Doctor: People tend to run, get diarrhoea.

And

If you take too much sugar?

Doctor: You put a lot of work on your pancreas. You are punishing your pancreas, you may get diabetics.

These days pepper and sugar connote more than just taste. It has found a place in Ghanaian gender discursive formation.  The recent momentum in the feminist activism gained national attention when a group of young women calling themselves PepperDem Ministry stormed social media and lately on radio and television with sharp, cutting, and radical approach for gender equality and identity. One of their aims is to flip traditional gendered roles and narratives. This they do by “pouring pepper” on toxic narratives that in their view perpetuate female subjugation.

But the high-flying activism suffered a set back, so many think when a patron suggested cooking may amount to slavery. It has been canvassed, the comment may have been taking out of context.

With this labour was birthed a new group-SugarDem Ministry, the opposite of Pepper Dem. Convinced that the activism of Pepper will cause disharmony at home and in the society, this movement believes equality must be subjected to nature and biology. Their modus operandi is to “sugar” men to get what they want.They intend to pour sugar on these narratives instead of pepper.

This feminism casting in the Ghanaian media landscape appears like a reenactment of the gender struggle in the 70s and 80s between Feminists (radical feminists properly so called) and  Womanists.

Feminism, on the one hand, refers to issues based activism interested in destroying the patriarchal system of power that divides society on the basis of traditional gender roles. It often considers men as enemies of women.

Eliminating male control and superiority entitlement is the only way to bring about equality and identity. For instance, why should a female carry the name of the father or husband, male entitlement over a female body, why must cooking be the preserve of women, why should male counterparts earn more than females. There are other forms of narratives that despise unmarried women/single women or women without children. The nuances in some of the narratives can be so subtle that it can easily be glossed over.

For example, it is always the woman who is tagged as a prostitute or husband snatcher if seen in the company of a man who is not her husband. Many feminists do not subscribe to religious doctrines and teachings. For instance, many see the Bible as one instrument used to perpetuate female subjugation for centuries.

Womanism, on the other hand, is a social framework that separates itself from feminism, celebrates womanhood and aims at achieving and maintaining an inclusive culture in all societies. Womanism recognizes nature and biology as dictating the gender roles of men and women. Womanists are usually religious. For Christians or Moslems, they believe in the principle that the man is the head, the woman must submit to the man. Their creed reads in part;

“We love men. We like being women. We love children. We like being mothers. We value life. We have faith in God and the Bible. We want families and harmonious relationships. We are not at war with our men seeking money, power and influence through confrontation”.

In the 1960s and 1970s these two groups did have a go at each other. At a point, the inter-group antagonism lent credence to the old adage that women are their own enemies. But this was the nuance; the feminists were mostly elite white women and the womanists were mostly black women who faced oppression and discrimination at work compared to their white female colleagues.

They have rejected the treatment of black men as subordinates to white women. Despite the duel, the success or benefits that came by way of recognition of women rights and right to identity like the right to vote, equal pay, right to carry your own name among others have been shared by all. Sometimes I wonder if women opposed to a more radical feminism activism would want to decline such benefits!

On Ghana’s social media landscape, this struggle appears to have re-enacted itself. This time there are no white women but black women who subscribe to the ideals of feminism (PepperDem) as against black women whose idles and approach matches that of Womanists or at best Liberal Feminists ( SugarDem). There are still black men but the solidarity is with the men who have been sprayed with PEPPER.

The perception of many is that  PepperDem is creating enmity between men and women, breeding women to be arrogant and controlling in the home, getting women to abandon their  “call role and here the presumption is inclusive of cooking and taking care of the man as the head of the home.

For the sugarDems, there’s too much pepper. Instead of pepper women should “sugar” their men to get what they want. They accept the man has a special place at home and society as the head. There are certain roles only men can perform and that order must be respected and complimented by the woman. They see PepperDem as the over otherness of the female other.

However, PepperDem may say, until there is enough pepper, “the oppressor” meaning the MAN is unwilling to simply let go the ego/superiority mentality.

Truth be told rarely have I ate a food that has both Pepper and Sugar, its either you want to pepper it or you want to add sugar.

But like my doctor advised, there are consequences for too much of each of them.

–

The author, Sammy Darko, is a Journalist, lawyer, and lecturer at UPSA.

The post Too much peppering, too much sugaring: Dilemma of feminist activism [Article] appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

But this is only a part of the story. In the book “Global Policing Research and Practice” it is noted that, the rise of such groups may be part of the package of transition from post-conflict and post-authoritarian rule to democracy and free market systems.

The authors argue this led to engendered: “shrinking state”; privatization and associated economic dislocation; insecurity and inequality; increasing civic activism including community self-policing; decentralisation and local governance.

The proposition supra also fails to understand that in Africa, people prefer to resolve disputes, disagreements internally rather than invite a “foreign entity.” So that even if the police were efficient, there is less patronage of their services.

The use of vigilante groups/private security personnel in Ghana’s election perhaps is first borne out of mistrust for state institutions particularly the security services and the Electoral Commission, to ensure credible elections, and secondly the perception that candidates and leading figures of parties are potential targets. This is akin to the “wirempefo” in Akan culture whose job it was to keep the stool from being taking by a usurper (Rattray, Ashanti law, p.86).

Heavily built young men have since the “competitive” multi party race been recruited and/or constituted themselves into groups directly and or affiliated to the leading political parties.

Funding many times are done covertly and/or overtly by the politicians and or functionaries/sponsors who invest heavily into elections. So in Ghana, there exist several of such groups.

Vigilante groups became more pronounced under the 4th Republic. In the past, political parties and movements hired violent men from the “zongos” to foment trouble and cause confusion.

But now Ghana has more formalised groupings. During the pre-independence era, it was inspired by tension between the left wing and the right wing.

A Centre for Democratic Development (CDD) report, catalogues a number of them; Azorka Boys, Bolga Bull Dogs, Invincible Forces, Bamba Boys and the Kandahar Boys. Other groups identified included Aluta Boys, Nima Boys, Salifu Eleven, Zongo Caucus, Veranda Boys, Supreme, Mahama Boys, Delta Force, Badariba, Basuka Boys and Bindiriba.

Security experts like Dr. Kwesi Aning with extensive research on such groups have longed noted the potential problem the nation faces.
A CDD survey of Ghanaians in 2016 revealed that, nearly 7 out of every 10 respondents who claimed awareness of these groups associated them with the NDC, while 18% linked them to the NPP.

However, irrespective of the presumed party affiliation of these private militias, a clear majority of Ghanaians (63%) regarded their operations and activities as a threat to democracy, and risk to the country.

The threat such groups pose are both overt and latent. The presence of such groups shares parallel forces with the security services in providing security for people and property.

In Ivory Coast, formation of vigilante groups started as a response to frightening crime rates.

People began hiring security guards popularly known as “hunters” for protection.These groups with time worked alongside mainstream security services. The groups soon provided protection also for politicians and the ballot. A vigilante group resisted Robert Guei’s attempt to rig the elections and perpetuate himself in power.

John M. Kabia, Program Officer for West Africa at the Fund for Global Human Rights, noted in his book that, most of the vigilante groups have been implicated in massive human rights abuses across the continent.

In Sierra Leone, such groups terrorised anyone suspected of allying with, or sympathetic to, their opponents. What may account for the mess created by vigilante groups across Africa could be the friction that develops between them and the security agencies, and two, the inability of many countries to control, manage or re integrate such groups after politicians have “used them” for political capital in elections.

In Ghana, vigilante groups have been formed mainly out of mistrust for the political process.

The two leading parties have had cause to overtly and covertly fund the activities of such gangs across the country as it were, to protect them and the ballot. The NPP ahead of the 2016 presidential and Parliamentary elections invited professionals to train their “men” in combat and defence operation.

The party stated it did not trust the state to fully protect its flagbearer now President of Ghana, Nana Akufo Addo. Sometimes it is justified if a stone can be thrown at the opposition leader at a rally ground without any attempt to find the culprit.

Anyone with insight into the workings of the security agencies and its architecture as specified by Ghanaian laws especially the Police administration, will know why it is so difficult to trust them.-They are just not independent.

Ghana’s present circumstances, cannot, and will not suffice or even qualify for the horrendous activities of vigilante groups from West African countries that have had to deal with such groups.

In many jurisdictions, they challenge the state, transform into violent groups, drive away investors and create insecurity. However, it may be a tipping point.

The signs are clearly on the wall. This must serve as a warning sign about the potential of such groups to wreak havoc and torment the political climate with the least disturbance.

The solution may well be within the purview of the two main political parties; the ruling NPP and the opposition NDC.

These parties are known to have sponsored, supported, encouraged and funded these vigilante groups associated with their parties. It is only them and they alone can disband these groups not the state. The state power extends to crimes and/ or potential criminal activities these groups may be involved in.

The constitution under article 21 guarantees freedom of association and such groups, however, they may be called, could come under such umbrella. Are private security guards permitted under the laws of Ghana? The Private Security Organisations Regulations provides for such services. What is required is a monitoring of their activities to ensure compliance.

For instance, the regulation prohibits possession of any fire arm or ammunition in the course of their duties. One quick solution is perhaps to revoke the regulation. The tipping point for the opposition NDC was the violent activities perpetuated by its “Azorka boys” after the 2008 elections.

The party was able to find jobs for some of them in the security services including the Police, Fire Service, and Prison Service. Others were just hangers-on at national security, whilst majority simply branded themselves as party foot soldiers.

They went about seizing everything from management of toilet facilities to collecting of road tolls. It was not entirely a disaster, but many over the years acted unprofessional and advanced their appointers’ vision rather than the national vision.

It is not a good path to continue. Only professionals and qualified persons must be employed in the security services.

In Ghana, the disturbances by vigilante groups continue to be a menace because every regime has failed to deal with it. A new government means a vigilante group rising to make demands, and that of the old government going underground.

But the nation is violently pregnable. And the activities of these groups could birth it during and after elections.

I suggest that Ghana must take a second look at its domineering executive system. The executive wields so much power that it can symbolically turn “a man into a woman.” It is recommended that the winner takes all system must be replaced. The other side is starved practically and it accounts for the tension to regain power and use every means to win or maintain stay in power. Ghana must go back to the Westminster system.

The state must further introduce the “Secret Service” akin to that of the United States. The security service is made up of people who are committed to the course of an administration and the party. When such administration loses election, all members of the service continue to be with them and are paid by the state.

In a system like that, such persons in these vigilante groups will be trained to protect officials of the administration in and out of power. The state will bear their pay. This will free the security agencies like Police and BNI from non-professionals who gain employment on the basis of support for party x or y.

It is also suggested that these MEN could be screened to identify their talents and potentials first.

In the era of aggressive campaign by media and civil society to end illegal mining (Galamsey), one suggestion could be to form a new taskforce with some of these men to go round the mining areas and report such activities to the security services for action.

This is a contentious one, but it’s better to put them to good use than allow them to visit their hunger and anger on innocent people.
–
By: Sammy Darko/[email protected]

The Writer is a Law student, Lecturer, Media Professional and Peace and Security graduate.

The post Vigilante groups in Ghana; a necessary evil [Article] appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The debate has largely been whether it should be free for all or that government must employ “targeting”, meaning only those who can’t genuinely pay for secondary education must be sponsored.

“By free SHS, we mean that in addition to tuition which is already free, there will be no admission fee, no library fee, no science centre fee, no computer lab fee, no examination fee, and no utility fee; there will be free text books, free boarding and free meals, and day students will get a meal at school for free,” President Akufo-Addo said.

Just before that debate settles, Senior Minister Osafo-Maafo has hinted that the government may want to finance the free education policy with a portion of Ghana’ oil revenue being kept for future generation. So, who are the future generation?

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines future generation as the average span of time between the birth of parents and their children, so roughly we are looking at 30 years.

Ghana passed the Petroleum Revenue Management Act, 2011 (Act 815) into law in 2011. Literally speaking, those who qualify as the future generation will be any person born immediately after the bill was passed into law up to say 2041.

This is logic. But what does the law say?

Section 10 (2) of Act 815 provides;

“The object the Ghana Heritage Fund is to;

(a) Provide an endowment to support the development for future generations when the petroleum reserves have depleted; and

(b) Receive excess petroleum revenue.”

Now, section 10 (4), may interest you. It provides that;

“Despite section 20, Parliament may by a resolution supported by the votes of a majority of members of Parliament at intervals of fifteen years from the date of commencement of this Act, review the restriction on transfers from the Ghana Heritage Fund and authorise a transfer of a portion of the accrued interest on the Ghana Heritage Fund into any other fund established by or under this Act”.

Section 20 then states that;

“Within one year after petroleum reserves are depleted, the monies held in both the Ghana Stabilization Fund and Ghana Heritage Fund shall be consolidated into a single Fund to be known as the Ghana Petroleum Wealth Fund after which the Ghana Stabilization Fund and the Ghana Heritage Fund shall cease to exist”.

From the law, it is clear that the framers intended the heritage fund to operationalize ONLY after depletion of the petroleum reserves-more like an annuity.
How long will Ghana’s oil reserves last? 30 years? 40 years?

The then presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party-NPP and now President, Nana Akufo-Addo, on Thursday 3rd February, 2011, made the following statement in reaction to suggestions by the then ruling NDC to collateralise the oil revenue.

He said; “Ninth, the party supports the establishment of a Heritage Fund as proposed in the bill and encourages Parliament to provide the necessary precautions to ensure that its value is not eroded over time. It is important to remind ourselves that the principle underpinning the creation of a Heritage Fund is to provide for future generations whereas the principle of collateralisation is to “make hay while the sun shines” or “to have your lunch and dinner at breakfast”.

The two concepts are diametrically opposed. We believe that whatever resource we have as a nation should be sustainably utilised to allow future generations also to benefit.”

President Akufo-Addo succinctly laid down the underlying principle behind the Heritage Fund which is to allow future generation to benefit.

But, three years after the law came into operation, some Ghanaians thought that, it was an unwise decision to set funds aside for persons yet unborn-when the current generation who will “produce” the future are suffering.

The lead proponent was the General Secretary of the opposition NDC, Johnson Asiedu Nketia.

A Citi FM news portal in May 2014 read “Let’s ‘chop’ Heritage Fund now – Gen Mosquito”.

Mr. Asiedu Nketia suggested that the government can ease the economic plight of Ghanaians if it begins utilizing the fund.

“In this current situation that we find ourselves in, it doesn’t make economic sense to be keeping any money called Heritage Funds,” he explained.

He was sharply criticised for daring to suggest this. May be legitimately so. The fear the funds could be misappropriated was suggested by president of IMANI, Frankline Cudjoe.

A Facebook post of Mr. Cudjoe read “Actually, I agree with the NDC general secretary on the suggestion that we use our heritage oil fund to fix infrastructure gaps, something IMANI advised government to do 4 years ago, but will I trust the government to use the heritage fund prudently? Not in the face of how flagrantly it has abused the other oil receipts,” he pointed out.

Although some NPP members did disagree with Mr. Asiedu Nketia, the literature by some heavy weights in parliament suggested the contrary.

The current Minister for Planning for instance, was of the opinion that Ghana should not have established the heritage fund all together-“when you have a deficit in development…you don’t go and put some money, stash it in an account somewhere… and bureaucrats actually feed on that money. And when 30 years down the road, you go and then tell your grandson or your children that I have some money sitting in some account for you. Then they will ask you; ‘are you stupid?’ And you didn’t use that money to build the roads for us, you didn’t educate us…”

He went further to accuse the NDC of a cut and paste law which had “fallen flat on their face”.

He was of the view that changing the law which had not stood the test of time was unwise, as “its utility is destroyed from the word go”, he noted.

Another stalwart, Dr. Anthony Akoto Osei, now Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation, in 2014, also spoke against the state turning its attention to the Heritage Fund.
He suggested, the government should rather deal with corruption and will have enough money at its disposal.

Today, these two ministers must be in cabinet. It’s interesting to know what they make of the suggestion to turn to the Heritage Fund. It is even more interesting to know what President Akufo Addo makes of his stance in 2011.

When Asiedu Nketia first raised this issue, the sense was about whether we trust government to make judicious use of the funds in building infrastructure and fixing the economy, however small it is!

Do we still think that way now?

Do we think that funding education instead of say build roads is a more prudent way to use the fund?

The now, the future debate reminds me of Ghana’s pre- independence struggle- a clash of slogans – the CPP’s radical “Self-government now!” against the UGCC’s conservative “Self-government within the shortest possible time.”

In the end, the NOW won.

Ironically, the decendants of J.B. Danquah, who now champion NOW, and that of Kwame Nkrumah, who wants the future.
–
By: Sammy Darko/Ghana

The writer is a Media Professional, Lecturer, Consultant and an educatee (Law), a former BBC Correspondent to Ghana.

Visit: www.sammydarko.com

The post On Free SHS and Heritage Fund; who are the future generation? [Article] appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Five years down the line, I am hearing that same voice from the past. This time by the National Chairman of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).

Kofi Portuphy on Thursday 15th of December in a media briefing charged members of the party to retaliate and defend themselves if they are attacked by supposed supporters of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), (citifmonline.com).

When Nana Addo made his Man-up comment, he was not in power. He was not in charge of the cohesive machinery of the state. He made the statement off the cuff-at a rally.

The NDC is in power, at least till the 7th of January. It is in power and the Mahama administration is still in charge. This changes the dynamics. One has the best opportunity to direct, charge and command the security forces to clamp down on post-election violence.

Mr. Portuphy’s comments were greeted with loud applause from party executives at the news conference.

This suggests to me the comment “defend yourselves” is a party position. It means the leadership deliberated and accepted it- this is unacceptable.

As much as it is painful to lose an election, you do not also lose your integrity. With the benefit of hindsight, one would have expected Mr. Portuphy to show leadership, whiles emphasizing the role the security agencies play in times like this.

If this statement was coming from a party hack, that could have been excused since hacks are known for a certain degree of recklessness. Rather, the chairman has stepped into that role. Now who can the “neutrals” turn- to for the discipline to be ensured?

A call for self-defence on party supporters, no matter the circumstances has never been a politically wise statement.

Whilst at it, I think it is an opportune time to say to the security services – CAN YOU MAN UP!!!

The last time I checked, there have been no elections in the security services.

Consistently, the security services particularly the Police administration has displayed weak leadership when it comes to political violence. That will be a topic for another article.
–
By: Sammy Darko; a former BBC correspondent for Ghana, Peace and Security analyst, a Lecturer at UPSA and a final year student at the Ghana school of law, Makola.
Email: [email protected]

The post The Umbrella leaks; Portuphy’s call to violence unacceptable [Article] appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Many have questioned my fixation as an African on the US elections, after all I am not a citizen of US. But here is why it matters to me. Aside having some family members who are bona fide citizens of America, as a student of world politics, the US presidential election serves as one of the best spring boards to explain, how the spiral of silence theory works in reality.

Originally proposed by German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann in 1974, Spiral of silence is the term meant to refer to the tendency of people to remain silent when they feel that their views are in opposition to the majority view on a subject.

Let’s refer to recent history-I will cite same examples used to explain how the world is moving towards protectionist world order differently.

BREXIT (2016)-the pundits pronounced it dead on arrival. But as we later learnt, the majority of those who voted were actually in favour.
Still in UK, again, pundits in 2015 predicted a difficult election for former Prime Minister David Cameron. But as it turned out, Mr. Cameron won the election with an outright majority after Labour was virtually wiped out by the SNP in Scotland and the Liberal Democrat vote collapsed.

President Obama’s second term bid was said to be too close to call. The election was widely expected to be a nail-biter. But, in the days and weeks, after you heard that Obama got 51.1 per cent of the popular vote to Mitt Romney’s 47.2 per cent.

And now, pundits are still trying to explain how Mr.Trump managed to beat the “system”. The establishment gave him no chance, but he had the support of the “silent majority” apparently.

People were so afraid to associate with the name TRUMP openly. They had been cowed, pressured, and suppressed by popular voices in the American media corporation. He was and still is seen by SOME as weird, uncensored, and radical. It was said he had no policy, small budget, no message and no ground campaign structure- but as it turned out, he was speaking the language of the silent majority-they were too frightened to openly support him.

So the strong majority showed the world and the Democrats, on election Day that they are indeed TRUMP.

So, how does the spiral of silence kick-in back here in Ghana?

In a deeply polarised political environment, many may be unwilling to make their voices known or heard either in mainstream media or on social media for fear of backlash from patrons of the two main parties, the ruling National Democratic Congress, and largest opposition New Patriotic Party.

Here’s why:

The politics of patronage dictates that you are either with us or against us. There is no middle ground. Many fear it will be difficult to get a job for instance or some kind of assistance if you do not belong.

Fear of victimization. In a system which gives so much power to the executive, there is the tendency your business, job or network can be disrupted or collapsed if you show open or naked opposition to those in power.

We live in a society where if you belong to the Ewe ethnic group, you are presumed to be affiliated to NDC. On the flip side, Asantes also have an automatic affiliation with NPP.

Trying to belong comes with a lot of convincing due to a multitude of suspicion.

Media ownership and lack of regulation has ensured that many media houses are now controlled by politicians and their surrogates. Such platforms are used in many occasions to propagate one sided messages leaving out popular masses.

Poverty and illiteracy prevent majority of the populace from contributing to mainstream media and social media platforms which in the lead up to elections have been hijacked by various interests. The constant fake websites, fake apps and fake stories are given expression which may be far from reality.

Although chapter five of the 1992 constitution guarantees fundamental human rights-freedom of speech/expression, freedom of thought, conscience and belief, freedom of assembly, all of which ultimately rest with the individual.

Some choose not to invoke or exercise such rights either deliberately or out of fear, oppression and anxiety. These persons may hardly comment or write a post on political campaigns and other happenings on Facebook or twitter or call in to a radio or tv programme. But do not be mistaken, they do monitor, listen and do have opinion on those very matters. They have only decided not to talk.

The common mantra in local language which literally translates, “I don’t want trouble” and “it’s not part of my worry” contribute to the breeding of the “silent majority” who surfaces almost every four years to have their say through the power of the thumb.

The only variable which may make this concept constant is a free, fair and credible election.

By: Sammy Darko

The writer is a Media Professional, Lecturer, Consultant and an educatee (Law).

visit: www.sammydarko.com

The post Sammy Darko writes : The silent majority; spiral of silence in motion appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.