Verse 1 - A Relevant Page From History
The conventional political wisdom in Ghana generally associates Kwame Nkrumah with being adamantly anti-imperialist and anti colonial, while Busia and Danquah, even if in an infinitesimal way, are regarded as ready to compromise with the British colonial government. The most obvious symbol of this perception that exhibits Nkrumah?s much vaunted aversion to compromising with the British over the independence of the country is his famed advocacy of ?self government now?, as opposed to Dr Danquah and others who advocated ?self government within the shortest possible time?.
Now while Nkrumah?s anti-imperialist stand is generally true, there were often instances in the heady days of the independence struggles that the dividing line between the positions of the founding fathers on the subject of foreign domination was often blurred. At these times, their attitudes to the imperialist power and to imperialism in general, were quite inconsistent with those that latter day historians and pundits would accord them.
On February 23rd, 1953, a debate in the Legislative Assembly would become seminal in the development - or lack thereof - of the Ghanaian economy. The subject of the debate was none other that Nkrumah?s most celebrated industrial achievement, the Volta River Scheme. Even though we all are aware of the benefits of the Volta River HEP, it is pertinent to revisit a scene in 1953, when the foundations of the Scheme were being laid. In a fresh re-evaluation of the success or otherwise of the scheme, we may yet glean some useful lessons that will assist our current efforts at industrialization and modernization.
The unequivocal stated objective of the Volta River Scheme was to lift Ghana out of the dependency on cocoa by creating the basis for industrialization and diversification of the economy. Specifically, bauxite, which had been mined since the early 1920s was by the Volta Scheme to be smelted into Aluminum; a harbor and industrial city complete with an Aluminum smelter that would employ vast numbers of people in the mining of bauxite, the processing to alumina and the smelting to Aluminum, were to be constructed downstream from the dam; the dry Accra Plains were to be irrigated to provide a bread basket for the country; iron ore was to be shipped from the Shien and Gonja area to the industrial city via the lake created from the flooding of the river. The Scheme, which at the time was designed to attract foreign investors, had a single British Aluminum firm with Canadian interests, controlling 90% of shares of equity capital. They were also largely responsible for the operation of the Aluminum smelter.
The occasion of the debate mentioned above was the government White Paper in 1953 that called for the convocation of a ?preparatory commission? to examine ?the terms and possibilities of the Volta Scheme?.
At this point, the British Government was all for the deal which essentially guaranteed a cheap and abundant source of electricity for the empire?s production of Aluminum. Nkrumah himself, who had resurrected and championed this scheme that had first been drawn in the 1920?s, was euphoric in his support of the scheme. He remarked, ?Anyone who is opposed to this scheme is crazy. We have no other source of power. How can we expect to develop the country without power?
Back in the legislative assembly Nkrumah?s euphoria was not infectious. Mr. Bediako ? Poku, a CPP part-time backbencher, argued for Ghanaians being added to the all-foreigner commission to dilute the influx of expatriates. He also called for the training of African technical staff to participate in the actual project. A great majority of the CPP backbench labeled the project, as planned, as ?imperialistic?.
Dr Danquah, one of the leaders of the opposition, said the way the Scheme was drawn up would pave the way for imperialist and capitalist control. He challenged Nkrumah as to why 90% of the financing had to be undertaken by the British and Canadians, suggesting that CMB reserves be used to finance the Scheme in order to give Ghana some control. Pertaining to the ?preparatory commission? Dr Danquah suggested an independent one not dominated by foreigners.
Also representing the Opposition was Dr Busia who stated his general support for the scheme but had reservations. He said, ? We are accepting the principle that the government has laid down, but our anxiety is that we should look at it carefully?. He went on to list his concerns by questioning the amount of electrical power that would be left over from the smelter?s needs and how it was to be distributed; he warned of the ?sociological implications of the scheme, the breakdown of traditional sanctions, the movement of the population, the submergence of old towns, the creation of a great lake? ? stating that these need to be looked at critically.
Again much like Dr Danquah and the CPP backbenchers, he was concerned about the control Nkrumah had given foreigners over the project, in his view putting the entire project at ?the operational mercy of the Aluminum company?. ?I am saying that?, he charged, ?there is here, the problem of ultimate control. It is against our interest as a nation to mortgage our entire economic future between the benevolence of the British and the restraint of the Aluminum company?
The Osagyefo was livid! Undaunted by his own backbenchers and his main opponents accusing him of ?selling out to the imperialists? he launched into a tirade establishing his impeccable bona fides in the fight against imperialism and foreign domination in Ghana, Africa and the world at large.
The rest, they say ? and we all know ? is history. Busia and Danquah became part of a bomb-throwing opposition intent on murdering the Osagyefo, and together with the dissenting vocalists of the CPP backbench were excluded from the later-day post-independent legislature, which proceeded rapidly to become a rubber stamp for the future president-for-life in the one party state. Without the dissent of those who had dared to label him imperialistic, Nkrumah proceeded unimpeded in his implementation of the Volta Scheme.
The dam and hydro electric plant were built by the ?benevolence? of the Italians, Americans, British and Europeans; the British Aluminum Company backed out of the Scheme and was replaced by Kaiser and Reynolds; Ghana contributed full 50% of the funds for the dam and HEP plant, and Kaiser became Nkrumah?s personal consultant for both the dam - HEP plant and the Tema Harbor. In the end he became the biggest winner with his VALCO Aluminum smelter consuming two-thirds of Akosombo?s electricity at rates lower than those of the Ghanaian consumer, and armed with an incentive package that guaranteed near unfettered repatriation of profits for 30 years.
The Accra Plains are still far from being the irrigated bread basket of Ghana; the iron ore deposits of Gonja and Shien still reside in their eternal respite; the limestone deposits of Asuboni lie entombed in the watery grave of the lake, and only a thousand or so of our illustrious citizens were employed by the Aluminum company.
Our bauxite deposits are still exported in the raw whilst Kaiser got his harbor to import alumina from elsewhere, and for a promise to look into a bauxite-alumina conversion plant in Ghana, obtained a signed guarantee from the Osagyefo that his Valco smelter would not be taken over by Ghana. Meanwhile, the Ghanaian economy became even more dependent on cocoa and gold and timber. The full promise of the Volta River Scheme, despite the obvious advantages, has not materialized and the Ghanaian economy was not given the fillip that would catapult it into industrialization.
The point of this journey into history is not to wade into partisan flurries about who among our founding fathers deserved to be called imperialist or not. Enough to say that, the proceedings described above, coupled with our blessed advantage of hindsight are fortuitous in reminding ourselves, all victims of the same economic menace, to be careful about throwing labels of imperialism rather furiously around.
My intentions in relating this debate, and, more importantly, the subject matter of the debate, is to re-establish in our psyches what has become the central paradox of the country?s underdevelopment, that atavistic impediment to the ability of our governments - past and present - to formulate and undertake the required institutional transformations that are critical to increase the level of indigenous production, incomes and savings to finance the industrialization and modernization of the Ghanaian economy. Simply stated, the crux of the paradox that has plagued all from Nkrumah to Kuffour is that in order for the country to rid its dependency on cocoa and a few primary commodities so as to industrialize, it needs to depend on cocoa and these same commodities to generate foreign exchange to diversify the economy. We depend on our dependency to rid us of our dependency!
There is however, a dialectic at work - the unity of the general and the particular - that speaks to the resolution of this paradox. Institutional transformation to generate indigenous capital has been acknowledged by experts and development theorists alike as the general solution to the problem of underdevelopment. Yet the particular path of such transformation requires a unique solution that emanates from a thorough understanding of the nation?s broad history, geography and culture. As a result, there have been unique Japanese, Korean, Singaporean and Taiwanese solutions to propel the respective nations into modernity. Despite the obvious lessons that can be learned for our purposes from these experiences, the tragedy of Ghanaian leadership is precisely the inability to determine that Ghanaian unique solution, which will unleash the potential of indigenous capital.
Caught in this paradox, even the greatest crusader for anti-imperialism, or supporter of a property owning democracy, is immobilized by a web of dependency on foreigners for funds and/or equipment to provide anything from machinery to toilets. Somehow they become unwitting victims and allies of the very foreign domination they abhor.
Views expressed by the author(s) do not necessarily reflect those of GhanaHomePage.
