Was Nkrumah a capitalist?

0

NkrumahEven though Morocco, Egypt, Sudan, and Libya had achieved independence, and together with Ethiopia and Liberia were the free countries of Africa by the end of the first decade of the second half of the 20th century, it was the attainment of independence by the Gold Coast (Ghana) on March 6, 1957 that launched Africa onto the path of decolonisation and liberation.

That Ghana should become the pathfinder of the politics of Africa and thus, provide pivotal leadership for the African liberation movement was due to Nkrumah?s soaring vision and inspirational personality.

In his home Ghana, Nkrumah did not have things easy as the opposition group launched a sustained and vigorous campaign against his policies and style of leadership.

The ?NLM/Up and CPP? days (1950-1966) will for a long time remain a conspicuous blot in the memories of Ghanaians who lived those days.

It was unfortunate that differences in approach to achieving a common objective should result in mayhem for a decade and half among a rather peace-loving people of Ghana.

At the centre of all was Nkrumah, a man of charisma. ?To be able to appreciate Nkrumah?s profile in the politics of Ghana, one needs a bird?s eye-view of colonialism which British rule preceded his rule.

Until March 6 1957, Ghana then known as the ?Gold Coast? was under the British rule. ?This rule roughly dates back to the defeat of the Asantes by the British in the historic Yaa Asantewaa War of 1900. ?Soon after the war, almost all of the territory called the Gold Coast fell under the administration of the British.

Prior to this war, the influence of British power had been felt only at the coastal areas of the Gold Coast. ?Even then, this power was for a long time shared by the Dutch and Danish merchant companies who had built forts and castles at Elmina, Cape Coast and Accra.

Impact of colonialism

It may be useful at this point to briefly discuss some of the characteristics of the colonial government in the Gold Coast in order to understand the conditions that prevailed in the Gold Coast prior to Nkrumah?s rule.

The colonial influence in the Gold Coast could fall under two periods, namely: the pre-British Administration and the formal British rule.

During the former period which can be tagged, ?Company Administration? era, the Dutch and Danish, as well as British companies opened up the area of the Gold Coast with slave/trade routes. ?They were more concerned about keeping the routes safe so that their main interest which was commerce would flourish.

From 1830 t0 1847, the British, especially through the efforts of Captain George Maclean, made conscious efforts to secure a congenial atmosphere for their commercial operations.

Captain Maclean, for instance, managed to get a peace treaty signed between Asante, southern states of the Gold Coast and the British on 27 April, 1831. ?This gave a big boost to the colonial merchants as they were able to freely operate their business. ?To concretise their hegemony, the colonial administration annexed other areas to the north and by the end of the third decade of the 20th century, there had come to exist a well-defined British rule in the Gold Coast as set out in the Native Administration Ordinance of 1927.

Confirmation of British administration

Other colonial administrators that came later, especially Commander Hill, who confirmed British Administration in the Gold Coast with the Bond of 1844, legalised the jurisdiction that had grown from the time of Captain Maclean.

The system of rule adopted by the colonialists was known as ?Indirect Rule?. ?It was a system that used the local chiefs as the final link in the chain of administration and authority.

This involvement of the chiefs in the administration of their own land ironically gave the local people a sense of self-rule, albeit, false. In reality the chiefs were merely executors of the decisions taken by the British Governor.

This system differed from the Cartesian-style the French used which allowed for the appointment of an indigene as a Governor in their territories.

The British, on the other hand, strengthened the chieftaincy institution in their role as implementers of the Governor?s decisions and so to this day, chiefs in Ghana, for instance, are held in high esteem. ? Generally, the economies of British colonies were such that provision of infrastructure such as roads and other forms of transportation, and services such as education were all geared towards exploitation of the riches of the colony.

Roads and rail transportation system were such that they connected the vital raw material areas. There were rapid increases in the haulage of timber, cocoa, gold and other mineral ores from the Gold Coast.

In the area of agriculture, the British colonial administrators did not establish plantations, instead they relied on peasant small holdings and allocated concessions of forest for timber felling to overseas companies who paid little money to the traditional rulers and the peasant farmers.

The mining industry was completely in the hands of the foreign merchants and they used cheap local labour to remove the precious ore from the bowels of the earth. In the area of education, the system the colonialists adopted undoubtedly, laid the solid foundation for the perennial problem of white-collar job mentality in Ghana.

Their schools concentrated on arithmetic, reading and writing, a tripod that adequately supported the clerical needs of the colonialists? trade. ?As the late President Nyerere described it, it was ?not designed to prepare young people for the service of their country ?..? If today, there is a high rate of unemployment in Ghana, it is because the ?white-collar? mentality has not yet been uprooted; so while the land in the countryside remains untilled, millions of youth roam the cities looking for non-existent jobs.

Source-graphic

Send your news stories to [email protected] Follow News Ghana on Google News

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here