German sozialstaat; Italian Stato sociale) concept refers to a situation where the state plays and maintains a role in the protection and promotion of the social and economic well-being of its citizens, often through the creation of welfare or (the more fashionably named) Social Protection programs. It is thought that the state through these welfare programs create a safety net meant to shield the poor and vulnerable in society.

Enter “Chalk”. Ghana’s Vice President’s wife went to Kukurantumi to donate computers to a Presbyterian School and a headmistress or headteacher (whichever applies), asked her to convey to the “elders” in Accra that the school lacked CHALK, log books and other materials for teaching. The Veep’s wife felt this was a small matter that could be handled locally (or innovatively) through the use of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) and Old Boy Associations, and hence the now infamous “…we won’t give you chalk today or tomorrow” speech.

Enter Needless Hullabaloo and Activism. Tapes of the “chalk speech” diffused quickly and led to some heavy bashing of the government and the Veep’s wife. Some have gone as far as saying that page 48 of Ghana’s Free Compulsory Universal Basic Education (FCUBE) document provided that government provides chalk, log books, pens et al whilst parents provided school uniforms and shoes for the pupils (veracity not confirmed). And then came the activism. Some people started campaigns towards the donation of chalk to the schools in Kukurantumi.

Enter the Verdict. First of all, the government is at fault and should be blamed for all of this. And not only this government, but all governments which have ruled Ghana in the fourth republican period. All of these governments instituted welfare or social protection programs. The tragedy is that these programs were not to genuinely provide or safeguard the poor, but to win political capital and the votes that come with such. The programs were initiated so their governments would be remembered as “caring” for the people. Thus the NPP talks about the Health Insurance Scheme as though it is their personal property, whilst President John Mahama and the NDC are distributing free books, school uniforms, shoes and sanitary pads in a bid to be remembered as providing quality education. What these actions do, over time, is to create a sense of entitlement where people think they are owed such items by the state, and refuse to do anything to help themselves.

Secondly, education is not the sole burden of the state. It is a shared responsibility where both government and the citizenry play roles. The provision of some basic materials like chalk should not be made out to be an entrenched role for the state. Should a headmistress lock up her school and go home because government has not provided chalk? Would it not be more appropriate, whilst she waits for government provision, to find ways of proving chalk to keep the school running including going to the PTA for such aid? Should the government provide anything and everything for the citizenry?

Lastly, Ghanaians are hypocrites. Yes all of us are, and the explanation is this. We love to tell the youth – especially University graduates – to think outside the box, to be innovative. Yet we huff, puff and play the tomfoolery when the Veep’s wife tells a headmistress to be innovative? Or is our understanding of “innovation” limited to the catchword we have made it out to be? Or is it only the youth who have to be innovative? What is wrong with the Veep’s wife asking a headmistress to be innovative?

Let us remember that education is a shared responsibility. Who provides what should not be so entrenched as to cause people to refuse to help themselves. If we entrench or seek to entrench roles, as a former director of the Ghana Education Service has sought to do, then the government must limit itself to the efficient supply of chalk, log books, canes and dusters and stay aloof  about whether the children will come to school barefoot, bare-chested or bare-breasted. After all, as per page 48 of the FCUBE document (religiously quoted by the former GES director), the government must provide chalk!