ACCRA — In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, several skeptics on social media have raised the issue of African Unity and integration. Even though the extent of any future African integration has largely been left undefined especially in the post Nkrumah era, commentators have taken Brexit to mean that the project of African unity is endangered or doomed. One social media user said: “Hopefully, South Africa won’t hold a referendum in ten years’ time to exit the AU,” echoing a reverberating sentiment that the fallout will spill over into Africa.
Apart from the fact that Brexit has not entirely put to death the concept of a continental political union, in the sense that there is a mixed landscape of both a repudiation of the European Project and its resurgence, these responses betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the phenomenon of Brexit and similar movements being brewed and plotted across Europe, alongside a serious deficit in familiarity with the origin and nature of post-independence statehood in Africa.
The key idea to remember is that there is a natural transnationalism in Africa, while in Europe there is a pure and longstanding nationalism. This is the implication of a defining difference between modern states in Africa and Europe. This divergence generates forces likely to advance continental union in Africa and resist the same process in Europe. Whereas states in Europe are generally more ethnically homogenous, with the ethnicities more or less confined to the nation’s boundaries and configured by forces that are shaped from within, Africa’s states are ethnically heterogeneous, containing several transnational ethnicities, with the balkanized country comprising of several ancient nations some of which transcend state boundaries.
These states were furthermore created arbitrarily from without, that is by external powers. In the European case, the identities and locations of those who feel that they own the state are stable and uncontested. They produce nationalism from a homogeneous ethnic reservoir that has been stable and well defined for hundreds of years. The ethnic reservoir of nationalism in Africa has always been multiple and fragmented. Ownership of the state is usually contested by groups who are also mostly transnational but ancient and organic, while the state itself is artificial.
The forces that make these African groups look within the state are at least equal to, if not weaker than, what makes them look across the border at their brethren, stranded on the other side by an arbitrary boundary. If this is contrasted with Africa’s pre-colonial history of continuous movement, of the emergence and re-emergence of new states and sub-cultures by the movement of people alone, as well as the contemporary upsurge in cross border cultural collaboration, there is no doubt that transnationality is Africa’s natural state of being, and bringing down boundaries will restore trans-continent trade and culture to what it was before colonialism.
In short, Europe has more natural modern states that define and represent monolithic entities like England, land of the English, the Netherlands, land of the Dutch, France, land of the French and so forth. In countries like these, processes that project outwards are bound to awaken forces that always look inwards. Africa’s less natural post-colonial states with ethnic groups that span borders and sometime sub-regions are exceptional. They are not vulnerable in the same degree to the nationalist forces that have produced Brexit. Already, several ethnicities divided by borders in Africa are yearning to reconnect, while not entirely desiring the abolition of the post-colonial state. This has made Africa a place where the conditions exist for a political continental confederacy to co-exist seamlessly with the post-colonial state.
The Mande, for example, are present in more than half of West Africa. The Bantu inhabit areas that extend from West Africa and reach the southern coasts of the continent. The Hausa, the Akan and the Mole-Dagbani are all transnational, so are the Ewe, the Masai and the Central African Hima. There is a Swahili culture across East Africa and a Hausa language belt in West Africa. So many other groups share transnational connections. Transregional languages give Africa a unique ingredient for transnationalism and integration present in very few other places outside the continent. Out of drawing borders that don’t respect socio-cultural realities on the ground by unaccountable colonial powers can be found the resources for bringing Africa closer together for trade and for a more effective and accountable political voice on the global stage. Out of the importation of the Westphalian state model to Africa an opportunity has materialized for the institution of a confederal Africa that allows its citizens to freely navigate several polities.
From this perspective, the argument may be made that big transnational ethnic groups if encouraged may end up stoking secession and balkanizing Africa into a band of narrow-minded, tribal states. In addition to disrupting and even erasing centuries-old trade routes and cutting social and family ties, the artificial lines of separation have been implicated in wars and instability in large swathes of the continent. More than 177 African ethnic groups are separated by colonial boundaries—including the Malinke, split between 6 countries, the Somali in 5 countries, and the Afar, the Ndembu and the Nukwe in 3 countries respectively. The partitioning of a community by a colonial border increases the likelihood of conflict and the deadliness of that conflict.
The reasons for European disunity, evidenced in Brexit, are nationalist. In Africa, the relevant undercurrent is transnationalist, which rather favours African unity. But all this presupposes that the African Union ceases to be an elitist top down organization and becomes a transformational movement for the long-awaited reunion of the African people at the grassroots.
Brexit is a constant theme on social media nowadays. For many, the fear that the fallout might have repercussions in the motherland is worrisome. In this essay Johnson Ayoka puts to bed the idea that a Brexit vote will translate into mass exodus from a more grassroots union that Africans seek. Especially because a lame African Union, overtaken by neoliberal western agents, is at its weakest influence on the continent since its inception.
Furthermore, transnational ethnicities in Africa are important in bridging boundaries that otherwise confine ethnic groups to one balkanized country. Unlike in Europe where ethnicities are bound by nation states, transnationalism shapes the uniqueness of Africa – it is the single ingredient that makes the continent and her people exceptional.
Transnational unity is a dream for most ethnic groups and that dream, although it is not yet reflected in the agendas of the AU, undergirds the verve to transcend current boundaries in Africa. This is the import of Ayoka’s belief
“The key idea to remember is that there is a natural transnationalism in Africa, while in Europe there is a pure and longstanding nationalism. This is the implication of a defining difference between modern states in Africa and Europe.” This should tell you that defining Africa with modern Eurocentric state conception puts the continent in a prison. Rather create pockets of demilitarised autonomies based on that transnationalism and cede all military power, monoly of use of force and sovereignty to a body single body, with a super army, supra national legislature, etc. likely AU, but you can’t trust but maybe a reformed AU. This will put the continent on course to solutions already.
The future of Africa lies in good governance and not in a continental government. We must get certain facts clear – there were over 600 kingdoms and chieftains in Africa. We have 54 countries now. That is not balkanization. It is consolidation of many kingdoms and chieftains into single nation states. Whether that is good or bad is a separate matter. Let us not give the impression we had one big African kingdom and then some Europeans came and divided it into many nations which is what balkanization is. That is just not true. I don’t see how bringing 54 incompetent and corrupt governments together into one political union will turn them into competent and incorruptible one. Let us not over-romanticise historical facts. There would have been no Ghana without the invitation of the British by the coastal states to protect them from Ashanti invasions. That started the colonization of the Gold Coast. If New Zealand of 4.2m can be governed properly and succeed, no country in Africa has an excuse not to prosper.
Do we have indigenized models for good governance? What has to happen for Africa to get it right? Our head is rotten, our body politic is corrupt and our feet, in reverse motion. What’s the starting point? Should we just forget about this whole “Africa will make it” maxim and just accept that we are laggards?
Nii Amon-kotey ur comment completely ignores the fact that these artificial boundaries and aims arecmodeled to rather ensure Africa never really work, albeit the intention to make European control over Africans easier. A second fundamental issue you comment ignores is the fact that from an indegiounous viewpoint development is not defined; it simply means “trying to have or be like what Europeans have or are”. Now if this isn’t an insane catastrophic Balkanization, what else will be from an African viewpoint?
I do not think the idea of a profound unity amongst African ethnic groups is a romantic idea. It is not. Europe has had two world wars. Africa has had none. This reality is implicit in this essay that Africans strive more for unity than disunity. So, on the contrary to Nii Amu Darko’s point, Africa as it is today is balkanized for the reasons that Audu Salisu has expressed – to contain an organic development of unity and advancement on the continent.
And no, New Zealand of 4.2m people is a different story from a Norway with 5m people and these are different from a Togo with 6m people. Why? Ewes are balkanized into three or four nations. Why? I think our development is inextricably linked with our history and our traditions – our identity. There are no Ewes without the Ewes of Togo. In the same way that Ga cannot be fully defined without the historicity that is in Nii Ayi of Aneho. We are balkanized – that is a fact not romanticism.
Nii Amu Darko Nature cannot be stopped. It is already clear from all the research that bringing borders down will not only eliminate conflict but also boost trade and commerce. The intra-African trade statistics is a joke. The social dismemberment acts like the Berlin wall.
No one is calling for the restoration of tribal entities and their transformation into statelets. Infact, if that were to be done we would have 2000 countries in Africa! On the other hand my idea of African unity is not a rigid, monolithic, continental unitary state with power concentrated in Adis.
We know that Africa had reached a critical stage of natural state formation at the onset of European intervention. Even though we are in no position to tell the outcome of that process without European interference, we do now know that the core of our problems today, be it corruption, bad governance, conflict, etc, is because the state the European left behind not only disrespected socio-cultural realities on the ground, but assumed that the African people held a uniform conception of the state and it’s role in their lives, and assumed that we were a nation in the European sense.
True, 54 countries is preferable to tens of states but the devastating and suffocating basis under which these states were formed must be questioned by us. It is not by accident that our states are ravaged by under development and conflict. It is not the leaders but the state environment within which the leaders and followers are trapped. In that case it is important to remove the colonial lines as a first step and use that leverage of one voice to aquire a stronger hand in an increasingly multilateral world.
Our argument is that restoring the natural lines of unity between our people is essential for unleashing our true potential and that can only take place under a continental political arrangement. In many respects, we will just be respecting what already exists on the ground but this time without vampire border personnel.
Secondly, I am not calling for the total abolition of the post-colonial state. I think it can co-exist alongside a confedral, not federal, political arrangement along with transnational regions that reflect the wishes of the people.
You mention New Zealand as prosperous. That is true. The reason New Zealand is prosperous and we are not is that the Anglo-Saxon NZ state is a reflection of the Anglo-Saxon people of NZ. It is not the people, it is the political system that fits the people. And New Zealand as a state is totally connected to the Anglo Saxon Universe comprising Canada, the US, the UK and Australia. The political, diplomatic, military and economic significant of that connection is overwhelming. We are simply calling for a comparable African connection based on links that were already there.
Sure, the current post-colonial state must be reformed to reflect the values of the people and the channels of accountability that will actual influence the behaviour of the people and their leaders. But that alone, though very important, will not go far in breaking down the structural global economic and political trap we find ourselves in, for that is connected to the separation of the African people at a fundamental grassroots level.
Extension or Extinction is the Master’s ultimatum ~ Narmer Amenuti. We can use our history and our traditions to extend beyond artificial borders, and coalesce around common economic interests or face economic extinction from the powers that be. Africa will not be left alone to prosper until she has defeated the Master’s hand in her carving.
LOL.
In as far as it is a thought that we are romanticizing an Africa that never was – as if we have something else to romanticize – that is how far that thought starts and ends. I shall romanticize Africa. Why not? What have I to live for but to see the certain and bright future of a continent that has been so looted by all, without exception.
Johnson Ayoka has said what many keep within unexpressed. It’s like Ayoka has given voice to the voiceless. Thank you for clearly believing, even if it was but just a dream, that this continent strives for unity than disunity.
However I thought the last sentence of your article stroked a somber note – that even in this dream, the top-heavy elitist AU is not perhaps the organization that will lead Africa into unfettered freedom. What a shame? How devastating must Nkrumah be in his grave? What a blow to Lumumba? What a somber not. But there is hope and in Bob Marley’s words: “Africa Unite”.
Yes, Solomon Azumah-Gomez, not this AU that rejects Haiti and cannot afford its own HQ. But lets give them a chance to reform, lets harass them to listen to us, at least for the time being. More importantly, lets change minds. We are more than them.
I weep for Africa. I really do. A sick child goes to see the doctor with fever and vomiting. Doctor looks at the child and says yesterday another came to see him with similar symptoms and he had malaria after blood test so this one too has malaria. Doctor treats this one as malaria. This one dies from typhoid fever. Wrong diagnosis=wrong treatment=death. Before these artificial borders were created, who told you there were no borders? Who told you there was freedom of movement of people? Why do we need a political union in order to remove borders? New Zealand, Australia, Canada, US and UK don’t form a political union, they don’t have one common stock exchange, they don’t use one currency, in fact they don’t even have free trade agreements among themselves but they have one agenda – to dominate the world. Their citizens are able to travel to and from without any hindrance and they support each other in trouble. Common agenda, unity of purpose does not need political unification. To reduce Africa’s disaster to the presence of artificial borders and its salvation to political unification betrays an absolute lack of understanding of our history and human behavior. We are always emotional and talk outside the facts on the ground. Do you think that without the nation-state Ghana if 66.4% of Ghanaians leave their homes, they will end up in Accra? And Ibos and Hausas could move in and out of Lagos? Do you know what existed before the nation states were created? Do a quick research and tell me the number of inter-ethnic wars in the Gold Coast/Ghana before and after 1874 when the colony was formed. For your information, Malaysia and Singapore gained independence as one nation, they later split and are both doing better than every single African country. The myth of political union exposed. Guys, you may continue to over-romanticize a past which never existed, blame others for all our self-inflicted wounds and pull the dunna over your heads over ever present realities. I’m out of here.
I don’t know if its a romantic comment to want to secure our borders. different eras and situations demand context based solutions. I don’t think we are wrong to want to first secure Africa before venturing into any kind od development. There’s no other way to look at it like to want to secure the borders. The Malaysians don’t have Coltan and Gold and oil, etc. Hence the peace to be able to start and finish projects. The interest in our continent will not allow all those people u mentioned to watch us do what we want. They will intervene. So YES a political Union in this sense is very necessay. China started with political revolution, closed their borders because they knew the west feels threatened by their number and the purchasing power that comes with it.
This is exactly why I don’t like politics. There are two schools of thought emanating from these discussions. (1) African nations should invest in a united front to forestall outside influence so that we can concentrate our energies on development. (2) African nations should look inwards and develop first before they look towards Africa for common goals. The Nkrumah vs. the quasi-Busia-Danquah traditions.
This is an age-old debate and one that we are having in earnest still in the twenty-first century. People are free to agree with one school or the other without the pharisaism of an example stooped only in medicine and no other. Politics and national leadership has nothing, absolutely nothing in common with diagnosing a disease. One is a science and the other a social science. The difference. To say that “I’m out of here” is a confession anyone with an authoritarian strain would make, so I did not expect that from Nii Amu Darko.
One chooses to look at our history from any lens they choose. One can look back and see “tribal wars” and there were plenty! One can choose to look back and see a lack of integration of people and of ideas. Or one can also look back and see collaboration and what the lack of collaboration by powerful African states (Asante and Dahomey in 1909) did to poor Africans. I can choose to look back and see a world without the technological advancements of cars, trains, planes that we have today. The fact that 40,000 Hausa’s weren’t spending time in Teshie in 1865 may have had something to do with wars but not entirely that it had everything to do with wars! Perhaps it had something to do with transportation and access to cultural materials like food?
That I choose to see African history from my lens does not invalidate yours, Nii Amu Darko. Rather it means we can actually work together, if working together is something we must believe in or not. I have no idea how the two schools of thought, if they are rooted in bettering the African Life, can’t be forged to work hand in hand? Why not make concessions? Does one school of thought have to be right and the other wrong? This is just a discussion. We get nothing but ideas from such discussions. Hmmm. I am just frankly frustrated. Very frustrated.
I’m out of here means I have said what I have to say. It has absolute nothing to do with authoritarianism but you are free to draw any conclusion you want. I do not have to engage in an endless discussion on any issue. I leave when I believe I have made my point. I’m not advocating African nations should look inside 1st. I’m saying political union is not the solution to African problems, good governance is. If each state is well governed you will realise the futility or even the dangers of a larger bureaucracy called political union. I believe what Africa needs is a service union and I wrote about this on 25/05/2016. African nations on regional level may collaborate and merge services like specialist medical services to cut costs and improve efficiency, to share diplomatic services and reduce costs (Australia looks after New Zealand in West Africa). So I believe in collaboration, I just don’t believe a continental government is the solution. There is no reason or evidence for me to believe so. The Anglo-Saxon group of countries do not have political or economic union but a common agenda and unity of purpose. So political union is not the solution. Clear, non-ideological, practical thinking and good governance is the solution. Bringing in Nkrumah and Busia shows you don’t understand me and you are looking at the issue ideologically. Please spare me that, ok. There is no need for you to be frustrated. Absolute waste of time to be frustrated that I have to end my contribution on this issue. Truth is truth. Looking at history untruthfully is no reason to engage anyone. True history doesn’t have many lenses. So keep on creating your own lenses, that is your prerogative. Just don’t expect me to be part of that banter where goal posts keep changing.
Ok. Not a problem.
Brexit strengthens our case for genuinely Revolutionary Pan-Afrikanism! A brilliantly thought-provoking article by Johnson Ayoka with starry comments from some of my favourite Pan-Afrikan Reasoning Star-Griots!
Sir, If there is any romantisization underway here, it appears you more than make up for it by also romanticizing colonialism. You neglect to mention that a lot of those ethnic wars were instigated, fuelled, made deadlier and prolonged by European powers orchestrating an arms race and arming rival or both factions. European arms played a significant role in inter-state conflict in pre-colonial Ghana. In addition, insatiable European demand for slaves fuelled and intensified the same conflicts. Without the industrial logic of Euro-America being based on free labour, there certainly would not have been that level of insecurity and blood thirsty carnage witnessed in Africa. Finally, European competition for the African trade also led to inter-ethnic conflict. So you certainly cannot reduce European involvement to a picnic. Moreover, I have not suggested that there were no borders. The argument is these borders made sense. They reflected the social cultural and political realities on the ground. And my understanding of history tells me that movement was freer than what subsequently occurred under the post colonial state. There are plenty cases of whole polities and nations moving and starting new states. It is not necessary spending too much time on the Anglo-Saxon states I mentioned.That topic arose because you brought up the success of NZ. Nevertheless, four of those countries all basically fly the union Jack. That should tell you something. Anyway, what is a political union? These people essentially merge their militaries to fight wars, so you have a high command right there. They have a common foreign policy and diplomatic platform, a common head of state apart from America, a common language. They give each other trade preferences. Most of the elements of a confederal political union are already in place among them. If they shared land boundaries you can imagine what they would do. But the bottom-line is that their unified global political platform preserves a certain structure that benefit them. Here we are in Africa, sharing land boundaries that have divided people(And that is the simple truth),and lacking a unified economic, military, diplomatic, and political voice on the global stage. Given this , what is the best way of restoring these ties and giving ourselves a stronger voice? Why is there such a fear of ‘borderlesness ‘and a political union. The process of independent states cooperating to attain these things implies functional integration. From here political integration is not avoidable as you need to put a political machinery in place find common platforms for things and actions. In any case it is clear where the world is heading. South America will have a single passport soon. There is freedom of movement and work among a growing list of countries there. An avowed political union is the ultimate aim. Asean is heading in the same direction abeit a bit slower. The EU goes without saying. I notice, Sir, how you compare some Asian countries, such as Malaysia, to African countries, but you avoid citing the likes of Laos and Myanmar. Perhaps we can go into the Asian example another time. You also seem to suggest that someone has suggested the abolition of Ghana and its peers. Even the EU has not done that, nor has it been said that we should not reform. A lot of reform of the nation state in Europe, especially the poorer and corrupt ones, has been driven by the EU. The sum of the parts is not always the whole.
A Big Question: How is it possible, within the concrete geopolitical context and its realities in which Afrika has been put in the World today, for “GOOD GOVERNANCE” in the best interests of ALL Afrikan people to thrive anywhere on the continent without genuinely revolutionary Pan-Afrikan Unity of Afrikan people, by Afrikan people and for Afrikan people?
Interesting. Very interesting. You raise your own points and you argue them. Good. Dealing with 54 states makes more sense than dealing with 540 kingdoms and chieftains. Almost all Ashanti and Akwamu wars were about getting direct access to the coast for trading. Movement of people was not that simple ok. Nobody is saying Europe is not involved in the mess of Africa but you are dominated as much as you allow it. The solution of European involvement is not the creation of a continental government. The true emancipation of African countries is good governance through true genuine and good leadership. We can remove all borders tomorrow nothing will change. We can all have the same passport tomorrow, nothing will change. We can use the same currency tomorrow, nothing will change. We can even have the same President tomorrow and he or she will have more money to steal from. Let us chase the mirage and leave the core principle of good and accountable governance under the dunna. Cheers.
Nii Amu Darko your proposal of good governance will definitely be on the table together with the idea of a protected super state. It’s not an either or situation. It’s rather combination of both options because outside forces thrive on seeing Africa in chaos. So yes while good governance is needed, a sovereign demilitarized internal Africa is required in order make it difficult for armed conflicts to start and to also make internal trading among autonomous groups easier. If european state type borders reflected anything Africa could work with, I would have been the first to support it. But fact is that because it was created with the intention of syphoning resources,,if needs a rethink.
Nii Amu Darko is playing Respectability Politics. It’s an age-old trick. Ghana first, Ga Lands first, Teshie first, Tiafiahe first, my house first, my family first economics. If I fix my house then my town is fixed and then my country is fixed politics while ignoring the forces that control the socio-economic process within borders. The Bottom-Up approach is as disturbed as the Top-Down approach.
There were tribal wars in Africa so the Europeans came to save us from ourselves? We are not balkanized because we had over 3000 tribes and now we have 54? What a naive perspective! We should accept our balkanized states without a conscious attempt to harness our transnational energies? Why not? Europeans, our colonizers, came and established good governments in Africa – government structures we can build on? Because Nkrumah decided to pay less than the colonizers paid to farmers for the same cocoa means Nkrumah was a tyrant and the colonizers were better? I see! This is just another “White Saviour” trope. Everywhere I look, Nii Amu Darko is pouting some western whiteness ideology about Africa- Afremocracy indeed.
This has always been the white-supremacist and the neocolonial tool – Respectability Politics my dunna. I vehemently refuse it! It doesn’t work. That – If only Blacks can take personal responsibility in their communities, they would be fine – mantra. In the same vein if Ghana, our leaders can be good, then we will just be fine. Let us harmer ourselves that in the whole wide world, only “Good Governance”: whatever this means brings wealth and prosperity. Whoever believes this is not aware of geopolitics! Whoever believes that dunna is not vexed in geopolitics. Unless you have a very secure border, which other African nations can help you support, you cannot even begin to nurture good people for that so called “good governance”.
Shall I remind everyone here that no matter how “bad” others seem to think Nkrumah was, we – Ghanaians – voted for him. We didn’t need the CIA to overthrow him. Or did we? One can look back at our history and see western interference everywhere on the continent and still go blowing smoke about “Personal Responsibility” and “Good Governance”. Alas, how would we know when the CIA seems to have had a hand in overthrowing or killing every democratically elected official in Africa they didn’t like? Now we have AFRICOM on our dunnas and here we go shouting “Good Governance”?
I’m out of here! This is parochial thinking, at best.
Hahaha. The truth hurts. You can decide to play emotional politics. Resorting to lies won’t do you any good. Name calling makes you weak. If you have a different definition of balkanization, bring it on. You have a view of what Africa should be, another person has a different view. Your view is African and the other person is western whiteness ideology, how pathetic? Who say inter-African collaboration should not be sought? I’m saying the route of a political union and continental government is not the way. There is no evidence, that is the way. What about secure borders? Do you read before you respond? Do you comprehend what you read? How does a continental government secure borders and from whom? Who is talking about the overthrow of Nkrumah? For your information, in 1965, Nkrumah appointed all the 198 members of parliament. Ghanaians did not vote for one single MP. The MPs in turn by show of hands elected Nkrumah as President. Ghanaians did not vote for Nkrumah. Ghana political history 101. Why do some of you hate the truth so much? Your emotional and empty ranting here shows your level of thoughtlessness. Here me again, the future of Africa lies in good governance, it does not lie in a continental government. If you don’t know what good governance is, you have no business engaging me on anything. I don’t have time for advocates of bad governance.
Your white-washed ideas, your white-washed history about Africa and Ghana are patently false! and Next time I will not indulge your craziness. Your pharisaism and highfalutin expressions are rants, at best. Empty barrel! Good luck with your silly politics. I won’t be voting for you. And you won’t be winning either! You are dangerous for any country!
Hahaha. Who needs a liar and a madman like you in his corner? A normal person shows it in his arguments, picking points and tearing them down. You come screaming with nothing to offer but lies and insults. Poor soul. Go back into your hole.
Gotten to that far? Huh!
Anyway, on all the central issues, let it be repeated for the upteenth time that removing borders irrationally placed there by outsiders does not automatically amount to neglecting the good governance goal.As I have pointed out, it is bad governance to keep people divided and regional governments even intensify good governance by harassing national governments on things like corruption and democracy. Also, let me say again that undertaking any intergovernmental collaboration beyond a superficial and ineffective level is not possible without a transnational political framework. The Europeans have already found that out. You cannot harmonize things like security, markets, infrastructure, justice, labour, agriculture, and most importantly foreign policy and foreign trade relations as well as the environment without a political arrangement that gives the African people through their representatives control over proceedings. The one regional grouping that has gone furthest towards these things has found itself being spied upon by the NSA as revealed by Edward Snowden. It should not be forgotten that Africa is in an exceptional global structural trap, which means we have already been consigned to a certain fixed position in the global scheme of things from which we cannot escape without collective muscle and it is not by accident that all the leaders who advocated this path were eliminated by the same outsiders. I have no doubt in my mind that even if we follow Nii Amu Darko’s logic for the sake of argument, that hundreds of tribal chieftains will emerge, even though that is certainly not the goal here, I would still prefer natural, rational, and evolved borders that reestablish economic and social ties and are hundreds of years old to artificial borders that are but fifty something years old. Nkrumah won the 51,54 and 56 elections. Nkrumah won the 1960 elections and referendum on a new constitution when the queen was still head of state. You may argue about the 64 elections, 2 years before his overthrow which he won too and which made Ghana a one party state, and gave the country a constitutional regime in which Nkkrumah could appoint MPs, but the point is that to use that alone to categorically state than Ghanaians did not vote for Nkrumah is very far from factual. Ghanaians voted for Nkrumah several times, including the time he stood against Danquah in april 1960. I think there is no point getting stressed over things that are out in the open. It is to see the path we must take by looking at the global environment right now. Almost everywhere you look, borders are coming down.
Johnson Ayoka, it is very important to pay attention to details, ok. Who is arguing against freedom of movement? Or does borderlessness=continental government? Bro, what are you going on about? All I’m saying is that Africa’s future lies in good governance and not in a continental government. Political union is not the solution to corruption and nepotism. Continental government is not the solution to poor productivity. In both scenarios good governance is. Can we please agree to disagree? It is not good to distort facts, ok. I wrote “…. in 1965. I never said Nkrumah never won any election. Ghanaians did not vote for the parliament and government that were overthrown in 1966. What is so difficult to understand about this simple truth? I have written extensively about the Nkrumah phenomenon and my position on his electoral victories from 1951 to 56 is well known. In 1956 he and the CPP polled 57%. In 1960 against Danquah he polled almost 90%. In the 1964 referendum he received 99.91%. That was long before Eyadema and Saddam started polling 99%. I’m very sad that you are quoting this patently rigged elections in defence. Genuine Nkrumahists feel ashamed of these elections results. FYI again, the parliament and government overthrown in 1966 were not elected by Ghanaians. Lets end it here. We have both said what we have to say. Thank you.
Nii Amu Darko, be decorous and do not lie and twist. These are your words. Anybody can go above and read them
”” For your information, in 1965, Nkrumah appointed all the 198 members of parliament. Ghanaians did not vote for one single MP. The MPs in turn by show of hands elected Nkrumah as President. Ghanaians did not vote for Nkrumah. Ghana political history 101”””’
You clearly said that Ghanaians never voted for Nkrumah and that was a big fat lie. I do not know about what you have written elsewhere. I can only talk about what I am reading here. I did quote only the 64 election and you know it, and it is you who is saying it was rigged. Your position is not universal. As far as I can tell, it is you who is getting intolerant. Anybody can read that I have restricted myself to arguments.
Jesus Christ – this is real work. You just re-posted that in 1965, Nkrumah was appointed by a Parliament he appointed. Where is the lie? Wow!!!! Where did I write GHANAIANS NEVER VOTED FOR NKRUMAH?
Secondly, you keep reproducing your own simple equation, borderless-continental government, and presenting it as a simplistic distortion of my arguments. I have explained to you over and again that you cannot have border-less regions without cross border political institutions to govern that borderlessness and its multiple implications. The harmonization of sectors over an expansive land mass will set you on that evolutionary path to a confederacy. And I have told you that Europeans have found this simple fact out. Go back to the exchanges betweeen you and Dade Afre Akufu and you will see where you said Ghanaians never voted for Nkrumah. You will see the same quote I have copy and pasted above. Did you even read from the beginning to the end of what I put in quotation marks?
You quoted what I wrote about election of Nkrumah in 1965. It was very clear I meant 1965 elections and no other elections. You tried to twist it, it didn’t work. I didn’t write that GHANAIANS NEVER VOTED FOR NKRUMAH. There is No fair minded person who reads what I wrote and wouldn’t conclude I meant 1965. I don’t know what equation you are talking about. I wrote ”who is arguing against free movement?” Or does borderlessness=continental government? I asked this question because you are talking as if we cannot have borderlessness unless we have a continental government. I am saying that is not true. You can repeat a false proposition 100x, it doesn’t change it into truth. My point is, political union is not necessary for free movement of people. What at all don’t you understand here? If you believe political union is necessary, fine. Let us agree to disagree.
This is what Dade Afre Akufu said –
” Shall I remind everyone here that no matter how “bad” others seem to think Nkrumah was, we – Ghanaians – voted for him. We didn’t need the CIA to overthrow him.” He was clearly not referring to only 1965.
So if in your response concerning the issue you write that
This is what Dade Afre Akufu wrote –
” Shall I remind everyone here that no matter how “bad” others seem to think Nkrumah was, we – Ghanaians – voted for him. We didn’t need the CIA to overthrow him.”
He was clearly not confining himself to 1965.
So if in your response you write that
” For your information, in 1965, Nkrumah appointed all the 198 members of parliament. Ghanaians did not vote for one single MP. The MPs in turn by show of hands elected Nkrumah as President. Ghanaians did not vote for Nkrumah. Ghana political history 101.”
If you evasively restrict yourself to 1965 and you accuse someone of twisting, so be it. Look closer to home. Bye b Bye.
Nkrumah wasn’t overthrown in 1965. So bringing in 1965 and describing how he became President should inform any fair minded person that the government and parliament which were overthrown were not elected by Ghanaians. Anyway, thank you very much. Bye.
Eurocentric thinking Africans don’t really get it, do they? You (Nii Amu Darko) keep giving examples within the same destructive colonial context. Lets assume Nkrumah rigged elections. Western countries you want us to look up to, change election results every day if they feel its geopolitically unfit. for example in Algeria.
But what surprises me is that with this clear technological advancement and paradigm shift to an age where the social question (from a European good governance point of view), has come to be centered on the exploitation of the so called middle class, Africans are still trying to make sense of it and be what what Europeans were some 50, 70 years ago. Let’s start with the multiple and multi layered ambivalence starched this idea of good governance. Lessons are littered all over the place that what Europeans have cooked and served can defied and people could still prosper. For example, the ambivalence in the Chinese mixture of communist political ideology and capitalist economic ambitions show that any Africa centered thinking, be it the idea of a super state or autonomous transnationalism, is a viable option to explore.
It really borders me that in today’s self-thought possibilities that exist for people to understand geopolitical conducts and misconducts as well as their imperatives, some Africans are still stuck perpetuating these neo-colonial dogmas, aka good governance, which Iam not against being added to the available options. But my question is: why are Africans afraid of trying systems that are more linked and closer to who they are after 500 years of mingling with Eurocentric statism, 200 year of its instalment inter lives, and obviously achieving nothing from it?
Hahaha. Me, Eurocentric thinking. You obviously don’t understand what you have written. This may interest you. ”You see my whole thinking and action is derived from a synthesis of the materialism of Feuerbach, the dialectical idealism of Hegel, and Darwin`s theory of evolution, and the dialectical materialism of Marx. Out of these I have tried to evolve a philosophy of my own. I tried to do this in Consciencism. How much I succeeded I don’t know. Kwame Nkrumah to June Milne August 1967. If you want to see Eurocentric thinker, you have it here. Lol. You guys are very funny. Akosua M. Abeka is trying to set up a forum for discussion in an open-minded atmosphere. Someone infers that our salvation lies in a continental government, I disagreed. Then all of a sudden I am Eurocentric thinker. How pathetic and unfortunate? This is the reason the rain is beating us so hard. It is an absolute disgrace.
I think it will help for people to debate or make their point without calling people names! The forum is supposed to share ideas and nobody has monopoly over ideas. You may be right today and wrong tomorrow. You may even be right but it does not mean that everybody should agree with you.
Isaac Boatey-Agyei you are right
Isaac Boatey-Agyei, the Big Child came here playing Respectability Politics – many years in the UK has warped his small brain greatly. Who is this dunna anyway? He should crawl back to his dirty latrine. He is not winning any elections in Ghana for his catamites in the UK. But he already knew that! Didn’t he? A waste of tax payer peace of mind.
Dade Afre Akufu, your words belittle you. Please be civil and turn to issues instead of personal attacks.
“The great thing about criticism is you have to take it seriously but not personally. Most people take it personally that it prevents them from taking it seriously.” -Bill Clinton
My dear friends, I love you all. I see the fight in you. I adore this fight. I admire it even. Sometimes I swell with this kind of fight, this energy, this verve, this frustration. But you see, we can fight without anger. We can fight without calling one another names. We can fight over our uncertain future without resorting to “demeaning” each other. I am not going to say this was not constructive. For it was. In fact, this was instructive. I am a believer in a written culture – and ideas in written cultures are sometimes fought to the death. However I strongly feel we leave a better legacy by practicing a level of decorum that others can admire – not that others ought to dictate our principles of sincerity, or of our honesty, or of our candid perspectives. Hopefully, although you fight over ideas today, you will make peace to move our country forward tomorrow. I know, I believe, you all love Ghana, you love Africa. This is the most important point. So this could be a guiding principle – again, it could be. But it’s a choice.
To go back to constructive discussion, @nii amu DarKo It’s important that we continue to sanely discuss and not manipulate facts. Nkrumah never made a secret of his admiration of Marxism, which yes, is Eurocentric alright. But he also had the same admiration for Mao; Mao admire marx too, but did that make him a Eurocentric thinker? No! And how about nkrumah’s love for black nationalism of the african diaspora struggles? So to call Nkrumah a Eurocentric thinker very simplistic. Carving your own thinking from all kinds of influences should not necessarily mean u are where you pick those influences from. A Eurocentric thinker is indeed someone who believes strongly in thsee neo liberal over stretched ambiguous terminologies such as good governance, which are not really ideas but tools for tropical adventures of western experts in our business.
Even though I share most of the good reasoning and sentiments of Sister Akosua Abeka, I am thrilled that Brother Dade Afre Akufu wrote TRUTH from the depths of our “Akomantoaso” and that Brothers Audu Salisu and Johnson Ayoka have written powerfully in thought and ethics to back up his arguments! Yes, we must avoid unnecessary insults and bad name-calling if possible; but we must also be mindful that our arguments are not merely academic exercises; there have been and still are millions of our Afrikan people, and lots of the heroic best of the sons and daughters of Mother Afrika who dared and continue daring to provide leadership to our suffering masses throughout the World, compelled and still being made to give up their precious lives and liberties for simply standing up for our underprivileged Afrikan people’s TRUTH, while those peddling falsehoods are getting bribed to profitably do so in filthy richness!