To Lie, or Not to Lie

Here is update on “Coro” and subsequent: Partial shut-down extension will be one week old shortly.  We did not anticipate well the spread getting its ruthless sweep here.  We panicked, [every country outside of China] caught on the hop, yet to recover because we are groping for certainties—effective anti-dote or control, brought to minimise.  But it is true and very troubling that our people being too hard at hearing, sometimes due understandably by their circumstances.  That seem to indict our rush to copycat, though its worked halfedly.  We lack clarity, strong leadership and robust enforcement of whatever our serious collective planning can foster to make our people believe and sit up, even if the steps are add hockery.  

Major element is we have not let ourselves fully recognise to appreciate elementarily, the enormity of the monster virus which is a most dangerous and audacious predator which confronts us as a nation.  The Akan old “pop” song yells:”uwuo kromfuor, owuo nsembon nigye; edise meni nnhu wo saa anka me ne wo beko” —‘you death, the thief, and you death who thrives in mischief; I shall fight-spank you, were you visible.’  Corona is the same.  Unfortunately, by design or accident, we have put all the risks aside and picnic in electronic media political filth-lobs at each another.  We have been in error.  All of us.

 Often, it is best to learn from our mistakes to move on better directions than be stubborn.  I remember the best example of this concept was confessed on British Television when then Prime Minister Harold Wilson having caved in devalue the pound sterling in crisis [late 1968; we had 1967 (NLC) and 1970/1(PP 2^nd.Rep)], said he found it a show of mind superiority changing his mind, conceding, if someone told him that he was wrong.  

And so whether or not it was either a neophyte Deputy Health Minister’s burst up or apparently not very fully briefed leading to the indiscretion and sure embarrassment of government with regard to the gravamen reasoning for the U-Turn on lockdown, I am certain that it is not all of the country who had felt the free food, water and electricity undertakings would work for sheer cost.  A plain reason is the resources are not there, scarce or would be fast overstretched for the Treasury to flash the alarm bells frantically. The goals remain noble.  Everyone loves free chop.  However, here! Hmnnn…  

In detail the feeding was limited for specifically statistical-needy, across the board front liners pay incentives and nationwide freeze on water and light bills—enormously gigantic for a national Kitty already crouched under too much borrowings, necessary perhaps, though disputed.  At the end bubble bust and the country learned the State could carry, bearing the rate of expenditure per day.  This can be understood or ought, in terms of the revenue in-flows.  Two questions arise: was there a rush and did it have a hidden agenda?  

Thus the school of opinion which seems to have boom voice today concluding that the decision to ease the shut-down was economic reality and potentially social defiance, [however much irresponsible the remarkable lawless misconduct on the part of the citizenry involved], instead of the science and social diktats advisedly.  Therefore the earlier close down was political gimmick, the gambit has not won and the back track is inevitable, it is said.  

I differ to explain without reference precisely to this country if any lessons can be learned to correct bad belief that governments won’t lie.  Universally, where for example the IMF gives a clean bill of economic health to governments, it is enthusiastically flagged by the government in question.  Domestically, where the pollsters show the government of the day has standing with its public, its propaganda machinery goes all cylinders to hoist the public high rating on sky scrapers, highest trees and were it here, we shall locate the grave and exhume the Bannerman Brothers [father-founders of Gold Coast journalism in the 19th century] to scribble that on sheets to circulate.  

The idea is its good fodder to taunt political opposition.  They all do it—both from turn of tenure to another.  As relates to lie or not in its nitty-gritty rationalisation for governance, there is an invisible responsibility inherent.  This is that as the custodian of the state you have a compulsory gumption to ensure your people are not panicked unnecessarily.  This is the fulcrum of official secrets and classified material.  Here is the flip side: within its processing, through either inadvertent default or deliberate purposes to conceal occurs or can. 

 It is very difficult to emphatically be exact about the “either” and the “or” as I have just cited.  However, the chief undergird of the principle of guarding the public interest by concealment is, as highly sensitive as that gets often breached by incumbents.  They do not feel obliged to explain to the public actions based on that disregard for the rule of thumb which this really with exemptions like war and or invasion clawing in health epidemics.   

We experienced that in the outbreak of cholera few years ago.  US President Reagan invaded Grenada blocking publicity absolutely.  Margaret Thatcher British Prime Minister invaded the Falklands and Putin roared into annex portion of Crimea.  All of them were later defended on for the “good of Rome” so to state if you like.  But wait the bomb shells were the true figures of casualties—dead, lost and injured were never accurately detailed during and after.  No archive can definitely give us the names, numbers and where our elders who went to fight in both World Wars I [1914-18] and II [1939-45] died and were buried.  

All said, the backlog of hindsight gains have led to the law on Freedom of Information.  Ours is yet to be fully operational.  The history of its passage is instructive of how both incumbency and opposition can obstruct release of exact information.  Clearly, it is endemic yet incidentally not unique to us except that common knowledge puts developing countries high up the ladder for not telling.  It takes no stretch of endeavour to expect all governments fiddling with the figures of upwards and downwards curves of Corona.  

However, in the case here particularly where there is no speed and means of ability for independents to verify the statistics and indeed challenge to prove official statement for errors and then reason to label them judgmentally—lie, false, may be, may not and true, our doubts are fostered by proofed maths calculations and inarticulate presentations.  These commissions and omissions have increased the quickest resurgence of “akee, akee”.  Its as poisonous as Coro.  

Truth is the veracity or otherwise of disputing statistics and comparisons have side effects which may or not add to the confusion imperative to sort in so far it is to do with health, trust and it is national. Throughout the scramble to look good in public standing the old familiar villain is politics—a most impeachable bogey now and due urgently for brave collective drop of arrogance to for the consensus over matters such we grope out of this pandemic.  I believe in desire on all sides of our raucous political chess board for endurable solution; and if nothing at all the obvious that Corona knows no political ideological hues. 

 Simultaneously, I equally believe I have inalienable right to plead that we all pull back from this hysteria of destroying reputations– and empty partisan intolerance of others’ opinions. Confessedly, the official “Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde counting slip up and particularly, the comparisons were and are incongruous mathematically and between us and countries in Europe or elsewhere demographically.  Imputing motives to score political or in extensor electoral points, perhaps apparently indecorous or unfortunately despicable.  We have overdone it.  “mea culpa” shall be enough to take the heat out.  We can let go from the humour depth of native mores which engineer a loud laugh off in “comparison consoles the prisoner” [‘mfatoho ntsi na prisoner nyi ne were anhow.’]  

That removes the long gloomy shadow cast over the discourses couched in toxic contents about our quo vadis [wither are we off to] with this rogue virus.  Not out of the growing crisis yet, there are serious dislocations for sobriety to handle their threats.  These are education and salaries to staff especially in the private sector which has been such a sine qua non, despite costs and waste, taken for granted obliviously as we go on engaged in apathetic disgust, piling on the damage, as if unconcerned.  I refer to salaries for staff in the non-state-subvention from Kinder through Universities permanent and daily-wage lot.  It is not a residual matter arising.  It is as concomitant as of course I see some vaguely choreographed discourses, televised with regard to workers and collapsed businesses with all the national effects on the Treasury.  Rough times ahead is perhaps a bad under-statement.  The realities make us bonkers all round.  That is where the ponderous attention rests.   

They pay tax to the national Kitty as well as all within the ambit of the Revenue Collection Agency.  Corona has put skids under them.  The job for the State now and not later, is more akin to underwriting overdrafts for them like with a state or even wholly single-owned bank to save it from going into receivership, rather than left to scrap with or scrounge themselves.  The explanation is less than far-fetched; because the results would be terrible for parents, the future of children at home eating like whales and this nation for manpower including continuity. 

 In the interval, a second relevant national crisis stares though lurking in whispers.  Is it time to think about a national coalition?.  Which pieces to pick are a central command away from the state bureaucracy and mandated to spearhead the war on Corona as committed during the early 90s’ “Guinea-Fowl” pogrom up North of the country; and construct a structure of interim State governance if we are unable to have exited the Virus and cannot go to the polls—something as concrete with two precious advantages for the peace: [i] pre-empt and crack down on disproportionate political conflict-risk, promptly.  

I have serious hunch that it is not a hard concept to vision and even approximately explain to defend referring to our historical experiences not acting quickly perhaps carelessly simply to err on the side of caution.  The gut feeling is to hope that we shall think-tank together, achingly careful.

© Prof nana essilfie-conduah.