Replace Striking CLOGSAG members with Soldiers: Prof Stephen Adei lacks principles -Gyampo

A lecturer at the University of Ghana Political Science Department Prof. Ransford Gyampo has said that Prof Stephen Adei lacks principles.

Economist Prof Stephen Adei is urging government to sack all striking members of the Civil and Local Government Staff Association of Ghana (CLOGSAG).

According to him, the Association’s request for neutrality allowance is unacceptable and unethical.

“It is the worst I can ever think of as someone who has worked in the public sector for 35 years. I can’t conceptualise it.

“These are people who should be sacked, and they can apply [again] or stay at home, and I assure you that Ghana will be better off,” he said.

The workers laid down their tools about a week ago to protest the non-payment of the controversial neutrality allowance.

But reacting to the position expressed by the statesman, Prof Gyampo indicated that “We must however not think about sacking bureaucrats and replacing them with Soldiers simply because they made a demand which some subjectively think is nonsensical”.

Adding that “Politics would continue to be perceived as dirty if the very elderly statesmen who are expected to be sober in offering wise counseling to all, make ballistically intolerant and undemocratic comments that show their clear lack of principles in the game”.

Read Gyampo’s Opinion Below

Should Elderly Statesmen in Democratic Regimes be saying these? When Jerry Rawlings, the man who boldly said he wasn’t a fan of multiparty democracy once threatened to kick out striking University Lecturers from their bungalows and storm the lecture halls with Soldiers, these elderly people took issues with him.

What has changed today? Looked casually, the call for the payment of neutrality allowance may not make sense and as a student of the Weberian Ideal-Type bureaucracy, I am very much socialized about the dogmas of Anonymity and Neutrality as key characteristic features of the Civil Bureaucracy.

But let’s think rationally about this and attempt to challenge Max Weber’s postulations for a minute. Bureaucrats are expected to be neutral in functioning as the administrative machinery of the state, serving every regime that is elected to power.

Let me digress a little by pointing out the fact that, by political neutrality, Weber never meant bureaucrats wouldn’t vote. He simply meant they should not be seen to OPENLY identify with any political party, finito! So, it is a sheer display of ignorance of the Weberian postulations on the bureaucracy for anyone to say, because one votes, one cannot be neutral. Neutrals vote. But for the sake of service to the nation, they are not supposed to identify publicly with any political party. Therefore, bureaucrats are qualified to call themselves as neutrals so long as they don’t wear party paraphernalia to work and are not seen openly campaigning for any party.

If deciding not to be neutral makes one very rich, then the kind of neutrality that also allows bureaucrats to serve all regimes must also be compensated for. We can disagree with this in an atmosphere of healthy contest of ideas.

We must however not think about sacking bureaucrats and replacing them with Soldiers simply because they made a demand which some subjectively think is nonsensical.

Politics would continue to be perceived as dirty if the very elderly statesmen who are expected to be sober in offering wise counseling to all, make ballistically intolerant and undemocratic comments that show their clear lack of principles in the game.

When you were a neutral academic, you saw your salary. When you decided to be partisan too, you saw the numerous boards on which you were placed and how they translated into tangible sitting allowances and cash for you, sir. Please leave the bureaucrats alone.

Yaw Gyampo

A31, Prabiw

PAV Ansah Street

Saltpond

&

Suro Nipa House

Kubease

Larteh Akuapim

Source: MyNewsGh.com/ 2022

Adblock test (Why?)