AFRICA: EXILE MOVEMENTS AND DEMOCRATIC CHANGE October 6, 2008

Exile Movements and Democratic Change in Africa

 

The report of a Conference organised in 2006, is entitled, “Telling Our Own Stories – African Activists in Exile” written by Zaya Yeebo, fills a missing chapter in Africa’s quest for genuine democratic rule based on Constitutionalism and democratic reform, and for a better understanding of the role of Africans in exile.

---

 

What do African political activists do in exile? This is a question I have been asked often. But the answer has always been long in coming. This time, I am trying to provide one.

 

Yusuf Hassan, a prominent Kenyan political activist in the 1980s, believes that by not discussing the role of exile movements in African, politics, we are leaving out a great part of the history f political struggles. He call this, the “missing chapter in the history of democratization” in Africa. By this, he means that any examination of the recent history of Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria would reveal glaringly, how the exile opposition movements are denied their place in history. It is as if the exile movements did not play a central role in the return to constitutionalism and democracy. Yet the role of these groups in the democratization process is far more remarkable than it is often recognized.

 

The political turmoil that engulfed some African states in the 1970s and early 1980s, invariably led to the flow of some major political groups towards western countries, principally, the UK, France, Germany, and the United States, among others. In the UK, the exile movement comprised major political groups and activists from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Cameroon, Uganda, the Gambia and Nigeria.  One common feature of these groups was their desire to continue the “struggle” for democracy back in their countries.

 

It has to be recognised that this was in the period of the cold war, and in no other continent was the cold war fought more bitterly than in Africa, where politics and society in general reflected the divisions created by the cold war. Politics in the 1970s and early 1980s reflected the international situation then. The flow of exiles is also symptomatic of the brain drain that has affected Africa for decades.

 

Countries which have experienced political instability and violence tend to have the greatest exodus of its professional and business classes. Ghana is a classic example of this phenomenon. Between 1966 and 1980, many professionals left Ghana to seek say or refugee status in other parts of the world. This exemplifies the political instability, economic chaos and general uncertainty of that period. Under the Rawlings regime, there was a deliberate attempt to drive out those who were most likely to oppose the regime or resist the political oppression and corruption of the era.

 

Ask any political exile and the answer you get is that they have no reason to leave for good. While in exile, he would campaign for political reform and democratic v change to create the environment for their return home. Getting exiles to return therefore requires significant political change as it happened in Ghana after the defeat of the National Democratic Congress regime. Historically, political exiles have played a significant role in democratic change in many Africa countries.

 

African leaders in exile

Two prominent leaders of Ghana, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah and the late Professor Abrefa Busia studied in the US and the United Kingdom, and were profoundly influenced by the debates about democracy from two differing political perspectives. Dr. Kwame Nkrumah was influenced by the emerging pan African, and his association with other political exiles like CLR James influenced his radical thinking greatly. The late Dr. Kamuzu Banda lived in Ghana and was influennced by the emerging independence movement in Ghana, and later returned to campaign for the liberation of Malawi. In the same way, Zimbabwe’s  radical leader, Robert Mugabe studied in Ghana, where he met his wife and was influenced by  the ideas of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah.

 

While not describing themselves as “exiles”, they were nonetheless living outside the boundaries of the countries they sought to influence. This includes Jomo Kenyatta, Obafeimi Awolowo (Nigeria) , Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana), Kamuzu Banda (Malawi), Kenneth Kaunda (Zambia) and Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe). The leadership of the African National Congress of South Africa would qualify for this categorisation.

 

Exiles of the 1908s 

In the early 1980s, political exiles living in the United Kingdom, led by  the late Professor Mohammed Babu, played a leading role in mobilising Diaspora based African to campaign for the end of military dictatorships ad an end to one-party rule in Africa, and for a return to multi-party democracy. London in the 1980s was the bastion of anti-dictatorship struggles with almost every African country represented in the political circuits. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the repression initiated by  Mengisthu  and his Marxist Derg regime in Ethiopia in the 1980s drove hundreds of thousands of professionals, students, businessmen and women,  and generally every Ethiopian who has the means to leave did so.

 

Some of these exiles who settled in London, the United States and other parts f the world,  helped to fund and organise the armed opposition that toppled Mengistu Haile Mariam in 1991.  Somali went through a similar phase spanning the time of Siad Barre to the time of his death and the breakout of the civil war.

 

The Ghanaian Exile Movement in the 1980s

In the 1980s, Ghanaian exile movements included the United Revolutionary Front, the Democratic Alliance of Ghana, the Ghana Democratic Movement, and several others. Most of these represented mainstream political parties like the Convention Peoples Party, and the Busia Danquah fraternity. The current leadership of he NP government includes prominent people who were then in exile. Honourable J. H. Mensah, General Hamidu, and several others top this list. Others like Major Boake Djan also played a leading role in mobilising exile movement for the restoration f democracy in Ghana.

 

Nowhere is the role of the exile movement more exemplified than South Africa under the white-minority apartheid regime. The fall of apartheid in South Africa was hugely influenced by the contribution of leading South African exiles from both the African national Congress (ANC) and the Pan African Congress (PAC). Leading exiles like Thabo Mbeki, now president, spent years in exile. Africans driven abroad by political repression, economic hardship and lack of academic freedom, often return to agitate for progressive political and social change. Exiles from Kenya, Ghana, Togo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Bukina Fasso, and many other countries have played and continue to play this role.

 

Since politics is a major cause of exile, political changes can also causes  many exiles to return home to take off from where they left. The end of the brutal Rawlings dictatorship brought many Ghanaian exiles and émigrés back home. The same situation applied in South Africa after the fall of the apartheid regime, the defeat of Daniel Arap Moi in Kenya in 2003, the fall of the Sani Abachi dictatorship in Nigeria. The end of apartheid brought South African exiles home in droves. 

 

African Movements in Exile 

The role of exile based organisations and intellectuals in molding internal democratic processes are as old as history itself. History is replete with examples of exiled groups and intellectuals working to promote constitution making and democratisation processes. Academics and intellectuals who had lived in the Diaspora led the independence movement in Africa.

 

In some countries such as Rwanda, Uganda, Namibia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Sudan, former exiles have returned to play significant roles in their own countries. The list above would indicate a certain trend in this, i.e., where the internal opposition is armed, the role of the exile movement becomes central to their own post liberation role. However, in countries such as Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana, where opposition has mostly been peaceful the outcome has been different. It has not been so easy.

  

Exile movements in the Diaspora do not always have the same ideological or political orientation. It is also possible for one country to have several political groups divided mainly by ideology and sometimes ethnicity (e.g., Ghana and Nigeria). The congregation of these groups in the UK, mainly London, meant that networking became inevitable, especially, when some of these groups began to realise that the governments were exploiting their own internal divisions.

 

Another factor, which influenced these groups, was the international solidarity from various European groups and progressive individuals, especially in the UK. For example the Committee for the release of Political Prisoners in Kenya was formed to campaign for the release of  Ngugi W’athiongo, and for greater freedom against what was then characterised as “the Arap Moi dictatorship”. This group campaigned against the Moi dictatorship and for the release of political prisoners in Kenya.

 

It is not an exaggeration to state that at some point, these groups became the only viable platforms for campaigning against one party dictatorship and for constitutional reform in some African countries. Kenya’s Mwakenya and the Nigerian democratic movement under the Abacha dictatorship are examples.   For example, in the 1980s, the Rawlings regime went through a period of severe political repression characterised by executions, detentions of opponents without trial, and general intimidation of the population. The only avenue to express dissent and to campaign for a return to democratic rule was through the opposition movements based in London, namely the left wing United Revolutionary Front (URF) and the right wing Campaign for Democracy in Ghana.

 

Ugandans, Cameroonians, Gambians, Sudanese, Ethiopians, etc. also did the same for their cause in London. These groups published propaganda materials, contributed cash and in some few cases, arm to their groups at home. They also linked up with human rights groups in Europe such as Africa Watch, the Africa Research & Information Bureau (ARIB), Amnesty International to campaign for the release of political prisoners.

 

Undoubtedly, the activities of these organisations and individuals contributed greatly to changing perceptions about the nature of these regimes and bolstered the activities of opposition groups in the home country.  The talk of the second liberation, third revolution, which would sweep away one-party dictatorships and their military counterparts, were born of this exile revolution.

 

It is this aspect of African history, and contribution to democracy that has yet to be debated, documented and studied. The exile movement remains in the UK, but its relevance is waning as most African governments take the constitutional road to democracy. This project seeks to discuss the role of exile movements in the democratisation process, and provide an avenue to examine the continuing role of these movements in the democratisation process.

 

While exile groups may contribute to Constitutionalism and the democratic process, they may also present some moral dilemmas. There is always a political contestation between exile groups based in the Diaspora and internal opposition groups. The main question for this being whether these groups really represent the national interest  (different contestations of the national interests based on class, ideology and the programme of a political movement).

 

The Centre for Community Development Initiative’s (www.ccdi.org.uk) “Exiles and Democratisation” Project has been looking at the role of these movements in African politics. Funded by the Ford Foundation (www.fodrfoundation.org), the project works with exile based political groups and individuals to examine in detail, the role that these movements have played and continued to play in African politics. The report of a Conference organised in 2006, is entitled, “Telling Our Own Stories – African Activists in Exile”. This book fills a missing chapter in Africa’s quest for genuine democratic rule based on Constitutionalism and democratic reform, and for a better understanding of the role of Africans in exile.

 

© Zaya Yeebo, updated, August 2008

Ghana: Northern Youth, Conflcit and the 2008 Elections October 6, 2008

Ghana: Northern youth must reject the culture of violence.

Once again, Ghana is waking up to some painful realities: it cannot claim to be the sole island of peace and stability; that that politics in the north is inter-twinned with the numerous chieftaincy disputes that have lingered for years. In this case, I use ‘the North’ broadly to cover all the three regions – Upper East, Upper West and Northern regions. I am also aware that the majority of people in the North, like the rest of Ghana, would rather live in peace, regardless of political allegiances, and the choices that elections present. The current mayhem in some parts of the northern region, and in Bawku, will make the north a laughing stock in Ghana and Africa. It is not too late to stop this spiral of unnecessary and unwanted conflict.

 

What is driving this mayhem? The temptation is to blame the leadership of the two main protagonists involved in the violence. There is no doubt that they bear some responsibility for this. Dr. Edward Nasigre Mahama, Presidential aspirant of the Peoples National Convention (PNC) was more forthright and even brave. He was quoted as saying: “I visited the sites where both NDC and NPP property, as well as stores of some innocent traders had been destroyed and I condemn the two political parties NPP and NDC for being responsible for the destruction,” he emphasized. He also described some political groups as “violent parties.”

 

The Regent of Gulkpegu Alhaji Abdulai Ziblim, was quoted by the Ghana News Agency (GNA) as saying that “the recent disturbances in the Tamale Metropolis and the Gushiegu District were not entirely political.”  Alhaji Ziblim went even further to say that “the recent disturbances were just like the events leading to the 2004 general election, in which some people openly wielded arms and the recent registration exercise, which witnessed gun-shots at certain polling stations.” Candidly, he added: “In all these instances, nobody has been arrested and this gives the impression that some people are above the law because the police seem to be helpless in the circumstances” (Sept 03, GNA)

The poor security in the Northern region was confirmed by the Metropolitan Chief Executive of Tamale, Mr. Mohammed Amin Adam, warned: “I could not guarantee a peaceful election in Tamale and therefore the need for the Regional Security Council to come in with all the force behind them to ensure that everybody is able to exercise his or her political right to ensure that Tamale one again does not become a flashpoint” was apramount.

 

In an article I wrote earlier that year, I cautioned the youth of the North, and followers of some political leaders as they could be used as tools for the political ambitions of some people who have lost political power in Ghana, and would do anything to regain it – ‘by any means necessary.’ Of course, others would do anything to retain the power they have gained so far. It appears that such caution has been thrown to the wind. Once again, the North has become the centrepoint for proxy wars and ambitions of certain individuals who think they have a God-given right to leadership by all means and at all costs. Is this unavoidable, and is there any justification for this?

 

The current problems in Tamale and Gushiegu, follows predictable patterns as there exists some chieftaincy disputes in the area. The unresolved difficulties following the assassination of the late Ya Na, and the fact that the community is divided along party lines makes this easier. Far away from Tamale, the Bawku crisis remains unresolved. This problem  has its ethnic and chieftaincy origins, but always expressed along party lines – it used to be Busia/Danquah versus the CPP, but now it is now likely to be NDC versus NPP. There are other similar conflicts around chieftaincy in the Wa area as well. This is quite worrying. The cheerleaders of this violence are never the victims. The actions of some political leaders in recent Ghanaian history killed the very notion of respect for life, and fertilised the soil with bile and blood, out of which now festers ethnic and religious fanaticism. These vain and ignorant crusaders will never take up arms themselves, especially, now that people are waking up to what some of these forces really represent. That is why the North remains vulnerable to proxy wars and conflict.

 

The North is the most underdeveloped part of Ghana, a fact recognised by most Ghanaians and international organisations. Yet, it also remains the scene of intractable conflict. Poverty and conflict usually go hand in hand. Now, we have added another dimension: elections as a way of settling political, ethnic and chieftaincy disputes. But how can the north rise from the depths of underdevelopment if the people who can lead this fight against poverty – youth, women, civil society, chiefs’, etc, are at each others throats. Who benefits from this cycle of violence?

 

The NDC ruled Ghana for over 20 uninterrupted years, while the NPP has been in power for almost eight years. The fact that the people of the north have not seen any redemption is a matter of objective analysis, and not a partisan issue. That the North still suffers from benign neglect is n undisputable fact. For the youth to start dividing themselves along NPP/NDC/CPP lines are worrying. The question the youth should be asking themselves is which of these parties can bring development and relief to the poverty stricken citizens of the North?  Which of the major two parties has the political will, capability and the interest to address the marginalisation which the north suffers from after December 2008?

 

When this election is over and the politicians have attained the ultimate prize, Northern youth will go back to their communities, live and work together. So why go on a burning and killing spree for the benefit of others? Youthful enthusiasm, and the perceived interests of the parties’ at elections could be some of the reasons, but I go for the other reason for this behaviour, that there are some dark forces intent on making the North look like a violent backyard, something they cannot do in their own constituencies’. Of course, the 2008 elections is quite crucial, with the discovery of oil, and all the wealth that comes along with being a Minister of State, a party apparatchik, or even a Member of Parliament. Where does the interest of the ordinary citizen, the mmoborowas (downtrodden masses) of the North feature in this scenario?

 

The current problems in the North are also about the lack of leadership in the three regions. We have seen the frenzy surround the choice of “running mates”. It is almost becoming like a fashion accessory. If you want northerners to vote for you, chose a Northerner as a running mate. But which of the choice names that have emerged have shown exemplary leadership in the North? History repeats itself, but never exactly in the same fashion.  History can also provide lessons for the future. History tells us that the North suffers from benign neglect, and has done so under the two parties’ whose supporters are involved in the current conflict.  It also tells us that northern leaders are no different from those from other parts of Ghana. The North is poor, the people wallow in abject poverty, and children do not go to school, while northern women still suffer from backward traditional practices. This is likely to remain the case even after the December 2008 elections, no matter who wins. Where are the voices of reason? What does history tell us about politicians and their promises to help lift the North from poverty and deprivation?

 

Northern leaders, whoever they are, should accept some responsibility for the current state of affairs. They are responsible for failing to understand the challenges, or the consequences of enlightened and progressive politics in the era of globalisation that the state cannot be expected to redeem our people, especially one led by people who have to reason to care. The Northern elite (me included) seem incapable of responding with humanity when confronted with genuine challenges, glaring injustice, and clear political choices. Some of us are even complicit in the oppression of our people. What is clear is, ever since independence, Northerners  have become a backyard for proxy violent party political struggles. First between ‘matemeho’ (Busia/Danquah) and the CPP during the independence struggles. Then in the Unigov years, between pro-and anti-UNIGOV supporters. The story goes on.

 

My advice to fellow Northerners is to reject the politics of violence and hate, to reject those leaders who seek to turn the North into a conflict zone in order  to feather their political nests.  The Northern leadership should speak with one voice against violence, and against those forces that are fanning these proxy wars in the three regions. For the meantime, I expect the two running mates of the NDC and the NPP to come out strongly against the use of violent political actions, and the suffering that it brings to ordinary people. This is about humanity and decent behaviours, not about party politics. Nationally, the heated, sometimes, abusive language of some leaders sitting in the comfort of their state sponsored homes in Accra, while inciting violence in the ‘zongos’ should be rejected by northerners’, by the Imams, chiefs, and youth leaders. If political leaders resort to abuse instead of informed, civil debate, the youth will follow suit.

 

History has shown that some of these so-called leaders actually thrive and blossom in times of mayhem and violence, when law and order breaks down. Some of them seek the complete destruction of the modern state, that way, and they can justify their violent personal and political behaviour. Such elements are beginning to peddle once more, ideas that were dismissed as peripheral and unacceptable in any decent society. But why use the North? Their houses never get burnt down, they are not prevented form undertaking economic activities to sustain their livelihoods, their children are not prevented from going to school, so what do they care? Such people should be asked to foment conflict and mayhem in their own backyard, and leave the suffering innocent people of the north alone. The northern political leaders who belong to the “parties of violence” should be ashamed of themselves in equal measure.

 

Northern leaders, especially, leaders of political party representatives in the North should begin to speak with one voice, and for the nation as a whole to say enough is enough. We need a peaceful election, but cannot have one if the leaders of political parties encourage young people to resort to mindless violence about nothing. If the national leadership fails to achieve this, then the whole question of national unity is in peril. As for the northern leaders, I can only say this: If you cannot bring a halt to the emerging violence, then you lose your raison d’être to aspire to national office and leadership. The time for unity is now; ordinary people in the North have suffered for far too long. Let us call a halt to these proxy wars.

 

 

© Zaya Yeebo / September 2008

Ghana’s Presidential race: Why Akuffo Addo is miles Ahead August 28, 2008

Ghan’s Presidential race: Why I fear Nana Akuffo Addo is Miles Ahead.

 

A recent research by an American firm, claims that the MP for Akim Abuakwa South, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, presidential candidate of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) “has been tipped to win the December election.” A similar research by groups fronting for the Convention Peoples Party (CPP) also claims that the CPP will “overtake the NDC.”

 

 

 

In an election year, there will be many of such research and pools. But how can they be trusted? Without venturing, I will dare make many predictions. Recently, when I told a close friend that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo will win the Presidential elections and succeed Agyekum Kufour, his response was immediate. “No, they (NPP) cannot win this time.”

“Why”, I asked sounding perplexed. His answer was to the point. “There is too much poverty”. He could have said more, but he did not. No one can argue against the fact that for the past eight years, poverty has been on the increase, while the North-South divide is getting  dangerously wide. Yes, there is too much poverty, but unlike my friend, how much of that can be attributed solely to the NPP and Kufour?

 

For more than 20 years, Rawlings ruled Ghana first under the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) and later under the NDC (National Democratic Congress) administrations. So if Ghana is poor, and Ghanaians cannot make ends meet – which is a fact, who should be held responsible? The Committee for Joint Action (CJA) will blame the NPP. Indeed, on some occasions, Rawlings has been seen to join CJA rallies, giving credence this antiquated lie.

 

For me, Rawlings, more than Kufour should be held responsible for the current poor state of our infrastructure and welfare services. Water shortages, load shedding, poor primary schools, child poverty, you name it. If it is a matter of apportioning blame, then he (Rawlings) should shoulder a greater proportion of this, after all, he was in charge for over 20 years. Why Ghanaian voters will punish Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo for something that is not his making beats my mind? But some people seem to think that this is what will happen. Ghanaian voters are quite sophisticated, and can distinguish political gerrymandering for truth, I think so.

 

 

Incumbency and Diaspora connections are also important factors in this selection. Undoubtedly, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo will benefit from his government’s incumbency. While the NPP rules Ghana, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo will have advantages which the other Presidential aspirants may not have. Other parties in Africa have always benefitted from incumbency, but Sierra Leone and Kenya demonstrates that sometimes, a party needs more than incumbency to win an election. But it is worth exploring.

 

Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has been to Guinea, Nigeria, and will soon be on his way to other countries with huge Ghanaian Diaspora communities. Some of this can be attributed to the fact that the NPP is still in charge. But to be frank, the NPP has always had a huge Diaspora following in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands and so on. The Diaspora has always been a source of funding for the NPP. The party will exploit these connections to raise huge amounts of money for the Akuffo Addo campaign.

 

The NDC has also benefitted from such Diaspora links, although limited to the personality of Rawlings. Rawlings could rely on a few Diaspora Ghanaians and African-Americans in the US because he built connections with the African-American community mainly through the Louis Farrakhan networks while he was in office. Recently, the CPP presidential candidate, Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom, was in London on fundraising and meet the community tour. His address to party loyalists in north London was impressive, candid and courageous. He demonstrated that the CPP’s revival was not a figment of our imagination, and for party loyalists like me, it was encouraging.

 

The strength of the various parties contending for power is another. The NPP, NDC, CPP and PNC are the main parliamentary parties. Of all these parties, the NPP remains the one with huge potential to raise money – by any means necessary. The NDC has advantages which it has squandered and continues to squander due to huge personal egos and power hungry individuals who behave as though Ghana will sink without their meddling.

 

The continuing attention lavished on Rawlings – who is not a Presidential candidate is disadvantageous to the Professor John Evans Atta-Mills campaign. In my view, and it is one which I will hold with deep religious conviction, the main obstacle between Professor Mills and state power is neither Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom nor Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, but Rawlings.  It also appears that no one in the NDC has the courage and conviction to ask Rawlings to do the decent thing for the sake of the party. For Professor Mills to run a clean and honest campaign, Rawlings and the undemocratic tendency in the NDC must take a back seat and allow the Professor to represent their party (the  NDC).  Until then, the Professor has a huge battle.

 

How about the others? The CPP is beginning to show some revival under the leadership of Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom.  Since he won the support of the CPP congress, Dr. Ndoum has taken up the challenge with confidence and zeal. Those of us who doubted his commitment to the Nkrumaist agenda will now have to revise our thoughts and support Dr. Ndoum. He appears to be a fighter, a man of unadulterated zeal and convictions. However, the CPP will need more than this for Dr. Ndoum to get the keys to the castle of Flag Staff House.  There are some who think Kwesi Nduom might even lead the CPP to victory. My projection is that the CPP will make serious parliamentary gains. Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom might hold the cards if the Presidential race goes for a second run. Nevertheless, Kwesi Ndoum will take the party far beyond what others have done in the last two elections.

 

In assessing the chances of the parties and their candidates, it is becoming clear to me that the Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo campaign is perhaps the most professional, up to date and formidable machinery.  It is obvious that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is exploiting his skills as a human rights lawyer and campaigner to good use. The NPP is not known for its activism, but Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is. This shows that there is a distinction between President Kufour and Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.

 

He is pragmatic about regional and pan African politics, so far, he seems to be the only one articulating the ECOWAS agenda. He has already broken his party’s mould by talking about pan Africanism, while he was in Guinea (Conakry), even paying tribute to Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. Whether this is an opportunities election ploy or not, we wait to see. Basically, he is stealing the clothes of the CPP. That worries me as a CPP member because I have always regarded that terrain as a no go area for the NPP. The CPP will need to catch up. Paa Kwesi Ndoum also articulates a progressive regional and Pan African policy, supported by Kwame Nkrumah’s daughter.

 

On the economic front, I will need to check party manifestoes before passing judgement. My guess at this stage is that there will be little difference between them. The NPP will maintain its liberal economic philosophy, with greater emphasis on the market, and probably continue the NDC policy of selling the nations assets to the highest foreign bidder. It will do what the IMF and World Bank instructs it to do, although with more caution than Rawlings and his PNDC/NDC did with the help of Dr. Kwesi Botchway, and foreign predators.

 

Here, only the CPP has the blueprint for a national economic revival of the ailing neo-colonial economy. It is refreshing to listen to Dr. Paa Kwesi Ndoum honestly articulating a progressive economic policy based on self reliance. It seems the CPP will have some welfare type policies to appeal to its grassroots but the leadership is certainly not a socialist ideology wielding type. As for the NDC, the way the Rawlings regime handed Ghana’s economy to market forces, selling anything of value, and closing down schools and welfare centres, making civil servants unemployed and so point to the sort of recklessness which Ghanaian can do without. I do not think they are better at managing the neo-colonial economy than the NPP, probably worse. Neither the NDC nor NPP can match the CPP on this score.

 

I am worried at my own conclusions, for, if my predictions are right, Ghana will be ruled for another 4 years by the NPP, but this time with Nana Akuffo Addo as President. It will be crowning moment for the NPP, but sad for Nkrumaists like me since I would like to see the back of the NPP. Of course, I would like to see the CPP ruling Ghana again, but that is a forlorn hope, and might not happen. Something tells me that my wishes will not come through this time. I have to get used to another dose of NPP medicine. If this happens, the only real loser will be Professor Atta Mills, who would have lost his last chance of becoming President. But it is too early for such predictions, there will be several months of campaigning and mudslinging. Even my village bakologo (frafra word for soothsayer) is cautious on this. He is playing a waiting game, so am I?

 

 

Zaya Yeebo

Ghana at crossraods: Time for Change August 28, 2008

 Ghana at Criossroads: Time for change

 

For the first time in Ghana’s post independence history, the choice of a president remains a very tight race. For a start, there is an impressive array of presidential aspirants, most of whom, one can say with satisfaction, have the right credentials to run Ghana. That makes it a very tight race. But there is more to this election than most.

 

In 2000, the election was about whether the Rawlings founded NDC (National Democratic Congress) could be trusted to take Ghana forward without a major political and social conflict. It can be said with certainty that in 2000, there were many political interests in Ghana who thought that another NDC victory would spell a disaster for the country. Rawlings had been in power for almost twenty years in various guises.

 

While many Ghanaians can point to some positive things about this era, there is an equal number who can list lots of negatives about the period. Some of the actions of the NDC leadership at the time helped to smoulder open democracy, and fertilised the soil with bile and blood, out of which grew ineptitude, incompetence and tribal fanaticism of the worst kind. In spite of this, the local and foreign cheerleaders of the Rawlings (not the NDC), believed that their hero’s mission of destroying a buoyant democracy had not been accomplished, and that those who opposed him were a treacherous distraction. Ghanaians knew better, and President Kufour benefitted from this groundswell of anti-NDC hysteria.

 

The 2008 election is quite different. Form many this is perhaps the most important election which will define the future of Ghana. The discovery of oil is one factor. Oil is always a source of hope and fear. In some countries, it ahs made the politicians, and their foreign harbingers quite fabulously rich, while impoverishing the many, especially those on whose soil the oil is found. Mention oil, the mouths of politicians and business (both local and foreign – begin to salivate with murderous glee. To that extent, the major political parties – the NDC, the NPP (New Patriotic Party), the PNC (Peoples National Convention)  and the CPP (Convention Peoples Party) also have their eyes on the oil prize.

 

But there is a catch. While Ghana is being praised by many for being able to hold a stable country, there are worrying signs of fracture and destabilisation. There is a feeling that in spite of what the NPP might have achieved; there are worrying signs of national decay, some of which can be traced to the days of the NDC. Poverty is on the rise. When poverty reaches the levels that it has in Ghana, even the cleverest of political economists are hard put to know what to do. Chieftaincy related conflict is increasing daily, while cocaine promises to blight the country, as it is seen as a major transit point. What if Ghanaian youth become users of cocaine? Related to this is youth unemployment and lack of opportunities for upward progression. Corruption remains a serious issue, even though I would not go as afar as suggest that it is the cause of poverty and underdevelopment as some people like to exaggerate. These are issues which the next President has to address as a matter of urgency.    

 

What is crucial  is whether the next leader has  the right strategic approach and support from his own party to address these issues. The first President, Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah had the undoubted commitment to address issues of development, poverty and change. But some would argue that he lacked the rights lieutenants to help him achieve his socialist goals. The NPP – both past and present, does not have such problems. There seems to be ideological unity of purpose, even though there may be disagreements in terms of strategy.  The CPP seems to be grappling with these in manner that is quite distasteful, and can only lead to paralysis. The constant desire to deny the party any ideological affinity is worrying one.

 

As for the NDC, it is caught up in contradictions of its birth. As  party, it has the signs of  strong leadership, but not a democratic one. It seems that having helped to found the party, Rawlings would like to treat the party as a personal fiefdom, sometimes, treating the party’s presidential candidate like a tiresome priest. Professor Mills is a man of honour. He has the credentials to lead the country, but his problems do not stem from Nana Akufo Addo’s (the NPP candidate) well oiled campaign machinery, but from his own party. Some ex-leaders have developed a ruthless delusional fanaticism of a man who is afraid of the dark, and has to be in the limelight  day and night. Any attempt to shove them to the back is met with the response of a wounded tiger.  That is Mills Achilles heel. If the NDC does not control the intemperate behaviour of its leader, it can send the party into a tailspin. If he (Mills) can overcome that, then his chances of gaining the keys to the new Presidential lodge would be hugely improved.

 

Come to the NPP. They have a presidential candidate with an impressive history of political activism No one can deny that Nana Akuffo Addo has a long history of campaigning for democracy in Ghana. But like the CPP, the NPP can also be expected to see cracks in the party because it has its own  contradictions. They may want to deny it, but the problems stems from the two traditions of the party. The Busia/Danquah fraternities, or to put it crudely, the Ashanti-Akim factions of the party. For the sake of unity, and capturing the prize, both tendencies will sacrifice personal interest for their leader, so this does not constitute a major problem yet. .

 

No one knows how the coming elections will play out. I think the CPP can only out for increased parliamentary seats, for me that will be enough. The real contest is between Professor Arthur Mills and Nana Akuffo Addo, the two titans. The parties should use the campaign period to highlight issues of national nature, explain how they intend to deal with intractable conflicts (e.g. Bawku), but most important of all, how they intend to address poverty from a radical and structural angle.

 

In the past, some of our leaders have failed to understand the challenges that confront them, or the consequences of their actions. Some have seemed incapable of responding with clarity when confronted with genuine injustices, giving the impression that they are complicit in the oppression of the majority of Ghanaians. 2008 presents us with a chances to change all that. Can we seize the moment?

 

(c) Zaya yeebo

August 200

Exile Movements and Democratic Change in Africa August 28, 2008

Exiles Movements and Democratic Change in Africa

 

What do African political activitis do in exile? This is a question i have been asked often. But the answer has always been long in coming. This time, i am trying to provide one.

 

Yusuf Hassan, a prominent Kenyan political activist in the 1980s, believes that by not discussing the role of exile movements in African, politics, we are leaving out a great part of the history f political struggles. He call this, the “missing chapter in the history of democratisation” in Africa. By this, he means that any examination of the recent history of Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria would reveal glaringly, how the exile opposition movements are denied their place in history. It is as if the exile movements did not play a central role in the return to constitutionalism and democracy. Yet the role of these groups in the democratisation process is far more remarkable than it is often recognised.

 

The political turmoil that engulfed some African states in the 1970s and early 1980s, invariably led to the flow of some major political groups towards western countries, principally, the UK, France, Germany, and the United States, among others. In the UK, the exile movement comprised major political groups and activists from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Cameroon, Uganda, the Gambia and Nigeria.  One common feature of these groups was their desire to continue the “struggle” for democracy back in their countries.

 

It has to be recognised that this was in the period of the cold war, and in no other continent was the cold war fought more bitterly than in Africa, where politics and society in general reflected the divisions created by the cold war. Politics in the 1970s and early 1980s reflected the international situation then. The flow of exiles is also symptomatic of the brain drain that has affected Africa for decades.

 

Countries which have experienced political instability and violence tend to have the greatest exodus of its professional and business classes. Ghana is a classic example of this phenomenon. Between 1966 and 1980, many professionals left Ghana to seek say or refugee status in other parts of the world. This exemplifies the political instability, economic chaos and general uncertainty of that period. Under the Rawlings regime, there was a deliberate attempt to drive out those who were most likely to oppose the regime or resist the political oppression and corruption of the era.

 

Ask any political exile and the answer you get is that they have no reason to leave for good. While in exile, he would campaign for political reform and democratic v change to create the environment for their return home. Getting exiles to return therefore requires significant political change as it happened in Ghana after the defeat of the National Democratic Congress regime. Historically, political exiles have played a significant role in democratic change in many Africa countries.

 

Two prominent leaders of Ghana, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah and the late Professor Abrefa Busia studied in the US and the United Kingdom, and were profoundly influenced by the debates about democracy from two differing political perspectives. Dr. Kwaem Nkrumah was influenced by the emerging pan African, and his association with other political exiles like RLC James influenced his radical thinking greatly. The late Dr. Kamuzu Banda lived in Ghana and was influennced by the emerging independence movement in Ghana, and later returned to campaign for the liberation of Malawi. In the same way, Zimbabwe’s  radical leader, Robert Mugabe studied in Ghana, where he met his wife and was influenced by  the ideas of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah.

 

While not describing themselves as “exiles”, they were nonetheless living outside the boundaries of the countries they sought to influence. This includes Jomo Kenyatta, Obafeimi Awolowo, Kwame Nkrumah, Kamuzu Banda, Kenneth Kaunda and Robert Mugabe. The leadership of the African National Congress of South Africa would qualify for this categorisation.

 

In the early 1980s, political exiles living in the United Kingdom, led by  the late Professor Mohammed Babu, played a leading role in mobilising Diaspora based African to campaign for the end of military dictatorships ad an end to one-party rule in Africa, and for a return to multi-party democracy. London in the 1980s was the bastion of anti-dictatorship struggles with almost every African country represented in the political circuits. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the repression initiated by  Mengisthu  and his Marxist Derg regime in Ethiopia in the 1980s drove hundreds of thousands of professionals, students, businessmen and women,  and generally every Ethiopian who has the means t lave did so. Some of these exiles who settled in London, the United States and other parts f the world,  helped to fund and organise the armed opposition that toppled Mengistu Haile Mariam in 1991.  Somali went through a similar phase spanning the time of Siad Barre to the time of his death and the breakout of the civil war.

 

In the 1980s, Ghanaian exile movements included the United Revolutionary Front, the Democratic Alliance of Ghana, the Ghana Democratic Movement, and several others. Most of these represented mainstream political parties like the Convention Peoples Party, and the Busia Danquah fraternity. The current leadership of he NP government includes prominent people who were then in exile. Honourable J. H. Mensah, General Hamidu, and several others top this list. Others like Major Boake Djan also played a leading role in mobilising exile movement for the restoration f democracy in Ghana.

 

Nowhere is the role of the exile movement more exemplified than South Africa under the white-minority apartheid regime. The fall of apartheid in South Africa was hugely influenced by the contribution of leading South African exiles from both the African national Congress (ANC) and the Pan African Congress (PAC). Leading exiles like Thabo Mbeki, now president, spent years in exile. Africans driven abroad by political repression, economic hardship and lack of academic freedom, often return to agitate for progressive political and social change. Exiles from Kenya, Ghana, Togo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Bukina Fasso, and many other countries have played and continue to play this role.

 

Since politics is a major cause of exile, political changes can also causes  many exiles to return home to take off from where they left. The end of the brutal Rawlings dictatorship brought many Ghanaian exiles and émigrés back home. The same situation applied in South Africa after the fall of the apartheid regime, the defeat of Daniel Arap Moi in Kenya in 2003, the fall of the Sani Abachi dictatorship in Nigeria. The end of apartheid brought South African exiles home in droves. 

 

The role of exile based organisations and intellectuals in moulding internal democratic processes are as old as history itself. History is replete with examples of exiled groups and intellectuals working to promote constitution making and democratisation processes. Academics and intellectuals who had lived in the Diaspora led the independence movement in Africa.

 

In some countries such as Rwanda, Uganda, Namibia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Sudan, former exiles have returned to play significant roles in their own countries. The list above would indicate a certain trend in this, i.e., where the internal opposition is armed, the role of the exile movement becomes central to their own post liberation role. However, in countries such as Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana, where opposition has mostly been peaceful the outcome has been different. It has not been so easy.

 

 

Exile movements in the Diaspora do not always have the same ideological or political orientation. It is also possible for one country to have several political groups divided mainly by ideology and sometimes ethnicity (e.g., Ghana and Nigeria). The congregation of these groups in the UK, mainly London, meant that networking became inevitable, especially, when some of these groups began to realise that the governments were exploiting their own internal divisions.

 

Another factor, which influenced these groups, was the international solidarity from various European groups and progressive individuals, especially in the UK. For example the Committee for the release of Political Prisoners in Kenya was  formed to campaign for the release of  Ngugi W’athiongo, and for greater freedom against what was then characterised as “the Arap Moi dictatorship”. This group campaigned against the Moi dictatorship and for the release of political prisoners in Kenya.

 

It is not an exaggeration to state that at some point, these groups became the only viable platforms for campaigning against one party dictatorships and for constitutional reform in some African countries. Kenya’s Mwakenya and the Nigerian democratic movement under the Abacha dictatorship are examples.   For example, in the 1980s, the Rawlings regime went through a period of severe political repression characterised by executions, detentions of opponents without trial, and general intimidation of the population. The only avenue to express dissent and to campaign for a return to democratic rule was through the opposition movements based in London, namely the left wing United Revolutionary Front (URF) and the right wing Campaign for Democracy in Ghana.

 

Ugandans, Cameroonians, Gambians, Sudanese, Ethiopians, etc. also did the same for their cause in London. These groups published propaganda materials, contributed cash and in some few cases, arm to their groups at home. They also linked up with human rights groups in Europe such as Africa Watch, the Africa Research & Information Bureau (ARIB), Amnesty International to campaign for the release of political prisoners.

 

Undoubtedly, the activities of these organisations and individuals contributed greatly to changing perceptions about the nature of these regimes and bolstered the activities of opposition groups in the home country.  The talk of the second liberation, third revolution, which would sweep away one-party dictatorships and their military counterparts, were born of this exile revolution.

 

It is this aspect of African history, and contribution to democracy that has yet to be debated, documented and studied. The exile movement remains in the UK, but its relevance is waning as most African governments take the constitutional road to democracy. This project seeks to discuss the role of exile movements in the democratisation process, and provide an avenue to examine the continuing role of these movements in the democratisation process.

 

While exile groups may contribute to Constitutionalism and the democratic process, they may also present some moral dilemmas. There is always a political contestation between exile groups based in the Diaspora and internal opposition groups. The main question for this being whether these groups really represent the national interest  (different contestations of the national interests based on class, ideology and the programme of a political movement).

 

The Centre for Community Development Initiative’s “Exiles and Democratisation” Project has been looking at the role of these movements in African politics. Funded by the Ford Foundation (www.fodrfoundation.org), the project works with exile based political groups and individuals to examine in detail, the role that these movements have played and continued to play in African politics. The report of a worskop orgnaised in 2006, is entitled, “Telling Our Own Stories – African Activitis in Exile”. This book fills a missing chapter in Africa’s quest for genuine democratic rule based on Constitutionalism and democratic reform, and for a beter understnading of the role of Africans in exile.

 

 

© Zaya Yeebo

April 2008

Responding to the Racist bigotry of an American Professor. June 19, 2007

Responding to racist bigotry

Niall Ferguson’s Racist commentary on Ghana Misses the point.

Has anyone ever in Ghana ever heard of someone called Niall Ferguson? No. According to the Daily Telegraph (London), he is a professor of history at Harvard University. That is not all. Recently, this so-called Professor wrote an article which questions his judgement as a professor of history. It is a shameful piece of academic chicanery, racism in its tone and conclusions, and not worthy of print. But it got printed in the racist Daily Telegraph of London.

Entitled “Wearing a red nose for Africa’s corrupt clowns is a bad joke”, Niall Ferguson attacks the whole concept of charity, pegging his piece on so called failures in Ghana. Does he know Ghana at all? The answer is no. Niall Ferguson was referring to Comic Relief’s Red Nose Day (RND). Red Nose Day is held bi-annually to raise founds for good causes in Africa. Through this, Comic Relief has become one the biggest funders of African charity projects. So what was this virtual unknown academic called Nial Feguson saying?

According to this professor of history, Ghana  is so poor that it should not spend “$20 million dollars at a time when the average citizen has a daily income of around 67 pence ($1.33)”. He goes on, “You might also ask what exactly has Ghana  got to celebrate after 50 years of ‘freedom’.” Professor, i can tell you 50 good reasons why Ghana must celebrate. Not that it will ever make sense to you and other racists elsewhere.

Niall Ferguson’s racist diatribe does not end there. He tries in a sort of very un-academic way, to analyse Ghana. His lack of knowledge about Ghana is so glaring that it is not worth analysing here. For example, he claims that “the National Democratic Congress continues to rule the country.” He also claims that “in virtually every case (Botswana the sole exception), former British colonies in sub-Saharan Africa have fared worse under independence  than they did under British rule.” have fared worse. has he ever ventured into an Africa country? I doubt it. But people like do not need to. They feed the racist bigotry which continues to fester in western academic circles. Their thinking is like that of a clonial master, seemingly willing to help the colonised, while raping and mismanaging our resources for the good of the mother country.

The man’s understanding of  Kwame Nkrumah is so poor that I wonder what his students can ever learn from someone with such a racist mentality. Students of this professor need liberating from his arrogant, ignorant and obscurantist nonsense. He calls our leaders “knaves” , claims that someone said in 1957 that “the government is in the hands of knaves … in the hands of dupes”. If this is not racist, then I do not know what it is.

The same professor also claims that Nkrumah has a “KGB trained national Security Service” with a huge network of paid informers.” He goes on with his nonsense, claiming that Ghana is suffering from the “trap of bad governance”.  Ghana’s problem is “misgovernment”. With such bad professors, no wonder that some of his students will turn out to be CIA spies working to destroy countries like Ghana.

For him to write this at a time when the President of Ghana was visiting the UK, is to say the least an insult. The learned professor does not even bother to learn a little about Ghanaian history, so his piece is littered with historical inaccuracies. The learned professor hates Africa, he hates people and organisations trying to help Africa. He is a racist of the Hitler variety. For his racist and misguided crusade, he uses the Red Nose Day as his peg. For those who do not know, Red Nose day is a hugely popular and respected event organised by Comic Relief in the UK, to raise funds for projects in the UK and Africa. Not just Africa.

The professor even questions our right as a nation to celebrate the 50 years anniversary. Ghanaians do not owe the professor any excuse to celebrate our 50 years.

Whether we (Ghanaians) have achieved anything or not is our own business. As for Africa and its problems, people like Niall Ferguson whom we should be watching. In the payroll of the racist movement, and a wider imperialist conspiracy, they paint a picture of an Africa which no one who knows Africa can ever recognise.

Whatever the professor may think, there are many Africans and Ghanaians who will be grateful for what the people of the UK do through Comic Relief. I know one of the projects this professor dismissed – the African Women’s Support Group – is doing a wonderful job helping unskilled girls to gain skills. Is that so bad?

The professor’s posturing is not only annoying, but also dangerous. People like him make Africa look like a hopeless case. But Africans and friends of Africa know better.

It is important that we challenge this racist mind set being peddled about in the name of academia.

Zaya Yeebo

© May 2007

 Note: Niall Fergusson’s article, “Wearing a  red nose for Africa’s corrupt clowns is a bad joke” appeared in the Daily Telegraph, London

Responding to Racist Bigotry June 14, 2007

Responding to racist bigotry

Niall Ferguson’s Racist commentary on Ghana Misses the point.

Has anyone ever in Ghana ever heard of someone called Niall Ferguson? No. According to the Daily Telegraph (London), he is a professor of history at Harvard University. That is not all. Recently, this so-called Professor wrote an article which questions his judgement as a professor of history. It is a shameful piece of academic chicanery, racism in its tone and conclusions, and not worthy of print. But it got printed in the racist Daily Telegraph of London.

Entitled “Wearing a red nose for Africa’s corrupt clowns is a bad joke”, Niall Ferguson attacks the whole concept of charity, pegging his piece on so called failures in Ghana. Does he know Ghana at all? The answer is no. Niall Ferguson was referring to Comic Relief’s Red Nose Day (RND). Red Nose Day is held bi-annually to raise founds for good causes in Africa. Through this, Comic Relief has become one the biggest funders of African charity projects. So what was this virtual unknown academic called Nial Feguson saying?

According to this professor of history, Ghana  is so poor that it should not spend “$20 million dollars at a time when the average citizen has a daily income of around 67 pence ($1.33)”. He goes on, “You might also ask what exactly has Ghana  got to celebrate after 50 years of ‘freedom’.” Professor, i can tell you 50 good reasons why Ghana must celebrate. Not that it will ever make sense to you and other racists elsewhere.

Niall Ferguson’s racist diatribe does not end there. He tries in a sort of very un-academic way, to analyse Ghana. His lack of knowledge about Ghana is so glaring that it is not worth analysing here. For example, he claims that “the National Democratic Congress continues to rule the country.” He also claims that “in virtually every case (Botswana the sole exception), former British colonies in sub-Saharan Africa have fared worse under independence  than they did under British rule.” have fared worse. has he ever ventured into an Africa country? I doubt it. But people like do not need to. They feed the racist bigotry which continues to fester in western academic circles. Their thinking is like that of a clonial master, seemingly willing to help the colonised, while raping and mismanaging our resources for the good of the mother country.

The man’s understanding of  Kwame Nkrumah is so poor that I wonder what his students can ever learn from someone with such a racist mentality. Students of this professor need liberating from his arrogant, ignorant and obscurantist nonsense. He calls our leaders “knaves” , claims that someone said in 1957 that “the government is in the hands of knaves … in the hands of dupes”. If this is not racist, then I do not know what it is.

The same professor also claims that Nkrumah has a “KGB trained national Security Service” with a huge network of paid informers.” He goes on with his nonsense, claiming that Ghana is suffering from the “trap of bad governance”.  Ghana’s problem is “misgovernment”. With such bad professors, no wonder that some of his students will turn out to be CIA spies working to destroy countries like Ghana.

For him to write this at a time when the President of Ghana was visiting the UK, is to say the least an insult. The learned professor does not even bother to learn a little about Ghanaian history, so his piece is littered with historical inaccuracies. The learned professor hates Africa, he hates people and organisations trying to help Africa. He is a racist of the Hitler variety. For his racist and misguided crusade, he uses the Red Nose Day as his peg. For those who do not know, Red Nose day is a hugely popular and respected event organised by Comic Relief in the UK, to raise funds for projects in the UK and Africa. Not just Africa.

The professor even questions our right as a nation to celebrate the 50 years anniversary. Ghanaians do not owe the professor any excuse to celebrate our 50 years.

Whether we (Ghanaians) have achieved anything or not is our own business. As for Africa and its problems, people like Niall Ferguson whom we should be watching. In the payroll of the racist movement, and a wider imperialist conspiracy, they paint a picture of an Africa which no one who knows Africa can ever recognise.

Whatever the professor may think, there are many Africans and Ghanaians who will be grateful for what the people of the UK do through Comic Relief. I know one of the projects this professor dismissed – the African Women’s Support Group – is doing a wonderful job helping unskilled girls to gain skills. Is that so bad?

The professor’s posturing is not only annoying, but also dangerous. People like him make Africa look like a hopeless case. But Africans and friends of Africa know better.

It is important that we challenge this racist mind set being peddled about in the name of academia.

Zaya Yeebo

© May 2007

 Note: Niall Fergusson’s article, “Wearing a  red nose for Africa’s corrupt clowns is a bad joke” appeared in the Daily Telegraph, London

Ghana: The racist Professor’s’ Bigotry June 13, 2007

Responding to racist bigotry

Niall Ferguson’s Racist commentary on Ghana Misses the point.

Has anyone ever in Ghana ever heard of someone called Niall Ferguson? No. According to the Daily Telegraph (London), he is a professor of history at Harvard University. That is not all. Recently, this so-called Professor wrote an article which questions his judgement as a professor of history. It is a shameful piece of academic chicanery, racism in its tone and conclusions, and not worthy of print. But it got printed in the racist Daily Telegraph of London.

Entitled “Wearing a red nose for Africa’s corrupt clowns is a bad joke”, Niall Ferguson attacks the whole concept of charity, pegging his piece on so called failures in Ghana. Does he know Ghana at all? The answer is no. Niall Ferguson was referring to Comic Relief’s Red Nose Day (RND). Red Nose Day is held bi-annually to raise founds for good causes in Africa. Through this, Comic Relief has become one the biggest funders of African charity projects. So what was this virtual unknown academic called Nial Feguson saying?

According to this professor of history, Ghana  is so poor that it should not spend “$20 million dollars at a time when the average citizen has a daily income of around 67 pence ($1.33)”. He goes on, “You might also ask what exactly has Ghana  got to celebrate after 50 years of ‘freedom’.” Professor, i can tell you 50 good reasons why Ghana must celebrate. Not that it will ever make sense to you and other racists elsewhere.

Niall Ferguson’s racist diatribe does not end there. He tries in a sort of very un-academic way, to analyse Ghana. His lack of knowledge about Ghana is so glaring that it is not worth analysing here. For example, he claims that “the National Democratic Congress continues to rule the country.” He also claims that “in virtually every case (Botswana the sole exception), former British colonies in sub-Saharan Africa have fared worse under independence  than they did under British rule.” have fared worse. has he ever ventured into an Africa country? I doubt it. But people like do not need to. They feed the racist bigotry which continues to fester in western academic circles. Their thinking is like that of a clonial master, seemingly willing to help the colonised, while raping and mismanaging our resources for the good of the mother country.

The man’s understanding of  Kwame Nkrumah is so poor that I wonder what his students can ever learn from someone with such a racist mentality. Students of this professor need liberating from his arrogant, ignorant and obscurantist nonsense. He calls our leaders “knaves” , claims that someone said in 1957 that “the government is in the hands of knaves … in the hands of dupes”. If this is not racist, then I do not know what it is.

The same professor also claims that Nkrumah has a “KGB trained national Security Service” with a huge network of paid informers.” He goes on with his nonsense, claiming that Ghana is suffering from the “trap of bad governance”.  Ghana’s problem is “misgovernment”. With such bad professors, no wonder that some of his students will turn out to be CIA spies working to destroy countries like Ghana.

For him to write this at a time when the President of Ghana was visiting the UK, is to say the least an insult. The learned professor does not even bother to learn a little about Ghanaian history, so his piece is littered with historical inaccuracies. The learned professor hates Africa, he hates people and organisations trying to help Africa. He is a racist of the Hitler variety. For his racist and misguided crusade, he uses the Red Nose Day as his peg. For those who do not know, Red Nose day is a hugely popular and respected event organised by Comic Relief in the UK, to raise funds for projects in the UK and Africa. Not just Africa.

The professor even questions our right as a nation to celebrate the 50 years anniversary. Ghanaians do not owe the professor any excuse to celebrate our 50 years.

Whether we (Ghanaians) have achieved anything or not is our own business. As for Africa and its problems, people like Niall Ferguson whom we should be watching. In the payroll of the racist movement, and a wider imperialist conspiracy, they paint a picture of an Africa which no one who knows Africa can ever recognise.

Whatever the professor may think, there are many Africans and Ghanaians who will be grateful for what the people of the UK do through Comic Relief. I know one of the projects this professor dismissed – the African Women’s Support Group – is doing a wonderful job helping unskilled girls to gain skills. Is that so bad?

The professor’s posturing is not only annoying, but also dangerous. People like him make Africa look like a hopeless case. But Africans and friends of Africa know better.

It is important that we challenge this racist mind set being peddled about in the name of academia.

Zaya Yeebo

© May 2007

 Note: Niall Fergusson’s article, “Wearing a  red nose for Africa’s corrupt clowns is a bad joke” appeared in the Daily Telegraph, London

    

Exile Movements and Democratic Change in Africa June 12, 2007

Exiles Movements and Democratic Change in Africa 

Yusuf Hassan, a prominent Kenyan political activist in the 1980s, believes that by not discussing the role of exile movements in African, politics, we are leaving out a great part of the history f political struggles. He call this, the “missing chapter in the history of democratisation” in Africa. By this, he means that any examination of the recent history of Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria would reveal glaringly, how the exile opposition movements are denied their place in history. It is as if the exile movements did not play a central role in the return to constitutionalism and democracy. Yet the role of these groups in the democratisation process is far more remarkable than it is often recognised.

The political turmoil that engulfed some African states in the 1970s and early 1980s, invariably led to the flow of some major political groups towards western countries, principally, the UK, France, Germany, and the United States, among others. In the UK, the exile movement comprised major political groups and activists from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Cameroon, Uganda, the Gambia and Nigeria.  One common feature of these groups was their desire to continue the “struggle” for democracy back in their countries.

It has to be recognised that this was in the period of the cold war, and in no other continent was the cold war fought more bitterly than in Africa, where politics and society in general reflected the divisions created by the cold war. Politics in the 1970s and early 1980s reflected the international situation then. The flow of exiles is also symptomatic of the brain drain that has affected Africa for decades.

Countries which have experienced political instability and violence tend to have the greatest exodus of its professional and business classes. Ghana is a classic example of this phenomenon. Between 1966 and 1980, many professionals left Ghana to seek say or refugee status in other parts of the world. This exemplifies the political instability, economic chaos and general uncertainty of that period. Under the Rawlings regime, there was a deliberate attempt to drive out those who were most likely to oppose the regime or resist the political oppression and corruption of the era.

Ask any political exile and the answer you get is that they have no reason to leave for good. While in exile, he would campaign for political reform and democratic v change to create the environment for their return home. Getting exiles to return therefore requires significant political change as it happened in Ghana after the defeat of the National Democratic Congress regime. Historically, political exiles have played a significant role in democratic change in many Africa countries.

Two prominent leaders of Ghana, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah and the late Professor Abrefa Busia studied in the US and the United Kingdom, and were profoundly influenced by the debates about democracy from two differing political perspectives. Dr. Kwaem Nkrumah was influenced by the emerging pan African, and his association with other political exiles like RLC James influenced his radical thinking greatly. The late Dr. Kamuzu Banda lived in Ghana and was influennced by the emerging independence movement in Ghana, and later returned to campaign for the liberation of Malawi. In the same way, Zimbabwe’s  radical leader, Robert Mugabe studied in Ghana, where he met his wife and was influenced by  the ideas of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah.

While not describing themselves as “exiles”, they were nonetheless living outside the boundaries of the countries they sought to influence. This includes Jomo Kenyatta, Obafeimi Awolowo, Kwame Nkrumah, Kamuzu Banda, Kenneth Kaunda and Robert Mugabe. The leadership of the African National Congress of South Africa would qualify for this categorisation.

In the early 1980s, political exiles living in the United Kingdom, led by  the late Professor Mohammed Babu, played a leading role in mobilising Diaspora based African to campaign for the end of military dictatorships ad an end to one-party rule in Africa, and for a return to multi-party democracy. London in the 1980s was the bastion of anti-dictatorship struggles with almost every African country represented in the political circuits. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the repression initiated by  Mengisthu  and his Marxist Derg regime in Ethiopia in the 1980s drove hundreds of thousands of professionals, students, businessmen and women,  and generally every Ethiopian who has the means t lave did so. Some of these exiles who settled in London, the United States and other parts f the world,  helped to fund and organise the armed opposition that toppled Mengistu Haile Mariam in 1991.  Somali went through a similar phase spanning the time of Siad Barre to the time of his death and the breakout of the civil war.

In the 1980s, Ghanaian exile movements included the United Revolutionary Front, the Democratic Alliance of Ghana, the Ghana Democratic Movement, and several others. Most of these represented mainstream political parties like the Convention Peoples Party, and the Busia Danquah fraternity. The current leadership of he NP government includes prominent people who were then in exile. Honourable J. H. Mensah, General Hamidu, and several others top this list. Others like Major Boake Djan also played a leading role in mobilising exile movement for the restoration f democracy in Ghana.

Nowhere is the role of the exile movement more exemplified than South Africa under the white-minority apartheid regime. The fall of apartheid in South Africa was hugely influenced by the contribution of leading South African exiles from both the African national Congress (ANC) and the Pan African Congress (PAC). Leading exiles like Thabo Mbeki, now president, spent years in exile. Africans driven abroad by political repression, economic hardship and lack of academic freedom, often return to agitate for progressive political and social change. Exiles from Kenya, Ghana, Togo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Bukina Fasso, and many other countries have played and continue to play this role.

Since politics is a major cause of exile, political changes can also causes  many exiles to return home to take off from where they left. The end of the brutal Rawlings dictatorship brought many Ghanaian exiles and émigrés back home. The same situation applied in South Africa after the fall of the apartheid regime, the defeat of Daniel Arap Moi in Kenya in 2003, the fall of the Sani Abachi dictatorship in Nigeria. The end of apartheid brought South African exiles home in droves. 

The role of exile based organisations and intellectuals in moulding internal democratic processes are as old as history itself. History is replete with examples of exiled groups and intellectuals working to promote constitution making and democratisation processes. Academics and intellectuals who had lived in the Diaspora led the independence movement in Africa.

In some countries such as Rwanda, Uganda, Namibia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Sudan, former exiles have returned to play significant roles in their own countries. The list above would indicate a certain trend in this, i.e., where the internal opposition is armed, the role of the exile movement becomes central to their own post liberation role. However, in countries such as Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana, where opposition has mostly been peaceful the outcome has been different. It has not been so easy.

  

Exile movements in the Diaspora do not always have the same ideological or political orientation. It is also possible for one country to have several political groups divided mainly by ideology and sometimes ethnicity (e.g., Ghana and Nigeria).The congregation of these groups in the UK, mainly London, meant that networking became inevitable, especially, when some of these groups began to realise that the governments were exploiting their own internal divisions.

Another factor, which influenced these groups, was the international solidarity from various European groups and progressive individuals, especially in the UK. For example the Committee for the release of Political Prisoners in Kenya was  formed to campaign for the release of  Ngugi W’athiongo, and for greater freedom against what was then characterised as “the Arap Moi dictatorship”. This group campaigned against the Moi dictatorship and for the release of political prisoners in Kenya.

It is not an exaggeration to state that at some point, these groups became the only viable platforms for campaigning against one party dictatorships and for constitutional reform in some African countries. Kenya’s Mwakenya and the Nigerian democratic movement under the Abacha dictatorship are examples.   For example, in the 1980s, the Rawlings regime went through a period of severe political repression characterised by executions, detentions of opponents without trial, and general intimidation of the population. The only avenue to express dissent and to campaign for a return to democratic rule was through the opposition movements based in London, namely the left wing United Revolutionary Front (URF) and the right wing Campaign for Democracy in Ghana.

Ugandans, Cameroonians, Gambians, Sudanese, Ethiopians, etc. also did the same for their cause in London. These groups published propaganda materials, contributed cash and in some few cases, arm to their groups at home. They also linked up with human rights groups in Europe such as Africa Watch, the Africa Research & Information Bureau (ARIB), Amnesty International to campaign for the release of political prisoners.

Undoubtedly, the activities of these organisations and individuals contributed greatly to changing perceptions about the nature of these regimes and bolstered the activities of opposition groups in the home country.  The talk of the second liberation, third revolution, which would sweep away one-party dictatorships and their military counterparts, were born of this exile revolution.

It is this aspect of African history, and contribution to democracy that has yet to be debated, documented and studied. The exile movement remains in the UK, but its relevance is waning as most African governments take the constitutional road to democracy. This project seeks to discuss the role of exile movements in the democratisation process, and provide an avenue to examine the continuing role of these movements in the democratisation process.

While exile groups may contribute to Constitutionalism and the democratic process, they may also present some moral dilemmas. There is always a political contestation between exile groups based in the Diaspora and internal opposition groups. The main question for this being whether these groups really represent the national interest  (different contestations of the national interests based on class, ideology and the programme of a political movement).

 The Centre for Community Development Initiative’s “Exiles and Democratisation” Project has been looking at the role of these movements in African politics. Funded by the Ford Foundation, the project works with exile based political groups and individuals to examine in detail, the role that these movements have played and continued to play in African politics. Ultimately, it will fill a missing chapter in Africa’s quest for genuine democratic rule based on Constitutionalism and democratic reform.  

© Zaya YeeboApril 2005