Drop ‘directives’ from government language
The initial thoughts for a title to this article were: “Cut through directive baloney of government correspondence;” “Directive is a baloney word in government communication”; and “Drop directives from national discourse.” Then, I wore my head-gear of political correctness and settled on “Drop directives from government language”. Hopefully, this well-cleansed title cushions me from any possibilities of contempt toward any individual or institution.
Advertisement
Here is the issue: twenty full years into the life of the 1992 Constitution, I continue to spot letters with phrases like: “I’m directed by the Honourable Minister so-so-and-so to inform you to do bla bla bla.” The operative word in this kind of letter is ‘directive’. The word directive also periodically sneaks into news reports to inform We the People that certain people have been given a directive to do one thing or the other. More often than not, whenever I come across the word ‘directive’ in democratic Ghana, I become livid.
On the surface, there may not be a problem with this word. It may appear very innocent. But imagine when talking to a friend, you say: “I direct you to help me carry my suit case.” Or, a boss in a private company telling his/her assistants tersely: “You’re all directed to shut that door.” See, it sounds very awkward to give directives in both social and organizational encounters. Directives stifle free thinking and its attendant free expression.
Here is the larger issue: With the coming into effect of the 1992 Constitution, the very architecture of our politics changed and so must our language. Until we change the language, we will forever be locked down in autocratic thinking because language houses thoughts. The way one thinks is the way one speaks. Vice versa, what one says is a product of what one believes and thinks. In effect, you cannot separate thinking from speech and therefore from actions. Yet, long after we have said good bye to autocracy, we continue to grapple with its ghosts. Until we exorcise the spirits of autocracy, we will not fully usher in the soul of democracy.
The only time a word like ‘directive’ should be acceptable in public discourse is when the President gives an order to his ministers. For instance, President Dramani Mahama must give a directive to all his appointees to declare their assets and to even go a step further—in the grand name of true transparency and accountability—to publicly disclose their assets!
The colour of the word directives:
The word directive has a certain odd ring to it especially when placed in our national historical context. ‘Directive’ comes from a painful place in our national history. And—history matters! Lest we forget, directives belong to autocratic thinking during the obey-before-complain era of military dictatorship. There is a no-nonsense non-collaborative colouring to a directive. A directive is an order that leaves no room for choice and for thinking and for offering suggestions. Directives freeze original thinking and can over time, arrest our sovereignty, the same sovereignty we lend out in the ballot box during four-year cycle presidential and parliamentary elections. A culture that is characterized by the issuance of directives generates and instils fear in the citizenry and can potentially breed a culture of silence—over time. Once you give a directive, the next natural hoop-jump-skip is to slap the target of the directive if he/she dares to disobey, creating a vast opportunity for obscenity.
It is a master who directs a lesser being to obey orders given through a directive. It is folks who see themselves as super-powerful—the ruling class in the personhood of officialdom who give instructions to lesser-than followers and subordinates. In military and other uniformed armed forces, a commander can give a directive to the troops. Directives are meant to show people ‘where power lies’; to flex the muscles of power and might. When you are given a directive, you are expected to get in line and to be cut down to a Supreme Court type small nut size. There, if you do not rise to the level of self-awareness of your miniature size, the source of the directive can ruthlessly force you to get in line.
Directives do not belong in a democracy. Directives come from a pompous mind-set. Twenty years of post-autocratic rule may be a short time in the life of a nation state to see significant changes in everything we do. But in the use of language especially, we need to become more conscious and alert. It may be that letter writers in government offices are not even conscious of the autocratic tone of their letters. They may just be stuck in doing business as usual in using the same language that was very suitable in those pre-democracy days in these constitution days.
Cleansing Autocratic Language Training Project (CALTP):
We need a cure for directives. As a country, we love organizing workshops, seminars and training programmes. We fondly call them ‘capacity building.’ So why shouldn’t we also have an elaborate language capacity building project! The directive cure could be addressed through workshops and deliberate training sessions. A few months ago, I attended a tilapia farming workshop. My mother is asking me to attend a snail farming workshop too although I hate snails with much passion. So I won’t attend the training for snail farming; and I doubt if I would ever drop one baby tilapia into a pond!
But the language cleansing project can get us products that are more deeply edifying and satisfying than snails and tilapia. And I recommend this democratic language training for all persons whose official positions require them to write one letter or the other. The tentative theme of the workshops will be: “Flushing autocratic language from government lexicon.”
Here are two suggestions for government offices, Ministries, Departments and Agencies and all quasi-state institutions that write letters. The first suggestion is to apply the first part of ‘slash and burn’ agricultural methods to analyse government’s official correspondence. The methodical analysis will lead to identifying our jacked-up ways of using officialdom language to control the minds, thoughts and actions of the citizenry.
Once these tough-language tendencies are identified, the same officialdom and political apparatchiks should get on a mission to check themselves. This is the ‘burn’ part of ‘slash and burn’. Technocrats in particular should lead this burn mission of slashing autocratic militarized language from Ghana’s official lexicon. Technocrats, civil and public servants can become good teachers of politicians for after all, politicians come and go (although they usually think they are forever!).
Technocrats and politicians should unlearn a new language for Ghana—the language of democracy. They should note that times have changed and so must their language. We are no longer under the never-complain era. We are in a time that requires all hands to be on deck; all brains to be put to the task and used to generate ideas for Motherland/Fatherland.
I consider this elaborate autocratic language cleansing training project so important to the nurturing of this country’s democracy that I’m even very willing to offer my services to the Head of Civil Service, Departments and Agencies—for free.
The WatchWoman Column, The Weekly Spectator
Written by Dr. Doris Yaa Dartey
Email: [email protected]
Ghana
