Ethnicity, Discrimination And National Integration -Rejoinder

REJOINDER TO KOFI B. KUKUBOR’S ARTICLE On Ethnicity, Discrimination And National Integration

My attention has been drawn to the above-mentioned article by Kofi B. Kukubor which appeared in the Tuesday, November 14, 2006 edition of the Daily Graphic and perhaps Ghanaweb.

I wrote a full rejoinder but decided not to send it in order not to inflame passion. Instead I sent a two page mild reaction to the Daily Graphic for publication which appeared on 24 & 25 November. Today, i.e. November 29, I have come across Part II of ETHNICITY, DISCRIMINATION AND NATIONAL INTEGRATION in the Ghanaweb. I have therefore thought it fit to revisit the first article I withheld for publication as Mr. Kukubor may have some grand designs. When I read Part I of the article, I asked myself the question: What does he want to achieve by this incredible article?

If his intention was to sow the seed of disunity, of Asantephobia among Ghanaians, of bigotry and of disgrace and humiliation for the Asante, he has very well succeeded in sowing the seed but he can be sure that the seed will not sprout, let alone blossom. Ghanaians are not as idiotic as the article suggests and Ghanaians will not allow such an article to insult their intelligence. On the other hand if his intention was to advise the Asante to be patriotic, sacrificial, kind, then here too, he has misfired. Let him keep his warning; the Asante do not need it.

If his intention was to provoke the Asante into doing something which will serve as a proof for his unfounded, unpatriotic remarks about the Asante, let him be assured that foolish as he thinks the Asante are, we are not going to sink to his level of intolerance, insensitivity, arrogance and folly. If his intention, as it appears clearly, was to hide behind his type of veil of patriotism to boost the image of a particular party, then let him realise that that party may have a good following in Asante and that he has disgraced, humiliated and mortified the members of that party in Asante. If his intention was to prove that he is a bigoted, prejudiced and unpatriotically intolerant Ghanaian, then he has succeeded very well. Finally if his intention was to disgrace the Asante and the Asantehene, who has gained universal fame for his patriotism and been rewarded academically and otherwise, then let him realise that not everybody follows the principles of his warped logic. My surprise in the article is that a man who is a part-time lecturer and an international trade consultant should sink so low in his estimation of people. Surely someone who has the aim to seek national integration must necessarily look at issues dispassionately and must not allow himself to be carried away by emotions and personal sentiments?

I will attempt to deal with the article in two parts. The first will be in the form of questions to highlight what he wishes to put across. The second will be to take two major paragraphs of the article around which I shall attempt to weave my overall reaction to the article.

A. The Questions

1. The article is clearly against the Asante and their king. It sees everything wrong with the Asante and their king and acknowledges nothing right with the Asante and their king. It refuses to mention that the examples of stereotypes the author has given are worse for the Asante than he has given. The writer, if anything, proves that he is guilty of what he condemns. Has he not heard time and again that the Asante are “proud, they are tribalistic, they are discriminatory”? If he has not, he has said it.

2. How can an objective writer base his allegation that those who want to source the Educational Endowment Fund of the Asantehene must pass an examination based on the history and culture of the Asante on what he himself describes as “it has been alleged” if he was not prejudiced? Couldn’t he have found this out?

3. Since when did the Asante or the Asantehene himself say he was the king of Ghana? Is that why he is called Asantehene and not Ghanahene? Is it because the Asante are ethnocentric that non-Asante know Asante even when they stay in other places? When the writer talks about Akan, does he not show ignorance when he seems to argue that the Akan are a united monolithic people? Does he know or does he not know that the Asante are much closer to certain ethnic groups which respect them, love them because of their services to them financially, socially, and culturally, than they are to other sub-ethnic groups of the Akan?

4. With regard to the appearance of the Asantehene before the Georgina Wood Committee, was he called to appear and he refused and if he was not called, is it because Georgina Wood is a tribalistic Asante? When some people take the Asantehene to task for not appearing before the Committee, the writer describes them as well-meaning people. When the subjects of the Asantehene react to such unfortunate remarks about the Asantehene, then they are called violent people. Why? I would have thought that Ghana now operates under the rule of law; not under the rule of man? In any case it would be worth the while of Kofi Kukubor to know that Asante never annexed any tribe that it conquered, when in years gone by Asante was coterminous or coextensive with present day Ghana.

5. Has the writer never heard that the Asante cut off heads when their king dies? Does he know or does he not know that there are people from certain parts of Ghana who will never come to Asante because the Asante are a wicked people? On the other hand is it because the Asante are proud that they give a place of honour to minority groups in Kumasi, in Asantehene’s circles? We have Fante New Town, with a chief; we have the Zongo, with a chief; we have Anloga, which is bigger than Anloga in the Volta Region, with a chief; we have the Moshie, with their chief; all of whom are given places of honour in the Asantehene’s court, apparently because, according to the writer, the Asante are proud and are intent to suppress and dominate. In recent times, we have had parliamentarians, City Council members and other leaders who were not Asantes. Until recently, the Kumasi Municipal Council comprised representatives from different parts of Ghana and beyond, such as Burkina Faso, Niger and Mali. Would anyone be bold to say that this was the basis of tribalism? And isn’t in Asante that we have people from other ethnic groups holding important positions in Churches, in education, in politics, in business. Does the writer know that even Kumasi Asante Kotoko Football Club has had captains who were not Asante?

6. Who constantly refer to the ethnicity of the Asante? “Is he not an Asante?” “Instead of marrying an Asante, why should these non-Asantes not marry people from other tribes? It is odd that non-Asante ladies have now become crazy about Asante men. Does the writer know that some of the best marriages in Asante are between Asante men and women from other parts of the country? Kumasi Sports Stadium was named after Baba Yara, a non-Asante. In Kumasi there was no hue and cry. There was one in Accra when the stadium was named after Ohene Djan?

7. Who is imposing a language and culture on whom? Since when did Twi-speaking people insist that all Ghanaians must know Twi or speak it? When Limann’s party made as one of its slogans, }y] ab], was it the fault of Twi-speaking people? And is it the fault of the Asante that when one goes to the northern part of Ghana, for example, and one speaks English to somebody, he replies in Twi? Does the writer know that often somebody from an ethnic group meets another person from the same group whom he had not met before and that person speaks Twi to him? Does he know that some of us go to the northern part of Togo, to Benin and can make ourselves understood with Twi?

8. When citizens of any group realise that their very dignity and characteristic is being ridiculed, misinterpreted, regarded as the opprobrium for others, have they not the right to assert themselves without being called ethnocentrics? As regards the statements by the Asantehene and others that the writer describes as tribalistic, is he not himself falling into the abyss of tribalism?

9. The writer writes: Ethnocentric shows condescending attitudes towards members of other ethnic groups. They exhibit this by attacking members of an ethnic group, which cause them most offence. Isn’t the writer attacking the Asante because they cause him most offence?

10. The writer sees everything right with another Political Party but nothing right with the NPP. Is he not exhibiting political bigotry? Does he remember that in 2000, NPP did not win a single seat in two key regions of Ghana and also lost the elections by ridiculous wide margins in those areas? In 2004, non-NPP candidates won four seats in Asante. Those who voted for them were mainly Asantes. I hope the writer is not inviting those Asantes to rethink.

11. If the writer had meant to expose his own tribal arrogance, intolerance, abusiveness, disrespect for an ethnic group that is not his own, he could not have done better than through his article. An article published in a newspaper should be meant to help the nation in its efforts at unity, peace, prosperity and so on. Does the writer know this? If not, is he not exhibiting ignorance and if yes, is he not being a hypocrite?

12. The writer indirectly accuses the Asante of being extremely proud, always criticising people, ridiculing them. Is this not a perfect example of what the article is supposed to be opposing? Is it because the Asante are proud, ethnocentric that the labourers from the north are very happy to work with the Asante on their farms? Which Asante chief or king or individual has ever gone to the north to recruit labourers?

13. The writer may be fluent in the English language but his thinking is warped, prejudiced, wicked and provocative. He appears to want the Asante to do what he accuses them falsely of being guilty of so that he could be justified in what he says. The situation is like the proverbial “give a dog a bad name”, provoking the dog to bark and bite and then justifying oneself for giving it a bad name.

14. Did this writer, if he is a scientific, critical, scholarly writer, consult anybody in Asante on some of the remarks he makes? Is he saying seriously, truthfully and honestly that what he has heard about the Asante outside Asante is not worse than what he has heard about other tribes? If he has not, then he should re-read his article and he will be convinced of the sheer injustice that people like him do to the poor Asante. Let the writer come to Kumasi and consult the non-Asante who have made Kumasi their home and ask them about the character of the Asante. He may not change his mind about the Asante but it is only because he has, like some of his own ethnic companions, developed an incredible and incomprehensible Asantephobia. If the intention of the writer of the article was to sow the seed of dissention, chaos, injustice, confusion and hatred for the Asante, he could not have done better.

15. Kofi Kukubor exposes his ignorance of chieftaincy as an institution by saying that it is incompatible with our current democratic dispensation. He says in his article “The rantings of these so-called loyalists is a mark of a fascist and imperialist agenda. It is obvious that these people are oblivious to the fact that chieftaincy institution is gradually becoming incongruous to our democratic dispensation”. How can this statement be true when the institution has always been given a place in our successive constitutions? Democracy as seen by Rattary was even better practised by our ancestors long before the Western type was imposed on us through colonialism.

16. This rejoinder refuses to mention any ethnic group by name, nor would it mention anybody by name, as the article does. This rejoinder is not meant to defend ourselves before Kofi B. Kukubor. He is not our judge. I am not defending the Asante, knowing very well that people who take entrenched positions, no matter how foolish they may be, are not amenable to correction. I write the rejoinder only as a genuine attempt to appeal to dispassionate and objective readers to dismiss the atrocious allegations against the Asante and their king as not worth our while.

B. The Fifth and Sixth Paragraphs of the Article

“Indeed, the Asantehene’s tribal statement is only symptomatic of deep-rooted attitudes and behaviours or some short-sighted ethnic groups in the country”.

“These attitudes may be traced from the days of Ashanti Confederacy, National Liberation Movement (NLM) to the present day politics. The tribal statement of the Asantehene, Mr. Kwame Arhin (a Kumasi based legal practitioner), Mr. Alex Asabere (a London based business executive), and other Ashanti chiefs and some groups have forced some citizens, to argue that tribalism is the ethos of the Ashantis”.

Before I comment fully on the statement, let me give here a brief description of the Ashanti Confederacy and the National Liberation Movement.

Ashanti Confederacy

This institution came about as a result of the Asante hatred for injustice. On January 31st, 1935, the British Government acknowledged the failure of its policy in disuniting Asante with the exile of Otumfuo Prempeh 1 on January 1, 1896. It therefore decided to restore the Asante Union as the Ashanti Confederacy Council. This name was changed to Asanteman Council in 1952. It is important to state that the restoration did not come back easily. For after hesitation, to be expected of 40 years of independent existence, out of 27 states, 17 agreed to the Confederacy, 8 opposed it and two abstained. The restoration of the Kingdom was a triumph of Asante nationalism, tested in the 40 years of the absence of the Asantehene, and a recognition by the British Government that the Asante people would attain greater prosperity within the framework of their own established political institutions, symbolized in the Golden Stool. The Confederacy served as the legislative assembly for Asante. In 1946, the Gold Coast had an unofficial majority in the Gold Coast colony and Asante Legislative Council under the Burns Constitution. It would be seen from the Highlights of the Burns Constitution of 1946 below that Asante was not adequately represented in spite of its size and wealth.

The Executive:

1. The Governor

2. 8 Official Members

3. 3 Nominated Unofficial Members

The Legislature:

1. 6 Official Members

2. 6 Unofficial Members Nominated by the Governor to represent Special Interest

3. and 18 Elected Members i.e.

• Joint Provincial Council Elected Members (The Colony) 9

• Asanteman Council 4

• Accra Municipality 2

• Sekondi/Takoradi 1

• Cape Coast 1

• Kumasi 1.

The NLM

The National Liberation Movement (NLM) emerged in 1954 to safeguard the interest of Asante. It was the conviction of the leadership that equity and development would abound if an independent Gold Coast was achieved under a federal government that would enable the four colonially-created provinces (the Colony, Asante, the Northern Territories and Trans-Volta Togoland), to develop along their own path. This came about for five reasons:

1. Failure to implement the Coussey recommendation for Regional Administration

2. Basing representation in the Central Legislature solely on population

3. Using legislations to negate the importance of Asanteman Council to Asante

4. The renege of CPP Government to increase the price of a load of cocoa from N¢ 5.00 to N¢ 10.00.

5. The Coussey Committee had indicated to Asante that it would have 26 seats in the Legislature of 104. At the insistence of the CPP government this number was reduced to 21.

By 1956 the NLM had ceased to be a regional grouping. It acquired a national character when it merged with its allies to form the United Party.

My Comment

Kofi Kukubor states that tribalism is the ethos of the Ashantis. If by ethos he means the characteristic feature of Asante, then he is wrong. Tribalism is not the ethos or the characteristic feature of Asante. Asante owe their ethos to two key characteristics. The first is their uncompromising stance against oppression and repression of whatever kind. The second characteristic of the Asante is their equally uncompromising opposition to cheating and injustice. The King of the Asante (the Asantehene), exercises traditional authority only over the Asante people, both those in the Ashanti Region and those outside the Region and non-Asante in the Region. He has no statutory or traditional powers in any other parts of the country. This is the reason why he is called Asantehene or king of the Asante, and not Ghanahene. The Asante in spite of what people think will continue to be welcoming and hospitable as those non-Asante who come to live in Asante and who will speak the truth will admit. The growth, development and spread of Kumasi have virtually been due to the industriousness of the Asante. Hard work is a hallmark of Asante.

I recently had to reply to an NPP Member of Parliament who felt that many well-meaning Ghanaians were wondering whether the NPP was not being converted into an ethnic party. He was of the view that when the NPP was formed in 1992, very ingenious and persistent efforts were made to refute allegations of the NPP as an ethnic party. That rewarding effort by many ordinary members of the NPP was now being undermined by some seemingly deliberate government policies. This was with respect to the recent grant of $5 million from the World Bank to the Asanteman Council. The World Bank, according to the MP, must have given that money only upon the express consent and/or request of the Ghana Government. His problem was that if the government felt it wanted to take advantage of any of World Bank programs for indigenous people, why didn’t it make the request for the National House of Chiefs rather than for a particular chief and a particular region? Blatant discriminatory policies of this nature undermined the unity of this country. The precedent set here was dangerous and opened the door to ethnocentrism. What would prevent another government from sourcing funds for chiefs in Accra to develop the slums in Accra? Or say funds for Fante and Ewe chiefs to develop their coastal areas?

The MP was of the view that the policy direction of government on this matter was dangerous and might kindle the flames of ethnocentrism. Not being a member of the government I left the government to reply to the charge. However, speaking as someone who is closely associated with Manhyia Palace I had to react to the MP. It is the same reaction that I find fitting and appropriate for Kofi B. Kukubor.

Otumfuo gave audience in 1999 to some Senior World Bank officials. The NPP was not then in government. He broached the subject of the Bank promoting partnership with Traditional Authorities since in his view the time had come to try other tools and move away from the hackneyed Structural Adjustment Programs and/or the Economic Recovery Programs. Otumfuo was of the view that the time had come when development should start from the grassroots and not the other way round. His approach would be a meaningful way of approaching decentralization.

He went further to say, that years ago, a good chief was one who was a great warrior. As a leader, his first and foremost duty was the security of his domain. He became a great leader if he managed to expand his domain. The qualities of a good chief now revolve around his ability to establish peace and social order as well as being able to supplement the efforts of the central and local government to improve the well being of his people. Time and time again it has been said that government alone cannot be expected to provide for the community. That is why it is now becoming outmoded for chiefs at durbars to present a long list of economic programs for government to attend to. Partnership with traditional authorities, which are recognized by the laws of Ghana, exercising their customary authority over local communities, would be a good way to look at the new role of the chiefs and a way to quicken development since they were in closer touch with the people.

The officials promised to raise the matter with the government and also with the management in Washington DC on their return. Otumfuo in the meantime mentioned it separately to President Rawlings and Vice President Mills in 1999 and both were enthusiastic about the idea. The idea was nurtured and kept alive throughout the year 2000.

In 2001 Otumfuo was in Washington DC and had audience with the President of the World Bank. The Bank had in the meantime come to the conclusion that such a partnership would be good for the country. It would help to strengthen the capacities of the traditional authorities to effectively participate in activities to improve health and fight HIV in their communities. It would provide resources for rehabilitating education facilities in deprived areas. It would also bring into being the sort of partnership that should exist between traditional authorities and the government in the provision of quality education. Further it would help to improve the financial management capabilities of the recipient traditional councils and the capacities of the members on decentralization and community issues. It would enable the councils to improve and preserve their cultural heritage. The idea would also parallel what was going on in South Africa. In South Africa, there are a number of traditional authorities which have formed joint-venture partnerships with both public and private organizations to drive development in their communities. Examples of development-oriented partnerships are found in Mankwe Region, the Kingdom of Bafokeng, and the Mpungose Traditional Authority.

The Bank therefore informed Otumfuo that they would be prepared to extend a loan of US $5,000,000.00 to Asanteman Council provided this would be agreed to by the government of Ghana. Meanwhile there had been a change in Government in Ghana and Otumfuo had to seek the approval of the new NPP Government. The Government made it known to Otumfuo that it would not be able to support the loan. Ghana would be increasing its credit exposure if the request were to be a loan. In other words the request should be a grant. That would not eat into Ghana’s agreed economic program. That is to say the grant should be additional to what the government had already negotiated with the Bank. Additionally, to forestall the charge that the government might be favoring Asanteman, another region should be part of the grant. These two conditions were not advocated for by the NDC Government. Eventually it was Akyem Abuakwa Traditional Authority that was chosen to participate in the grant.

Happily the World Bank felt that the idea of partnership with a traditional authority in Ghana was new and worth trying. In the circumstance the Bank agreed to give the money as a grant to Asanteman Council and Akyem Abuakwa Traditional Council, with the bulk of it going to the former. As a result of what actually happened in the corridors of power, I asked the MP if he could sincerely say the NPP Government was favoring Otumfuo, which would in turn stoke the fires of tribalism and ethnocentrism in the country? How was it that this grant could bring about divisiveness in the country; how was it going to lead to a feudal hegemony and dominance of other tribes by the Asantehene? Otumfuo did not need to be promoted by any Government in Ghana. But then any serious Government in Ghana could not ignore him. In this regard I reminded the MP that even the all powerful Dr. Kwame Nkrumah could not ignore the Asantehene in his days. I pleaded with him therefore not to use subterfuge to polarize the country along ethnic lines.

To conclude on the grant of US$5.0 million, I assured the MP that chiefs would not be put in positions where they might be accused of mismanagement and misappropriation of funds. The World Bank had already taken care of this by making sure that the money would not go into the pocket of any particular individual.

For our economic development, I would like to draw attention to the phenomenon of dualism in Africa and the role chiefs could play in eliminating or attenuating it. Almost every African state has two worlds: one world-largely urban, where modernization is evident in terms of the impact of the Constitution, modern western-oriented laws, a developed physical infrastructure, existence of health and other social facilities, a vibrant cash economy, economic institutions, the prevalence of English, French or other Metropolitan legacies. In this world which commands less than the majority of the entire national population, the impact of traditional African systems on the lives and conduct of the people is minimal. There is visible evidence of institutions of central administration, the ministries, departments, the Courts and so on and so forth and the chiefs are sometimes relegated to decorative or cultural sideshows with little social clout.

The other world, which is predominantly in the rural areas, and is populated by the majority of the citizenry, is hardly touched by the sophisticated constitutional and legal structures or the official court systems. The people in this world largely have a traditional worldview and look to their chiefs and elders for development, settlement of disputes, allocation of land, financial support to the needy and other elements of social insurance. They hardly speak English or any European language. They have limited access to health facilities or other social amenities. They are mainly farmers or peasants and the quality of life is significantly lower than that of the other world. No chief who commutes from the first world to the second world can fail to appreciate the reality of this dualism and the challenges it poses for an integrated national development which is equitable and sustainable. Most of the development endeavors of chiefs are dedicated to addressing the needs of the second world and bridging the gap between the two worlds. This is a task which is beyond the resources or even the vision of most governments. It is my respectful submission that we should look to the traditional rulers to provide the crucial leadership in this area without raising hackneyed issues of tribalism.

Addressing the problems of the second world establishes the proper infrastructure for the growth of democracy and good governance. The chiefs have converted the weapons of war into the instruments of development and peaceful resolution of disputes. Far from acting as a rival of state political power, they sustain the state particularly in cases of collapse of the state apparatus especially when we have to deal with failed states. This was anathema in the days gone by. It will pay all of us richly if we accepted the obvious fact that the two institutions complement each other. And Otumfuo is in a unique position to do. He is the head of some 38 Amanhene or their equivalent, and since he came unto the throne he has been able to add greatly to Ghana’s capacity for economic, social and cultural development.