Duncan Williams Told No Spiritual Power Can Stop the Depreciation of the Ghanaian Cedi

Duncan Williams

By Dr. Michael J.K. Bokor

Folks, let's be blunt upfront to say that the extent to which the so-called Men-of-God in Ghana are carrying their obsession with "spirituality" is more than annoying.

All over the country, they are up on their feet, delivering "prosperity messages" and hiding behind them to exploit their gullible followers; giving useless prophecies (such as the one by Owusu-Bempah that President Mahama would die last year. Or that Akufo-Addo was to win the 2012 elections hands-down short of which there would be disaster in Ghana); doing partisan politics under the guise of religion and fanning the flame of ethnicity and division in the country; and many more.

Their activities are troubling. Now, they seem to have seen beyond such perspectives to wrap everything around dangerous speculation.

The free fall of the Cedi has now become the focus of their "religious fervour"; and they really annoy me beyond bounds.

I daresay right-away that no amount of "all night prayers" or invocation of any spirit (be it God as configured in the diverse imaginations of those subscribing to it as a supernatural force or the Supreme Deity with a creative, punitive, destructive, or redemptive power or any other) can solve problems that have nothing to do with spirituality.

I have said it several times already that physical problems are solved physically and spiritual problems, spiritually. Thus, if anybody attempts doing otherwise, he/she comes across as either spiritually blind or physically incapacitated.

The depreciation of the Ghanaian currency (Cedi) is the result of many shortsighted measures and rampant misuse of resources or the failure of those through whose hands the Cedi passes or those in authority expected to enunciate workable policies to control its ebb and flow.

We have already expressed concern that there is too much laxity in the system that has negatively affected the Cedi. What is expected is for the government to enforce measures to stabilize the situation. Some measures have already been announced; but they can't solve the problem unless productivity is boosted and fiscal discipline enforced.

Against this background, I find it to be extremely provocative for a Ghanaian Church leader to assume airs and begin blowing issues out of all reasonable proportions to create the impression that the fate of the Cedi is shaped and determined by the Christian God.

Archbishop Nicholas Duncan-Williams has spiritually “commanded” the falling Cedi to “rise”.

 Leading his followers, in Church today (Sunday), to pray for the recovery of the fast depreciating local currency, the Presiding Bishop and General Overseer of the Christian Action Faith Ministries (CAFM) headquartered in the national capital, Accra, said: “…I hold up the Cedi with prayer and I command the Cedi to recover and I declare the Cedi will not fall; it will not fall any further. I command the Cedi to climb. I command the resurrection of the Cedi. I command and release a miracle for the economy”.

“In the name of Jesus, say Satan take your hands off the President; take your hands off the Central Bank and the Finance Minister. Say we release innovation for the President, my God, the Governor of the Bank of Ghana, Central Bank, in the name of Jesus Christ the son of God, the Finance Minister. Say we command new ideas, breakthroughs and a miracle for the economy. Let the Cedi rise in Jesus name”, he led in prayer.

Archbishop Duncan-Williams also led his church to pray for President John Mahama, Finance Minister Seth Tekper and Central Bank Governor Dr. Henry Kofi Wampah, for divine help and guidance to salvage the Cedi.

(Source: http://www.myjoyonline.com/business/2014/February-2nd/duncan-williams-spiritually-commands-the-cedi-to-rise.php)

MY COMMENTS

This Duncan Williams is no stranger to controversy. He is on record for having taunted his congregants that none of them could buy anything for him to wear because he always wore expensive clothes.

He is the only Man-of-God known to me to have divorced his wife (against all entreaties) to re-marry (an African-American woman)!

He is known for his flamboyance and what he says may resonate with those who think like him but not me. The eye of the needle is not part of his work!!

He has complained about money not flowing and urged the government to do all it can to change the situation—to increase the quantum of tithes and offertory given his church, I suppose, so he can continue to live in opulence. He has given me much to help me know him all the more.

But for him to begin doing the unimaginable as has been reported concerning his "invocation of God to make the Ghanaian Cedi stop falling", I can't help but say that he is on the cusp of something indescribable.

Of course, prayers can be said and answers to pleas forthcoming; but in my many years on this earth, I have never expected that a Man-of-God will go this way to create the impression that the falling rate of the Cedi is spiritually determined.

This move by Duncan Williams only goes to reinforce my poor impressions of characters like him who are so opportunistic as to think that they can capitalize on just anything happening in Ghana to advance their cause.

One of them also said the other day when the death of Komla Dumor was announced that more Ghanaian journalists would die this year. Until Komla's death, he had no such prophecy to give us.

These characters are really registering and confirming their notoriety and should be known for the quacks that they are. I have said it and will continue to say that the descent into "spirituality" by Ghanaians all over the country is a major drawback to national development.

Ex-President Atta Mills tried it at the highest level only to be taken away without achieving anything concrete for which that approach to solving national problems should be upheld. It's all a confirmation of misplaced priorities and lazy thinking in high places to solve physical problems.

God is not in the habit of coming down from the heavens to help us solve our existential problems. Once he has endowed us with the faculty (the capacity to think and plan how to live our lives), it is left to us to use our heads!! No prayers will solve problems that have nothing to do with prayers. How come that some Ghanaians are so lazy upstairs? Disgraceful.

Editorial

 If the claims of Bishop Duncan-Williams are true, then we cannot waste any more time.

The people of Ghana have to conscript the Bishop into becoming their President for life.

This is a man who claims that he can shout a few words in frenzy and presto within the twinkle of an eye the value of the cedi will appreciate.

 If his claim is true, then he can do many other wonderful things. He can pray to heal all the sick people in Ghana and then we can close all our health facilities and save huge sums of money.

 The Bishop can also pray for water to flow into all Ghanaian homes and for the uninterrupted supply of electricity.

 The food problem in Ghana can be solved one touch with a very loud prayer from Bishop Duncan Williams.

This Bishop will most certainly be a much better President than John Dramani Mahama, Nana Akufo-Addo, Samia Nkrumah and Kwesi Nduom.

What a huge joke!

Ghanaians Are Being Misled About The Plant Breeders’ Bill!

Alban Bagbin, Chiarman of committee on breeders Bill

The Plant Breeders’ Bill currently at the Consideration Stage before our Parliament is all about the imposition of genetically modified organisms into our food chain without any form of public awareness and participation in that decision. Far from simply dealing with the rights of the plant breeder, the Bill is designed in such a way as to pre-empt the eventualities of government regulations such as those calling for the labelling of GM foods, or the banning some of them for the sake of the environment or the health of Ghanaians.

This is what Clause 23 of the Plant Breeders’ Bill is about:

Clause 23: Measures regulating commerce.

“A plant breeder right shall be independent of any measure taken by the Republic to regulate within Ghana the production, certification and marketing of material of a variety or the importation or exportation of the material.”

The Bill seeks to pre-emptively knock out of order, any attempt by the government to control “the production, certification and marketing of material of a variety or the importation or exportation of the material.” And the “material of a variety” in question is described in Clause 20 (6) of the Bill as follows:

Clause 20 (6):

“(6) An essentially derived variety may be obtained for example by the selection of a

(a) natural mutant or induced mutant,

(b) somaclonal variant, or

(c) variant individual from a plant of the initial variety, back crossing or transformation by genetic engineering.”

For more on the specifics of the bill see: Plant Breeders’ Bill Protects GMOs | Food Sovereignty Ghana http://foodsovereigntyghana.org/plant-breeders-bill-protects-gmos/

Food Sovereignty Ghana is horrified by the mind-boggling attempts by people in responsible positions of public trust who are supposed to know better, to mislead the Ghanaian public and our law-makers that the Plant Breeders’ Bill has nothing to do with GMOs! The Bill has GMOs in the crossed hairs. The objective is to disable the ability of Ghanaians to legally challenge anything relating to the GMO imposition.

The Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Mrs. Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong, who ought to know better than this, has been a source of this misleading propaganda to divorce the Plant Breeders’ Bill from GMOs. She is on record to have challenged the FSG linkage of the PBB with GMOs at our meeting with the Parliamentary sub-committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.

It is obvious that there is an orchestrated attempt not only to mislead Parliament into voting for the Bill, but also to throw dust into the eyes of the Ghanaian public about the real intent and import of the Bill vis-à-vis the enabling of the plant breeder to introduce GMOs into our food chain without any public awareness and participation in that decision.

As the debate regarding the linkage between the PBB and GMOs raged on, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) through Deputy Minister at MOFA in-charge of Crops, Dr Yakubu Alhassan, joined the fray to publicly deny pushing a legalisation in support of the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the country.

“It has, therefore, described as untrue, recent discussions by some institutions, civil society organisations (CSOs) and individuals that the Plant Breeders Bill, currently before Parliament, was meant to give legal backing to the production and consumption of GMOs in the country”. See: No plans to introduce GMOs into Ghana – Agric Ministry

Also, on December, 19, 2013, the Director-General of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Dr Abdulai Baba Salifu, was reported by the Ghana News Agency to have even organised a press conference to claim that “The Plant Breeder’s Right Bill before parliament, is to protect crop variety breeders and has nothing to do with Genetically Modified (GM) foods as been speculated.” See: Breeders’ bill has nothing to do with GMOs – CSIR http://www.ghananewsagency.org/science/breeders-bill-has-nothing-to-do-with-gmos-csir–68771

It would have been bad enough as it is, even if it could be argued that these people in responsible positions such as the Attorney-General, Director-General of CSIR, and the Deputy Minister for Food and Agriculture in charge of crops, made these these wild claims simply because they have not even bothered to read the Bill for themselves before pronouncing on an issue they have no idea of.

What is even alarming is the fact that these people continued to peddle their lies even after being publicly corrected by Prof. Walter Sando Alhassan during the FSG meeting with the Parliamentary sub-committee on Constitutional, Legal, and Parliamentary Affairs on December 4, 2014. They continued to stubbornly peddle these lies even after this! There seems to be a discernible determination on their part to use plain lies and deceit to push the Plant Breeders’ Bill into law.

Considering the far-reaching implications of this Bill on our sovereignty as a people, our health, as well as the sanity of our environment, the behaviour of these public officials goes beyond gross dereliction of duty to a betrayal of public trust and criminal negligence. It is a sad commentary on the entire Mahama Administration that these officials are still in post, and not under investigation for possible conflicts of interest. Monsanto is notorious for bribing their way in several countries. And such blatant lies from people in responsible positions must give cause for concern.

The very fact that the Plant Breeders’ Bill has gone through First and Second Reading without expunging the obnoxious clauses from it speaks volumes of the vulnerability of our branches of government to undue external influences inimical to Ghana. The Bill is being rushed to comply with the World Trade Organisation’s WTO, Trade and Related Intellectual Property Rights, TRIPS-rules without proper scrutiny. Ghana does not have to make the plant breeder’s right over and above the laws of Ghana in order to be in compliance.

The level and quality of the debates on the floor of Parliament over the Bill betrays a lack of information critical in taking these far-reaching decisions. For instance, most Parliamentarians are even unaware that the Bill before them is asking them to evacuate their sacred responsibility to diligently protect the health and safety of Ghanaians. Fewer still even know that the Bill has anything to do with GMOs. And those who did know and tried to speak up, were told publicly, and without any challenge, as trying “to confuse issues of botany with intellectual property”! See: page 483 of the Hansard, Plant Breeders’ Bill, 2013, Second Reading, 8th November, 2013.

It is under an atmosphere such as this that we call upon Parliament to defer debate on the Bill and begin to initiate a process of public consultations regarding the introduction of GMOs into our food chain. FSG feels very relieved that several civil society groups, workers’ unions, religious bodies, as well as political figures and heads of stake-holder public institutions have come out openly calling for a careful look, further public awareness and consultations, before proceeding. We particularly welcome the counsel by the Catholic Bishops Conference to the Parliament to “make haste slowly” with the Plant Breeders’ Bill. Meanwhile, our goods are getting rotten in the farms, our farmers have no security of tenure, our roads are poor and there are a thousand of things the government can do to ensure food security. There is no reason to rush with the Plant Breeders’ Bill.

For Life, the Environment, and Social Justice!

Ali-Masmadi Jehu-Appiah,

Chairperson, FSG

PACIFISM AND THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF VIOLENCE

(A Rejoinder to Nyeya Yen’s Article ‘Why I have become a Pacifist’)

Nyenya Yen Speaking at a Forum

By Lang T. K. A. Nubuor

 

Background to the Discourse

This discourse traces its origin to Nyeya Yenmaligu Yen’s publication of his article Why I have become a Pacificist on his Facebook (FB) wall. A few comments were offered by others on the wall expressing appreciation of that article. We rather felt that readers did not seem to be aware of the historical dangers in the pacifist stand that Nyeya Yen sought to propagate under the banner of the liberalistic assertion of participation in the revolutionary struggle being a matter of choice and hence not a necessity imposed on the revolutionary. Thus, in turn, we offered a negating comment that essentially contested the idea of a revolutionary basing his switch from the revolutionary stance to pacifism on what Yen called ‘disappointments’ with the current situation in Africa whereby the wars of liberation left behind them new elites of middle class self-seekers. We felt that he was not being steadfast as a revolutionary. We had intended ours to be a brief and a once-for-all comment. 

Yen’s reaction to this, however, did not address the issue of pacifism, which remains the main focus, but rather found succour in a diversionary defence of his Left credentials in a recount of his past record in engagements to create democratic space for the Left. This had the ignoble effect of diverting attention from the issue at stake – pacifism – to efforts at passing judgements on Yen’s personal historical record. One person fell for it. This conscious effort to escape discourse on the petty-bourgeois pastime of pacifism and its reactionary as well as suicidal impact on the continual generational revolutionary struggles of African and other people require that we go on to detail the exact negativity of pacifism and the betraying essence of a pacifist in their historical and conceptual dimensions – especially since the article has been republished in the January 17, 2014 edition of Ghana’s respected Left newspaper The Insight. In this respect, we observe not just the age-old condemnations of pacifism in concept and practice by all the greatest revolutionaries the working people of the world ever had the fortune of learning from – Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Fanon, Nkrumah, Cabral, Fidel, Ché, etc. – but also the negative impact of pacifists like the renegade Karl Kautsky.   

Dr. Kwame Nkrumah’s Class Struggle in Africa and Handbook of Revolutionary Warfare were neither written by mistake nor by choice born out of petty-bourgeois liberalism but necessitated by a scientific study of the African reality of neo-colonialism that centrally includes a study of middle class and petty-bourgeois opportunism. To abandon the ongoing revolutionary struggle in favour of pacifism on the pretext of being disappointed with the neo-colonial middle classes’ betrayal of the African Revolution does not just exhibit pretence at feigning ignorance of the true nature of neo-colonialism and the revolutionary struggles against it but a veritable exercise to justify one’s ignoble lack of steadfastness in the face of obstacles. 

How could a revolutionary place faith in Africa’s middle classes to consummate the African Revolution in the interests of the working people and then cry ‘Disappointment! Disappointment!’ upon performance in an opposite direction? That is, how could those who are to be overthrown expected to overthrow themselves? That is where Nyeya Yenmaligu Yen, who refers to others as ‘soft left’, turns into a renegade of a pacifist. We elaborate on this in this piece.

Preliminary Discourse

Although the word ‘pacifism’ is acknowledged by any encyclopaedia to have been coined by the Frenchman, Emile Arnaud, in the 19^th century, its practice has been traced to the ancient times. The Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Encyclopedia of Marxism both define the word in its absolute rejection of war and violence.  Its successful application as national pacifism in modern times is credited to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jnr., who were not concerned with replacement of the capitalist system of their days but with the realignment of human relations within that system. No type of pacifism – be it individual or group or national pacifism – advocates any form of replacement of social systems.

Since the breakdown of the only classless society that human society has ever witnessed – the communal or primitive communist society – the arrangement of all institutions of society has been based on evolved classes and the struggles between and among them. Regarding the institutions of defence and violence the existing dominant class exercises a monopoly over them. The presentation of such institutions as general organs of society masks their being monopolized by the dominant class. Established to pacify rebellious dominated classes, these institutions nevertheless regularize life within the monopolizing class itself. Hence, they affect a semblance of independence from all classes and sections of the latter.

The need for immediate protection against small scale rebellions at the local level, be it the residence or farm or factory, occasions a democratization of violence within the dominant class whereby individuals therein are allowed the possession of weapons of violence under licence. The spelt-out conditions for such possessions purposefully eliminate the mass of the dominated classes from weapon acquisition and possession. This orchestrates a regime of dictatorship of the dominant class over all other classes such that where active disagreement emerges between the two opposing parties after dialogue appears to be of no avail the language of the force of weapons is employed to enforce the opinion of the dominant class. 

This necessary arrangement of society compels the rise of an antithetic system of violence by which sections of the dominated classes organize themselves through civil movements and organizations to resist the existing class dictatorship. Weapons of violence are initially acquired through acts of disarming isolated personnel in state service. These seizures constitute the primary base not only for the augmentation of the weapons stock but most importantly for the set up of an armed force to serve the dominated classes in their struggle for liberation against the dictatorship of the dominant class.  The extent to which dominated classes numerically participate in the armed struggle determines the future of the new force.

Within the colonial situation in Africa, the emergence of anti-colonial armed liberation units of political movements reflected the fact of their being movements. As such, combinations of elements from a variety of dominated class forces assumed leadership roles. Undoubtedly, the most advanced tendency within these combinations, dedicated to working people’s interests – the Marxist tendency – was numerically negligible although they constituted the pioneering leadership. Overwhelmed by the post-colonial situation where a preponderance of the general leadership had the limited aim of just assuming the role of the erstwhile rulers the essential Marxist revolutionary leadership was either crowded out or variously killed off.

The current political scene in Africa, therefore, exhibits a panorama of African middle class forces in leadership the quickest attainment of whose limited goals of self-seeking positions them as pliant tools of neo-colonialism. This necessitates a continuation of the liberation struggle under the conditions of neo-colonialism directed at uprooting the institutions that define and condition continued African servitude. In tandem with this effort, revolutionaries are called upon not only to raise the level in the creation and proliferation of a huge critical mass of professional revolutionaries but even more importantly exploit all existing limited democratic possibilities to build people’s institutions to eventually replace this system.

This is the pointed task of the African revolutionary of today. It is not the duty of the African revolutionary to sadly look at the abysmal situation created by the new middle classes in collaboration with the forces of imperialism and neo-colonialism and exclaim by way of the petty-bourgeois ejaculation: ‘I am disappointed! I am disappointed! The liberation struggle has brought us only deaths! I am now a pacifist!’ Our brand new pacifist has quietly ignored the fact that – as Zaya Yeebo humbly submitted at the inauguration of a Community Defence Committee at Korle Gonno in 1982 – with his peasant origins he would now be pounding fufu in Kumasi but for the fee-free education up to university that liberation made available to us. 

Understanding Yen

In declaring himself a brand new pacifist, Nyeya Yen does not define what he means by that; that is, who a pacifist is. In his initial article Why I have become a Pacifist, the idea one gets of a pacifist is one of a person being in absolute rejection of war and violence. But in one of his subsequent reactions to comments on the article on Facebook he explains that ‘When I talk about violence I mean the meaningless violence across Africa today.’ He adds that ‘I dream of the day that we will not wake up to see people tearing and killing each other with no respite in sight.’ Combined, these mean that in specifically renouncing ‘meaningless violence’, Yen endorses ‘meaningful violence’. What kind of pacifism is he advocating then?

In defining pacifism, the Encyclopaedia Britannica states it as ‘the opposition to war and violence as a means of settling disputes. Pacifism may entail the belief that the waging of war by a state and the participation in war by an individual are absolutely wrong, under any circumstances.’ On its part, the Encyclopedia of Marxism puts it this way: ‘Pacifism is the absolute rejection of the use of violence on moral grounds. Some pacifists will sanction the use of personal violence in some circumstances, but in general it is absolute.’ The emphasis in these two definitions is on the absolute rejection of war and violence in the pacifist’s attitude toward the resolution of societal conflicts. 

This same understanding is conveyed by the Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia in these terms: ‘Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism), rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, the obliteration of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace, and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defence of self and others.’ Brian Orend states that ‘War, for the pacifist, is always wrong.’

In spite of the explicit rejection of war and violence in the absolute, we sense, all the same, a certain low-keyed allowance for the use of violence or force to achieve peace. In this latter respect, we are tempted to equate Yen’s implicit ‘meaningful violence’ with this ‘low-keyed violence’ if we are to respect his pacifist context. That is to say that we can understand Yen’s ‘meaningful violence’ only within the context of the absolute rejection of war and violence by which a certain application of violence is meaningful only when directed at attainment of peace. If we understand, however, that peace in its essence asserts the thaw in the existing balance of class forces and its maintenance then pacifism upholds that status quo. 

A thaw in the balance of forces at any given moment suggests a moment when social forces, in their perpetual struggles, achieve a temporary state of cessation of hostilities and appear to live in harmony with each other. It is this state of affairs that pacifists absolutize as the true state of peace and seek to hold together over time in perpetuity. Certainly, only those whose bests interests are served by the current balance and those with great hopes of assuming positions among the dominating forces in the balance who see and long for the sustenance of that peace. For those dominated forces in the balance, the injustice they suffer within the current balance propels them into a state of anxiety for “real peace” wherein they be free. 

Initial statements in Yen’s article hold that ‘Nothing is static’. This must mean to us that even a particular state of peace is subject to change. ‘There is nothing constant. Things are evolving and changing all the times (sic)’, he adds. He then asserts that ‘That is how society has evolved and developed over the centuries.’ From this perspective, it might appear quite contradictory, even to Yen, that a particular state of peace could be sustained in perpetuity over time. But this is the essence of the pacifist’s position – a permanent state of affairs. In case one should suggest that the pacifist embraces change but only by way of peaceful means, we should be quick to point out that such a change occurs within the status quo. 

This intra-systemic change is understandably what Yen calls ‘quantitative’ change. It might question specific situations within the system with the view to assuring its efficiency but not in rejection of it and calling for its replacement. A pacifist does not go beyond the existing system. It is in this light that Alan Woods, in his article Seven Years after 9/11 , says that ‘Pacifism is an expression of impotence and a deception of the masses’. This is understood to be so inasmuch as it constricts the masses within the system in which they are dominated and exploited amidst peace overtures when their freedom lies in breaking loose from that system. This is where Yen proceeds with ‘qualitative’ change.

He explains in this respect that ‘Changes throughout history have often been very violent. In human development it has often been so. It is what has made society to develop. The old giving place to the new.’ Yen goes on to explain why such qualitative changes – from the old system to the new – involve violence: ‘The old will never give up power on a silver platter. That is why there is resistance. This leads to violence. What has become new today has come out through struggle. The painful birth prangs (sic) comes (sic) with change.’ We can hence understand that resistance to change begets violence. Such violence represents birth pangs which, though painful, are necessary in the delivery process of the new.

In these initial assertions, Yen does not just give us a historical perspective of the process of change in its quantitative and qualitative dimensions but also tells us what to expect: the old will never give up power and this implies resistance that leads to violence. His use of past, present and future tenses is significant. It provides these conclusions: Past – throughout history development from one system to the other was, on principle, by violent changes; Present – today’s reality comes out of violent struggle; Future – since the old will never give up power voluntarily resistance leading to violence, reflecting birth pangs, will follow for a change of the system. This is Yen’s philosophy of history even if not sharply articulated.

The Tension

How does Yen’s pacifism reflect his philosophy of history as gleaned from his article in the exercise above? We observe a gbeyecious tension. We are provided a correct dynamic Marxist philosophy of history as the theoretical framework of a static pacifism.  Possibility of such a construct would normally be a fact in science fiction. Fortunately, social science is a serious endeavour specially concerned with the consistent application of systems of thought to a mass of facts in a logical flow. The conception of a static phenomenon subsisting in a dynamic system immediately suggests the death of the phenomenon. For, whatever is dynamic has all that is within it also being dynamic, subject to change. The static is the dead.

Yen’s pacifism is achieved not by demonstration of it in its consistence with the philosophy of history initially outlined but by an independent assertion. He does this in the following way: after outlining the philosophy of history he provides instances of how African liberation movements succeeded in ending colonialism but were subsequently hijacked by the African middle classes to serve their personal interests and thus leaving the masses of the people in continued poverty; then on the basis of his stated disappointment with this turn of events he proceeds to renounce violence and declare himself a brand new pacifist. It is not violence that disappoints him but the hijacking. All the same he takes a stand against violence!

At the risk of sounding repetitious we are anxious to explain that Yen needs to base his stand against violence on a critique of it but not on his disappointment with the hijacking. A critique of violence within the context of his philosophy of history and developing pacifism on the basis of that critique within that same philosophy might be consistent in the practice of social science. As it is, Yen does not have problems with meaningful violence as implied in his text and as applied by the liberation movements but with meaningless violence which is not what revolutionaries are concerned with. His problem has to do with hijacking of the power won through the revolutionary violence of the liberation movement. 

That he asserts his pacifism on the basis of the hijacking of the positive fruit of violence but not on a critique of that violence shows that he is operating outside his philosophy of history which should therefore not have been brought into the discourse at all. As it is, his being disappointed with the hijacking should not lead him into renouncing revolutionary violence through the backdoor of asserting pacifism but that should rather be the basis for outlining a study of such hijacking and how it is to be combated. This, we think, can only be achieved through the democratization of violence within the mass movement before, during and after the revolutionary struggle to replace the existing socio-economic power system.

Democratization of Violence

In our current circumstances, there exists a democratization of violence within the dominant class only. Handling of weapons of violence is the preserve of members of the dominant class whereby conditions for possession of deadly weapons restrict such possession not only to the regular armed forces of the bourgeois neo-colonial state but also to members of that class who might require them. Regulations on who are allowed to possess weapons and on conscious dispossession of the masses of the people are strictly observed and enforced. This affords the dominant class a monopoly over weapons. Breaking that monopoly would mean the popularization of power for the authentic exercise of People’s Power.

Founded on the concept of ‘power to the people’, the popularization of power involves the democratization of violence as expressed in the right of the masses to be armed to ensure that the will of the people is always enforced in the same manner that the democratization of violence within the dominant class currently ensures that the will of the minority dominant class prevails at all times. With the evolution and establishment of People’s Power based on the democratization of violence, even a hierarchical structure is controlled from below, not the top. Any exhibition of a tendency to exercise power from above against the people’s will would then be crushed with the proportionate organized violence of the people from below.

If the democratization of violence within the greedy minority establishes and assures their peace we cannot but similarly be sure that the democratization of violence among the masses of our people would indeed establish and assure their peace as well. Within the latter peace environ it is the people who determine what ‘meaningless violence’ and ‘meaningful violence’ are. Regulations built on such definitions would then determine the conditions within which violence could be deployed to resolve conflicts among the masses and conflicts with the class enemy – local and foreign. Hence, the democratization of violence is needed if popular peace is to be attained among the vast majority of humankind.

In this respect, pacifism is truly impotent. Certainly, it is infuriating to see a weakling of a so-called District Chief Executive boast ‘Who said “tweaa”? Do you know who I am?” when that rat is absolutely a nonentity definitively talking palpable nonsense that invites the “tweaa” retort. In 1982 we saw how such rats wobbled in their seats at the slightest show of power from below. It is not pacifism that preconditions officialdom to warranted behaviour but the existence of palpable violence – the kind of violence whose presence is felt even when it is some distance away. Not pacifism! It is the absence of the potential to exercise such violence that makes it possible for the middle classes in Africa to hijack ‘the gains of the revolution’.

Using Yen’s Democratic Space

In response to a comment on his article, Yen states that ‘At present the way is not clear in Ghana. There is no visible alternative at the moment. The NDC has offered a lot of solace for the “soft” left. Many people want an alternative. How to begin is the problem.’ To this, a reader asks Yen for a specific alternative. He comes back with this answer: ‘Change is always spearheaded by a group dedicated to an alternative. It is always a minority. The mass of the people can be dissatisfied, but they as a bulk or group cannot bring about an (sic) change/alternative, unless there is a group, party, that is very clear about what it wants.’ Clearly he dodges the question: what kind of alternative? He rather blames others.

Responding to a supposed correction from another comment that ‘It was the nascent PNDC (first 2 years) which offered “soft solace”[1] [to] the left [and that it] has never been the case with the NDC’ and also that ‘The NDC-NPP alliance must be removed from office by the ballot – the fire next time!’, Yen does not only once again apply his dodging tactic and avoids response to the ‘solace’ issue but also expresses his disappointment with lack of progress in finding alternatives when he was in Ghana for three months. This is exactly how he puts it: ‘I was in Ghana for three months. Disappointed about luck (sic) of progress in finding alternatives to the present decadent establishment.’ He then urges all to do what they can, however little.

In this urge on all to do what they can, Yen also urges in another comment that ‘We should ... always remember that being a revolutionary is a voluntary commitment and it is not compulsory. Nobody is born a revolutionary. We all have choices to make’. In the same comment he also explains the voluntary nature of such commitment: the individual decides what to do at any particular time. These are his words: ‘The struggle to bring about justice and equality is a voluntary one. Individuals decide what they want to do at any particular time.’ (Emphases added). Thus at any particular time, even as a member of a party or an organization, the individual decides what they like. Revolutionaries call this voluntarism[2].

Voluntarism is the philosophical bedrock of anarchism. In its manifestation as a political philosophy, anarchism rejects revolutionary principles like democratic centralism which regulate life within a party or an organization. Democratic centralism states that every issue collectively decided on within the party or organization remains binding on each member and the leadership until changed. This, in principle, subjects the leadership to control by the membership and assures the leadership’s legitimate and legal responsibility to ensure that each member carries out decisions reached without let. An outvoted member is allowed to continue to convince the others and might succeed with a change. Meanwhile, he complies.

Yen’s idea of ‘we all have choices to make’ has, within context, the wrong connotation that once one chooses to be a revolutionary one can just opt out. Any such opting out places one essentially in the ranks of the enemy, especially when one seeks to propagate misleading concepts like pacifism from outside the party or organization among those inside it or the potential outside who might join it. The revolutionary movement is guided by principles and applying oneself to them is compulsory. Like the Revolution itself, a revolutionary party or organization is not a ‘tea party’. Membership in any such organization is a commitment of a lifetime. Once one opts out, one’s movements and utterances are closely monitored.

Yen says that there is a ‘“soft” left’ to which ‘the NDC has offered a lot of solace’ in Ghana. This penchant for associating some estranged members of the Left with the PNDC and now the NDC once upon a time manifested in his unsubstantiated accusation of Comrade Explo Nani-Kofi about his so-called relations with the PNDC. Today, while in Ghana, Explo is engaged in activities independent of any party of the Establishment and is struggling on with the youth and others not only in building a grass roots movement but has, for the first time in Ghana’s history, inaugurated an annual People’s Parliament where speeches are not what the neo-colonial Establishment desires to hear. In a similar vein, the Socialist Forum of Ghana (SFG) is involved in various activities.

The initial limitations of these organizational efforts within the democratic space that Yen proudly proclaims to have made a contribution to are being discussed. In fact, although the SFG is truly a forum for socialists and not yet a party or an organization with the discipline of an integrated revolutionary movement it has not only set up a library of rare Marxist books to which Prof. Akilagpa Sawyerr has contributed a whole collection but is also running two Marxist Study Groups on Thursdays and Fridays as well as a bookshop, the Freedom Bookshop – not to talk of its series of public demonstrations. Certainly, some of us complain about the transformation rate of the SFG into a grass roots organization of working people. 

Such expressions of anxiety warrant no going outside the box to proclaim disappointment to persons or an audience bereft of information on the basis of which they could make their judgements on trends. Additionally, those expressions do not lead to definitive conclusions that nothing is being done and thus throw arms up and about with petty-bourgeois declarations of ‘I am disappointed! I agree that I am frustrated! I am now a pacifist!’ That kind of Yenish yelling fails to recognize the evolutionary or quantitative dimensions of organic progress or development in democratic space. It is a veritable expression of mechanical as opposed to dialectical thinking – revolutionary thought processes of the scientific type.

Within what Yen calls ‘democracy’ we see a bourgeois neo-colonial entente wherein the middle classes – after the historically recent struggles among them for a determination of which of them exercises neo-colonial power – are forced to agree on a constitution that they never intended but which creates space for forces opposed to them to organize against them. The efforts at a constitutional review aim to ‘correct’ this historical ‘mistake’ so as to more conclusively deny the forces of progress this unintended grant of space. The slow rate at which the situation is being exploited to organizationally strengthen progressive forces in the face of the pending review, which requires a referendum, is a current concern.

In this respect, the Centre for Consciencist Studies and Analyses (CENCSA), within the limits of its Spartan conditions, strives to co-operate with other organizations and groups with the view to aid the achievement of a harmonization of ideological and organizational directions within the Left. This anticipates the moment of crystallization of the separate progressive groups and organizations into the continental organizational force capable of a sporadic but organized harassment of imperialist and neo-colonial forces and states into dismemberment and disintegration for their replacement with the People’s Republican State of Africa as evolved and established by the continental revolutionary force and its branches.      

This suggests the use of the current democratic space not only to plant Left presence among the working people but more importantly to build the working people into structures that they exercise democratic control of. So far, the fabrication of effective ideas for realization of these objectives has been a practical proposition being tested in the field of revolutionary construction at the workplace. Current results show that the answers are found not in the books but in concreto-practical efforts to actualize these objectives in the people’s daily efforts at production and defence. The books, nevertheless, arm us with guiding principles to intellectually apprehend and comprehend the unfolding conditions.

We are saying that the revolutionary struggle is one of not awaiting the capture of power before the institutions of People’s Power are built; but rather one of building them right in the womb of the dying-out system, where and when the opportunities exist, till the day when the thus-developed production and defence organs of the Revolution are ready to replace the decadent neo-colonial existences in the inevitable clash of weapons of defence and attack. These are not achieved by pacifist postures but by that revolutionary posture required to contain and abort neo-colonial violent attacks. These are not Facebook name callings and propagation of the impotence born of patronization but a concrete activity.

Conclusions

In response to a Facebook comment on his article, Yen states: ‘Yes. I am disappointed and as you call it frustrated. It is even more than that.’ To be more than disappointed and more than frustrated appears to suggest that one has turned vegetable. Yen believes that ‘today, we do not have a genuine left movement, to take the struggle forward’. Certainly, a movement is not a party. A movement crystallizes as a process. In its formative stage it manifests in various group activities directed at a specific aim. Facebook, for instance, reflects such groups propagating socialist anti-neo-colonial and anti-imperialist ideas and activities across the African continent. The final stage integrates such groups into a single centrally-directed unit. There are intervening stages of co-operation between and among the groups.

An illustration of this process is found in the history of the liberation struggle in the then Gold Coast where various groups, some of which were just literary groups, crystallized into the United Gold Coast Convention under Dr. J. B. Danquah but effectively developed into a nationwide political movement under Dr. Kwame Nkrumah’s organizational direction. Out of this movement, slowly but surely, emerged the Convention People’s Party. The movement was not the result of a precipitous event but a process of evolution that took time to come into being in spite of its problems. This illustration can be multiplied across the continent with the ANC of South Africa and the Pan-African Congress (PAC) as glittering examples. 

Nyeya Yen clearly does not appear to appreciate this process of history in the emergence of political movements. In his response to another comment that ‘The NDC-NPP Mafia alliance must be removed from office by the ballot – the fire next time!’, his penchant for the voluntarist dramatic manifests quickly thus: ‘Unfortunately and unless there is a dramatic turnout it does not seem so.’ Certainly, what appears dramatic develops on the blind side of those who are not observing. There is nothing dramatic, for, everything, as Yen observes, goes through a period of quantitative changes before exploding as a change of quality. To the one observing the process there is no surprise element and therefore nothing dramatic.  

 

What therefore appears dramatic is worked for but not just expected in the manner of an act of God. In his failure to observe the concrete nature of the current stage of the movement of the Left, Yenmaligu Yen can only expect the dramatic in the nature of an act of God. This is why he derives no inspiration from the forward movement that he does not see. Hence, his innervating disappointment that threatens to send him bananas, nay! vegetable. To remove the ‘Mafia’ requires creativity and work, not expectation. Yen expects something of the dramatic when he returns to Ghana and stays for three months and not seeing a fully crystallized Left movement he drops dispirited. Surely, that’s not the ways of ‘a genuine left’.

Yes, the pacifist is a vegetable that spreads vegetability in the ranks of revolutionary forces who are correctly dedicated to the ultimate democratization of violence among the masses of African people to safeguard their interests in the same way that the African middle classes observe democratization of violence in their own ranks to defend their parasitic interests.

Forward with the Marxist-Nkrumaist Pan-African Movement!                                                 

February 3, 2014

---

[1] Yen does not actually talk of any ‘soft solace’ but rather ‘“soft” left’. Without naming anybody he also goes on to claim the absence of ‘a genuine left movement’ in Ghana. This is further discussed in this rejoinder.

[2] Those of us who participated in the first year of the December 31^st 1981 coup d’état in Ghana were critical of Comrade Capt. Kojo Tsikata’s urge on us to take independent initiatives when we required guidance. This created a situation whereby everybody just acted in pursuit of their understanding of the ends of a revolution. We accused him of voluntarism which had created a chaotic scene. Yen comfortably forgets this experience.

 SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN

An international campaign for the freedom of Palestinians in Israeli jails has been launched.

 The Founder of the campaign is Ahmed Kathrada an anti-apartheid campaigner who worked alongside Walter Sisulu, Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo.

 Kathrada himself spent almost three decades in prison for his anti-apartheid activism.

 Theo Ben Gurirab, former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Namibia and currently the Speaker of Parliament is part of the campaign.

In Accra, the signatures are being collected at the Freedom Centre in Kokomlemle and all friends of Palestine are invited to join the campaign.

The Robben Island Declaration which forms the basis of the campaign is published below in full…

The Robben Island Declaration

For the freedom of Marwan Barghouthi and all Palestinian prisoners

We, the signatories affirm our conviction that freedom and dignity are the essence of civilisation. People around the globe, and throughout history, have risen to defend their freedom and dignity against colonial rule, oppression, apartheid, and segregation. Generations of men and women have made great sacrifices to forge universal values, uphold fundamental freedoms and advance international law and human rights. There is no greater risk to our civilisation than to relinquish these principles and to allow for their breach and denial without accountability.

Palestinian people have been struggling for decades for justice and the realisation of their inalienable rights. These rights have been repeatedly reaffirmed by countless United Nations resolutions. Universal values, international legality and human rights cannot stop at borders, nor admit double standards, and must be applied in Palestine. This is the way forward to a just and lasting peace in the region, for the benefit of all its peoples.

The realisation of these rights entails the release of Marwan Barghouthi and all Palestinian prisoners whose ongoing captivity is a reflection of the decades-long deprivation of freedom that the Palestinian people have, and continue, to endure. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been imprisoned at some point in their lives, in one of the most striking examples of mass detention aiming at destroying the national and social fabric of the occupied people, and to break its will to achieve freedom. Thousands of Palestinian political prisoners still languish today in Israel’s jails. Some Palestinian prisoners have spent over 30 years in Israeli prisons, making Israel, the occupying power, responsible for the longest periods of political detention in recent history.

The treatment of Palestinian prisoners from the moment of their arrest, during interrogation and trial, and during their detention, violates norms and standards prescribed by international law. These violations, including the absence of the most fundamental guarantees of a fair trial, the use of arbitrary detention, the ill-treatment of prisoners including the use of torture, the disregard for children’s rights, the lack of health-care for sick prisoners, transfer of prisoners into the territory of the occupying state, and the violations of the right to receive visits, as well as the arrest of elected representatives, require our attention and intervention.

Among these prisoners, a name has emerged both nationally and internationally, as central for unity, freedom and peace. Marwan Barghouthi has spent a total of nearly two decades of his life in Israeli prisons, including the last 11 years. He is the most prominent and renowned Palestinian political prisoner, a symbol of the Palestinian people’s quest for freedom, a uniting figure and an advocate of peace based on international law. As international efforts lead to the release of Nelson Mandela and of all the anti-apartheid prisoners, we believe that the international community’s moral, legal and political responsibility to assist the Palestinian people in the realisation of their rights, must help to secure the freedom of Marwan Barghouthi and all Palestinian political prisoners.

We therefore call, and pledge to act, for the release of Marwan Barghouthi and all Palestinian prisoners. Until their release, the rights of the Palestinian prisoners, as enshrined in international humanitarian law and human rights law, must be upheld and the arrest campaigns must cease.

One of the most important indicators of the readiness to make peace with your adversary is the release of all political prisoners, a powerful signal of the recognition of a people’s rights and just demands for freedom. It is the marker of a new era, where freedom will pave the way to peace. Occupation and peace are incompatible. Occupation, in all its manifestations, must end, so that  freedom and dignity can prevail. Freedom must prevail for the conflict to end and for the peoples of the region to live in peace and security.

Pakistani President

Pakistan a land of institutionalized anarchy
By Deedar Hussain Samejo
Pakistan has become a country whose people have lost all empathy. They see suppression as a tool to gain unfair advantages over underprivileged sections of society. Last year, Pakistan recorded 83 polio cases compared to 57 in 2012, and 1.5 million children are at risk. Since the polio vaccination ban by militants in tribal areas, at least 30 people, including polio workers, have been killed in Taliban-led attacks for administrating the polio vaccine. 

Polio cases constitute only a segment of society's misery. There are many other serious issues; for example, 42% of the world's underage married girls live in Pakistan. In rural areas, courting is prohibited, and marriage based on love is against tradition. 

Ours is a society where the supreme rule is "might is right", injustice is a social norm and the provision of fundamental rights is a distant dream. Women suffer at the hands of their male relatives at home and sometimes even at the hands of the state, given parliament's failure to pass the Domestic Violence Bill to protect women. Being female is a dangerous thing in Pakistan. 

Children do not go to schools; they must work to feed their families. Hapless peasants are abused, beaten and sometimes killed in the fields by landowners. They are too afraid and oppressed to demand self-determination and freedom. In major cities, the population lives under the constant threat of militant attacks and disappearances carried out by the intelligence agencies. 

Who is responsible for this state of affairs? Our educational system? The judicial system? Culture? Or parliament?
In fact all, individually or collectively, are responsible for the present state of affairs in one way or other. Pakistan is one of the world's lowest-spending countries on education, allocating to it below 2.5% of its gross domestic product. The inadequate and flawed educational system is unable to equip the young with the skills to meet present-day needs and demand. The country is home to 25 million children who aren't going to school. 

The corrupt judicial system, especially the criminal justice system, is failing to put perpetrators of crime and terrorists behind bars. People turn to the tribal justice system to get cheap and speedy justice. Around 1.4 million cases are pending in moribund courts. Our demoralized culture is being kept hostage by a handful of religious fanatics. Honor killings and torture have become part of that culture. Our moral and social values continue to degenerate to an all time low. 

Our incompetent, corrupt elected representatives are incapable of developing an effective "checks and balances system" to monitor the state organs. They believe that ensuring a proper provision of basic social services to citizens is not their obligation. Ironically, many are part of the criminal system. The politicization of every issue has deteriorated the capability of already fragile and dysfunctional institutions. 

The state's utter failure is largely attributed to the failure of three main state organs - the judiciary, executive and the legislature - to root out deeply entrenched socio-political conservatism and traditionalism. Since independence in 1947, the ill-defined powers and functions of these institutions caused them to interfere in the affairs of one another. This clash of institutions did not allow them to operate within their constitutional limits, resulting in military coups, bad governance and mismanagement. Consequently, the state could not evolve an efficient and well integrated mechanism to meet the multifaceted challenges. 

Moreover, these institutions, due to various inefficiencies and deficiencies, could not produce a vibrant state that can fit new ideas and innovations in itself. Military interventionism, tribalism, feudalism, the incompetent bureaucracy and weak civilian governments have been the factors retarding the growth of theses institutions. 

"The labyrinth of a centrist mindset, elitism and autocracy led Pakistan to the negation of democratic pluralism on the one hand and a monopoly over foreign policy by un-elected power centers on the other", Khadim Hussain rightly pointed out in Dawn, Pakistan's largest English-language newspaper. "Religious zeal and super-patriotism came in handy in legitimizing this monopoly by powerful centers of power." 

This led to the creation of "ideology vacuum" exploited by narrow minded people, especially mullahs at the mass level, to pursue their vested interests. While mullahs corrupted the minds of citizens in the name of religion, weak and intellectual-deficit civilians did not invest the state resources in the masses. 

The outcome of this situation is the creation of a static state that is as contaminated as stagnant water, one that is lacking almost all the necessary tools that a dynamic society requires to fulfill its duties and responsibilities. 

Consequently, the state has been slouching from one crisis to another for more than six-and-a-half decades. It is suffering from myriad problems, ranging from extremism to poverty to illiteracy and social insecurity. One third of the population lives below the poverty line, around 50 million people do not have access to clean drinking water, terrorism, targeted killings and violence have become part of the daily routine, and a severe energy crisis has paralyzed the economy. 

Islamabad needs to review and revamp thoroughly the legislative, social, judicial and administrative systems, and ensure proper provision of fundamental rights. This is the only way by which our leaders can make Pakistan a tolerant, democratic, modern and egalitarian state.
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing. Articles submitted for this section allow our readers to express their opinions and do not necessarily meet the same editorial standards of Asia Times Online's regular contributors.
Deedar Hussain Samejo is pursuing a Masters in Political Science at University of Sindh, Jamshoro.