ABSTRACT
This study explores the implementation of national identification system through a comparative study of national identification in India and Ghana. The study is situated in the theory of organizing vision by Swanson and Ramiller. Data for the study was obtained from primary sources, mainly through interviews and secondary sources of information included internets, journal articles, books, reports etc. The study revealed that lack of central database poses a major challenge to the implementation national identification projects in Ghana. The study also revealed that strong legislative instrument is critical to protect both citizens’ identity and national identification databases. The study also identified the best practices in the Indian Identification system that could be incorporated in the ongoing national identification project in Ghana, including the outsourcing of certain identification projects to the private sector to ensure cost effectiveness, efficiency and to make the project financially viable. The study recommends that there should be registration and issuance of national identity cards at birth. The national identity card should be the main requirement for the acquisition of any national document such as passport, driving license etc. It should also be the legitimate document to be used to access other government services like school enrollment, pension entitlements, among others, to serve as motivation for citizens with the aim of enhancing enrollment.
CHAPTER ONE RESEARCH DESIGN
Background to the Study
Society has looked for solutions to the problem of identifying individuals in states for hundreds of years, using available technologies to meet the need.1 Unfortunately, the qualities of identification system (IS) in countries vary based on financial capabilities and political commitment. Most developed countries have robust identification systems based on strong basic official documentation such as birth certificates but many people living in developing countries lack any official documentation.2
Human beings have had various ways to identify individuals and groups but the origins of contemporary national identification system date back to 1938, when lawmakers in the United Kingdom passed the National Registry Act, which mandated that all residents possess identity cards. Subsequently, Germany, France, Poland, Greece, among others, also instituted Identity Card (ID) systems after the end of World War II.3
Traditional social structures ensured local recognition during the early days, but communal systems of identification diminish with internal migration and urbanization. For many developing countries, this identity gap severely limits opportunities for economic, social and political development. Accordingly, robust identification services are urgently needed to address the identity gap. Nonetheless, recent advanced human recognition (AHR) technologies now offer accurate tools for identification (who are you?) and authentication (are you who you claim to be?)
In 1949, ID card adoption emerged in Asia, as newly independent governments sought to expand state authority. For instance, the Hong Kong and Taiwan governments introduced an identity card system to strengthen their sovereignty and quell immigration from mainland China. South Korea and Singapore followed suit in the 1960s for reasons of economic transformation.4
During this same period, most developing countries were under colonial rule and at different stages of the independence struggle. Generally, most French former colonies such as Algeria, Togo, Cote d’Ivoire and Mali maintained the identification systems inherited because of the assimilation policy of France which sought to extend national identification laws to all colonies.5
The issue of identification continues to be contentious because while others such as refugees, pensioners and potential electoral voters perceive it as a form of documentation which ensures their security, inclusion, entitlement and freedom, the ID system which has gained prominence as a method of identification has also been seen as government’s encroachment on citizen’s rights and its associated concerns of victimization, oppression and means for exclusion of some persons.
Similarly, Biometric identification has also provoked opposing viewpoints; while it has been seen as means of improving service delivery, its surveillance capabilities has also raised concerns with respect to privacy of users.6 It is worth mentioning that in some countries such as Rwanda, historically had group classifications such as “Tutsi” and this identification mark played an ugly role in the ethnic violence in the country.7 This Rwanda case signifies one of such fears or dangers of national identification system particularly biometric identification system in some states.
However, in recent times the utility and morality of national identification systems and the technologies adopted depend largely on the prevailing situation in respective countries.8 For example, the issue of national identification gained prominence in the United States (U.S) after the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. Advocates of national IDs in U.S argue that the terrorists were able to use false identities to obtain Social Security Numbers and driver’s licenses from Virginia due to lack of national identification system in the country.9
Developed countries pursue national identification systems for security reasons while poorer nations deploy identification systems for developmental purposes including service delivery such as pensions and health insurance, among others. However, there are few exceptions. For instance, Pakistan’s identity programme was initially introduced for security concerns but it has now been used for service delivery and welfare entitlements.10
Undoubtedly, ID card policies have become dependent on each country’s institutional capacities and financial resources. Accordingly, the successful implementation of the biometric national ID project in India represents the opportunity for other developing countries to adopt feasible ID projects according to their respective national needs. For instance, the nationwide Indian Aadhaar identification project aims to register 1.2billion Indians by 2020. The Unique Identification Number (UID) biometric system collects all 10 fingerprints and an iris scan for both eyes for each citizen including other demographic information.11
Due to the benefits of biometrics, many countries around the world are now considering deploying biometric enabled national ID cards for their citizens. This biometric-based identification card can
also be used as a smartcard for various purposes including the distribution of government services and welfare benefits. In addition, biometric modalities are extremely difficult to counterfeit due to sophisticated detection features. Furthermore, establishment of a central biometric database is cost- saving in nature as the national ID cards can be used for different purposes including voting, health insurance and can also serve as main requirement for the attainment of other national documents.12
Statement of the Research Problem
The issue of a national identification card in Ghana has provoked diverse reactions with regards to its relevance and the motive behind the projects. Again, the debate over the merits of a national ID system failed to gain momentum in previous times, partly due to lack of citizens’ appreciation of its real significance in the socio-economic processes in the country with regards to the personal benefits for users.
However, the emerging regional terrorism trends as evident in the recent terrorist attacks in neighboring Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire and Mali, as well as the 2016 contestation of the electoral register validity over allegations of registered foreign nationals, among others, have revived the need and the call for the effective implementation of a national identification system in Ghana. Ghana’s efforts to issue identification cards date back to 1973 when the Citizens Identity Card was introduced on a limited scale for the border regions as a cross border control measure. The project was discontinued three years later due to problems with logistics and lack of financial support.13 Subsequently, various governments have invested substantial resources in terms of financial, human and technical, to address the issue of identification which resulted in the establishment of the National Identification Authority (NIA) in 2003 with the sole mandate to issue national ID
cards. However, it only resulted in proliferation of various biometric systems with little or no interconnectivity.14
Comparatively, the Indian identification programme launched on 28th January 2009 has registered over 1.12 billion members, 88.2 percent of the population, as of 2nd November, 2016 while the Ghana National Identification Authority (NIA) as of May, 2017 has enrolled only 4.5 million resident Ghanaians, representing 17 percent of the population.15 Currently, NIA has commenced mass registration from the government institutions amid protestation about the required documents for the enrolment. For this reason, the main opposition party, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) has called on its supporters to boycott the exercise. It is against this background that I am motivated to thoroughly investigate this problem in Ghana. It is imperative to assess the challenges to the implementation of a national identification system in Ghana and also to identify the lessons the latter can learn from the Indian experience.
