Five Per Cent for Workers, Comfort for Politicians: Is the Government Listening to the Poor?

The government’s proposed five per cent base salary increase for workers raises serious questions about its appreciation of the economic hardships confronting ordinary Ghanaians. At a time when many households are struggling to afford food, pay rent, transport fares, utility bills and school expenses, such a modest increment risks being perceived not as meaningful relief but as a failure to appreciate the daily suffering of the people. The question that demands an answer is simple: does the political class understand the economic reality of the citizens whose votes put it in power?

Ghanaian workers do not expect miracles from the government. They expect fairness, responsible leadership and policies that recognise the sacrifices they make to keep the country running. Teachers educate the next generation, nurses and other health professionals save lives, security personnel protect communities, and countless public servants sustain the machinery of government. Yet, when salary negotiations arise, workers are often expected to exercise patience and accept increases that may offer little relief against rising living costs. Meanwhile, public debate about the remuneration and benefits of political office holders continues to raise questions about whether the country’s priorities are properly aligned.

The apparent disparity between the remuneration packages enjoyed by certain political office holders and the modest increases proposed for ordinary workers deserves serious public scrutiny. Article 71 office holders occupy constitutionally recognised positions, and their remuneration is subject to specific arrangements. However, constitutional provisions should not become an excuse for avoiding legitimate questions about fairness, accountability and the affordability of public expenditure. Where office holders enjoy substantial salaries, allowances and publicly funded benefits, the government owes citizens a clear explanation of the principles guiding those packages, especially when it asks workers to accept less. Public service must never become a convenient route to personal comfort while the people who finance the state struggle to meet basic needs.

The situation becomes even more troubling when one considers the difference between the overall benefits available to some political office holders and the financial obligations ordinary workers must meet from their salaries. Housing, official transport and other work-related benefits may be provided to certain office holders under established arrangements, while ordinary workers must budget for rent, fuel, electricity, water, transport and the education of their children. These differences do not automatically mean that every office holder is overpaid or that every worker is underpaid. They do, however, make it imperative for the government to demonstrate that its remuneration policies are fair, defensible and sensitive to the economic conditions of the wider population.

There is also a dangerous economic reality the government cannot afford to ignore: salary increases do not necessarily translate into improved living standards when the cost of goods and services rises at the same time. Traders, landlords, transport operators and service providers may adjust their prices in response to operating costs and market conditions. Consequently, a worker who receives a five per cent increase could find that the additional income has already been swallowed by higher food prices, transport fares and household expenses. The government must therefore look beyond the percentage announced at the negotiating table and examine the real purchasing power of workers. What matters is not simply how much more appears on a payslip, but what that additional money can actually buy.

The political class must also confront the credibility gap between campaign promises and the realities of governance. Political parties routinely make attractive promises while seeking power, assuring citizens that their economic circumstances will improve under their leadership. Yet, once elected, governments often invoke financial constraints, competing priorities and difficult economic conditions when citizens demand tangible improvements. This contradiction recalls George Orwell’s "Animal Farm", in which the promise of equality becomes compromised as those who acquire power establish privileges for themselves. The lesson is not that every politician behaves identically, but that power requires constant public scrutiny because promises without accountability can become instruments of political convenience.

Workers must also recognise that their collective bargaining power is one of the few effective instruments available to them in negotiating fair remuneration. Organised labour, including the relevant unions representing public-sector employees, should therefore carefully examine the proposed five per cent base salary increase against inflation, the cost of living, productivity, government revenue and the financial needs of workers. If the offer cannot reasonably protect workers’ purchasing power, labour unions should reject it through lawful, coordinated negotiations and demand a more defensible settlement. Such a position should be supported by credible economic evidence and a clear alternative proposal, rather than confrontation for its own sake. Workers deserve representatives who will defend their interests firmly, transparently and responsibly.

Ultimately, the government must understand that economic hardship is not an abstract figure in a budget statement. It is the parent who cannot adequately feed a child, the teacher who struggles to pay rent, the nurse who spends a significant portion of a salary on transport, and the pensioner whose years of service have not translated into financial security. Citizens should also demand that political parties explain, before elections, how their promises will be funded, how workers’ living standards will be protected and how public office holders’ remuneration will be kept accountable to the people.

A government that expects citizens to make sacrifices must demonstrate that sacrifice begins with responsible leadership and a fair distribution of the nation’s limited resources. Five per cent may be a negotiating figure, but it must not become a measure of how little the government believes ordinary workers deserve. The government should return to the negotiating table with a realistic offer that recognises the dignity of labour and the economic pressures facing Ghanaian households. Anything less risks deepening public frustration and weakening citizens’ confidence in the promise that democratic government exists to serve them.

The Trial News