Donating what is not yours

There are some of us who recently try to listen to proceedings on the floor of Parliament, beyond partisan fanaticism, as a major source of entertainment on Parliament TV.

This is a test of the proof of the Uses and Gratifications Theory espoused by Elihu Katz, who argued that “in the media communication process, much initiative in linking need gratification and media choice lies with the audience member”.

This places strong limitations on theorising about any form of straight-line effect of media content on attitudes and behaviours (Katz, Blumer and Gurevitch; 1974).

Exploring and explaining the theory further, Rubin (1981) proposed a very comprehensive typology of media uses and gratifications, with eight motivations, which reflect the reasons for media use and what gains are derived.

These are: Passing time, Companionship, Escape, Enjoyment, Social interaction, Relaxation, Information and Excitement. Some of our honourable members, particularly those whose arguments lack substance and are challenged in their comprehension of the English Language, look clownish.

As students at the School of Communication Studies, University of Ghana, one of the statements that the venerated Prof. P.A.V. Ansah used to chide us with, anytime he felt we were arguing about nothing, was to say that there are two diseases in the academic world: intellectual constipation and verbal diarrhoea.

Those who lack facts in any argument that requires depth of facts and knowledge either resort to meaningless or unfamiliar words to make up for a lack of quality presentation.

As my colleague and younger brother of less than one month from another womb recently put it, when he wanted to describe the attractiveness of the flow of birthday messages, “the show of love in the goodwill wishes was ‘pulchritudinous’”.

Ridicule
You either have to insist on what you are talking about by reinforcing facts, or where you do not want to carry the tag, you abruptly end your argument.

That is what our Members of Parliament (MPs) , who are challenged by comprehension of the English Language, can and must do to avert public ridicule.

They do not need to spend the full time allocated to them to demean themselves.

Some of us think that it is unfair for Parliament, after 34 years, to continue to depend solely on the English Language as the only medium of expression on the floor of the House, which does not require translation, no matter how unfamiliar the usage.

Accordingly, Parliament must act on the concept of multiple use of English and Ghanaian languages to see whether the desecrated English grammar and construction will persist.

Until that happens and since it is within its exclusive authority to let that happen, we shall continue to grade the English Language deployed by our MPs to express themselves.

That is the task before our Parliament if it does not want the trust, confidence and respect that our elected leaders deserve to be eroded.

But, it may also be possible that our Parliament will take that decisive step, and we would see those tongues making submissions and those who would mimic the British people by resonating the Queen’s English.

Many times, I am reminded of my days as an elected member of the then Afigya/Sekyere District Assembly, where those of us who felt highly educated spoke Asante Twi, whilst our brothers and sisters, some of whom never stepped into any classroom chose to speak English, with all the slippages and the concomitant devious applause that greeted such concourse, the same reason that make some Ghanaians use “diffuse” when they intend to “defuse” or “churn” as if it means anything good when it comes to skills training for human capital.

Indeed, at his vetting, the Chief Justice had to be ingenious in answering a question as to the churning of lawyers, in reference to the number of lawyers who were recently enrolled and called to the Bar.

In his carefully chosen answer, without exposing the use of the word as inappropriate, he explained that we do not churn, but thoroughly and comprehensively train lawyers in this country.

But the purpose of my thoughts and concerns today is not about MPs and the English Language.

It is about the misdirection of projects funded from taxes as donations.

We see boldly written on vehicles, markets and other infrastructural facilities donated by an MP or from the District Assembly Common Fund or the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund).

How can anybody donate what they do not own or hold in trust for others?

In the same way that a family head, who uses part of the family property to develop an asset for the family cannot describe such an asset as a donation, how can the GETFund or the MP claim to have donated something tangible acquired from the funds kept on behalf of our people in their custody?

The right things must be done. At best, if we want people to keep trail of what property has been acquired from what source or public body, then we can talk about the fact that such property was sourced or acquired through the particular institution.

The only time that such a property can be described as a donation is where the body providing the property or service was set up as a business to make profit and pay tax, while using part of the profit before tax to establish the property or service for the public good.

Property executed directly from taxes cannot be considered as gifts from any manner of public institution or public or political office holder, except where the funding comes exclusively from private sources.

The notices written on vehicles given to educational institutions and funded from the GETFund cannot and must not be described as donations.

A Kenyan lawyer/journalist, Gitobu Imanyara, following a Kenyan slogan, “nyonyoism” (do as the leader does), attracted arrests by scrupulously considering, all media reports about the purported public donations announced by

President Daniel arap Moi, and established that these donations far exceeded the salary of the President.

Imanyara, thus, naturally asked: “Mr President, when and how did you earn all that money that you are said to have donated?” for which he had to go to prison many times.

So, the next time that our media report donations by government officials or public institutions set up to raise revenue from taxes for the development of such services and infrastructure, they must find out whether the financing of the projects was from public or private sources.