Showing posts with label National Enlightenment. Show all posts

POLITICAL MORALITY MYOPIA

In this article, I examine the subject of political morality myopia. I consider it apt to take a break from working on a few publications in order to address this subject to the best of my ability. I once came across an assertion by the American historian, Henry B. Adams to the effect that: “Morality is a private and costly luxury.” Though I initially dismissed this statement as absurd, I reluctantly found myself not only discerning some form of wisdom in it, but also saw its manifestation in practice. Hopefully, this discourse will unearth reasons for one to be in acquiescence.
Accordingly, it remains cardinal that I build a premise for my argument to ensure a lucid presentation of ideas. In view of this, I commence by defining morality and myopia. First, morality has been defined as the quality of being moral. It has to do with conformity or a degree of conformity to conventional standards of moral conduct. Further, it encompasses a system of moral principles or an instruction or lesson in morals. Secondly, the word myopia, which from ophthalmology refers to a condition of the eye in which parallel rays are focused in front of the retina with objects being seen distinctly only when near to the eye, being nearsightedness, has come to be associated with lack of foresight or discernment, in other words a narrow-mindedness.
Consequently, morality myopia encompasses a narrow-mindedness relating to the conformity to the rules of right conduct which embraces moral or virtuous conduct. As far as I am concerned, I strongly believe that morality is (or should be) morality whether it’s in politics, social or even in a church setting. However, reality suggests there is a developing notion of political morality either explicitly or implicitly.
Notwithstanding the struggle to agree on a perfect moral code acceptable to all, there  is still faith and support in what most people agree as an existent moral code either stated or unstated. On the contrary though, some may argue that everybody has, not only their own sort of understanding, but also their opinion and choice of what is right or wrong. However, that may be dismissed as being a perceived right or ideology rather than an established truth. Was that to be held as absolute truth, then standards, rules or laws would themselves be redundant considering the capricious choices of humans. Furthermore, nations would not need constitutions as everybody becomes a law unto themselves; everybody formulates laws as deemed fitting to them.
 In a slight digression, I am tempted to think that one may wonder why I am even spending time writing this article and what my motive is. I have been perusing some of the stories breaking and the comments that people have been making. It appears people seem to be analysing issues through either the “red, white and blue” or the “green, white, red and black” spectacles. It comes therefore as no surprise that  their views are coloured and hence the blatant display of their myopic assessments.
The tricky question that we need to ask ourselves is where the boundary between our political leanings and critical thinking should lie. It is increasingly palpable that when stories break, most assessments of facts are bereft of a smidgen of critical analysis. It occurs then that just because someone is from a particular party either in government or in opposition, they find it expedient to clearly twist issues under the guise of political spin. Such spin is carefully carried out to throw dust into the eyes of the masses.
In practice, such people see grey and craftily refer to it as either a shade of white or a shade of black. They even refer to a spade as a large spoon not meant for culinary purposes. Their motivation stems from what this article describes as political morality. As an extension, such people decide what is right and wrong depending on who is doing it. For them, political morality is party specific hence what they would bemoan if it were done by members of an opposing party would be very much condoned by them if done by their own party members. To such, what is good for the goose is only good for the goose and not the gander.
This is something that I think has been going on for a while and has gained momentum lately, leading me to wonder what kind of people we are. One would expect that despite the fact that we support a particular party, we would still be in a position to recognise if the actions of the party are morally inept, bankrupt or corrupt. Additionally, that if a matter is execrable; it ought to be judged as such and not twisted under the guise of political expediency in view of either garnering political capital or damage limitation.
Contrary to what some politicians think, not all the masses can be fooled. Like it has been said, you can fool some of the people some of the time and perhaps all the people some of the time but you cannot fool all the people all the time. That is a thought worth considering.
We as a people must start finding ways of critically analysing and assessing issues and looking at the facts of the matter to the very best of our ability. Just because we are in favour of a particular political party should not make what is wrong seem right.
Unfortunately, I have observed that this same political morality myopia seems to spread to other areas of our lives. This may explain why when someone connected to us does something that is flagrant, we seek to find a way round it, or when somebody from our tribe does something wrong, we seem to condone it but cannot stand it when the same action is done by someone else from another tribe.
We should pause and ask ourselves, where is the plumb-line? Do we really subscribe to the  widely held view of morality or do we make the rules as and when they seem good to us. This matter of political morality myopia is really pervading the fabric of our nation. The evidence is not farfetched with all the increasing media outlets available to us. In looking forward to the elections, I shudder to think that our own idea of political morality and not morality itself would influence us to choose a candidate who may not be up to the task but just because we think we support that party.
No matter how much we might want to sweep some issues under the carpet, the matters of morality cannot go away. How we assert that we do not care about the personal lives of people who lead us, as long as they can do the job! Well, why do we get up in arms when the very same people abuse our confidence [suffrage] by either failing to deliver on their promises or exploiting the nation’s resources?
A nation that has voted or votes for morally bankrupt leaders has no business bemoaning the moral decadence of its electorates and nation in general...after all, birds of the same feathers flock together. It is also worth drilling home the point that there is nothing like “my morality” and that what is morally inept is exactly so, no matter how disguised it may be or passed off as.
In conclusion, I remain mindful of the elusive nature of morality and despite the fact that we may disagree on some nitty-gritty, the idea of our moral code remains. Hopefully, there are some critical minds out there who would be daring enough to discard their “red, white and blue” or “green, white, red and black” political blankets and show some real guts and cease from being snollygosters. The trumpet is sounding for some politicians, “arm-chair politicians” and “media politicians” to desist from political morality myopia. Such would surely be salutary to our increasingly stale political environment of a nation.

Dr. Frank Robert Silverson is the author of several online articles covering different subjects. He is an author with a knack for tackling issues that polarise opinion. He aspires to bring an objective insight to such topics. Dr. Silverson has written three books about to be released titled; Don’t Lose It! The Golden Seven, and Contemporary Thought and Insight.
Email: frsilverson@yahoo.com

STRONG VALUES - LESS CASH?

According to John W. Gardner, “Our problem is not to find better values but to be faithful to those we profess.” I am motivated to write this piece because of the headlines over the weekend where at the Commonwealth summit, David Cameron and the UK government sought to put pressure on some African countries by threatening to withhold UK aid from governments that do not reform legislation banning homosexuality, thus making this demand a subtle conditionality. The aid in question refers to general budget support which is a type of bilateral aid. Mr Cameron told the BBC One's Andrew Marr Show that, “British aid should have more strings attached.”
It is apt for one to ask the question, “Are they saying that by us having strong values then they would give us less cash? Do they mean to imply that by us standing our ground on subjects like homosexuality then we would receive less cash? What an interesting demand to be making at a time like this. It is in times like this that Carol P. Christ’s assertion that, “Beliefs and values that have held sway for thousands of years will be questioned as never before,” makes so much meaning.
Before ranting and raving and losing one’s head on a subject like this, it is vital to look at the issue in an intricate manner from both sides. Two key questions may consequently arise to ensure a level-headed debate ensues. First, have they got a point? The follow-on question then would be, is the point valid?
In the first place, there is an explicit threat for us to change our stance on certain issues including homosexuality else risk our aid being withheld. What then is their point? In this case, they are donors and a donor has the choice or right to put his money where he wishes. A donation is given without the donor feeling compelled by the donee. So if the British government is giving aid, they reserve the right to choose who and where their aid goes to. The fact then remains that whether we like it or not, they can put their money where they want as it is their own money.
As to arguments about what happened in the past with suggestions of the British plundering our wealth, I shall leave that to my next article; African Backwardness – Imposition or Choice. Sustaining the argument of them being donors, it then reasons that the donor maintains a prerogative and this idea may subsequently justify why they appear to pass the first test posed above.
Nevertheless, the second question posed above may prove more debateable. In reminiscing over the validity or otherwise of their threats, in the frame of affairs, more thought may be supportive. One may find that many of the African democracies have been influenced in one way or the other either explicitly or implicitly by Christianity. In the last century or so, no other country can lay claim to being an exporter of Christianity to African countries more than the British. Many years back, they sent a whole number of missionaries who came to evangelise to us Africans at a time when we did not worship God and were deeply rooted in traditional worship; our own unique form of worship. The English in particular exported Christianity to us which did and continues to shape our thinking.
Additionally, they brought us the Bible, one of their notable legacies bequeathed, which has and still influences our mentality in an explicit manner. In contrast to their earlier proselytising, they are now coming back and requisitioning us to go against the dictates of the Bible that we now hold as authoritative on matters of morality and general living. What a sad turn of events!
Further consideration of the foundations of the British Empire will unearth the vital role that Christianity played in advancing the course of the empire. However, today, in the context of humanly logical wisdom, they have neglected their “first love” and are unabashedly trying to exert pressure on others under the guise of human rights. It is abhorrent how “human rights” act as a shield for many to peddle their own selfish ambitions which in this case is to ask others to also abandon the values which they hold dear.
Under these circumstances and also in view of the fact that the subject of homosexuality remains a very sensitive issue in many cultures, this debate cannot thrive on a quiescent response; it requires those who feel strongly about the issue to express their opinions in an unequivocal manner. After all, today, what kind of strong moral values can Europe set for us to follow? Are we not aware of the moral decadence that is fast pervading their societies? Is that the standard we should be aspiring to? Is that the guide they want us to follow? What sort of role models are they being to us when their people are doing whatever they like to satisfy their sexual proclivities amongst others, in a brazen manner?
For the most part, any well informed person on the social fabric and mentality of the African society will agree that for the second question to do with the validity of their threat, it may be construed as lacking substance and failing to withstand contextual scrutiny. Consequently, it may be perceived as an attempt to rock the boat. This stems from the fact that majority of Africans shun homosexuality and perceive it as a perversion of the moral code. To put it more succinctly, it is an aberration!
Having said that, one would be perceived as lacking a modicum of social awareness to suggest that there aren’t some who favour this practice. It would be vast ignorance to believe that it is not an ongoing practice by both indigenes and foreigners alike. The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is an age-old vice which has refused to go away and one wonders whether it would, considering the influence that some of its proponents wield. Irrespective of that, the vast majority of Africans would shun homosexuality on any day and under any condition. They would never subscribe to homosexuality and changing social opinion may be akin to undertaking a Sisyphean task.
For one country in a position of advantage to ask another to get rid of its values to get more cash is a very sad and unfortunate situation. What such countries forget is that their wealth is God-given and as such it is morally bankrupt to use that wealth to push others to abandon their values. This is totally out of place and would be obdurately frowned on by most African countries.
Furthermore, one may pose a reasonable question along these lines; “Why don’t they ask some countries with questionable “human rights” to amend their ways else they would cease buying oil or discontinue trading with them? Well, for most countries, Africa is synonymous to a beggar carrying a cup and chasing a rich man for some loose change he (the beggar) badly needs to survive. This has thus given them the power and authority to dictate to us how to live our lives. Is this neo-colonialism dressed like Father Christmas asking a child to behave well for some sweets?
In sharp contrast to some of their demands, I remember that not long ago, Theresa May, the UK Home Secretary told the Sunday Telegraph she “personally” would like to see the Human Rights Act scrapped just because of the problems it caused for the Home Office. How unbelievable! She told her party conference in Manchester that: “I'd personally like to see the Human Rights Act go because I think we have had some problems with it. I see it here in the Home Office, particularly, the sort of problems we have in being unable to deport people who perhaps are terrorist suspects. Obviously we've seen it with some foreign criminals who are in the UK." Prime Minister David Cameron said he agreed with Mrs May that the act should be scrapped and replaced with a British Bill of Rights. At this juncture the reader can make his or her mind up about these apparent double standards.
Naturally, this issue makes me think of issues in a broader sense. It is becoming obvious in the day that we live in that morality appears not to hold any longer and if one has strong values, they are highly likely to have less “cash”. Let’s bring the discussion to our own country and apply it to ourselves. Up and down the country, people find themselves in offices and departments that we all know about (without the need to name and shame anybody) where if you choose to maintain strong values, you will never make it. It is an informal rule that one is expected to bend the rules and cave in to pressure if one wants to make more “cash”.
It is sad that society today does not really celebrate people who stand for their values. We have become a people who pay lip service to the essence of morality by doing very little to celebrate it. On the other hand, we have allowed people with convoluted views and notions of morality to assume positions of influence.
So while we think about or focus on what the British government is seeking to do, I personally believe we should do well to ask ourselves this vital question: “Do we as individuals cherish and celebrate strong values, or we are ready to just cave in and take some shortcuts to make some quick bucks?
Dwight D. Eisenhower finds that: “A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.” For what the British government is contemplating, what history would teach us is that when an issue comes up like this, it generates a transient brouhaha and when the dust settles...before we know it, most nations begin to cave in because of the perceived financial penalty “suffered.” With this view of history, perhaps John Ratzenberger’s direction that, “Find people who share your values, and you'll conquer the world together,” may hold sway if history is not to be repeated. This gives the idea of strength in numbers.
A vital clarion call from this piece is for us to prove to the so-called “masters” that we are not puppets and that we would maintain a resolute stand today and tomorrow with no view to give away our values. However, for us to come to that level, it must begin individually. It must be a collection of individual resolves culminating in a homogenous conclusion of affairs to weather the strategy of divide and rule which has been used to exploit chinks in our armoury. Any division in our ranks would be exploited and if we are not careful we would shed off our values before realising it.
In conclusion, this article leaves the reader with a thought for deep reflection; “Would you would rather have strong values for less “cash” or less values for more “cash”?
God bless our continent and light it up from being seen as the Dark Continent.

Dr. Frank Robert Silverson has written other articles available online.
Blog: www.franksilverson.blogspot.com
Email: frsilverson@yahoo.com

TRIBALISM 2: ENGLISH REMAINS KEY

Following on from my earlier discussion on the subject; “Tribalism: The Keys Work Better Together,” I find a need to support it with this piece. As always, I shall attempt to tackle this sensitive issue with practical circumspection to the best of my ability. Nevertheless, I recognise that with issues of such nature, no matter how much one attempts to be neutral, there are those that would take exception to every argument made. In spite of this fact, I remain unperturbed in my quest to discuss a valid issue like this.

The reasoning for this piece stems from the demand of the La chief last week regarding either the removal of the word ‘Akwaaba’ or the addition of the Ga equivalent at the Kotoka International Airport. I am in two minds about this issue; whether to hastily dismiss this demand as being unnecessary in the context of our development as one people, or whether to see it as an indication of simmering tensions percolating to the surface in a measured manner. This is a dicey issue and I remain ambivalent as to what remains a right choice. Nonetheless, I find that as an advocate of national peace and unity, one cannot always dismiss another’s grievance just because one is not in acquiescence. What helps is that such issues generate a platform to widen the subject to other issues that may be deemed much more relevant. On this occasion and context, I indubitably find that the discussion “ENGLISH REMAINS KEY” becomes ad rem to the subject of tribalism.
Without attempting to give a linguistic lesson which would only detract from the real thrust of this debate, it is worth building a premise for my argument. Language, as defined by the dictionary, may include; a body of words and the systems for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation, the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition. It may also refer to communication by voice in the distinctively human manner, using arbitrary sounds in conventional ways with conventional meanings; speech. Additionally, it may define any set or system of such symbols as used in a more or less uniform fashion by a number of people, who are thus enabled to communicate intelligibly with one another. In effect, language serves as a medium of communicating ideas, feelings, as well as concepts, amongst others.
According to Ethnologue, there are a total of 79 languages in Ghana. I find this debatable as there are many variations of languages spoken and an attempt to give an exact number may prove elusive. Of these, the Bureau of Ghana Languages presently operates in eleven Government-sponsored languages namely: Akuapem Twi, Asante Twi, Ewe, Mfantse, Ga, Dangme, Nzema, Dagbani, Dagaare, Gonja and Kasem.
Language remains an important element of every culture and serves not only as a vehicle for communication but also facilitates the propagation and extension of tradition, culture and philosophy of a people. Through language, the oral traditions of a people are bequeathed to future generations ensuring the continuity of a unique people’s culture. Consequently, people display affinity to their language as they derive intrinsic worth and identity from it. In brief, one may observe an inextricable connection between a people and their language further corroborating the essence of language. It is not surprising therefore that Nelson Mandela once remarked that: “If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.”
From the above, it remains understandable why some people have called for the scrapping of the English language and for it to be replaced with a new national language. Others have sought to be more temperate in their approach, advocating for the addition of a second national language. To many, this new language could be a totally new one, an existing one or a combination of the former. In contrast, there are those who vociferously adopt the stance that no change is needed and that we should not attempt to fix something that is not necessarily broken.
As explained above, language is very essential and those who advocate a national language justify it on the grounds that it would enable development through enhancing national communication. They even go further to boldly claim that the lack of a common language for official use is responsible for our current state. Others also believe that a national language would make us more united. Furthermore, national pride and identity derivative is what some give as being the concession to the adoption of a new national language. Moreover, proponents of adoption of a national language label contrary arguments as being absurd or dishonest. They also dismiss in a bellicose manner, the notion of its cost or even the nature of our local languages being an impediment to the pace of development in this global village.
So if their reasons are cogent enough, then the ubiquitous question remains why we have not made the changes sought by them till date. I dare ask whether it is because our leaders lack the intrepidity to not only contemplate such but also to move forward to its application. One may further surmise if our leaders’ failure to grant these advocates their much sought desire is simply oblivion to what they (the advocates) perceive as being a palpable benefit to be derived by the nation.
While showing deference to the arguments of the advocates of a national language, I nonetheless find much more plausible reasons for our leaders’ current stance on the matter. It is not by scales of paramnesia that English remains the default national language of Ghana. It is reasonable to suggest that Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, a man ahead of his time and arguably the best leader this nation has had, left us with the English language for vital reasons. I do wonder at times what local language he would have adopted if he had his druthers. Should that have happened, would it not have been a form of vain contest for a successor to subsequently outdo his predecessor by adopting another language that conforms to his tribal affiliation?
There ought to be valid reasons why we continue to use English as our official language. What really makes English a valuable tool is the fact that only a small fraction of the words in the English language are actually words that can be said to be English. The greater majority are borrowed from virtually every language on earth. Dr. G. Manivannan observes the following regarding the English language: “It is spoken by more than 300 million native speakers, and between 400 and 800 million foreign users. It is the official language of air transport and shipping; the leading language of science, technology, computers, and commerce; and a major medium of education, publishing, and international negotiation. For this reason, scholars frequently refer to its latest phase as World English.”
English may be deemed as being more than just a language but also a multipurpose tool. With the breathtaking pace at which the world continues to develop, we continue to edge closer to what may be said to be a borderless world. Such a world would require a universal language which English may lay claim to in a bold manner. In corroborating this position, one may find that some of the most advanced discoveries and inventions in science and technology are made by universities which use English as the medium of instruction. Also, one can observe the use of English in commercial transactions throughout the world further supporting the view that it remains the language for international business management and commerce. Additionally, while facilitating inter-state communication, the English language also boasts a wealth of literature and knowledge enshrined in it.
Based on the foregoing, I shall pause and pose the question of how feasible it is to carry out research to the highest order and level either qualitatively or quantitatively in a local language. I am yet to find conclusive research that supports the view of the ease of such and would be very glad to peruse through such a study. Given the choice of Oxford University or University of Ghana to undertake a Doctorate in a local language, it is not farfetched the choice that many would contemplate.
While others are advancing and embracing much needed change, how justifiable would it be to divert scarce financial resources to fund a project of adopting a new national language? A cost-benefit analysis may render this notion as a non-starter. The time and money needed to carry out a project of such colossal nature should convince many to think twice on the subject. One may see such an exercise as akin to swimming against the tide rather than swimming along. After all, we have more pressing and weightier matters to contend with as a nation.
Even if this notion of a new national language was given attention, which language would be adopted? The fact that one language may lay claim to having hegemony over other languages would not necessarily justify why that language needs to be chosen. This may be construed as that language and identity exercising a preponderant effect over other languages and culture with a support from the state. Given a carte blanche to select a national language, which tribe would not assert its own?
Consequently, my motive for writing a piece like this remains national peace and unity and I find that there is a tendency to alienate one another rather than unite us which would be a reason that may be given for a new national language. It is not unreasonable to argue that adopting one particular language would not quench the flames of tribalism but rather fan it. Fortunately, we have adopted the English language for reasons that can be perceived as fitting. This view is lent further support by Jorge Luis Borges who states that: “In general, every country has the language it deserves.”
In a rather risible admission, Billy Sunday quips: “When the English language gets in my way, I walk over it.” This may be seen in practice at the most unexpected of places. Rather than arguing for the rules to be bent our way so we have our own language as the national language, the onus lies on us to pursue active development of ourselves if we are to remain relevant in a brutally competitive environment.
At this juncture, I shall use this platform to urge the government to address the obstacles that have made the English language a barrier to many. We need to create the right infrastructure to facilitate the learning of the English language in a manner that makes us relevant and competitive on the global stage.
To further mollify the embers of tribalism, the government would do well to avoid elevating any particular local language to national status and prominence. English offers us an opportunity to work and communicate with one together in a peaceful existence while allowing everyone to speak his/her local language without the need to discard it. Moreover, with our increasing quest to become the world’s gateway to West Africa, English offers us the best hope at this.
Though the continuous use of English may not be favoured by those passionately advocating a new national language, the argument espoused here may suggest they have a rethink as our current situation in a changing world supports the view that “ENGLISH REMAINS KEY”.
In conclusion, I shall insert the first four lines from the second stanza of our national anthem that motivates me to write pieces like these. It reads as follows:
“Hail to thy name, O Ghana
To thee we make our solemn vow;
Steadfast to build together
A nation strong in Unity...”

Dr. Frank Robert Silverson
Email: frsilverson@yahoo.com

TRIBALISM: THE KEYS WORK BETTER TOGETHER

I start this article by recounting a quote from an earlier piece of mine titled; Kufuor and Rawlings: Swords and Saints. It reads as follows: “Aside from political parties, some tribes in the country continue to cross swords. The animosity and hatred displayed by some tribes towards others is reprehensible and utterly execrable at worst. The question to ask is whether we are all not Ghanaians. Indeed, tribalism has adversely affected the progress of many a nation leaving the ashes of regret as its invisible remnant and backwardness as its palpable bequest.”
The seriousness of tribalism leads me to focus on this subject matter in an intricate manner. There are those that either deliberately or inadvertently decry the existence of such. This is an issue that exists in society whether we are willing to talk about it or not. I am very saddened to have to open a discourse on a matter of this nature at this point in our history as a nation. Some of the comments that are left by readers on popular websites lay claim to the existence of such a canker that needs to be addressed or ameliorated to any extent possible.
Aside from the politicking that goes on when discussions come up, some people cannot refrain from taking a swipe at other tribes. Such detract from giving any relevant contribution to subjects at the fore and rather blithely proceed on a tribal smear campaign with all importunity and impunity.
Without getting into arguments of whether or not there are tribes in Ghana, my focus here moves the discussion to consider pragmatic reasons for unity rather than dabbling in a verbose academic discourse with no corresponding advancement to our shared cause. My cardinal motive is to draw attention to a subtle canker and suggest ways of amelioration.
Sociologists view ethnocentrism as the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture or group to which one belongs, often accompanied by feelings of dislike for other groups. It may also refer to the tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own. Tribalism may be deemed as the state of existing as a separate tribe or tribes; the customs and beliefs of a tribal society or loyalty to a tribe or tribal values. Additionally, ethnic groups consist of individuals who are bound together, often closely, by a shared cultural structure and sense of ethnic identity. Consequently, the individual persistently uses membership in the ethnic group as a primary criterion in the formation of relationships with others, and in evaluating or making judgments concerning other individuals.
Writing in the “Gallery of Gold Coast Celebrities", Dr. I. S. Ephson notes Dr. James Emmanuel Kwegyir Aggrey (1875 - 1927) as an apostle of inter-racial co-operation who advocated and helped to cut the path of progress for the African race in many fields, particularly in the direction of Religion, Education, and Agriculture. He further records that co-operation was Aggrey's ideal which he expressed by his example of Piano Keys:  "You can play a tune of sorts on the black keys, and you can play a tune of sorts on the white keys, but for harmony you must use both the black and the white." Dr. Ephson further writes that Dr Kwegyir Aggrey saw true co-operation as involving “a certain measure of equality - equality of opportunity, if not of actual political status.  It means that each side has something to contribute - something more than brain on one side, brain on the other - to the well-being of both". This is what provides the thrust for this piece: The keys work better together.
A nation builder made such a profound observation many years ago. Today, we continue to fight amongst ourselves with some tribes having a sense of superiority to other tribes and forgetting that every tribe has something to offer. It is so sad that when we travel outside the country we complain of racism and yet return home only to pursue ethnocentrism. How we vacillate from crying victim to turning the victimizer depending on where we find ourselves!
Throughout history when nations could have advanced working together as a team, some tribes sought to treat others as a lower ‘caste’, oppressing and dominating them to the ruin of that very nation. This led Saint Augustine to conclude that: “By faithfulness [to our cause as a nation] we are collected and wound up into unity within ourselves, whereas we had been scattered abroad in multiplicity.”
The story of the Hutus and Tutsis is not a farfetched example. This resulted in what has been termed as Africa's largest genocide in modern times. The visible effects of tribal conflicts can also be seen in South Sudan as well as Yemen to name a few.
In fact, we need to grow up! Ethnocentrism and cultural parochialism is a pathetic state to find ourselves in. Can one region form a country? Are we not economically interdependent? Despite the tacit restraint to avoid marital alliances with other tribes, are Gas not married to Fantes, Ashantis to Ewes, Northerners to Southerners and Easterners to Westerners? As Mattie Stepanek discovered: “Unity is strength... [and that] when there is teamwork and collaboration, wonderful things can be achieved.”  With seeming quiet, are we not making some progress as a nation?
I disagree with Bertrand Russell’s notion that “Order, unity, and continuity are human inventions, just as truly as catalogues and encyclopaedias’”, rather, I find more support for national advancement in Hans Kung’s view that: “We are convinced of the fundamental unity of the human family.”
Does it mean we should lose our ethnic values to the extent that we lose our identity? Probably not! However, yes, if it conflicts with our quest for advancement as a nation. Richard Baxter supports this view when he says: “Unity in things Necessary, Liberty in things Unnecessary, and Charity in all.” From his statement, love for one another is cardinal as we forge ahead as one people (Ghanaians).
We should heed to Bill McCartney when he says that we should: “...build a highway for healing and unity.” After all, we all stand to lose should tribalism rear up its ugly head and gnaw away the fragile covering of peace we enjoy. To all those who continue to fan tensions either in an overt or covert manner, you would serve us all well to desist from such practices. Remember also that “Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.” That is Mark Twain’s advice to all harbouring negative thoughts for other tribes that would only put a break on our progress as a nation.
As I bring this piece to an end, I cannot help but to repeat a line from Camille Pissarro’s reflection: “At fifty, that is in, 1880 I formulated the idea of unity, without being able to render it. At sixty, I am beginning to see the possibility of rendering it.” I remain optimistic that with continuing advancement and education, we would gradually see ourselves more as Ghanaians (one people) with our cardinal allegiance to Ghana rather than the tribe we come from.
 
Dr. Frank Robert Silverson
Email: frsilverson@yahoo.com

UNMASKING THE REAL CULPRIT: JUSTICE FOR THE SEXUALLY HARASSED

There are issues that some would rather sweep under the carpet than confront head on. I realise the sensitivity of this subject and hence, would be cautious in my analysis of issues. My language and usual style of writing would be varied to target a much wider audience. It is only time that would justify this effort as worthwhile or otherwise.

Our collective view on sexual harassment has been changing over the years. It is reasonable to believe that in any case, more needs to be done. To suggest that nothing has been achieved in the last few years would be a sign of being economical with the truth. If this article gets us talking about issues through the creation of awareness, then I believe the effort invested has proved meaningful.
I commend all who have taken various steps to address this issue. While lauding other writers who have written on the subject matter, I shall also use this platform to add my voice in further championing the need for rapid change. Although I do not believe that this article would bring an end to an age-old problem, I am encouraged that it may help a victim to seek help while possibly deterring some would-be culprits.
From my readings, I found different definitions given for the term “sexual harassment”, some narrow, and others equally broad. To make sure my audience understand the premise for my argument, I shall adopt the definition given by the UN Women’s Watch which reads that sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.
The point that needs to be made here is that sexual harassment, although predominantly carried out by men, has recently seen an increasing number of women being guilty of the same. In today’s society, one can observe the old and young, rich or poor, literate and illiterate and even the believing and unbelieving perpetrating this act. Whereas usually the harasser may appear to have a form of power or authority over his/her victim, the absence of such does not preclude the occurrence of the act.
The effects on victims are multitudinous in nature and may include, amongst others, physical, professional, academic, financial and social as well as psychological and health consequences.
When faced with the effects of sexual harassment, most victims are confronted with the serious choice of remaining silent or seeking redress in the public eye.  This can be likened to finding one’s self between the devil and the deep blue sea or being between a rock and a hard place. It is a tricky choice to either come out and speak about the issue or suffer in silence. Helen Watson, a sociologist, sums the costs to the victim when she argues that: “Facing up to the crime and having to deal with it in public is probably worse than suffering in silence. I found it to be a lot worse than the harassment itself.” It so happens that some choose to move on quietly rather than talk about it. Who can blame the harassed for choosing the former option?
Considering that retaliation and backlash against victims are very commonplace, those who complain risk hostility and isolation from colleagues, friends and even family members, amongst others. It is not strange to assume that such people may even team up to protect not only the harasser, but the name of the family or institution as a means of damage control. I wonder how many families would want to have their names dragged into the mud by giving harassers up. The adage that says “never wash your dirty linen in public” remains a very potent force providing shelter to such harassers. Such a situation although thriving on conventional wisdom makes it very difficult to address the issue.
Having said this, it is worthwhile to pause and address an issue that further compounds the problem of sexual harassment. This has to do with those who accuse others falsely or lie about a supposed abuse either to extort money or embark on a smear campaign. Unfortunately, this leaves untold distress on the falsely accused who may spend much time and effort in clearing their names to little or no avail. Another factor that has further complicated the problem of sexual harassment is the hasty presumption of guilt before a fair trial. Furthermore, there has been a shift of the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.
However, the fact remains that there are people who have been sexually harassed in one way or the other. It is a shameful observation that rather than bringing such to justice, our society sometimes shelters people who commit such crimes. The question then is: “How are we going to move on...?”
Erich Fromm perceives that: “As we ascend the social ladder, viciousness wears a thicker mask.” We find that some in society use the mask of power, money, status, reputation and titles, amongst others, to get away with crimes that the ordinary man would not get away with. There are some who have hidden behind such masks to repeatedly offend with impunity. These people usually have a well-crafted image of respect and restraint that rivals a saint’s but changes into one of viciousness when alone with their target. This makes Thomas Dekker right when he says that: “A mask of gold hides all deformities.”
The advice from this piece to such ‘powerful’ people who habitually offend with impunity lent by their ‘mask’ would be for them to reconsider their actions. One day their cups would be full. Probably they can consider what Kevyn Aucoin says: “Life is too short to spend hoping that the perfectly arched eyebrow or hottest new lip shade will mask an ugly heart.”
For the victims who have had to go through such a difficult time, you may consider counselling as an option. If you are still facing the effects of a past harassment, you may want to seek medical or psychological or even spiritual help. This might do you more good than hiding in the dark shade of disgrace and reproach.
While I am totally against any form of sexual harassment, I would advise that people exercise caution in their dealings with others so as not to be deemed as being suggestive or to be mistakenly construed as a consenting or willing party. Additionally, provocative dressing should be avoided as it could wrongly be seen as being an invitation to harass.
Parents need to keep a watchful eye as young children cannot usually be accused of inviting would-be harassers. By creating an atmosphere of trust in the home, such acts against children would hopefully be nipped in the bud. Furthermore, education on matters of such nature should be intensified both at home and school to help curb this menace. All in all, everyone needs to exercise a good dose of common sense to avoid the likelihood of victimization.
Finally, we all have a role to play, whether as individuals, government, churches, schools, employers etc. Everybody can contribute in ensuring that we all live, work and worship in an environment devoid of sexual harassment. Unless we come together as a collective force and send the strongest message to these culprits that there is no place for such behaviour, this canker would worsen. As Victor Hugo notes, “Virtue has a veil, vice a mask”, so let us get the masks off the culprits and give much needed justice to the sexually harassed. 

Dr. Frank Robert Silverson
Email: frsilverson@yahoo.com

KUFUOR AND RAWLINGS: SWORDS AND SAINTS

Some events that transpired this week may potentially shape the political landscape of our motherland Ghana, and I would like to use this platform to contribute my thoughts on them. Before moving on to the main issue of interest, I would like to acknowledge all those following my writings and getting in touch. You all deserve a special mention, particularly Madam Esther Quaye of BoG on your imminent retirement on 2nd October, 2011.
What we witnessed on Wednesday, 21st September, 2011 at the University of Ghana during ex-president Kufuor’s foundation launch is indeed a laudable achievement. This piece assumes prior knowledge of that event and affords me the opportunity to give my personal opinion while drawing on possible repercussions for a wider spectrum of events.
Thomas Merton sets us off with a rather grave thought. He observes that: “Peace demands the most heroic labour and the most difficult sacrifice. It demands greater heroism than war. It demands greater fidelity to the truth and a much more perfect purity of conscience.” If anything is worth noting, it is that Merton reminds us that peace is never served on a silver platter considering the values enounced and attributes expected.
With some stories seeking to dampen the euphoria earlier generated by this ceremony of such poignant interest, I shall seek to concentrate my efforts on what was witnessed by all and sundry and astutely steer clear of any conjecture. My cardinal motivation remains that a seed has been sown and we have the choice to either dig it out or nurture it for growth and our own future benefit.
Well, so what is all the beef about, some may ask? Consider this statement from ex-President Kufuor: “…I am happy to see you, my predecessor in office, former president Jerry John Rawlings.” Was that uttered by Mr. Kufuor? Sure it was...This leads to my real thoughts for this piece: Swords and Saints.
A popular use of the word sword is to describe a weapon of various forms but consisting typically of a long, straight or slightly curved blade, sharp-edged on one or both sides, with one end pointed and the other fixed in a hilt or handle. Swords have also been used to represent military power, punitive justice, and authority. Furthermore, the sword embraces a cause of death or destruction. My focus here, though, remains the latter and also a less familiar representation of the word sword which defines it as symbolising war, combat, slaughter or violence. For the purpose of clarity, this article embodies the idea of sword as depicting death or a destruction agent.
In this modern age where modernity appears to be overshadowing barbarism to a point, no weapon does more damage than the mouth. Frankly, some mouths have gained the reputation of causing untold distress. Have you realised that truly some have mouths like swords?
In contrast, the word saint refers to any of certain persons of exceptional holiness of life, formally recognized as such by the Christian Church, especially by canonization. It may also be used to depict a person of great holiness, virtue, or benevolence. Furthermore, it can be used to represent a founder, sponsor, or patron, as of a movement or organization. This article embraces the notion of a saint depicting a person of virtue (a good or admirable quality or property).
Rawlings and Kufuor have been at swords' points for a while. This is firmly documented in the minds of many. It is not far-fetched to find evidence of them being fierce critics of each other. Without resorting to leaked evidence for corroboration of these two political giants crossing swords all this while, it remains no news to the ordinary man on the street that these two are not bosom buddies.
What is of striking significance though is that, Mr. Kufuor exercised wisdom by inviting Mr. Rawlings to his ‘private’ ceremony. Surprisingly, Mr. Rawlings honoured the invitation. This draws on King Solomon’s sagacity when he says: “A man's wisdom gives him patience; it is to his glory to overlook an offense”, [Proverbs 19:11 NIV].
Judging from the reaction of many to this story, it is understandable to believe that many did not expect to see those two sharing the same stage, and even more significantly, for the launch of Kufuor’s foundation. The story would have been different if this was a national ceremony. What a sight to see two fierce opponents joining hands together for a worthwhile project. They have demonstrated that they really have hearts of saints. However, do we expect to see them playing golf at Achimota soon? Probably not! Do we expect them to continue to exhibit mutual respect for each other, absolutely yes!
There are critics who may construe Wednesday’s action as a form of deception to mask deep-rooted issues. Dare I say that these critics were not taken in by such a laudable event? Such naysayers would argue that this was only to garner more or much needed political capital to remain relevant having found one’s feet on shifting sands. However, I am inclined to believe that the vast majority of Ghanaians would perceive events in a different light. They are more likely to see this event as a budding sign of political maturity and hence maintain a cautious optimism that this is not a nine days’ wonder.
Nevertheless, there remains a valid debate about whether we should dwell on the past or simply move on. One school of thought prefers to dwell on the past and argues about the rights and wrongs of yesterday’s actions. Martin Luther King, Jr. provides a powerful thought on which their argument may be deemed plausible. He argues that: “The past is prophetic in that it asserts loudly that wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows.” Such may also make reference to the ancient Roman religion and mythological god Janus who has two heads facing opposite directions. To this school, there is the need to look back before moving forward.
In sharp contrast though, others may argue very differently, believing that, “the distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion”, as suggested by Albert Einstein. They believe that one cannot effectively run a race whilst always looking backwards and would therefore subscribe to the view that this event is the dawn of a new day in history.  
Whichever view we adopt, as Oscar Wilde observed: “Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.” We can decide to dig out the issues of yesterday or accept the events of today as a signpost to future occurrences. Everybody has a choice to make and we need to exercise caution if we are to learn from Maya Angelou who notes that: “Prejudice is a burden that confuses the past, threatens the future and renders the present inaccessible.”
Today, political parties continue to cross swords, albeit verbally. Unfortunately, we observe that there are some that unabashedly ply the trade of insults, casting aspersions on rivals and lacing their speech with billingsgate. They may have a lot to learn from the new found Kufuor-Rawlings ‘fraternity’. Such people detract attention from discussing the real issues of value that would advance our cause as a nation.
Aside from political parties, some tribes in the country continue to cross swords. The animosity and hatred displayed by some tribes towards others is reprehensible and utterly execrable at worst. The question to ask is whether we are all not Ghanaians. Indeed, tribalism has adversely affected the progress of many a nation leaving the ashes of regret as its invisible remnant and backwardness as its palpable bequest.
On a personal level, how many times have we used our mouths to our own destruction and caused the death of bonds of friendship? Yesterday, we may have crossed swords, and although Oscar Wilde may be right in arguing that: “No man is rich enough to buy back his past”, I take the view that today, we have an opportunity to exhibit the signs of sainthood. We may come from different backgrounds with different professions, young or old, rich or poor, literate or illiterate, strong or frail, believing or unbelieving, partisan or non-partisan, southerner or northerner, yet we are one people; Ghanaians!!!
What a great example the two ex-presidents have shown for all to emulate. Let us set an example for Africa at large and show the world that we are enlightened by shedding off that old image of political barbarism and ethnocentrism and embracing the virtues of sainthood.
Probably by the actions of our two former leaders, we should consider extending the Founders’ Day to Founders’ and Presidents’ Day, where we celebrate not just our founders but all past leaders and presidents, dead or living, who have contributed to the development of the nation in one way or the other. Although I revere the dead very much, I also subscribe to the view that my lot today, is mostly influenced by the living.
I shall conclude this piece by referring to some lines in the last paragraph of Abraham Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861) which was partly quoted by President Obama (during his election victory speech in 2008). This should hopefully offer some words of wisdom. It reads: “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.”

I shall return with: IN GHANA I TRUST.
God bless our homeland Ghana...Let the black star shine out to the whole world.
 Dr. Frank Robert Silverson
Email: frsilverson@yahoo.com
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)