ON Sunday, September 22, 2008, Thabo Mbeki announced his resignation as President of the Republic of South Africa (RSA). Not that it came as a shock. The announcement just took many by surprise because that action is not common on the continent of Africa. That decision followed accusations that Mbeki was using political pressure and manipulations to pursue corruption charges against Jacob Zuma, the African National Congress (ANC) Chairman who is generally tipped to succeed him.
In June 2005, Zuma was relieved of his post as Vice-President of RSA following the conviction of his close financial advisor, Schabir Shaik, for corruption and fraud and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. Even though that decision did not go down well with many South Africans, Mbeki defended his position by saying that he wanted to protect South Africa’s young democracy and prove that no one was above the law. That was good, especially in the eyes of the Western countries who are now showing a keen interest in matters concerning democracy on the continent.
Suspicion heightened when, on December 6, 2005, rape charges were filed against Zuma for having an illicit affair with a 31-year-old woman who is a daughter of a dead comrade. That case was dismissed on May 8, 2006.
The rivalry between Mbeki and Zuma got to fever pitch in December 2007 when the two fought for the leadership of the ANC. Zuma won overwhelmingly and put to an end any ambitions Mbeki was nurturing of playing a leading role in party or government affairs after the elections in 2009.
So when, soon after the bitter and acrimonious elections, corruption charges were brought against Zuma, there were good grounds to suspect that Mbeki was up to some mischief and deliberately trying to derail Zuma’s presidential ambitions. His case was not made any better when, on September 22, 2008, Judge Chris Nicholson threw out the corruption and racketeering charges against Zuma, on the grounds that there had been strong political interference in the case and cited Mbeki.
It became a commonly acknowledged belief that Mbeki wanted to use his presidential powers to suffocate Zuma and dim his presidential ambitions. The ANC, within which Zuma commands a huge following, went into action and called for Mbeki’s resignation or risk impeachment.
Even though Mbeki denied the accusation, he decided to step down because, according to him, he was a member of the ANC and, therefore, he had to respect its wishes.
A new President, in the person of Kgalema Motlanthe, the deputy ANC leader, has since been sworn in.
Around the same time, the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert resigned as head of the ruling Kadima Party, paving the way for Tzipi Livini, the Foreign Minister, to be elected as the new Kadima leader to become the first female Prime Minister in 34 years after Golda Meir left that office.
Olmert had been battling with corruption allegations, having been accused of misusing cash payments from a US businessman and double-billing government agencies for his foreign trips. He finally bowed to pressure and resigned so that he could face his accusers squarely.
On September 1, 2008, the Japanese Prime Minister, Yasuo Fukuda, resigned, complaining of frustrations from the Upper House of Parliament, which is under the control of the opposition. Fukuda’s popularity nose dived when the economy started to backslide and he was accused of presiding over the loss of pension records and a controversial healthcare scheme.
Taro Aso took over as the fourth Japanese Prime Minister in two years.
In the same month, the Thai Prime Minister, Samak Sundaravej, was forced to resign when a court ruled that he acted in conflict of interest when he appeared on television for a fee to exhibit his cooking talents.
On a lesser note but no less significant was the resignation of Li Changjiang, the head of China’s quality watchdog, following the growing scandal over melamine-contaminated baby milk, which has killed some children in China and made over 53,000 ill.
These events may appear far and remote from us but they share certain things in common, which are relevant to our situation here and from which we can draw some useful lessons. First is the need to hold our leaders accountable and demand the best from them. They should not be allowed to take us for granted but should at all times live above reproach.
What Olmert is being accused of — diverting or misusing public funds and making false claims — are daily occurrences in our part of the world over which we have very little control, if any. That is why we have made politics a lucrative business here. No one cares to know why someone who was struggling to survive can, within a matter of months, be swimming in funds and start grabbing property left and right. Any feeble voice attempting to draw attention to such a sudden windfall and to question its source is quickly drowned in a barrage of insults and name-calling. Through a well-rehearsed manipulation, the very people whose interests are being subverted are split along political or ethnic lines, allowing a corrupt official to escape with his ill-gotten booty.
The Israeli experience has proved that no matter one’s status, one cannot run away from accountability and that when it comes to the national interest, one’s own party will be the first to smoke one out. That is the only way we can ensure sanity in politics and get only the best and most committed to aspire to national leadership positions.
We have created a situation where most of the people who parade as politicians and want to lead this country are nothing more than mercenaries who want to feast on our national resources. Only a few have the interest of this nation at heart.
The current struggle going on among the various political parties for the attention of the electorate has very little to do with the welfare of the people and the development of this country. It is a fight to control our national resources and dissipate them in a manner they choose. Otherwise, what is the need for these life-or-death confrontations if the nation’s progress is the main objective of seeking political office?
What caused the Thai Prime Minister his office could have been brushed aside here. Elsewhere, you cannot take the high office of Prime Minister for granted and certain things cannot be allowed to compromise the position of the Prime Minister who had no business going to display his cooking abilities on national television. It also shows the independence of the judiciary in that country.
This is not the first time Japan has changed prime ministers in rapid succession. But it still remains the most powerful economy in the world. That confirms the fact that what we describe here as stability — allowing one person or group of persons to remain in power for many, many years — does not add to development if there is no clear national development agenda. Individuals may come and go but the state machinery remains intact once a path has been beaten and the national goals have been spelt out without relying on the whims and caprices of a few individuals.
Fukuda’s resignation again had its lessons. Leaders must be prepared to bow out honourably after they have realised that for some reasons they could not realise their objectives. It does not help the state if you remain in office and blame imaginary enemies for your failure.
The Chinese watchdog man who resigned over the contaminated baby milk has sent a signal that people should be ready to take responsibility for failures that are remotely linked to them. Here, we like taking all the glory but when it is the other way round, then a poor worker somewhere must be made to suffer the pain.
Nearer home, Mbeki’s resignation has taught us a lesson. He could have stayed on in office until next year, when South Africans go to the polls, or fight impeachment proceedings in Parliament. He chose a shorter route because that eliminates any bruises to party solidarity and national image. At least his honour is intact and South Africa marches on. Once it has been done in one African country, it means it can be done in other countries.
It means we should stop personalising public offices and try to exit when the applause is loudest. All the countries that experienced the September resignations — Japan, China, Israel, South Africa and Thailand — are far ahead of Ghana in terms of development, an indication that we need to change our style of leadership if we want to join the developed league.
We also need a well-informed and enlightened population that will eschew hero-worshipping and spare national leaders no room to abuse their welcome.
The spontaneous outpour of grief from all sections of the Ghanaian public at the sudden death of Mr Kwadwo Baah-Wiredu, the former Finance and Economic Planning Minister, in faraway South Africa is ample testimony that partisan politics has not beclouded our sense of recognition and appreciation and that putting political rivalry aside, Ghanaians still know those who are committed to the affairs of this nation.
The late Baah-Wiredu was a rare species who did not belong to that group of noisy politicians who always draw attention to themselves, instead of the issues. A few may not be happy with him because he did not want to turn the national treasury into a war chest to be dissipated carelessly by a few. And that is exactly why almost every Ghanaian is mourning his death. May his soul rest in peace.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
A RETURN TO AN OLD STORY (SEPT 23, 2008)
When, last year, an American molecular biologist, James Dewey Watson, tried to connect race with development (or underdevelopment), the reaction of Blacks was predictable. Instead of reflecting soberly and pondering over what could have made them the poorest everywhere they found themselves on the globe, they cast racial invectives at the Nobel laureate.
Who said Blacks are inferior to Whites? many queried, and came to the conclusion that Professor Watson’s observation that Blacks, genetically, had a problem which had inhibited development and advancement was laden with racial undertones and should, therefore, not only be condemned but dismissed.
We have still not been able to explain why Blacks everywhere, from Africa, the mother continent, to the US, Jamaica, Cuba, Trinidad and Tobago, the Virgin Islands, Haiti, Brazil, name them, have not exhibited the same development acumen as others, even though in some cunning way nature’s resources are available to them in abundance.
Blacks have never failed to remind the rest of the world that the evil effects of colonialism, slavery, racial discrimination and unfair trade practices have collectively conspired to impede their progress.
While blaming these external forces, which are real in a way, we have never been able to look at ourselves to determine how far our actions and inaction have contributed to the perpetuation of our underdevelopment and impoverishment. We did not want to find out why a country like Zimbabwe (until it gained Black majority rule), with a small minority White population could have a vibrant economy in the midst of other poor neighbours.
In the same way, we did not bother to find out why South Africa, with its minority White population, could command an economy comparable to those in the so-called First World countries when the rest of the countries in southern Africa could hardly feed their populations. No one should tell me there is gold in South Africa. Our own Obuasi, one of the richest gold mines in the world, is here and there is nothing to show for it.
The problem can, therefore, not be just about slavery, colonialism, unfair trade practices and lack of natural resources. It goes deeper than these things. And that is the cruel reality. I listened to Mr Joris Watenberg, the guest on the Kwaku-One-On-One programme on TV3 on Sunday, September 14, 2008 and what he said set me thinking.
He said Blacks had KNOWLEDGE, while Whites had INTELLIGENCE. He equated Knowledge to Energy which is static and Intelligence to Light which is in motion. So while the former is static, the latter is always on the move. He gave an example. Ask a Black person to move from Accra to Tema and he will give you a thousand and one excuses why that assignment cannot be executed — the road is rough, the weather is unfriendly or the task is just impossible. On the other hand, tell a White man to travel to Tamale and he will do everything to get to Tamale and even go beyond, without offering excuses for failure.
You cannot call this racial prejudice because Watenberg is a Black man and a Ghanaian, so you cannot say he wants to spite Blacks. May be he is just trying to tell us the truth, the naked truth. To us, everything is IMPOSSIBLE. To others, it may be difficult but it could be done. The result is there for all to see. While others have overcome the deficiencies of their miserable past to become great nations, we still continue to blame the past for today’s problems.
Japan has emerged from the devastation of two atomic bomb attacks in 1945 to become the second most powerful economy in the world. China accepted the challenge when the West described it as backward and primitive to become the miracle nation of the 21st century. During the Cultural Revolution, when China closed its doors to the outside world, Chairman Mao Zedung urged his people to prove either of two things: Either to prove the West right that they (the Chinese) are good-for-nothing or prove them wrong. With their national pride at stake, and their very existence on this earth as human beings under question, the Chinese accepted the challenge and went into action.
Today, every Western company worth its sort is struggling to have a foothold on Chinese territory and capture a piece of that huge market. With Hong Kong and Macao back to Chinese control and Taiwan likely to follow soon, China is the next world superpower in the making.
What the US and its allies did not know at the time was that most of the so-called dissidents who sought refuge in the West were brilliant Chinese students who were deliberately sent out to study science and technology in American and European universities. The US and its allies welcomed those so-called dissidents and gave them access to all their training facilities, while indoctrinating them on the virtues of capitalism in the hope that they would return to China to change the system.
The so-called dissidents actually returned home in a way the Americans thought was clandestine. What they did not know was that those Chinese returned home with special skills. Today, when they look back, the Americans have realised rather too late that all their secrets in science and technology, all their business and trade tricks, all their military and intelligence gathering secrets have been acquired by the Chinese.
Today, the whole world has come to accept the fact that the Chinese are not backward or primitive and they are still progressing. A piece of what they are capable of doing was showcased at the recent Beijing Olympic Games.
With a population of more than 1.3 billion, the Chinese do not rely on food aid to survive. They grow rice, their main staple, in abundance. So they can afford to do what pleases them without any fear of blackmail from any quarter. They are their own masters now. Do we have any lessons to learn as Blacks?
Can we say the same thing about Blacks? Almost everything that one needs to survive on this planet is in Africa, yet this is the continent where poverty, hunger, disease and misery have made their homes. With all the fertile land, its rivers and lakes, Africa is always on donors’ list for food aid.
When parts of the world started experiencing spiralling food prices, our immediate response here in Ghana was not to galvanise the people into action to till the land but to take the short route of reducing import duty on imported food items. By doing so, we have succeeded in making a few food merchants richer and kept in serious business crop farmers in foreign lands. It is sad the way we relish adverts on imported food items on our television screens and radios and in the newspapers.
Our country is among the few in the world where adverts on foreign goods dominate the local media. It is either American Long Grain rice, Thai perfume rice or a special yellow maize from Argentina, South Africa or Brazil. We import tomato paste which is marketed under local names to fool us and to give us a false sense of adequacy. Do we have any excuse for importing onion, pepper, fresh tomato, lettuce and cabbage from a Sahelian country like Burkina Faso?
To come to think of the fact that the Volta River flows from the northern part of the country and drains wastefully into the sea in the south, without any attempt to harness this large volume of water for agriculture, tends to make some of us to believe that, after all, Watenberg may not be wrong.
Our leaders have lost focus and have come to the conclusion that the only way they can deliver this continent from these afflictions is through begging.
Every day our leaders leave behind their rich resources to attend one aid conference or another. Some countries have built multi-lane expressways and are looking forward to super-highways, while, in our case, we make noise, expecting the world to celebrate with us whenever we succeed in pouring bitumen on a few dusty roads. We are excited about very simple things. Look at Tetteh-Quarshie in this 21st century. We do not aim at the best but look at the rest who belong to our miserable class and applaud ourselves.
At the Paralympics in Beijing, we saw people in wheelchairs with various forms of disability playing basketball. Others have taken part in other events, including swimming, racing, discus throw and many others. Here, even persons with the slightest limp stand by the road side begging for alms because our society has not made any serious provision for such people. Our world is always different from that of others.
Recently, the Minister of Trade, Industry and PSI expressed concern over the proliferation of second-hand items, including used pants, socks, brassieres, towels, handkerchiefs, cutlery, mattresses, among many others, on the local market. The minister appealed to the conscience of the importers to halt the importation of those items or face a legal challenge.
But what can we expect in a country where all we know is to import in the name of trade liberalisation, without any effort to feed the local market with locally-produced goods? What can we expect in a country with such an insatiable appetite for anything foreign, including imported orange, apple, pawpaw and mango? What do we expect from a country whose people have lost all sense of national pride and, therefore, see nothing wrong clothing themselves in dresses thrown away by others or eating in plates that were collected from hospitals overseas?
The bottom line is that most of our people cannot afford anything in its brand new form because of poverty. So we all drive second-hand vehicles, wear second-hand clothes and eat in second-hand plates. If the business people stop bringing these things into the country, they themselves and those who rely on them in the business chain will be jobless; many workers may never sit behind the steering wheel of their own vehicles and a lot of us and our children may walk naked on the streets.
It will, therefore, need a serious national effort, not sermons, to rid this country of second-hand goods. Nothing second-hand is justified, not even if it had been used for just a day, and it will be a mistake to make one look dignifying and the other not. No self-respecting people should patronise what has been discarded by others. It means confronting our national problems headlong and solemnly pledging that we shall not continue to live at the mercy of others, nor shall we remain in their shadows for ever.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Who said Blacks are inferior to Whites? many queried, and came to the conclusion that Professor Watson’s observation that Blacks, genetically, had a problem which had inhibited development and advancement was laden with racial undertones and should, therefore, not only be condemned but dismissed.
We have still not been able to explain why Blacks everywhere, from Africa, the mother continent, to the US, Jamaica, Cuba, Trinidad and Tobago, the Virgin Islands, Haiti, Brazil, name them, have not exhibited the same development acumen as others, even though in some cunning way nature’s resources are available to them in abundance.
Blacks have never failed to remind the rest of the world that the evil effects of colonialism, slavery, racial discrimination and unfair trade practices have collectively conspired to impede their progress.
While blaming these external forces, which are real in a way, we have never been able to look at ourselves to determine how far our actions and inaction have contributed to the perpetuation of our underdevelopment and impoverishment. We did not want to find out why a country like Zimbabwe (until it gained Black majority rule), with a small minority White population could have a vibrant economy in the midst of other poor neighbours.
In the same way, we did not bother to find out why South Africa, with its minority White population, could command an economy comparable to those in the so-called First World countries when the rest of the countries in southern Africa could hardly feed their populations. No one should tell me there is gold in South Africa. Our own Obuasi, one of the richest gold mines in the world, is here and there is nothing to show for it.
The problem can, therefore, not be just about slavery, colonialism, unfair trade practices and lack of natural resources. It goes deeper than these things. And that is the cruel reality. I listened to Mr Joris Watenberg, the guest on the Kwaku-One-On-One programme on TV3 on Sunday, September 14, 2008 and what he said set me thinking.
He said Blacks had KNOWLEDGE, while Whites had INTELLIGENCE. He equated Knowledge to Energy which is static and Intelligence to Light which is in motion. So while the former is static, the latter is always on the move. He gave an example. Ask a Black person to move from Accra to Tema and he will give you a thousand and one excuses why that assignment cannot be executed — the road is rough, the weather is unfriendly or the task is just impossible. On the other hand, tell a White man to travel to Tamale and he will do everything to get to Tamale and even go beyond, without offering excuses for failure.
You cannot call this racial prejudice because Watenberg is a Black man and a Ghanaian, so you cannot say he wants to spite Blacks. May be he is just trying to tell us the truth, the naked truth. To us, everything is IMPOSSIBLE. To others, it may be difficult but it could be done. The result is there for all to see. While others have overcome the deficiencies of their miserable past to become great nations, we still continue to blame the past for today’s problems.
Japan has emerged from the devastation of two atomic bomb attacks in 1945 to become the second most powerful economy in the world. China accepted the challenge when the West described it as backward and primitive to become the miracle nation of the 21st century. During the Cultural Revolution, when China closed its doors to the outside world, Chairman Mao Zedung urged his people to prove either of two things: Either to prove the West right that they (the Chinese) are good-for-nothing or prove them wrong. With their national pride at stake, and their very existence on this earth as human beings under question, the Chinese accepted the challenge and went into action.
Today, every Western company worth its sort is struggling to have a foothold on Chinese territory and capture a piece of that huge market. With Hong Kong and Macao back to Chinese control and Taiwan likely to follow soon, China is the next world superpower in the making.
What the US and its allies did not know at the time was that most of the so-called dissidents who sought refuge in the West were brilliant Chinese students who were deliberately sent out to study science and technology in American and European universities. The US and its allies welcomed those so-called dissidents and gave them access to all their training facilities, while indoctrinating them on the virtues of capitalism in the hope that they would return to China to change the system.
The so-called dissidents actually returned home in a way the Americans thought was clandestine. What they did not know was that those Chinese returned home with special skills. Today, when they look back, the Americans have realised rather too late that all their secrets in science and technology, all their business and trade tricks, all their military and intelligence gathering secrets have been acquired by the Chinese.
Today, the whole world has come to accept the fact that the Chinese are not backward or primitive and they are still progressing. A piece of what they are capable of doing was showcased at the recent Beijing Olympic Games.
With a population of more than 1.3 billion, the Chinese do not rely on food aid to survive. They grow rice, their main staple, in abundance. So they can afford to do what pleases them without any fear of blackmail from any quarter. They are their own masters now. Do we have any lessons to learn as Blacks?
Can we say the same thing about Blacks? Almost everything that one needs to survive on this planet is in Africa, yet this is the continent where poverty, hunger, disease and misery have made their homes. With all the fertile land, its rivers and lakes, Africa is always on donors’ list for food aid.
When parts of the world started experiencing spiralling food prices, our immediate response here in Ghana was not to galvanise the people into action to till the land but to take the short route of reducing import duty on imported food items. By doing so, we have succeeded in making a few food merchants richer and kept in serious business crop farmers in foreign lands. It is sad the way we relish adverts on imported food items on our television screens and radios and in the newspapers.
Our country is among the few in the world where adverts on foreign goods dominate the local media. It is either American Long Grain rice, Thai perfume rice or a special yellow maize from Argentina, South Africa or Brazil. We import tomato paste which is marketed under local names to fool us and to give us a false sense of adequacy. Do we have any excuse for importing onion, pepper, fresh tomato, lettuce and cabbage from a Sahelian country like Burkina Faso?
To come to think of the fact that the Volta River flows from the northern part of the country and drains wastefully into the sea in the south, without any attempt to harness this large volume of water for agriculture, tends to make some of us to believe that, after all, Watenberg may not be wrong.
Our leaders have lost focus and have come to the conclusion that the only way they can deliver this continent from these afflictions is through begging.
Every day our leaders leave behind their rich resources to attend one aid conference or another. Some countries have built multi-lane expressways and are looking forward to super-highways, while, in our case, we make noise, expecting the world to celebrate with us whenever we succeed in pouring bitumen on a few dusty roads. We are excited about very simple things. Look at Tetteh-Quarshie in this 21st century. We do not aim at the best but look at the rest who belong to our miserable class and applaud ourselves.
At the Paralympics in Beijing, we saw people in wheelchairs with various forms of disability playing basketball. Others have taken part in other events, including swimming, racing, discus throw and many others. Here, even persons with the slightest limp stand by the road side begging for alms because our society has not made any serious provision for such people. Our world is always different from that of others.
Recently, the Minister of Trade, Industry and PSI expressed concern over the proliferation of second-hand items, including used pants, socks, brassieres, towels, handkerchiefs, cutlery, mattresses, among many others, on the local market. The minister appealed to the conscience of the importers to halt the importation of those items or face a legal challenge.
But what can we expect in a country where all we know is to import in the name of trade liberalisation, without any effort to feed the local market with locally-produced goods? What can we expect in a country with such an insatiable appetite for anything foreign, including imported orange, apple, pawpaw and mango? What do we expect from a country whose people have lost all sense of national pride and, therefore, see nothing wrong clothing themselves in dresses thrown away by others or eating in plates that were collected from hospitals overseas?
The bottom line is that most of our people cannot afford anything in its brand new form because of poverty. So we all drive second-hand vehicles, wear second-hand clothes and eat in second-hand plates. If the business people stop bringing these things into the country, they themselves and those who rely on them in the business chain will be jobless; many workers may never sit behind the steering wheel of their own vehicles and a lot of us and our children may walk naked on the streets.
It will, therefore, need a serious national effort, not sermons, to rid this country of second-hand goods. Nothing second-hand is justified, not even if it had been used for just a day, and it will be a mistake to make one look dignifying and the other not. No self-respecting people should patronise what has been discarded by others. It means confronting our national problems headlong and solemnly pledging that we shall not continue to live at the mercy of others, nor shall we remain in their shadows for ever.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
THE UNITA SOLUTION (DAILY GRAPHIC, SEPTEMBER 16, 2008, PAGE 7)
Angolans and those who have followed the turbulent and violent history of that country might have taken in a deep breath and heaved a heavy sigh of relief when they heard that the leader of UNITA, the main opposition party in Angola, had conceded defeat in their recent polls.
“Despite everything that happened, the Unita leadership accepts the election results and hopes the winning party, MPLA, will govern in the interest of all Angolans,” the Unita leader, Isaias Samakuva, said in a statement on Monday, August 8, 2008 to put to rest any fears that Angola would go back to war if there should be any dispute after the elections, the first to be held since 1992 and seen to be a crucial step towards the country’s recovery from decades of war.
There was general apprehension and fear during the run-up to the election following accusations that MPLA, the government party, was paying bribes and using the security agencies to intimidate its opponents, who are mainly members of UNITA. With the history of the continent where violence always erupted after any electoral process and the recent bitter experience of Kenya yet to recede from memory, there were genuine fears that Angola, which has spent the greater part of its independent life on war, could degenerate into another battlefield of senseless killings.
When the Portuguese colonialists hurriedly left the country in 1975 under the guise of granting Angola independence, the well-endowed country, in terms of natural resources, exploded into civil war. The Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), under the leadership of Dr Agostino Neto, had to battle the National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA), under Holden Roberto and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) under Dr Jonas Savimbi for territorial control.
It did not take long for the FNLA to fizzle out, but UNITA, with its anti-Communist badge, drew a lot of support from the US and its Western allies to counter MPLA, which drew its support from the then Soviet Union and its allies.
For nearly 17 years, Angola became an ideological battle ground in the superpower rivalry of the Cold War era. Bolstered by money coming from the diamond trade that UNITA controlled, Savimbi ignored all peace overtures until the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1990, which brought the bitter Cold War to an end.
In 1992, after many attempts at peace making, Angola held its first UN-certified elections, the results of which were disputed by Jonas Savimbi and his UNITA movement and the country was plunged into civil war again.
Fresh attempts culminated in the signing of the Lusaka Peace Accord in 1994, which brought about some appreciable level of peace until 1998, when Savimbi, after repeated violations of the peace accord, went back to war.
The end came on February 22, 2002, when government troops killed Savimbi. The death of the warlord was followed six weeks later with the signing of a ceasefire agreement with UNITA rebels. That signalled the end of a bitter civil war that lasted nearly 30 years and caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and the dissipation of natural resources on the war effort by both sides.
The recent elections were generally seen as a watershed in Angolan politics, which will either consolidate its democracy or trigger another bout of civil conflict. Even though the observer mission from the Southern Africa Development Co-operation (SADC) declared that the polls had been transparent and peaceful, there were various infractions typical of all elections conducted on the continent. And with combatants ready to go back for their arms, there were fears that the Kenya experience would pale into insignificance, if political leaders did not maintain cool heads.
Thank God, the leadership of UNITA did not lose sight of the hardships war had unleashed on their country and its people and, therefore, decided to choose the path of accommodation and tolerance instead of confrontation and violence.
Angola is very rich in terms of natural resources. It is now taking over from Nigeria as sub-Saharan Africa’s largest oil exporter. It is also rich in diamonds, iron ore, phosphate, copper, gold, bauxite, uranium and timber.
Apart from the decades of war that has drained a considerable amount of funds, Angola, like most African countries, could not escape the scourge of massive corruption in official circles. According to International Monetary Fund (IMF) sources, more than US$4 billion got missing from the national treasury over a six-year period. All the same, it has the potential to emerge as one of Africa’s strongest economies once it has attained political stability. And this is what the UNITA gesture has offered.
We in Ghana have only heard of war or seen its devastation via the electronic media. We have not gone beyond isolated ethnic and chieftaincy skirmishes and so we may not appreciate the blessings of peace until it fades away on the altar of intransigence, intolerance and political arrogance.
I have heard almost all the political leaders proclaiming their commitment to peace and tolerance with almost each of them trying to distance themselves from political violence. Meanwhile, none has condemned violence committed in their name or on their behalf.
Violence is not only about machetes, guns or bows and arrows. Violence could mean verbal assaults that could incite people to physical violence. It is hypocritical for political leaders to speak against violence and preach virtue, while operating radio stations whose specific assignment is to launch provocative attacks on political opponents.
It does not augur well for tolerance and peace, if newspapers are established not to inform, educate or entertain but to write scandalous things about others and sometimes fan ethnic and tribal sentiments.
We will not be achieving our objective of a peaceful election, if we are prepared to pay huge sums of money to people whose business it is to move from one radio or television station to another on a smear campaign against perceived political opponents.
Our situation may not be better, if we allow those who have become known as serial callers to use the medium of phone-in programmes to insult others, rake old wounds and indulge in other verbal attacks that have the potential of inciting people to violence. It is in this vein that the concern raised by the security agencies last Wednesday about the abuse of phone-in programmes should be addressed seriously by the hosts of these programmes.
The power of the FM radio stations could be exploited to galvanise the people into action that will bring progress to this nation. In the same way it could be exploited for negative things. That is why political leaders who claim to be committed to the peace and progress of this country should desist from sponsoring people to fan hatred and rancour through the media of radio and television.
The various newspapers that owe allegiance to political parties should be circumspect about the things they publish. They may be scoring high marks with their fanatics but unconsciously they are putting the future of this country in jeopardy.
On their political platforms, politicians are expect to tell us what they can do for us as a people to improve our lot, instead of dwelling on what others failed to do, could not do or had done. History is good to guide us, but it does not benefit us if we continue to think in the past.
It is unfortunate that the political game has become a battle. But it has something to do with how we do our politics here. We take political power to mean power to destroy, undermine and vilify perceived opponents who are seen as enemies. We see it as an opportunity to amass wealth at the expense of the country’s development.
We see it as a superiority contest, so whoever wins must prove how powerful he/she is. So what should have been a national exercise to pick the most dedicated and committed citizens to push this nation forward has become a fight for survival, since winning means a transition from poverty and misery to wealth and opulence, while losing means deprivation and suffering.
If really there is no selfish motives for running for political office, and the mission is only to translate a vision that would transform this country into a prosperous nation, we would be careful the way we talk and behave. We would realise that it does not pay to preside over a divided and disgruntled people. We would realise that the best President is the one loved by all and hated by none.
We expect that from now on, political leaders could boldly disassociate themselves from foul statements and dastardly acts that are made or committed in apparent support of them. Then we will stand convinced by their proclamations that they stand for peace.
Angolans had a painful history to guide them. That was why it was easy for them to let sleeping dogs to lie. Nigeria had the memories of a bitter civil war as a guide that was why they tolerated the Yar’dua Verdict, even though it was generally acknowledged that the 2007 general election in that country was seriously flawed. Cote d’Ivoire never had the benefit of history as a guide so when it came, it took everybody by surprise. Kenya never had a serious political problem until the elections of December, 2007. We, in Ghana, can learn from the experiences of others, instead of deluding ourselves into believing that we are unique and insulated from violence. That is why we must tread cautiously.
Again, in conceding defeat, the UNITA leader said something that is also relevant to our circumstances. He expressed the hope that: “The MPLA will govern in the interest of all Angolans.” The philosophy of winner-takes-it-all, which is obvious in our politics should be discarded. That is the only way people will not equate elections to the law of the jungle — survival of the fittest — and, therefore, will do anything in pursuit of victory.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
“Despite everything that happened, the Unita leadership accepts the election results and hopes the winning party, MPLA, will govern in the interest of all Angolans,” the Unita leader, Isaias Samakuva, said in a statement on Monday, August 8, 2008 to put to rest any fears that Angola would go back to war if there should be any dispute after the elections, the first to be held since 1992 and seen to be a crucial step towards the country’s recovery from decades of war.
There was general apprehension and fear during the run-up to the election following accusations that MPLA, the government party, was paying bribes and using the security agencies to intimidate its opponents, who are mainly members of UNITA. With the history of the continent where violence always erupted after any electoral process and the recent bitter experience of Kenya yet to recede from memory, there were genuine fears that Angola, which has spent the greater part of its independent life on war, could degenerate into another battlefield of senseless killings.
When the Portuguese colonialists hurriedly left the country in 1975 under the guise of granting Angola independence, the well-endowed country, in terms of natural resources, exploded into civil war. The Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), under the leadership of Dr Agostino Neto, had to battle the National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA), under Holden Roberto and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) under Dr Jonas Savimbi for territorial control.
It did not take long for the FNLA to fizzle out, but UNITA, with its anti-Communist badge, drew a lot of support from the US and its Western allies to counter MPLA, which drew its support from the then Soviet Union and its allies.
For nearly 17 years, Angola became an ideological battle ground in the superpower rivalry of the Cold War era. Bolstered by money coming from the diamond trade that UNITA controlled, Savimbi ignored all peace overtures until the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1990, which brought the bitter Cold War to an end.
In 1992, after many attempts at peace making, Angola held its first UN-certified elections, the results of which were disputed by Jonas Savimbi and his UNITA movement and the country was plunged into civil war again.
Fresh attempts culminated in the signing of the Lusaka Peace Accord in 1994, which brought about some appreciable level of peace until 1998, when Savimbi, after repeated violations of the peace accord, went back to war.
The end came on February 22, 2002, when government troops killed Savimbi. The death of the warlord was followed six weeks later with the signing of a ceasefire agreement with UNITA rebels. That signalled the end of a bitter civil war that lasted nearly 30 years and caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and the dissipation of natural resources on the war effort by both sides.
The recent elections were generally seen as a watershed in Angolan politics, which will either consolidate its democracy or trigger another bout of civil conflict. Even though the observer mission from the Southern Africa Development Co-operation (SADC) declared that the polls had been transparent and peaceful, there were various infractions typical of all elections conducted on the continent. And with combatants ready to go back for their arms, there were fears that the Kenya experience would pale into insignificance, if political leaders did not maintain cool heads.
Thank God, the leadership of UNITA did not lose sight of the hardships war had unleashed on their country and its people and, therefore, decided to choose the path of accommodation and tolerance instead of confrontation and violence.
Angola is very rich in terms of natural resources. It is now taking over from Nigeria as sub-Saharan Africa’s largest oil exporter. It is also rich in diamonds, iron ore, phosphate, copper, gold, bauxite, uranium and timber.
Apart from the decades of war that has drained a considerable amount of funds, Angola, like most African countries, could not escape the scourge of massive corruption in official circles. According to International Monetary Fund (IMF) sources, more than US$4 billion got missing from the national treasury over a six-year period. All the same, it has the potential to emerge as one of Africa’s strongest economies once it has attained political stability. And this is what the UNITA gesture has offered.
We in Ghana have only heard of war or seen its devastation via the electronic media. We have not gone beyond isolated ethnic and chieftaincy skirmishes and so we may not appreciate the blessings of peace until it fades away on the altar of intransigence, intolerance and political arrogance.
I have heard almost all the political leaders proclaiming their commitment to peace and tolerance with almost each of them trying to distance themselves from political violence. Meanwhile, none has condemned violence committed in their name or on their behalf.
Violence is not only about machetes, guns or bows and arrows. Violence could mean verbal assaults that could incite people to physical violence. It is hypocritical for political leaders to speak against violence and preach virtue, while operating radio stations whose specific assignment is to launch provocative attacks on political opponents.
It does not augur well for tolerance and peace, if newspapers are established not to inform, educate or entertain but to write scandalous things about others and sometimes fan ethnic and tribal sentiments.
We will not be achieving our objective of a peaceful election, if we are prepared to pay huge sums of money to people whose business it is to move from one radio or television station to another on a smear campaign against perceived political opponents.
Our situation may not be better, if we allow those who have become known as serial callers to use the medium of phone-in programmes to insult others, rake old wounds and indulge in other verbal attacks that have the potential of inciting people to violence. It is in this vein that the concern raised by the security agencies last Wednesday about the abuse of phone-in programmes should be addressed seriously by the hosts of these programmes.
The power of the FM radio stations could be exploited to galvanise the people into action that will bring progress to this nation. In the same way it could be exploited for negative things. That is why political leaders who claim to be committed to the peace and progress of this country should desist from sponsoring people to fan hatred and rancour through the media of radio and television.
The various newspapers that owe allegiance to political parties should be circumspect about the things they publish. They may be scoring high marks with their fanatics but unconsciously they are putting the future of this country in jeopardy.
On their political platforms, politicians are expect to tell us what they can do for us as a people to improve our lot, instead of dwelling on what others failed to do, could not do or had done. History is good to guide us, but it does not benefit us if we continue to think in the past.
It is unfortunate that the political game has become a battle. But it has something to do with how we do our politics here. We take political power to mean power to destroy, undermine and vilify perceived opponents who are seen as enemies. We see it as an opportunity to amass wealth at the expense of the country’s development.
We see it as a superiority contest, so whoever wins must prove how powerful he/she is. So what should have been a national exercise to pick the most dedicated and committed citizens to push this nation forward has become a fight for survival, since winning means a transition from poverty and misery to wealth and opulence, while losing means deprivation and suffering.
If really there is no selfish motives for running for political office, and the mission is only to translate a vision that would transform this country into a prosperous nation, we would be careful the way we talk and behave. We would realise that it does not pay to preside over a divided and disgruntled people. We would realise that the best President is the one loved by all and hated by none.
We expect that from now on, political leaders could boldly disassociate themselves from foul statements and dastardly acts that are made or committed in apparent support of them. Then we will stand convinced by their proclamations that they stand for peace.
Angolans had a painful history to guide them. That was why it was easy for them to let sleeping dogs to lie. Nigeria had the memories of a bitter civil war as a guide that was why they tolerated the Yar’dua Verdict, even though it was generally acknowledged that the 2007 general election in that country was seriously flawed. Cote d’Ivoire never had the benefit of history as a guide so when it came, it took everybody by surprise. Kenya never had a serious political problem until the elections of December, 2007. We, in Ghana, can learn from the experiences of others, instead of deluding ourselves into believing that we are unique and insulated from violence. That is why we must tread cautiously.
Again, in conceding defeat, the UNITA leader said something that is also relevant to our circumstances. He expressed the hope that: “The MPLA will govern in the interest of all Angolans.” The philosophy of winner-takes-it-all, which is obvious in our politics should be discarded. That is the only way people will not equate elections to the law of the jungle — survival of the fittest — and, therefore, will do anything in pursuit of victory.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
THE ACCRA AGENDA FOR ACTION (September 9, 2008)
Last week (September 2-4, 2008) saw Accra, the nation’s capital, hosting a huge gathering of more than 1,200 representatives of governments of aid receiving countries, donor institutions and civil society organisations to deliberate on how to improve the quality and impact of development assistance to recipient countries. That Accra was the venue for the Third High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, spoke volumes of Ghana’s increasing importance on the global circuit, especially where Third World politics and economic reforms are concerned.
In 2005, a similar forum was held in Paris, France, at the end of which the Paris Declaration was made, where donors and recipients pledged to use aid resources effectively to accelerate growth and achieve better development outcomes to reduce poverty among millions of the world’s population.
The Accra forum, as usual, ended on high expectations with copious pledges to make foreign aid more responsive to the development needs of recipient countries. It was generally agreed that the pace of development in most developing countries, especially those in Africa, had not matched the volume of donor cash, estimated to be about US$120 billion, which flows into these countries annually.
The forum also identified some of the factors that have contributed to the abysmal performance of most developing countries in spite of heavy doses of donor support. It was realised that a big chunk of donor funds go back to their countries of origin or institutions linked to them in the form of expenditures made on consultancy, monitoring and evaluation.
At the recipient level, corrupt practices associated with bureaucracies in the various countries, foot-dragging and red-tapeism collaborate to undermine the effectiveness of funded projects. Another serious observation was that very often, recipient countries are not allowed to make choices. In other words, most of the donor-funded projects have very little relevance to the development aspirations of recipients or at least do not constitute their priority areas.
Even though some civil society organisations and other pressure groups continue to press for better and effective use of donor funding, there are many others who continue to downgrade the role of foreign aid in the development strategies of developing countries. They prefer emphasis being placed on self-reliance and the effective utilisation of the abundant resources at the disposal of developing countries for their national development. The way out, according to them, is a fair and balanced trade arrangements that will enable developing countries to earn good money from their exports on the international market.
According to a report by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), “Trade openness is believed to have been central to the remarkable growth of developed countries since the mid-20th century and an important factor behind the poverty alleviation experienced in most of the developing world since the 1990s.” In other words, aid, it has generally been agreed, is not a solution to poverty alleviation. What developing countries should fight for, is a fair share of world trade.
Unfortunately, the governments of most developing countries, particularly those of Africa are failing to come to terms with this reality and continue to bank their hopes on aid as a solution to their development problems.
Ghana’s Minister for Finance and Economic Planning seems to be embedded in this line of thinking. In an interview prior to the Accra Forum, the finance minister insisted that foreign aid was necessary for the country’s development. He asked; “If we wean ourselves off foreign aid, who will buy our cocoa?” Not that this argument has any relevance to the subject matter, since selling a commodity on the world market is not the same as going round begging for foreign assistance.
If you sell your cocoa on the international market and make a good cash, that is business. Whoever bought that cocoa is not being charitable or magnanimous. He wants your cocoa, you want his money. It is a fair deal. Exchange, they say, is no robbery. That is vastly different from junketing from country to country begging any foreign entity on sight for support regardless of the conditions attached to such assistance.
Dr Ishmael Yamson, Chairman of the Board of Unilever and an advocate of self-reliance, said 50 years after independence, Ghana should have been in a position to wean itself off foreign aid.
Ghana has long depended on multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the major Western countries like Great Britain, US, Germany, Japan and France for donor support. Unfortunately we have still not been able to come closer to development and to prove how miserable our situation has become, we are now shifting reliance on countries that were in the same trench with us a few years ago.
South Korea, China, India and Malaysia are among countries that have taken giant strides to become influential game players in the economies of African countries. If it is agreed that they also started like us, how come they have succeeded in gaining some appreciable level of economic independence and are able to lend a helping hand to countries such as Ghana and other African countries while we remain virtually in this beggar situation?
The explanation could be attitudinal and our philosophy towards development. We still believe that the rest of the world owe us everything while we remain firmly rooted in that master-servant relationship — a condition that has sapped our self-confidence and consigned us to the dustbin of subservience.
Mr Baah-Wiredu may be right that we still need some amount of foreign assistance and I believe that is a global reality that no country can ignore, no matter how rich or powerful. But foreign assistance should be a secondary source of support. If it becomes the primary, then we have little to be proud of as a sovereign nation.
That makes relevant, Dr Yamson’s argument that the country is putting too much emphasis on foreign aid. He and those who share his view never argued that Ghana and for that matter Africa should live in isolation. That is not possible. Their position is that Africa seems to be the only continent where foreign aid is worshipped with religious fervour. And the difference is clear.
Inter-dependency cannot be the same as over-dependence or total-dependence. When two or more countries strike a business deal as equal partners, there is nothing like master-servant relationship. That definitely cannot be the same as the situation whereby a sovereign nation cannot do anything without the intervention of foreign powers. It cannot be the same as a country that cannot prepare its national budget without factoring in the financial support it expects to receive from outside donors.
The dependency syndrome if not checked, will keep us in perpetual bondage and stifle local initiative. That is why Dr Yamson said that: “If we continue to be aid-dependent, we will continue to be poor.”
Aid debases our nationhood and renders senseless, any claim to sovereignty and independence. As the richest continent in terms of natural resources, African leaders’ concern should be how to harness and utilise these resources and how to capture a big share of the world market and not how to strategise to receive more donations from others.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
In 2005, a similar forum was held in Paris, France, at the end of which the Paris Declaration was made, where donors and recipients pledged to use aid resources effectively to accelerate growth and achieve better development outcomes to reduce poverty among millions of the world’s population.
The Accra forum, as usual, ended on high expectations with copious pledges to make foreign aid more responsive to the development needs of recipient countries. It was generally agreed that the pace of development in most developing countries, especially those in Africa, had not matched the volume of donor cash, estimated to be about US$120 billion, which flows into these countries annually.
The forum also identified some of the factors that have contributed to the abysmal performance of most developing countries in spite of heavy doses of donor support. It was realised that a big chunk of donor funds go back to their countries of origin or institutions linked to them in the form of expenditures made on consultancy, monitoring and evaluation.
At the recipient level, corrupt practices associated with bureaucracies in the various countries, foot-dragging and red-tapeism collaborate to undermine the effectiveness of funded projects. Another serious observation was that very often, recipient countries are not allowed to make choices. In other words, most of the donor-funded projects have very little relevance to the development aspirations of recipients or at least do not constitute their priority areas.
Even though some civil society organisations and other pressure groups continue to press for better and effective use of donor funding, there are many others who continue to downgrade the role of foreign aid in the development strategies of developing countries. They prefer emphasis being placed on self-reliance and the effective utilisation of the abundant resources at the disposal of developing countries for their national development. The way out, according to them, is a fair and balanced trade arrangements that will enable developing countries to earn good money from their exports on the international market.
According to a report by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), “Trade openness is believed to have been central to the remarkable growth of developed countries since the mid-20th century and an important factor behind the poverty alleviation experienced in most of the developing world since the 1990s.” In other words, aid, it has generally been agreed, is not a solution to poverty alleviation. What developing countries should fight for, is a fair share of world trade.
Unfortunately, the governments of most developing countries, particularly those of Africa are failing to come to terms with this reality and continue to bank their hopes on aid as a solution to their development problems.
Ghana’s Minister for Finance and Economic Planning seems to be embedded in this line of thinking. In an interview prior to the Accra Forum, the finance minister insisted that foreign aid was necessary for the country’s development. He asked; “If we wean ourselves off foreign aid, who will buy our cocoa?” Not that this argument has any relevance to the subject matter, since selling a commodity on the world market is not the same as going round begging for foreign assistance.
If you sell your cocoa on the international market and make a good cash, that is business. Whoever bought that cocoa is not being charitable or magnanimous. He wants your cocoa, you want his money. It is a fair deal. Exchange, they say, is no robbery. That is vastly different from junketing from country to country begging any foreign entity on sight for support regardless of the conditions attached to such assistance.
Dr Ishmael Yamson, Chairman of the Board of Unilever and an advocate of self-reliance, said 50 years after independence, Ghana should have been in a position to wean itself off foreign aid.
Ghana has long depended on multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the major Western countries like Great Britain, US, Germany, Japan and France for donor support. Unfortunately we have still not been able to come closer to development and to prove how miserable our situation has become, we are now shifting reliance on countries that were in the same trench with us a few years ago.
South Korea, China, India and Malaysia are among countries that have taken giant strides to become influential game players in the economies of African countries. If it is agreed that they also started like us, how come they have succeeded in gaining some appreciable level of economic independence and are able to lend a helping hand to countries such as Ghana and other African countries while we remain virtually in this beggar situation?
The explanation could be attitudinal and our philosophy towards development. We still believe that the rest of the world owe us everything while we remain firmly rooted in that master-servant relationship — a condition that has sapped our self-confidence and consigned us to the dustbin of subservience.
Mr Baah-Wiredu may be right that we still need some amount of foreign assistance and I believe that is a global reality that no country can ignore, no matter how rich or powerful. But foreign assistance should be a secondary source of support. If it becomes the primary, then we have little to be proud of as a sovereign nation.
That makes relevant, Dr Yamson’s argument that the country is putting too much emphasis on foreign aid. He and those who share his view never argued that Ghana and for that matter Africa should live in isolation. That is not possible. Their position is that Africa seems to be the only continent where foreign aid is worshipped with religious fervour. And the difference is clear.
Inter-dependency cannot be the same as over-dependence or total-dependence. When two or more countries strike a business deal as equal partners, there is nothing like master-servant relationship. That definitely cannot be the same as the situation whereby a sovereign nation cannot do anything without the intervention of foreign powers. It cannot be the same as a country that cannot prepare its national budget without factoring in the financial support it expects to receive from outside donors.
The dependency syndrome if not checked, will keep us in perpetual bondage and stifle local initiative. That is why Dr Yamson said that: “If we continue to be aid-dependent, we will continue to be poor.”
Aid debases our nationhood and renders senseless, any claim to sovereignty and independence. As the richest continent in terms of natural resources, African leaders’ concern should be how to harness and utilise these resources and how to capture a big share of the world market and not how to strategise to receive more donations from others.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
FROM MOUNT AFADJA TO AFADJATO (PAGE 7)
There are many in the newer generation, and I would not be surprised if there are some in the older generation, who do not know that Beijing, the Chinese capital that just hosted the 29th Olympiad, was until recently known as Peking. The city of Mumbai in India was actually called Bombay. The two countries, China and India, have since gone ahead to effect changes to restore the names of their cities and towns to their original ones.
Africa’s problems with colonisation had not only been that of exploitation and indoctrination. It also involved a more sinister and humiliating one — ALIENATION. Having been detached from ourselves with new names, Africans, for years, have been battling within themselves for self-realisation without success because we do not want to believe that names play a serious psychological role in identity awareness.
The examples of China and India only go to establish the fact that Africans were not the only victims of Western infiltration of other people’s cultures. The difference, as was evident, is that while others have tried to recover their self-esteem and restore their self-dignity, we Africans are still waiting for some benevolent outsider to come and confess to us one day, that they have done us a great harm and that it will be better for our psyche, independence, cultural redemption and dignity as a people to go back for the indigenous names they have surreptitiously taken away from us.
The names came in various forms through different routes. There were those that were indigenous names but which because of difficulty in pronunciation, were misspelt and mispronounced. That is why today, we have the Akims instead of the Akyems; Ashantis instead of Asantes; Akwapims instead of Akuapems and many others. In this category, one could say the damage is not so much, since it is easy to go back to the original pronunciation.
In another category are names of places that have been totally replaced by foreign ones and unless you are a student of history or driven by curiosity, you will never know that Cape Coast is the same as Oguaa; Saltpond, Akyemfo; Elmina, Edina; Winneba (Windy Bay), Simpa and Dixcove, Mfuma. That means the original names are lost, maybe for ever. But we do not mind losing a national heritage such as the names of our towns in this manner.
Some of the names came with imperialist motives. That was how almost all our natural landmarks like rivers, lakes and mountains came to be known by foreign names. These names actually originated from the countries the so-called explorers who claimed to have discovered us and our land and all that are on it, came from. In the process of doing so, we made some fundamental mistakes from which not even our professors of geography and history could save us the embarrassment and national humiliation. Afadja-To (Afadjato), is an Ewe name, meaning Afadja Mountain. Soaked in that colonial mentality, we decided to misname this natural monument — the highest point in Ghana located in the Volta Region, and forced our children to imbibe this information for more than 50 years that we regained our independence from colonial rule.
There is the Asu-Kawkaw (Red River), which we have decided to name River Asukawkaw. These are just two examples, and I know there are similar ones that go to illustrate how we have duplicated the names of our rivers, mountains and lakes, because we have failed to take due cognisance of our language.
The greatest damage was reserved for personal names. These names, rooted in colonial history, came from several fronts. Some were created to suit the tongue of the colonialists. For example, the name Ghartey, which has become very popular in Simpa because of its links with royalty, was Gyateh. I got to know this because a senior member of the Ghartey Family, who was once the Director-General of the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (GBC), told his class in Broadcasting at the School of Communication Studies of the University of Ghana. The name got corrupted and became Ghartey, because the colonialists could not pronounce it well. Since then, Ghartey has become part of our history books and every year, during the Aboakyir Festival, the name Ghartey, which is the title of one of two royal houses (the other being Ayirebi-Acquah) becomes prominent.
The good thing is that the old broadcaster said he had since made amends by restoring the family name by giving the true and proper name, Gyateh, to his children. How many others have come into the limelight in this way?
Others were given to portray the work or job that was associated with us in relation to them. So if you prepare meals, you are Cook. The original name is lost and we have in its place a Cook Family. There are the Butlers, the Brews, the Riversons, Mallets (Omelette), and their conglomerates such as Brew-Butlers, Brew-Riversons.
With time, we became so fascinated with foreign names that it became fashionable to coin any fancy name by adding a few letters to local names, the most common being SON or SEN. So any thing plus either of these suffixes forms a name. So that someone called Obuor can Europeanise it into Rock and add SON and then a modern name, ROCKSON, the son of Rock, is created. They are too many to mention and almost every coastal town has its fair share but with a heavier concentration in areas where the Europeans first made their landing on the coast of the then Gold Coast Colony.
Some of the names could not be avoided. They came about as a result of marriage or procreation. When those foreigners finally depart this country, they leave behind their children, grandchildren and others who carry on with the naming process.
The missionaries did not come alone with Bible and religion. They made sure that the transformation was total and so the indigenes must be given new names, hence what became commonly known as Christian names. It, therefore, came to pass that any fancy European name became a sacred name here, to symbolise our acceptance of God.
In families where Europeanised names already exist, it becomes obvious that a person’s name cannot necessarily tell which part of the country he/she comes from. Sometimes one could hazard a guess that the origins of that person will lie along the coastal belt, even though that may not be true in some cases.
It is like the Ghanaian is desperately running away from him/herself. So pervasive is the foreign name craze that our football teams have joined in. So if you hear that Arsenal is playing Asante Kotoko, you may be making a mistake if you conclude that the Porcupine Warriors are in a tough encounter with the Gunners from London. Our version of Arsenal are based at Berekum in the Brong Ahafo Region.
Somebody may ask; what is in a name? Yes, there may not be anything in a name. But when a people become obsessed with names of other people, then it means we are taking the psychological bend. In a situation where we are fighting a lot of complexes, especially inferiority complex, and still struggling with identity crisis, we need to worry about the excessive adulation of foreign names.
For the personal names, we could do very little about them. But for God’s sake, let us retrace the names of our towns, villages, rivers, lakes and mountains and go back to our roots and end the tautology.
We will not win any medals adopting foreign names. It will only mean that we are not fit to be what God created us to be and reinforce the generally held perception that the Black man lacks self-confidence and is incapable of standing on his own.
There is an explanation why our brothers and sisters who were taken into slavery lost their identities in terms of names. What about those of us on the Mother Continent? What excuse do we have and what inspiration or even solace do we offer our Diasporan relations if we should also lose our identity in such a careless manner?
If the Chinese, the Indians and other countries have refused to be given new names, why should we not?
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Africa’s problems with colonisation had not only been that of exploitation and indoctrination. It also involved a more sinister and humiliating one — ALIENATION. Having been detached from ourselves with new names, Africans, for years, have been battling within themselves for self-realisation without success because we do not want to believe that names play a serious psychological role in identity awareness.
The examples of China and India only go to establish the fact that Africans were not the only victims of Western infiltration of other people’s cultures. The difference, as was evident, is that while others have tried to recover their self-esteem and restore their self-dignity, we Africans are still waiting for some benevolent outsider to come and confess to us one day, that they have done us a great harm and that it will be better for our psyche, independence, cultural redemption and dignity as a people to go back for the indigenous names they have surreptitiously taken away from us.
The names came in various forms through different routes. There were those that were indigenous names but which because of difficulty in pronunciation, were misspelt and mispronounced. That is why today, we have the Akims instead of the Akyems; Ashantis instead of Asantes; Akwapims instead of Akuapems and many others. In this category, one could say the damage is not so much, since it is easy to go back to the original pronunciation.
In another category are names of places that have been totally replaced by foreign ones and unless you are a student of history or driven by curiosity, you will never know that Cape Coast is the same as Oguaa; Saltpond, Akyemfo; Elmina, Edina; Winneba (Windy Bay), Simpa and Dixcove, Mfuma. That means the original names are lost, maybe for ever. But we do not mind losing a national heritage such as the names of our towns in this manner.
Some of the names came with imperialist motives. That was how almost all our natural landmarks like rivers, lakes and mountains came to be known by foreign names. These names actually originated from the countries the so-called explorers who claimed to have discovered us and our land and all that are on it, came from. In the process of doing so, we made some fundamental mistakes from which not even our professors of geography and history could save us the embarrassment and national humiliation. Afadja-To (Afadjato), is an Ewe name, meaning Afadja Mountain. Soaked in that colonial mentality, we decided to misname this natural monument — the highest point in Ghana located in the Volta Region, and forced our children to imbibe this information for more than 50 years that we regained our independence from colonial rule.
There is the Asu-Kawkaw (Red River), which we have decided to name River Asukawkaw. These are just two examples, and I know there are similar ones that go to illustrate how we have duplicated the names of our rivers, mountains and lakes, because we have failed to take due cognisance of our language.
The greatest damage was reserved for personal names. These names, rooted in colonial history, came from several fronts. Some were created to suit the tongue of the colonialists. For example, the name Ghartey, which has become very popular in Simpa because of its links with royalty, was Gyateh. I got to know this because a senior member of the Ghartey Family, who was once the Director-General of the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (GBC), told his class in Broadcasting at the School of Communication Studies of the University of Ghana. The name got corrupted and became Ghartey, because the colonialists could not pronounce it well. Since then, Ghartey has become part of our history books and every year, during the Aboakyir Festival, the name Ghartey, which is the title of one of two royal houses (the other being Ayirebi-Acquah) becomes prominent.
The good thing is that the old broadcaster said he had since made amends by restoring the family name by giving the true and proper name, Gyateh, to his children. How many others have come into the limelight in this way?
Others were given to portray the work or job that was associated with us in relation to them. So if you prepare meals, you are Cook. The original name is lost and we have in its place a Cook Family. There are the Butlers, the Brews, the Riversons, Mallets (Omelette), and their conglomerates such as Brew-Butlers, Brew-Riversons.
With time, we became so fascinated with foreign names that it became fashionable to coin any fancy name by adding a few letters to local names, the most common being SON or SEN. So any thing plus either of these suffixes forms a name. So that someone called Obuor can Europeanise it into Rock and add SON and then a modern name, ROCKSON, the son of Rock, is created. They are too many to mention and almost every coastal town has its fair share but with a heavier concentration in areas where the Europeans first made their landing on the coast of the then Gold Coast Colony.
Some of the names could not be avoided. They came about as a result of marriage or procreation. When those foreigners finally depart this country, they leave behind their children, grandchildren and others who carry on with the naming process.
The missionaries did not come alone with Bible and religion. They made sure that the transformation was total and so the indigenes must be given new names, hence what became commonly known as Christian names. It, therefore, came to pass that any fancy European name became a sacred name here, to symbolise our acceptance of God.
In families where Europeanised names already exist, it becomes obvious that a person’s name cannot necessarily tell which part of the country he/she comes from. Sometimes one could hazard a guess that the origins of that person will lie along the coastal belt, even though that may not be true in some cases.
It is like the Ghanaian is desperately running away from him/herself. So pervasive is the foreign name craze that our football teams have joined in. So if you hear that Arsenal is playing Asante Kotoko, you may be making a mistake if you conclude that the Porcupine Warriors are in a tough encounter with the Gunners from London. Our version of Arsenal are based at Berekum in the Brong Ahafo Region.
Somebody may ask; what is in a name? Yes, there may not be anything in a name. But when a people become obsessed with names of other people, then it means we are taking the psychological bend. In a situation where we are fighting a lot of complexes, especially inferiority complex, and still struggling with identity crisis, we need to worry about the excessive adulation of foreign names.
For the personal names, we could do very little about them. But for God’s sake, let us retrace the names of our towns, villages, rivers, lakes and mountains and go back to our roots and end the tautology.
We will not win any medals adopting foreign names. It will only mean that we are not fit to be what God created us to be and reinforce the generally held perception that the Black man lacks self-confidence and is incapable of standing on his own.
There is an explanation why our brothers and sisters who were taken into slavery lost their identities in terms of names. What about those of us on the Mother Continent? What excuse do we have and what inspiration or even solace do we offer our Diasporan relations if we should also lose our identity in such a careless manner?
If the Chinese, the Indians and other countries have refused to be given new names, why should we not?
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)