I read an article published online on the December 29, 2004 News page of www.ghanaweb.com on the above subject, by one Kwasi Prempeh (name inferred from email address of author ? kwasiprempeh2@yahoo.com) with great interest as one might imagine. At first glance, I thought the word ?language? was used metaphorically. However, upon reading the article, I realized that the author meant it literally. Ordinarily, I would not have responded to it, but further reading and certain conclusions drawn and suggestions made by the author deserve some form of measured reaction.

The author?s call for unity is commendable, and he identifies the lack of proaction by Ghana to identify its problems and finding solutions to them, as the cause of our inability to forge ahead as a nation; I agree with the author but only partly. Also, creating a better Ghana for generations yet to come should be the over-riding objective of all Ghanaians, in particular, those entrusted with the responsibility of running the affairs of state and I more than agree with him.

Certainly, there are strong arguments for having a common language, in any group, whether it is a group of two, an association, a club or for this particular subject matter a nation. Just think of the difficulty when trying to capture an idea orally or in writing, and the problems that do arise from a likely miscommunication of the wrong idea or conveying the wrong impression (as I dare say Mr. Prempeh?s article has done). In fact evidence exists that one of the major difficulties the United States is facing in Iraq is understanding some aspects of the Arabic being used by Iraqi insurgents. So if people speak the same language, metaphorically or literally, they are in a better position to be more productive negatively or positively. I agree.

However, to suggest a common language literally, for Ghana, (with a suggestion that Twi or a consolidation of several versions of Twi be used) is divisive and speaks to a widely speculative argument that an attempt at building some form of Asante Hegemony is in the offing. On what scientific basis does the author make the claim that over 60% of Ghanaians speak Twi? Further, what empirical evidence supports his view that children who study math and science in their native language understand the subject matter better than those who do not? I recall that prior to the 2000 Elections, one of the most common but secretly spoken catch-phrases of the Election (next to ?hwe wa setena mu na to aba pa?) was ?yee gye ye Oman?, meaning ?we are taking over our country? in Twi. To wit, Asantes were ?taking over their country?. Admittedly, not all Asantes subscribe to this idea and I have many Asante friends who have simply bulked at the suggestion at any time that Twi be adopted as a national language, for obvious reasons.

First, Ghana has many languages. The last time I wrote a detailed Paper on ?Regional Integration as a Development Policy Option for Africa?, I learnt that a major obstacle to integration at a national or continental level is the language barrier. At the time of study, there were over 3000 languages in Africa and counting, and Ghana has its own significant share in this number. However, stated positively, different languages make for diversity, and since Ghana is a country of many diverse tribes, should we not be promoting our diversity in a more positive light? Any attempts to foist one language over the other languages in Ghana have serious negative implications for the very unity which the author calls for.

Second, there are other reasons which account for the spectacular development of Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and India. In the case of the latter, you only need to understand that India was long a British Colony before Ghana and they remain one of the most learned people in the world. If the author has heard of Silicon Valley, then he should know that a significant percentage of people in the Information Technology industry around the world, but especially in the United States are Indians. In the case of Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore, although they are diverse, they are much less so than Ghana. In Ghana, the history of ethnicity in politics is deeper, broader and old. I hate to admit it, but ethnicity is an African thing and it is high time we started taking advantage of it in a positive way, instead of maligning it. For instance, many tribes have diverse cultures, rich in values and mores. Cultures do not develop at exactly the same time for the same reasons. Due to this developmental asymmetry, certain tribes may have values and solutions to issues that other tribes do not have; similarly, those tribes could be rich in other aspects of culture than the others. The objective here should be a fusion of the best from our diverse cultures and turn these perceived weaknesses into positions of strength. In fact, if you believe the United States of America is powerful, one major source of its power is its diversity ? America is an immigrant nation.

As a teacher in Accra Polytechnic a few years ago, I was concerned about the level of English among students, at least in the Department where I worked. Further investigation revealed that although quite a good number of students spoke and wrote good English, others had great difficulty speaking or writing good, simple English because one of the first words they said while arriving on campus everyday for classes was ?e te sen? (instead of ?how are you?) or ?teh teeh? (for Ga). To wit, they spoke more in local dialects than in English. In my own village, there are similar difficulties with the English Language. Of course the solution is not to speak more English and less local dialects; that is a simplistic approach to the problem. One way is to adapt children at the very early stage to ?thinking? (I mean this literally) in both languages. Often, we think ?local dialect first? and ?English second? when speaking, thus the temptation to translate verbatim is very strong. Unfortunately, I note that the author is similarly challenged.

Third, the external competitiveness factor begs for questioning the wisdom in Mr. Prempeh?s suggestion that Ghanaians adopt Twi as a common language. No country in the world today can exist all by itself. Due to this more convergent state of the world, there are interconnections which we must deal with and live by. For instance, Ghana operates in a global market; how are we to trade in or negotiate on, complex international trade, financial and legal matters when our languages or for that matter Twi, is still rudimentary, relative to English, and thus cannot match the structural complexities and versatility of English? I would suggest that for now, our Institute of Languages should intensify its study and development of all of Ghana?s languages; no language in Ghana should be left out. It is an enormous task and requires an enormous amount of resources, but since we want to develop and take pride in our national heritage, we should spare no penny in that enterprise.

The internal competitiveness factor also reveals that there are many, more pressing problems competing with each other for Ghana?s meagre resources, and an expense of this nature (of not sparing any pennies) is counterproductive at this point in our nation?s history. Add the fact that our Government officials are busy junketing around the world, building bathrooms and placing beds in their offices, instead of working for the national good, there are bigger fishes to fry.

Fourth, why should a Ga, Ewe, Dagomba or Gonja child have to learn Twi to be able to get educated? Why not the Asantes learning the other languages? How many Asantes (in significant numbers) speak the other languages of Ghana? For effect, I was reading through the Constitution of Ghana the other day and was surprised at the significant amount of bad English contained therein; just imagine what the situation will be like writing such a document in one of our local languages. If Mr. Prempeh is so anti-foreign, he should closely examine himself and his surroundings; I dare say he will find many things foreign ? a wristwatch perhaps, a toothbrush, a computer (since he can send articles online), etc. etc. etc. He might do well to undo this ?foreign domination? by first relinquishing all things foreign and then return to his native articles ? say a car for a donkey, and see how far that gets him. Clearly, Mr. Prempeh seems to think that a common language and development have a cause-effect relationship (See ?And I can't understand why our politicians much educated as they are, have refused to recognise this simple logic all along??. Line 22 of Prempeh?s article). Alas, life is not a straight line graph.

On line 44, the Mr. Prempeh believes that a simplified Twi and a dictionary are enough to start his ?common language? project, and goes further to state that having contracted Microsoft (a foreign English-speaking American company) to create a Twi version of the Windows Operating System, people ??the world over?? will use ?Twi-Windows?. Is Mr. Prempeh not proposing to do what he is at pains trying to undo for Ghana? We want freedom from foreign languages but simultaneously, we want to make other languages subservient to ours? On line 49, the author boasts that Ghana?s adoption of a common language will be a trailblazer for Africa ? wrong. Swahili was long ago pioneered in Kenya. On line 50 of his piece, Mr. Prempeh suddenly takes on the fight for the right of children to free education. What has the subject matter (common language) got to do with children?s right to education? In my view, education whether in Twi, Chinese or English is a right and it does not take a common language to see that.

Finally, I make this point ?tongue-in-cheek? ? I note with sadness the apparently poor level of English with which Mr. Prempeh communicated his opinion. Then again this might just be the case of the ?Devil?s Printer?, and we all are not perfect even in our native tongues; or perhaps this all the more justifies why he makes such an argument for using Twi or some local language as the official language of instruction. However, simply because he is doing badly at English does not mean that we should bend the rules to suit him? Ghana is significantly polarized as we write ? the Dagbon crisis and similar chieftaincy disputes scattered all over the country are testimonies to this polarization; the widening gap between the poor and the rich; the abuse of power and lack of respect for the rule of law speak volumes to this fragmentation. These are enormous challenges for our leaders and Ghanaians as a whole, and rather than burden them with such a spurious article as Mr. Prempeh writes, let us get our national priorities right, and a common language is not a priority at this point.

Note:

Below are citations of orthographic problems noted in Mr. Prempeh?s article. As regards syntax and grammar, the least said about them, the better. See, the solution does not lie in speaking a local language but rather, it lies in learning, speaking and writing English properly, and doing the same with our local languages. That should put a lot more linguistic resources at our disposal.

1. Line 2 ??? maturity and professionality?? for ?maturity and professionalism?.

2. Line 11 ? ??Malasia? instead of ?Malaysia?.

3. Line 15 ? ??persue?? for ?pursue?.

4. Line 24 ? ??niversities?? for ?universities?.

5. Line 25? ??Twi language??, instead of just ?Twi?. Twi is a language; ?Twi language? is tautological.

6. Line 26 ???considerd?? for ?considered?.

7. Line 28 ?30 The ?it? at the end of the sentence is just begging to be dropped since the sentence pretty much speaks clearly to what the ?it? is about ? ?handing over of [foreign] cultures to our universities by the colonialists?.

8. Line 32 ???economics?? for ?economists?.

9. Line 33 ???engioneers?? for ?engineers?.

10. Line 34 ???contry?? for ?country?.

11. Line 35 ???resorces to move a contry?? for ?resources to move a country?.

12. Line 36 ???aback??, means ?surprised? and must be used in conjunction with ?taken?; ?aback? does not mean ?set back? or ?retrogress?.

13. Line 45 ???easly?? for ?easily?.

14. Line 50 ???compursory?? for ?compulsory?.

15. Line 54 ???ireponsibilities?? for ?irresponsibilities?; I am not sure there is a plural of ?irresponsibility?.