Turmoil at GBC again

Late July 31 precise­ly, GBC was 88. I wrote in this column as my self-assumed job to evaluate the Corporation. I observed inter alia that the place had changed from raucous in the recent years and felt good to advise moving forward, tugged with congratulations. During the prior last two months, hints of the old life started until ‘things fell apart’ last week and the public agony resumed in the damning format ‘’give a dog a bad name and hang it.’ The causes are the same, or vir­tually—the Union versus Admin­istration (‘’We don’t want the DG-stuff ’), pay, promotions, politics, leading to fractiousness, sometimes intolerably hostile factions in and outside of the organised labour.

Let me start with the foundation of the Union. The backgrounds: Trade Unionism was very power­ful in the years of John Tettegah up to second, B.A.Bentum and third after John. Historical fingers allegedly point to Prof. K.A.Busia for his attempts to dismantle that hold from the NLC 1966 through his Premiership in the Second Re­public 30 Oct.1969-13 Jan.1972— the backlash listed it prominently as cause of the overthrow. The TUC was co-opted as an ‘’arm’’ of the ruling CPP before the coup 1966. But the vibrant TUC spread to institutions to include Cards for Managements across state to what­ever, as long as being in the public sectors of employment, national exchequer-salaried. Organised Labour coming to GBC early 60s had dragged from late 50s.

The reason was the expatriate management felt uneasy—that it might cause trouble. Agitations like these today were becoming rampant in the country. There were strong deterrents in smooth orders of succession and salaries structures. Countrywide at the same time the notion of becoming a CORPORATION had become vogue. The idea of turning a SERVICE [from SYSTEM] was attractive: [a] new upward salary scales—unmindful of budgets. The State paid without reference to economies ahead and pretty nonchalant about or elders’ caution that ‘’promprom nntse ho daa’’ –beds of roses are not for ever. Financially, birds have come to roost.

The rush was on. [ii] the TUC will support your fights and they won. Eventually, the clamour suc­ceeded at Broadcasting. The first Secretary General was Guggisberg Ofori Atta.[Yaw Guggy] Vincent Asiseh was his Deputy. But either that event caused the expensive haste to expand departments and fragmented sections for new Chiefs and subsequent Deputies and Assistants. It spawned through Programmes, engineering transport and stopped short of watchman. These inflated budgets for years before and to a point after years until the exchequer became mingy and social services payments run into arrears towed along pen­sions and promotions and salary raises went drowned in a seeming permanent hold. Promotions are an integral part of the causes of chaos today.

Therefore, Broadcasting imagin­ably faces a tally of the old strug­gle between ‘’merit’’ and wholesale position-advances. Surely, the ad­dition of no-planned commercials, were a long-term hope for begin­ners in expectations for capacity to take care of house-keeping and build on to ultimate self-paying. It has not worked and it could be probably right to think ‘’going-commercial’’ has been a fruitless burden; because it was GBC ill-prepared and arguments persist if a national broadcaster in a developing scenario shall pay itself. Thus the accusations for years that successive governments had played retribution politics starving GBC sticking for its independence. There are then separate cases for the Union and the Directorate.

The troubles are four in terms of finding a resolution to latest of old saga: government, the media commission the problems at BH and the organised labour—all fa­miliar grounds except that each has entrenched but raison d’etre is fun­damentally unchanged. If feels re­petitive-guilt for over reference to Peter Ala Adjetey’s theory that no government would surge on ‘’self- POP’’. Adjetey was a past Speaker of Parliament and leading member of the NPP speaking on admis­sion that the situation is harshly difficult for any government, standing off the GBC in obeisance to the law. It is ‘a quasi ‘he who pays the Piper’ jinx and sphinx relationship. That concerns GBC’s independence. The constitution makes the NMC the custodian of that freedom from interference. However, the NMC is left to fight both politically non-compromised; but ditched severally by the media institutions it is supposed to act the cordon sanitaire against the in­cipient blackmail, seemingly firmed today by the ancient book of polit­ical play. Then, the GBC is itself as partisan-stacked just as the country is so wracked. The Commission’s fault with particular reference to the GBC is being tentative since the past.

That makes it look like prefer­ring the ad hock in good hope that time would work out, has not with the recurrences and two issues arise: who steps in as the arbiter and before that what it is precisely that defies resolution in especially at the GBC from hind knowl­edge. Without the intent to trail blame, the track points to 1966 and ‘’568’’.19969. The former upset order of succession at BH. And the latter hit BH devastatingly. The rump of its residues lingers in definitive senses: uncertainty of prospects—future; and distrust which hugely affected moral and professionalism. Note the success of broadcasting has those two pillars. The benefactor-in-chief is the Union became the only cor­nerstone to safeguard the security of those left after the drizzles of colleagues, both on their own and the forced. A female and a male got back at the top; but had to leave like predecessors in a row.

The crucial matter underneath is political alignment. Mind you, the recent has occurred towards the eve of general election 2024. The NMC has opted for its ap­parent constant–ad hockery rather than enquire in depth. That has given the gossip of political race to meddle. I think the fallacy or not derives from the constitution whereby a sitting President can disap­prove Boards memberships of the state-funded sector like the GBC. Former President Jerry Rawlings’ jibe-remarks throwing back lists at the Commission is memorable. He recommended that if the Com­mission desired to pack academics to the Boards, then Legon is not the only University in the coun­try. Politics of bias or patronage was read into the selections. Fine chaps were junked. But I thought the experiment might have been given a trial.

At that level, counter thought exposes the whole exercise for virtual presidential approval, though one word in the obligatory phrasing of the provision uses a sense of merely ‘’inform.’’ The second critical objection is that it enables a functioning ‘’job for the boys’’. This then questions the criteria for constituting governing or overseeing Boards for whatev­er. My classic example has been the success of Lord Robens, a Labourite appointed to the Coal Board by Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in Brit­ain. The recall raises practice here and would hopefully be handled with deft in the future. I should state that broadcasting is a very different institution which is never the boon for just party loyalties..It is also not the home for occupi­er-persons who would want to hoard-boast high positions and do nothing. It is for who are skilled, trained and willingly volunteer to ‘’kaya’’ labour. I am yet locate their proverbial is, unlike a Teacher’s in ‘’Heaven.’’

That keen awareness holds a signifi­cant potential make or break imprimatur to settle the GBC’s perennial cauldron, retrieving confidence, mutual trust, each of others and restore collective morale to feed profes­sionalism, order and peace. I ought to light up the disposition of the Union. It is divided House from two angles: internally where it is not unanimous but bits of pots of disharmonies bred by ‘’favourites’’ and ‘’disfavoured’’ including high officers, acting and confirmed [only a paucity after years acting] a necessity to re-write relation­ship-clauses between authority and the Union. Something eerie had existed throughout the years which is the consequences of the mini-decentralisation. Bluntly, the Regional Centres feel orphaned. It is a big palaver. It wholly derives from BH Accra.

The problems are in piles—lean salaried staff, gone equipment and logistics and the unison complaint that approximates caring for themselves. Some at the Regions are a joke in the midst of compet­ing for survival adverts in a terrain of doubtful or mediocre to flimsy standards dependant on inexora­bly sops in shrinking businesses. Much would inevitably breed cor­ruption, or suspicion of the same inevitably because getting highly paid and professional adverts is subordinated to ‘’who you know’’ allegedly. There are ‘’may be’’ and ‘’may-be-not’’-issues of staff apathy, perhaps ‘’galamseys’’ and indiscipline. The concentrations on Accra defeats the letter, spirit and the diversity intended. The applicable humour is the ‘’Accra is Ghana.’’

I have a personal problem and I guess that gives a live meaning to the saying earlier, that there is insufficient ‘’station-identi­fication’’ which distinctly links GBC generally. Example ’’This is Radio Central’, ’instead of ‘’Radio Central- GBC’’. The suffix is a necessaire today with a plethora of politically-owned FMs crowd­ed all over. It sounds banal but c’est tres important seulement. I shall get back to once a DG Prof. Quarmyne’s description of the kind of national broadcaster we would, as a nation gropes:’ a na­tional institution, a Radio/TV cum commercial, an educator, informer, entertainer, culturally-inclined in its drive and development-oriented.’

Prof. Nana Essilfie-Conduah