Ghana: Kwame Nkrumah – The Unfinished Agenda March 22, 2008

Nkrumah’s unfinihsed agenda. 

Kwesi Pratt  examines  the factors which shaped Nkrumah’ s ideas, ideals and vision, the  current state of the worldwide Nkrumaist Pan African movement and the struggles which lie ahead.

 

The anti-colonial struggle in Africa, a component of the general anti-imperialist struggle, preceded the organised well focused nationalist struggle for independence in the late forties of the 20th century in Africa spearheaded by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. For example before the First World War the Aborigines Rights Protection Society made up of Fante traditional royalty foiled Britain’s attempt to seize Fante land for use by white settlers in the Gold Coast. Meanwhile Garveyism (led by Marcus Garvey, a West Indian black businessman) was gaining currency in Africa with its message “Africa to Africans”.

 

The South African Native National Congress founded in 1912; Nyasaland National Congress founded in i918; John Chilebive’s Anti-First World War Movement which protested, among other things, against the participation of Africans in the useless imperialist war, the Negritude movement in ‘France (by African Students) led by Caesaive, a African West Indian and Leopold Senghor of Senegal. Young Senegalese of Senegal and Young Dahomeans of Dahomey who challenged French socio-economic policies in their respective countries, the Mau Mau Movement led by Dedan Kimathi, the Pan-African Movement – were all examples of such organizations.

 Nkrumah and the anti-colonial struggles

As mentioned earlier an extremely important trait of the third stage of the general crisis of global capitalism was decolonization. But the decolonisation process was informed by the cumulative magnitude of socio-economic hardships and contradictions caused by the general crisis of global capitalism. Nkrumah’s vision and his long anti-imperialist struggle were shaped by these crises, a formidable weapon he used in his onslaught on colonialism.

 

In Ghana and elsewhere in Africa, during the Second World War the colonial powers intensified the exploitation of the human and natural resources of the colonies to be able to finance the war. While they demanded more raw materials from their colonies at reduced prices, they increased the prices of manufactured goods, which they exported .to the colonies.

 

Unemployment which engulfed the youth and thousands of African soldiers who returned from Burma, India and North Africa after the war was widespread. The undeveloped physical and social infrastructure more or less broke down. Misery, hunger, disease, frustration, afflicted the colonized peoples. Law and order were seriously threatened and the crime rate soared astronomically. In other words, the contradictions between the colonial forces and relations of production reached antagonistic proportions beyond repair.

 

Dr. Nkrumah, armed with the correct ideology, scientifically identified the essence of the contradictions and their related objective regularities. He understood Africa’s objective demands and exigencies of the time and mobilized the people around them. It was not his charisma, which informed his success. It was his vision derived from a scientific analysis of the world around him which was nourished by the suffering of the African masses.

 

Nkrumah’s timely intervention was an important watershed in the global anti-imperialist struggle for the following reasons: Firstly, it introduced a new dimension to Africa’s struggle against foreign domination since the pre-­colonial struggle. Secondly, Ghana’s independence opened the flood gates to decolonization of the rest of colonial Africa. Thirdly, the Nkrumah led anti-colonial struggle in Ghana constitutes a very important chapter in the struggle of all oppressed people in the world. Finally, and perhaps, most important of all, Nkrumah’s achievement record is yet to be broken in Ghana. Though lapses which certainly led to his overthrow are regrettable, they constitute a good lesson for the progressive forces in Ghana and elsewhere.

 

Nkrumah has played his part. Currently, global capitalism is having a field day. That is the correlation of class forces globally seems to be in favour of reaction. The big question is; what is the way forward? The apparent inactivity of the progressive forces in Ghana and elsewhere in Africa is not only disturbing. It is also a betrayal of the ordinary people and all that Nkrumah stood for.

 The Nkrumaist front today

Today, Nkrumaist are deeply worried about the state Nkrumaist Movement in Ghana. It has been deeply infiltrated by all manner characters who have no political and ideological commitment to what Nkrumah stood and worked for. It is no uncommon these days to hear self-proclaimed “Nkrumaists” declaring that the times have changed and we should change with the times. They openly advocate the moribund ideology of the exploiting classes under guises such as, Tony Blair’s now discredited “Third Way” and some strange concept which they refer to as “dignitarianism”.

The world in which Nkrumah lived and worked has not changed substantially. It is still dominated by the forces of imperialism and the colonised people are still the drawers of water and hewers of wood. Our natural resources are still being plundered for the benefit of the former colonial powers and their elite. The working class in the advanced capitalist economics continue to suffer the same indignity of exploitation.

 

Those who insist that Nkrumaism is no longer relevant can do the most decent thing. They should leave the Nkrumaist movement alone and join the New Patriotic Party (NPP) or any of other political clubs destined for the dustbin of history. If  Nkrumaism is no longer  relevant, then what are they doing in Nkrumaist political parties.

 

Those of us who profess Nkrumaism and defend its socialist relevance must proclaim socialism as the only option available in the struggling masses. We must recognise that what we are seeing today is history repeating itself as farce largely due to our own passivity and unprincipled and unacceptable disunity. All the issues of political leadership that Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah and the CPP confronted in the 40s, 1950s and 1960s are back on today’s political agenda. The difference is that unlike that period, the critical leadership that progressive forces provided is absent and imperialism is having a field day in our country and in our continent.

 

If we correctly identify the struggles of the fifties and sixties as struggles against imperialism and all its institutions we should not be bending over backwards to appear reasonable to our exploiters and to appease the managers of his institutions ­- IMF, World Bank, so-called development partners and our local elite. We cannot continue to confine ourselves to working professionally within NGOs or academia or media in ways that actually cut us off the masses and their striving. We must engage. And we must not restrict our struggles to the moribund political party structures. Our constitution and our political parties law has been designed to emasculate the masses and promote a culture of patronage that guarantees dominance by two parties equally committed to serving foreign imperialist interests.

 

We must, like Kwame Nkrumah before us, be willing to deepen that crisis and bring things to a head in a manner that allows the masses to resume their historic role in national development and to develop once again the kind of leadership needed to transform Ghana. Today, more than ever before, it has become imperative for the progressive forces to pool their resources and harness their energies for the onslaught against all manifestation of oppression and exploitation.

 

The World today is aff1icted by hunger and disease, vicious exploitation and senseless wars. We must stand together and demonstrate that another world build on the principles of social justice, mass democracy and peace is possible. It is important to focus on the essential issues of how to end poverty and to rein domination. We must produce workable alternatives to what the dominant class in offering and show that all the peoples of the world can and must have relevant education, healthcare and improved housing. This is the task of the Nkrumaist movement.

 

Kwesi Pratt is Editor of Insight, and a commentator on pan African and Global Affairs.

Ghana: Political Leadership and the National Interest March 22, 2008

POLITICAL LEADERSHIP AND THE NATIONAL INTEREST 

It is in the national interest that an aspiring president must have roots in a constituency with a demonstrated record of performance in the provision and delivery of services. Political parties therefore have a duty to first think about what is best for Ghana and put forward candidates who through responsible service have proved that they can represent the national interest. In order to deepen representative governance presidential candidates must have had the experience of serving the needs and protecting the rights of their constituencies. They must really have a record of providing for the needs and meeting the aspirations of the people either at the constituency or national level through exemplary performance in public and/or private sector service. A presidential candidate therefore should at least be capable of wining a parliamentary seat. Political parties consequently owe such a duty to the nation in the selection of candidates for national office.

With such criteria, as indicated above, those who contest and fail to win the presidential candidacy of their parties would be encourage to aim at wining parliamentary seats in order to enrich and strengthen the quality of representative governance. Presidential aspirants are therefore potential parliamentarians with roots in a constituency. For example, parliament would be enriched by the likes of NDC’s Spio Garbrah, PNC’s Yakubu Saaka, NPP’s Frimpong Boateng and CPP’s Badu Akosa (to mention a few) and their constituencies would be better served at the same time. These presidential aspirants would therefore have had hands-on experience of representative governance and proven themselves to be responsible leaders enjoying the confidence of their constituencies through selfless service.

National interest therefore demands that leaders of political parties must also be representative voices in parliament. Experience is the best teacher as parliament becomes a veritable testing ground to mould statespersons widely respected for integrity and impartial concern for the public good. Leading politicians, especially party leaders, would serve their parties and the nation better through the platform that parliament presents. Parliament enjoins discipline – that efficiency of purpose. Parliament demands responsibility – the cornerstone of representative power and authority. Parliament presents access to information and national intelligence to enable power to be exercised responsibly. It is in the national interest therefore that a leader of a political party is a responsible member of parliament servicing a constituency while at the same time demonstrating in parliament that voters have a viable alternative should the ruling party fail them. It serves the country no good if opposition leaders have no voice in parliament, cannot command information and have no access to national intelligence. Any presidential aspirant must be well placed in the process of the exercise of state power either through the executive, legislature or the private sector. A party leader must be able to influence or at least impact on the exercise of state power. For example, serving even on parliamentary committees provides such an essential platform to effect change.

Presidential candidates and their running mates should also avail themselves to run simultaneously for parliamentary seats. By-elections therefore become necessary when a presidential candidate and running mate are elected president and vice-president respectively and they at the same time win their parliamentary seats. Should it happen that the elected president and/or vice-president do lose their parliamentary seats they contested, the winning of nationwide presidential election validates their status. The nationwide choice and voice is inviolate. The other presidential candidates who have also won their parliamentary seats go to parliament as leaders of responsible opposition to enrich debate and strengthen that essential procedure of check and balance.  Should a presidential candidate of a party also fail to win a parliamentary seat then a leading member who won a seat is chosen by their peers to be the leader of the party concerned in parliament. What matters most here is a party leader’s representative voice in parliament and the stature of going through the rites of passage as deserving aspirant to the highest office of state.

All presidential and parliamentary aspirants including seekers of political office from the local to the national level must be acutely conscious of the fact that they do so within the discipline of state power contestation through representative governance.

State power fails to be representative if the exercise of it serves not the purposes of the constitution in respect of equitable service provision and delivery at the local level.  State power must therefore be exercised to ensure equal opportunity to all and equal access to resources by all. There should not be a rich South and impoverished North divide as the continued perpetration of such developmental apartheid falls foul of the national motto of “FREEDOM AND JUSTICE”.

State power must henceforth be the concern and business of all citizens even when citizens through their votes temporarily place an aspect of that responsibility in the hands of their representatives in parliament and in the assemblies. For the state to function effectively much depends on the quality of and moral strength of elected representatives and how well these representatives are able to serve as effective check on the executive. It becomes critical therefore for constituencies to first draw up profiles including personal and professional qualifications for an ideal parliamentarian or assembly person who will serve the national interest and consequently constituency interest. Constituencies then nominate candidates who fit agreed profiles. As it is the choices that we make that define us the choice of a representative must answer clearly the question: “What is it that we are looking for in a representative?”

The national interest is therefore served when the quality of representation makes parliament not a mere rubber stamp of executive wishes. A strong and independent parliament is critical to representative governance. Party loyalty does not mean that MPs must condone executive excesses, incompetence and corrupting acts. Parliamentarians and assembly persons fail in their duty to the nation if they become complicit to executive abuses, especially the use of public office and purse for personal gain and advantage. As soon as elected representatives enter the sacred chambers of parliament or the assembly they do so to serve, protect and advance the national interest above that of the party.  It is parliament and the assembly that present a check on any signs of lapses, poor judgement and corruption on the part of the executive in the exercise of state power. Parliament and the assemblies are constituted to prevent and not to cure acts that tend to prevent effective function of the state. It is rather the judiciary that cures but the teaching here is that prevention is better than cure. Parliament and the assemblies must at all time demonstrate to voters that theirs is a house of zero-tolerance for corruption and abuse of power.  

The state and its agent, the executive, must not be seen as sponsoring corruption and poverty. Institutional corruption and incompetence is a marked failure of the executive and a slap in the face of parliament. It is such failures that infest the effectiveness of the judiciary. Institutions of state that breed corruption and mediocrity must not be tolerated by parliament. It is only when state power and how it is exercised become the concern and business of all citizens that abuse of power would be effectively checked. It is then that a government that uses state power and resources to enrich a privileged few would become an abomination in Ghana.

A government for the few is a corruption and an impoverishment of representative governance. A government for the few is an act of treason and for such to happen is a crass failure on the part of parliament and the assemblies. Here, it becomes the abiding responsibility of the press, the fourth estate, to continuously alert the public and voters of such facts about executive perfidy, moral lapses, poor judgement and general fitness to govern. Eternal vigilance, in the case of Ghana, becomes the price of freedom and justice.

© Akyaaba Addai-Sebo

Independent Consultant on National and Pan-African Interest

25 Azania Mews, London, NW5 3BW, UK

Tel: +447989575666

E-mail: addai@tribute3ml.com

   

Funding Political Parties – to whose benefit? March 22, 2008

In parties we trust  
Political Parties and leadership in GhanaPolitical groupings have been part of the Ghanaian political landscape since the colonial era. The anti-colonial struggle was led largely by interest groups coalescing to act on behalf of the population, even at a time when there was no entity called Ghana. Even the then Gold Coast (as Ghana was known) was hardly a cohesive entity. However, there was a recognition by the intellectuals and elite of the period that colonial rule was an aberration which had to end at some point, and took steps to hasten the defeat of colonialism in Ghana. The Aborigines Rights Protection Society was one of such groups. When the United Gold Coast Conventional (UGCC) was formed by leading activists of the anti-colonial struggle, it was in realisation that only a united “party2 could work to dislodge colonialism. The UGCC disintegrated amidst the onslaught launched by Kwame Nkrumah and his new Convention Peoples Party (CPP). The UGCC metamorphosed into several forms, leading to the National liberation Movement, (NLM). Even though this coalition now calls itself the New Patriotic Party (NPP), its ideology remains the same. Parties in Ghana are therefore the result of mass popular struggles for succession to the colonial regime, and for a wider political mobilisation for freedom from poverty and colonial racism the and its divide and rule tactics. The above summary of a complex history shows that political parties have been and remain the main avenues for political mobilisation based on ideas and leadership. What has made Ghanaian parties relevant in both the pre-colonial and post colonial times have been their independence, the fact that they represent a constituency of ideas – even if they are ethnic abased. The NPP and its predecessor parties have been largely based on the dominant Akan groups in Ghana, drawing their support from cocoa farmers, traders and lawyers. The CPP, the ‘veranda boys’ also drew their support from immigrant populations in the Ashanti region, form the north and other social groups who considered themselves well enough and were therefore opposed to the ‘socialist’ policies of the CPP and Kwame Nkrumah. None of the above descriptions will apply to these parties today, as the NPP has become national, and some sections are beginning to reject the socialist foundations of the CPP. Their relevance is underscored by the fact that they exist to capture power for the groups they represent, and that has been their mainstay, even when the military has seized power, they survive, and live in the hope that they would return one day to capture power. Ghanaian parties are therefore social institutions and legitimising agents of political process and interest group networks who also promote a certain economic and political philosophy. That is the main difference between the Kwame Nkrumah family or Nkrumaists, and the Busia/Danquah  fraternity. Unlike other countries, parties in Ghana have institutional history and social roots. These parties have successfully built a committed cadre of leaders within a democratic process, no matter how flawed it may be, to represent their interests. The recent presidential aspirants nominations of the main arties – the NPP< CPP and NDC produced an impressive list of candidates, a process which was judged by most Ghanaians to be democratic. In Ghana, political parties are socio-political institutions that people recognise as their own, and therefore represent their interests. Parties remain the main interface between them and the state. Peoples see themselves as CPP, NPP, NDC (National Democratic Congress) and so on. During and after elections, parties become the main legitimising agents of government. Political parties are also primary legitimizing agents of the government and governing systems of the state. The social function and legitimizing role of political parties are under unprecedented strain. In Ghana, the process of the process of decolonisation was led by a conscious group of politicians who ensured the emergence of a people led, cohesive and democratic systems of governance under the leadership of Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. The seeds for a viable multiparty democratic system was sown. The claims that the absence of a so-called “vibrant middle class” makes political parties less viable as vehicles of democracy is not supported by Ghana’s example.  To what extent do these parties or political institutions promote democracy? Undoubtedly, political parties remain the most crucial instruments for sustaining and promoting multi party democracy. But single party states can and do also promote democracy. In this case, I refer to the one party rules of Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana and Julius Nyerere in Tanzania. In the case of Ghana, a vibrant multiparty system, with multiple ideological and identity base helped to sustain, strengthen and underpin our brand of democracy, in the time of Kwame Nkrumah and recently, under the post military era. The CPP party of the left, and the NPP, a party with right wing liberal ideology, have contributed to making Ghana a viable multi party democracy. The Achilles heels of governance? In spite of this impressive record, parties in Ghana risk undermining their own role. The  increasing display of wealth and the use of financial inducements to attract votes during the recent NPP presidential aspirants contest was stomach churning and deeply offensive the ordinary supporters of the party. It created that impression that these parties are led by career politicians with a single point agenda of winning state power with all the privileges that come with it. This trend is not Ghana specific, even in the land of the ‘mothers of democracies’ (the UK), this trend is becoming the norm, as for the USA, politics will not be interesting without the millions of dollars they spend on getting themselves elected, and therefore beholden to vested interests. If parliamentary democracy is the route to accountability, democracy and a people based political system, parties remain the engine for this vehicle. As Akyaaba Addai-Sebo wrote in an essay recently, “national interest demands that leaders of political parties must also be representative voices in parliament. Experience is the best teacher as parliament becomes a veritable testing ground to mould statespersons widely respected for integrity and impartial concern for the public good. Leading politicians, especially party leaders, would serve their parties and the nation better through the platform that parliament presents. Parliament enjoins discipline – that efficiency of purpose.” Addai-Sebo continues: “political parties therefore have a duty to first think about what is best for Ghana and put forward candidates who through responsible service have proved that they can represent the national interest. In order to deepen representative governance presidential candidates must have had the experience of serving the needs and protecting the rights of their constituencies. They must really have a record of providing for the needs and meeting the aspirations of the people either at the constituency or national level through exemplary performance in public and/or private sector service. … Political parties consequently owe such a duty to the nation in the selection of candidates for national office.” If political parties are to oil this engine and provide parliamentary democracy with the human resources, it is important that the instruments for achieving this are not undermined by desk-bound academics and civil society activists who do not dare to take up the challenge. Civil society has a role, but it cannot replace political parties, and should not seek to undermine the legitimacy of political parties by their constant whining and headline grabbing antics.  Political parties should not also undermine their own role. If citizens are to trust their parties, they should be seen to be open and accountable. I do not think that foreign organisations should pay parties to play their role as is being proposed. Parties have existed in the past through membership contributions, making them accountable. If parties are funded by foreign non governmental organizations, they cease to be accountable to their own people. They become beholden to some foreign interest as they are forced to open their books for inspection, and will spend time writing “project reports” for their foreign funders. Foreign funding of groups who are likely to rule Ghana should not be encouraged. It undermines national sovereignty.  As Africa tooters towards finding our own brand of democracy, it is important to build institutions. Parliaments represent the people, but there can be no parliaments without political parties to provide the candidates and the wherewithal. But parties and those who represent them, should promote and protect national sovereignty, not undermine it by behaving like charities. Parties are not charities. Those foreign organisations fronting this policy of paying parties should be resisted and banned from doing so by parliament. Zaya Yeebo 

Poverty in Africa and the Aid Industry June 19, 2007

The Politics of poverty: Managing poverty without eradicating it Is Africa poor? The Economist magazine seems to think so. After all, in 2005, it described Africa as that “poverty-stricken continent.” (The Economist, Friday June 10^th 2005). Apart from the obvious generalization about a whole continent, such description gives succor to the colonial mentality that sees no interest in our strengths and development goals, but in our tribulations. Such patronizing and often insulting descriptions of Africa are not new. Describing Africa as “poverty stricken” does not only ignore the fact  that Africa is doing something about it, but also justifies the continuing exploitation in the name of humanitarian relief. If statistics alone were sufficient, I think we have enough proof. According to the United Nations, 8 million children die each year because of poverty, 150 million children under the age of five suffer from extreme malnutrition, and 100 million children live in the streets. Every three seconds, poverty kills a child somewhere. About 3 billion people receive only about 1.2% of the world’s income, while 1 billion people in the rich countries receive 80%. In a recent document, the UN restated these grim facts: “Currently 4.8 million children in sub-Saharan Africa die before the age of five every year – that is, nine deaths every minute. With one fifth of the world’s births, sub-Saharan Africa currently accounts for 45% of child deaths. … If current trends continue, there will be 5.1 million deaths in 2015, with Africa’s share rising to 57% of the total.” Such statistics provide grim reading. Even without these figures, the reality that confronts anybody with a fleeting interest in the life of people will notice it everywhere in Africa. Social and economic  chaos, poverty, misery, youth unemployment and general unacceptable levels of deprivation.  These grim statistics stand in contrast to the political improvements that Africa has seen of late. At no time in African history has the continent scored such high points in its democratisation process. Successful elections, high voter turn out, functioning parliaments, the mushrooming of political parties, increasing NGOs and civil society organizations. In spite of these successes at the political front, and the immense advantages which globalisation has offered other regions, poverty is increasing daily in Africa. As things stand today, it would be churlish to assume this trend can be reversed within our lifetime without a fundamental rethink.  For decades to come, we will be debating why and how Africa is poor. Poverty, like most concepts, also suffers from a lack of understanding of what it really entails. More often than not, the people who define it, and lead the struggle against it, are coming from a position of affluence, and from a cultural mindset that inhibits their clarity of understanding. For example, all talk about poverty is reduced to how incomes corresponds to the US dollar. For example what odes it means to say that Niger is poor because its farmers earn less than one dollar a day. How does Niger’s situation compare with that of Ghana? Such bogus comparisons may have meaning for some faceless bureaucrats at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), but to someone working to make sense of how people life in such abject misery, it is absolute bunkum. The problems of African farmers, youth, women, and citizens in general cannot be compared simply to another country’s currency, no matter how many smart bombs that country possesses. Some African leaders ignore the grim reality that the above statistics provide. Indeed, in some cases, people are advised to put it with it. Of course, there is another Africa that makes the talks of poverty and demands for social justice seem unnecessary and uncalled for. The roads of some African cities like Nairobi, Accra, Abuja, are full of the most expensive jeeps and 4×4 cars, Benzes, etc. Our politicians and business classes build mansions, have access to the best goods on the market and live in luxury which Europeans will envy if only they knew. This is the Africa nobody talks about. But that is hardly the point. The hard truth is that poverty is stalking the people of Africa under a global system which is supposed to promote equality, social justice and shared values. The global struggle against poverty has two fronts: the global and the Africa. On the global front, anti-poverty programmes are influenced largely by a mindset which is alien to the African cultural milieu in which grim poverty thrives. It is within this context that the use of the term “alleviating” has a particular flavour. How would a poor farmer in Mozambique or the Democratic Republic of the Congo want us to deal with poverty? What does it mean to tell a child who has only one meal a day that all that we can do is to alleviate his or her suffering? Do we really want to abolish the suffering or merely to ameliorate it?   Analysing poverty has become an industry and an end in itself not a means of understanding it.  Government and institutional libraries are bulging with volumes of reports analyzing  poverty. Yet, one would be hard pressed to find any durable and Africa-led solutions in these volumes. Western development agencies like  the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) has spent more money on poverty Consultants, researchers, and analysts, than it has spent on actual poverty  eradication programmes in my village Kongo (Ghana). I dare DFID to  disprove this. The response to poverty in Africa itself has many contradictions. In rural Africa, poor men, women and youth are too busy trying to stay alive. Most of whom are even unaware that governments are supposed to help them find jobs, gain access to schools and primary health care. The resilience of these people should be celebrated and not questioned. From my experience, poverty is not a reflection of  poor people’s inability to stand up for themselves, or the inability of poor people to compete in a free-for-all society as demanded by the axis of economic evils: IMF and World Bank and multinational corporations.  Infact, poor people’s resilience to their conditions is a mark worthy of study. Most poor people have, from the cradle to the grave, relied on their own creativity, intuition  and wit to survive. Most poor people  in most African countries will not have contact with a “government” (except in election time when they will probably see a desperate politician).   Corrupting society Unable to deal with the structural causes of the problem, some ingenious souls have now imposed another problem on Africans. That of corruption. Some have even suggested that corruption is a  major cause of conflict in African. Anti-corruption industries are creeping up everywhere in Africa today, once again led by self imposed apostles of politician-bashing NGOs and civil society organisations.  The current euphoria about corruption is not new. In the 1970s – 1980s, every coup maker used it as a legitimate excuse  for overthrowing a civilian government. Ghana represents the most extreme of these examples. Infact, no African country has goner to such brazen lengths to deal with supposed cases of corruption. The result is almost nauseating. In 1979, the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) regime, led by the now retired Jerry Rawlings, tied up and executed several army officers, including three former Heads of State (General Afrifa, General Kutu Acheampong and  General Akuffo), for alleged cases of corruption. That has not done much for the anti-corruption crusade in Ghana.  Rawlings, who led this execution, was later to preside over one of the most corrupt governments in Ghana to date – the Provisional National Defence Council regime and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) governments.  It is important to acknowledge that corruption is a problem in many cases, but the extent to which this phenomenon contributes to increasing poverty is not proven. Italy, and in some cases, the EU bureaucracy has been accused of corruption in the media, yet, there is not huge industry of latter day saints setting up huge offices to combat it. This statement will no doubt irritate and irk those African intellectuals who have become apologists for Rawlings and his excesses. It is worth repeating: the whole Rawlings era, and the Rawlings government, is one of the most corrupt periods in Ghanaian history. The number of homeless children in Ghana today, the sight of dilapidated hospitals (e.g. the Tamale hospital in Ghana) and clinics, and the extreme poverty in rural Ghana speaks volumes. Rawlings spread the poison of dishonesty, deceit, corruption, dishonor and mistrust in Ghanaian society. His whole period has been a weapon of moral destruction in Ghana. Yet, there is no evidence that a state-led anti-corruption bureaucracy will change the situation in Ghana. State bureaucracies will not eliminate nor stop people from being corrupt.  However, what is new about the current spate of anti-corruption initiatives’ is the amount of resources being spent, and the fact that it is now a “donor-driven” (to use a common cliché) agenda.  Corruption is a symptom or if you like a malaise of the whole process of underdevelopment, and the failure of the neocolonial agenda. To take money which should have been spent on building primary schools to get children into school or clinics for children and mothers, to set up huge bureaucratic machines – called “anti-corruption commissions”, or so-called “accountability centres”  while ordinary people, especially, children,  die for lack of drugs, is to say the least sickening, and does not deal with the problems at all.  Infact this whole anti-corruption agenda is a mere fiddle to make us look the other way while multi-national corporations and their African supporters make away with the wealth of the people. The numerous workshops and press releases on corruption are just another gimmick to hoodwink the people that something is being done, while in actual fact, the leaders of civil society, and the politicians they criticize meet at the junction of plenty, from which they drink from the same water point. The foreign donors who prop them up are part of the same web of deception. It will have no impact because the structural causes of poverty and why people are prone to corruption are not being addressed. That is why I refuse to fall for this gigantic  con-trick being perpetuated  today.Contrary to what Western governments would have us believe, poverty does not persist solely because of incompetent, corrupt governments that are insensitive to the fate of their people. No. Poverty persists because of historical problems created by colonialism, neo-colonialism and now in a global world in which more resources are  spent on killing machines than on pro-poor programmes.   For the past two decades, development experts have held the view that if NGOs, faith groups, and international organisations build primary schools, clinics, dig bore holes, and wells, etc, the lives of the poor in Africa will improve. The number of NGOs in Africa and globally  seem to confirm this optimistic view. Undoubtedly, some of the organisations have made some positive contribution to peoples lives. Others have a made a complete mess in these attempts.  The reality is no matter how many wells are dug in Bukina Faso and  Mali, no matter how many income generation programmes are fronted, and no matter how many workshops are held in the affluent parts of Accra, their overall impact on poverty is at best paltry. It also appears that the more aid money is poured into a country, the more lethargic the government becomes, and the poorer the people. In the 1960s and early 1970s, Ghanaians were  better off relatively  than they are today, yet there were fewer NGOs and little donor money. Today, there are too many NGOs, lots of donor money, yet the people are poorer. Explain that to me.  The reason for this is that many of the programmes that are required to break away from the cycle of poverty are frowned upon. NGOs do not deal with the structural causes of poverty, workshops don’t. Actual improvement in education, health, housing, the agricultural sector, basic industries to provide employment, is the avenue to eradicating poverty. But IMF structural adjustments have ensured that government support to education, health, food production and welfare, have been removed completely. Yet, it is an investment in these areas that will improve the quality of live, and ensure that we begin that fateful road to a government supported welfare state. NGOs do not build roads and hospitals (they may build health centres and train local midwives). But to what extent do such local interventions lead eventually to eradicating poverty? Very little. International NGOs and their Ghanaian counterparts are good at managing people’s poverty, not at eradicating it. Government intervention in school and health infrastructure, improvement in the road system, support to local entrepreneurs, should be the answer to eradicating poverty in Africa. I take my example from the early years of the Kwame Nkrumah government in Ghana. Kwame Nkrumah and his Convention Peoples Party (1954 – 1966) undertook an ambitious and radical reshaping of Ghana, building the foundations of one of the most admirable welfare states in African history. This was demonized after the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency – US) overthrew the Nkrumah government in 1966.  I know it is common for people to fall for imperialist and local propaganda about the Kwame Nkrumah administration. Claims that this government was repressive and corrupt is absolute nonsense. Did it deal with the problems of poverty? Did it respond to the needs of children’s education in Ghana? Did it lay the foundations for self reliance? Did it make an impact on the anti-colonial struggle? The answer to all these questions  is YES. No Ghanaian government has achieved so much in a short a little time. It is no wonder that Kwame Nkrumah remains a giant among African leaders. In essence, we need to return to the early days of African independence in which our founding fathers tired to instill in us a sense of national and patriotic pride and love for Africa. Nations are built on these foundations.  What the Nkrumah era shows is that if the state and our governments respond to the most pressing problems facing people of every country through targeted welfare programmes, corruption will cease to have an attraction to people. Create a poverty-ridden society, remove the moral fabric of that society through IMF-supervised and led structural adjustments, and corruption will thrive. 

(c) Zaya Yeebo – June 2007