[DEBATE] : (Fwd) Pambazuka on Ghana's 50th b'day

[Patrick Bond]

GHANA @ 50: INDEPENDENCE OR THE FOG OF DEPENDENCY?

Kwame Zulu Shabazz

What does freedom mean in an African context and can a country be free 
when 75% of it’s budget is provided by donors? Not necessarily but this 
does not mean that there is nothing to celebrate about the achievement 
of Ghana’s independence in 1957. It does mean however that there is 
still much work to be done.


On 6 March 2007, Ghana celebrated its “Golden Jubilee,” frequently 
referred to as “Ghana @ 50”—fifty years of independence from their 
colonial oppressors, Britain. The ancestors have blessed me with the 
opportunity to bear witness to this momentous event. Although I am an 
“African (or Black) American” by citizenship, like many North American 
and Caribbean Blacks, I consider the African continent to be my 
spiritual home. And, I am a pan African in terms of sentiment, by which 
I mean that I advocate the operational unity of Black/African people all 
over the world for our individual and collective interests. Below, I 
offer my perspective on the significance of Ghana’s 50th anniversary 
celebrations.

Fifty years ago, Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah declared that, “Ghana, your 
beloved country, is free forever!” “Freedom,” however, can be a fleeting 
thing. Is Ghana free today? What precisely do we mean by “freedom” in 
the African context? Perhaps what is, I think, most instructive and 
ironic and about the “Ghana @ 50” celebrations is that the Ghanaian 
government is forced to rely on western donors, most notably Britain, 
for funding. It makes one wonder in what ways exactly is Ghana, and by 
extension Africa, truly free? And for that matter what can freedom mean 
for Ghanaians when seventy percent of the central government’s budget is 
provided by Euro-western “donors”? Well for starters, and this is 
perhaps the most disturbing irony of all, some (but not all) Ghanaian 
scholars and politicians are forced to uncritically accept British 
self-interested interpretations of the transatlantic slave trade, 
British colonialism, and its consequences.

Here in Ghana it has become something of a fashion for Ghanaian analysts 
to compare Ghana’s progress as a nation with that of Malaysia, which 
also gained its independence in 1957. In every instance that the 
comparison is raised, the Ghanaian commentator reaches the inevitable 
conclusion that by the Malaysian yard (or meter) stick, Ghana comes up 
short in every major indicator of human and economic development (infant 
mortality, life expectancy, Gross Domestic Product, and the like). I 
have always been somewhat skeptical of the usefulness of these sorts of 
comparisons. After all, the post-colonial social, political, and 
economic challenges of Ghana and Malaysia respectively must have been 
very different.

If, however, one were bent on comparisons, another instructive 
juxtaposition would be with the first sub Saharan nation to break free 
from colonialism—Sudan. That’s right Sudan. It is frequently reported 
that Ghana was the first sub Saharan country to gain its independence, 
but Sudan, having gained its independence on 1 January 1956, had roughly 
a fourteen-month head start on Ghana. I suspect that this historical 
slight might have something do with the fact that Sudan is dominated, 
politically, by Afro-Arabs—or, to put it bluntly, due to its political 
ties to the Arab world, some folks tend not to count Sudan in the club 
of “Black African” nations. This perception raises all sorts of 
important questions regarding the politics of African identity, but 
that’s a discussion for a different essay. What is important to note for 
the purposes of this essay is that the Khartoum regime and the Southern 
Sudanese rebels have only in the last few years negotiated a (very 
shaky) resolution ending what was one of the longest and most neglected 
conflicts on the African continent. More recently, the Darfurian region 
of western Sudan is in the throes of a humanitarian disaster—what some 
international observers are calling genocide. Consequently, the lives of 
ordinary Darfurians is extremely precarious as they continue to be 
squeezed by rebel groups on one side and nomadic militias (so-called 
“janjaweed”), allegedly backed by Khartoum, on the other.

Ghana for its part has experienced four military coups (at least one of 
which featured US and British intelligence agencies as co-conspirators), 
sporadic instances of state-sponsored violence, and a severe recession 
in the early 80’s. But, unlike Sudan, Ghanaians have never known the 
ravages and devastation of civil war. Ghana is today, despite the 
historical volatility of its central government and deep political 
divisions between the two major political parties, the National 
Democratic Convention (NDC) and the New Patriotic Party (NPP), a 
relatively stable nation. While I cannot imagine how it could be proven 
empirically, I am of the opinion—and it is only an opinion—that this 
stability has something to do with Kwame Nkrumah’s tireless efforts to 
propagate pan African nationalism.

What is incontrovertible, however, is that Ghana’s independence was an 
achievement of Ghanaian elites like Kwame Nkrumah and J.B. Danquah, 
Afro-westerners like W.E.B. Du Bois and Marcus and Amy Jacques Garvey, 
and thousands of well known and lesser known Black diasporan radicals 
who identified with the African anti-colonial struggle. Most 
importantly, Ghana’s independence was the accomplishment of ordinary 
Gold Coasters (Ghanaians) who refused to abandon their dignity even when 
faced with the most overwhelming odds. In other words “Ghana @ 50” is by 
definition a pan African affair of great significance. Indeed it is 
proof that, as his Excellency, John Kufuor, recently pointed out, all is 
not “doom and gloom” in Africa. Ghanaians, and, as Kwame Nkrumah would 
have it, Africans generally, have much to celebrate, but their is still 
much work to do—LETS GET BUSY!

* Kwame Zulu Shabazz is a doctorate scholar at Havard Univerity in the 
US. He can be reached at: kwameshabazz at gmail.com

* Please send comments to editor at pambazuka.org or comment online at 
pambazuka.org

/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\

GHANA UPHOLDS THE SPIRIT OF PAN AFRICAN CITIZENSHIP

Doreen Lwanga

"The spirit of Nkrumah and Pan-Africanism still lives on in Ghana today 
through its various “citizenship” laws. Ghana is first African country 
to “provide the right to return and indefinite stay for Africans in the 
Diaspora”. The government also recently passed legislation giving 
Ghanaians in the Diaspora the right to vote."


As we commemorate Ghana at 50, let us not forget to celebrate the 
founding father of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah and his notion of 
Pan-Africanism. To realize this struggle, Kwame Nkrumah pursued the 
political independence of Ghana and committed himself to the struggles 
against foreign domination in other African colonies. He cemented 
Arab-African ties through special friendships with Egyptian leader Gamar 
Abdel Nassar. He warmly received Africa freedom fighters such as Malcolm 
X, W. E. Dubois, and George Padmore, the latter two being amongst the 
first repatriates from the Diaspora. Nkrumah also established a 
continental radio station (the External Service of Radio Ghana) that 
could be heard throughout Africa and beyond, and which hugely helped in 
fuelling the African liberation struggle. To this, Kwame Nkrumah 
envisioned Pan-African citizenship for all peoples of Africa.

Fifty years later, Ghana continues to carry forth the vision of Kwame 
Nkrumah by its generous citizenship laws that offer a permanent home for 
peoples of African Descent. In 2000, Ghana introduced the Dual 
citizenship Act 2000 (Act 591) under which a citizen of Ghana may hold 
the citizenship of any other country in addition to his citizenship of 
Ghana. A person of non-Ghanaian origin could also apply for Ghanaian 
citizenship by registration if s/he is an ordinary resident of Ghana 
(Article 10(1)(b)), and by naturalization if s/he has made or is capable 
of making substantial contribution to the progress or advancement in any 
area of national activity (Article 14(1)(g). However, critics of the law 
point to the fact that the 2000 Act was intended to reward Ghanaians in 
the Diaspora who have acquired another citizenship but contribute 
greatly to the national development of the country. In fact, following 
the enactment of the law, Dr. Addo-Kufuor, then acting Minister of 
Interior explained that Non-Resident Ghanaians (NRGs) had remitted 400 
million dollars annually to boost Ghana’s economy against contributions 
of Foreign Direct Investment, which since 1994 to 2002 had contributed 
1.6 billion dollars or about 200 million dollars annually. Indeed the 
acquisition of Ghanaian citizenship by registration (Article 10(1)(d)) 
and naturalization (14(1)(e)) is subject upon the ability to speak and 
understand an indigenous Ghanaian language.

Nevertheless, Ghana is the first African nation to provide the right to 
return and indefinite stay for Africans in the Diaspora. Under Section 
17(1)(b) of the Immigration Law, Act 573 of 2000, the Minister may grant 
the status of “right to abode” to a person of African descent in the 
Diaspora with the approval of the President. Some say, this provision 
was aimed at tapping into the rich African Americans who have returned 
to Ghana since its independence and taken up residence in the country 
and those who contribute the most to the budding tourist industry. An 
African American commentator on the web who has sought to acquire the 
right of abode feels that the administrative procedure to acquisition of 
the right of abode renders them foreigners in the land of their 
ancestors, since applications are handled through the minister of tourism

Despite the contestations and shortcomings, all these achievements 
indicate to us the persistence, hard work and Pan African spirit of the 
Ghanaian government, Ghanaian parliament, ordinary Ghanaians and 
Ghanaians and other peoples of Africa in the Diaspora. Last year, the 
Ghanaian Parliament responded positively to lobbying of Ghanaians in the 
Diaspora by passing the Representation of the People Amendment Bill, 
(ROPAB) granting them right to vote in national elections. In December 
2008, Ghanaians in the Diaspora will vote for the first time in 
Presidential elections through absentee ballots. Their next move is to 
challenge through Ghanaian courts a provision in the Citizenship Act, 
2000, which prohibits Ghanaians who have acquired citizenship of another 
country from standing for political office in Ghana. Later this year, 
the same group working with Benjamin Afrifa of the Africa Federation, 
Inc. intends to launch an African TV station broadcasting from the US. 
The TV station will broadcast affairs of Africans in the Diaspora as 
well as from the continent. Ultimately, Ghanaians hope to carry on Kwame 
Nkrumah’s mantle and influence other Africans in the Diaspora to engage 
fully in their own national affairs.

As an African, I hope that all African countries will follow suit by 
allowing us free access to our continent without visa restriction and 
administrative humiliation. It is true that some countries in Africa 
have embraced Kwame Nkrumah’s Pan-Africanism and granted citizenship to 
African immigrants or refuges. For instance, Tanzania granted 
citizenship to Burundian refugees in the early 1990s and offered 
long-term stay to many freedom fighters from Mozambique, South Africa 
and Uganda. Senegal extended citizenship to Mauritanian refugees 
expelled from their home country in 1989 by President Maaouya Ould 
Sid'Ahmed Taya. Often times, those granted citizenship either did not 
take up this offer or the host government withdrew once they considered 
them a “national security risk”. Nevertheless, the gesture of welcoming 
Africans as citizens in other African countries needs to be recognized 
and encourage throughout Africa.

It is a pity that in most African states, we continuously experience 
unfriendly citizenship and immigration laws in the name of “national 
security”. Many countries that consider themselves post-colonial in fact 
still uphold laws inherited from the colonial regime that have either 
separated nations across the border or deemed Africans as strangers in 
our own continent. It is often easier to enter an African country 
carrying a European or North American passport than, say a Ugandan 
passport. For instance, Senegal, which parades itself as the “Land of 
Teranga” still upholds an immigration law inherited from the French that 
makes it harder for Africans bearing a passport from a non-ECOWAS 
citizen to enter the country. This is not to suggest that a Senegalese 
does not need a visa to enter Uganda, however, the process is less 
cumbersome particularly for African visitors to Uganda. Why should a 
country that struggled to rid itself of the colonial regime still uphold 
colonial law as national law? Why don’t we in Africa give preferential 
treatment to each other as members of the African Union, similarly to EU 
or the United States? Or is movement within Africa a right for only 
African Diplomats, the Europeans and North Americans?

As a start, we could abolish visa regimes for Africans in preference for 
regional arrangements similar to the Economic Community of West Africa 
States (ECOWAS) and the East African Community (EAC). We could also 
follow the EAC arrangement and issue African Union passport to all 
peoples of Africa, from the African continent and the Africa Diaspora. 
Opponents of free borders argue that people will migrate enmasse from 
their homes/regions of economic hardship and stay indefinitely in 
economically well-to-do countries if borders were made more porous. 
However, evidence within the ECOWAS, EAC or the EU illustrates that 
where borders are open for community members, people move back and forth 
for political duties, economic purpose, leisure and family visits. 
Everyday, Ugandans, Kenyans, Guineans, Senegalese and others within the 
EAC and ECOWAS community move freely between the borders and return to 
their places of permanent residence. In fact, the greatest Pan 
Africanists are the border communities engaged in daily socio-economic 
and cultural activities across the borders, such as the Masaai along the 
Kenya-Tanzania border, the Peulh along the Seno-Mauritania border and 
the Luo on the Uganda-Sudan.

However, the fear of thy neighbour guides immigration and citizenship 
policies in most of Africa. Zimbabwean traders who travel across the 
border to Botswana are subject to stringent entry visa restrictions and 
high fees even though both countries are member states of the Southern 
African Development Community (SADC). This trend, though not unique is 
particularly disturbing coming from Botswana whose economic development 
owes a lot to the huge number of African professionals who have lived 
and worked in Botswana for many years. Many are still denied the right 
to citizenship based on unfair residence laws that grant short-term stay 
with hardly any chance to qualify for legal permanent residence. 
Similarly, many Africans whose ancestors were taken as slaves to Europe 
and the Americas have expressed disappointment about being excluded from 
the new dual citizenship regimes sweeping Africa. Whereas African 
Presidents appeal to Africans living in the Diaspora to participate in 
national development, incentives are provided for those “who left on 
their own free will” against those whose ancestors were sold into 
slavery. On the other hand, there are sentiments among Africans on the 
continent that it is possible to be a national without being a citizen, 
and the latter should be reserved for “those left behind” who are 
working for national development. For instance, Oteng-Attakora, a 
Ghanaian writer on the web argues that although Ghanaians in the 
Diaspora have family ties and their remittances may alleviate the pain 
of the fortunate few, they neither pay taxes nor create jobs that would 
contribute to national building.

Ultimately, African States should borrow a leaf from the State of 
Israel, which encourages and in fact solicits all persons of Jewish 
heritage to immigrate into Israel and ingathering of its exiles. The 
African Union could sponsor annual tour to Africa (like Israel does for 
the Jewish Diaspora) to visit the homeland. If called upon, interested 
Africans of the Diaspora will finance their own trips to the homeland, 
as evidenced by on-going return and tour trips to the Cape Coast in 
Ghana, Goree Island in Senegal and others. Certainly, the Africa 
Diaspora has a role to play, not only in lobbying for political rights 
but also in contributing to national development and promotion of the 
African affairs. Until we as Africans learn to value and trust each 
other, we cannot demand other countries, particularly in Europe, Asia 
and the Americas to value us. VIVA OSAJEFO!

* Doreen Lwanga is a Pan-Africanist and a Scholar of Citizenship and 
Security in Africa. She can be reached at dkgb at mac.com

* Please send comments to editor at pambazuka.org or comment online at 
pambazuka.org

i. Gamal Nkrumah, “African Unity Still a Dream”; Opinion; BBC Focus on 
Africa Magazine. Gamal Nkrumah is a son of the late President Kwame 
Nkrumah 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/focus_magazine/news/story/2007/01/070111_nkrumah_shattered_dreams.shtml
ii. http://www.info-ghana.com/why_ghana.htm Accessed on 28th February 2007
iii. See Article 16(1) of the Citizenship Act 2000 (Act 591), Assented 
29th December 2000
iv. See Dual Citizenship: Who Qualifies? Accessed on Friday, May 06, 
2005). Available on http://www.info-ghana.com/Dual%20citizenship.htm
v. The Right of Abode, http://www.info-ghana.com/right_of_abode_ii.htm
vi. Teranga is a highly prized traditional value in Senegal which in 
Wolof means ‘hospitality”.
vii. Right of Abode, Id.
viii. Oteng-Attakora, George, “Citizenship and ROPAB”. Feature Article 
(2006-02-28) 
http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/artikel.php?ID=100152
ix. Israel Law of Return, 1950, Se

/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\/\/\//\

NKRUMAH AND THE ONE-PARTY STATE

Nii Ardey Otoo

Nii Ardey Otoo defends Nkrumah and the CPP on the declaration of a 
one-party state in Ghana.


It is often said that Kwame Nkrumah had his faults, as every human being 
and leader has. This statement is used to prepare the ground to 
criticize Kwame Nkrumah on policies he and the Convention's People's 
Party (CPP) introduced which his critics are not comfortable with.

Among the so-called mistakes attributed to Nkrumah was the declaration 
of Ghana as a one-party state. According to imperialist propaganda, 
Nkrumah declared Ghana a one-party state because he wanted to rule Ghana 
without opposition. This imperialist propaganda has gained credence from 
the pronouncements of some African intellectuals with neo-colonial 
leanings such as Professor Ali Mazrui one who sees the multi-party 
system as something ordained by God.

The truth about electoral history in Ghana is that from 1951 until 
Nkrumah was overthrown by the American Central Intelligence Agency 
(CIA), Nkrumah and the CPP won every election held by overwhelming 
majorities. Even when the British colonialists jailed Nkrumah for three 
years, for publishing a so-called seditious article in the Cape Coast 
Daily Mail, the CPP won the overwhelming majority of the votes. Nkrumah 
received the largest individual poll ever recorded in the history of 
Ghana : 22,780 votes out of a possible 23,122. This is because Nkrumah 
and the CPP chose the people first, while the opposition chose 
themselves first, before the people.

The declaration of one-party state by Nkrumah was not at all for any 
selfish reasons, as the imperialist propaganda wants us to believe. 
According to Nkrumah, the multi-party system is divisive and a newly 
independent state needs the energy and enthusiasm of all the people to 
move forward in all aspects of development. In a speech to the Indian 
Council on World Affairs, December 26, 1958, Nkrumah said "We, in Africa 
, will evolve forms of government, rather different from the traditional 
Western pattern, but no less democratic in their protection of the 
individual and his inalienable rights." In Nkrumah's book Africa Must 
Unite, he wrote, "If the will of the people is democratically expressed 
in an overwhelming majority for the governing party, and thereby creates 
a weakening of the accepted two party system, the government is obliged 
to respect the will of the people so expressed. We have no right to 
divide our mandate in defiance of the popular will of the people."

Nkrumah also wrote in Consciencism, "A people's parliamentary democracy, 
with a one-party system, is better able to express and satisfy the 
common aspirations of a nation as a whole, than a multi-party 
parliamentary system, which is in fact only a ruse for perpetuating and 
covering up the inherent struggle between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'."

In a speech to the National Assembly on 1st February 1966, twenty-three 
days before he was overthrown, Nkrumah warned with great alarm, "A 
one-party system of government is an effective and safe instrument only 
when it operates in a socialist society. In other words, it must be a 
political expression of the will of the masses working for the ultimate 
good and welfare of the people as a whole. On the other hand, a 
one-party system of government in a neo-colonial client state, subject 
to external pressures and control, can quickly develop into the most 
dangerous form of tyranny, despotism, and oppression. It can become, in 
the hands of a few privileged rascally-minded and selfish individuals in 
a neo-colonialist state, a weapon and a tool for suppressing the 
legitimate aspirations of the people in the interest of foreign powers, 
and their agents. I repeat that a one-party state can only function for 
the good of the people within the framework of a socialist state or in a 
developing state with a socialist programme. The government governs 
through the people, and not through the class cleavages and interests. 
In other words, the basis of government is the will of the people."

In Class Struggle In Africa, Nkrumah wrote, "Every form of political 
power, whether parliamentary, multi-party, one-party, or an open 
military dictatorship, reflects the interest of a certain class or 
classes in society. In a socialist state, the government represents the 
workers and peasants. In a capitalist state, the government represents 
the exploitative class. The state then, is the expression of the 
domination of one class over other classes." Through subversion, lies, 
corruption, the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and CIA 
pressures of all kinds, the enemies of African progress and political 
unification have influenced most African politicians and intellectuals 
by prescribing the multi-party system as the only form of political 
governance. Even though the effects of multi-party system have been 
disastrous everywhere in the developing world, any leader with vision 
and armed with an alternative form
of governance, would be overthrown by the CIA. And that is what happened 
to Nkrumah.

Presently it is happening to Presidents Chavez of Venezuela, and Mugabe 
of Zimbabwe. Proper scrutiny into world political history, will lead one 
to discover that in the 20th century, great political strides were 
achieved with one-party socialist systems as forms of governance. This 
is what Nkrumah refers to as 'scientific socialism'. The former Union of 
Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) used a one-party socialist system to 
develop their country from a backward semi-feudal society, to a world 
super power in less than 60 years. It was on par with most of the 
advanced developed countries of the world, until Mikhail Gorbachev 
betrayed the socialist system of the USSR .

The People's Republic of China also used a one-party socialist-system to 
build their country from a peasant economy, to a great regional super 
power. It is now challenging the world's only super power in all aspects 
of science, technology, and business - this came about in less than 60 
years. Vietnam also used a one-party socialist system to militarily 
defeat both French colonialism and USA neo-colonialism in the 20th 
century. And again, Cuba used a one-party socialist system to build 
their nation despite the embargo imposed by USA and her allies. Today, 
Cuban medical doctors are all over Africa and developing countries 
serving humanity.

Kwame Nkrumah also used a one-party socialist system to lead the people 
of Ghana into nation building. In only nine years, Nkrumah and the CPP 
built the most modern road network in Ghana , including the Accra-Tema 
Motorway. Since his overthrow, other governments have not added even a 
kilometer. Takoradi Harbour was extended and the Tema Harbour , the 
largest artificial harbour in Africa , was built from scratch. The 
Akosombo hydroelectric project was also constructed under Nkrumah and 
the CPP government. Dr. K.A. Busia, then leader of the opposition, 
described the hydroelectric project as a "communist inspired prestige 
undertaking." This dam created the Volta Lake and it is the primary 
source of Ghana 's electricity even today - forty years later. Other 
infrastructure built under Nkrumah and the CPP provided pipe-born water, 
housing, schools and hospitals. Telecommunications and road networks 
were extended to rural areas of Ghana .

In education, Nkrumah and the CPP achieved more in nine years, than the 
British did in 100 years of colonial rule: and more than all the 
successive governments after Nkrumah and CPP, be it military or 
civilian. There was free and compulsory education. Free education was 
provided from primary school to the university level. In addition, 
textbooks were supplied free to all pupils in primary, middle, and 
secondary schools. Night schools for adults, males and females, were 
created as part of the mass literacy campaign. The state farm 
corporation developed a 20-square mile rubber plantation. Soon after 
Nkrumah's overthrow, this valuable plantation was given to the Firestone 
Rubber Company of the USA . Even the prison system was improved under 
Nkrumah and the CPP government. Nkrumah and the CPP built the most 
humane prison in Ghana , Nsawam Prison. This is the only prison in Ghana 
that has recreational facilities, a church, a mosque, and a library. 
Today, it is overcrowded and antiquated, and as in so many other sectors 
of society, all successive governments after Nkrumah have turned a blind 
eye to the prison situation in the country. In short, Kwame Nkrumah laid 
the foundations for Ghana 's development in every sector of the country.

The time has come for African students, intellectuals, and politicians, 
to stop analyzing Nkrumah through the eyes of the neo-colonialists. They 
must assess him based on his political and developmental programmes, and 
on his contributions to the political and economic advancement of Africa 
. Professor Ali Mazrui, one of the leading neo-colonialist 
intellectuals, still analyzes Nkrumah through CIA propaganda. Ali Mazuri 
said, "Kwame Nkrumah was one of Africa's greatest sons, but he was not 
one of Ghana 's greatest servants." On the contrary Kwame Nkrumah served 
Ghana so much, he did not even get time to build a one-bedroom house for 
himself.

Nkrumah remains Ghana 's greatest selfless servant. On the one-party 
system, Ali Mazrui said, "Nkrumah's policy of trying to create one Ghana 
by abolishing separate parties was usurpation." However the introduction 
of one-party state in Ghana was an act of Parliament. It was not a 
decision implemented by Nkrumah alone. In 1962, U. Thant, then Secretary 
General of United Nations, summed up the problem. U. Thant said, "It is 
a mistake to assume that the political institutions of the newly 
independent states will be of the same type as those prevailing in 
Britain , or that there will necessarily be two main parties competing 
against each other for the votes of the people. The notion that 
democracy requires the existence of an organized opposition to the 
government of the day is not valid. Democracy requires only freedom for 
opposition, not necessarily its organized existence."

One imperialist strategy in African politics is to brainwash us into 
believing that unless our constitution is based on an imitation of the 
Western Parliamentary system, we can't engage in politics and democracy. 
This notion must be turned upside down. We must make our intellectuals 
rid themselves from this colonial mentality. Kwame Nkrumah devoted his 
life's energy for Africa 's political freedom and unification. His 
achievements are there for all to see. Militants the world over admire 
how he set colonialism ablaze in Africa . Nkrumah has shown us the way 
and we must walk it with confidence.

Colonial powers never educate their victims (those they called subjects) 
on how to win their freedom. But Kwame Nkrumah taught us how to do it. 
'Free market', 'privatization', 'NEPAD', 'Structural Adjustment 
Program', 'Highly Indebted Poor Country', 'globalization', and 
'Millennium Challenge Accounts' are all imperialist attempts to deceive 
Africans and to poison our minds to make us participate in our own 
exploitation. Nkrumah said, "There are only two ways of development open 
to an independent African state. Either it must remain under imperialist 
domination via capitalism and neo-colonialism, or it must pursue a 
socialist path by adopting the principles of scientific socialism."

The choice is for us to make. Either we chose the freedom fighters path, 
or we follow the CIA Gospel, as preached by the neo-colonialists.