Arthur K And The Psychopathic Defence Of Guilt And Shame

I have followed and listened to Dr Arthur Kennedy (Arthur K) and his commentaries for some time now. And I cannot but conclude that he is in a psychopathic defence of guilt and shame.

If there is anyone who, in our modern Ghanaian political milieu, practically embodies the popular saying that ‘the best way to defend is to attack’, it is Arthur K.

Arthur K’s never-ending denigration can be traced back to when he wrote Chasing the Elephant into the Bush after the 2008 elections. Ever since he wrote that book, he has constantly spoken negatively about either the New Patriotic Party (NPP) or its flag-bearer, Nana Akufo-Addo. I think that it is the result of the backlash he received from some members of the Party after writing the book.

The book details Arthur K’s views about why the NPP lost the 2008 elections and claims to provide ‘an accurate account [that] will begin the process of correcting the rumours, lies and myths that are out there about the 2008 elections in Ghana’.

The writing of that book contravened many ethical standards. Being the Director of Communication of the NPP 2008 campaign team, he received information in confidence. Dr Arthur K knows that publishing information received in confidence is highly unethical. So, it was not surprising that he faced a backlash after writing the book. In the book he blames almost everybody who was part of the 2008 NPP campaign team but himself. He even defends his contesting the NPP 2008 flag-bearership race, despite his getting only one vote.

Most people will remember that his writing of that book resulted in his being alienated by the Party. But in order to justify his action, he has to constantly defend it, hence his attacks and condemnation all this while. He has employed as defences what Joseph Burgo (a writer and psychologist) calls ‘narcissistic flight, blaming and contempt’.

Is Arthur K not in a narcissistic flight? ‘When people suffer from an unbearable sense of shame, they often seek to elicit admiration from the outside, as if to deny the internal damage. Beautiful outside versus ugly inside’, says Joseph Burgo.

Arthur K has suffered guilt and shame within the Party. He is, therefore, eliciting admiration from the larger public by drawing attention to himself. What he has sought to do is drain Nana Akufo-Addo and his supporters emotionally. In that way, counter-attacks from them make him feel strong and important – he gets satisfaction from such attacks. The uncritical listener will see him as someone who is bold and fearless and who speaks the truth; hence, his incessant condemnation.

People who are not ready to admit guilt will normally resort to blaming others as a defence. That is exactly what Arthur K is doing. His claim that Nana Akufo-Addo is to blame for the NPP losing elections twice and dividing the party goes to the core of his defence of his writing of the book. Remember that the book is solely about why the NPP lost the 2008 election.

When people feel guilty and are not ready to accept responsibility for it, they often employ contempt as a defensive posture. Arthur K now holds in contempt almost everybody in Nana Addo’s good books. Read and listen to some of his articles and pronouncements: Nana Addo Is A Failure, I Rank Him F, Blay’s election as NPP’s 1^st V-C ‘stupid’, Probe NPP 2012 Campaign, NPP protects drug dealers, NPP’s Quest for Defeat on Course, NPP not a serious party. This is clearly a man who feels bitter about something. His statements are not genuine criticisms.

Anyone offering criticism without malice will be constructive but not destructive. Does Arthur K offer constructive or destructive criticisms? He is absolutely destructive in his criticisms against the Party, which goes to prove that he is in defence of guilt and shame.

Anytime he grants an interview to the media, Arthur K mentions or alludes to ‘all die be die’, something even National Democratic Congress (NDC) functionaries have somehow stopped talking about. This is pure malice. Freedom of expression is fundamental to every democratic institution, but what Arthur K does is not freedom of expression; it is freedom of destruction, I think.

Criticisms are normal when one offers them constructively. But Arthur K does not do that. In his latest Skype interview with Joy News, Arthur K said that the NPP flag-bearer could not unite Ghana if elected president because he had failed to unite his Party. My question is: is Ghana divided? If it is, then why not blame those who divided it? His comments in that interview partly show his hatred and malice for Nana Akufo-Addo. Is Arthur K himself not part of the divisiveness in the Party when all he does is criticise destructively?

One would expect Arthur K, as a genuine lover of Ghana, to expend much of his energy on criticising the government of the day in like manner as he does Nana Akufo-Addo and Co, and defend the interest of the ordinary Ghanaian. But no, he does not!

In his Competence in Politics article, Arthur K never commented on the economic performance of the Mahama administration, although that was the basis of Dr Bawumia’s labelling of the President as incompetent. Arthur K actually postulated that if a president could win elections, he was competent, notwithstanding his economic performance. He took the opportunity to once again portray the NPP flag-bearer as the one who was incompetent. This is hateful on his part!

We have witnessed under this government spirally derailing economy, unfathomable looting of state coffers, collapsing of the National Insurance Scheme, etc. and yet the man who claims so much intelligence and love for Ghana does not see it prudent to criticise the government. He prefers to disparage and hold in contempt his own Party leaders. Why? Because he has guilt and shame to defend against the Party leadership.

Admittedly, Nana Akufo-Addo and some of his supporters may have some problems, but I think Arthur K’s diagnosis of that problem and his continuous attacks are borne out of the defence of guilt and shame.

Arthur K forgets that in the run-up to the 2000 elections, the NPP as a whole had a common enemy to fight, the NDC, and a common interest to pursue, power. But after Kufuor’s administration, some people in the NPP have nurtured and had different ambitions and interests. They have tasted power and now the fight for common interest is gone. That was why there were 17 flag-bearer aspirants including Arthur K in the 2008 flag-bearership contest.

Arthur K’s constant attacks on Nana Akufo-Addo and his team are not borne out of a genuine concern for the good of the NPP or Ghana, but largely stem from malice and bitterness. His incessant destructive criticisms are anti-NPP rants in defence of guilt and shame he has suffered for writing his Chasing the Elephant into the Bush. Should he change from attack to praise, it will render his book worthless.

I think Arthur K should be allowed to float and swirl in his self-created tide and tornado. Changes in the weather will determine his latitude. So, the NPP should let Arthur K be, instead of calling for his suspension from the Party. The constant response to his rants makes him feel strong and important and that’s exactly what he wants.

Emmanuel Sarfo
PhD Student
School of English
University of Leeds, UK
Email: [email protected]