Ghana: The preliminary basis of African renaissance and the evidence of decoloniality
The March decolonial double-fold THIS piece is inspired by one which was penned by Nathaniel Manheru in last Saturday’s Herald. The article brought to memory the indelible legacy of one of Africa’s Grandfathers of literature.
The late illustrious golden intellectual tower called Chinua Achebe (May he Rest in Power). Manheru’s piece was a fact bearing aide-mémoire of how the departed soul of Achebe still voices the aspirations of the third-world’s decoloniality expedition. Manheru’s re-reading of Achebe’s Things Fall Apart satisfactorily netted the continued anti-colonial realism which should form the source of modern African political consciousness. This is because the history which unites Africa transcends the chasms of sponsored democracy and human-rights discourses mischievously peddled by aides of the modern imperialist motives. The principal motive of their trajectory is regime change and nothing other than demonising the legacy of nationalism and its continuity prospects espoused in the themes of African renaissance and decoloniality as pertinent sub episteme of pan-Africanism.
Democracy and human-rights discourse — that illogical exposition crafted and funded by enemies of Africa to mentor Africa into modernity and good governance. Whose democracy and human-rights? When it is an established fact that those who stand for these twin neo-colonial discourses fictitiously assume a benevolent propensity to the cause of “eradicating the African crises”. The very same crises which is a construction of their folly neo-colonial projects. In his article, Manheru further unpacked how Achebe’s anti-colonial thesis presently fits into the current Zimbabwean context following the rise of the #ThisFlag movement which is a metanarrative of that tired “Mugabe Must Go” rhetoric popularised by Zimbabwe’s opposition. This ensues the unprecedented “democracy and human-rights” exposition’s ineptitude to execute its ungodly regimechange mundane mandate through the political personhood of Morgan Tsvangirai and his schizophrenic, disentangled, disjointed, if not fractured, formations of what was called the Movement for Democratic Change — and is now no more. That dead movement for democracy which joyously antedates the “death of Mugabe” in awaiting their neo-liberal imagined “change” in Zimbabwe.
This perspective is the authorship locus standi of one Geoff Hill’s book, What Happens After Mugabe: Can Zimbabwe Rise From the Ashes? It is this misguided and White imagined “quest for change” in Zimbabwe which has seen some scholars (including some respected, yet erroneously channelled think-tanks in this country) focusing their intellectual grits to what they call the “postMugabe era” whose arrival is not even known in heaven. Surpr i s i ng ly, the arrival of this anticipated after-Mugabe epoch is only known by the democracy and human-rights deputies of Musikavanhu. These compatriots forget that “old” Mugabe(ism) is now an idea transcending the self. He is now an effigy of decolonial reason and a living template of challenging Western hegemony to its knees by indigenously radicalising Black politicaleconomy superintendence. This is in line with the early anti-colonial/revolutionary starring role of Ghana in Africa’s quest for freedom in the early 40s leading to Ghana’s independence on 6 March 1957. Therefore, while Manheru sacredly dedicated the month of March to the memory of Chinua Achebe, I consecrate this series to the memory of Ghana’s steadfast role of pioneering the fight for sovereignty in Africa. I consider Ghana to be a pioneering think-tank of African post-independence. I dedicate this particular article to Ghana’s warrior king of liberation —the one whom Fela Kuti calls the “father of pan-Africanism”, Dr Kwame Nkrumah. Nkrumah: A pan-Africanist par-excellent He was a young intellectual from Ghana; then called the Gold Coast, and having a direct experience of colonialism. The epoch of his childhood to adulthood-life was a direct experience of colonial domination, which seemingly had no end until he was determined to be a catalyst of overthrowing it. The oppression in his land increased his defiance to seek ways to overthrow the colonial state. Nkrumah was among the few Africans who openly expressed his discontent towards the colonial administration as it tied his countrymen to arbitrary rule. In his search for egalitarian principles in society, he found the reign of racial inequality, prejudice and intolerance. As a result of the Whiteman’s political supremacy in his motherland, Nkrumah could not articulate his political opinions. His studying period in England gave him the platform to lament the piled political injustices exerted on Africans by the Whites in his country. England offered Nkrumah a wide range of prominent PanAfricanist companions. Consequently, one can deduce the fact that such was the time when Nkrumah’s political ideology was redefined as he later elucidated it in his book Conscientism: Philosophy and Ideology for Decolonisation in which he also notes his acclaimed attachments to socialism.
Nkrumah went to study at the London School of Economics. During that period, he met George Padmore – a Marxist and an Afro-Trinidadian, also raised from an oppressive political background. As an economist in the making, Nkrumah cherished his new friendship with Padmore — sharing one common ground ‘‘ the fight against capitalism’.’ The same capitalism was the reason for the suffering of Africans in the Gold Coast. Capitalism stratified Padmore and Nkrumah into the weaker social class in their respective countries and hence a strength to their companionship.
Nkrumah voluntarily offered to co-ordinate the organisation of the Fifth Pan-African Congress in Manchester at that time. Thereafter, Nkrumah’s immediate mission was to form the West African National Secretariat – an organisation whose main objective was to work out strategies for the decolonisation of Africa. This signifies Nkrumah’s broad vision of colonial freedom, which was not limited to Ghana alone, but his desire was to see the dawn of Africa’s freedom setting. This also marked the era of the new African political movement called the West African Students’ Union in Ghana, and Nkrumah became the Vice President of this political party. Nkrumah’s brief lifetime experience in London vividly highlights that he managed to adopt and embrace PanAfricanism as his political ideology. This was due to the shift of his political foresight from the Gold Coast to the entire political grievances of the Black race in Africa and the world over. He found it necessary to exploit his newly refined charisma as a tool to exhume the political disadvantage of the Africans in England, Ghana and other parts of the African continent, making him more of a Pan-Africanist than an African nationalist. African nationalism is a symbol of conformity to the boundary limits that were set to sub-divide the continent and leave Africans being political conquest permeable groups. This is how nationalism differed from Pan-Africanism, which had a holistic approach to the independence of Pan-Africanism and a holistic approach to the independence of the African continent.
The Pan-Africanist line of thinking which Nkrumah adopted in the West was the reason why he became a relevant personality in the struggle for independence in the Gold Coast. His political experiences abroad made him more relevant for the early revolutionary manifestations in Ghana. While he drunk from the cup of Pan-Africanism in England, back at home none was found capable to become the Secretary General of the newly established United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC). In 1947, Nkrumah had to return to Ghana to fill this political vacuum — the Secretary General of the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC).
A year later riots emerged due to the economic discontent of the ex-African servicemen triggered by the continued poor standards of living. The nationwidespread demonstrations made the British administrative government to realise that it was under serious threats. Nkrumah and other leading members of the UGCC were regarded as the prime masterminds of that political riot leading to their arrest. The reality on the ground proved that Nkrumah and his counterparts were not responsible for the demonstrations. This was a peopledriven reaction to express that they were ripened by political oppression to attack the colonial injustices.
After his release from prison, Nkrumah decided to journey around Ghana campaigning against the colonial government. The need for Africans’ selfgovernment in the Gold-Coast was the main edit of his campaign manifesto. The campaign targeted Black communities and these constituted the nation’s majority. By so doing, he was able to build a vast support base towards the cause of self-governance of his motherland. He also stressed the need for women to be legitimately active in the political affairs of Gold Coast.
This was at a time when women’s suffrage was still a new, thing not only in Ghana, but also in the Western politics and such a demand in a colonial setup was a strange thing. Nkrumah also managed to win the hearts of the urban and rural working classes who had grievances with their employers. After gaining support of these diverse social groups he decided to form a collective political organisation that was going to lend its ears to the concerned groups’ needs. Thus, in 1949 the Convention People’s Party (CPP) was formed.
To be continued