In Ghana, ethnic violence taints Obama’s “model democracy”

Etse Sikanku & Delaena Kalevor

When a crisis breaks out in Ghana on the scale of what we’re witnessing in Bawku now, there are four things that happen: (a) accept the problem wholeheartedly and seek practical solutions; (b) deny that this is even a problem at all; (c) recognize that it is a problem but be sure to note it could be worse and lastly; (d) “play politics” with it.

There can be no denial that the Bawku crisis has become a major embarrassment to Ghana’s international reputation. This is yet another incident that should offer us an opportunity to re-think the current status of rule of law and human rights in Ghana before going to broadcast to the rest of the world that we’re Africa’s “beacon of democracy”.

We can argue that the violence in Bawku is ‘ioslated’ as Vice president Mahama asserted or that “stripping of some suspects naked publicly in Bawku is more acceptable than killing innocent citizens” as Upper East Regional Minister, Mr Mark Wayongo ridiculously argued. But to the extent that Bawku is still part of the Ghana—and it’s larger subscription to democratic standards— government must take more seriously the fight against ethnic violence since these events could only be a harbinger of things to come.

If only.

The underlying problem with politics in Ghana is that the de facto strategy for addressing a crisis of any kind is to approach it in a politically cynical or expedient manner. By this we mean everything that happens including our success at soccer games and the glaring violation of human rights must be sieved through the political prism. There are those who will ask, like someone did on an internet discussion board “I didn't see you asking the same question when Ya-Na and Mobilla were gruesomely murdered under NPP's so-called rule of law, so why make so much noise now?” In effect the substantive issue is ignored, while we dabble in a game of political horse trading. It’s a common strategy people adopt from the political playbook in Ghana: meet a question with a question.

While all this might pass for interesting debates in a political science seminar there is an even bigger worry. In many ways, the current attitude in Ghana is beginning to resemble a rampant ideological strain that was at the heart of Bush’s turbulent years at the White House: American exceptionalism. It’s one that holds that the “US is a more highly evolved democracy than anywhere else on earth”. Contextually, Ghanaian exceptionalism believes that our democracy is so far ahead of others in Africa, that none of the protracted civil wars in other parts of the continent is capable of rearing its head in our country.

It will be great if this was the case, but even the most optimistic Ghanaian knows such an assumption is nothing but preposterous. At some point we need to acknowledge that the crisis in Bawku is not just sectional or regional but national in scope. These are serious, even deadly issues, pertaining to human life and human rights; underestimating the problem will not make it better.

Is Sarah Palin's runner's shorts photo sexist?

Love her or hate her, the truth is that Sarah Palin has come to stay in American politics. My view on her is that she’s a charming candidate who clearly energizes the right wing section of the electorate. Yet when it comes to substance, she still has a lot to prove.

Despite all the talk about “sexism” in the media, Palin recently posed for a picture in runner's shorts which is now on Newsweek’s cover. Right now, I’m just confused as to why anyone will pose for a picture, approve of it and then turn round to cry “sexism”. I also don’t know how to feel about this because I cannot hide the fact that in my opinion Sarah Palin is a very attractive lady.

This is worrying because anytime I see her I’m not sure whether to concentrate on her looks or her politics. Anyway, that’s the picture right up there folks, what do you think?

CNN must act boldly: Martins, Smith are worthy replacements for Dobbs.

by Etse Sikanku

It’s pretty clear that CNN is going through some rough times. Now that Dobbs has left the network there is even less reason for conservatives of any kind to tune in.

If CNN is going to do well in this time slot they will have to recognize that just another hour of straight news will be downright boring. Yes, we all know that journalists are supposed to be transmitting information but journalism is also a privilege.The public service role of journalism will be incomplete if those in this position do not go beyond regurgitating “facts”.

Now I love John King because he’s my favorite kind of reporter (right up there with Ed Henry).However I doubt he’ll do anything to change the situation unless he alters his straight jacket reporter kind of presentation. Indeed if you consider CNN’s attempts at in-depth coverage, hard news and investigative reportage you’ve got to feel sad for their current position.

There’s got to be a reason why O’Reilly and Olbermann are doing better: partisanship and opinion journalism. CNN can tap into this model by appealing to the truly independent, non-partisan base. How? By finding someone who combines neutrality with the kind of forcefulness exhibited by Roland Martins, all mixed with a dose of Fareed Zakaria’s intellectual stimulation and Shepherd Smith’s on air presence. Is this so impossible? I know this sounds improbable, even mischievous and might NEVER happen but if it gets too hard they could take a chance on me, lol.

Anyway my point is this: there’s every indication that television viewers want more than straight news by the time it’s 7pm. Why not replace Lou with someone with a little more gravitas such as Martin or someone in the caliber of Zakaria. In fact CNN could be more daring by negotiating a toned Shepherd Smith from Fox since he’s one of the few personalities who’s loved by both the left and the right.

John King seems a safe choice plus everyone agrees he’s in love with that magic wall but he lacks star presence and will leave CNN playing defensively.

Lou Dobbs quits: gain or loss?

Etse Sikanku

Yesterday was one of those rare days I got to scout TV channels in order to catch up with the television world. Little did I know that my short glimpse of Lou Dobbs will be the last I’d see of him on that station.

Lou's departure from CNN is a great disappointment because the network has lost one of its most independent thinkers. I know the man has been heavily criticized for his so called anti-immigration stance and his coverage of Obama’s citizenship issue. In addition it's a bit embarrassing to see him almost gagging CNN reporters to agree with his viewpoints anytime they report on his show.

His opinionated show may be at out of step with CNN’s notion of journalistic objectivity but at least he’s got an opinion even if you disagree with it. Don’t you ever get frustrated with people who you know are on TV simply because of their looks and nothing else? You’ve got to admit that Dobbs at least is not pretentious, synthesizes information and formulates an educated opinion which he brings to the public square. Isn’t that what the American ideology of democracy—which they’re seeking to export to the world—is based on? I cannot help but wonder how they expect the rest of us to buy it when they don’t seem to be sold on the idea themselves?

There is nothing wrong with reporting the news as it is but even in journalism school you learn that “news is a socially created product, not a reflection of an objective reality” (Reese, 1996, p.21). Since this is not a class paper (and I should probably be writing one now to save my grades), I don’t want to get into theorization. In fact, I don’t think we need theorists to tell us that news reports are often influenced by a variety of factors other than the search for “truth”.

If this is the case, then CNN’s cancellation is defeatist. Secondly, people are always going to tag them with an ideological label anyway. Moreover their recent slump in ratings shows that television viewers should not always be perceived as passive. Yes, there are times when it pays to be neutral or pursue a “middle along the road” approach. But there are other times when viewers want to be engaged. And that is where people like Lou Dobbs come in. After all hasn’t it been noted that “the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality"? (Dante)

Instead of "throwing the baby out with the bath water" CNN should have re-structured Lou's show to permit his editorializing without allowing him to leave.

SODZI-TETTEY: Achieving the African Dream demands individual efforts

Dr. Sodzi Sodzi-Tettey

Here in Africa, how does one acknowledge glaring poverty and not yield to despair? How does one recognize amazing opportunities and yet not be enraged about their underutilization? How does one see Africa’s crippling disease burden and yet manage to notice the commitment of some professionals to make a difference?

It is possible if we focus on two things: what works and celebrating success. Anything else and the people best placed to address our common challenges are at once disabled. Unduly focusing on our tribulations would therefore be counterproductive. Those who have will testify how brooding interminably over the paradox of the African development morass have been left so overwhelmed by its sheer magnitude they hardly knew where to start the change process. That negative focus is at once disabling and disempowering. On the other hand, focusing on our strengths coupled with appreciating the majesty of Africa has been known to leave people energized, enabled and empowered by the little things that we can do now to improve our lot.

But of course, there are two obstacles. I see many young people crippled by the magnitude of what they want to achieve. Sadly, some also seem to underestimate the great work they are currently doing. You want to be Obama at once! What we want to do is so big. It intimidates us and we end up doing nothing. I have come to appreciate that what ever one wants to do is perhaps not as important as how well you want to do it. If you do whatever is allowed by your core competence and your passions well enough, you will have impact irrespective of how insignificant your exertions may initially appear.

Kenyan Dr. Wangari Maathai won the Noble Prize for something perhaps as ‘insignificant’ as tree planting. In her own words “It is the little things citizens do that’s what will make the difference; little things like planting trees.” So, what are today’s challenges and how can your leadership make that difference?

A couple of months ago, I was in Ghana’s Upper East Region-a place variously described as poor and deprived. In deed, in some preliminary work done by the UNDP, one District would score interesting marks on the three parameters that measure human development: life expectancy, education and living standard. With a life expectancy less than 60 years, with more children of school-going age outside school than in school, with almost 30% illiteracy rate, (an improvement on the 64% observed in 2000), with a doctor: patient ratio of 1: 31, 000, with “non existent” sanitation, with all rural dwellers having no access to pipe borne water and having to walk over thirty minutes before accessing public transport, the consultant reached the following conclusion.

“The level of deprivation in this District appears lower than the rest of the Upper East Region and to some extent the nation as a whole!” Makes you wonder what’s going on elsewhere.

But that is not all I saw. I also recall the difference that leadership could make. I saw health managers in the region recall with pride that severe human resource constraints notwithstanding, maternal mortality has steadily dropped from 40 in 2006 to 27 in 2008. I saw them fine tune home grown strategies for attracting more professionals into the area. I observed how far from being crippled by their daunting challenges, they seemed energized by the prospect of turning things around.

With the advent of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), out-patient attendance has increased by more than 100% and total admissions by 18% in the Upper East Region. Meanwhile, the numbers of professionals and facilities have largely stagnated. Soon the NHIS will start accrediting health facilities based on personnel and equipment availability. The criteria demands for example that a facility like the Bolgatanga Hospital currently with 4 Ghanaian doctors ought to have a minimum of 16 doctors.

But once again, leadership demonstrated to me why having the right attitude is far more important than focusing on your tribulations. They said “We cannot compromise on quality. Is it because those well equipped health centers in Accra deserved better than our people here?” In the end, despair gave way to hope.

And so with all due respect, forget about tribulations. People are confronting their challenges. Right attitude is vital which is why we must focus on three key areas: developing a national/continental sense of urgency, building a critical mass of change agents and strategic leadership.

In the bushes of Yua near the Burkina border, health officers maintain the potency of vaccines through solar-powered fridges even if they themselves have no radios. Health workers enthusiastically embrace a new test kit aimed at eliminating the presumptive treatment of malaria. A disease control officer rides his motorbike deep into the interior to collect sputum samples so that “Accra” can find out why the old man is still not responding to 6 months of anti-tuberculous treatment. In Kologo, midwives often have no option than to do home deliveries; terrible lighting, woman on a mat and midwife squatting. Very uncomfortable for everyone but the records will reflect they are making a difference in their communities.

These are the change agents that we speak so eloquently of and money is not always their motivation. Something definitely is working in many places as people focus on what they can do rather than throw up their hands in despair.

Dr. Sodzi Sodzi-Tettey writes for www.AfricanLiberty.org. He is a medical practitioner and health policy analyst.

SIKANKU: Why Obama’s Nobel is not such a bad thing

By: Etse Sikanku Published: October 11, 2009 9:14 PM CDT

It seems everyone except the Nobel Prize committee is upset that Obama won the Nobel Prize for Peace? Around the blogosphere, twittersphere, facebooksphere, and elsewhere in cyberspace, status updates/posts show folks are quite miffed that a man who many admit has altered the landscape of global politics is being given a pat on the back.

What is even surprising is that the normally reasonable New York Times and Time magazine have joined in drugging mud over what is supposed to be a noble achievement. Is it just me or are people just missing the larger picture?

Yes, I understand that he’s been in office for less than a year. The corollary for this argument is that, his nomination was done less than a month after his inauguration. Surely, only the supernatural could have achieved anything so “significant” so quickly. Yes there might not be anything tangible to point to but therein lies the point.

The value of Obama’s recognition lies in the intangibiles. To be specific, the palpable dawn of a much nuanced, less hawkish administration that believes not in domination but collaboration.

Indeed if the overriding goal of the Peace prize is the “promotion of peace” and “fraternity among nations” it’s hard to imagine that anyone would be nonplussed about this award. After all, most people anywhere will tell you that one of their greatest desires in life is a peaceful world.

To the extent that the stakes for nuclear proliferation are at its highest in contemporary times; that America is engaging rather than pontificating, Obama deserves the award because only heaven knows what even one more day of neo-conservatism could have brought the world to. That is why I find the cynicism from people like Gibbs (TIME) and surprisingly CNN’s Ed Henry very worrisome. (Most especially Henry because he’s my hero and I thought reporters were not supposed to interpret the news but that will be a matter for another day).

For those Americans who’re skeptical about anything “non-American” (clue: think John Bolton) including—gasp— the United Nations or the Nobel Peace Prize for that matter, I’d like to say that there’s nothing embarrassing or ridiculous about your president promoting global “efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". And for those who quip that this is an award for “aspiration rather than achievement” I’d like to say that sometimes preemption rather than reflection is the way to go.

Conservatives of all people should know this: after all it was preemption that took them to Iraq – “to preemptively neutralize the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of a rogue leader” (referring to Saddam Hussein) were Donald Rumsfeld’s words for justifying the invasion.

To be honest, I’m not a starry-eyed follower of Barack Obama but what the Nobel committee has done is to offer us the rare benefit of hindsight by encouraging global peace because as they taught us in elementary school, “a stitch in time saves nine”.

GAINES: African Americans need to take charge of their own future

By Iche Cica Gaines

While there are many things I admire about America there are more than a few that appear puzzling. One of them has to do with the fact that African Americans seem to infer racial connotations into every untoward thing that happens to them.

As a foreigner, these events have confirmed my own long shelved thoughts about race in America. That is, although one cannot underestimate the effects of America’s racial history, progress will continue to elude blacks who decide to overemphasize it.

Blacks, to be sure, have over the years been at the receiving end of egregious racial discriminations. Some still speak of “systemic racism” which they say continues to plague many minorities. It is a fact that African Americans who live in poverty are twice the number of their white counterparts.

But is all this enough reason for Negroes to totally chuck out on America? After all race relations in America has come a long way since the days of the civil rights movement.

What is surprising is that even with the establishment of historically black colleges, the Associated Press reports than less than a third of the men (37%) at these colleges graduate in six years. It is also true that there are more black men in American prisons than there are in Colleges.

In my acquaintance with some African Americans their deliberate resolution to exploit their predicament—whatever it may be—rather than rise above it can scarcely be ignored. I once met a guy who told me that as an African America he can break the rules because once apprehended he could always scream: ‘race”. Such an attitude is inimical to any form of progress.

The point is that black people cannot attribute every misfortune to racism. How does one expect any real personal development or great quality of life if they indulge in a thug life, “gangsterism”, incomprehensible idleness and an overdependence on certain careers such as the pop culture phenomenon?

Black Americans will do well to remember that the idea that we’re in a post-racial era is a total myth. But no one other than themselves is responsible for their own fate.