All people everywhere crave for development in whichever form we look at it. We all admire and wish for good schools, hospices, roads, industries, markets among others not only because they are status symbols, but more importantly because, they make life livable and comfortable for people.The search for these forms of development is so strong that, lack of them makes people feel marginalised and let down by people whose duty it is to allocate these development equitably. They, in the process of venting their anger, propound all forms of theories to explain their 'neglect' and ill treatment in the hand of duty bearers. They sometimes single out for mention a supposed 'colonial pact or policy of exclusion', their lack of representation in the government of the day, as well as their remoteness from the geographical source of political and economic power as the doings of their pitiable state.

The clamour for development is no new thing in Ghana. As we say, 'It is as old as Adam', but in recent times, the call has gathered momentum, and citizens everywhere, are using every legitimate means to demand what they feel belong to them. In some instances, some have threatened a vote en masse against a sitting government if a particular need of theirs  is not attended to with a sense of alacrity. Others also put forward certain demands before the political parties as conditions precedent before they could vote for them. These tendencies are healthy ones; they are not meant to hold governments to ransom, nor blackmail them. They are not indicative of those people's avarice. Instead, they show citizens' participation and accountability in our Democratic dispensation. They are positive responses to their own disappointments in the hands of politicians and duty bearers in the past.

So as was to be expected, ahead of the 2016 general elections, one issue that dominated the campaign was development. The various political parties responded to it by prescribing some key policy issues such as fee-free senior high school education, restoration of cancelled teacher and nursing trainees allowances,  and the more reverberating one: the creation of additional regions.

Being the victors of the 2016 general elections which they won massively and convincingly and after assuming the reins of power, the NPP, with 'Development in Freedom,' as its motto, has been doing quite a lot in fulfilment of its manifesto promises. Indeed, every objective analyst can attest to their boldness in policy implementation so far. The government, led by its leader, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, has been fierce in policy terms. The government has not shied away from implementing  bold  and sometimes unpopular measures and policy interventions aimed at ameliorating the plight of our people.The implementation of the free senior high school programme, creation of additional regions and the implementation of paperless system at the ports are some notable examples of such bold initiatives,  not without challenges though.

This piece however seeks to discuss the creation of additional regions as development tools. Sitting from afar, I can feel the passion in the President, just like his predecessor Presidents, to bring development closer to the people. I can feel his zest to have every part of this country see some appreciable level of development during his tenure. Indeed, I admire his candour with regard to the implementation of his campaign and manifesto promise - creation of new regions in line with Article Five of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.

In justifying the creation of these new regions whose creation process is already in motion, the government holds the view that it is unacceptable for some citizens to travel almost four hours to get to their regional capital be it Takoradi or Ho. But there was an interesting justification given by the four hundred chiefs from the northern part of the Volta region for their demand for a new region. That reason, which is not new is that, there is a colonial policy to underdevelop their side of the region and in extension, some parts of the country. This, as they said, is responsible for their sordid state of underdevelopment.  This reason, I say,  is not new because other people, other than our brothers and sisters from the norrthern part of the Volta region had made similar comments in the past. It is therefore important that  this myth of 'colonial collusion against certain parts of the country' be addressed.

A look at the reasons for the coming of the Europeans to Ghana and Africa will do the trick of dymistifying this age-old 'collusion theory'. The Europeans - Portuguese, Dutch, Danes, Bradenburgers, Prussians and the English - did not come to Ghana and Africa to develop it. They did not come with any development blue print for the Gold Coast now Ghana. Their only reason for coming was exploitation of our natural and later, human resources in the form of slaves . They were in search of raw materials - gold, manganese, bauxite, diamond, oil palm among the rest - to feed their fledgling industries back home.

They were in search of virgin markets for their manufactured goods because of protectionist policies in Europe at the time. This ambition was what drove them to grab lands through treaties and force. Such ambitions necessitated the building of railway infrastructure in resource- based areas in the Gold Coast. Such ambition informed the construction of forts and castles as warehouses and fortresses in the coastal areas of the Gold Coast from Keta in the east  to Appolonia or Nzima in the West. So, the provision of every bit of infrastructure in the Gold Coast was clothed in this imperialist ambition.

A look at the railway map of Ghana reveals this startling fact. It explains why there are no railway lines in Ho or Nkwanta for instance. The harbour built in Takoradi was not meant to develop Sekondi-Takoradi. It was to facilitate easy transportation of commodities to and from Europe. It was no deliberate plan to underdevelop some parts of Ghana by neglecting others. It was about what the Europeans wanted, and where they could get that which they needed. Thus, it is a historical falacy to argue that there was a colonial conspiracy to deprive some parts of the country of their share of development.

What we called development, mainly in the Southern part of Ghana is a product of the colonial agenda of exploitation. It was no coordinated and well intentioned plan of development of the Gold Coast. It was not borne out of any conscious strategy of developing some parts of the Colony whilst underdeveloping others. It was far from it.  The so called development of the South by the Colonial masters was an accidental one. Meanwhile, following the heels of the European merchants were the Missionaries ( Catholic, Basel, Wesleyan, Bremen, AME Zion). They, like their governments and merchants, were also based mainly in the coastal areas and the immediate parts of the interior of the Gold Coast. With the mission of evangelization and the propagation of the Christian faith, they set about building schools and later, health facilities  mainly in the coastal areas of the Gold Coast, and later the interior which included but not limited to Aburi, Akuapim- Akropong.

It was the provision of these schools first as tools of evangelism, which later turned out to be a panacea for development in much of the coastal areas.This further explains why there is some level of development in the coastal and the Southern parts of the Gold Coast.Thus, the so called development of the Southern part of Ghana is down mainly to early arrival of formal education. In the case of the deep interior and the northern parts of the Gold Coast which include areas such as Kete Krachi, Nkwanta and Dambai, the spectre of inter-ethnic wars in many parts of the Gold Coast especially in the coastal and the forest zones discouraged the Missionaries from going beyond the coast and the immmediate interior areas to propagate the gospel through the building of schools.

They were also challenged strongly by Islam which had already taken root in most of those areas during the Trans-Saharan Caravan Trade which predated the coming of the Europeans. Thus, with the exception of few instances, Christian  schools were late in reaching these areas. And since the development of the coastal part of Ghana is due largely to education, its absence or late entrance to some parts of the country accounts for their current state. Indeed, this explains why almost all the  good secondary schools in the country - Wesley Girls, Adisco, Mfantsipim, Presec Legon, Arch Bishop Porter Girls, Bishop Herman College, Mawuli School, Prempeh College, St Louis Girls and Ola Girls, Ho to mention but a few are all found either in the coastal areas or the Southern part of the country. It was not down to any deliberate colonial pact or agreement of underdevelopment of these parts of the country.

The existence of such an agreement will mean there was a deliberate plan to develop some parts of the country. If that were true, then the question will be which part of the country was a beneficiary of the deliberate development agenda of the  Europeans/ English? Of course, it was not Kumasi, because it was one major victim of the British imperialist agenda in the Gold Coast. It suffered outright burns in the hand of the British imperialist forces with an ambition to conquer the Asantes whom they saw as a bigger threat to their imperialist and exploitative agenda. It was not Ho; neither was it Cape Coast nor Akyem Abuakwa.

Now, back to the consensus manifesto agenda of creating new regions out of some of  the existing ones. It appears consensus because both the NPP and the NDC promised to do it if they won the 2016 general election. Maybe, the only difference will be the method of doing it. It may also be about how many regions they will create and where the boundaries will be located. As for those nuances, I know there will be no consensus considering that the constitution itself is not specific on those fine details. To the extent that these political parties have the recognition that some of our people are denied development and so, must be helped is itself apt and commendable, but that recognition should not be taken to mean that all is well with the other halves of those regions they intend to split. It does not also mean that since time immemorial, the state has shirked its responsibilities completely  towards those parts of our country.

The Northern side of the Volta Region and and the Savanna areas of the Brong-Ahafo Region for instance have all been beneficiaries of the pro-poor programmes of Northern Scholarship and the Savanna Accelerated Development Authority (SADA) initiatives. Their continuous underdevelopment notwithstanding these interventions simply means that the state ought to do more for such areas. So, as we are all aware, soon, students will have to unlearn the fact of Ghana having ten regions with ten capital towns to relearn the new fact of Ghana having fourteen, fifteen or sixteen regions with some not too familiar capital towns.

Those offering Geography will also have to relearn how to draw the map of Ghana to reflect the new creations. Some people's birth certificates will also have to be redesigned to include their new status. Labour unions and even government departments such as the Ghana Health Service, the Ghana Education Service and the Ghana Statiscal Service will all have to relook at their data collection regime. New letter heads ( in all the 'affected' areas) will have to be redesigned to reflect the change. At the level of central government, the composition of Cabinet will also be affected  since the Constitution enjoins the President to uphold regional balance in the composition of her/his cabinet. Who knows, our legal luminaries and governance experts might even consider proposing to government to consider increasing the Cabinet composition  from the current upper limit of nineteen to say twenty- three or more  Ministers of State as currently enshrined in article 76(1) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic. Further, future  appointment of Ministers will all be affected. Institutions such as the National House of Chiefs will all undergo some change in composition. These and many others are the ramifications of our desire to have new regions created. I have no doubt however that, with the array of expertise and institutional knowledge available to us as a stable Democracy, we shall once again travail this one too.

But I ask: Must we create new regions before delivering development to people who urgently need it? What is the relationship between regions and development especially in a typical unitary Republic and unicameral legislature such as ours ? I hold the view that with or without the creation of new regions, governments can engineer development in any part of the country, including those parts that urgently need it. After all, in a typical Executive Presidency with enormous and still growing powers, Presidents can do all things save the creation of human beings as long as the will power exists.

If we all reckon that those parts of our country are lagging behind in the attainment of the SDGs for instance, must we just not provide them good and well-equipped schools, universities, hospitals, good roads such as the Eastern Corridor road, markets, telecom infrastructure, housing, water and sanitation, regular supply of farm inputs and other forms of affirmative action programmes without necessarily creating new regions?

The problem with those areas is one of infrastructure and the lack of it. Their roads are deplorable. Their schools are ill-equipped, so learning outcomes are disappointing. Their health care system is fraught with challenges whilst their farmers struggle to get farm inputs and markets for their produce, hence they experience seasonal glut. What they need therefore are good roads, good railway network, high-speed trains, better transport system, good health care system, stable jobs among others.

The harrowing experiences of our brothers and sisters in those areas is also not due necessarily to the fact that they are far away from the regional capitals per se. It is the failure of our dysfunctional decentralization system. Why should a teacher or a nurse in Kete Krachi or Sefwi Bekwai travel to Ho and Takoradi respectively to have her salary arrears processed when she can do so at the district capital if our decentralization system is up to scratch? Why should it take every public and civil servant everywhere in Ghana to dash to Accra to have her/ his  documents attended to if we are honest with our decentralization agenda? Why should a public servant in Kasoa in the Central Region, but closer to the national capital, Accra; or a teacher at Frankadua in the Eastern Region, but closer to Ho in the Volta Region be made to go to Cape Coast and Koforidua respectively to correct the spelling of her wrongly imputed name or age when we can have special arrangements in place for all such individuals who live very close to particular regional capitals to visit such capitals where they will have special desks that could attend to their requests or better still, such issues be addressed at the district level ? So, as long as our decentralization agends is reduced to the mere election of assemblywomen and men and the periodic creation of new Assemblies without any real efforts at truly decentralizing or devolving parts of the powers of the Central government to the grassroot people, no amount of creation of regions will necessarily solve the torturous challenges people go through to access government business or transact daily businesses.

Much as it is without that the creation of the new regions will come along with the provision of new decentralised bodies such as Regional Coordinating Councils, Regional House of Chiefs, Regional Hospital, and maybe a university all of which will be located at the new regional capitals, how do we guarantee that this creation will automatically translate into the holistic development of the new regions so that in some few years to come we will not be hearing of the same clamour for development and eventually, a call for the creation of new regions out of the 'new ones?' How do we guarantee that this creation is the magic wand that will unlock the untapped potentials of these areas to set them on the path of development? Again, whilst hyping the development expectations of the areas concerned, do we also have in place expectation management mechanisms especially for the first few years after the creation?

How does the creation of new regions in a typical unitary and unicameral legislative system as Ghana's inure to the overnight development of those areas we have all identified as needing urgent development? This is so because, the district system is our growth pole in Ghana. Most fund allocations are done on district basis. It is the vehicle for the development of the regions. The District Assemblies Common Fund

(DACF), the single largest source of fund for the DMMs is an example. Even the MP's Common Fund is shared on Constituency basis, not regional basis. The annual national  budget also makes provisions for the various Districts/ Municipalities/ Metropolitan Assemblies within the regions, but not the region per se. Thus, unlike in a typical Federal regime such as Nigeria's and the USA's, our regions do not have any real term budgetary allocations that could propel their development. They have little or no control over the resources of their areas. They are in no way autonomous of the Central government in Accra. Their destinies are tied to those of Accra.  As such, what the people need are more districts as growth poles and as a way of bringing governance closer to them. After all, it is the development of the individual districts ( in generic terms) which constitute the overall development of a given region.

Further, at a time we are saying that the 'meat is down to the bone', because a greater chunk of our national revenue is expended on public sector emoluments and compensation, is the creation of these new regions not going to further burden the state financially? In other words, the State will not only have to provide decentralized departments ( which I reckon will also lead to some job creation) but that she must also find scarce resources in compensating those public and civil servants as well as Article 71 office holders who may be deployed to man these departments. Must the State, led by our governments, not be working towards a reduction in public sector compensation and emoluments so as to make some real savings for public investment in the provision of critical infrastructure for the take off of the economy ? After all, is that not part of the reason why we went to the IMF for policy credibility ?

Much as there will always be justifications for the creation of additional regions, there is  scepticism that unless we take a critical look at Article Five, ( I consider it unrestrictive in its current form), there may be a domino effect some day. As long as all what it takes for a new region to be considered is for people in a given geographical area to put in petitions to that effect after which the process may be triggered, we may in the future have many more areas which may also feel neglected demanding for the creation of new regions for them as perceived panacea for their pitiable state. If this happens, we may begin to have four or five district regions whilst the creation of regions could be reduced to district creations.

The bigger problem meanwhile, is the way and manner we site our capital -district, regional and as some may argue, even the national one. It may interest readers to know that it is easier for some people to access the national capital and some regional capitals than their district capital. The reason being that the road infrastructure and the transport system that connect those towns/ villages to the national/ regional capital is relatively better as compared to those that link those villages to their own district capitals. In the midst of these challenges, the creation of new regions will not necessarily address the problem of easy access unless we trigger a deliberate process of addressing  the infrastructural gap in those areas. In fact, this explains why even though Accra, the national capital, is remote from many parts of the country, people do not suffer to access it. It explains why an average of one million people enter and leave Accra daily. The open secret of Accra is its superb infrastructure in the form of good road network, better transport system, efficient telecommunication system, better health care system and well established schools and universities. All these can be replicated elsewhere with or without the creation of new regions if we so desire to do it.

Going forward, our governments, instead of prioritizing the creation of new regions with new capitals should consider designating industrial capitals in addition to the existing administrative ones in each region and district. This, if considered, can help spread development in each region and district. Secondly, the government should trigger some affirmative action programmes through the provision of state- of- the-art infrastructure in those areas which are lagging in terms of development. There should be massive injection of capital in the provision of universities, hospitals, clinics, markets, telecom infrastructure, better housing, water and sanitation, industries among the rest in those areas. This will automatically open up those areas.

Besides, the government should prioritise those areas in the creation of the Development Authorities which it intends creating. The government could engineer public-private partnership modules such as Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) or Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) to promote industrialization and infrastracture development in those areas. The government should also take another look at the way it sites district and regional capitals. Also, its paperless system policy  should not be limited to the ports only; it should affect all decentralised bodies. It does not make too much of business sense in this age of high speed internet, technology and social media penetration for people to travel three or four hours to access a given service at  the district, regional or national capital.

Also, the government and all stakeholders must show true commitment to our decentralization agenda by promoting true devolution of powers to the district level where power should really belong in line with the article one of our Constitution that sovereignty resides in the hands of the people.

Penultimately, the government should not only look at the creation of new regions. It should  also take a look at Article 5 (1) (b) of the  1992 Constitution which also stresses the need for alteration of the boundaries of the regions. This is so important considering that some of our borders are not really clear. The distance between Atimpoku and Asikuma depicts how unclear some of our regional boundaries are. Some of the residents in those areas might not even know which region exactly they belong as they lie between the Volta and the Eastern regions.

Finally, constitutional experts as well as the government may also have to take another look at Article Five of the Constutution to see if we may have to make it a bit more restrictive and remove some of the discretionary powers that appear embedded in it. For example, what constitutes an affected area in the event of creating, altering or merging  regions ? Or better still, which people qualify to vote in the referendum that determines the creation of new regions? Should it be all registered voters in the region status quo ante? Or it should include only those living in the area yet-to-be designated as a region? They may also have to consider introducing some conditions under which new regions could be created as pertains in the creation of new districts during when factors such as population size, geography and economic viability are considered. As it stands, even Greater Accra Region, one of the smallest, can also get split if petitions to that effect are submitted some day.

We should also have in place better expectation management strategies to manage the expectations of the areas concerned. But more importantly, the government ought to recognize that there are structural challenges in our development planning, design and distribution in the country. Indeed, many parts of this country  could not be said to be developed considering the basic problems they have to grapple with daily. Those who know the Southern part of the Volta region which includes areas such as Adaklu, Afadzato South, Shime in the Keta Municipality, Akatsi North and the island communities of the Kpando Municipality will attest to the true underdevelopment of them, although as things stand, they form the bandwagon of developed Volta South. Against the backdrop of uncertainty, the creation of new regions may not necessarily be the indispensable panacea for the underdevelopment of those areas unless it is accompanied by strategic investment in infrastructure, not only in the new regional capitals, but in most parts of the regions yet to be  created.

 

The writer, Nicholas Mawunya Gborse is a Political and Social Researcher, Analyst, Educational Consultant, Leadership Incubator, Change Agent, Public Policy Advocate, and Public Speaker.

Contact him on sirnisco@yahoo.com