Ghana

IN BETWEEN attempts on his life. President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana has established himself as a dictator by tampering with the democratic constitution that existed at Independence in 1957. The fifty-four-year-old so-called Osagyefo, or “Redeemer,” has been putting the finishing touches to this task in the past few months.

Subversion is the only way that opposition to Nkrumah can be expressed. There have been three attempts on his life in the last two years, and the President rarely appears in public nowadays. When he has a message for his nation, he broadcasts from Accra’s Christiansborg Castle, where he lives surrounded by hundreds of security men.

The latest attempt on his life was on January 2, when a policeman fired five shots at close range as he was leaving his office. Nkrumah was not injured, but one of his security officers was killed. This attempt came just a few days after he had declared null and void the judgment of the Special Court which had acquitted three of the live men charged with a bomb attempt on his life in August, 1962. Nkrumah dismissed Chief Justice Sir Arku Korsah and two oilier judges who made up the Special Court, alleging that their failure to take him into their confidence before announcing their verdict was “meant to create discontent and terror throughout the country.” He rushed a bill through Parliament empowering him to quash any decisions of Special Courts.

The people vote Yes

A referendum was held at the end of January seeking approval for constitutional amendments making Ghana a one-party state and giving Nkrumah the right to dismiss judges. The manner in which the referendum was conducted showed clearly that the President’s idea of democracy has much in common with that of other dictators. The result in itself is an echo of voting elsewhere: there were 2,773,920 Yes votes and only 2452 Noes. These figures reveal the extent not of the government’s popularity but of the fear of persecution Ghanaians now live in. Before the referendum, no voter had been left in any doubt as to what his fate would be if he voted against Nkrumah’s proposals. The government Convention People’s Party had warned: “Those who think they can hide under the so-called ‘secrecy’ of the polling-booth to fool us must know that the days when we could be fooled are gone.” Opposition to the President can result in detention for an indefinite period.

In many areas there was no chance of defying the regime even at this price; in the northern region many of the No boxes were removed before the first voters arrived, and in other places the voting slots of the No boxes were sealed. There were reports of other irregularities which made a mockery of the voting. The results for some areas where transport is primitive were announced long before all the boxes could possibly have been brought in.

On the strength of this farcical referendum Nkrumah has made Ghana a one-party state. The only party now permitted is the left-wing Convention People’s Party. Within this party there is a group known as the Vanguard Militants, who monopolize press and radio and are taking over many of the posts in the civil service. They form the spearhead of Nkrumah’s revolution, although they have influence rather than power. It is these extremists, so valuable to Nkrumah in combating what he considers uncooperative bourgeois elements. that he has to satisfy by displays of rulhlessness both at home and abroad.

To symbolize his recognition of the party’s role, the nation’s flag has been changed from red, gold, and green to red, white, and green — the colors of the CPP. The United Party, formerly the opposition but long truncated by the arrest and exile of its leaders, is banned. Of the 114 members of the rubber-stamp Parliament, only seven were members of the UP, and they had been obliged to restrict themselves to harmless criticism of the merest details of government policy. The significance of the referendum is that there is no longer the least possibility of the constitution’s getting in the dictator’s way. Both Parliament and the judiciary are securely in his grip.

It is not only these two bodies that Nkrumah is purging. Realizing that within the government service he had opponents who were working against him in silence, he decided on a cleanup. Senior civil servants arc among those recently dismissed for alleged irregularities. Six members of the academic staff of the University of Ghana — including four United States citizens — were deported in February. They were accused of subversive activities.

Extreme elements in the CPP have been criticizing the university for some time as pro-Western, and this axing of the expatriate staff was meant as a sop to them. A mob broke into the university grounds and demonstrated against “saboteur intellectuals.” The vice-chancellor of the university, Dr. Conor Cruise O’Brien, formerly UN Representative in Katanga, is a personal friend of Nkrumah’s and has so far prevented the situation from deteriorating further.

Ghana now has rigid censorship of the press; the local government papers carry nothing but propaganda, often of a very naive kind. There is also a perversion of vocabulary that is typical of dictatorships: Nkrumah has ordered that in future all workers be paid “salaries” rather than “wages”; he has published a collection of his speeches under the title I Speak of Freedom.

Ghanaian students abroad have been warned that they are not beyond the reach of the dictatorship; any antigovernment activity on their part would result in their immediate recall. There is reason to doubt figures published by govI eminent departments. The new Institute of Public Education, for example, boasts that it gives parttime degree courses for workers in several towns, but in practice only a handful of students attend one course in the entire country. Much of the revenue of this institute is spent on courses in a new subject — “Nkrumahism.”

Economic assets and liabilities

That Ghana is advancing economically is beyond dispute. A Seven-Year Development Plan has been launched: $1.33 billion is to be spent, with $305 million going to mining and industry, fields in which Ghana’s backwardness is most noticeable. Agriculture and fisheries will get $180 million, and education $179 million. The Volta River project, costing nearly $200 million, which has been accurately described as the lifeblood of Ghana’s future economy, is now half finished. This project will provide power for industries that will make Ghana less dependent on cocoa. It will make electricity available for a large part of the country.

Despite the much vaunted plans, there is widespread discontent with the economic situation. The rapidly rising cost of living and the low wages are a frequent topic of conversation. In last October’s budget there was a considerable increase in income tax, which hit the middle classes severely. In a country where there is extreme poverty such a fiscal policy would appear justifiable, but Ghana still needs expatriate personnel to develop its economy. Already prevented by currency restrictions from remitting home sums that would make their stay in the country financially worthwhile, they found that the budget reduced their real incomes. Ghana is therefore having difficulty in retaining expatriates.

Western businessmen, on whom Ghana is heavily dependent, are showing increasing reluctance to invest in a country where the President is so frequently shot at and where outbursts of anti-Western hysteria are common. They suspect that the government is overspending in an attempt to impress outsiders.

The unhappy situation that exists between Ghana and the United States has prejudiced the position of an expatriate element that costs the country nothing — the Peace Corps teachers. Ghana’s education minister, Mr. A. J. Dowuona-Hammond has said that they will probably not be allowed to continue teaching under Peace Corps auspices at the end of their present contracts.

Relations with the West

In his relations with the West, particularly with the United States, Nkrumah has proved unstable. He would like to be free of the West entirely, but with Ghana at its present stage of development, this would mean economic disaster. He thinks, on the other hand, that occasional demonstrations of arrogance toward the rich nations will boost his flagging popularity at home. All dictatorships need a scapegoat, and Nkrumah has imperialism. He refers to any opposition within his country as “neo-colonialism.”

In February, relations between Ghana and the United States reached a low point. Rumors were current in Accra that Nkrumah was involved in the deaths of two Ghanaian soldiers, and to end these rumors, the government’s propaganda machine stated that they originated with American agents. The desired effect was achieved, and there was a demonstration outside the United States Embassy. The State Department declared that the government of Ghana had “instigated, inspired, or countenanced” the demonstration and lodged a strong protest.

Nkrumah’s dislike of the West (which is not unconnected with his experiences during twelve years as a Negro student in the United States and Britain) may yet lead him into the Communist bloc. He claims originality for the means he is employing to transform Ghanaian society; but no observer can fail to detect a similarity between the activities of his CPP cadres and the way Communism was built in other countries. With a foothold in Zanzibar on the eastern side of the continent, and another on the western coast in Ghana, a beginning could be made to an effective Communist penetration of the continent. The Communism would be of an African brand, but it is unlikely to be selfsufficient — at least in its early stages — and it may accept the backing of Peiping rather than Moscow. It was not for a holiday that Chou En-lai visited Africa earlier this year.

Ghana with its dictatorship and Marxist leanings is still a member of the British Commonwealth. How long it will choose or be allowed to remain a member is a moot point. The Commonwealth is a loose association of nations, and the conditions of membership are not defined. Four years ago Nkrumah gave his own description of the Commonwealth: “that remarkable institution, composed as it is of old and new countries, but all of them dedicated to the same principles of human dignity and political freedom.” It is now only Nkrumah and his henchmen who believe that the Ghana government is dedicated to those principles.

A lesson for Africa

Nkrumah is exploiting the fact that Western democracy is unworkable in a backward country. He has not experimented to discover in what way the system bequeathed by the British should be amended to suit local conditions. Instead, he has grabbed all power for himself. Backward countries need strong men to lead them. While being a strong man in many respects. Nkrumah has the weaknesses of a power-hungry egoist. Office has not mellowed him. Each year he has become more ruthless.

There is the danger that he will tarnish the image of postcolonial Africa. If his despotic rule comes to be considered characteristic of African nationalism, Africa will not have the standing in the world which it was hoped independence would bring. He may be setting a pattern for power seekers throughout the continent who will eagerly exploit division and unrest In their own countries to cast aside individual liberty. And the case against the South African government is not strengthened by Ghana’s totalitarianism.

Nkrumah sees himself as leader not only of Ghana but of a united Africa. Lately he has had little success as a Pan-Africanist. Far from helping to unite the continent, he has had the frontier with neighboring Togo closed. At the conference of African leaders at Addis Ababa last year his ideas for African unity were largely disregarded. He docs not command the respect he did when he led Ghana to independence in 1957. Moreover, most African countries are too occupied with their own internal differences and frontier disputes to give serious thought to uniting the continent.