One of the great advantages of the internet is the ubiquitous and real time access to information. It is praised as necessary for productive consumption and information processing within all sectors of modern life. While it is increasingly becoming accessible and relatively inexpensive, there is a pattern emerging that indicates a gradual shift in the number of people capable of providing information and those who consume this information. And this shift is increasingly proving to be a Damocles?s sword hanging on our heads in the Third World, where, in the absence of any tangible democratic and social structures, we have come to rely on this medium as constitutive of the public space.

Normative discourse within this public space is anticipated to promote communicative action where deliberations are intended not for their own sake but to fulfill an end. Its democratic nature derives from the fact that anyone with internet access is allowed, and participation is autonomous from the influence of any state and economic power. Participation is based on concerns of citizens as a public and not driven by the state or the marketplace. We elect to participate in internet fora and are not compelled by anyone to do so, pending sanctions. So that even though participation may at times encourage public action, such as write in campaigns to demand action from political leaders, deliberations involve reciprocal critique of normative positions that cannot be taken at face value but must be critiqued and accepted on their merits. It is also a place where self-reflexivity is cherished, as each participant is expected to critically examine their cultural values, assumptions and interests within the larger social context and to endeavor to understand the argument from others? perspectives and the contextual implications of the arguments. Finally, each participant in the public sphere is expected to make a sincere effort to make all intention and information known and to commit to ongoing dialogue with difference in which interlocutors respectfully listen to each other.

As an avid consumer of information, I am glad that the internet has made my sojourn in the diaspora less burdensome. I am equally worried by the very medium as a source of conflict and future political and tribal strife that may yet engulf us unless we begin to use it wisely. I am compelled to write to this site because of a pattern emerging reminiscent of what led to the current strife in Cote I?Ivoire where a breakdown in the reflexivity in normative discourse contributed to the ethnic strife that invaded the nation, barely a decade after the death of Le Vieux, Felix Houphoet-Boigny.

Understandably crucial to a nascent democracy such as Ghana?s is, above all other tenets thereof, a free forum for public discourse. The public sphere is very crucial to the very survival of the republic because it allows and promotes civic engagement by allowing citizens a forum to discuss and debate substantive issues. Within the confines of a free press and democratic populace, the ability to contribute to the national debate is almost a prerequisite of citizenship and as such a forum such as Ghanaweb is readily welcome.

I have come to fear the Say It Loud section of the Ghanaweb which developed an ethnic reductionism in its approach to public discourse. Reaction to every news article is peppered with misguided attacks on the newsmaker, the messenger or any other respondent?s ethnicity. Hardly a news article pass for comment without a participant insulting another, insults that have little to do with the issue at hand. This type of wanton volleying of insults across the internet creates three potentially nefarious and cautionary problems.

Firstly, insulting others in a discussion forum says a lot about the participant doing the insulting than the target of their boorish behavior. It reveals a lack of understanding of the issues and a notoriety that reveals that by the din of material access to the internet, they are de facto authorities whose contribution, however ill-conceived or unsolicited is welcomed by all, or must be consumed by all. The danger with this is that their participation not only trivializes the debate but serves to draw away others who may have more constructive contributions to make towards the public discourse. This ?tyranny of the minority? with access to more rapid internet connectivity tends to stifle civic engagement, an antithesis to the very democratic value we seem to be striving for. Some may argue that participation in the forum is exercising their free speech rights. A respectable presupposition indeed! However, free speech has its responsibilities as well and reducing the discourse to insults robs others of their free speech rights.

I recently participated in a global web meeting on urbanization and poverty with participants from across the world and was amazed at the intellectual as well as the substantive nature of the discourse, which included such leaders as Abdul Diof, Bono and numerous NGO?s in Sub-Saharan Africa. The level of discourse not only gave hope that the internet can be harnessed as a tool for transforming the socio-economic conditions of peoples across the world. I envisage Ghanaweb as a forum where similar hopeful conclusions would be drawn.

Secondly, participation in public discourse without much of anything of substance is at best undemocratic and at worst, unpatriotic and paralyzing the course of social progress. As stated earlier, the purpose of the forum is to help us all become more informed in our decision making. Though we all have our individual points of view, deliberations help us see things from other perspectives and this in itself is a good if in fact it helps us communicate with others effectively. If we are to contribute in constructive ways to the development of our world, then we must look to the internet as a medium through which we are able to harness both social and human capital towards that end rather than waste it on baseless blather.

Thirdly, and this is the most dangerous part, lack of discursive equality and inclusion can lead to disastrous ends. When few with rapid internet access are allowed to post offensive and inflammatory comments on the forum all the time, their access runs the risk of fomenting group hatred and we all know where that leads. Anyone who watched the atrocities in Rwanda, vividly captured in Raoul Peck?s flic ?Sometime in April? can see how the media, in this case the radio can be used as a divisive tool to wage war among people who otherwise do not see much difference among themselves.

The current tirade against Michael Essien when Ghana lost her bid for CAN2006 is evidence to this wanton internet misinformation and hate mongering.. Prior to the games, all discussions were favorable and encouraging but soon after the stunning defeat, all anger and frustration, though misguided, were leveled against Essien as though he alone can deliver the entire nation from what appears to be an overconfident, heavily reliant on past glory, somewhat corky, yet minimally prepared team. In all practicality, Essien alone could not have done anything to salvage a team that is not well gelled and ill prepared. That his citizenship and patriotism be questioned as a result of his injuries only goes to show the moral laxity on the part of those on the forum perpetrating such vicious attacks.

To make a splash in Germany, much the same as making the forum on Ghanaweb more constructive and engaging, Ghanaians must take seriously the words of their national anthem when the founding fathers implore them to ?fill our hearts with true humility? and make ?us cherish fearless honesty?.

With humility and honesty, Ghana can strive towards a more deliberative democracy that it hopes for, the social development that it longs for and finally the beloved community that it seeks to create.

Views expressed by the author(s) do not necessarily reflect those of GhanaHomePage.