On November 27, 2013, the Prime Minister of Latvia, Valdis Dombrovskis, resigned because the roof of a supermarket collapsed, killing 54 people.  He said he took political and moral responsibility.

That, to me, was “culture” in action: his action reflected the society’s norm.

In the same way, in Germany, it was not unusual for German President Christian Wulff to be investigated in 2012 because his friend was alleged to have paid for his hotel room and food while on vacation. Accused of favouritism and unethical behaviour, he resigned.

That, I repeat, is culture. It is a reflection of the national character of the Germans.

Will this happen in Ghana? What is the national character of Ghana?

In June 2014, journalist Kwaku Addo Sakyi Addo, addressing graduating students of Ashesi University, summed it up this way: “In our country, no one takes responsibility for anything. And so we plunder to the accompaniment of brass bands, and pay the victims to dance.”

That, unfortunately, seems to be our culture now: duping our neighbour, our employer, and even total strangers is the pervasive, collective character of Ghana. Why does every Ghanaian political appointee steal state money?

Kwaku’s prognosis is that Ghanaians have “lost our sense of outrage.” His words are true. What he should have said, or emphasised, is that we have lost that which used to be Ghanaian culture – that which used to identify our humanity and African identity. We used to abhor violence; indeed, we used to fear the sight of blood. Today, we steal from the pockets of accident victims while they are in their death throes, bleeding.

A particular Lia Stout posted the story below on November 26.

An anthropologist experimented with some children from an African tribe. He placed a basket filled with delicious fruits near the trunk of a tree and told them: "The first child to reach the tree and touch the basket will win all the fruits."

When the anthropologist gave the starting signal, he expected all the children to run to get the fruit. To his great surprise, they began walking together, hand in hand, to the tree. They touched the basket together and shared the fruit.

He asked them why they had done that, when each of them could have won the fruit basket for himself or to share with his family.

The children all answered in unison: "Ubuntu."

The anthropologist then began interviewing the tribe's adults. It turned out that "Ubuntu", in their language and culture, means: "I am because we are". In other words, the children were saying that based on the teachings they received from their parents and grandparents, how could any of them be happy if the others have nothing?

I call that “national character”.

Not very many years ago, you could swear by the Ghanaian. There were crimes which you could “thrust your hand in the fire” and swear a Ghanaian could not commit them! Once upon a time, honesty was our national identity.

Only recently, I published on this page the story of how, in 1992, at JFK Airport in New York, I was waved on to board the flight without a body search. The security officer took one look at the bio page of my passport and muttered, “Ghanaian”! With relief on his face, he motioned for me to “Move on”. Meanwhile, all other African passengers on the Nigeria Airways flight were thoroughly frisked and their hand luggage literally emptied for examination of its contents.

Piety was almost the national ID of the Ghanaian. Sad to narrate, we’ve lost it.

 In our quest for a return to those days, the majority of concerned commentators had one voice: “Let’s teach ‘Religious and Moral Education’ in schools”. Ask any teacher or WAEC examiner: while hundreds of thousands perform miserably in all other subjects, the worst candidate in ‘Religious and Moral Education’ gets a ‘Credit’ score. Yet the most significant number of “bad boys and girls” are Religion and Moral Education students (formerly called Bible Knowledge)

Apparently, the phenomenon is not new. As far back as the 18th century, Noah Webster, the famous lexicographer, counselled that “In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate.”

What am I driving at? I am making a point that the teaching of Religion is not a panacea for good moral conduct. The best religion is taught in church.

That is my solution. Rather than ‘Religion’, I am advocating a course of study that will emphasise the ‘Principles and Values’ of life, differentiating between religiosity and spirituality. In my approach, the teacher's emphasis will be on cause-and-effect; for instance, that “when you sleep with your neighbour’s spouse, some other person will sleep with yours or someone you cherish very much, at some future date”.

The emphasis should not be on belief systems but on the moral principles of life that guided the conduct of great men and women of renown.