This is term you might definitely will become familiar with if you should ever decide to make the decision to visit Ghana. I'm told it's not unique to Ghana, but I think the flavor here is particularly strong.
So what is Idoncareism? It is the nonchalant lackadaisical approach to performing tasks of serious import and/or a refusal to take responsibility for one's part in the way society turns out.
A lot of people in Ghana are actually not happy with the current state of affairs. Years of being concerned, caring about what they want to see changed has given many of them health issues (ulcers, high/low blood pressure, migraines, etc). And for all their concern, little has happened in the way of change. A lot of stress, wreaking havoc on their bodies and very few results.
SO I believe many Ghanaians are doing what any sensible human creature would do: removing the stress from their lives.
Stress comes from caring. Stress destroys your body. So the solution to not having your body destroyed because you are stressing because you care is to... not care - Idoncareism.
When I would have proceeded to give a lecture over the phone. I would have let him know that his question was ambiguous and if he wanted to know how much water I was looking to purchase, he should be asking for volume not just a natural number. One what? One millilitre, litre, gallon?
But that was then. This is now. Now, where I know that that one encounter with me will not change his usage of that mentality. It will not cause him to desist from that thinking in his encounters with others. He will continue to ask people how much water they want him to deliver to their houses by asking whether they want the water in 1, 2 or 3 of his tanks. The volume in the tank is apparently irrelevant. The best I can get out of him is to MAYBE get him to think in volume when he deals with me.
There was a time when I would have kvetched about the poor-service delivery, bad customer service, bad education, etc.
Now I simply play the game, and save my energy for the battles that matter more.
"I need one", I replied.
Him: "Now it is 50 Ghana [cedis]
Me: "WHAT!??"….
I used to take the trosky for one reason and one reason ONLY: it is CHEAP. I can spend 10GHC ($5) to get to work and back for 5 weekdays. If I was to drive, it would cost me 80GHC ($40). This is as of March 2013 by the way. That's 8 times the cost. And there's the added stress, increased wear and tear on the car, greater energy expenditure, etc. In a trosky I can sleep while I'm driven to my bus stop. I can then walk to my final destination, an experience that is far more healthy than sitting. It is much safer than using an okada, and it allows you to keep in touch with the common man. I place myself in an environment where I can do all kinds of social research. I can do a quiet random sample of the cellphones people have. I can spy on and identify what they are using these devices for. I can raise a topic and receive free feedback from very vocal and passionate passengers. It is harder to relate to what regular folks are going through from the isolated comfort of your air-conditioned vehicle.
Back to the story though. Upon stopping, we were flanked by a pickup-truck. The driver of the pickup-truck began to shout something that was unintelligible to me because I had my headphones in and was listening to #Cole World. When I paused the music, I discovered that he was querying the mate as to the state of the vehicle's tire. My position in the vehicle was such that if the tire exploded or suddenly deflated I would be one of the first if not the first to be affected. I realized that in my haste to reach my destination, I hadn't bothered to observe the state of the vehicles' tires before I boarded.
What troubled me was that I was essentially gambling my safety by staying in this trosky. I also realized that I was rewarding this driver and mate duo with my money. I was paying to support their recklessness. I got out at the very next stop after this epiphany and demanded my change from the mate. I told him to fix his tire, and walked away to find another trosky - this time, one with all its tires in good condition.
I thought back on the experience and about all the other passengers who had continued to stay in the vehicle despite the knowledge that the vehicle was driving with a tire that could explode at any given moment. I assume that they were steeped in the Ghanaian Mentality of "Ebia 3nbano Saa" (translation: maybe it won't happen that way) but I felt concerned. I'm sure there were those who chose to stay on board because they needed to be somewhere important as soon as possible and perhaps had to gamble.
How does a vehicle with such poor tires stay on the road?
Where are the police?
Who is supposed to make sure these deathtraps are not allowed to kill more easily?
What system could be put in place to make sure that people are not jeopardizing their lives in boarding one of these troskys?
It's the main method of transportation for most of the people who live in Ghana. It's the word used to refer to the buses and vans that comprise the informal public transportation system in Ghana. These buses and vans come in all shapes and sizes and ages. Typically, most of them are not fit to be on the roads which is why they are sometimes referred to as deathtraps. Here's a picture:
The way the trosky works is that there's a driver and a mate. The driver gets the car from point A to B. He makes decisions about the routes to take, performs negotiations with bribe-exacting policemen, and mediates if/when the mate enters into disputes with passengers over fares.
The mate functions the way a train conductor does. His duties include the following:
- Notifying the driver when passengers wish to alight
- Ensuring that the driver stops where passengers wish to disembark
- Notifying potential passengers of the vehicle's destination/route
- handling all transactions related to passenger fare
- opening and closing the vehicle doors
I tried to start a taxi business in Ghana recently. The car I was planning to use had been sitting idle for a while and was not in the best condition. Yet and still I found someone who was interested in it. This was one taxi driver who came to give me an example of the contract that I should draw up because he had worked with a work-and-pay company before. I took the word of this taxi driver. He said we could start work and he would use the car to make money that could then be used to improve the car because I didn't have the funds to do all the repairs on the car. It sounded good to me and he seemed determined. We talk about me buying him an engine for the vehicle when he is done. I tell him that I cannot commit to doing that right now. On Sunday, he shows up with his witnesses and we sign the contract. Monday he doesn't work even though the car was in his possession because "there is noise in the front of the car". Monday night he tells me the front hub seized up and needs to be changed. He says he needs 80GHc to fix it. I tell him I don't have it. He agrees to borrow half the money from his wife. Tuesday he agrees to take me to work in the morning but only because he wants to convince me he's not "cheating" me. He takes me to work and goes off to fix the hub. I call him on my way home from work at about 5 in the afternoon because I hadn't heard from him at that point. He tells me he just left the shop. Right. That's another day he didn't work. Wednesday rolls around and he complains of another problem with the car. Doesn't work Wednesday. Come Thursday morning, I'm told he came the night before to complain about the car yet again. At this point I'm pissed because he is unlikely to make enough money to bring in that 200 GHc he was contractually obligated to do the next Monday. I decide that later on that evening, I'm going to take the car away from him. I planned to take the car for a spin and then break the news to him once I was sure that the car was in order. I ended up strolling to his place (down the road) from my house and asking him to let me drive so we can take the car for a spin. When we arrive back at my place, he starts to talk about the price of the car. After having already signed the contract, he now wants to renegotiate the price. I tell him the price is non-negotiable. He starts spewing filth about how he has spent so much money on the car and he needs to be reimbursed. The total cost? 216GHC. I agree to pay it to him on Monday. After we part ways, I look at the contract and learn that he is supposed to pay me for the days where he had the car in his possession. I should have defined it better in the contract. It did not say that "as long as the contractor is in possession of the car, he is responsible for delivering sales for each day of possession" and because of this, he was able to bs. He kept using the excuse that because the car wasn't in tip top condition, he was unable to work with it. Complete nonsense because the car was able to take me to work on at least 2 occasions. I learned he was using the car to take his kids to school, etc. I ended up paying him half of the money he demanded just to get rid of him forever and ever, amen. So there you have it. Make sure your contract/agreement is air tight. Don't allow the driver to spend any of his money on the car. Lesson learned. Cost to me 108 GHc. Knowing this from now on? Priceless
I went to withdraw money at a Stanbic Bank ATM at Silverstar Towers on Friday the 1st of February 2013. I arrived at about 4:48pm. I expected a simple transaction to take place.
I put my ATM card in the machine and was surprised to learn that the machine was not issuing any receipts. I refused to make a withdrawal because of the nature of my transaction, so I decided to try the second atm. That machine declined to give me the option to withdraw any cash. I thought there was something wrong with it so I simply ejected my card and decided to try again.
On this attempt, the machine behaved funnily when I tried to insert my card. For fear of it being seized, I decided to remove it and let someone else try to make a withdrawal.
A lady tried after me and was not successful. It was at that point that I instructed the doorman to inform his superiors of the faulty atms.
One lady came and left immediately upon learning about the problem. 6 people came to attempt the same transaction. 5 men and 1 mother who had to go and get her kids but obviously needed the money so that she could not leave without it.
On a Friday afternoon after work, the ATM machines were down. Both machines were down. At the same damn time.
After several complaints to the doorman, a lady came outside to calm us down. She ended up telling one gentleman that the machine wasn’t working for him because he wasn’t doing something right. She accused him of not entering the correct PIN. To his credit, the gentleman did not get upset at this. I responded on his behalf.
One gentleman from the company tells us he will inform his colleagues. It was after this that I decided to keep track of all the proceedings. Here is a blow by blow account of what transpired if you’re interested.
The entire point of an ATM card is to have convenient and swift access to your cash at virtually any time of day. What penalty does an institution pay when they fail to keep up their end of the contract? These are the things politicians should be legislating to give power to the powerless.
What bothers me about situations like this is the attitude of the staff. The tendency to deny any responsibility annoys the SHHH out of concerns me. The buck-passing inclination.
What process has been put in place to make sure these machines always have money?
Who is responsible for monitoring the amount of money in the atms? What happens as a punitive measure if he/she fails to do their job?
At least 2 hours of time was lost today - an hour for me and varying amounts for the various people that came and left - all because we assumed that a service we rely on would be reliably provided to us in the usual and reasonable time frame of 1 minute.
Stanbic Bank stole an hour of my time for a reason that is still not clear to me. And I can never get that time back. But I did get an “oh, sorry eh?”, because that fixes everything.
Blow by Blow: Stanbic Bank Stealing An Hour Of My Time
5:18 - the gentleman who had stepped out earlier is leaving work. He tells us he has informed his colleagues but has to leave because he has a meeting. Its not like we have things to do either, right? We like spending our Friday afternoons waiting for a bank to mercifully grant us access to our own money.
5:23pm - a beautiful young lady arrives in a taxi. I presume she wanted to take money out to pay the cab driver. She now had to go elsewhere.
5:25 - I'm told by a cheeky young lady that my transport will be paid for. I can "come for a check" when I'm done waiting to take out my money.
5:27 - The atm lights are blinking so there is no visual way to tell if the machines are working or not. While all of this is happening, I am being continually told that the machine is being loaded with money. How the machine can be working while it is being loaded with money remains a mystery to me.
5:32pm - another 2 gentlemen arrive to withdraw money.
5:34pm - another lady who decides to attend to us - even though she's done for the day - tells whoever it is that is fixing the machine to turn off the lights that indicate service. She returns the atm card of the last person who tried to withdraw money because he assumed the machine was working.
5:35pm - I make an attempt to withdraw money. I'm told I cannot make a withdrawal and also get a receipt. Nothing has changed for me.
5:38pm - funds are requested by another gentleman. He does not receive his money. 5 new gentlemen have arrived. The mother returns to withdraw. One new gentleman joins us. We're looking at a total of 7 people now. Others have come and gone.
5:42pm - another of the gentlemen withdraws money. No receipts though. 5:43pm - another withdrawal with no receipt happens.
5:44pm - the mother makes a withdrawal and leaves with no receipt.
5:54pm - finally frustrated with waiting for a receipt I decide to conduct my transaction and leave.
An SPA (Sales and Purchase Agreement) of 70% of the shares of Ghana Telecommunications company to Vodafone International Holdings BV was made for $900m.
The Minority group in Parliament (read NDC) urged on by a large section of Ghanaians opposed the sale.
According to a Member of Parliament who was and still is a part of the Majority group at the time (read NPP), the majority group was "improperly incentivized" (a.k.a bribed) to endorse the Vodafone agreement.
According to the report, most of the terms of the SPA were not in Ghana's best interest, including among other provisions, a protection from prosecution. Why anyone would include a protection from prosecution in an SPA agreement is interesting.
The SPA broke several of Ghana's own laws, protected the interests of the buyer (Vodafone International BV) and not Ghana's interest, is unconstitutional (a.k.a illegal), and was sold for much less than another company (Telekom SA) was offering ($947m for 66.7% shares).
In the end, Ghana only received $266.57m from the sale.
The National Communications Backbone Company with its fibre optic network should not have been sold in the first place because it is a national asset and it was grossly undervalued.
GT was near insolvency because of mismanagement by Telenor/Telcom Management and Interim Management Committee (IMC) financial malpractices.
The former President John Kufuor ignored protocol and without expert advice, interfered in the sale, agreed on the transaction price, the technical considerations and the underlying legal assumptions of the offer by Vodafone.
The sale was to Vodafone BV, yet Vodafone PLC of the UK seems to be in control of the assets acquired.
Throughout this 2012 Presidential and Parliamentary election season in Ghana, I've heard and read a lot of opinions about the need for an increase in the numbers of women involved in politics and parliament. And I have to say that I do not understand it. The clamoring for more women sounds a lot like "we need less men" because as far as I know, there is only a fixed number of seats and positions. And because I like to understand before I decide, I need reasons to understand why we need less men (if that is indeed what is being called for); because to me the number of men or women or both, is irrelevant. This is why:
Are competent men any less capable of representing their constituents than competent women?
In 2012, many of us espouse the idea that men and women are equal. And if we truly believe this, then surely it should not be a stretch of the imagination to believe that a man is capable of the same empathy for women and their issues as a woman is.
Therefore, IF he is a competent parliamentarian, he is competent enough to represent women's interests and issues in Parliament. Right?
So why do we need less men again?
Because we must have more women to do exactly what the men are doing just because they are women? The logic doesn't seem sound.
And this brings me to my larger point in the discussion of male-female representation in Ghanaian politics.
I am confused as to why the question of competence has been left completely unaddressed, and why the focus has instead been shifted wholesale to the gender score-keeping agenda.
Ghana Decides, the entity responsible for dispersing some extremely good information related to politics, elections and voting in Ghana, shared an image on their Facebook page along with the following text:
"This year 1,198 Men as opposed to 134 Women are running for Parliament. Are Ghanaian Women not interested in Politics? Will the numbers for women candidates ever increase?"
Firstly, "why are Ghanaian women not interested in Politics?" is a loaded question. It compels the unobservant person to accept unchallenged, an assumption that women are not interested in politics. This is something we do not know to be all together true. Just because there are less female parliamentary candidates than male does not mean women are not interested in politics. I am sure the exploration of the actual reasons for the low figures will expose far more complex issues that inform these numbers.
Secondly, the question asked by Ghana Decides misses the opportunity to focus on the competency of ALL candidates. I don't want more female candidates in Parliament just to fill quotas or to satisfy the post-sexist fantasies of some IF they are going to be just as incompetent as some of their male counterparts. If we focus on supporting competent parliamentary candidates, the incompetent men AND women who are currently occupying the Parliament will be gotten rid of. The competent men and women will then be given the chance to occupy vacant seats and deliver.
I do not endorse supporting an incompetent person because of their gender and it would be highly irresponsible to encourage folks to do so.
Ghana Decides has an opportunity to place an emphasis on what really matters, and not on gender-score keeping, and I sincerely hope that they seize the chance.
Ghana does not need more/less women involved in politics or as parliamentary candidates, nor does it need less/more men in parliament or politics. It is however in desperate need of MORE COMPETENCE whether it comes from males or females.
The 1992 Constitution of Ghana provides the legal definition of a Ghanaian. Chapter 3 of the 1992 Constitution declares that "a person born in or outside Ghana after the coming into force of this Constitution, shall become a citizen of Ghana at the date of his birth if either of his parents or grandparents is or was citizen of Ghana." It goes on to provide more details than I care to include here for the sake of brevity. However, during my stay in Ghana I have found it necessary to create a new category of citizenry in Ghana. I refer to these folks as GhanaNIEans. And this is my reason why:
In the increasingly globalized world, prudent citizens are thinking about the way in which their nation(s) can assimilate into the international collage of governments. The really prudent ones think of the ways in which globalization can be complied with without negatively impacting the integrity of their sovereign nation. They are analyzing policies, diagnosing problems, identifying causes and looking for ways to mitigate the impact on them and their countrymen. They are considering the ways in which they must develop the necessary proficiency to translate and/or express their culture intelligibly on the world stage and in so doing preserve their culture. They are looking around the world at effective solutions that have been employed successfully elsewhere to their local problems and developing ways to import that solution into their current realities. These are the future-oriented people who believe that prevention is better than cure, who treat causes and not symptoms and see the big picture without ignoring the significance of the pixels that compose the big picture. They are typically those who have travelled outside of their nations, or have meaningfully interacted with culture(s) outside of theirs.
And it is these folks (who happen to intersect with what the 1992 Constitution defines as a Ghanaian) that I call Real Ghanaians (RGs). The local RGs are the ones who criticize Ghana because they want to see Ghana improve. They have lived in Ghana, are very cognizant of the System and yet clamor for improvement and change with equal fervor that their sibling expatriate-RGs do. There is a critical mass of RGs building in Ghana since the global economic downturn made job opportunities scarce in the developed world and made Ghana more attractive to those of them that were abroad. These expatriate-RGs are arriving in Ghana in ever increasing numbers, for longer stays and more frequent visits with an unmatched enthusiasm to transform the country to realize a potential they believe it can achieve - a potential that continues to enlarge with each skill acquired, each dream imagined and each possibility considered. These RGs want to change Ghana. They see what happens in Ghana, they see the System and believe that it needs to change. These RGs are the citizens of Africa and the world.
And in Ghana, these people are being resisted at every turn by the people I call GhanaNIEans.
GhanaNIEans are the folks who believe that the rules of gravity do not (and should not) apply in Ghana. They are those who think the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. The ones who leave no good deed unpunished. They are the protectors of the "System". Actually, they are the System. The staunch defenders of tradition and habit. The hard-of-hearing. The unwavering uncompromising fanatics. Those who fail to recognize that we are in a new world that demands assimilation into a global village, innovation of local ideas and adaptation of imported successful solutions to address local problems. They are those who fail to develop competency and/or resist the use of technology. The ones who fail to see that accountability and public service should go hand in hand. The ones who believe in leadership by position and not example. Their anthem is chop make I chop. They are the big men "I am the boss because I found a way outside of competence to become the boss. I will therefore enjoy all the benefits that I can because I am entitled to enjoy as many benefits as I can, regardless of the aftermath." The ones who do not remember that the national motto on the ribbon on the coat of arms of Ghana has BOTH freedom and justice, not only freedom. They are the short-sighted majority of the people in Ghana who allow themselves to be buttered up, deceived, pimped and dumped into deeper dereliction by slick-talking politicians who promise to deliver them the world despite being entirely incompetent to deliver on their personal responsibilities to family and friends alike. Their battle cry is "this is Ghana" (or "Ghana Nie" in the Akan language) whenever their myopic world-views and attitudes are challenged, which is what inspired the name GhanaNIEans - Ghana-Nie-ans.
And these two groups of Ghanaians are at war with each other. The Real Ghanaians versus the GhanaNIEans.
The RGs fight by refusing to condone the inexcusable, resisting the modus operandi, tolerating abuse, enduring the pain of blatant disorder, overt corruption and covert collusion and by exercising patience in the hopes that one day the country will be transformed. GhanaNiEans on the other hand, protect the System fiercely because they ARE the system. GhanaNIEans have grown fat and pot-bellied on the System and will kill anyone who threatens their livelihood or make. They resist any and all attempts to change or to be changed. The GhanaNIEans frustrate and subvert any effort by Real Ghanaians to improve, change or revise a System that is inherently designed to serve the interests of a few at the cost of many.
And the country's future, the region's future is dependent on which of these two groups continues to impact socioeconomic policy over the next 10-16 year period after which the country will have been set irreversibly on the path that is chosen. With the discovery of natural resources in Ghana, the explosion in telecommunications and the rise of a tech-savvy population, the country could be on the verge of a transformation. But this transformation will only succeed if control the country can be wrested away from GhanaNIEan influence and placed into the hands of Real Ghanaians. Real Ghanaians recognize the truth that the fate of the rich is inextricably bound to the fate of the poor, and therefore they have a responsibility to look out for one another. GhanaNIEans on the other hand are content to worry only about themselves and their immediate circles as though that would insulate them from the reality that they will only be as rich or as poor as the environment that they find themselves in.
And I think it is high-time that Ghanaians asked themselves this question: am I a Real Ghanaian or a GhanaNIEan?
A culture that endorses pretense of concern for persons only after they are gone deserves to be exterminated. A culture where it is acceptable to withhold money for the healthcare of a 'loved' one and to only make it available upon their death is a culture that needs to die itself. A culture where the right to bury a person rests not with the people that actually cared for them but with people who ignored their needs is simply is one that I look askance at.
By allowing this culture to live, we are encouraging a vulture-like attitude to human life. We are communicating that a dead person is more valuable to us than one who is alive.
Ghanaians need to realize that they owe people the same respect that they refuse to pay them until after their death.
I heard a heartbreaking story last night from a friend of a friend. He just lost the man that he considers his father. This is the gentleman who his biological father handed him to in his youth to be his guardian. This gentleman did this to such an extent that he regards my friend's friend as his own biological son and refers to him in that manner.
Unfortunately, this gentleman had diabetes and developed a sore on his leg that needed treatment. Eventually it got so bad that it became necessary for him to be hospitalized. When he was, none of his family except his pregnant wife visited him for the two weeks that he was there. His biological kids I am told are out of the country. This friend of a friend was the one who cared for him, went to buy him medicine, took him to get his x-rays (because at the 37 Military Hospital in Ghana where even our late President Mills died you need someone other than the hospital staff to do these things for you) and kept him company.
Eventually, there was a point where a decision had to be made to amputate a leg. The gentleman was not allowed to make this decision because he was under medication that the doctor believed impaired his judgment. His wife was also unable to make the decision on his behalf because she has a condition that the doctor believed impaired her ability to make that decision. It was left to other relatives to intervene and make that decision. Numerous efforts were made to contact family members. The few successful efforts did not produce the decision because those who were contacted felt it was someone else's decision to make. Time was of the essence and the decision was not one that my friend's friend could make because he was not a blood relative.
No other family intervened in the end, no decision was taken in a timely manner and I'm sad to say the gentleman lost his life.
I'm also sad to say that the part that follows is typical of a culture in Ghana that I revile.
Upon his death, the relatives who did not have time to pay him a visit, to assist him in the ways that were necessary, to make a decision to save his life are now lamenting, issuing platitudes, and professing intentions to save his life. They are now ready to put up money for a funeral that they would not put up to buy medicine to keep the gentleman alive .
And I'm disgusted. I am told about this scenario more often than I care to hear about it and it angers me. It sickens me. I am repulsed. I want NOTHING to do with this culture. It makes me so ashamed to be associated with this culture. I am unable to declare even part ownership in such a culture because I have to first overcome my contempt for it.
If Ghanaians (and indeed people all over the world) were made to experience life without electricity for one entire week, I think this world would end up improving.
Living this way for a week forced me to recognize the manner in which other people may be forced to live their entire lives. It forced me to deal with the reality of the difficulties that such a lifestyle encompasses. My privilege was made evident to me. I was compelled to acknowledge that I had it better than most.
