Kwame Nkrumah’s Legacy: David Birmingham’s view

Written by Bose Maposa

As we continue in our weekly discussions regarding the presidency of Kwame Nkrumah and some of the most important lessons that can be extracted from his leadership, a key aspect that constantly lingers is the importance of decision making. In the end, what I have come to realize is that what we question about our leaders is precisely their ability to make sound decisions. Specifically who deems those decisions sound or meaningful- the whole population or sections of it? What differences and similarities exist in decision making when running for office and while in office?

In line with Nkrumah’s first message, “Africa for the Africans”, David Birmingham (1) outlines three threads as the foundations of his leadership; the concept of black identity; the search for national autonomy and; and advocacy for a Pan-African identity. His legacy as the ‘Father of Nationalism’ or the ‘Father of Pan-Africanism’ speaks to the first and last thread.

An example of Nkrumah's pursuit of national autonomy is the example of the Volta region project which was discussed last week. As Damilola questioned Nkrumah’s vision, the question still remains-what really went wrong with the building of the dam? This was supposed to be an innovative way for Ghana to attain national autonomy. I believe it all goes back to decision-making.

My argument is that the legacy of the Volta region project is an example of bad, autocratic decision-making. Despite the fact that the idea in itself was a good one, it was not done through a democratic process. Nkrumah forgot the principles in which he ran for office. We know of his relationships with the youth movement; with the cocoa farmers; his mobilizing of women and his strive to move beyond ethnic politics- all of which was based on a culture of engagement.

Birmingham believes that Nkrumah forgot his foundations as no evaluation, no consultation, and no discussion was ever made about the implications of this dam with the interested stakeholders. Any attempt to advice from all these groups was met by Nkrumah’s deaf ear. One can ask why was then so different about this particular project?

In seeing his vision of what the dam would do, Nkrumah did not compromise. He writes in his autobiography, maybe what might have been his motivation and reason that “ what other countries have taken three hundred years or more to achieve, a once dependent territory must try to accomplish in a generation if it is to survive. Unless it is, as it were, ‘jet-propelled’, it will lag behind and thus risk everything for which it has fought” (Nkrumah, p x).

Nkrumah naivety led him to be “an early victim of the capitalist realization that lending to Third World could be extremely profitable” (Birmingham, p 66). In addition he forgot the foundation of his leadership. So in response to the question of how a leader can align his vision with the desires of his people, I give you Nelson Mandela’s number 8 lesson in leadership-Quitting is leading too (2) .

(1) All references to David Birmingham are based on his book Kwame Nkrumah: The father of nationalism.
(2) http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1821467-3,00.html

»»  read more

A Leader’s Vision and the People’s Desires

by Damilola Daramola

In our weekly discussion at the Bokamoso Leadership Forum, we'll be looking at the documentary Pandora’s Box: Black Power which focuses on the building of the Volta Dam in Ghana during Kwame Nkrumah’s time. This documentary is available on YouTube in 5 parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5.

In Oumar’s article last week, he talked about leaders feeling the need to leave a legacy that lives on after they are gone. Sometimes as in the case of the Senegalese president he examined, this legacy can be more of a sign of megalomania. In Kwame Nkrumah’s case however, one can directly see how the building of a dam can directly improve the citizens through the provision of electricity. Yet, Nkrumah was vilified for this project due to the immense debt into which it plunged the young nation of Ghana at the time.

As such we have these two scenarios: one leader erects a statue and the other builds a dam. Both of these projects are legacies of these leaders and both felt that their visions needed to be carried to the very end. Yet, even though one would provide a tangible result (dam = electricity), the other is not as tangible (statue = renaissance/pride).

As people who aspire to improve the present conditions of our home countries and the African continent, we have thought and talked about the different ways to make an impact. I have heard people say fresh and young blood is needed in the government. Others believe that perhaps dictatorship isn’t so bad after all especially if placed in the hands of the balanced leader. I have also heard people who stand by democracy as the way in which the African continent can go forward.

Consider though that none of the aforementioned ideas are necessarily wrapped up in success. The youth still need to be trained by the older generation in order to avoid their pitfalls, dictators have absolute power which ends up corrupting them no matter how good they start off and “democracy” in a lot of African countries is controlled by the party with the most financial backing.

What if we imagine the glass to be half-full and dream, for a moment, that the best of circumstances present themselves? The gift of hindsight shows that no matter how great an impact you think an idea has, the people you are leading and more importantly serving will not necessarily fall in line with that vision. Going past Kwame Nkrumah’s dam, there was a discussion in one of the Forum meetings where it was mentioned that some believed Nelson Mandela’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace prize with De Klerk was a farce. While this might come as a surprise to some, it made sense to those who opposed it because they felt it would present a picture that apartheid was over when it had really been replaced by insidious racism.

What then happens when the vision that you have as a leader doesn’t align with the wants of the people that have placed you in charge? Is the test of leadership in the ability to project the vision in such a way that it becomes acceptable to a majority of the people? Is it possible that the only way a legacy is established is when it has stood the test of time despite the praise or curses it might incur at the moment of inception?

»»  read more

African Leaders and The Quest for a Lasting Legacy

by Oumar Ba, Graduate student at Ohio University

It is quite normal for any leader to try to leave behind a legacy in the history books and collective memory of the people. On the African continent, some leaders’ names are forever associated with movements, ideas, events, buildings, and revolutions. Whenever we come across the name of Kwame Nkrumah, we cannot help but think of Pan-africanism, Steven Biko is the prince of Black Consciousness, Mandela is the father of the Rainbow Nation, Nasser is the towering figure of Arab nationalism and so on. It happens that the hero becomes a tyrant, as did Sekou Toure, the man who said “No” to the General De Gaulle on September 28, 1958 and later became famous for the death camps of Conakry. Houphouet Boigny led a peaceful multi-ethnic nation that crumbled after him, and left behind the controversial Basilica of Our Lady of Peace in his hometown of Yamoussoukro, the biggest one in the world (bigger that the St Peter’s Basilica in Rome), which cost over 300 million dollars.

The theme of African Renaissance is omnipresent in the discourse of the contemporary African leadership. It is associated with the names of Thabo Mbeki, Olusegun Obasanjo, and Abdoulaye Wade, although Cheikh Anta Diop theorized it as early as 1948 . Of course, Africa needs ambitious leaders and we must dare to dream big. However, when the quest for a lasting legacy leads to tragic choices that ignore the basic needs of the people, it becomes problematic. The construction of the African Renaissance Monument in Dakar and its inauguration on April 3rd 2010 during the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Senegal’s independence is one of the instances of our leaders turning their back on the peoples’ basic needs in the sole purpose of serving their ego.

The monument is a 164-foot tall bronze statue (higher than the Statue of Liberty) erected on the mountaintop of Dakar’s suburbs and it depicts a man, his wife and baby “rising from the ashes of darkness and reaching out to the world”, according to its creator President Abdoulaye Wade. Its official cost is $27 Million, but many believe the real cost is much higher. A North Korean firm built it over a period of four years.

Besides the Stalinist character of this monument that reminds us of the demised repressive regimes of the Soviet era, one is led to question if it is wise to spend so much money on a statue to promote African Renaissance. Wouldn’t Africa be better served if these vast amounts of money were invested in the education of its youth who are crossing the Sahara desert by foot, hoping to find better opportunities in Europe? How about creating job opportunities for the thousands of teenagers (male and female) that leave the Western African coast by night aboard tiny fishing “boats” heading for Spain?

Amidst all the controversies that surrounded the construction of this statue (and the limits imposed on the length of this piece prevent us from discussing them), the one regarding its ownership is the most outrageous one. When a Senegalese newspaper revealed that the monument was registered at the African Intellectual Property Organization under the name of President Wade instead of being a property of the Republic of Senegal, Wade later said that he is the intellectual author of the monument. And as such, he owns 35% of all the revenues that would derive from the operation of the monument as a touristic destination. I think this qualifies as a definition of a daylight robbery.

The tragic irony of this story is that the office building of the Hospital Le Dantec of Dakar burned down two days after the inauguration of the monument due to the decay of its electrical wiring. Le Dantec was built by the French colonizers in 1913 to serve the indigenous populations and reserve the Hospital Principal of Dakar that was built in 1886 for the French expatriates that were living in Senegal at the time. These are still the only two fully functioning hospitals in Senegal. Fifty years after the independence, Senegal has yet to build a single fully functioning hospital.


1 - Cheikh Anta Diop, “Quand pourra-t-on parler de renaissance africaine?” Le Musee Vivant, Sepcial Issue, Vol 36-37, November, 1948.

»»  read more

African Nations’ Independence, Really!!!

by Hassirou Tall. Hassirou graduated from the Dpt. of Law Studies and Political Science at the University Cheikh A Diop of Dakar

In the 1960’s, many of the African nations gained their independence from their European occupants. There were high hopes, joy, and dreams that finally came true. The reign of the foreign belligerent had finally come to an end, and Africans would rule their countries according to their own will. But really, are we better off today than fifty years ago when we were dependent to Europeans?

What did our African leaders accomplish since our independence? More corruption! Yes. More Mismanagement! Of course. More division among its people! You bet. Less economic opportunities! Without doubt. So we ought to ask ourselves, after fifty years of so called “African independence”, where we stand as a continent and as a people. What’s obvious is that the African continent is still suffering, but now it’s the doing its own people. No more blaming the Europeans.

But what are the solutions to our problems though? After a half century, why is Africa still under developed? Why is it that the African continent cannot emerge from its tribulations? The solutions, no matter how efficient they will be, cannot come from any one person, any one group, or any one generation. The solutions to our problems, the solutions to the continent’s problems have to be a collection of ideas from all walks of life.

As a student, I see the first problem to tackle as education: that’s the basis of all durable development. We need more literate people, more educated people moving to a higher level. Most importantly, we need to keep those who attended universities, be it in Africa or elsewhere, to work for Africa. In a sense, we need to stop the “brain drain” of our intellectuals. Most of us who are privileged to go to a western university do not come back to work for Africa because of economic reasons, most of the time. And let me tell you “shame on us”. We should be going home to lend a hand to our continent. It’s not a waste, but an investment in ourselves, in our children, and in our continent.

Each generation that has passed so far has refused to bear the burden, to make the sacrifice needed for a better Africa. Each generation is putting it off until tomorrow. But for us, our conscience will not rest until we do the right thing—to make the sacrifice of going back after we amass some wealth and some knowledge, and put to work for Africa. Our generation has seen indefinite, merciless, and absurd wars between African countries, African people, and sometimes among different ethnic groups or religions. We have seen young people putting their live on the line just to be able to get out of the continent for better opportunities. We have seen starvation and the consequence of a wide spread illiteracy.

Our generation cannot just ignore its call to action! As students and future leaders of Africa, we should not sleep or rest until we find solutions to African problems. Our conscience will not let us replicate the same mistakes that have been crumpling Africa for fifty years.

My question to you is: do you really want to pass the burden to the next generation, or do you want to be strong and fight nail and tooth for Africa’s development? Are you ready for the challenges, or do you just want to lay low, and blame others? Show me what you got and stop the blame game. It is time to take responsibility for our own people and our own continent!

»»  read more

The Botswana political status- Quo: How the Botswana Democratic Party master plan went wrong

by Thusego Mmolawa (Artist, Activist and independent essayist based in Edinburgh, Scotland)

The master plan orchestrated by the Botswana Democratic Party leadership in ensuring undisputed votes has backfired. With the recent political situation in Botswana-we look at how the leadership underestimated the current president Ian Khama and how his type of leadership has caused a rift amongst the party leadership and its members.

President Ian Khama does not have a strong political background. His ascendance to parliament was a pleasant surprise to Botswana. He was recruited from the army where he was the Commander in Chief. His father Sir Seretse Khama was the first president of Botswana, the paramount chief of the Bangwato tribe. The popularity and love for the Khama name is strong from the central part of Botswana to the upper northern regions of the country. The ruling Botswana Democratic party has reigned since independence of 1966 under Sir Seretse Khama’s leadership.

The recruitment of Ian Khama into parliament was a decision undertaken by the BDP leadership to ensure that the regions where the Bangwato chieftaincy rules remains supportive to the party. Most of these regions are rural areas where the locals have been indoctrinated to support the ruling party because their elders support it. These are regions where political education is minimal.

The urbanization of the youth means that the educated and political conscious are located in the capital cities or the more developed towns. This makes Botswana’s democracy peculiar, in the sense that the rural people vote for the party their village elders and families have voted and supported for years. Party related policies and manifestos are not a priority amongst the local rural traditional people.

The customary law and culture in Botswana has played a significant role in what is happening in Botswana’s sense of democracy. Ian Khama is chief by birth right. In Setswana culture it is an abomination to disagree with a chief.

When the Member of Parliament for Tonota (my home village) disagreed with the president over MPs salaries and benefits, he was called to order by the village elders and told to make an official apology to the president; he was told that he has upset the gods by disagreeing with the chief. This does not aid a good democratic movement in any environment including Botswana. A democratic leader should be criticized by both his followers and the opposition-that is the democratic culture.

This makes Botswana’s politics interesting, we have the Hon Ian Khama, the president of Botswana, and on the other hand we have Ian Khama the paramount Chief of the Bangwato, with all these powers the Botswana Democratic Party leadership was assured of the majority of votes for a long time. This has proven not to be practical because with his chieftaincy he cannot be criticized. As a president his leadership skills are that of a military lord, which has led to political unrest amongst the ruling party leaders, who are now divided into two factions; those who are Pro Ian Khama and those who are Pro BDP and what it has always stood for.

The present dilemma is that Hon Ian Khama is the rightfully elected president of Botswana. His policy reviews, bill amendments have been viewed as that of a dictator by the pro party members and their supporters. Criticizing his leadership has led to allegations of public servants facing disciplinary actions. Botswana is a democratic nation, but with the president in office as a Chief, he cannot be criticized in public due to Setswana custom.

Ian Khama should denounce one of his powers so that democracy can have its course. If this is impossible Botswana should consider becoming a monarchy. Let’s have Ian Khama as the Paramount Chief of Botswana and call for fresh elections in which a prime minister will be selected, preferably someone with a strong political background

It is quite alarming that with the recent developments the president has not given a public press conference or an official public announcement regarding the political unrest. President Ian Khama does not give a lot of public interviews. I contend that this behaviour is not good for politics, a leader should be transparent before his followers; they should engage the general public in any political developments.

The present political dynamics are fascinating, and long overdue. The reshuffling, the confusion and the political unrest are good for Botswana, all eyes are on the BDP leadership to see how they solve this predicament. The public will follow the developments that have caused local news headlines and will ask important questions such as: What are the strategies they are going to adopt if the Pro Party members start a new party? How different is their manifesto going to be from the original BDP? Other issues they have towards the president will also be highlighted.

As an activist for transparency in Botswana politics, the political situation in my home country Botswana will teach young people to be more active in local politics. Thus educating others with the hope that knowledge will reach the rural communities, which are always left out when it comes to political and developmental issues. The political dynamics will ensure that people will go out and look for parties to support based on what they stand for. People will start to scrutinize their leaders, which will aid a culture of transparency and democracy.

»»  read more

Reflections on the Autobiography of Kwame Nkrumah

In the Winter Quarter of 2010, Bokamoso Leadership Forum members read through The Autobiography of Kwame Nkrumah. A couple of articles will be dedicated to reflections by the members on the ideas stuck out to them in the book. We would love for you to join in the conversation by posting comments


Bose Maposa
Stemming from a sports background, one of the things that caught my attention as I read the autobiography of Kwame Nkrumah, despite its brief mentioning, was that he too “…discovered that sportsmanship was a vital part of a man’s character, and this led [him] to realize the importance of encouraging sport in the development of a nation” (p.16). Consequently, this year, as its been the motto for our blog, we are gearing up for the World Cup in South Africa, where for the first time an African country will get the chance to host one of the biggest sporting events. Nonetheless, the discourse surrounding the build up to the event, besides the enormous social capital signaled by pride, is one that demonstrates that sport has become elitist and is void of true development. Any bells ringing there? I am sure there are a couple!
What we see, almost what could be a reflection of those promises of ‘independence’ is a quest by the elite for a never ending treasure hunt, which when attained, does not seem to trickle down to the ordinary citizens. The good held by the promises; be it independence or the value of sport, has been eroded and now is being delivered to a select few. Furthermore, FIFA, just like the colonial powers, is exploiting Africa (it is not the only though). So will South Africa, after the World Cup, that is post World Cup South Africa, be like Post-colonial Africa? Unfortunately, it seems so.

Damilola Daramola
In the "Motion of Destiny" Kwame Nkrumah dedicated a paragraph referring to fighting a system (I returned the book so I don't have the direct quote but feel free to look it up). I remember speaking to my colleagues about what the word "system" meant to them and each person passed on their ideas on the word. If we look at the struggles for independence, the "freedom fighters" knew who the enemy was and therefore could point their hand at them (i.e. colonial masters). Although African countries have broken free from colonial chains, the system still exists albeit insidiously as it is now instituted by indigenes. The system has become something intangible. Reading those words again "we are fighting against a system" made me wonder if anything had really changed in the years since the 60s. Is the system ever one that can be tamed? I relate it to the drug culture worldwide where if a drug baron is replaced, another appears in his place to take over that empire. Are African countries doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past continuously?
I remember a quote from a friend of mine on twitter "People want big organizations to spearhead change when caring people are real fuel for good." Somehow I believe that's the key to our success. It's not the government that will do it for us, it's not the outside Aid non-profits that will do it for us. It is us who believe that making someone's life that much better daily and spreading the idea of purpose will eventually get us there. The call is to "be a better you."

»»  read more