He believes the “All Die Be Die” slogan which the opposition New Patriotic Party has adopted, ostensibly in response to what it sees as failure by a partisan state security to protect its members, and the establishment of a heroes’ fund by the ruling National Democratic Congress constitute “institutional preparations for lawlessness, hooliganism and civil strife in Election 2012.”
He is, however, confident that the nation will sail through the elections unhurt if President Mills is able to demonstrate that he is in firm control of the nation, and further give assurances that mechanisms will be put in place to ensure free and fair elections in 2012.
In the view of Prof Yankah, the attempts by political parties to psyche up their members to face their opponents in an uncompromising manner during the 2012 electioneering campaign “constitute an indictment on a partisan state security apparatus that cannot even-handedly discharge their constitutional obligations of protecting life and limb.”
Speaking at a lecture organised by the Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences Wednesday, Prof Yankah called on the Presidency, the Council of State, the National House of Chiefs, the various religious bodies, and civil society “not to sit aloof and supervise these open preparations for war.”
“Let them rise to the occasion and speedily intervene, calling on both sides to hold back the rhetoric of war, with assurances that the President is in firm control of the ship of state and assurances that mechanisms will be put in place to ensure free and fair elections,” he stressed.
Touching on the “All Die Be Die” slogan of the NPP, Prof Yankah noted that the slogan contains all the necessary ingredients required for mass mobilization and political action.
According to him, the slogan “comes handy to the pedestrian looking for ready-made rhetoric in which to wrap his sense of desperation.”
He explained: “Indeed the sense of helplessness felt by the poor man wallowing in penury and self-deprivation could signal a condition of virtual death depicted in the slogan. The expression then would be appropriate since dying in self-defence could be death all the same, a zero sum game.”
In his view the popularity of the “All Die Be Die” slogan, which was embraced overnight by the rank and file of the NPP, “was driven by its simplicity, poetic appeal and the informal vehicle of Broken English in which it is conveyed,” adding that it was for this reason “that soon after the informal inauguration of the slogan, non-partisan demonstrations against government policies throughout the country latched on to the slogan.
Pro Yankah took issue with the Mills-Mahama administration over the haphazard manner in which the government’s communication machinery is organized, attributing the situation to the needlessly many appointees speaking for the government.
This, in his view, is what has led to the continuous misinformation of the public by individuals mandated to speak on the government’s behalf.
He also believes the situation “conveys the impression of a rather wobbly executive apparatus which needs parallel structures for reinforcement or double assurance”, stressing: “the current comedy of errors, retraction and glitches arising out of a proposed World Bank loan is the expected outcome and the earlier a single voice spoke for the entire presidency, the better.”
Prof Yankah also condemned the “pervasive use of insult, abuse and coarse rhetoric” in the nation’s political discourse, especially where public officials, seek to denigrate political opponents.
“Such discourse often ranges from outright abuse like ‘thieves,’ ‘armed robbers,’ ohene gyengyan ( worthless chief ) , used by a legislator on a chief, to indiscreet assaults on individuals or social groups to which opponents belong. The latter can be exemplified in derogatory attacks in invectives like kookooase kuraaseni (village dweller), an invective which was hurled by a minister of state against an opponent,” he bemoaned.
Prof Yankah believes the Presidency has not done enough to show its abhorrence to the culture of insults in the nation’s political discourse, stressing that the mere oral expression of disapproval of the practice does not show a commitment to dealing with the practice.
“In several other dispensations, one would normally expect summary dismissals, or executive calls for either resignation, or even public apologies, which would emphasize the crucial significance of national virtues in nation building. It would have been the duty of men of honour, who are perceived as role models to play a pivotal role in upholding these virtues, rather than subverting them in speech comportment,” he explained.
Prof Yankah also expressed concern about the emerging trend in the nation’s value system where high premium is put on “fiery, combative discourse in public space”, and people hail “bold, tough and ferocious speakers who are capable of matching political opponents boot by boot in speech comportment.”
“The situation of late has taken a more dramatic turn; for not only may listeners call in and issue instant rejoinders; listening ‘foot soldiers’ may join radio discussions by breaking into the studio and participating with their fists, assaulting political opponents. Thus even as we bask in high democratic credentials and exercise free speech, our constitutional democracy appears not to have completely shed off rhetoric of the muscle. Physical combat still lingers underneath free speech, and the bullet has not completely yielded to the ballot,” he decried.
He added: “Creeping into the indigenous value system is a culture of vociferous rhetoric, where media heroes are made sometimes on the basis, not of reasoned argumentation, but fiery speech comportment. In response to these emerging standards, political discussants including public officials outshout their opponents and scream at the top of their voices in media talk. This mode of discourse is sometimes in keeping with the objectives of some talk shows or discussion programs that thrive on heat, noise and verbal dueling among discussants.”
Here is the original post: