ON ETHNOCENTRISM

If you visit the public-comments pages on ghanaweb often, you notice more clearly: behind the glittering veneer of cross-tribal marriages and the cosmopolitan richness of the population of Accra lies a menace that's surreptitiously eating away our national fabric: ethnocentrism – the simple but worrying tendency of some Ghanaians to see themselves first as members of an ethnic group rather than citizens of Ghana, and to view their ethnic group as superior to the rest.

Ethnocentrism is a big problem for Africa because of the history behind our states. In what has come to be known as the “partitioning of Africa”, from November 1884 to February 1885, the remarkable and pragmatic German leader Otto von Bismarck hosted a conference in Berlin for European powers to divide the land of Africa among themselves. This conference ended the indiscriminate “scramble for Africa” which threatened war between Europe's big powers in the late nineteenth century. But it created colonies – later states – in Africa that were composed of ethnic groups that shared little mutual trust and not infrequently, were hostile to each other.

Since independence, citizens of African states have struggled to rise above ethnic identities to create unity and a national character. The most visible manifestation of ethnocentrism on the continent has been the numerous tribe-based armed conflicts; from the Biafran war in the late 60s to the still-raging violence within the Great Lakes Region.

In Ghana regrettably, there exists a political landscape that is almost finely carved around ethnic identities. In a less obvious but no less important way, ethnocentrism manifests itself in stereotype caricatures that people of various ethnic groups have about others. It's Ghana's dirty little secret: most of us have met people who think all Ashantis are arrogant power-seekers or Ewes are akpeteshie-drinking cat thieves. And we have heard others refer to all northern peoples as violent and Fantis as lazy and improvident. Such awful stereotyping have led to the breakdown of marriages, blinded employers to the qualities of potential employees and twisted our national conversation by fogging our perception of national priorities. Our better travelled countrymen attest that, to the contrary, in Europe and America, like in cosmopolitan Accra, you meet Ghanaians of various ethnic backgrounds whose professional excellence and faithful conduct make you proud.

But if ethnocentrism is neither correct nor beneficial, why does it persist? It persists because ethnocentrism is not a peculiarly Ghanaian or even African problem; it's a symptom of heterogonous societies that are struggling to build a perfect system of merit where everyone would have confidence that the state would deal with them fairly and offer each person the same opportunities for advancement. Because no society is completely meritorious, ethnocentrism can be found in all multi-ethnic societies but in different degrees. A telling example: In Spain, tensions between the Basque minority and Spanish-dominated state, captured in all its obscene inelegance in Sidney Sheldon's The Sands of Time, has often boiled over. Keen observers may have noticed that a day before Spain's world cup final match with Holland in July 2010, over a million Catalans, another minority sect, marched through the city of Barcelona to demand independence.

The situation in Spain is not outstanding by any measure. There is the situation of China and the ethnic Uyghurs in Xingjian Province; Belgium and its minority Flemish population; insecure Caucasians who are against a place for Hispanic and Arab Americans; the 1500 years old animosity between Shiites and Sunnis which still defines politics in the Arab world…

As has already been noted, ethnocentrism is caused by a people feeling insecure about their place in society. In a democracy like ours, these insecurities may be exploited by politicians to mobilize support. This is also quite natural; politics and democratic competition in particular depends on the ability to build a following around causes and identities. Ethnic identity is a potent tool for galvanizing people even if it's very destructive. How do we deal with this menace?

We can eliminate ethnocentrism by building transparent, responsive and accountable public institutions that give citizens confidence that the state is dealing with them fairly and is not working to advance the parochial interests of any religious, ethnic or economic group.

Secondly, we must enlighten our citizens, especially impressionable young children and the youth, with education. We must seriously highlight the commonalities among our various ethnic groups and administrative regions in school curricula. Ethnocentrism is bigotry that stems from the inability to recognize, as Bill Clinton notes in his autobiography, that “we are not so different after all”. Not only will a rich education liberate people from narrow tribal sentiments into noble affection for all humanity, it will also empower them to succeed and give them the confidence that they don't need to bring others down in order to rise.

Politicians from various parties throughout our history stand guilty of exploiting ethnic differences. Political leaders must resist the temptation to appeal to sectional ethnic interests to score immediate victories which threatens the nation's stability in the long term. Politicians who do this pit us against each other, denying both their “people” and their “enemies” the successes that an open society would spawn for people of all ethnic groups.

One respectable businessman has additionally noted that our traditional leaders must eschew the outdated distrust that they have for people of other ethnic groups. He argues that this distrust has usually led chiefs to refuse to sell land to Ghanaians who are not indigenes and that members of some communities also employ various tactics to frustrate businesses owned by people from other tribes. It is utterly ridiculous that officials of various administrations travel round the world to court international investors when communities reject investment from fellow Ghanaians because they speak a different native-tongue or look quite different.

The media must also desist from fanning ethnic differences. We've all seen the unimaginable horror that ethnic-based conflicts have caused in many parts of Africa. In 2007, Kenya – hitherto one of the continent's most promising stories of economic and political stability – almost drove itself into a tribe-based armed conflict. It took considerable international intervention and Kofi Annan's vast experience with diplomacy and conflict resolution to halt a calamity that the nation is yet to fully recover from. We can't risk a situation like this in Ghana.

It is important to be proud of our ethnic identities. After all our many ethnic groups are the source of the plethora of the many colourful cultures and traditions which constitute our largely admirable national character. We must however constantly remember that our nation needs every Ghanaian to achieve the development we seek. We can't afford ignoring a single Ghanaian, let alone a whole ethnic group. Finding and emphasizing the things that bring us together as Ghanaians is a compelling choice we must make.

Samuel Jude Acquaah
[email protected]