ODYSSEY OF GHANA?S DIVERGENT PATHS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PART ONE ?How is Ghana doing? Nokrumah (Nkrumah) and Kenyatta were patriotic freedom fighters. Jerry Rawlings was good for Ghana. Is it true Kufuor is having trouble with Corruption by his family and by some of his Ministers? As for Kenya, we have gone to the dogs since Independence?, said Oscar, in his rapid-fire manner of speaking. Oscar is a Washington DC resident, an American but of Kenyan birth. Before I could respond, my cell phone rang and I excused myself. I finished the call quickly, but mercifully, Oscar turned his focus to the reason for our meeting. However, Oscar?s question kept ringing in my ears and so begun an inquiry as to how to respond to similar seemingly innocuous Oscar-like questions such as ; ?How well has Ghana been served by her leaders since Independence?? ?How did Kufuor lose Ghana?s mojo??
Caveat: I subscribe to Max Webber's thinking that it is beneficial to render problematic that which is traditionally regarded as accepted, the challenge being to foster a condition of mind that can tolerate provisional truths, which encourage us to believe that, occasionally, we, as humans, might be wrong. It has also been said that our most precious beliefs should be tested continually against the reasoned beliefs of others who do not share our views.
GHANA?S INDEPENDENCE, NOT INDEPENDENT GHANA.
Should we equate Ghana?s Independence to an Independent Ghana? Let me hear your answer! On my part, I begin my inquiry with a thought about Independence Day, March 6, 1957, a day I remember quite well. On that momentous day, Ghana embraced her destiny with great euphoria for a bright future. There was fanfare and much joy in the land, but strangely, with no desire or resolve to change some of our inimical social or cultural mores such as laid back traditional African-Time mentality syndrome, which still persists well into 2005, or, obsession with the dead, with careless regard for the living. In terms of a sense of national urgency to break out of endemic subservience to authority, the week before Independence was not essentially different from the week after Independence, except for the blaring of the song ?Ghana, We have our freedom??INDEPENDENCE??one time???Ghana, we have our freedom??? The new black government that replaced the departing British instantly assumed the exalted posture of their predecessors and Ghanaians continued kowtowing to authority without questioning excesses on the corridors of power and this steadily eroded Rule of Law. Soon our new Black leaders were no different from the whites we had thrown out. Quo Vadis, Ghana?s Independence? To date, Ghanaians pay lip-service to the truth that those governing derive their authority from the governed, and would support abject corruption by their leaders till the leaders are no more in power before speaking in a ?What went wrong symposia? across the land.
In what condition did the British leave Ghana? Was Ghana at that point on the move from a State of Tradition to a State of Modernity? What was the level of our development then, considering all spatial scales, from the Individual, Household, Village, Town, City, Regional to the International level? Was the 400 million (?) pounds bequeathed to Ghana by Britain equitable? Would any other leader besides Nkrumah have utilized that sum differently? Would Mr. Kufuor have agreed with Nkrumah?s plans for Ghana, or would those plans have been dismissed as prestigious and over-ambitious? How well is Mr. Kufuor attending to economic development issues to date, 2005? Why this question to Mr Kufuor only? Well, he is the sitting President, with the onus of Ghana on his shoulders. In addition, it could be argued that Ghana is at a critical juncture in her development; the whole world is waiting to see whether the peaceful democracy bequeathed to Mr. Kufuor by the previous regime can now deliver on the promises given to promote socio-economic prosperity for all citizens.
KUFUOR AND THE LOST MOJO
On February 24, 1966, as declassified CIA records show, Nkrumah was overthrown, not only by the ingenuity and bravery of Afrifa and Kotoka, but also, with the active collaboration of the CIA. Ubiquitous Mr M was the same Economic Advisor to the Military folks running the NLC and he went on to serve in the successor Progress Party Government of Dr Busia, as Finance Minister in charge of economic matters. Today, Ghana still has that ubiquitous Mr M, force-feeding Ghana?s current President his age-old mantra that any ill effects of Capitalism are always tempered by means of Keynesian demand-management policies, hence the disastrous unbridled capitalism NPP is pursuing. Mr M has never believed in Nkrumah's rapid path to modernity. He could not be bothered by Nkrumah?s warning about dangers of neo-colonialism nor by Andre Gunder Frank's caution stated in his essay "Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution, New York Monthly Review 1969", which clarifies 'Metropolitan Capitalism? as a conditional dependency on the exploitation and ?active underdevelopment of an already capitalist ?perimeter? and that old style colonialism has simply given way to a neo-colonialism dominated by the IMF and the multinationals, and enforced by transfer pricing and unequal exchange in world trade.? Neo-colonialism, which Nkrumah also passionately talked against, has been embraced firmly by Kufuor, thanks to the ubiquitous Mr M, Kufuor?s ?brain? on economic affairs. Had Kufuor lost his mojo? Would that Mr Kufuor had the ability to articulate his own ideas, as ?promised? the electorate of Ghana sans corruption, his mojo may be intact! Mr M is a fine gentleman but his ?economic ideas? are arguably not current. Mr. Kufuor may or may not have a large panel of advisors, but it seems he only relies on the advice of one man, Mr. M. And so it is that the future of Ghana depends on the words of a man whose best years ended a long time ago. Note that the year 1969 in which Frank wrote and sounded his caution was the same year our Mr M, then Finance Minister was in full bloom as a young wizard at the helm of Ghana?s Economic Development. Frank further cautioned that ?Third World Nations face a choice between the continuing barbarism of Capitalism and the promise of socialism."
Pure capitalism demands what is termed as full-cost recovery. In order to satisfy the demands of neo-colonialist institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank as fast as possible, Kufuor privileges the already wealthy international banks and corporations at the expense of his own countrymen. When Ghanaians go on their anguished Wahalas, it is not because they want to ?show? the President, but because they, the working class, understand that they are being persecuted in favor of some cronies such as longtime Kufuor associate Nyantakyie and Sahara Oil Company etc.
MR. KUFUOR?S HIPC.
While HIPC has been a panacea for short-term accumulation of funds at the disposal of government, it should not be seen as the magical solution to all the problems that are afflicting Ghana and other developing countries. This is because HIPC is a highly specialized program, intended for the specific goal of reducing poverty. HIPC creates wealth, in the form of a blank cheque to governments and their collaborators, leaving the vast majority of their poverty-stricken populace still poor. Opponents of debt relief argue that ?it is a blank cheque to governments, most of which are plagued by corruption, and which immediately go out and contract further debts, partly in the belief that these debts will also be forgiven in some future date. They use the money to enhance the wealth and spending ability of the rich, many of whom will spend or invest this money in the rich countries, thus not even creating a trickle down effect. The money is also used to increase defence budgets, which are then used to promote war. They argue that the money would be far better spent in specific aid projects which actually help the poor. They further argue that it would be unfair to third-world countries that managed their credit successfully, or don't go into debt in the first place, that is, it actively encourages third world governments to overspend in order to receive debt relief in the future. Records show that Uganda had a 24% increase in military spending after HIPC. Ghana is another story!
When Ghana was deciding on HIPC and Kufuor was initially dilly-dallying on the issue, it was the wily old-timer Mr M who was most influential in getting him to sign off on that concept. Today, people are lauding the wisdom of Kufuor in going HIPC whenever there is announcement that donor countries are doling out funds. HIPC is synonymous with the Kufuor name in Ghana. Japan, then Ghana's biggest donor warned against Ghana going HIPC to no avail. Conditionality, now largely muted and spoken in whispered tones, forbid HIPC money to be used to sponsor Industrial development along the lines of Nkrumah?s projects. In few select communities, pitiful 4-6 room public places of convenience, and blocks of 6 classroom buildings bearing brightly coloured paints of HIPC as the benefactor are especially visible whenever election time is due. So this is what Ghana has come to: today?s equivalent of the Akosombo Dam is a 4-6 room public place of convenience. Hurray! With this pace of HIPC-determined ?development?, Ghana should no doubt become a middle-income nation by the year 3075! The HIPC money is no doubt 'consumption money'. Where does that leave our Grand Children and their Great Grandchildren in the scheme of HIPC? At least Nkrumah's Rapid Modernity Approach has left tangible national projects like Akosombo Dam, Tema Motor Way etc. Mr Kufuor, WHERE IS YOUR MOJO?
Where are the real fruits of Mr. Kufuor's HIPC labor? Is there a systematic way of accounting for the tangible results of the work that the President has claimed to have completed since he was elected? Does he discuss comprehensive vision of a revitalized and rejuvenated Ghana? Besides ad hoc construction projects and patchwork developments, can Kufuor claim solid large scale public work?
KWAME NKRUMAH, GHANA?S ONLY PRESIDENT IN THE FIRST REPUBLIC
Nkrumah, on the other hand, chose a philosophy of rapid path to modernity, but was unable largely to win private sector funding for his projects because of his leaning towards Eastern European Communist nations. Nkrumah?s misfortune was that his ambitious projects came to being during the Cold War, when the impasse between America and the Soviet Union meant that the Americans who controlled access to private funding were reluctant to back state-controlled development projects. In fact, the Akosombo and VALCO projects could be viewed as exceptions to the rule. It was the personal intervention of the visionary JFK, who admired Nkrumah?s vision, and shared his view that these projects would serve as a launch pad for private industry, over the strong objections of Dr. Busia, the ideological forefather of Mr. Kufuor and his NPP. Such problem as Nkrumah then faced, was identified in 1960, by an economist, Walt Whitman Rostow who discussed in his book The Stages of Economic Growth, ?that development will best be served by a dynamic private sector that is suitably supported in the short run by an efficient public sector?.
Rostow further said in "A Non-Communist Manifesto" (1960), ?those communist countries were considered to be deviant insofar as they had departed from the NORMAL road of capitalist development.? Such economic gurus doubled as the brains behind Western Capitalist Countries' devolution of capital to the emerging nations. So when Nkrumah followed the steps of Eastern European Nations on the model of Rosenstein-Rodan, he was seen to be dealing with 'deviant' nations. He locked himself out of Capital according to Rostow?s standard, because he had chosen 'the deviant route of socialism-communism".
Regardless of his funding predicament, Nkrumah unveiled development plans which showcased a futuristic Ghana. It was the same impresario of a leader who brought Ghana, Tema Township, Tema Harbor, Akosombo Dam, the Tema Motor Way, all major development projects which impacted the lives of poor Ghanaians. He had plans for wide scale industrialization projects, large scale mechanized Agriculture. He did all these and more to disprove the Western notion and accounts that people in the Sub-Sahara Region and for that matter Ghana, were "prisoners of tropical climates that discouraged effort and innovation".
Nkrumah tried to accelerate Ghana's transition to Modernity through Industry by setting up Tema Steelworks and Cement Factory as well as introducing Pre-Fabricated Concrete Factory for the building of giant public housing and Manufacturing Industries. What do we make of giant Silos he erected to store abundant crops he envisaged from those Mechanized Farming Ventures? However, the greatest act of Nkrumah was in the investment he made in Ghana's Human Resources by instituting free education, building Ghana Educational Trust Secondary schools where he encouraged mixing of different ethnicity by interaction in Boarding Houses as a focal point of creating a One Ghana One People.
If Nkrumah had to do all these, in the short pace of time that he led Ghana, what then did the British do for the over 100 years they ruled Ghana as Colonialists, especially, if one looks at the infrastructure they left behind in parts of Africa they ruled where the climate is not tropical and without Mosquitoes? In the fifth year of Nkrumah?s leadership, from 1957?1962, he had accomplished all the above-mentioned, and was touting a visionary 7-year development plan that was to take Ghana to the next level. This plan did not come fully to fruition because of his overthrow in February 24th 1966, as aforementioned. In contrast, in the fifth year of Mr. Kufuor?s leadership, Ghana lacks a sense of direction, and has turned into a beggar nation with HIPC cup in hand.
Nkrumah is thus definitely made of ?sterner stuff?, unlike some of his fellow successive Presidents. Take for example, the following:
MR IGNATIUS KUTU ACHEAMPONG, CREATOR OF UNIGOV CONCEPT
In my view, Kutu Acheampong is a footnote in Ghana's History. His policy of "Yentua" ensured that his "Operation Feed Yourself" was a mere slogan. Acheampong was so enamoured of slogans that he adapted the slogan "capturing the commanding heights of the economy" from India's Second and Third Five Year Plans (1956-66) probably, without really understanding what that entailed. The nutshell of India's plan was to make the State invest and run heavy industries like steel and engineering, making those the commanding heights of their economy. When cornered like a rat with nowhere to turn to, after introducing KALABULE, Acheampong went on to propound a new political concept, UNION GOVERNMENT (UNIGOV). He asked that the Military be drawn out of their quarters to join civilians under a Constitution to rule. That nebulous concept was defeated in a plebiscite, yet over night, Acheampong caused the Electoral Commission to change the results in his favour. The palace coup of General Akuffo that overthrew Acheampong was inspired by this act of treachery by Acheampong.
MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION
The million dollar question is; If NPP (UP) under Kufuor (Busia) was the party that had won Independence for Ghana in 1957 and not CPP, would NPP?s economic policies have done better for Ghana than that of the CPP under Nkrumah? Whose economic performance for Ghana would be tops, Kufuor-nomic NPP?s, Nkrumah-nomic CPP?s or Rawlings-nomic NDC?
Part Two will in due course, feature amongst other issues, the impact of Rawlings-nomics on Ghana?s economic development.
Attorney at Law, New York.
Outgoing Chairman of North America NDC(NACC-NDC).
Views expressed by the author(s) do not necessarily reflect those of GhanaHomePage.
