REVIEW ON MEDIUM TERM PROGRAMME CRITICAL PATHWAYS 2012-2016: DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL CATHOLIC SECRETARIAT
By Rev. Msgr. Dr. Stephen Ntim
Catholic University College of Ghana, Fiapre
Introduction
Not too long ago, the Ghana Catholic Bishops Conference restructured the National Catholic Secretariat in Accra. As part of the restructuring, human development oriented departments such as Health, Education, Socio-Economic have all been subsumed under one Department called Human Development. These hitherto departments have now become Directorates under Human Development. Governance, Justice and Peace which used to be under Socio-economic has also become a Directorate. As a follow-up of this, the Department of Human Development came out with two documents: Medium Term Programme 2012-2016 which they called ‘Critical pathways’ and ‘Advocacy Plan’. The former gives the general guidelines on eight (8) core areas on human development and the latter attempts to operationalise some aspects of the areas mentioned in the former. The new department of Human Development requested Rev. Msgr. Dr. Stephen Ntim, Dean of the Faculty of Education of the Catholic University College of Ghana, Fiapre, to do a critical review of the documents. As per the request of the Department, we publish below (unedited) Msgr. Ntim’s critical review on the first document Medium term programme Critical pathways, 2012-2016 of the Department of Human Development of the National Catholic Secretariat.
Criteria for this Review
The subsequent review of the document Medium Term Programme Critical Pathways 2012-2016 of the Department of Human Development of the National Catholic Secretariat was made taking into consideration the Ghanaian socio-cultural context today, the current pastoral demands and challenges facing the Catholic Church in Ghana. As Church, we have a duty to respond to these challenges, interpret them in the light of our Christian mission, the signs of the time and above all within the context of the contemporary pastoral plan of the Catholic Church of Africa as enshrined in the Post Synodal Document, Africae Munus.
General Comments on the Framework
1.The introduction to the general framework of the document is very well articulated with no ambiguity regarding the focus of the entire document. Each of the eight focused areas or pathways, namely, 1) support for Good governance, 2) Protecting and improving livelihoods of the poor 3) Effectiveness delivery of complimentary social services, 4)Youth self-employment and empowerment, 5) Emergency and Crisis response, 6) Promoting Justice and Peace, 7) protecting the vulnerable and the socially excluded and 8) Organizational effectiveness are clear and precise. Their respective key results areas are equally unambiguous. These eight areas underscore the entire concept of human development. This tallies with the mind of the Bishops Conference of Ghana to highlight the importance of the human person and his/her development in their over-all mission of evangelization, one of the important reasons for which the Conference restructured the entire National Secretariat so that some hitherto important departments such as Education, Health, Socio-economic development, etc. become Directorates and be subsumed under the umbrella of the Department of Human Development. After all Education, Health and Socio-economic have one focus: the development of human person.
2.The document at each of the eight (8) critical pathways also seeks to give some pastoral reflection on the position of the Church which in the opinion of this reviewer is in the right direction. This is because the Church as an institution engages in all these various aspects of human development because it has no option. Human development is an integral part of her mission and the document quotes copiously from the recent Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Benedict XVI to the Church of Africa Africae Munus to substantiate the pastoral motive for each of the eight (8) pathways. This is good.
Specific Comments on the Document
No mention of the biblical-theological basis for the Church’s commitment to promoting human development
The above general comments notwithstanding, one begins to question the complete absence of the biblical-theological basis that underpins the entire document. In other words, in the considered opinion of this reviewer, one would expect any reader who picks up the document as the human development agenda of the Catholic Church of Ghana to understand the biblical-theological reasons why the Church after all has to engage herself with human development in addition to pastoral issues. Over the years, have some of our Bishops not been unfairly criticized as being more of politicians than pastors? The Church’s commitment to enhancing human development from various aspects: social, political, economic, educational, governance, health etc. is not an option. Bishops as pastors, speaking for the promotion of human development are only doing their duty imposed on them from the sacred scriptures, namely, that God created man in his image and likeness. Therefore man has an inviolable dignity that cannot be manipulated by politics, the economy, the social structure etc.
The Church’s social teachings which essentially are on human development are founded on the premise that God created man in his own image and likeness. (Gen.1-26-27). Human life is therefore sacred. Consequently, the fundamental position of the Church when it comes to human development is this: when we deal with each other, we should do so with the sense of awe that arises in the presence of something holy and sacred. For that is what human beings are: we are created in the image of God (cf. Gn. 1:27). The subsequent are the socio-political implications of this biblical-theological anthropology:
the person is an independent individual who has rights and responsibilities that are bounded by legal limits;
equality of all persons should be the foundation of the political and economic order;
the role of the political state is active but limited, that is, the state must protect rights, promote the general welfare of its citizens and ensure public order but should not interfere in matters of faith.
Based on the above, the core of the Church’s social teaching is her immutable and consistent affirmation that the only possible solution to the problems of life is for man to recognize that God is the foundation of moral order (Mater et Magistra, 208).
Unfortunately, this foundational pillar is completely missing from the document. I suggest that it becomes one of the foundational statements (albeit it in a summary form) at the beginning of the document. This is without prejudice to the relevant quotations from the post synodal document Africae Munus in the respective critical pathways.
Key Areas
1.On support for Good Governance
The first key statement: ‘making public policies on social services pro-poor and inclusive as part of our political option for the poor’, I found it a little bit nebulous and difficult to understand its import. Is the statement saying that the Department will disseminate public policies that are pro-poor and inclusive or will ensure that public policies are pro-poor and inclusive? What about putting it like this: ‘advocating for public policies on social issues that are pro-poor and inclusive as part of our political option for the poor? Does this change the original import of what the document seeks to convey?
The same ambiguity in my view applies to the fourth key statement: ‘improved access to public information and openness of government. The first part of the statement is clear but the second part preceded by the conjunction ‘and’ is not quite clear to me. What will the department do to effect this openness of government? What about a statement like this: ‘improved access to public information and ensuring (or advocating?) openness of government.
Governance is such an important issue today, especially economic governance when viewed within the context of promoting justice, peace and stability. Economic governance ensures that the resources of the nations are managed equitably: that the poor have access to basic necessities such as food, housing, potable water, electricity; that there is zero tolerance for corruption, because corruption undermines economic equity. Within the context of the demands that we face in Ghana today such as political corruption (the increasing wave of judgments debts) in the midst of the abject poverty of our compatriots in the rural areas, it is my view that the document incorporates
the following as some of the key areas under this critical pathway:
‘Making sure all economic life are shaped by moral principles’.
‘Advocating that economic choices and institutions are judged by how they protect or undermine the dignity of the human person’.
2.On Protecting and improving livelihoods of the poor
The first key statement: ensuring food and nutrition security is good as a guideline. However, when viewed within the context of our Ghanaian situation in which food crop production is predominantly among our rural households who feed the nation and yet communication network to most of these rural households leaves much to be desired, I will rather prefer the statement: ‘strengthening local food production system of rural households’. In my view one of the ways of strengthening rather than ensuring food and nutrition security lies in rural development.
Another key area that is very critical when it comes to protecting and improving the livelihoods of the poor and yet paradoxically often neglected in documents such as this is the issue of preventing soil degradation and restoring fertility. Of the various components of livelihood, the most complex is the portfolio of assets out of which people construct their living which include both tangible assets and resources. In Ghana jus as in many nations, land is a major asset. The rate at which surface mining for example is depleting our resources and water bodies with health hazards to our rural folk is becoming too alarming. In my considered opinion, preventing soil degradation and restoring fertility could be made a key area under this section. After all did our Bishops not issue a communiqué on this after their meeting at Wiaso some two or three years back?
3.On Youth Self Employment and Empowerment
This critical pathway like many of the others is very carefully articulated both the general as well as the specific key areas. My only hesitation however is with the first key area. It appears to me to be too broad to hide its real focus. Without prejudice to the fact that after all, these are guidelines (and not actions as such) and therefore not all key areas could be specific, I still find the statement ‘promoting employability of young people’ to be needlessly nebulous within the present context of the increasing rate of graduate unemployment in Ghana. The document could be richer in my view if this statement could be substituted as: ‘promoting employability of young people especially entrepreneurship development and other intervention mechanisms’. This is because, in my considered opinion, the core of the problem lies in the fact that even students who have acquired degrees in business studies after university are still looking up to the banks and other financial institutions for employment. Entrepreneurial skills are crucial.
This document as guideline for implementation at the diocesan and parish levels cannot cover everything. However, reading the signs of the time, certain key issues continue to emerge. For example, the gradual ethnic intolerance between indigenes and settlers in some parts of the nation cannot be glossed over, especially within our Ghanaian/African context. Making the stranger feel unwelcome is very un-Ghanaian. Such tendencies become more acute especially among unemployed youth who may see others as ‘settlers’, ‘foreigners’ who have come to take jobs from ‘indigenes’. With this as backdrop, I will propose as part of the empowerment another key area under this critical pathway: ‘Promoting communication strategies among our youth that respond to diversity’.
4.On the Organogram
I have two questions not on the structure as such, but where it has been placed in the document. Is there a compelling reason why it cannot come earlier in the document so that anyone who picks up this document on Human Development gets to know the structural organ of who reports to whom? Does it have to be placed at where it is?
My second question is this: The Director of Social Services in the organogram liaises with the Diocesan and Archdiocesan Directors which is as it should be. However, when it comes to the Director of Governance, Justice and Peace he/she does not liaise with the respective Dioceses as per the organogram. Is there a reason for that? I can understand that hitherto Justice and peace used to be under the Department of socio-economic development. As per the restructuring, if both are now Directorates and social services Director links up with the dioceses, I guess the same should also reflect in the organogram for the Justice and Peace Director, unless there is a compelling reason against that.
In my view, issues on governance, justice and peace is so critical in Ghana especially on political and economic governance in general, on elections and on how the Church itself conducts her day today administration to ensure that there is justice, peace, transparency etc. Besides, justice and peace as a commission appears to have been relegated to the periphery in many dioceses and parishes. We need to avoid creating the false impression as per the organogram that justice and peace does not link up with the dioceses. In short, the Director of justice and peace must also be seen in the organogram to be liaising with those in-charge in the respective dioceses. Justice and peace is very crucial within the context of the recent Post synodal Apostolic Exhortation Africae Munus with its focus on justice, peace and reconciliation.
Conclusion
On the whole the document is a good one, very carefully articulated. The content could be much richer if the suggestions made in the light of our local Ghanaian socio-cultural and pastoral experiences could also be incorporated. Having thoroughly studied this document, , I personally recommend it as the ‘vade mecum’ document of the Ghana Catholic Bishops Conference on Human Development.
Reviewed by: Rev. Msgr. Dr. Stephen Ntim