Our national identity, a term that has huge differences in interpretation between the United Kingdom and The Republic of Ghana. National identity a unifying force is a point of consciousness that roughly Ghana is coming towards or beginning to reach and the UK seems to be loosing or letting go.
I won’t pretend for one minute that I know the extent of the connotations of this but they seem many.
Not only would i say there are many results that a nation or a group of people would go through in a journey towards and away from the point of full conceived national identity, but possibly also we can deduce in this journey the rise and fall of those people.
The Honourable Elijah Muhammad made reference to the link we find in ones knowledge and ones activity. Now understood for the Diasporian is the limitation we suffered getting our hands on quality education that pertains to our particular problems and our inability to get where we as a people needed to be.
How does this pan out on a national level? Can it be that because of a lack of national consciousness there is a slowing of relevant activity within and for that nation?
If so, and i tend to think it to be scientifically correct then both the UK and GH at this point in time are not tuned optimally for credible sustainable and lasting national effort.
The “waste” factor comes in with efforts made within those nations for other purposes. Or efforts that don’t contribute to the over all good of the nation. Sometimes these efforts are flagrant abuses of the nation such as fraud or corruption, and other times they are as a result of the lack of national or social duty and consciousness. (see Sociopathic Personality Disorder and Ghanaian Society) for a good example.
What seems to be clear is that in both the UK and GH as presumably everywhere these waste efforts can be found. What is interesting however is that the reasons they exists appear to be very different between Ghana and the United Kingdom.
In the United Kingdom fragments of the society feel disenfranchised. This has come about mainly because of the white supremacy idea that it was built on. This is a two edged sword, those who believe that others including the poor should have less rights to the privileges of “their” successful nation, and those who feel that because this seems to be the establishment view they have no real part to play. Both feel left out of true representation and influence in the current UK government and society.
What has become worst now is that those in the UK who where in the privileged positions in the past are now feeling a sense of disenfranchisement themselves leaving very little of the society to be convinced that the national idea of a “Great Britain” is still alive. Seeing that this is a new and growing phenomena the analogy of the UK moving away from a cohesive national identity position seems fitting as more and more people feel this way.
The great irony now is that the original disenfranchised group of the UK namely the immigrants the poor, the other than white ethnic groups are the reason now why the rich whites feel the same disenfranchisement. Thus reinforcing the loose loose situation when it comes to the benefits of a national identity and a national effort.
Ghana on the other hand suffers because of different reasons. The national effort in Ghana struggles because of a weak concept of the idea of a national identity, purpose, and value in the population of Ghana. A true conception of national identity has not resonated yet in the minds of the Ghanaian people to the extent of effecting a sustainable cohesive effort leading to general benefits for the population as a whole.
It seems even to the extent of high office and national policy generation sometimes lead to damage rather than good for Ghana. For example its no secret that Ghana benefits greatly from foreign investment and tourism. Its a life line to the nation generating outside interest particularly for its recent spate of trouble free and democratic elections giving rise to outside confident’s in the Ghanaian people.
You would think that those in positions of responsibility in the foreign office who deal with visa allocations, resident permits, etc would lean towards streamlining and simplifying the process for good people to come to Ghana. However the process is steadily getting more difficult problematic and expensive leaving more and more people to choose elsewhere to the detriment of the Ghanaian economy and international credibility.
I can only surmise that this is a carbon copy approach fostered from the UK and the US and the changes made there because of their particular circumstances which do not affect Ghana.
In any case it shows an immaturity and a clouding of focus when it comes to the national agenda. Which is what we are talking about here. Subjectively you can find many examples but only objectively can the problem be solved.
To objectively solve the problem is to instill a focal point of national agreement within the minds of ALL the people despite tribe or region or financial status. In the UK this WAS white supremacy, a system of pride that was understood and participated in even by those who where not white. In Ghana it can only be the establishment of a society rooted in pure truth and justice transparent regardless of class tribe or any other division.
I think it imperative that Ghanaian social scientist concentrate on establishing a concept of national definition that is rooted in truth and justice because we have learnt through study of the UK that a false definition only last a period of time.
Let Ghana build its house on a rock not sand.
I look forward to your opinions as usual.