"Genuine Ingenuity: Foreign Policy and Domestic Affairs"

Much as I share the sentiments of the writer of the article, “Genuine Ingenuity: Foreign Policy and Domestic Affairs” , it is my opinion that his recommended strategies for conflict resolution in West Africa have the potential to perpetuate a cycle of violence rather than to ensure peace and social stability. While I applaud his views on social stability as a pre-requisite to economic development, his recommended means to achieve that goal is debatable; perhaps, rather anachronistic in today’s increasingly globalizing information age. In this rejoinder, I respectfully seek to present alternative strategies buttressed by historical and contemporary evidence. Space consideration would, understandably, force general assertions and assessment without diminishing the substance of position taken.

It is my opinion that insurgency thrives on exclusion and suppression of other social groups. When power corrupts and corruption leads to absolute power leaving no room for dissent and participation, fertile ground is laid for insurgency and social conflicts. You cannot bottle up human aspirations and desires; they would explode.

As History tells us, the powerful always maintains the conviction that, demands of the weak are illegitimate and should be ignored. Force, they believe, should be used to “nib in the bud” any group that makes demands for inclusions or for freedom to be what they want to be. Time was when we in Africa were at the receiving end of such brutal force to suppress our quest for freedom. Our leaders were branded “malcontents” who did not seek the civilized way to achieve freedom and equality for their people, (just as Mr. Brazi puts it in today’s context). He writes:

“We are actually setting dangerous precedents that have no other effect than to convince the malcontents to take to the thickets, shoot their way to the outskirts of the capitals and then pause for negotiations that would bring them as close to the levers of power as possible”.

It sounds like a pronouncement from the British Colonial Secretary in the 1940s. We heard that in reference to Jomo Kenyatta, Kwame Nkrumah, Mandela, Naser, Ghandi, and others in the Caribbean and elsewhere around the world where the oppressed peoples were demanding freedom and equality.

To curb insurgencies in Africa, Mr. Brazi seems to suggest that African governments should simply ignore the concerns of fringe groups and just crack down on them and then every thing will be alright. History shows that such approach did not work in the past and is even more likely to fail in today’s world of increasing global awareness. Even in ancient times when global awareness was limited, such approaches in ancient Egypt, failed to thwart the exodus of the Israelites. Ancient Greece and Rome failed to wipe out dissent through such brutal force. Medieval Europe tried it in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, but did not achieve the expected outcomes. From the 16th Century to the first half of the 20th Century, various European powers thought they could wipe out insurgents demanding equality and freedom; they failed. No amount of brutal force succeeded in suppressing the revolt of the American colonies for economic and political independence. Like in many places a! round the world where colonial rule suppressed indigenous demand for freedom (Africa, India, Middle East, and the Caribbean) the 1776 American Independence became a reality despite British suppression. The British then thought of the Americans as malcontent rebels. And when the colonies achieved their freedom they also applied the brutal force approach on the Native Americans and the enslaved Africans, but they failed to achieve the desired results. In modern era such an approach was tried on the Black Civil Rights Movement; it failed. Currently, we are witnessing cycles of violence in the Middle East, South East Asia, Africa and Latin America where the more powerful groups operate under the conviction that they can either ignore, nib in the bud, suppress, or wipe out dissenting groups through sheer brute force. The evidence is clear. It’s been so far a total failure.

The World deserves new and more humanized approaches to conflict resolution. In West Africa, much of insurgencies are the result of the inability of leadership to consider other groups as legitimate participants and beneficiaries of nation building. Religious, ethnic and class divisions have fueled insurgencies. Leadership has failed to develop more humanized strategies for inclusion, and a sense of collective responsibilities and privileges. When power gets into their heads, leaders operating under false premises and deliberate intentions to cling to power; do all they can to shut off other social groups, either because of religious, ethnic or ideological considerations. The ultimate national interest is sacrificed on the altar of personal or special group interest. The result often is disillusionment and social disengagement. At that point it becomes impossible to prevent social explosion.

Given today’s rapidly shrinking world, what alternative conflict resolution strategies do we have to search for, especially in Africa?. Mr Brazi seems to stick to the old failed approaches. He writes:

“We must hasten to draw the line that rebel insurgencies shall not be tolerated henceforth. It is the opinion of this writer that by refusing to recognize them, we would be nipping in the bud the determination to choose a short cut to power: insurgencies that lead up to negotiations with the elected government are another form of coup d'etats. They constitute theft of the peoples mandate by force of arms or exacted through intimidation and threats. Surely the sub-region deserves better than that”.

Oh, no; surely, the sub-region and the rest of Africa deserve better approaches to conflict resolution than that. Tolerance is a virtue; not a vice. Recognition is the tap root of respect and respect for others attracts social cohesiveness. Negotiation opens the door to the hearts and minds of parties on both sides of the issue. The old approach of using brutal force to suppress dissent obviously has neither worked in Africa nor elsewhere around the world. We should engage in a rational assessment of the causes of insurgencies and develop new humanistic approaches in resolving conflicts. May be Africa would make a contribution to the rest of the world in this area. Ancient Africa gave the rest of the world the basis of its civilization. Today’s Africa may be able to give the modern world new approaches for conflict resolution.

Contrary to Mr. Brazi’s preemptive strike, the solution against insurgency is transparency, inclusiveness, tolerance, and dialogue . Evidence from around the world indicates that all insurgent groups have some legitimate reasons. But since corrupted power has evolved into absolute power, no room is left for others to participate. They are shut out and labeled as malcontents and insurgents. Their option, right or wrong, is to accept their exclusion and challenge the status quo. In any multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-lingual society, there is bound to be multiple demands and aspirations. While it is not practicable to fulfill all sorts of splintered demands, by being transparent and tolerant; by allowing freedom of expression and by promoting a sense of collective responsibilities, unreasonable group demands would be tempered with rationality and a concern for the collective interest. Our elders have said, if your hand is in the bowl, you would not be left out partaking ! in the eating of the meal. All should be encouraged to wash their hands clean and join eating from the bowl.

That principle is an underlining factor in the relative social tranquility Ghana is currently enjoying. We have learned our lessons from our colonial era and from the immediate post independence period. When the British realized that their divide and rule strategy worked against their interest, they adopted a different strategy – participation of chiefs in local government. It worked. The chiefs became localized instruments for national governance and political participation. They became the voices of their people’s dissent and consent. Local consensus translated into national consensus and ideological and religious frictions were minimized.

As a result the leadership of Ghana’s struggle for de-colonization was broad-based. Our immediate post-independence Parliament and national Cabinet reflected an all-inclusive national character. The country was opened up for cross-ethnic interaction. Our schools and colleges were grounds for bridging ethnic gaps; our national cultural institutions encouraged inclusions of all ethnic cultures and our young political institutions had a multi-ethnic broad base and top leadership. When the Parliament met, the hall was graced with a colorful display of divers elegant attires from all ethnic groups. The new nation was one made up of many. Inclusion, transparency, tolerance and dialogue minimized potential animosity.

We were on the right path until power started to corrupt and evolved into an absolutely corrupted power. Inclusiveness and tolerance were derailed; dissent was suppressed and the then emerging sense of collective responsibility gave way to individual selfishness and special group centeredness. This was crying for that and that was crying for this and others were crying neither for this nor that; (apologies to Alan Patton, Cry My Beloved Country). The top became heavy and things started to fall apart because the center could not hold; (apologies to Chinua Achebe, Things Fall Apart). The beautiful ones, we were told were not yet born; (apologies to Ayikwei Amah, The Beautiful Ones are not yet Born); but when they forced themselves to be born they came out terribly uglier than their predecessors.

Consequently, Ghana’s First Republic collapsed on its own weight. When subsequent Republics failed to learn the lessons of inclusiveness, transparency, tolerance and accountability they nurtured the seeds of armed insurgency and counter-productive social behavior. Military coup begat military coup and social cohesiveness eluded the nation. For forty-five years our nation building effort staggered and stagnated. We were set back in our development effort for another 20 years.

Apparently, Ghana learned a bitter lesson from the devastating impact of intolerance, exclusion and lack of transparency and open dialogue. The challenge for today’s leadership in Ghana is to put into practice lessons learned. If it accepts that the old brute force, closed-door and intolerant strategies did not work and puts in place institutional structures and a tolerating social environment we would be on the right path towards inducing and sustaining social stability and make it the corner stone for the development of a vibrant economy and a proud nation. Our model may then be infectious and spread to the rest of West Africa and perhaps the rest of Africa. If we deviate, we cannot guarantee immunity from the instabilities surrounding us. If we stay course Ghana will maintain its status as Africa’s shining Black Star. It is doable.

Given the lessons of the past, what then are the alternative antidotes to insurgency in Africa? An effective antidote is not a policy of military preemption against potential insurgents as Mr. Brazi recommends. All insurgents are human beings with some aspirations. They were not born terrorists or insurgents. They are products of the shortcomings of the political and economic environment. When it is all said and done, it would be found out that their grudge is rooted in one social institutional failure or the other. I can hear the reader saying, since the beginnings of time, humans have always had grudges against humans and that there are some people who would never be satisfied no matter how much room for participation you give them; they want it on their own terms. Therein lies the challenge of the 21st Century. Insurgency may not be completely eliminated from the face of this planet, but a more rational approach to dealing with it may minimize its devastating effects! . The political and economic history of Africa should have taught us lessons as to how to perceive and deal with insurgency. After the arrival of the Europeans, the conditions they created produced a fertile ground for the nurturing of insurgency. Africans, making legitimate demands and rejecting suppression and oppression, were branded insurgents. We knew we were right then, but they painted a picture of us as barbaric uncivilized, uncultured people who deserved the strong arm of the Whiteman’s law. It was considered the Whiteman’s burden to civilize us. The result was all kinds of brutalities and dehumanized treatment against Africans. When we demanded fairness through dialogue, we were brushed aside. When we employed tactics that were meant to force them to give us our freedom, we were branded terrorists and anarchists; not unlike today.

In most of Africa today we have leaders who have adopted the same brutal attitude that characterized colonial response to African dissent. The question is how do we cleanse our system of these brutalities and revert to a more humanized approach to resolving conflicts. The current cycle of violence, that is inspired by false perceptions of each other’s intentions can be broken if new strategies for conflict resolution are adopted. The old strategies of fighting it out to wipe out the “enemies” have not worked. Some “revolutions” turned out to be fake and self-serving. Empty old-fashioned socialistic slogans that painted each other as enemies of the people rather worsened our pains and agony. We marched backward instead of forward; and our development stagnated and our social institutions collapsed. We spend our time, our intellect and our energies fighting each other instead of building nations. And yet we are still advocating preemptive actions to wipe out our “enemies” - ou! r own brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts. The cycle of violence must stop and allow Africa to use the ingenuity of her people to exploit their natural resources and build nations to be enjoyed by this generation and those to come.

Preemption as a strategy has its merits but I have a different angle to it. Preemption has to be seen in the context of opening up the process early enough for all to participate in it. If all segments of society were made to participate in the process, they would have a better understanding of the problems and prospects of nation building. If they have evil intentions, it would be easier to detect and affect behavior modification through dialogue and social restructuring. Brute force to suppress dissent has never worked and would never work. If it would, this planet would have been a paradise by now.

Inclusiveness and tolerance however, do not mean appeasement. Humans as we are, we are bound to have a situation where no matter how wide the door is opened there are people whose shortsighted intentions would lead them to a violent break-in through the back door. This is where proactive preemptive vigilance would be needed. This means creating social conditions and institutions to foster dialogue and consensus. It also means making sure the back door is reinforced and whatever is being said indoors is heard and seen by all. Transparent governance elicits confidence in leadership from the followers and inspires collective resolve to protect and defend the collective national interest. When all are consistently made aware of the collective national interest; when the means for participation are easily accessible to all; when there is demonstrated evidence of ample room for shared responsibilities and privileges; when there is clear evidence that coming in through the front ! door offers all the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of hard and honest work; when leaders are those who know how to follow and feel for their followers; and when followers have clear conviction of where they are all going together, then, brutal preemptive measures to obtain social stability would not be necessary. It’s been done elsewhere on this planet and it can be done in Africa. Let’s try some new nation building approaches; obviously the old strategies have not worked. We have in our arsenal not destructive bombs and guns, but more powerful weapons consisting of our indigenous social values and a sense of humanism that we can employ to achieve a true and lasting social tranquility. Therein lies the path to a more humanized socio-economic development enjoyable by all.