AFRICAN UNION
The African union seems to be in disarray and cannot put up a united front on almost any issue. To promote democracy and political stability, the union has put in place resolution to reject any government that comes to power by the barrel of the gun. But the chairman of the African Union, an autocrat who usurped power through a coup d’état is against this resolution and has voiced his displeasure saying that democracy is an alien concept to the African and should not imposed on African nations. The African Union is sending mixed messages to new coup makers. Whilst many African leaders condemned the junta in Guinea, others like Kaddafi and Senegal have fully embraced the regime.
What is more, when Robert Mugabe went to the African Union meeting, he received a standing ovation. Mugabe has been the scourge of his 10 million plus countrymen. As a result of the political crisis he has unleashed by brazenly overturning an election result that he lost, Zimbabwe has been plunged into the worst economic and political chaos since the founding of that country. Several thousands are starving and dying, and the entire economy is in complete paralysis. Nevertheless, many in the African Union, particularly South Africa, continue to support Mugabe. The African Union's failure to sing with one voice undermines and undoes everything it stands for and tries to do. And that disharmony is definitely making it impossible for the African Union to promote political stability and rein in on coup d’états, which for decades have been the bane of continental progress. Nation after nation was plunged into political chaos and economic mismanagement by military juntas.
SENEGAL
This nation for decades has been the beacon of political stability and democracy in a region often mired in political chaos and civil wars. It is therefore disconcerting that the highly respected octogenarian ruler, Abdoulaye Wade, has led Senegal into economy abyss and political chaos. On Mr. Wade's watch, corruption has thrived in Senegal and the economy is very weak, leading to political unrests. The man once the perennial opposition leader for over two decades and often arrested and brutalized by the incumbent government at that time is today harassing and arresting political opponents. And worse, he has sent a clear signal that he is trying to pass on the mantle of leadership to his son Karim Wade. No wonder his party got spanked in the just ended local elections.
SOUTH AFRICA
There has been global outrage at South Africa for the last several months --most notably for its soft treatment of Robert Mugabe in the face of the gross abuse and torture of his political opponents, plunging his country into a stage of political anarchy and economic calamity.
But the latest scorn and rebuke at the ex-apartheid nation is the result of its denial of visa for the Dalai Lama, following threats from South Africa's major trading partner, China. Even though the African National Congress vehemently denies any connection to China in its decision to refuse visa to the venerated Tibetan leader, it is conspicuous that fear of angering China and hurting its business interest with that Asian economic giant was the sole consideration.
It is extremely disappointing that a regime that for decades had to rely on from help the international community to topple the racist apartheid regime, would give fodder to autocrats to oppress their own people. The African National Congress should be the regime that should be most sympathetic to groups or leaders fighting oppression. So for the South African regime to be putting loyalty to Mugabe and business interests to China ahead of assisting victims of oppression is morally reprehensible and politically dumb. South Africa has invited the scorn and ire of nations that have supported them in the past and should be their friends. So pursuing this ill-advised and imprudent narrow self interest hurts South Africa politically. No wonder condemnation from the global media and political leaders has been swift and universal.
GHANA
Reports of unusually high incidents of child labor abuse should be worrying to the leadership of the country. The future of any nation rests on the development of its young generation. With so many documented cases of children out of school and performing economic activities for their parents, the nation risks losing its potential potent labor force. Law makers must ensure that the laws on the books against child labor abuse are enforced.
KENYA
Still is still reeling from the near civil war caused by election rigging by the incumbent government; the nation has suffered more setbacks on two fronts: Corruption is thriving under the unity government of Kibaki and Odinga, and is threatening to bring Kenya to near economic paralysis. And worse, Kenya is experiencing a drought that could lead to starvation. Kenya is on the brink and its leadership must rise to the challenge: first, the leadership reins in on corruption, and second, it must fully assess the food situation and call for donor help now than later, if need be.
NIGERIA
The huge drop in oil prices is hurting the super eagle nation's revenue. And worse, Nigeria's failure to rein in on political violence around the oil producing Nile Delta area is hurting the nation's oil production --Angola has overtaking Nigeria as the biggest oil producing nation in Africa. To compound the problem of shrunk revenue for the federal government, Nigerian banks have also been hit hard by the global financial collapse and have drastically curtailed lending. In effect, Nigeria risks sinking into a deep recession, given these outlined problems.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
GHANA THE MIDDLE AGE TODDLER
At 52 years old, Ghana remains a struggling, incipient sub-Saharan African first born nation state. The country’s performance to date since 1957 is arguably mixed –some successes and failures. However without question, you read more disappointments than successes in our results. Given the fact that we started off with a huge promise and potential, one can only weep at how low we have descended.
At independence, we had an infrastructure that was the envy of developing countries. Road network was relatively good and we had a solid bank account for a developing country, to the tune of over 400 million pounds sterling. Even though the Ghana’s illiteracy rate was high, the people were relatively well fed and access to health care was better than we have today. Our cities and towns were better planned and law and order was more elaborate and efficient than today.
But Ghana’s founding father became a poor manager of the nation’s resources. Within a decade after independence, our reserves had evaporated and we had already incurred a huge debt, thanks to Nkrumah’s quixotic quest to establish the United States of Africa. Decades following the mid 60’s, Ghana was plunged into political chaos following successive coup d’états in 1972, 1978, 1979 and 1981. Ghana’s national debt ballooned while productivity took a steep decline. Given this political and socio-economic malaise, every single indicator of the quality of life index took a nose dive. Today, unemployment hovers around 50% and majority of the population have limited access to quality medical care. Preventable diseases such as cholera, dehydration and malaria remain major killers. No wonder current estimates for life expectancy in Ghana has hovered around 59 (Source: Human Development Index 2007) in the past decade, in an era where that number is inching towards 80 years in Japan, United States and Western Europe.
Political independence from the United Kingdom was supposed to free us from the shackles of poverty and economic dependency, but it has brought us more misery and economic dependency. Our economy is heavily financed by loans and grants; in many ways we have failed to live up to the high expectation bestowed on us following independence.
On the plus side, we have many reasons to celebrate March 6th and be grateful to the leaders that led that effort. At independence, Ghana did not have a single university –the University of Ghana, Legon was a university college, the equivalent of a community college in the United States. The deliberate policy of the colonialist was to deny us college education. Formal education, particularly, university education is always a threat to any form of illegal domination. To his credit, Kwame Nkrumah was aggressive in accelerating access to education for the Ghanaian masses. In a short time, he built three universities, including the University of Ghana, which was upgraded to university status. Nkrumah made education free and compulsory at the elementary level.
Kwame Nkrumah promoted African and national pride which helped the nation heal from psychological damage from centuries of seeing ourselves as second class citizens in our own land. Ghanaians assumed positions of authority in large numbers and enjoyed higher salaries and greater benefits. That sense of pride and sense of driving our own destiny that had eluded us for decades and centuries was indeed refreshing and invigorating. Toddlers often insist on doing things even when they have no clue. In their haste and zeal, they learn to do things in the crude and the most expensive way, often committing costly mistakes or even hurting themselves in the process. But in the end, they become better and devise their own means of doing things very effectively. We should pad ourselves on the back in fighting for and successfully achieving independence. As a young independent nation, we have waffled and made costly mistakes out of ignorance and ineptness. The result has been punishing for our economy, social structure and political system. Ghanaians have suffered severe economic hardships for decades and have seen our quality of life plunge decades after independence. Not only are our children malnourished, but our schools are of low quality. According to a 2007 report by The International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Ghana scored higher than only Morocco out of 60 countries at the 8th Grade Level in Science. Despite the not-so-inspiring record on human development index, I believe we’re better off for making the effort to run our own government, economy, education and healthcare system.
For even if toddlers are intrepid enough to hasten their learning process and become independent quickly, our leaders were right in demanding self-government. Despite the hefty price we’ve paid for our rookie blunders that have weakened our economy and made the country less competitive globally, we should feel no remorse for attaining self-government -- when the colonialist cynically told us we not ready. Some apologists for colonial rule make mockery of March 6th by pointing to the misery index that we have suffered in our inchoate exploration. But such cheerleaders of colonialism forget that we have made some gains: we have a new sense of pride as Sub-Saharan Africa’s first nation state free of foreign domination. We have expanded educational opportunities to our citizens to stimulate a sense of creativity, private ownership and wealth creation. We can now proudly proclaim the beautiful name Ghana, not the British Gold Coast. Our progress has been slow, but we have made the effort and in the end the toddler will become an adult who is fully independent.
The trouble is that at 52, we are a middle age still behaving like a toddler. National leaders often have no sense of patriotism or sympathy or loyalty to their subjects whom they serve. Rather than having a sense of urgency towards accelerated development to crawl us out of our 19th Century development level, their first instinct is to plunder our meager resources at will, like a starving toddler would ravenously consume at will any food at his reach, notwithstanding whether it is good or bad, or whether he has ownership of the food or not. Our culture has retrogressed to a point where corruption is at an intolerable level that cannot sustain any meaningful development. Africa loses approximately $148 Billion annually, according UN and World Bank estimates. Our overall moral decadence portends doom for our future if we do not reverse course from this perilous path.
On this our 52nd anniversary of the birth sub-Sahara’s first nation state, we should ponder over the miseries of the last 52 years, the abject poverty of our people, curable diseases that afflict and kill our people, high illiteracy rate and say it is time for a change. Toddlers we are no more. We ought to assume a new national character: the sane, sound, middle age adult who has acquired wisdom from years of suffering and difficulties, and who has put her dignity over her instant gratification, who has placed the well-being of her posterity above her own.
At independence, we had an infrastructure that was the envy of developing countries. Road network was relatively good and we had a solid bank account for a developing country, to the tune of over 400 million pounds sterling. Even though the Ghana’s illiteracy rate was high, the people were relatively well fed and access to health care was better than we have today. Our cities and towns were better planned and law and order was more elaborate and efficient than today.
But Ghana’s founding father became a poor manager of the nation’s resources. Within a decade after independence, our reserves had evaporated and we had already incurred a huge debt, thanks to Nkrumah’s quixotic quest to establish the United States of Africa. Decades following the mid 60’s, Ghana was plunged into political chaos following successive coup d’états in 1972, 1978, 1979 and 1981. Ghana’s national debt ballooned while productivity took a steep decline. Given this political and socio-economic malaise, every single indicator of the quality of life index took a nose dive. Today, unemployment hovers around 50% and majority of the population have limited access to quality medical care. Preventable diseases such as cholera, dehydration and malaria remain major killers. No wonder current estimates for life expectancy in Ghana has hovered around 59 (Source: Human Development Index 2007) in the past decade, in an era where that number is inching towards 80 years in Japan, United States and Western Europe.
Political independence from the United Kingdom was supposed to free us from the shackles of poverty and economic dependency, but it has brought us more misery and economic dependency. Our economy is heavily financed by loans and grants; in many ways we have failed to live up to the high expectation bestowed on us following independence.
On the plus side, we have many reasons to celebrate March 6th and be grateful to the leaders that led that effort. At independence, Ghana did not have a single university –the University of Ghana, Legon was a university college, the equivalent of a community college in the United States. The deliberate policy of the colonialist was to deny us college education. Formal education, particularly, university education is always a threat to any form of illegal domination. To his credit, Kwame Nkrumah was aggressive in accelerating access to education for the Ghanaian masses. In a short time, he built three universities, including the University of Ghana, which was upgraded to university status. Nkrumah made education free and compulsory at the elementary level.
Kwame Nkrumah promoted African and national pride which helped the nation heal from psychological damage from centuries of seeing ourselves as second class citizens in our own land. Ghanaians assumed positions of authority in large numbers and enjoyed higher salaries and greater benefits. That sense of pride and sense of driving our own destiny that had eluded us for decades and centuries was indeed refreshing and invigorating. Toddlers often insist on doing things even when they have no clue. In their haste and zeal, they learn to do things in the crude and the most expensive way, often committing costly mistakes or even hurting themselves in the process. But in the end, they become better and devise their own means of doing things very effectively. We should pad ourselves on the back in fighting for and successfully achieving independence. As a young independent nation, we have waffled and made costly mistakes out of ignorance and ineptness. The result has been punishing for our economy, social structure and political system. Ghanaians have suffered severe economic hardships for decades and have seen our quality of life plunge decades after independence. Not only are our children malnourished, but our schools are of low quality. According to a 2007 report by The International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Ghana scored higher than only Morocco out of 60 countries at the 8th Grade Level in Science. Despite the not-so-inspiring record on human development index, I believe we’re better off for making the effort to run our own government, economy, education and healthcare system.
For even if toddlers are intrepid enough to hasten their learning process and become independent quickly, our leaders were right in demanding self-government. Despite the hefty price we’ve paid for our rookie blunders that have weakened our economy and made the country less competitive globally, we should feel no remorse for attaining self-government -- when the colonialist cynically told us we not ready. Some apologists for colonial rule make mockery of March 6th by pointing to the misery index that we have suffered in our inchoate exploration. But such cheerleaders of colonialism forget that we have made some gains: we have a new sense of pride as Sub-Saharan Africa’s first nation state free of foreign domination. We have expanded educational opportunities to our citizens to stimulate a sense of creativity, private ownership and wealth creation. We can now proudly proclaim the beautiful name Ghana, not the British Gold Coast. Our progress has been slow, but we have made the effort and in the end the toddler will become an adult who is fully independent.
The trouble is that at 52, we are a middle age still behaving like a toddler. National leaders often have no sense of patriotism or sympathy or loyalty to their subjects whom they serve. Rather than having a sense of urgency towards accelerated development to crawl us out of our 19th Century development level, their first instinct is to plunder our meager resources at will, like a starving toddler would ravenously consume at will any food at his reach, notwithstanding whether it is good or bad, or whether he has ownership of the food or not. Our culture has retrogressed to a point where corruption is at an intolerable level that cannot sustain any meaningful development. Africa loses approximately $148 Billion annually, according UN and World Bank estimates. Our overall moral decadence portends doom for our future if we do not reverse course from this perilous path.
On this our 52nd anniversary of the birth sub-Sahara’s first nation state, we should ponder over the miseries of the last 52 years, the abject poverty of our people, curable diseases that afflict and kill our people, high illiteracy rate and say it is time for a change. Toddlers we are no more. We ought to assume a new national character: the sane, sound, middle age adult who has acquired wisdom from years of suffering and difficulties, and who has put her dignity over her instant gratification, who has placed the well-being of her posterity above her own.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Pope Benedict's African Tour
The pope’s African tour was significant for several reasons. It was the pontiff's first since he succeeded the charismatic John Paul II. The pontiff's success on this tour was mixed. On the question of corruption, the pontiff was on target, chastising African leaders for amassing wealth at the expense of the misery of their people. Corruption is pervasive throughout the continent and has contributed to the economic miseries of the world's poorest continent.
The pontiff was also eloquent in promoting sexual morality. Today the proliferation of western music, movies and other cultural norms has led to the breakdown and decadence of traditional African family values. Many young Africans indulge in pornography and school age children are pursuing prostitution. Consequently, the future looks bleak for many African girls, who have fallen prey to the pressures of the new materialistic culture that permeates Africa through Hollywood. Many of these girls are often victims of abject poverty, and can only keep up with the newfound materialistic culture by selling their bodies to sugar daddies or rich western tourists, who like to indulge in underage sex and other decadent acts prohibited in western countries.
What is more, the pontiff also hit the right nodes on the issue of Africans' obsession with superstition and sorcery, as he admonished the church's faithful to put their ultimate faith in God, not sorcerers. Many Africans, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, religious and secular are deeply superstitious and live in fear of evil spirits and witches. Such individuals often seek the help of sorcerers to protect them against the attacks of evil spirits. This issue has far reaching economic and social consequences. First many sorcerers falsely accuse innocent women of being witches and being responsible for the difficulties and calamities of close relatives. Such wild accusations sometimes cost these innocent victims (mostly older, wretched looking women) their lives. Besides, sorcerers manipulate their clients for their own selfish economic gain. This money incentive and need to please their clients is so intense, sorcerers would say anything to convince their clients that the sorcerer is the panacea to all their problems. African sorcerers often sow seeds of social discord, pitting families against each other, co-worker against co-worker.
However, pontiff was off target on the issue of the HIV epidemic in Africa. Africa has the worst HIV epidemic of any continent and for the pontiff to discourage condom use, which to date has been the most successful form of HIV prevention program was disturbing if not outright irresponsible. Of course we understand the pontiff has a responsibility to uphold the catholic doctrine of zero tolerance for family planning methods. But for the pontiff to tell Africans that condom use could lead to HIV spread was downright demagogic and shameful, deservedly, pundits around the world rebuked the pope.
The pontiff was also eloquent in promoting sexual morality. Today the proliferation of western music, movies and other cultural norms has led to the breakdown and decadence of traditional African family values. Many young Africans indulge in pornography and school age children are pursuing prostitution. Consequently, the future looks bleak for many African girls, who have fallen prey to the pressures of the new materialistic culture that permeates Africa through Hollywood. Many of these girls are often victims of abject poverty, and can only keep up with the newfound materialistic culture by selling their bodies to sugar daddies or rich western tourists, who like to indulge in underage sex and other decadent acts prohibited in western countries.
What is more, the pontiff also hit the right nodes on the issue of Africans' obsession with superstition and sorcery, as he admonished the church's faithful to put their ultimate faith in God, not sorcerers. Many Africans, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, religious and secular are deeply superstitious and live in fear of evil spirits and witches. Such individuals often seek the help of sorcerers to protect them against the attacks of evil spirits. This issue has far reaching economic and social consequences. First many sorcerers falsely accuse innocent women of being witches and being responsible for the difficulties and calamities of close relatives. Such wild accusations sometimes cost these innocent victims (mostly older, wretched looking women) their lives. Besides, sorcerers manipulate their clients for their own selfish economic gain. This money incentive and need to please their clients is so intense, sorcerers would say anything to convince their clients that the sorcerer is the panacea to all their problems. African sorcerers often sow seeds of social discord, pitting families against each other, co-worker against co-worker.
However, pontiff was off target on the issue of the HIV epidemic in Africa. Africa has the worst HIV epidemic of any continent and for the pontiff to discourage condom use, which to date has been the most successful form of HIV prevention program was disturbing if not outright irresponsible. Of course we understand the pontiff has a responsibility to uphold the catholic doctrine of zero tolerance for family planning methods. But for the pontiff to tell Africans that condom use could lead to HIV spread was downright demagogic and shameful, deservedly, pundits around the world rebuked the pope.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Rejoinder: “Is the IEA an Arm of the NPP?”
On the Sunday, June 29, 2008 edition of Ghanaweb news, Kojo Poku posed a cynical question: "Is the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) an arm of the New Patriotic Party (NPP)?” Kojo Poku's issue with the nonpartisan IEA was that the foundation's recently sponsored forum for the presidential candidates to lay out their positions was skewed to favor Nana Akuffo Addo, the NPP presidential candidate.
The author's vituperative assault was based on three specious arguments: First, Nana Akuffo received more minutes than his competitors; second, Nana received very soft questions; and third, the silliest of them all, that Nana Akuffo Addo showed up late.
A review of the recorded videos of the IEA discussions of the presidential candidates Akuffo Addo, Mills and Nduom, shows that each was allotted an equal amount of time. Approximately, thirty five minutes was given to each presidential candidate for their address to the gatherings. Also, each candidate received about the same number of questions, which were of a similar degree of difficulty and conducted in a non-partisan and evenhanded manner. Furthermore, how does a participant being late for an event constitute partisan bias on the part of the organizer of the event?
In an objective review of the video tapes, it is evident IEA strived to present a forum devoid of partisanship. Organizing a presidential forum that seeks to highlight the nation’s economic and social problems deserves commendation not condemnation. It’s easy to conclude that Opoku based his opinions on evidence that at best is highly suspect and malicious.
One would expect that after several years of democratic dispensation, Ghanaians would lose taste for the kind of petty politics that is so typical about African politics. Not so fast. Mr. Opoku’s attack in which he raises the issue of the number of questions asked of each candidate as well as the number of minutes allotted to each candidate is trivial, and that it takes attention away from what is really important – the messages of the individual candidates. What is even more disturbing is that the author twists facts to support his case in a hideously disingenuous manner to politicize the noble effort of IEA to help Ghanaians make the right choice in December 2008.
Instead of discussing the fruitful issues raised in this forum and leading a healthy discussion to help educate voters, this author elected instead to politicize the whole exercise under the specious excuse of the NPP candidate getting fewer and softball questions.
Such blindly partisan attacks on an exercise intended to promote and enhance our democracy are misguided and counter- productive and characterizes the kind of gutter politics that has helped fuel cynicisms and chaos, which in turn has retarded our nation's journey towards democracy.
It is commendable that under the regime of the NPP, more Ghanaians than ever before are fully engaged in the political process without any sort of restriction, fear or intimidation whatsoever. Today, the Ghanaian democracy is being touted as a shining example in a region more familiar with despots than democracy and chaos than order.
Our nation will be better served if people channel their energies towards giving constructive criticisms when they disagree, help generate creative ideas, and contribute effectively to a nonpartisan dialogue offered by the IEA in a manner sanguine for a democracy.
The author's vituperative assault was based on three specious arguments: First, Nana Akuffo received more minutes than his competitors; second, Nana received very soft questions; and third, the silliest of them all, that Nana Akuffo Addo showed up late.
A review of the recorded videos of the IEA discussions of the presidential candidates Akuffo Addo, Mills and Nduom, shows that each was allotted an equal amount of time. Approximately, thirty five minutes was given to each presidential candidate for their address to the gatherings. Also, each candidate received about the same number of questions, which were of a similar degree of difficulty and conducted in a non-partisan and evenhanded manner. Furthermore, how does a participant being late for an event constitute partisan bias on the part of the organizer of the event?
In an objective review of the video tapes, it is evident IEA strived to present a forum devoid of partisanship. Organizing a presidential forum that seeks to highlight the nation’s economic and social problems deserves commendation not condemnation. It’s easy to conclude that Opoku based his opinions on evidence that at best is highly suspect and malicious.
One would expect that after several years of democratic dispensation, Ghanaians would lose taste for the kind of petty politics that is so typical about African politics. Not so fast. Mr. Opoku’s attack in which he raises the issue of the number of questions asked of each candidate as well as the number of minutes allotted to each candidate is trivial, and that it takes attention away from what is really important – the messages of the individual candidates. What is even more disturbing is that the author twists facts to support his case in a hideously disingenuous manner to politicize the noble effort of IEA to help Ghanaians make the right choice in December 2008.
Instead of discussing the fruitful issues raised in this forum and leading a healthy discussion to help educate voters, this author elected instead to politicize the whole exercise under the specious excuse of the NPP candidate getting fewer and softball questions.
Such blindly partisan attacks on an exercise intended to promote and enhance our democracy are misguided and counter- productive and characterizes the kind of gutter politics that has helped fuel cynicisms and chaos, which in turn has retarded our nation's journey towards democracy.
It is commendable that under the regime of the NPP, more Ghanaians than ever before are fully engaged in the political process without any sort of restriction, fear or intimidation whatsoever. Today, the Ghanaian democracy is being touted as a shining example in a region more familiar with despots than democracy and chaos than order.
Our nation will be better served if people channel their energies towards giving constructive criticisms when they disagree, help generate creative ideas, and contribute effectively to a nonpartisan dialogue offered by the IEA in a manner sanguine for a democracy.
Electing a New Ghanaian President
Ghana is entering the next critical frontier in our nascent democracy and definitely needs a 100% hugely qualified leader to take us to the next critical stage. The new leader should embody all the qualities we have lacked in our current and past presidents. Kwame Nkrumah had the vision but lacked the temperament, patience, and realistic view necessary to accomplish his vision of a great nation. Of course, his successor General Afrifa was just a tool of America to overthrow Nkrumah and lacked any vision for Ghana. Busia was idealistic and lacked the boldness, strength and discipline to build the functioning democracy that his Progress Party so eloquently preached but failed to practice. Busia’s democracy cheerleaders the Progress Party were dishonest in paying lip service to democracy whilst tacitly endorsing a ban imposed on their bitterest rivals the CPP to compete in the 1969 election to stand. Ironically, the PP paid a price for this dishonesty as a CPP sympathizer; General Acheampong overthrew Busia after barely two years in power. The successive military rulers of Acheampong, Akuffo were clueless and corrupt.
Dr. Hilla Limann was weak and inefficient and allowed corruption to flourish to the extent that Jerry Rawlings capitalized on that opening to launch his December 31 coup. In JJ, we see the biggest contradiction of any ruler: he created order and also brought disorder; spoke so passionately against corruption and even punished corrupt subordinates, yet was party to corruption himself. He could be temperamental and abusive (physically assaulted his vice president), yet was also avuncular and down to earth. He could be very eloquent and yet was garrulous and nebulous. He was a president with very high personal positives and high negatives. And of course, the current occupant of Osu Castle is less than impressive.
Essentially, we just have celebrated our golden jubilee of our nation’s founding but we are perennially lacking the quintessential leadership needed to build an African Singapore or South Korea. The Ghanaian electorate must understand that the 2008 election should mark a watershed moment. It should not be a simple popularity contest. Nor should it be a simple question of who looks good (Alan Kyeremanteng). It is also not a plain question of it is my turn (Nana Akuffo Addo). Nor is it a PhD contest (Dr. Nduom, Dr. Apraku). Rather, it is about who can take Ghana from the present frontier to the next frontier -- from a abjectly poor country to a middle income country; from an ancient backward economy to a modern economy; from a country of loosely knit together tribes to a cohesive modern nation-state; from a failed state to a flourishing state; from a country of dirt roads to a country of highly developed infrastructure; from a lawless country to a country of law and order.
Why are there so many failed states in Africa? Why has so many sub-Saharan African countries been so mired in civil wars for decades – Liberia, Somalia, Ethiopia, Nigeria (don’t forget Biafra and their modern vestiges of religious skirmishes), Sierra Leone, Cote D’voire and the list goes on? The old tired excuse of colonial legacy is unacceptable. Yes the borders were artificially drawn, but does than mean we cannot overcome a false start? The tepid issue of failed leadership is paramount issue Ghanaians must address in the 2008 presidential and parliamentary elections. The Ghanaian electorate must ask tough questions. The Ghanaian presidency must be a call to service, not a call to royalty. If you are coming in with a mindset to satisfy your personal egos and whims, you are the wrong choice.
The new president must be committed to building a well-functioning democracy that can endure potential pitfalls in the long term. Moreover, a commitment to democracy includes willingness to respect rather than suppress or stifle opposition. It also means a willingness to get rid laws that are stacked against opposition whilst promoting the incumbent. Our current system where the incumbent has the liberty to use all the state’s resources to campaign is unacceptable and unfair to the opposition. We must ensure all parties get money from the state to campaign and that the incumbent government should be restricted in their use of the state resource to promote their campaign. Removing such incumbency will be healthy for our democracy, as it will remove any tendency to creating a perennial winner. Is the new president ready to take such a bitter pill and commit to democracy?
Moreover, can we have a president committed to reforming our education system? Is the new president ready to help Ghana achieve close to 100% literacy status, that all her citizens can read and write? Can the new president commit to investing to modernize our nation’s education system to make it more efficient and prepare students to handle better the demands of the 21st century? Is he ready to reform the system in a manner that would make students more?
Dr. Hilla Limann was weak and inefficient and allowed corruption to flourish to the extent that Jerry Rawlings capitalized on that opening to launch his December 31 coup. In JJ, we see the biggest contradiction of any ruler: he created order and also brought disorder; spoke so passionately against corruption and even punished corrupt subordinates, yet was party to corruption himself. He could be temperamental and abusive (physically assaulted his vice president), yet was also avuncular and down to earth. He could be very eloquent and yet was garrulous and nebulous. He was a president with very high personal positives and high negatives. And of course, the current occupant of Osu Castle is less than impressive.
Essentially, we just have celebrated our golden jubilee of our nation’s founding but we are perennially lacking the quintessential leadership needed to build an African Singapore or South Korea. The Ghanaian electorate must understand that the 2008 election should mark a watershed moment. It should not be a simple popularity contest. Nor should it be a simple question of who looks good (Alan Kyeremanteng). It is also not a plain question of it is my turn (Nana Akuffo Addo). Nor is it a PhD contest (Dr. Nduom, Dr. Apraku). Rather, it is about who can take Ghana from the present frontier to the next frontier -- from a abjectly poor country to a middle income country; from an ancient backward economy to a modern economy; from a country of loosely knit together tribes to a cohesive modern nation-state; from a failed state to a flourishing state; from a country of dirt roads to a country of highly developed infrastructure; from a lawless country to a country of law and order.
Why are there so many failed states in Africa? Why has so many sub-Saharan African countries been so mired in civil wars for decades – Liberia, Somalia, Ethiopia, Nigeria (don’t forget Biafra and their modern vestiges of religious skirmishes), Sierra Leone, Cote D’voire and the list goes on? The old tired excuse of colonial legacy is unacceptable. Yes the borders were artificially drawn, but does than mean we cannot overcome a false start? The tepid issue of failed leadership is paramount issue Ghanaians must address in the 2008 presidential and parliamentary elections. The Ghanaian electorate must ask tough questions. The Ghanaian presidency must be a call to service, not a call to royalty. If you are coming in with a mindset to satisfy your personal egos and whims, you are the wrong choice.
The new president must be committed to building a well-functioning democracy that can endure potential pitfalls in the long term. Moreover, a commitment to democracy includes willingness to respect rather than suppress or stifle opposition. It also means a willingness to get rid laws that are stacked against opposition whilst promoting the incumbent. Our current system where the incumbent has the liberty to use all the state’s resources to campaign is unacceptable and unfair to the opposition. We must ensure all parties get money from the state to campaign and that the incumbent government should be restricted in their use of the state resource to promote their campaign. Removing such incumbency will be healthy for our democracy, as it will remove any tendency to creating a perennial winner. Is the new president ready to take such a bitter pill and commit to democracy?
Moreover, can we have a president committed to reforming our education system? Is the new president ready to help Ghana achieve close to 100% literacy status, that all her citizens can read and write? Can the new president commit to investing to modernize our nation’s education system to make it more efficient and prepare students to handle better the demands of the 21st century? Is he ready to reform the system in a manner that would make students more?
Africa’s Most Successful Democracy on Test Again On Tuesday
Ghana is in many ways very blessed. We have a rich history, enviable culture, bountiful natural resources and very sophisticated human resources. It was not by accident that we became Sub-Saharan Africa’s first nation to achieve independence in 1957. And several decades later, after the continent is still reeling from many years of dictatorial regimes and misrule, Ghana is arguably the best functioning democracy on the continent.
Come Tuesday, December 28, 2008, that accolade as the beacon of democracy will be test again as Ghanaians go to the polls to elect a new president, after the first round deadlock on December 7. Democracy in Africa has been a dismal failure and the economic performances of African countries have similarly abysmal. The two twin failures are inextricably linked: Political failure always lead to economic chaos and economic chaos further creates political unrest, which gives us the cliché the vicious cycle of political bankruptcy and economic poverty.
When Ghana led the way in 1957 in achieving political freedom from Great Britain in 1957, there was tremendous optimism of a new African renaissance. Ghana’s success was replicated elsewhere on the continent when numerous other countries achieved political their political independence from their European conquerors and rulers. The symbolism and enthusiasm from these political milestones were so infectious that it imbued the black Diaspora in America and the Caribbean with pride and gave their civil rights struggles a huge boost.
Unfortunately, the euphoria and joy from Africa’s new bold march towards political freedom was short-lived. The superstar leaders like Nkrumah, Ofeboanye and Nyerere became dictators and declared themselves life presidents. The Americans and the Soviets, who meddled in African politics as their new proxy war, worsened this unstable political situation. Thus began the steep descent of Africa into political and economic shambles as civil wars proliferated; and hunger, starvation and diseases ravaged the continent. We still see remnants of that trend in places like Zimbabwe, the Congo and Sierra Leone today, as these countries are still mired in civil strive, utter chaos, and abject poverty.
The end of the cold war in the early 90’s gave Africa a new lease of life as the Superpowers interest on the receded and they ended their proxy war on the continent. The result was that coup d’etats ebbed, and rebel fighters no longer could receive ammunition from the west or east. And more importantly most countries on the continent became too broke and to tired to continue the cycle of coups, counter coups and civil wars.
Worn out by authoritarian rule and the economic and political toil that came with it, many African countries began a new march to democracy in the 90’s. Ghana held its presidential and parliamentary in 1992, Africa Jerry Rawlings overthrew the last elected regime in 1981. Many others like Nigeria followed suit. Today, most countries in Africa have democratically elected governments. But the way and manner in which elections are conducted in most of these countries leave much to be desired. Ballots boxes are stuffed and incumbent government often adopt any means necessary to win. We saw this in Kenya recently and the result triggered a brief civil war.
Come Tuesday, December 28, 2008, that accolade as the beacon of democracy will be test again as Ghanaians go to the polls to elect a new president, after the first round deadlock on December 7. Democracy in Africa has been a dismal failure and the economic performances of African countries have similarly abysmal. The two twin failures are inextricably linked: Political failure always lead to economic chaos and economic chaos further creates political unrest, which gives us the cliché the vicious cycle of political bankruptcy and economic poverty.
When Ghana led the way in 1957 in achieving political freedom from Great Britain in 1957, there was tremendous optimism of a new African renaissance. Ghana’s success was replicated elsewhere on the continent when numerous other countries achieved political their political independence from their European conquerors and rulers. The symbolism and enthusiasm from these political milestones were so infectious that it imbued the black Diaspora in America and the Caribbean with pride and gave their civil rights struggles a huge boost.
Unfortunately, the euphoria and joy from Africa’s new bold march towards political freedom was short-lived. The superstar leaders like Nkrumah, Ofeboanye and Nyerere became dictators and declared themselves life presidents. The Americans and the Soviets, who meddled in African politics as their new proxy war, worsened this unstable political situation. Thus began the steep descent of Africa into political and economic shambles as civil wars proliferated; and hunger, starvation and diseases ravaged the continent. We still see remnants of that trend in places like Zimbabwe, the Congo and Sierra Leone today, as these countries are still mired in civil strive, utter chaos, and abject poverty.
The end of the cold war in the early 90’s gave Africa a new lease of life as the Superpowers interest on the receded and they ended their proxy war on the continent. The result was that coup d’etats ebbed, and rebel fighters no longer could receive ammunition from the west or east. And more importantly most countries on the continent became too broke and to tired to continue the cycle of coups, counter coups and civil wars.
Worn out by authoritarian rule and the economic and political toil that came with it, many African countries began a new march to democracy in the 90’s. Ghana held its presidential and parliamentary in 1992, Africa Jerry Rawlings overthrew the last elected regime in 1981. Many others like Nigeria followed suit. Today, most countries in Africa have democratically elected governments. But the way and manner in which elections are conducted in most of these countries leave much to be desired. Ballots boxes are stuffed and incumbent government often adopt any means necessary to win. We saw this in Kenya recently and the result triggered a brief civil war.
Could Hillary Have Out Performed Obama in the General Election?
In the primary campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton made a lot of noise about how she was the one winning the big states like California, Ohio and Florida and was therefore would be the better candidate for the general election. Her biggest case against Obama was electability.
Even after defeat bitter defeat, Hillary and Bill murmured to friends that Obama was going to lose to John McCain because Obama only won the primary because of the caucus states like Iowa and Idaho. Well, barely two weeks into the general election, Prophetess Hillary and Prophet Bill have been proven wrong with a big bang! Everything is pointing to an Obama landslide and congressional democrats riding on this Obama coattail and is enjoying a huge lead in both the House and Senate races. In the Senatorial races, the democrats are comfortably ahead in at least ten races, including, New Hampshire, Colorado, Virginia, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, New Mexico, Mississippi and Kentucky. Similarly in the House race, the Democrats expect to pick up at least 20 seats.
If the current opinion polls hold true, Obama might outperform even Bill Clinton in sweeping traditional red states particularly in the South and Midwest. Bill Clinton was the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter to win races in the South. In current opinion polls, Obama, leads in at least 7 to 8 traditional red states, including Indiana, Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Missouri. He is also trailing slightly or within striking distance in deep red states like Georgia, West Virginia, North Dakota and Montana.
Even after defeat bitter defeat, Hillary and Bill murmured to friends that Obama was going to lose to John McCain because Obama only won the primary because of the caucus states like Iowa and Idaho. Well, barely two weeks into the general election, Prophetess Hillary and Prophet Bill have been proven wrong with a big bang! Everything is pointing to an Obama landslide and congressional democrats riding on this Obama coattail and is enjoying a huge lead in both the House and Senate races. In the Senatorial races, the democrats are comfortably ahead in at least ten races, including, New Hampshire, Colorado, Virginia, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, New Mexico, Mississippi and Kentucky. Similarly in the House race, the Democrats expect to pick up at least 20 seats.
If the current opinion polls hold true, Obama might outperform even Bill Clinton in sweeping traditional red states particularly in the South and Midwest. Bill Clinton was the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter to win races in the South. In current opinion polls, Obama, leads in at least 7 to 8 traditional red states, including Indiana, Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Missouri. He is also trailing slightly or within striking distance in deep red states like Georgia, West Virginia, North Dakota and Montana.
Why Ghanaians Don’t Write Books
As an undergraduate at an American liberal arts college in the Midwest, I embarked on a project to write about Ghana. To my consternation and chagrin, almost all the materials I assembled for my research were written by westerners, mostly American and British authors. Needless to say a lot of these outsiders’ observations and conclusions about our socio-economic, political and cultural systems were off-target. There are many nuances about Ghanaian and African issues that can be better captured by a local lens, which begs the question: why is there this acute scarcity of African authors?
We have a fundamental crisis of lack of scholarship in Ghana. Most books on Ghana are written by westerners who lack a basic understanding of our culture. Similarly there are very few novels written by Ghanaians or textbooks of Ghanaian authorship. The trouble is that there is very little interest in scholarship, whether of an academic nature or of other purposes like leisure. This disturbing phenomenon presents a complex problem for analysis due to its circuitous nature. One does not have to look far to concur with this assertion: Ghanaian newspaper articles are very poorly written both in style and content, and are often replete with grammatical errors. For instance many articles on Ghanaweb, Ghana’s premier online news magazine is filled with such tantrums in both style and content, and makes one wonder what happened to Ghana’s status as the premier educational nation in sub-Saharan Africa.
In other words the causes affect the result as much as the result influences the causes, which gives the cliché known as the vicious cycle. Some of the root causes of the dearth of scholarship in Ghana is of course the low quality of our education system, poverty, lack of creativity and confidence, cultural factors, over reliance on westerners for everything, and of course the limitation of studying a foreign language.
Educational System:
Ghanaian students are shortchanged by the fact that they are not taught to write at an early age. Throughout our primary, secondary and university education, we do very little writing and as such we become limited in our ability to appreciate and enjoy writing. And worse we come to see writing as a burden rather than a creative and challenging exercise necessary for our personal and societal development. If this disturbing trend can be curbed, our educational curriculum must be changed to encourage writing at an early age. Moreover, we must dissuade students from poking fun at their colleagues’ mistakes, and reward those that write well. In the United States, even first graders are encouraged to write essays.
Promote a Culture of Reading
Most potential authors are discouraged by the fact that nobody buys books in Ghana; it is simply unprofitable to write books. Because Ghanaians don’t buy books, there is very little demand or patronage for books written by Ghanaians. Who would want to spend time on writing and scholarship when it is so unprofitable to do so and there is no literary audience to appreciate their work? This relates to a basic law of supply and demand: the anemic level of demand for books discourages authorship. If we can whip up national interest in reading, there we will create a greater demand and interest in scholarship and thereby make it more profitable and palatable for authors to pursue scholarship.
Institutional Patronage
Ghanaian institutions must patronize Ghanaian authors at a higher rate than we see now. We have a culture of preferring to consume foreign products to domestic ones, for a germane reason –a phenomenon that also afflict Ghanaian authors. Most instructors would prefer to use a book by a foreign author than ones written by a local author. If our institutions would give preference to local authors, we would inadvertently promote interest in domestic scholarship.
While some might shrug at issues such as the serious lack of interest at the local front, the cumulative impact of this disturbing trend can be debilitating on the development of a country and society. For instance in the last three decades, our nation has witnessed several momentous events, including the turbulent military regimes that overthrew elected governments, the precipitous decay of our cultural institutions, the rapid decline of our economy and its gradual recovery, the stratospheric levels of corruption that has stifled our economic development, and general stagnation if not retrogression in all spheres of Ghanaian life. As tragic as this litany problems sounds, it is even more dreadful that very scant research and writing was done to unravel the mystery surrounding our perpetual cycle of economic and socio-political stagnation. Consequently we miss trends, fail to learn lessons we should learn and avoid, fail to teach and prepare students for the challenges of the future, and forfeit to educate adults about their civic responsibilities in this rapidly changing times. A society that fails to appreciate reading and writing does so at its own peril and Ghana have sure paid a price for this malady.
We have a fundamental crisis of lack of scholarship in Ghana. Most books on Ghana are written by westerners who lack a basic understanding of our culture. Similarly there are very few novels written by Ghanaians or textbooks of Ghanaian authorship. The trouble is that there is very little interest in scholarship, whether of an academic nature or of other purposes like leisure. This disturbing phenomenon presents a complex problem for analysis due to its circuitous nature. One does not have to look far to concur with this assertion: Ghanaian newspaper articles are very poorly written both in style and content, and are often replete with grammatical errors. For instance many articles on Ghanaweb, Ghana’s premier online news magazine is filled with such tantrums in both style and content, and makes one wonder what happened to Ghana’s status as the premier educational nation in sub-Saharan Africa.
In other words the causes affect the result as much as the result influences the causes, which gives the cliché known as the vicious cycle. Some of the root causes of the dearth of scholarship in Ghana is of course the low quality of our education system, poverty, lack of creativity and confidence, cultural factors, over reliance on westerners for everything, and of course the limitation of studying a foreign language.
Educational System:
Ghanaian students are shortchanged by the fact that they are not taught to write at an early age. Throughout our primary, secondary and university education, we do very little writing and as such we become limited in our ability to appreciate and enjoy writing. And worse we come to see writing as a burden rather than a creative and challenging exercise necessary for our personal and societal development. If this disturbing trend can be curbed, our educational curriculum must be changed to encourage writing at an early age. Moreover, we must dissuade students from poking fun at their colleagues’ mistakes, and reward those that write well. In the United States, even first graders are encouraged to write essays.
Promote a Culture of Reading
Most potential authors are discouraged by the fact that nobody buys books in Ghana; it is simply unprofitable to write books. Because Ghanaians don’t buy books, there is very little demand or patronage for books written by Ghanaians. Who would want to spend time on writing and scholarship when it is so unprofitable to do so and there is no literary audience to appreciate their work? This relates to a basic law of supply and demand: the anemic level of demand for books discourages authorship. If we can whip up national interest in reading, there we will create a greater demand and interest in scholarship and thereby make it more profitable and palatable for authors to pursue scholarship.
Institutional Patronage
Ghanaian institutions must patronize Ghanaian authors at a higher rate than we see now. We have a culture of preferring to consume foreign products to domestic ones, for a germane reason –a phenomenon that also afflict Ghanaian authors. Most instructors would prefer to use a book by a foreign author than ones written by a local author. If our institutions would give preference to local authors, we would inadvertently promote interest in domestic scholarship.
While some might shrug at issues such as the serious lack of interest at the local front, the cumulative impact of this disturbing trend can be debilitating on the development of a country and society. For instance in the last three decades, our nation has witnessed several momentous events, including the turbulent military regimes that overthrew elected governments, the precipitous decay of our cultural institutions, the rapid decline of our economy and its gradual recovery, the stratospheric levels of corruption that has stifled our economic development, and general stagnation if not retrogression in all spheres of Ghanaian life. As tragic as this litany problems sounds, it is even more dreadful that very scant research and writing was done to unravel the mystery surrounding our perpetual cycle of economic and socio-political stagnation. Consequently we miss trends, fail to learn lessons we should learn and avoid, fail to teach and prepare students for the challenges of the future, and forfeit to educate adults about their civic responsibilities in this rapidly changing times. A society that fails to appreciate reading and writing does so at its own peril and Ghana have sure paid a price for this malady.
The End of Blackness: Replicating Obama's Success in America Today
On January 20, 2008, Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th president of the United States of America –a momentous feat of epic proportion. So magical and miraculous is this impending achievement that it was unfathomable even as late as a year ago, before the primaries actually began. Even before Obama won Iowa, most people, including most blacks thought his run for the presidency was a journey to nowhere other than to contribute to the diversity of the Democratic Party’s primary contest. The shock from Obama’s remarkable accomplishment begs the question: why has he succeeded where so many others have failed? How did Obama get to this point of being on the verge of shattering the world’s greatest glass ceiling? There are two plausible scenarios here that could be gleaned from the rise of Barack Obama. On the one hand, we can dismiss his rise as a fluke or that this is a case of one man’s personal charm and unique qualities that has caught fire on a lucky break. But the second and the more apt explanation, in my view, is that Obama’s rise signals a new textbook approach on how a black person can navigate the stormy waters of American racially-based convoluted society.
A friend from Mozambique once remarked: “I find it difficult to understand why Black Americans like to say, ‘I’m proud that I am black’.” Of course, there is nothing wrong with being black, he snapped. This question might sound preposterous to a fault to somebody who knows and understands America’s racial history, but it highlights the emotional and psychological toll of racism on African Americans. That is why such self-uplifting slogans as “black is beautiful,” and “I am proud to be black” or “I am somebody” in Jesse Jackson parlance—became necessary. Thus, as part of the civil rights struggle in the 60’s, accentuating blackness and celebrating black pride became pertinent. The bitter, unflattering and disgraceful history of America when it comes to race made it very necessary for black folks to reaffirm and celebrate their blackness. And how was blackness reaffirmed? Blackness was asserted by reciting uplifting slogans, organizing protest marches to fight injustices, promoting good legislation to fight racism and fighting unjust laws in court.
There are elements of the bi-polar ends of this debate that still hold true and are reflected in everyday black life in America. The first and most controversial view that most blacks find abhorrent is that held by Shelby Steele and other Black conservatives. Their position is that the protest era is over, do away with protections including affirmative action, and get over the victimhood mentality. And gradually, there are increasing number of blacks who live their lives like that and frown on any type of black victim-based assertiveness or exclusivity. The other extreme is the Jesse Jackson-Al Sharpton model: nothing has changed; racism is still overt; more protections are necessary; leave affirmation alone; and black folks are still victims. They are known in some circles as the Grievance Group. While both sides of this debate have a point, the correct reflection in today’s America sits somewhere in the middle –and that is Barack Obama.
To put it more bluntly, Obama is the mid-point of these bi-polar extremes. He holds the liberal view that racism might be subtler now, but it is still real. And who can better comprehend the travails of the black underclass than a community organizer, who worked with and interfaced with poor inner city blacks in Chicago. No wonder he could sit through the protest --if not vituperative and controversial sermons-- of Reverend Wright. He supports a refined version of affirmative action because he believes some protections are still needed, but rejects blanket affirmative action especially for wealthy minorities. Simultaneously, Obama adopts a non-confrontational approach in his dealings with the white power structure in America. This was evident in his stint as the Harvard Law Review President, where he gained a reputation as a consensus builder, who could work with just about everybody, including ultra conservatives who held diametrically opposed views. He stresses work ethic and taking responsibility for one’s failures over victimhood sensibilities. Not too long ago, on his campaign trail, his speech chastising absentee black fathers won rave applause from the mainstream media, but it also ruffled some feathers within the traditional civil rights community.
Obama’s Formula
The secret behind Obama’s success which ought to be the gold standard approach for blacks in navigating the complex mainstream life in America can be summed up as follows: Obama’s sunny exterior, his conscious effort to downplay the issue of race, his ability to network multi-racially, and last but not least, his sense of comfort in his cultural and racial identity.
Sunny Exterior: Obama projects confidence and positivity, and his natural geniality serves as a charmed offensive that can disarm even the most avowed or ardent racist. Undoubtedly, this has been his key weapon in his presidential campaign trail. Traditionally, years of oppression and racism have had a subliminally sullen effect on many black people. As such we tend to appear more serious and uptight in a manner that can be construed as unfriendly. A more relaxed persona opens doors and it has won Obama many friends and votes on his way to the presidency.
Down Playing Race: Another positive attribute of Obama, is his ability to play down the issue of his race. On the campaign trail, even when he has the opportunity to label his opponents as racists, he held back, opting to disagree with them whilst insisting that he sees no racism. Obama has won the support of numerous whites by downplaying the issue of race. Race is always a sensitive, touchy subject that arouses emotions one way or the other, and one never wins with it. The race issue often makes whites uneasy and blacks defensive. Consequently, it is sometimes better to shun the issue of race than to indulge it. Regardless of one’s intentions, it is a subject that can ignite an uncontrollable conflagration. And with out a doubt, Obama appears to understand this danger and purposefully tries to downplay it as much as possible.
Networking: From his very early years as a college student, Obama established a vast and varied network of friends. As a Columbia University student, he had Pakistani friends and even made a trip to Pakistan. In Chicago, his extensive network went beyond the black community to include whites, Asians, Jews and Hispanics. And as a presidential candidate, his expansive network from Harvard has been invaluable to his campaign both in giving donations and sacrificing their time to help elect Obama. The law of probability posits that more is better; the more you do something, the higher your chances of success. If networking opens doors, then networking cross-racially will open even more doors. Networking across races is imperative for African-Americans, given that we control only a tiny portion of the American economic pie. Networking exclusively within the black community which many African Americans tend to do, limits our socio-economic opportunities.
Being himself whilst not over asserting his blackness: Obama has shown that one can be comfortable in asserting his blackness, or show comfort being black, without appearing defensive or being a turn-off. Being on the receiving end of America’s racial turbulence, many African-Americans tend to struggle with the issue of cultural or racial identity. For centuries and decades, it was almost a curse or pariah to be black or to be of African origin. This had the subliminal effect of racial diffidence among many people of African origin in America. And there is no question Obama, being a product of a biracial union, and growing up without a father really struggled with his identity. No wonder he changed his foreign sounding name Barack to Barry to feel more American and mainstream. Upon rediscovery of his blackness, he dropped Barry to Barack again. Given his ambition for politics, one would think he should have done the opposite and taken on a more mainstream sounding name. Overall, he has shown that he is at ease with his identity: After Harvard Law School, he passed up lucrative opportunities on Wall Street to work as a community organizer in an underserved black neighborhood. That sense of reassurance with his identity has served him well in his ability to work with the community outside the black community. It is that aura of confidence and comfort in his blackness that obviates the need to over assert his blackness and enjoy a healthy relationship with multiracial America.
America’s racial landscape has changed dramatically from the 60’s era when racism was more overt than subvert, when Jim Crow was alive and well, and when economic opportunities for blacks were limited. Today there are increased opportunities for blacks in almost every facet of American life, whether economical or socio-political, albeit problems remain on several fronts. For instance unemployment is still disproportionately higher for blacks, blacks are incarcerated at a higher than other groups, and the list goes on. This progress has in a way blunted non-white sensitivity to black complaints, and not surprisingly, more whites are now opposed to programs such as affirmative action, now than ever before. Thus aggressively projecting or asserting blackness –which was more accommodating in 1968-- can elicit scorn rather than sympathy in 2008. So Obama’s moderated but firm and sunny approach, works well in today’s America. And that is what blacks may have to emulate for greater success in the most competitive society on earth. You can’t argue against success.
A friend from Mozambique once remarked: “I find it difficult to understand why Black Americans like to say, ‘I’m proud that I am black’.” Of course, there is nothing wrong with being black, he snapped. This question might sound preposterous to a fault to somebody who knows and understands America’s racial history, but it highlights the emotional and psychological toll of racism on African Americans. That is why such self-uplifting slogans as “black is beautiful,” and “I am proud to be black” or “I am somebody” in Jesse Jackson parlance—became necessary. Thus, as part of the civil rights struggle in the 60’s, accentuating blackness and celebrating black pride became pertinent. The bitter, unflattering and disgraceful history of America when it comes to race made it very necessary for black folks to reaffirm and celebrate their blackness. And how was blackness reaffirmed? Blackness was asserted by reciting uplifting slogans, organizing protest marches to fight injustices, promoting good legislation to fight racism and fighting unjust laws in court.
There are elements of the bi-polar ends of this debate that still hold true and are reflected in everyday black life in America. The first and most controversial view that most blacks find abhorrent is that held by Shelby Steele and other Black conservatives. Their position is that the protest era is over, do away with protections including affirmative action, and get over the victimhood mentality. And gradually, there are increasing number of blacks who live their lives like that and frown on any type of black victim-based assertiveness or exclusivity. The other extreme is the Jesse Jackson-Al Sharpton model: nothing has changed; racism is still overt; more protections are necessary; leave affirmation alone; and black folks are still victims. They are known in some circles as the Grievance Group. While both sides of this debate have a point, the correct reflection in today’s America sits somewhere in the middle –and that is Barack Obama.
To put it more bluntly, Obama is the mid-point of these bi-polar extremes. He holds the liberal view that racism might be subtler now, but it is still real. And who can better comprehend the travails of the black underclass than a community organizer, who worked with and interfaced with poor inner city blacks in Chicago. No wonder he could sit through the protest --if not vituperative and controversial sermons-- of Reverend Wright. He supports a refined version of affirmative action because he believes some protections are still needed, but rejects blanket affirmative action especially for wealthy minorities. Simultaneously, Obama adopts a non-confrontational approach in his dealings with the white power structure in America. This was evident in his stint as the Harvard Law Review President, where he gained a reputation as a consensus builder, who could work with just about everybody, including ultra conservatives who held diametrically opposed views. He stresses work ethic and taking responsibility for one’s failures over victimhood sensibilities. Not too long ago, on his campaign trail, his speech chastising absentee black fathers won rave applause from the mainstream media, but it also ruffled some feathers within the traditional civil rights community.
Obama’s Formula
The secret behind Obama’s success which ought to be the gold standard approach for blacks in navigating the complex mainstream life in America can be summed up as follows: Obama’s sunny exterior, his conscious effort to downplay the issue of race, his ability to network multi-racially, and last but not least, his sense of comfort in his cultural and racial identity.
Sunny Exterior: Obama projects confidence and positivity, and his natural geniality serves as a charmed offensive that can disarm even the most avowed or ardent racist. Undoubtedly, this has been his key weapon in his presidential campaign trail. Traditionally, years of oppression and racism have had a subliminally sullen effect on many black people. As such we tend to appear more serious and uptight in a manner that can be construed as unfriendly. A more relaxed persona opens doors and it has won Obama many friends and votes on his way to the presidency.
Down Playing Race: Another positive attribute of Obama, is his ability to play down the issue of his race. On the campaign trail, even when he has the opportunity to label his opponents as racists, he held back, opting to disagree with them whilst insisting that he sees no racism. Obama has won the support of numerous whites by downplaying the issue of race. Race is always a sensitive, touchy subject that arouses emotions one way or the other, and one never wins with it. The race issue often makes whites uneasy and blacks defensive. Consequently, it is sometimes better to shun the issue of race than to indulge it. Regardless of one’s intentions, it is a subject that can ignite an uncontrollable conflagration. And with out a doubt, Obama appears to understand this danger and purposefully tries to downplay it as much as possible.
Networking: From his very early years as a college student, Obama established a vast and varied network of friends. As a Columbia University student, he had Pakistani friends and even made a trip to Pakistan. In Chicago, his extensive network went beyond the black community to include whites, Asians, Jews and Hispanics. And as a presidential candidate, his expansive network from Harvard has been invaluable to his campaign both in giving donations and sacrificing their time to help elect Obama. The law of probability posits that more is better; the more you do something, the higher your chances of success. If networking opens doors, then networking cross-racially will open even more doors. Networking across races is imperative for African-Americans, given that we control only a tiny portion of the American economic pie. Networking exclusively within the black community which many African Americans tend to do, limits our socio-economic opportunities.
Being himself whilst not over asserting his blackness: Obama has shown that one can be comfortable in asserting his blackness, or show comfort being black, without appearing defensive or being a turn-off. Being on the receiving end of America’s racial turbulence, many African-Americans tend to struggle with the issue of cultural or racial identity. For centuries and decades, it was almost a curse or pariah to be black or to be of African origin. This had the subliminal effect of racial diffidence among many people of African origin in America. And there is no question Obama, being a product of a biracial union, and growing up without a father really struggled with his identity. No wonder he changed his foreign sounding name Barack to Barry to feel more American and mainstream. Upon rediscovery of his blackness, he dropped Barry to Barack again. Given his ambition for politics, one would think he should have done the opposite and taken on a more mainstream sounding name. Overall, he has shown that he is at ease with his identity: After Harvard Law School, he passed up lucrative opportunities on Wall Street to work as a community organizer in an underserved black neighborhood. That sense of reassurance with his identity has served him well in his ability to work with the community outside the black community. It is that aura of confidence and comfort in his blackness that obviates the need to over assert his blackness and enjoy a healthy relationship with multiracial America.
America’s racial landscape has changed dramatically from the 60’s era when racism was more overt than subvert, when Jim Crow was alive and well, and when economic opportunities for blacks were limited. Today there are increased opportunities for blacks in almost every facet of American life, whether economical or socio-political, albeit problems remain on several fronts. For instance unemployment is still disproportionately higher for blacks, blacks are incarcerated at a higher than other groups, and the list goes on. This progress has in a way blunted non-white sensitivity to black complaints, and not surprisingly, more whites are now opposed to programs such as affirmative action, now than ever before. Thus aggressively projecting or asserting blackness –which was more accommodating in 1968-- can elicit scorn rather than sympathy in 2008. So Obama’s moderated but firm and sunny approach, works well in today’s America. And that is what blacks may have to emulate for greater success in the most competitive society on earth. You can’t argue against success.
Why Obama Should Embrace the Hussein Name
The silence by Obama and the national media on Obama’s middle evokes images of Prince, the controversial pop music icon from the twin cities of St Paul –Minneapolis, who changed his name to a name-less sign. The U.S. President-elect whose full name is Barack Hussein Obama has been forced by circumstances to go the way of pop icon Prince –Barack’s middle name is no name. Can Barack be faulted for this move? Extreme right wingers seeking to portray Barack Obama as a Muslim extremist have been having a field day with the Hussein name. Of course, bearing the same name of one of the world’s most brutal dictators (Saddam Hussein) can be an odd coincidence that may send chills through the American populace. The issue in itself is so touchy that even by writing about it, I risk alienating some Obama fans, as my effort can be perceived as giving comfort to mischief makers and avowed enemies of Obama.
I take the position that with the election over, Obama should seize the moment and embrace his middle name and allow the media and the public to use it. This is important for the following reasons: (1) reaffirming his comfort with his roots as the son of a Muslim African (2) Extinguishing American prejudice against anything Islamic (3) neutralizing the H-name’s ridicule and phobia, (4) Living up to his inclusiveness tag and (5) you don’t let your opponent define you.
Reaffirming his comfort with his roots as the son of a Muslim African: The Hussein name is distinctively Islamic and makes Obama the bona fide hybrid of Anglo-Afro-Christo-Islamic individual that he is, a la Tiger Wood’s Cablinasian. Obama’s uniqueness is his very entity as a multiracial and multicultural son of America and Africa. Embracing all these multifaceted parts of his being projects strength and confidence, and a sense of comfort with who he is as a global citizen. On the contrary, denying a part of his distinctive multi-layered cultural identity may suggest weakness and diffidence of his background. Obama’s rejection of his name Barack for a more American-sounding Barry exposed this inner struggle. Re-embracing the name Barack signaled regaining of personal strength and a sense of comfort with himself. And, lo and behold, as the uniqueness of the name Barack alone helps make him stand out, so will the uniqueness of the name Hussein in American politics give him that aura of exceptionality.
To help extinguish American prejudice against anything Islamic: Islam is arguably the most hated religion in the United States and America’s disdain for anything Islamic knows no boundary. But having a stereotypical Muslim name like Hussein as President would help Americans confront such unfounded prejudice against Muslims. Whilst his supporters worry that embracing the name Hussein may strengthen the Muslim tag imposed on Obama, I believe it would rather help educate the larger America society that people ought not to be discriminated against on the basis of their religion. Americans getting used to a president with a Muslim name would cause us to be more accepting of Islam and Muslim. Shying away from such a potentially positive effect on the American people would be a grave mistake for President-elect Obama.
Neutralizing the H-name’s ridicule and phobia: Both his detractors and comedians alike, are mocking the H-name, for the simple fact that Obama and his advisors are uncomfortable with the name Hussein. Once people know that Big H is Obama’s name and there is nothing wrong with using it, they may cease making fun of it. The humor and fun in ridiculing it will just wear thin.
Living up to the inclusiveness tag: Barack Obama has become the embodiment of a global citizen. As the quintessential citizen of an increasingly integrated and interdependent world, it will pay for Obama to reintroduce to the world a middle name that reflects the religion of about one-quarter of the world’s population. Not only would the Hussein name make the Middle East and the rest of the Arab world feel better about America, it would almost by extension also make them feel a part of the United States and help ease Muslim and Arab hostility to America. What is in a name, the old saying goes. In this case, a lot, and Barack Obama has virtually nothing to lose from embracing his given middle name. On the contrary, Barack, America and the world have a lot to gain from Obama embracing the H name.
You don’t let your opponent define you: A fundamental rule of politics postulates that: thou shall not let thy enemies define. If you do something in reaction to your enemy’s attack or ridicule, it shows a sign of weakness rather than strength. And Barack’ dropping of his middle name ward off enemies’ attacks and ridicule may suggests he suffers from the ailment of spinelessness. It amounts to caving in to an innocuous pressure or assault on something as and fundamental as persons given name –Barack did not chose the name Hussein—a person’s name should be off-limits to any kind of political attack or mockery.
Names have, on the surface, seemed trivial but they always carry significant implications. And in this particular case, a lot of noise has been made about Barack Obama’s middle name since he started running for president. The best way to put the issue to rest once and for all is for the new U.S. president-elect to embrace “the untouchable H” and tell the whole world: I am proud to be Barack Hussein Obama.
I take the position that with the election over, Obama should seize the moment and embrace his middle name and allow the media and the public to use it. This is important for the following reasons: (1) reaffirming his comfort with his roots as the son of a Muslim African (2) Extinguishing American prejudice against anything Islamic (3) neutralizing the H-name’s ridicule and phobia, (4) Living up to his inclusiveness tag and (5) you don’t let your opponent define you.
Reaffirming his comfort with his roots as the son of a Muslim African: The Hussein name is distinctively Islamic and makes Obama the bona fide hybrid of Anglo-Afro-Christo-Islamic individual that he is, a la Tiger Wood’s Cablinasian. Obama’s uniqueness is his very entity as a multiracial and multicultural son of America and Africa. Embracing all these multifaceted parts of his being projects strength and confidence, and a sense of comfort with who he is as a global citizen. On the contrary, denying a part of his distinctive multi-layered cultural identity may suggest weakness and diffidence of his background. Obama’s rejection of his name Barack for a more American-sounding Barry exposed this inner struggle. Re-embracing the name Barack signaled regaining of personal strength and a sense of comfort with himself. And, lo and behold, as the uniqueness of the name Barack alone helps make him stand out, so will the uniqueness of the name Hussein in American politics give him that aura of exceptionality.
To help extinguish American prejudice against anything Islamic: Islam is arguably the most hated religion in the United States and America’s disdain for anything Islamic knows no boundary. But having a stereotypical Muslim name like Hussein as President would help Americans confront such unfounded prejudice against Muslims. Whilst his supporters worry that embracing the name Hussein may strengthen the Muslim tag imposed on Obama, I believe it would rather help educate the larger America society that people ought not to be discriminated against on the basis of their religion. Americans getting used to a president with a Muslim name would cause us to be more accepting of Islam and Muslim. Shying away from such a potentially positive effect on the American people would be a grave mistake for President-elect Obama.
Neutralizing the H-name’s ridicule and phobia: Both his detractors and comedians alike, are mocking the H-name, for the simple fact that Obama and his advisors are uncomfortable with the name Hussein. Once people know that Big H is Obama’s name and there is nothing wrong with using it, they may cease making fun of it. The humor and fun in ridiculing it will just wear thin.
Living up to the inclusiveness tag: Barack Obama has become the embodiment of a global citizen. As the quintessential citizen of an increasingly integrated and interdependent world, it will pay for Obama to reintroduce to the world a middle name that reflects the religion of about one-quarter of the world’s population. Not only would the Hussein name make the Middle East and the rest of the Arab world feel better about America, it would almost by extension also make them feel a part of the United States and help ease Muslim and Arab hostility to America. What is in a name, the old saying goes. In this case, a lot, and Barack Obama has virtually nothing to lose from embracing his given middle name. On the contrary, Barack, America and the world have a lot to gain from Obama embracing the H name.
You don’t let your opponent define you: A fundamental rule of politics postulates that: thou shall not let thy enemies define. If you do something in reaction to your enemy’s attack or ridicule, it shows a sign of weakness rather than strength. And Barack’ dropping of his middle name ward off enemies’ attacks and ridicule may suggests he suffers from the ailment of spinelessness. It amounts to caving in to an innocuous pressure or assault on something as and fundamental as persons given name –Barack did not chose the name Hussein—a person’s name should be off-limits to any kind of political attack or mockery.
Names have, on the surface, seemed trivial but they always carry significant implications. And in this particular case, a lot of noise has been made about Barack Obama’s middle name since he started running for president. The best way to put the issue to rest once and for all is for the new U.S. president-elect to embrace “the untouchable H” and tell the whole world: I am proud to be Barack Hussein Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
