CONCLUSION
This serves as the concluding part of the write-ups. At the outset of this exercise a working definition of what constitutes intellectualism, which has been ‘the derivation of knowledge from reason alone’, was chosen. It may be argued by some, more qualified than yours truly, that the chosen definition was not the best. However intellectualism as used in this write should be regarded as the philosophical concept which asserts that truth can best be discovered by reason and factual analysis. Further, attempts have been made to draw a clear distinction between intellectualism and elitism. The focal points of this final write-up would include the correction of some factual errors and mistakes that have come to my attention. Further some questions raised in connection with the write-ups would be addressed. Finally the exercise would be concluded with a critique of the media landscape and an assessment of the level of intellectualism the institution brings to bear on political discourse of the country.
Apologies and Corrections
In the course of putting together this exercise certain anomalies have come up for consideration and correction. To start with, Odurose is owed an unqualified apology for wrongful association with an opinion he neither expressed nor supported. I have apologised earlier but believe a mention here is deserved. I would like to thank ‘Soldierman’ for drawing my attention to the fact that it was Catholic Bishop Lodonu of the Keta-Ho Diocese who advised against secession and not the Moderator of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, thank you sir! Again I made a factual error that the 31st December Coup was in 1982. Thanks to Mike my attention has been drawn to the fact it occurred rather in 1981. Would I be wrong to plead the cliché “printers’ devil”, please? These were genuine mistakes and I do hope to be forgiven.
Criticisms and Responses
Even the most naïve would expect some level of disagreement wherever politics is concerned. I therefore feel obliged in acknowledging the criticisms and comments of certain individuals who took the trouble to read the pieces and shared their comments. I would like to state my belief in criticisms, especially constructive ones, and acknowledge that no individual, political organisation or ideology holds the monopoly over the truth. I have been most impressed with many of the criticisms this exercise attracted. Most were academic, intellectual or ideological. Sadly, a few chose the unsophisticated method of attacking my personality with insults for the simple reason that they do not like my point of view. Unfortunate as it was the insults have rather sharpened my perception and reinforced my belief in the need for intellectualism in our political discourse. My main purpose for embarking on this exercise is to advocate for the use of the truth, sound reasoning and facts in political discourse. It would be hypocritical on my part to pretend to be apolitical. However objectivity compels me to cast aside my personal political sympathies, and assess every political consideration on its own merit. I did not set out to run down some governments and praise others. Serious considerations have always been given to the concepts of democracy, rule of law and the respect for fundamental human rights in the exercise. These are the principles underpinning most successful social institutions and cherished by all believers in democracy. Therefore when repressive governance was considered as a hindrance to democratic growth I could not let my personal considerations cloud my judgment on the performance of any particular political leader/government of the country. It was important that a high level of objectivity was exercised. However, I leave the success or otherwise to the judgement of the reader.
The first critic I would like to acknowledge is Samuel Adjei Sarfo. As a human being I was most flattered when he acknowledged the finer points of the exercise. However as a critic he has not spared me for what he considered as flaws and kindly obliged me with a list of suggested readings to enrich the exercise. I would like to also acknowledge Kwabena Akurang-Parry and Kwaku. The latter believes I am on the pay roll of the New Patriotic Party and that Dr. Okoampa Ahoofe has a hand in my writing. The former also questioned whether my exercise was “just a roof-top sycophantic adulation of ‘Junior Jesus’” in reaction to a comment that: “Perhaps besides Dr. Nkrumah no other political leader has had as much of an impact on Ghana as Flt. Lt. Rawlings.” Mr. Akurang again believes I failed in applying wholly to the analyses the types of ‘intellectualism’ which informed particular governments and their manner of manifestation. He opines further that I could have illuminated my arguments by indicating whether the intellectualisms were nationalist, internationalist, imported or home-grown. Another issue he raises has to do with the account of the (P)NDC era which according to him portrays my love for the “revolution”. He finally opines that Dr Nkrumah seems to be on the debit chart of my conclusions.
In outlining the history of the political leadership of the country, I found little in terms of the intellectualism in the system of governance adopted by the various leaders. Frankly, the military rulers were the worse. With the democratically elected governments any form of intellectualism found were far and in between. On the PNDC and NDC eras, I find it interesting Mr. Akurang could believe I could harbour “an implicit love affair with the masons of the vampire revolution”, as he labels them. The cardinal principles of democracy I cherish include rule of law, free speech, individual freedom and freedom of association. All repressive governments do everything possible to take these away from the citizenry. From historical perspective and also from my personal experience, I can neither love nor defend the illegal 31st December 1981 coup and the brutish, repressive and unconstitutional rule of the PNDC. Indeed, I find it strange when self-confessed lovers of democracy attempt to defend that coup and the era.
Further, I sincerely believe President Nkrumah remains the best president of Ghana for his economic and political achievements. However, I can never support his undemocratic and repressive credentials. Arguably Dr. Nkrumah stands tall as one of the greatest Africans of all times. He remains untainted by the corruption tag commonly associated with most of his successors and contemporaries as he has never been successfully accused of having amassed private wealth. President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania who opposed Dr. Nkrumah’s African Unity Project admitted to this fact. Speaking on the occasion of Ghana’s 40th Independence in 1997 Dr Nyerere stated that Dr Nkrumah “did not have a Swiss bank account. He died poor.” I wonder whether this can be said of any other Ghanaian leader besides Dr. Hilla Limann. To Kwaku who believes I deliberately failed to highlight the economic and political achievements of Dr. Nkrumah, I believe it would take a monumental undertaken to write out Dr. Nkrumah from the history of Africa much more Ghana. His economic undertakings have yet to be surpassed. Indeed in Part (I) of this piece I stated: “Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, took major steps towards lifting the country out of poverty through the creation of a welfare system, starting community programmes and establishing schools throughout the country. Developmental projects in water, health and road construction were established in the country.” However, I believe his democratic credentials and human right records remain blemished by the application of the Preventive Detention Act to imprison his political enemies without trial, turning Ghana into a one-party state and declaring himself Life President. Indeed, Dr. Nkrumah tacitly admitted to his own intolerance of political plurality and dictatorial leadership and justified this with the statement that: “Even a system based on a democratic constitution may need backing up in the period following independence by emergency measures of a totalitarian kind.” May it be stated that the essence of the write-up was not a comparative assessment of the various governments. At the crux of the exercise was the consideration of the effect of repressive governance on the growth of democracy. An attempt was made to achieve this by tracing the political history of the country. There are many suggestions and contributions too many to reproduce here. However, this should be considered as a call for all ‘intellectually’ oriented to take up the challenge to further the debate by coming up with other proposals for the enrichment of our political dialogue.
A major critic of the write-up, Mr. Odurose, has consistently held contrary views from mine. He considers my assessment of the various governments of the country as only a “trot and a canter”. He further contends that I should “cite chapter and verse to show which intellectuals and politicians over our short history as Ghana have extolled the virtues and vices (in the others) of ethnicity and/or tribalism in Ghana”. I had really not wanted to name names in the course of this exercise because I have a pet hate about personalising issues. However to prove to Odurose and anyone else about such occurrences, I suggest the reading of Prof. Kofi Awoonor’s book Ghana: A political History from Pre-European to Modern Times, Accra: Sedco/Woeli, 1990. The book is supposed to be an academic work. But let the reader be the judge if this work promotes nationalism or preaches ethnic hegemony. He further states: “You surprisingly go to the SIL website for your examples, forgetting that nearly all the writers hide their identities. What my neighbours think of me in the comfort of their drawing rooms does not bother me a jot provided they behave civilly towards me in public.” I do sincerely hope Odurose is not aware of some utterances at political rallies and on the campaign trails. Is it any wonder there have been countless clashes between ‘rival’ parties after such events? Curious as his line of thought may be he seems to be forgetting these champions of ethnocentricity on the net may hide their personal identities but not their tribal affiliations. Sadly, I would expect many of the users of these sites to be more sophisticated in their outlook and education than a lot of our brothers and sisters. If the educated can behave in the manner displayed on the sites then what can be expected to be ‘boiling in chests’ of our less fortunate siblings? If we cast our minds back to the numerous conflicts on the continent the so-called educated and elites provided a strong platform for whipping up inter-ethnic hatred. In our own sad case of Dagbon, we should not easily forget the pathetic role played by some educated individuals who arrogated to themselves leadership and spokesperson roles only to whip up hatred against their own siblings. It would be dangerous for us to pretend there is no cause for concern when we read the venom and hatred of our fellow countrymen and women daily. It is the responsibility of all well meaning citizens to discuss, now, all such issues to avoid any possible future problems.
Intellectualism, Journalism and National Discourse
Journalism as a discipline involves the collection, analysis, verification and presentation of information regarding current events, issues, people and trends. Practitioners of the profession are called journalists. Freedom of the press is the guarantee given by government for a free public press for citizens. Free press is guaranteed to groups and organisation such as media house and their published reporting. The free press extends to news gathering and all processes of obtaining information for public distribution. It emanates from the concept of Freedom of Speech which allows individuals and groups the right to speak freely without censorship. Thomas Carlyle, the Scottish essayist and historian, was the first to attribute the concept of ‘fourth estate’ to Edmund Burke, the Anglo-Irish statesman, author, orator, political theorist and philosopher. Thomas Carlyle quotes Edmund Burke as saying: “… there were three Estates in Parliament, but in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a fourth Estate more important than they all.” The press is also referred to as the ‘fourth power’ for the considerable influence it wields over the formation and shaping of public opinion. It power stems from its ability to influence public opinion by widely distributing fact and opinions about the various branches of government. Public opinion in turn directly and indirectly influences the branches of government and the outcome of elections.
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are guaranteed under international law. In Ghana, the whole of Chapter 8 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana is devoted to the Freedom and Independence of the media. The media landscape in Ghana has been interesting since the promulgation of the fourth republican constitution. Beginning with the President Jerry John Rawlings led National Democratic Congress (NDC) government, the newspaper licensing law was repealed and the state monopoly on radio and television was broken to allow for private sector participation. Continuing further, the President John Agyekum Kufuor’s New Patriotic Party government has repealed the Criminal Libel Law and gone further to pass other laws which all support the growth of press freedom and free speech. These development marks Ghana out as one of the leading countries in the world that respects free speech and free press. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) fact file on Ghana states: “Ghana enjoys a high degree of media freedom, and the country's private press and broadcasters operate without major restrictions. The private press is lively, and often carries criticism of government policy. Animated phone-in programmes on a wide range of topics are staple fare on many radio stations.” However, many campaigners for free speech and free press refer to the very high and sometimes ridiculous financial penalties imposed on media practitioners for libel by the courts. Such campaigners argue that it is not enough that the criminal libel law has been repealed. They call for court fines to be minimised in order not to stifle free speech and free press. It may be stated however that the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country.
The importance of free speech and press freedom underscores the very essence of successful political discourse. Without these two important ingredients of democracy no society can successfully engage in debate and express divergent views on any national issue. The role of the media in Ghana is therefore extremely crucial in fostering a healthy avenue for public engagement of divergent views and opinions. However the question arises whether intellectualism as used in the context of this write is exhibited considering the standards of journalism in the country. There are many obvious factors affecting the intellectual standards of journalism in the country. There is the need for proper debate and consensus building on the way forward towards equipping the ‘fourth estate’ into playing the important role in setting the country apart as a model in every sphere of our national life.
The falling standard of journalism has compelled many not to patronise particular newspaper, television/radio stations or specific programmes/columns. The continuous fall in journalistic standards in the country has been well identified by Dr. Bonna Koomson, the head of School of Communication of the University of Ghana. He succinctly attributed the problems to ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors which respectively represent the internal and external conditions which affect the practice of journalism in the country. He considered the internal factors as ignorance, low or poor training, lacking intellectual approach, sheer incompetence and sometimes dishonesty. The external conditions he identified include poor conditions of service, cultural environment, political/partisan influence and social mediocrity. These are serious indictment on the institution and the country as a whole. It therefore becomes the duty of all Ghanaians to ensure that the necessary remedy is found. The then Minister of State responsible for Tertiary Education, Ms. Elizabeth Ohene received what many objective analysts considered an undeserved stick for allegedly encouraging students to specialise in other fields of study before taking up journalism. There are obviously too many uninformed, mediocre and oftentimes overly partisan journalists. The recent survey by the Center for Media Analysis further gives a picture of an institution which seems to have forgotten its role in society with the cultural heritage such as ours. The Chief Executive Officer of the Center, Dr. Messan Mawugbe noted that: “It is sometimes sad; these are words (used by newspaper journalists) we don’t use for our parents in our homes but we use them for the President, the Head of State of the Republic of Ghana. Are we so disrespectful to the family head?” Indeed these characteristics are alien to our culture and value system. But some journalists’ frequent usage of insults renders them the norm rather than the deviation. Sad to note some of our leading political figures have also contributed to this ‘foreign culture’ by their own comments on radio, print and on the political stumps. A common trend in the media is unnecessary sensationalism and unmeritorious discussions. Title tattle, malice and insults seem to have been elevated to the top of journalistic standard. Research and proper investigation as standard tools of good journalism seems to be missing. Emotional arguments have replaced well proven facts. Every attempt is made to avoid complex discussion on social, economic, environmental, educational and other equally important issues. Trivial and titillating discussion on sex, money and politics seem more important than any other topic. With the exception of a few media houses, hardly are experts invited to contribute to discussions. Then are the so-called serial callers who have assumed such importance in media circles. These people arrogate to themselves a high level of serve importance. The recent tantrums by an Appiah Stadium and Hamza Tuferu, purported serial callers for the NPP and NDC, respectively, are cases in point. As a Ghanaian I felt very sad that precious man hours were spent reporting on these gentlemen on their threats to ‘expose skeletons in cupboards’ when serious and important matters of survival are completely ignored. Another important factor affecting the lack of intellectualism in journalism stems from selfish personal and business interests of sponsors of the journalists. Many owners of the media houses are solely interested in furthering their personal and/or business interests which may even be at variance with national aspirations. It is important for these entrepreneurs to be more selfless and nationalistic in their undertakings to take into consideration what is needful for the whole society.
Notwithstanding these some presenters, columnists and media houses have been doing well by providing qualitative presentations and programmes that are well researched and fact based. There are also many outstanding media practitioners on the Ghanaian scene who can rub shoulders with their counterparts anywhere in the world. It is important to encourage the good practitioners and set them up as role models to be emulated by up-and-coming ones. In the same vein the quacks and shoddy journalists should be exposed and thrown out of the profession or possibly retrained.
As our great statesman, nationalist and musicologist Dr. Ephraim Amu wrote: “Yen ara asase ni” – this is our own land. It is therefore incumbent upon us all to build our country in respect, decency and love for one another. The people who have a stake in the country are first and foremost Ghanaians. Failure to do this could wreak dangers the consequence of which none of us could ever have imagined.
God bless Ghana.
Copyright © 1994 - 2024 GhanaWeb. All rights reserved.
