Dzi Wo Fie Asem: Rhetoric and the Politics of Expediency

Dzi Wo Fie Asem:
Rhetoric and the Politics of Expediency

Professor Kwesi Yankah

Pro-Vice Chancellor, University of Ghana
         
SUMMARY

Introduction
On 7th January 2011, His Excellency the President, in a face to face encounter with the media, used a proverb that has now become a household expression: Dzi wo fie asem. The incident could be considered as only a trigger for this evening’s talk, which centers on the character of political rhetoric within Ghana’s contemporary history.  

There appears to be a growing sensitivity to political communication in this country: specifically the norms of communication, or standards of propriety in speech comportment. There is a collective realization that the spoken word may have done a lot to shape our political fortunes. Throughout our contemporary history, the spoken word has been so important in our political life, that not only is free speech enshrined in the constitution; care has also been taken to integrate speaking regulations within governance forums, from parliamentary discourse, through discourse in the law courts, to executive discourse at cabinet meetings, and to presidential discourses of engagement.

Even though rhetoric or the art of persuasion is important in politics, we hardly pause to examine logical links between words carefully or artfully couched for public consumption, on one hand and political reality, on the other. The passion for political power and also the high premium we place on the cultural aesthetics of communication, must be partly accountable for this. Consider the proliferation of slogans, expressions, political catch phrases that have been fashioned or adopted to effectively convey policy, mobilize the masses for action, or signal a new orientation in economic, social or political policy. The period from the 1st to the 4th Republic has been replete with rhetoric and the politics of expediency, where a greater emphasis is placed on the propriety of speech within the context of usage, rather than its logical propriety.


A Babel of Tongues
The politics of expediency becomes more pronounced by multiple voices that seek to shed light on public policy or public assertions by a President. The contemporary political practice makes ministers Government spokesmen in their own right, in respect of matters pertaining to their portfolios. This is besides regional ministers and district chief executives, who represent the Government at the lower levels. Besides these, however, there may be specially appointed government and presidential spokesmen, and presidential aides whose schedules and responsibilities are made rather ambiguous, because almost in the same breath, other communicators have been appointed and given positions like: directors of communication, press secretaries, press liaison officers, presidential spokesmen, spokesman for the vice president, (which appears to be a novelty), and the like. In the past, spokesmen for the Government created so much confusion the Government had to do a reshuffling of roles and responsibilities, to restore order in portfolios that explain government policy. But to all these may be added a Ministry of Information, with a substantive minister and two deputies--- a complex situation that defies an orderly organogram. 

But surprisingly, Vice Presidents who to all intents and purposes are part of the presidency also have separate spokesmen these days. This is an expensive novelty which implies that from the office of the Vice President may emerge executive policy, which would need further explanation or relaying by a separate functionary. The situation conveys the impression of a rather wobbly executive apparatus, which needs parallel structures for reinforcement, or double-assurance. To all intents and purposes, however, the stage may have been set for the emanation of state policy from a multiplicity of sources, and subsequently for a catalogue of policy contradictions. The current comedy of errors, retractions, and glitches arising out of a proposed World Bank loan, is an expected outcome; and the earlier a single voice spoke for the presidency the better.  

The surfeit of communication functionaries in political practice has also spilled over to party governance, where whole communication hierarchies have been instituted, and one hears of the director of communication and his massive administrative apparatus replicated at the national, regional and district levels. This is not to talk of propaganda secretaries of political parties, and several other executive members who may speak to policy issues when the need arises.

With such a proliferation of speaking functionaries, both official and unofficial, disorder in policy articulation and interpretation is inevitable where there is no effective co-ordination.

Politically Speaking
The trend of public communication described above appears to have reached its peak from January this year, after the President, John Atta Mills articulated the Dzi wo Fie Asem adage, which has since remained a major topic in domestic and foreign affairs. The proverb and its interpretations have broader implications for political communication. It touches on the general principles of political persuasion, aesthetics of indigenous rhetoric, the framing of foreign policy as well as the political exploitation of ambiguity in proverb meaning.

Regardless of the channel or original medium of the discourse, public officials may momentarily switch codes and insert a local idiom, sometimes followed by an instant translation where deemed necessary by the speaker. Devices like proverbs, aphorisms, local metaphors, allegories constitute an enormous rhetorical capital available to public officials representing ordinary people.

Yutong as Metaphor
The immersion of the electorate in the indigenous aesthetics of speaking also encourages officials to occasionally allegorize governance in political discourse, or use extended metaphors, or even folktales in discussions where expedient. But public life and Ghana’s popular culture are also replete with satire, innuendo and allegory. Indeed there is evidence that political discourse encourages ingenuity in the usage of adaptive metaphor and allegory, thereby demonstrating the dynamics of cultural and literary experience. Even though governance has sometimes been allegorized as a social experience on the animal farm, and occasionally as a journey, one hardly expected that a passenger bus called Yutong, an innocuous Korean import, would ever be sprayed in political color. But the indigenous aesthetics of communication is dynamic and incorporates new imagery, to demonstrate the capacity of political orators to respond to the vagaries of contemporary experience.   

All Die Be Die  
To these devices may be added a rich armory of the rhetoric of mobilization, which compels social and political groups to craft slogans and verbal formulae that mark their unique identities, and constitute a rallying cry for political action.  

Party slogans creatively composed and deployed exemplify this. But in recent times the verbal formula ‘All Die be Die,’ stands out as one of the most controversial expression that have attracted a variety of interpretations.

This notwithstanding, All die be die was embraced overnight by the party’s rank and file. Its popularity was driven by its simplicity, poetic appeal and the informal vehicle of Broken English in which it is conveyed. Summarily, it contains all the necessary ingredients required for mass mobilization and political action; for it comes handy to the pedestrian looking for ready-made rhetoric in which to wrap his sense of desperation.  Indeed the sense of helplessness felt by the poor man wallowing in penury and self-deprivation could signal a condition of virtual death depicted in the slogan. The expression then would be appropriate since dying in self-defense could be death all the same, a zero sum game. It is not surprising that soon after the informal inauguration of the slogan, non-partisan demonstrations against government policies throughout the country latched on to, ‘All die be die.’


Fiery Rhetoric
Besides the use of catchy slogans, extempore metaphors and allegories, there is an emerging trend in our value system that puts a high premium on fiery, combative discourse in public space, where we applaud bold, tough and ferocious speakers, who are capable of matching political opponents boot by boot in speech comportment. In local terms, the tougher and more combative a speaker or media discussant, the better.  Creeping into the indigenous value system is a culture of vociferous rhetoric, where media heroes are made sometimes on the basis, not of reasoned argumentation, but fiery speech comportment. In response to these emerging standards, political discussants including public officials outshout their opponents and scream at the top of their voices in media talk. This mode of discourse is sometimes in keeping with the objectives of some talk shows or discussion programs that thrive on heat, noise and verbal dueling among discussants.

The situation of late has taken a more dramatic turn; for not only may listeners call in and issue instant rejoinders; listening ‘foot soldiers’ may join radio discussions by breaking into the studio and participating with their fists, assaulting political opponents. Thus even as we bask in high democratic credentials and exercise free speech, our constitutional democracy appears not to have completely shed off rhetoric of the muscle. Physical combat still lingers underneath free speech, and the bullet has not completely yielded to the ballot.   

Indeed the physical interruption of radio programs, by activists and sometimes by public officials, now commonplace, is an unfortunate blotch on our constitutional democracy.


Invectives 
The pervasive use of insult, abuse and coarse rhetoric appears to have reached its peak in current politics, where public officials, with or without provocation seek to denigrate political opponents. Such discourse often ranges from outright abuse like ‘thieves,’ ‘armed robbers,’ ohene gyengyan (worthless chief), used by a legislator on a chief, to indiscreet assaults on individuals or social groups to which opponents belong. The latter can be exemplified in derogatory attacks in invectives like kookooase kuraaseni (village dweller), an invective which was hurled by a minister of state against an opponent.

In a single breath, not only had the speakers denigrated their adversaries, they had also made  scornful references to the teeming masses of peasants and their dependants who largely dwelled at the countryside. But this invective had also in a single swoop undermined state policy on rural development.
 
In all the cases cited, undignified utterances are attributed to men of honor who, perceived as role models, would normally have been expected to uphold the values of decency in public speech.

In several other dispensations, one would normally expect summary dismissals, or executive calls for either resignation, or even public apologies, which would emphasize the crucial significance of national virtues in nation building. It would have been the duty of men of honor, who are perceived as role models to play a pivotal role in upholding these virtues, rather than subverting them in speech comportment.

Proverbs and Presidents
The famous statement of  Kwame Nkrumah, at the dawn of Ghana’s independence on 5th March 1957, “The Independence of Ghana is meaningless unless it is linked up with the total liberation of the African continent,” became a major landmark utterance, that is singularly associated with Osagyefo. This statement became a policy blueprint that gave meaning to Ghana’s own independence but also inspired Nkrumah’s support for liberation struggles in various parts of Africa until he was overthrown. In 1970, soon after assuming the reins of power, Dr Kofi Abrefa Busia, Ghana’s Prime Minister had to cope with a heavy debt burden bequeathed by the previous military regime of the National Liberation Council as well as the Nkrumah regime. It was under these circumstances that Dr K. A. Busia uttered his now famous aphorism, Kafo Didi, to signal to the nation’s creditors, that we cannot sacrifice the expansion of the economy (in the interest of jobs, housing, etc,¬¬)  for the sake of debt repayment. After all Kafo Didi ‘The indebted person does not sacrifice his meals,’ implying that the indebted has to survive before he pays his debt.
Once again, a major foreign policy stance had been wrapped in a pithy utterance.
Dzi Wo Fie Asem

On 7th January, 2011 then came the now famous Dzi Wo Fie Asem, uttered by president J E A Mills, during a rare Meet the Press encounter with the media at Accra Osu in Accra, on the second anniversary of his swearing in as the President of Ghana.

President Mills used the Fante wise saying in response to a question from a journalist, on his reaction to the prevailing stalemate in Ivory Coast, where Laurent Gbagbo having lost the presidential elections to Alassane Ouatarra, had refused to relinquish power, but had indeed been illegally sworn in as President for another term. President Mills, who had been using English throughout the news conference momentarily, switched to Fanti, his mother tongue, to drive home his argument, prefacing it with a statement, “I have been guided by the proverb,”  “Dzi wo fie asem,” which he quickly translated as ‘Mind your own Business.’

Among Fanti fisher folk of the Central Region where the President comes from, there have been canoes and houses with inscriptions of Dzi wo Fie Asem, implying that the aphorism existed long before the President made the utterance. 

Indeed such names and inscriptions, whether on vehicles, canoes, houses or stores, or as names of villages and towns tend to be philosophical capsules of significant moments in people’s lives; and denote the verbal strategies adopted by individuals in response to crises. The inscription serves as an indelible principle of life, and recalls a major landmark experience.  

Even though the President immediately followed the saying with the closest English rendition ‘Mind your Own Business,’ the original aphorism throws emphasis on home: conveying a sense of the familiar, the intimate, the known, as against the unknown, the uncertain. Simply put, it admonishes one to deal with matters over which one has intimate knowledge, direct concern or control. Dzi wo fie asem would literally imply, ‘adjudicate over, or pay attention to, serious matters within your own jurisdiction.’ 

The proverb is often used in situations where another person seems to be overly obsessed with other people’s domestic affairs, following which there may then be an admonition, cautioning against any interventions in crises that fall outside one’s dominion, and  over which one may have limited knowledge. Such ill-advised intrusions may end up exposing the intruder’s ignorance or sense of indiscretion. The unspoken half of the proverb repudiates indiscreet interventions in serious matters outside one’s jurisdiction. 

A proverb may be suitable for a particular situation, or may be just a situational response summing up the speaker’s viewpoint at particular point in time. It may be considered as a practical response, a guiding principle, but not a compulsive fiat or injunction appropriate for all situations. 
Proverbs are crafted to sound authoritative for purposes of persuasion. Speakers resort to them when they need an authoritative voice to lend credence to their viewpoint.

Comedy of Contradictions
A few days after the President’s statement, a visiting foreign official who had a closed door meeting with the President, met the press, and affirmed that the President had not ruled out a military option after all.

Then came another puzzling moment when in the third week of January, the African Group at the UN, was quoted by Government sources as ruling out a military option in Ivory Coast. According to Government sources, that was indeed a vindication of the President’s position that a military intervention was truly not an option. The story, however changed again within a week. January 24th,  the Minister for Foreign Affairs, after accusing the BBC of misrepresenting the President out of context, added to the confusion by interpreting his Boss as implying that the issue is an African one in which non-African countries are trying to interfere.

Then came late March 2011, and another headline, Government to change policy on Ivory Coast. In the story, a Deputy Minister for Information, is quoted saying the Government had changed her position and was now willing to contribute troops if the time came to use military force to oust Laurent Gbagbo from power.

Ghana then had cleverly placed herself in a position where she could eat her cake and have it: saying a military option as a last resort is acceptable; saying even if acceptable, Ghana will not contribute troops; saying also that military intervention is no option whatsoever, then saying Dzi wo fie asem was not with reference to Ghana; and now saying the Government has changed her position, and will now contribute troops, and also accepting congratulations for peace mongering.


Blaming the Messenger
But the situation goes beyond policy interpretation. Where a policy itself is not clearly defined, no amount of embellishment by spokesmen and interpreters can salvage it; for good and effective spokesmen may be publicly embarrassed and sacrificed for political expediency.

Spokesmen the world over have been occasionally victimized, when the king’s word or policy, even when perfectly interpreted, has not been well received. Politics of expediency then sets in, and the messenger rather than the message ends up taking the blame. Conversely, when official policy well interpreted by the spokesman, goes down well with the public it is the king, and not the spokesman, that takes the credit.

But the politics of expediency may also include blatant public denials of embarrassing statements or misdeeds associated with public officers. As soon as the media has made an allegation of impropriety, the first step taken by a public official has been to vehemently deny the allegation, followed by a statement threatening legal action if the publication is not withdrawn and due apologies rendered.


Conclusion
The return to constitutional governance in 1992 helped to pave way for democratic practice, which was further enhanced by the liberation of the media landscape in Ghana, enabling greater popular participation in governance. But it also gave the broad masses of people greater access to the governance apparatus, as well as government functionaries. 

The creation of an open interface between Government and the people has promoted strategies of communication that are in keeping with local norms and aesthetics. It has enabled public officers to position themselves through speaking, in ways that simulate or signal solidarity with the broad masses of people.

But the winner-takes all mentality as well as an emerging politics of intolerance, threaten to denigrate our social values of communication, leading to a creeping culture of combative discourse, and the celebration of verbal abuse and invectives on decent political platforms. The outcome has been a perception that rationality in public debate is diminishing with time. Subject specialists and experts who would have enriched the quality of public discourse appear to have yielded the floor to ubiquitous pseudo experts who seek to standardize noisy argumentation and fiery discourse as cherished values.

But it has also triggered a swath of ill-prepared spokesmen and communication functionaries (official and unofficial) who unleash a Babel of tongues at the least opportunity, and end up polluting public space, shedding more heat than light on party as well as national policy. The perception of spokesmen in traditional society as associated with unanimity of purpose and finesse in communication, has been enormously eroded over time.

Finally, let me dare say the current state of rhetoric in the public sphere is a cause for alarm. Regardless of the real intent of the prevailing party slogans, I dare say the establishment of a heroes’ fund by one party, and the adoption of an ‘all die be die’ slogan by another party, are bad news for peace and democracy.  They are liable to interpretation as institutional preparations for lawlessness, hooliganism and civil strife in Election 2012. Indirectly, however, they both constitute an indictment on a partisan state security apparatus that cannot even-handedly discharge their constitutional obligations of protecting life and limb, and a state that appears to lack a reliable mechanism for non partisan celebration of national heroes, leaving this to the capricious designs of individual parties.

Let executive leadership, the Presidency, the Council of State, the National House of Chiefs, the various religious bodies, and civil society not sit aloof and supervise these open preparations for war. Let them rise to the occasion and speedily intervene, calling on both sides to hold back the rhetoric of war, with assurances that the President is in firm control of the ship of state and assurances that mechanisms will be put in place to ensure free and fair elections.


22nd June 2011
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites

 

Comments

Add New Search

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Title:
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 4.0 beta1

!joomlacomment 4.0 Copyright (C) 2009 Compojoom.com . All rights reserved."