THEY seem to be the minority, but in reality they may be the majority. Their views have not been taken on board and they are considered either dead or yet unborn. It is they who face the rough of ethnic extremism and share the spoils, though they commit no crime.
Unfortunately, the media and its agenda setters and gatekeepers have failed to hear them out. Instead, it is those who spit fire and beat war drums that have been given the space and airtime.
How then do we promote peace when the peaceful citizens are deprived expression, whiles the violent actors – who are usually not the victims – are given the air to throw tantrums? Are actors of war more valuable to society than actors of peace?
Well, I have come to accept that those innocent peace-loving citizens in Bawku, Dagbon and other areas, where conflicts have been protracted, have virtually been left out of the picture.
This is so probably because the media’s slanted reportage has made many to believe that when Kusasi’s and Mamprusi’s have a confrontation, then all of them are at loggerheads. No wonder, when a northerner meets outsiders, the question they ask him or her is: “why are you people always fighting?”
I met a newly wedded couple the other day and, during our conversation, I realised they were natives of Bawku. They had come to Tamale briefly since the man’s workplace had temporarily been closed down.
He told me: “Massa, my wife and I sometimes feel insecure. Whiles she is a Kusasi, I am a Mamprusi and we have been in a relationship for over five years. We legalised our union only recently. My wife is even pregnant. We love each other and are not willing to separate because of this pettiness.”
But how long can this young couple continue to be excluded from this conflict. Would the extremists in both families one day throw caution away and attempt doing the unthinkable? What would be the repercussions on the families and children, in particular?
This is not peculiar to Bawku alone. Intermarriages are common between and among most other ethnic groups in Ghana. The Konkombas may have been at loggerheads with the Dagombas some years back, but today there are families that consist of people of mixed blood tracing lineage to each of these groups.
In Dagbon, there are families that comprise people who trace their lineage to both the Abudu and Andani royal families.
The question I ask, therefore, is: why should somebody’s family of birth turn him or her into an enemy or a wanted fellow?
How do such people extricate themselves from this web and behave as they wish: that is, mix with whomever and deal with people not based on their family lineage but by the traits of humanity in them?
Should they deny their lineage, as Juliet asked her lover Romeo to do in their love story, ‘Romeo and Juliet’: “Romeo, doff thy name. And for thy name which is no part of thee...”
Aside this struggle of attempting to live a normal life, moderates –who are predominantly the non-violent actors – also suffer alongside those who cause the violence.
Anytime there are violent happenings in some parts of the country, houses and vehicles are burnt, people are killed whiles others are maimed. There is displacement and women and children suffer the brunt through hunger and homelessness.
The conflicts also affect economic activity, transportation, social relationships and all these contribute to retarding society’s progress.
Unfortunately, when these things happen, it does not affect only those who are actively involved in these acts of violence.
After all, when a man from a feuding faction is killed, people from his side find another person from the supposed offending side to kill in retaliation. And most often, it does not turn out to be an actor of the violence, but an innocent citizen. Sad as it may be, it is the reality.
As if not enough, some moderates are impeded from making progress in their endeavours, such as governance, commerce, academic pursuit and group membership.
I have witnessed cases where a potential leader fails to get his desired leadership position simply because of his ethnic or family affiliation.
I have also seen business people lose customers because of their ethnic of family affiliation. In such cases, these business persons are being made to pay dearly for the actions of their great great-grandfathers. Does this make any sense?
I have even seen people attacked or maligned simply because they went to worship at a particular worship centre, which has supposedly been aligned to a faction.
So you see, moderates are really going through a lot and need some help, even more than those engaged in these violent conflicts.
I know, don’t ask me. I have been asking the same question: what are these innocent moderates or non-violent actors doing to stop the conflicts or, at least, get their voices head?
It is true that those who do not like the use of violence as a means of resolving differences could play a critical role in bringing peace to troubled areas.
They could form very strong advocacy groups to psyche their people to understand that violence is not the panacea to conflict resolution.
The reality, however, is that these voices are silent because they fear to be victimised. They do not want to be seen as the black sheep in their families and thus tend to remain quite. They have seen it happen elsewhere.
In the Rwandan genocide, both moderate Hutus and Tutsis were among the about 800, 000 to 1, 000, 000 people killed in the ethnic carnage between the two groups.
“Hotel Rwanda”, one of the movies that attempts to demonstrate what happened during the conflict, shows clearly how difficult it was for the protagonists, a Hutu, to protect his wife, who was a Tutsi.
To the extent that even the blood brother of the protagonist hated this courageous and noble act of his brother and tried several times to separate them so as to harm the woman.
Similarly, this is the difficulty that moderates in conflict areas in Ghana are faced with. They have to choose between the devil and the deep blue see.
So then, who would come to their rescue? This is where the media need to come in. Journalists need to be the voices of these silent sufferers of these needless overt conflicts.
Journalistic works – news reports, articles, radio discussions and TV documentaries – must seek to psyche the minds of people in conflict zones to understand that there are people among them who prefer other means to conflict resolution.
These silent voices, the media must stress, need to be listened to. Their views must matter because they are equally, if not more, affected by the actions of the violent actors.
According to peace-building practitioners, the media could play a pivotal role in peace-building, if it gives a voice to various actors in society who do not contribute actively to violent conflicts.
They argue, for instance, that in conflict situations, journalists could focus much attention on persons from the feuding factions who are living together in harmony, irrespective of their differences.
“Such reports or documentaries would challenge the existing assumptions that say that feuding factions cannot live together,” explains Mr Abdullah Kassim, an executive member of the Rural Media Network (RUMNET).
What is wrong with a front page story that shows a Kusasi and Mamprusi in a friendly handshake, smiling and relishing the joy of living in harmony? Do our newspapers always have to show the disharmony?
All in all, one thing remains clear: that the victims of violent conflicts, as the media always want us to believe, are not just limited to those who lost their lives and property due to their participation, but, more importantly, the non-violent actors whose lives have been affected by these conflicts. And those are the silent voices.
No comments:
Post a Comment