The concept of neutrality in public appointments has been a topic of discussion in Ghana, particularly in the context of the Electoral Commission (EC). Recently, the President swore in two new Deputy Chairpersons of the EC, sparking debates about their neutrality. However, columnist Benjamin Joe Danso argues that demanding neutrality from adults is unrealistic, as it discounts the influences of their upbringing, socialization, and life experiences.
Danso contends that humans are shaped by their environment, family, and social interactions, making it impossible for anyone above the age of five to be truly neutral. Instead, he suggests that objectivity is a more achievable and desirable standard. Objectivity involves being fair-minded in the face of facts, which can be measured and scrutinized. This distinction between neutrality and objectivity is crucial in evaluating the performance of public officials.
The columnist uses the example of a football referee to illustrate the difference between neutrality and objectivity. Referees, like public officials, are not expected to be neutral but rather objective in their decision-making. They may have personal biases, but they are expected to set them aside when making calls on the field. Similarly, judges take an oath to do right "without fear or favour, affection or ill-will," acknowledging that they may have personal feelings but will act objectively in their duties.
Danso argues that the banner of neutrality is often raised and lowered depending on who holds the flagpole. When an appointee appears to lean towards the opposing side, neutrality becomes a sacred principle, but when they appear to lean towards one's own side, it becomes an "unrealistic" expectation. This selective outrage feeds the deep suspicion Ghanaians hold of one another and erodes the credibility of institutions.
The cost of this selective outrage is not small, as it perpetuates the assumption that every Ghanaian carries a party card stitched into their soul. This assumption makes it difficult for institutions to be accepted on their merits, as every decision is pre-judged by the perceived colours of the person who made it. Danso suggests that instead of demanding neutrality, we should judge appointees by their conduct and the transparency, consistency, and openness to scrutiny they demonstrate.
Danso advocates for building institutions that do not depend on saints but rather on robust design and guard-rails. This includes measures such as party agents at every polling station, public collation of results, independent audits, and clear rules on recusal. By focusing on institutional design and conduct, Ghana can build trust in its institutions and ensure that public officials act with integrity and fairness.
Ultimately, the discussion around neutrality in public appointments highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of human nature and institutional design. By recognizing that adults are shaped by their experiences and environments, Ghana can focus on building institutions that promote objectivity, transparency, and accountability, rather than relying on an unrealistic expectation of neutrality.
Key points
- The concept of neutrality in public appointments is unrealistic and should be replaced with a focus on objectivity and institutional design.
- Demanding neutrality from adults discounts the influences of their upbringing, socialization, and life experiences.
- Focusing on conduct, transparency, and institutional design can help build trust in Ghana's institutions.
