You are here: HomeWallOpinionsArticles2010 08 30Article 189324

Opinions of Monday, 30 August 2010

Columnist: Augustrian

Ghana And Its Upper-Class Dictatorship

Ghana, as a country, pride herself for being a democratic country. The country has an electoral system, which allows her citizens to cast their votes every now and then. Also, the country is governed by certain principles, which are embedded in the nation's constitution. The constitution embodies, as you all know, the totality of the powers of the government by the governed. Therefore, we could safely say that the government of Ghana is of the people, by the people, and for the people, right? Well, let's see. Democracy is derived from the Greek "popular government." The Greek word "dêmos" means people. Krátos, on the other hand, means rule. In other words, democracy means the rule of the people. That said, when you and I behold the masses in a democratic country, what do we see? We see groups and classes separations of people. You have your upper-class, middle-class, and low class. All these classes of people are considered "equal" under the glaring eyes of the law. However, none of these classes are qualified to rule except for one particular class--namely, the upper class.

Why the upper-class? you ask. Well, it's because, those in the upper-class control the wealth, they have most of the monies. Unfortunately, those who have the monies control those who don't. It's that simple. Those in the upper-class, mind you, make the rules. The rest, sadly, have no choice but to obey. By the way, control means; restriction, lack of freedom, ruler-ship over someone or something. Unquestionably, both the middle and the low class are being ruled and controlled by those in the upper-class. In essence, there is no such thing as freedom for these two classes of people. Those in the upper-class, you see, dictate their lives. Therefore, the question is; why do we still continue to vote for democracy, which simply stands for upper-class rule only? Evidentially, there are not that much people in the upper-class. Those in the upper-class, in fact, are in the minority. Ironically, they are the ones dictating to the majority. This, as a result, of their wealth--which is symbolic to power. Now, mix the power of money with upper-class rule, and the end result would be upper-class dictatorship. The true definition of democracy in all its hypocrisy. The power of the haves over the have-nots. A pyramidal structure on which a tiny few sit comfortably at the top, whilst the majority are made to surf deep below in uncertainty and fear.

Now, what about social communism?

The definition of socialism is founded on two fundamental maxims. First, Thomas Jefferson's: "All men are created equal." Secondly, Karl Marx's: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." In essence, socialism seeks to realize some sort of equity and fairness in all the various aspects of society. Though, the question is; is this quest realistic or--indeed, attainable? Well, in terms of possessing a heart and a mind, all men could be considered equal. However, they are far from being the same. It's this in-sameness, which makes it nearly impossible to satisfy all men equally. A country which practices social communism often plans and controls all the various aspects of its economy. Means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively or by a centralized government.

Of course, this leaves absolutely no room for outsiders to invest. This form of domestication, needless to say, does make a social communist economy less dependent on external market forces. Thus, less vulnerable to their influences--which, of course, is a positive thing. On the negative side, though, a social communist government controls the prices of all commodities and wages. Meaning, people in social communist countries could be considered deprived of one particular right. The right to be rich or not to be rich. Simply because; commodity price control in correlation with salary control by a government equals to anti-capitalism. But then, the question which social communism seems to be posing is; is it possible for us to live well together without exploiting each other? In other words, could we work as a team? The capitalist answer to this question is a big no. According to the capitalist, upper-class dictatorship is better. In it, some could be made poor, and others could be made rich. The strong would survive. As for the weak, they better have a god to save them or else. Folks, in all honesty; is this what we really want, upper-class dictatorship?