A day never passes without Ghanaians being reminded of the need to take a critical look at dealing with the problem of intolerance that has continually plagued the nation, and indeed, the rest of Africa, and thwarted our efforts at socio-economic advancement.
The problem of intolerance is manifested daily and at different levels, but it is particularly intractable at the level of ethnic relations. In recent times there have been numerous calls from eminent Ghanaians reflecting all segments of the social strata reminding us to unite and reconcile with one another in order to protect the peace and security the nation presently enjoys.
The pleadings have been progressive, but I think in order to be effective in addressing the problem of ethnocentric driven intolerance, one must understand why it exists in the first place. It is when the problem is properly put in context and understood that we can come up with appropriate remedies to safeguard and promote the nation's unity aspirations.
Intolerance is an 'evil" that every society must of necessity confront because of the diversity associated with pluralism and modernization. In every modern society, there is an organizational problem that can be identified as the conflict between ‘adaptation’ and ‘integration’. While ‘adaptation’ refers to the attempts that ethnic groups make to organize themselves and act in a manner to optimize their individual and group’s interests, ‘integration’ refers to the fact that whatever adjustments groups make must accommodate the interests of others, who like themselves, are also using their resources to adapt as well as they can.
It is at the point where the particularistic need for ‘adaptation’ clashes with the collective need for ‘integration’ that mutual suspicion, prejudices and intolerance rear their ugly heads. Examples of the manifestation of this problem exist in arenas such as the acquisition of land, the distribution of political and public appointments, and distribution of development projects, among others.
It is generally agreed or taken for granted that even though Ghana is composed of heterogeneous groups of people, there is one common ‘destiny’ or ‘aspiration’ that unites the nation. In the process we have de-emphasized the fact that each of the ethnic groups that constitute the entity called Ghana, has some distinctive and paramount interest(s) that must be recognized and protected, and thus pre-empt the festering of ethnocentricism and its consequential outgrowth of prejudices and intolerance. So, and sometimes, out of sheer political expediency, we have tended to over-simplify or gloss over the problem with some fallacies: that an active promotion and encouragement of ethnic diversity will necessarily interfere with national goals of unity; and also that there already exists enough harmony and tolerance among the various ethnic groups in the nation, and thus there is no need for official government intervention. We have also tended to dismiss the legitimate agitation of some ethnic groups as mere whining.
Bernard Levin, a British Journalist, once wrote in The Pendulum Years, "in every age of transition men are never so firmly bound to one way of life as when they are about to abandon it, so that fanaticism and intolerance reach their most intense forms just before tolerance and mutual acceptance come to be the natural order of things” (Chpt 4, 1970). Africa is replete with experiences where fanaticism and intolerance did not only reach ‘intense levels’ but actually caused serious and irreversible destruction to life and property before some semblance of peace was brokered.
I think the time has come for us to act formally and comprehensively to deal with the problem of ethnocentricism and intolerance. For a start, we can, for example, borrow a leaf from the experience of Canada which beginning from early 1970s acted decisively in an attempt to deal with the problem associated with cultural diversity and intolerance. In 1972, the then Prime Minister of Canada, the late Pierre Trudeau, in pronouncing a policy of multiculturalism as a national response for the reconstruction of the Canadian society noted: “There cannot be one cultural policy for Canadians of British or French origins, another for the originals, and yet a third for all others. For although there are two official languages, there is no official culture. Nor does one cultural group takes precedence over another… We are free to be ourselves. But this cannot be left to chance.. it is the policy of this government to eliminate such danger and to safeguard this freedom” (Berry, Kalin and Taylor, Multiculturalism in Canada, 1977).
This pronouncement by Pierre Trudeau heralded the birth of Canadian policy of multiculturalism, which as an ideology refers to a normative statement of ‘what ought to be’. The policy prescribes a course of action consistent with the principles of cultural pluralism and modeled after the virtues of freedom, tolerance, and respect for individual differences. Multiculturalism is predicated on the assumptions that: a) ethnic cultures constitute living and lived-in realities that impart meaning and security to adherents; b) cultural differences are a reflection of the Canadian experience, and a source of strength and enrichment; c) encouraging diversity is not incompatible with national goals; and d) encouraging ethno-cultural affiliations does not imply an element of lack of patriotism.
The Canadian policy of multiculturalism has thus been consciously promoted to achieve a variety of social, economic and political objectives, among them are: a) to encourage peaceful ethnic relations and inter-cultural exchanges; b) to eliminate discrimination and promote national unity; c) to reduce the social and economic disadvantages of small ethnic groups; d) to assist ethnic groups in the preservation of their culture and identities; and e) to educate the public regarding the merits of cultural diversity.
I propose that we critically examine the Canadian experience and what has been done elsewhere, and come out with a policy incorporating the key elements that would engender the proper environment for discourse to take place on the nature of ethnic relations in Ghana. The elements could include a legislative instrument which will officially proclaim the adoption of some form of a policy of multiculturalism, and thus provide a legal framework for the implementation of the policy. There could also be an institutional structure to handle all cases relating to ethnic relations in Ghana. The mandate of the institution could include education (research, training and outreach); legal - investigating and acting on complaints of matters of ethnic or tribal in nature; policy development - developing policies for government departments and institutions that are consistent with the goals of the policy of multiculturalism; and cultural - actively promote cross-ethnic programmes, and act to preserve the cultural heritage of all ethnic groups in Ghana.
To conclude, I want to reiterate that it is important that we begin to address the problem of intolerance relating to ethnic relations in Ghana. We should not leave things to chance by sitting unconcerned when recent developments appear to be pushing upwards the ethnocentric temperature at an alarming rate. We should not wait until the evil that has bedeviled many societies in Africa threaten our stability, peace, freedom and security.
*The writer is an educationist and former Member of Parliament for Birim North Constituency
