Even though Morocco, Egypt, Sudan,
and Libya had achieved
independence, and together with
Ethiopia and Liberia were the free
countries of Africa by the end of the
first decade of the second half of the
20th century, it was the attainment of
independence by the Gold Coast
(Ghana) on March 6, 1957 that
launched Africa onto the path of
decolonisation and liberation.
That Ghana should become the
pathfinder of the politics of Africa and
thus, provide pivotal leadership for
the African liberation movement was
due to Nkrumah’s soaring vision and
inspirational personality.
In his home Ghana, Nkrumah did not
have things easy as the opposition
group launched a sustained and
vigorous campaign against his
policies and style of leadership.
The “NLM/Up and CPP” days
(1950-1966) will for a long time
remain a conspicuous blot in the
memories of Ghanaians who lived
those days.
It was unfortunate that differences in
approach to achieving a common
objective should result in mayhem for
a decade and half among a rather
peace-loving people of Ghana.
At the centre of all was Nkrumah, a
man of charisma. To be able to
appreciate Nkrumah’s profile in the
politics of Ghana, one needs a bird’s
eye-view of colonialism which British
rule preceded his rule.
Until March 6 1957, Ghana then known
as the “Gold Coast” was under the
British rule. This rule roughly dates
back to the defeat of the Asantes by
the British in the historic Yaa
Asantewaa War of 1900. Soon after
the war, almost all of the territory
called the Gold Coast fell under the
administration of the British.
Prior to this war, the influence of
British power had been felt only at
the coastal areas of the Gold Coast.
Even then, this power was for a long
time shared by the Dutch and Danish
merchant companies who had built
forts and castles at Elmina, Cape
Coast and Accra.
Impact of colonialism
It may be useful at this point to
briefly discuss some of the
characteristics of the colonial
government in the Gold Coast in
order to understand the conditions
that prevailed in the Gold Coast prior
to Nkrumah’s rule.
The colonial influence in the Gold
Coast could fall under two periods,
namely: the pre-British
Administration and the formal British
rule.
During the former period which can
be tagged, “Company Administration”
era, the Dutch and Danish, as well as
British companies opened up the area
of the Gold Coast with slave/trade
routes. They were more concerned
about keeping the routes safe so that
their main interest which was
commerce would flourish.
From 1830 t0 1847, the British,
especially through the efforts of
Captain George Maclean, made
conscious efforts to secure a
congenial atmosphere for their
commercial operations.
Captain Maclean, for instance,
managed to get a peace treaty signed
between Asante, southern states of
the Gold Coast and the British on 27
April, 1831. This gave a big boost to
the colonial merchants as they were
able to freely operate their business.
To concretise their hegemony, the
colonial administration annexed other
areas to the north and by the end of
the third decade of the 20th century,
there had come to exist a well-
defined British rule in the Gold Coast
as set out in the Native
Administration Ordinance of 1927.
Confirmation of British administration
Other colonial administrators that
came later, especially Commander
Hill, who confirmed British
Administration in the Gold Coast with
the Bond of 1844, legalised the
jurisdiction that had grown from the
time of Captain Maclean.
The system of rule adopted by the
colonialists was known as “Indirect
Rule”. It was a system that used the
local chiefs as the final link in the
chain of administration and authority.
This involvement of the chiefs in the
administration of their own land
ironically gave the local people a
sense of self-rule, albeit, false. In
reality the chiefs were merely
executors of the decisions taken by
the British Governor.
This system differed from the
Cartesian-style the French used
which allowed for the appointment of
an indigene as a Governor in their
territories.
The British, on the other hand,
strengthened the chieftaincy
institution in their role as
implementers of the Governor’s
decisions and so to this day, chiefs
in Ghana, for instance, are held in
high esteem. Generally, the
economies of British colonies were
such that provision of infrastructure
such as roads and other forms of
transportation, and services such as
education were all geared towards
exploitation of the riches of the
colony.
Roads and rail transportation system
were such that they connected the
vital raw material areas. There were
rapid increases in the haulage of
timber, cocoa, gold and other mineral
ores from the Gold Coast.
In the area of agriculture, the British
colonial administrators did not
establish plantations, instead they
relied on peasant small holdings and
allocated concessions of forest for
timber felling to overseas companies
who paid little money to the
traditional rulers and the peasant
farmers.
The mining industry was completely
in the hands of the foreign merchants
and they used cheap local labour to
remove the precious ore from the
bowels of the earth. In the area of
education, the system the
colonialists adopted undoubtedly,
laid the solid foundation for the
perennial problem of white-collar job
mentality in Ghana.
Their schools concentrated on
arithmetic, reading and writing, a
tripod that adequately supported the
clerical needs of the colonialists’
trade. As the late President Nyerere
described it, it was “not designed to
prepare young people for the service
of their country …..” If today, there is
a high rate of unemployment in
Ghana, it is because the “white-
collar” mentality has not yet been
uprooted; so while the land in the
countryside remains untilled, millions
of youth roam the cities looking for
non-existent Jobs
Comments
Post a Comment