Values

What are values and do we have them as a unified country not as divided into warring camps without guns, generally speaking. Ethnic wars are a different matter as if it is good and tolerable to fold arms on. The theme here pushes that aside though we had been at wars here ever since our ancestors run away down south of the Nile to settle. We kept and rebuilt our separate cultures in the process as ethnic peoples apart until indepen­dence made us a ONE NATION, each ethnic cultures kept in their beauties—weird or a tapestry in perhaps Arabian Nights—Akwasi­dae, Hobotsotso, Bakauei , Dambai and Afahye. Thus, as distinct, we acknowledge different people and countries have values that distin­guish almost or always betray them apart. But as different, there are unique undergirds which is com­mon to all. It is chiefly RESPECT of self, to others, below and above, in all that is done or may—speech, mien and tonally.

When all is said after “Ballot-24” amidst celebrating triumph and rueing defeat, in the verbal finger­prints from everybody’s private and public menu’s talk, speaks grave concerns about growing disrespect from Parliament into the streets throughout the coun­try. There is no complete owning up. The regular accusing fingers blandly point to “THUGS”, the latest favoured media and political vocabulary. You have to assume the rioters are from the other side, once you can identify which the spear belongs. The spreading lack of respect whatsoever carries that load in its bosom which we are taught by the Elders [Ametsitsi] to pass on to succeeding genera­tions to keep undiluted, let alone discarded.

The unspoken clause is where reforms may necessarily be made to properly be in consonance with the turned-up- exigency,–kind of transformations. These receive nods for the past and the future. That is, as long as they enrich qual­ity to add value to anyone’s culture. Respect is obviously embedded, relative to moral standards and or, decorum. Within, respect there­fore, are the foundations of values in packages of decencies for every conduct. These are the heritage, precious if we don’t hold them sa­cred. The question that is asked is: what has gone wrong and if a date for the decline, like history gauges: its causes and leave the blames to explain themselves away. Why?

Both in-depth and cursory inquiries suggest that even an ap­proximate period would add a far more political bellicose than we are troubled by presently. A simpler re-definition of discipline, sup­ported by enforcements –Palatial and Courts–of respectively, cul­tural and legal penalties would be enough. As fine as a combined resolution, there had been too many ages of sustained conflict or indeed contradictions between the two about punishments. I regard this route as fraught, read in light of the constitution. Compare the Chief ’s Palace fines and the courts’. A straight conclusion would label the native as arbitrary. Yet, a careful reasoning would show the boot is on the other foot where there is no bargaining –“dwan tua”, for instance. The As­antehene was recently reported as cancelling a fine to rescue a chap abjectly poor and unable.

The riposte that the judgment could have assessed the culprit’s ability is lame, thinking about court slide rule’s limitations [the only alternative would seem to be jailing or the discretion of the trial Judge, rare generally or in most plainly exceptional case. Before independence, Chiefs had Police and Prisons or up to about 1948. Jailed persons served their terms in the State’s. Few of the left-over powerful traditional Rulers maintain parallel custodial facilities. Our pretence is not sustainable any longer. The difficulty is the cul­tural evaluations. Pride would be the first big mountain to climb and that explains the pretence, really to dodge complications to an over­loaded Donkey (Country). I think the constitutional review’s job is that extensive, given all of these dimensions, unless they engage in half-house; or raise enough pillars to leave another generation to add the mortars.

However, some of us expect the mandate of Review Enquiry to be institutionalised, activated fixed periodically. A watch is to ensure the frequency is such as not appear to constantly tinker with the constitution. Or, else it becomes a ‘paper tiger’ at best; and worst worthless. But the obstacles exist, whether or not from narrow paro­chialism and politics in a country whose everything has become politicised with odious hostili­ty. (Dr Kwesi Prempeh and the group are until that is established, are put in hamstrings ab initio by these movables but now the rocks of Gibraltar. A showpiece in our inheritance pertaining to values is the stout anti-corruption stance. In retrospect, there is some queer character about it. ORAL is the latest. Any biblical “somewhat” against it, is that we turn round to return loots to looters when politics change from after the NLC 1966-69 against the CPP. It has become a decorous norm. This has fuelled the bludgeoning of State coffers and giving hope to stealing from the State as an investment for inheritance at the least opportunity. Restitution and retribution are equalled and have become temporary discomforts for past and future culprits. We need to take this more seriously into reckoning than so far in circus.

I wrote in this column few years ago, a complaint about INDIS­CIPLINE. I took on who was to blame. I had heard a chorus of the “whodunit”—the ‘we no go sit down make them cheat we every day’ and rejected it and blamed our generation accusing the overdone excused on jobs and laissez-faire. But of late there is a surge on the tickets of entitle­ment mentality and arrogance. Its chief elements are brazen and impunity, almost becoming a cult which seems to struggling presently. How to final­ly nail it, is gargantuan. Anyway, the epoch of the “we no go sit down…” was a protest not really disrespect except perhaps the manner. I find it a historical parallel with the seces­sionist chant “Kwame Nkrumah nkwas— yientie”, merely recalling history, but in no way justifying the deaths, destructions and losses that ensued then and equally depreciate the recent.

As for the new waves, they could be attributed to hardship and pent up anger for a catalogue of reasons. The clearest absentee is a cooling and who by—the same as was thoughtfully asked during the EC-IPAC impasse last year and no one Elderly stepped forward. An old wise-sayings are “ikurow biara, mensa wo mu” and “Eifie biara Opanyin wo mu”—‘there is a mensa in every country just as there are elders’ (mensa, being the vagabond). In the case of this country, there are too many deter­rents in the running 1992 consti­tution. The vacuum is the force de frappe, its teeth extracted by us all. The common excuse is “we want to get by”. That is the pivot of the politicisation of every­thing which infected nationalised politicisation—“them” and “us” creating entitlement mentality with its paraphernalia of arrogance and impunity leading to a society of filthily “neo-haves” and a steadi­ly growing majority proletariat within less than a decade.

Creating a bridging is toughest because of how to prioritise op­tions from short through medium to long terms. In has stated earliest that we betray where we hail in speech tonally; especially even among ourselves and limit to the African mid-west coast of Anglo­phones and Francophiles. Some erudite and others are not. Pigeon in whichever, is the substitute all over. But the fully able and the less tolerate the mixture except the English or French, as adopted for official work tool. We have held to them as valuable, commu­nicating internally and externally. For centuries our people have placed so much premium on both. Indeed Prof Busia was stumped by language when he had toyed with Ghana joining either OCAM or OAMCE. The not-so-fluent en­deavour to learn privately because they get wounded in themselves or when another person jeers at them for that handicap in public they think it is an unforgivable humiliation.

I am stating it very proverbially. There were in successive parlia­ment’s two members who never spoke but voted at every divi­sion calls. They defended saying what was the use of repeating what another had said speaking for which they were in d’accord. During the Osu Alata Mantse NII Bonne III’s country-wide-“Boy­cott” 1948, the colonial Central Regional Commissioner, T.R.O. Mangin, sent packages plus Four Pounds (sterling) each to bribe four very powerful Chiefs at Cape Coast to order their people not to participate. One Chief who was not read challenged colleagues. Their reply was ‘’take it and keep quiet; after all, you are illiterate.’’ That principled old man was riled and reported the corruption at a public “Boycott” rally. Pandemo­nium broke out. The people felt insulted by the remarks.

With regard to Parliament one would have thought that EC’s stakes would have taken care of proficiency about the value of language I mean English.

By Prof Nana Essilfie-Conduah