Let’s bring more to the conversation
In the aftermath of the death of Captain Adams Mahama, a lot of conversations are brewing. Unexpectedly, lawyers have been at the forefront of these discussions. After all, it is a law enforcement issue.
Advertisement
Almost every radio station wants to have the lawyer’s take. Some have complained that this is contributing to the “juridification” of our societal issues.
It is true that there is law governing almost every single area of our human existence. From the time we wake up over to the time we sleep.
There are laws governing the kind of houses we can build and where we can build them. There are laws relating to how you touch people. There are laws relating to how you drive or cough or keep your surroundings.
There are laws on the appropriate age for sex and almost any and everything that you can think of.
In certain instances, there are even laws that tell you when you have to be indoors and when you can be out on the streets.
The law therefore, is all encompassing. But it has to be remembered that the law does not walk alone. In a lot of instances, it complements other fields of study.
Check the now popular Saturday morning radio. Three, if not all of the panelists are likely to be lawyers. And this cannot be the fault of the lawyers. Lawyers are by their very nature public-spirited people and would engage with the wider community whenever the opportunity arises.
Our society rightly places valuable weight on the opinion and views of lawyers. Almost everyone wants to run something by a lawyer. And there is nothing wrong with it.
But here is the catch. There is more to life than law. In fact, the laws as we know them to be are simply derivatives of some other fields of study.
Let me explain. Commercial law first emerged out of the trade practices of men and women who were engaged in commerce. So but for commerce, there would be nothing like commercial aw.
It is, therefore, important that the various media outlets seek to ensure that there is plurality of voices on a particular matter. Plurality does not necessarily mean divergence but rather will assist in understanding the issues at play.
Take the question of galamsey for instance. It is okay to look at it from a law enforcement point of view. But is important that historians have a say.
It is important that sociologists, economist and persons with backgrounds in public policy also have their say.
It is important that experts in archaeology and psychology also contribute to the discussion.
The same can be said for mob justice. What does the field of psychology, sociology and economics have to contribute in understanding the issues?
In the field of academia, the time has long past where people simply researched in their narrow fields. The attitude now is to collaborate and adopt an interdisciplinary approach to the resolution of issues.
This is because no single area of study is sufficient by itself to resolve the societal challenges that confront us.
In my early years in university, we were told about the story of some blind men who were placed close to an elephant and asked to describe what they thought an elephant was.
Some touched the trunk of the elephant and came to the conclusion that it was an animal with a trunk.
Advertisement
Others touched the ears and came to the conclusion that it was an animal with wide ears. Some touched the tail and concluded it was an animal with a rope.
Those who touched the midsection came to the conclusion that it was a wall. While those who touched the tusk thought it was an animal with a solid pipe.
Even though individually, they may all be right in their description, putting together their various perspectives gives us a more accurate description of the challenges being dealt with.
Lawyers are trained to think in terms of the law. The same can be said for psychologists, sociologist, historians, economists, philosophers and persons with expertise in religion.
Advertisement
They are all trained to think in their fields of expertise. But all of these people put together can lead to a situation where there is a rich conversation.
I am a big fun of the forum on the BBC. I get amazed how different professions operating in different fields can be put together to have one coherent conversation about a particular issue.
So to the media houses, let’s begin to see more diversity in the conversations that we have. And to the brains and minds in the universities and various research institutions, please make yourself available for such conversations too.
After all, there is not much a media house can be if those with the expertise are not willing to appear and share their knowledge on a particular issue.
Advertisement