We read Mr. Rex Annan’s, “The Paradox Of Civilisation,” (Ghanaweb 16 May 09), with some amount of sadness and bewilderment. In an otherwise well-composed essay, we found the piece without substance or logical consistency in many places given the subject. Particularly relevant here are aspects of personal freedom, the role of the university, the role of the city and essence of urbanization, freedom of expression, and of the press. We will argue that Mr. Annan attacks all these modern symbols of civilization from behind, without directly firing a shot. But he fails totally, from the point of view of the citizen and the nation, when he tries to propose that “The convenient course would be to return to the sustainable path of God's will.” Does “sustainable path” mean Sustainable Development? If so, how do we get there holding and massaging the Bible and our egos? If not, what in the hell is a leader or president to do? Decree prayer camps?

Prof Lungu is here to tell Mr. Annan: Pipe down, sir, the world is not sinking!

You see, dear reader, none of the things Mr. Annan decried is responsible for making the world worse for the vast majority of his fellow citizens who lack basic “civilization” services (potable water, reliable transportation, decent housing, accessible medical care, opportunities for entertainment, access to education, etc. But is that not what “civilisation” is supposed to be about, for which public policy, familial resources, and personal energies ought to be directed?

The first weakness in Annan’s essay is this, he did not bother to directly define “civilisation.” However, by proposing that “barbarism” is a useful antonym for “civilization,” we quickly surmised that Mr. Annan was off base as far as his “beef” with “civilisation” is concerned. In fact, we will argue that “barbarism” is not an appropriate antonym for civilization in this context. In our opinion, the better antonym is “primitiveness.” That, after all, tells us about the extent technology, artifacts, education, the creation and retrieval of data, knowledge, science, system of egalitarian governance, social wellbeing, all working together, go to profit individuals by making their lives worth living as social beings, “civilized,” so to speak.

We agree that universities are “centres for learning and research….” But if we may ask Mr. Annan, when did universities become “the hotbed of civilized conduct”? Clearly, if by “civilized conduct” Mr. Annan is talking about “tolerance for things different,” we would hazard agreement. However, if he wants to stretch that into a specification of how individuals in society must behave in public – on university campuses (and perhaps in private), we would strongly disagree. Might it be that Mr. Annan is confused about the issues and is in effect conveying to us a sense of intolerance and outright bigotry. If that were so, it would be precisely the opposite of the essence of the “university,” and tolerance, on which we both agreed from the start.

But we will even go a step further. We will propose that it is the religious fanatic, the intolerant extremist, and the bigot who, after defining “the problem” as a “paradox” of civilization to suit his/her own personal belief system, will propose that:

“…The truth of the matter is that there must be a place for God in all of this…(that)…The convenient course would be to return to the sustainable path of God's will…(that)… To reduce the damage, civilization must be tailored to mirror God's desires…(and we)…must re-orientate our minds towards fulfilling those excellent honourable desires…”

What hogwash! Question is, who today, in their right faculties and knowledge of world events would dismiss those statements if we were to attribute them to (1) Osama bin Laden, (2) a mullah in chauvinistic Saudi Arabia, or (3) Jerry Falwell and the evangelical religious right? Therefore, which one of those sides does Mr. Annan want or hope to belong? Cleary, reading that essay, we do not have difficulty placing him in one of those 3 corners. But then, we get to the fundamental question: Do Ghanaians want to be in one of those corners or in another corner entirely? (We think that the latter ought to be the case).

This of course brings to head the other ancient question Mr. Annan never bothered to address: Whose God is he talking about? Is it the God of his African ancestors? Is it the God of those who fast-tracked his peoples” “civilization? Is it Osama’s God? Or is it the Gods, oh! the ancient religious tradition of Hinduism, Shintoism, Budhism, or Agnostism, Taoism? Therefore, given the religious “salad” we have in this global, information/knowledge age, whose “Divine intervention” does Mr. Annan think is capable of saving the world and why?

Our other difficulty with Mr. Annans’ essay is this: he seems to be at war with personal freedoms. In fact, he finds it hard to comprehend why some people use “…tobacco, an addictive substance that is associated with several kinds of diseases and death….,” when others (Health Department) knows that it is “dangerous and offensive to public health.” But why Mr. Annan thinks smoking cigarettes is a hallmark of civilization is frankly beyond us. And why he can’t fathom people smoke because maybe they do not have the knowledge about “that danger,” that in a market economy they may have been hoodwinked, or that smoking is only a passing phenomena for many, is beyond us. Hell, human beings started smoking (tobacco) as far back as 6000 BC, thousands of years before that particular Christian cultural tradition Mr. Annan seeks to foster on everyone.

With all that false posturing, it is hard understanding where wisdom (family/personal responsibility) ends and where responsible administration (dress code for students who are fully or partially funded by the public purse), begins for Mr. Annan. He tells us that “…The skimpy and semi-nude dresses worn by both sexes; represent a monstrous assault on our academic culture…” Is that how he chooses to exercise his mind – reminiscing about dresses and “skimpies”? How is that important? How does that compare to university administrators who siphon resources to serve the interests of a few big shots, or university faculties who “lord” over students and present themselves as gods who know everything, or for that matter, university administrators who do not take time to know that every new student admitted into their institution competed equally and had a fair chance, including those who did not get in?

We are acutely saddened and greatly bewildered. Quickly, we can see how Annan would use the power of the state and the public media to “order” the world according to his preferences, were he in a position to do so. But we know that there are more Ghana-centered individuals in similar/higher positions who will resist this train wreck because it is contrary to the Constitution, even with all its warts. That, after all, is what the whole “Ghanaian-Nation” enterprise is all about? It is based on respect for the individual no matter where they come from or what they believe. Is it not, after all, the vision charted by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah and other Greats who championed the spirit of “One Ghana, One Nation”?

Fundamentally, we sense that if we were to carry their wishes to the end, people like Mr. Annan would want Ghanaians to return to the chicken coops, rodent-infested mud huts of yesteryears,’ into the villages, far and away from the urban centers and cities that are truly the symbols of modern civilization. That, after all, is the essence of the history of mankind – the move from pastoral living, from stone caves and huts, into ordered towns, cities, and urban centers where the vast majority of the people do not have to depend on toiling the land to make a living; where opportunities, freedom of movement and thought, critical thinking and such, are cherished ideals.

So on the contrary, we will raise our hats to civilization, to the modern city, and to public administration that clearly recognize the boundaries of personal freedom and public power. We raise our hats to personal religion and freedom to worship, or not. We raise out hats to private interests on the one hand, and the interest of the commonwealth on the other, to a commonwealth that is acutely aware of the Tragedy of the Commons and is Ghana-centered enough to seek a balance as part of the effort to make the world “civilized” (a better place) for all, sustainably. After, is it not smarter and more useful to talk in terms of “Sustainability,” i.e., what activities and resources can sustain the world given opportunities and constraints, rather than hoping for “Divine Interventions,” or wishing an entire nation was a “Prayer Camp”?

In conclusion, we would suggest that Mr. Annan take and apply a dose of elementary course in “modern” urbanization, urban Geography, urban history, or sociology. If he did, he would understand why adolescents dress in universities the way they do today. He will know that there are more important issues about civilization than getting all riled up about “smoking” and “skimpies.” Then maybe, Mr. Annan would wish for all Ghanaians the truly “civilized” facilities that would allow them to live as equal citizens, as human beings, just as he does in Accra, or wherever he calls home. (Or maybe Mr. Annan can consider the priesthood, or formally join the AM/PM/nightly church services of the bigoted right)!

We say, give Ghanaians and their republican experiment a break. After all, how much of “mankind's collective gains” do Ghanaian citizens enjoy at this point. Must they turn away from “civilization” because of a passing fad and must they waste their time talking about the trivial? We do not think so!

Notes: 1. Prof Lungu would be glad to provide a retort to Mr. Rex Annan’s piece for GNA, if GNA is interested, considering that the original essay was published by the GNA. It is called promoting opposing views for better governance. However, Prof Lungu will not waste time trying to communicate with individuals who do not respond to emails or those who do not provide courtesy replies to telephone calls and other correspondence. Prof Lungu can be contacted through www.GhanaHero.com.

2. Prof Lungu – Brought to you by www.GhanaHero.com. Read all about it. Prof Lungu – Ghana-centered, always!

3. Visit www.GhanaHero.com and listen to FOIB –Are you Pickable, the first song ever written and recorded in support of the Universal Program – Freedom of Information, other wise imperfectly called, Right to Information.

Yes, give the people Freedom!

© 2009 Prof Lungu, Tokyo, Japan 17 May 2009