Propaganda Techniques the NDC Uses to Brainwash Ghanaians

There is nothing more sacrosanct to the maintenance of democracy than a free press. The opportunity or right to experience or make use of comprehensive, accurate and quality information is essential to the manifestation of democratic citizenship a society characterized by a civic reception engagement, well-informed and socially invested populace. In this way, to the degree that access to quality information is willfully or inadvertently obstructed, it can be conjectured that democracy itself is degraded.

It is hard to believe that in the era of 24-hour digital news networks and "reality" programming, the news-to-fluff proportion and overall sincerity of information has declined steeply. Take the fact the average Ghanaian now spend on average about 20 hours a week using various forms of media, while at the same time cultural literacy levels hang around merely above the melt away point. Not only does typical media now put up with disgusting distortions of fact and history by public figures (highlighted most recently by Tony Aidoo's absurd depiction of Jerry Rawlings's call of investigation with regards to the election results), but many media actually legitimize these displays.

Pause for a moment and ask yourself what it means that the Ghana's largest, most profitable and most popular media outfit passes off as fact every quirk, inclination and shamefully inept analysis of its so-called reporters. How did we get here?

Take the enormous amount of misinformation that is taken for truth by the NDC sympathizers and supporters: the belief that Nana Addo Dankwa statement of “all-die-be-die was recipe for chaos, the belief that the NPP was a tribal Party, the belief that Akufo Addo is a war-monger, that the insistence that all Akans are Ashantis and all Akans are ethno centrists, the inexplicable perceptions that Ashantis are both too pompous and arrogant and are about to steal wealth of the country.

All of these claims are demonstrably false, yet the National Democratic Congress (NDC) with its supporters and sympathizers will maintain their veracity with incredible zeal. Why? Is it simply that we have lost our respect for knowledge?

My inquisitiveness about this question required me to sit down and document the most often used techniques by which willful ignorance has been turned into dogma by NDC and other propagandists disguised as media. The techniques I identify here also help to give meaning to the all together powerful identification the NDC media audience has with the party, as well as their ardent, reflexive defenses of it.

The good news is that the more conscious you are of these techniques, the less likely they are to work on you. The bad news is that those reading this article are probably the least in need in of it.

1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Ashanti Project to elitist to property democracy to Akan Party to war-mongers to the rapture itself, the belief within the NDC seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes are not made active, you are not alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own citizens with 'all die be die mantra? The reason is that it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they will believe anything.

2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. The NDC does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. The NDC and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "clergy," "academicians," "progressives" etc. This form of argument it can be called leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.

3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the listener who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you are using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the corruption discussion, where anti-corruptionists are accused of corruption, or in the education change debate, where those who argue for the education enhancement are accused of not having in-depth knowledge or facts on their side. It is often called upon when their commentators' finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.

4. Rewriting History. This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The February 1966 coup d'état is a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is NDC's contorting of the Kennedy Agyepong's effusion, which NDC Communication Team Members and friendly reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they will often speak with such authority that the uninformed citizen will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.

5. Scapegoating/Othering. This works best when people feel insecure or scared. It is technically a form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so all-encompassing that it deserves its own category. The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, you can then go on to (a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and (b) subvert responsibility for any harm that may befall them as a result.

6. Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to Violence With Weakness. This is more of what I will call a "conservative perception" (a deeply held belief) than a media technique, but it is manifested in the ways issues and news are reported constantly. For example, terms like "show of strength" or “positive defiance” are often used to describe acts of which undermines, which happened during the NPP administration. There are several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the potential to make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force – the acts of the NDC foot-soldiers. Secondly, especially in the context of Ghanaian politics, displays of violence are seen as noble and (in an especially weird irony) moral. Violence becomes synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.

7. Bullying. This is a favorite technique of several NDC communicators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems to have some usefulness. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to the discussion with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by hauling coals over his fellow panelists into submission or compliance. Many a time, less self-confident people will feel mortified and nervousness when being criticized and the quickest way to end the abrupt embarrassment are to surrender authority to the bully. The bully is then able to read between the lines that as a "win."

8. Confusion. As with the earlier method, this one works most excellent on an audience that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is solid and mean that anyone who opposes is either regarded as having or showing a low level of intelligence or too fanatical to follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user's claims authenticity in the listener's mind.

9. Populism. This is especially popular in election years. The speakers identifies themselves as one of "the people" and the target of their indignation as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always "elitist" or a "bureaucrat" or some other category that is not the people. The idea is to make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often goes hand in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism bias when used by the socialist is that accused "elitists" are almost always capitalists - a category of political actors who, by definition, advocate for non-elite groups.

10. Invoking the Christian God. This is similar to othering (more concerned with what other people think than with personal values and standards) and populism. With morality politics, the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and "real Ghanaians" (those are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges them as not. Basically, God loves John Mahama and NDC and Ghana. Anyone who advocates a change in the status quo is an enemy of the people. Because John Mahama has been ordained by God to speak on behalf of all Ghanaians, any challenge is perceived as immoral. It is a cheap and easy technique used by all totalitarian entities from states to cults.

11. Saturation. There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being ever-present and being consistent. The message must be repeated over and over, it must be everywhere and it must be shared across commentators/communicators: e.g. "NPP and all-die-be-die." Veracity and hard data have no relationship to the efficacy of saturation. The “school under tree' is one such example. There is a psychological effect of being exposed to the same message over and over, regardless of whether it is true or if it even makes sense, e.g., “Akufo Addo was arrested for dealing in drugs”. If something is said enough times, by enough people, many will come to accept it as truth. One more example is NDC's own slogan of "Fair and Balanced."

12. Disparaging Education. There is an on the rise and disquieting undermining respect for education and intellectualism in many mainstream media discourses. In fact, in some circles (e.g. NDC), higher education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is perceived by these folks as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some NDC commentators, evidence of intellectual prowess is treated maliciously and as anti-Ghanaian. Education and other evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is why they are so intuitively degraded. One such person who resent quality education is Kwesi Pratt.

13. Guilt by Association. This is a favorite of Kwesi Pratt, Bature and Ben Ephson all these persons have used it to decimate the careers and lives of many good people. Here is how it works: for the reason that the NPP by extension has its political ideology from the UP tradition which said 'self-government in future as to the CPP self-government now', then persons associated, by extension are imperialist set on destroying Ghana. Period! What an absurdity and idiotic way to think.

14. Diversion. This is where, when on the ropes, the NDC media commentator/communicator suddenly takes the debate in a strange but to be anticipated direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where most NDC anchors start comparing the opponent to J. B. Danquah or the need for invoking PDA or Media Matters, in a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association. Or they will talk about wanting to focus on "moving forward," as though by analyzing the current state of things or God forbid, how we got to this state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any effort to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand will likely be called deflection or a change of course, an incongruous use of the technique of projection/flipping.

In considerin some of these methods with contemporaries and friends, I have also noticed that the NDC and their supporters/sympathizers seems to be marked by a sort of collective personality disorder whereby the supporters/sympathizers feels almost as though they have been let into a secret society. Something about their attachment with the National Democratic Congress (NDC) makes them feel privileged and this fellow feeling is likely what drives the supporters/sympathizers to defend the NDC so vehemently. They seem to identify with it at a core level, for the reason that it tells them they are special and privy to something the rest of us don't have. It is similar to the loyalty one feels by being let into a secretive club or a gang. That effect is also likely to make the propaganda more powerful, because it goes mostly unquestioned.

In considering these methods and their possible effects on Ghanaian public discussion, it is important to note that in times gone by, those who have legitimately accessed quality information have never spoke angrily to those who did not. You don't get honored by history when you beat up your opponent: look at Kofi Annan, Mohammed Ibn Chambas, and John Agyekum Kufuor. These men did not find the need to engage in othering, ad homeinum attacks, guilt by association or bullying. This is because when a person has accessed knowledge, they are not threatened by the opposing views of others. This truth exposes the moral resentment of people like Kwesi Pratt, Tony Aidoo and Bature as a symptom of untruth. These individuals are hostile and angry precisely because they don't feel confident in their own sincerity. And in general, the more someone is losing their temper in a debate and the more intolerant they are of listening to others, the more you can be certain they do not know what they are talking about.

To conclude one observation about NDC! The NDC and its supporters/sympathizers often defend their arguments by pointing to the fact that a lot of people share the same perceptions. But, the fact that a lot of people believe something is not necessarily a sign that it is true; it is just a sign that it is been effectively shouted from the rooftops or a “proof”.

   Comments0