By: Nana Akwah

I have a healthy disdain for hypocrisy. That is exactly the response I sought to portray. Despite the fact that many of the traits of Kofi Adams and his ilk are despicable when it come to the use of words, most of these traits mentioned have far worse consequences. However, if he did use the word ‘disdain or disdainful’ I feel and think hypocrisy is appropriate.

?wpid-wpid-kofiadams.jpg

To make evident, imagine that Adams was saying hate is awful but was actually a very hateful person himself, whilst Kweku lacked empathy, Kwadwo was dishonest and Kwame was very deliberately cruel. If you actually knew these people it would probably leave a nasty taste in your mouth that these people were criticizing the very things that characterized them.

The statement paragraph issued by the PPP states, “The party’s suggestion is based on the belief that it is not a proper and efficient use of presidential time to be visiting churches for thanksgiving service for a single event that happened more than two months ago. The president has already visited four churches. The president cannot possibly visit all religious groups and denominations to thank God Almighty for his victory,” a quote from second paragraph of PPP?s statement.

Nothing from the statement suggests or points to anything “disdain or disdainful”. However, in Kofi Adams quest to resort to the usual political rhetoric and propaganda, he finds a way to shield the President.

In a statement, the NDC described the tone and tenure of the PPP statement as throwing a certain “disdain” for religious worship. Any open-minded person will readily realize that rather people like Kofi Adams whose actions have disdainful connotations.

The NDC statement signed by the Deputy General Secretary, Mr Kofi Adams, said, ?As a committed Christian and a key advocate for religious tolerance, President Mahama values regular fellowship with people of all religious persuasions.? Quoted!? Why Mr. Adams? The statement of the PPP never advocated religious intolerance. The NDC have a penchant of ascribing to people the very act it is complicit of.

The word “disdain” perfectly sums up the recurring attitudes which underlie so much of what the rich and powerful do. It explains things perfectly. The word disdain represents an attitude of utter disregard, disrespect and even contempt for others, arising from a firm belief in ones’ own superiority. This is clearly, obviously, how the rich and powerful of this world feel about the vast majority of ordinary people whose lives they dominate.

To say the least, political thuggery has always been the most common form of disdain employed by political office seekers. When political votes are sought after, to the politician it is useful to declare that their political opponent are hopelessly incompetent and primitive, ignorant, untrustworthy, violent, and otherwise completely incapable of managing the country. In this way, the contending party can cast itself as the tough but compassionate benefactor.

They can even say that by taking over or voted into office, they are doing the masses a favor, even as they impose brutal and oppressive governance on them. Many that are involved believe in the entrenchment and expansion of political empires whilst been true practitioners or believers, i.e. they really believed that people of other political inclinations were truly inferior, and as a result did not deserve to be treated with any respect or even morality.

It is well documented in Ghana that, such ethnocentric attitudes were considered to be true and supported by social science in our contemporary politics. To cut a long story short, just ask any well-meaning citizen and you will marvel at the response.

This certainly comes in handy when it is necessary to drum up support for yet another political election-war. Throughout our history, leaders of our country consistently used tribal superiority and anti-tribal sentiment as the rationale for many violent, ruthless and immoral persecution and attacks on those who stood in their way and it has been how this country was built.

The reasonable purpose of political election-war as I glean from our past has always been the increase in intensity of power, cronyism and sycophancy, access to markets, and control of resources, all on behalf of one’s own political ambition and persuasion. This is no secret. The part not so apparent is that government’s only meaningful function is mainly to support a rich and powerful class of people in their efforts to endlessly expand their personal wealth and power. Still, even that is not really a secret.

All the disdain that has engulfed the country could be traced to the formative period of country. In the early 50s and 60s, something unusual happened in the country: the rich and powerful of CPP and Opposition turned their disdain on the Ghanaian people en masse. The rationale for this was provided indirectly by Kwame Nkrumah, who at the time was just becoming legendary as the father of his political psychology. His theories on the unconscious mind of the masses were incredibly influential on the development of new ideas about the African personality and human nature.

But it was his Information and Broadcasting Minister, Tawia Adamafio, who pulled it all together, put a bow on it and gave it to the rich and powerful. Adamafio, before his involvement with CPP had been a civil servant and militant opponent of the CPP and wrote also for “The Daily Echo”, under the caption ‘Jotting’s by the Wayside’ an opposition newspaper source. Tawia Adamafio described the CPP as the party of ‘fooling and thieving’.

A lawyer by profession and a General Secretary of CPP, propaganda became his bed-fellow, but he became successful by re-branding his job the ?Dawn Broadcast.” And he was also paying close attention to the work of his mentor Nkrumah. He saw, in the theories of Nkrumah and his followers, justification for the use of the most deceptive, unethical tactics, imaginable in pursuit of a public relations mission. He had an idea about the big picture that was surely music to the ears of the emerging educated youth that believed in Nkrumaism: that it was actually necessary and beneficial to the population at large to secretly manipulate them in order to fulfill the interests of the rich and powerful, who knew better what was best for society.

Kwame Nkrumah, likewise Adamafio vision was of a utopian society in which the dangerous libidinal energies that exist unsuspected just below the surface of every individual could be harnessed and channeled by the corporate elite for economic benefit. Through the use of mass production, big state enterprise could fulfill constant craving of the inherently irrational and desire driven masses, at the same time securing the operation of a mass production economy as well as sating the dangerous animal urges that threatened to rend society apart if left uncontrolled.

At this time in the early 60s, the big businesses were entering a new era of modern industry that was capable of mass production on a huge scale. But the public at large wasn’t quite ready to go along with mass consumption of more and unnecessary things. Nkrumah and the CPP gave the corporations a rationale they could use to justify using methods that were secret, manipulative, exploitative, unethical and harmful, to condition the Ghanaian public to become mass consumers. The era which ushered in the concept of “Work and Happiness”

This brings us back to that attitude of disdain. Adamafio’s fundamental rationale was that the average person was incapable of making responsible decisions for himself. The idea, based on Nkrumah, that people were driven by unconscious desires, led to the belief that people in general were actually dangerous if left to their own devices. They must be conditioned into predictable, controllable behavior, for the sake of the whole society.

The issues I have with most dye-in-the-wool followers of Nkrumah’s brand of politics are not mawkish in expression but revolve on the paradoxical nature of the entity Nkrumah. Did Nkrumah really believe this? Hard to say, all the same he was certainly good at promoting himself as an expert on the subject.

He published numerous books. Here is a quote from his 1965 book, I Speak of Freedom:

“When Africa becomes economically free and politically united, the monopolists will come face to face with their own working class in their own countries, and a new struggle will arise within which the liquidation and collapse of imperialism will be complete.”

In referencing from his ideological concepts and also if we did understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits.

Another quote from his book, “Consciencism” published in 1965, states:

“We have seen that for purposes of true development, a liberated territory must embrace philosophical consciencism in its materialist aspect, philosophical consciencism preserves a humanist egalitarianism. The philosophical materialism which forms a part of consciencism accommodates dialectic, and holds it to be the efficient cause of all change. In order that development may not be gibbous, philosophical consciencism insists that account must be taken of the material conditions of the territory involved, as account must also be taken of the experience and consciousness of the people whose redemption is sought. A people can only be redeemed by lifting themselves up, as it were, by the strings of their boots. In these circumstances development must be socialist. It is only a socialist scheme of development which can ensure that a society is redeemed, that the general welfare is honestly pursued, that autonomy rests with the society as a whole and not in part, that the experience and consciousness of the people are not ravaged and raped. It is only a socialist scheme of development that can meet the passionate objectivity of philosophical consciencism.” Did he really believe in theory?

Adamafio was not alone. There was also the Kwame Nkrumah Ideological Institute another early master of PR which was shameless about using lies and deceit on behalf of his wealthy corporate clients. And there was ‘The Evening News’ a propaganda journal and political newspaper which also promoted the idea that it was impossible for ordinary people to act effectively on their own, and thus they must be guided by unseen elites.

But to sum it up best Propagandist over the years believes that the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

There is also the need to recognize that we are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as an efficiently functioning society. As a result in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who obliviously think that they understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the strings which control the public mind.

Our woes began with the advent of nationhood, accompanied with political services and philosophies to the wealthiest and most powerful people in business and government, for politics essentially gave them the tools necessary to achieve the most stunning of accomplishments, with the establishment of a legitimate financial oligarchy, right under the people’s nose. What I have notice repeated today is a direct result of Nkrumah obstinate and uncompromising demeanor or deportment: we in Ghana live in an implausible skeleton that looks like a democratic system, but it is nothing more than an outward show, created and kept in place through application of the same neo-colonialism principles Nkrumah sought to espouse.

It seems evident from all this that besides his publicly available works, there must be manuals and instruction manuals for manipulation and conditioning of the public mind, based on Nkrumahs’ concepts. It seems they are reserved and secretively distributed and secretly made used by the rich and powerful elites, in the shadows, on the masses for whom they feel nothing but disdain.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.