Nkrumah on The UGCC And …

By Nii Ardey Otoo

The United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC) was founded in August 1947 under the chairmanship of Mr. A. G. Grant, a timber merchant. The UGCC then was hailed as the would be nationwide movement, dedicated to restoring leadership into the hands of the ‘chiefs and people’ who had been for too long dominated by Colonial Officials. The Gold Coast government’s Annual Report of 1947 remarked on the UGCC;

“A new movement, the United Gold Coast Convention, which may most conveniently be classified as a political party, sprang up during 1947 and declared as one of its main objectives the attainment of full self-government in the shortest possible time. The movement has not so far contributed to the solution of the practical and urgent problems facing the country but has confined itself to an appeal to nationalist feelings”.

During this time the UGCC had no general secretary; they only talk but no action. It was Kwame Nkrumah who breathed political life –action into the UGCC when he became general secretary of the UGCC.

According to Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah; “the promoters of the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC) came from the middle class. They were lawyers, doctors, academics, and indigenous business men, with little or no contact with the masses. When they invited me to become the general secretary of the UGCC they hoped that l would help them to bridge this gap, and to draw into the UGCC the growing anti-colonial and nationalist elements, particularly among the youth, which were at that time beginning to make their voices heard throughout the country.”

“I did not immediately accept the invitation from the UGCC, knowing that it was a movement sponsored by bourgeoisie reactionaries, whose objectives stopped short at national liberation, and who had no plans to bring about fundamental economic and social change. But l agree to accept the position after consultation with the West African National Secretariat. The time has come to get to the grips of imperialism on the soil of Africa, and by working for the UGCC l would at least be actively engaged in the national liberation struggle to end colonial rule. I knew however, that it might not be long before the basic differences between our long term objectives might make it impossible for me to continue to work for them”. 

Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah

Under the Governorship of Sir Alan Burns (1941-1947), there were many reforms including a new constitution, known as the ‘Burns Constitution’ which for the first time in the history of the colony Africans were appointed to the Executive Council. The new constitution did not satisfy the hopes and aspirations of the people of the Gold Coast who want nothing less than Self- Government.

Dr. Kwame Nkrumah returned to the Gold Coast on 16th December 1947 and immediately started working as general secretary of the UGCC. Thirteen days after his arrival, on 29th December, 1947, the UGCC was officially launched at Saltpond to oppose the “Burns Constitution”, and to press for self- government ‘in the shortest possible time’.   

After the launching of the UGCC Nkrumah set up an office and drew up a programme of action for the leadership, known as the ‘Working Committee’ of the UGCC on 20th January, 1948. It included the following:

Shadow Cabinet

The formation of a Shadow cabinet should engage the serious attention of the Working Committee as early as possible. Membership is to be composed of individuals selected ad hoc to study the jobs of the various ministries that would be decided upon in advance for the country when we achieve our independence. This Cabinet will forestall any unpreparedness on our part in the exigency of Self-Government being thrust upon us before the expected time.

Organizational Work

The organizational work of implementing the platform of the UGCC will fall into three periods:

First Period:

(a)   Co-ordination of all various organizations under the UGCC: i.e. apart from individual Membership, the various Political, Social, Educational, Farmers’ and Women’s Organization as well as Native Societies, Trade Unions, Co-operatives Societies, etc., should be asked to affiliate to the UGCC.

(b) The consolidation of braches already formed and the               establishment of new branches in every town and village of the country will form another major field of action during this period.

 (c) UGCC Branches should be set up in each town and village throughout the colony, Ashanti, the Northern Territories and Togoland. The chief or Odikro of each town or village should be persuaded to become the Patron of the branch.

     (d)Vigorous UGCC weekend schools should be opened wherever   there is a branch of the UGCC. The political mass education of the country for Self-Government should begin at these weekend school.

 Second Period:

         To be marked by constant demonstration throughout the country          to test our organizational strength, making use of political crises.

Third Period:  

(a)  The convening of a Constitutional Assembly of the Gold Coast people to draw up the Constitution for Self-Government or National Independence.

(b)Organized demonstration, boycott and strike – our only weapon to support our pressure for Self-Government.

This programme was approved in principle and Nkrumah took the hardest task organizing branches of the UGCC throughout the country.

According to Nkrumah; “This involved almost continuous travel, endless meetings and rallies, and the delivery of hundreds of speeches. Within six months, well over five hundred branches of the UGCC had been established. I usually travelled in the old car bought by the UGCC, but frequently had to hitch lifts on lorries, or had to trek on foot when the car broke down and there was no other means of transport. In most of the places l visited l was given food and accommodation in the homes of supporters of the UGCC. But there were many nights when l and my companions slept in the open by the roadside, when it had not been possible for some reason or the other to reach our destination by nightfall”.

 It must be noted that during this time J. B. Danquah, Obetsebi Lamptey, Ofori Atta, Akufu Addo, and Ako Adjei were sleeping on soft mattresses in the comfort of their homes. They were eating beacon and eggs for breakfast, fufu and light-soup for lunch and rice and stew with salad for dinner. While Nkrumah was eating koobi and ampesi offered to him by the poor villagers.  

Why Nkrumah left UGCC

By December 1948 the relationship between Nkrumah and the leadership of the UGCC had worsened. According to Nkrumah;

 “The UGCC objected to my founding of the Ghana National College to accommodate those students from various colleges and secondary schools who had gone on strike and had been expelled when we were arrested and banished to the Northern Territories. They also objected to the formation of the Youth Study Group, which was later embodied in a nationalist youth movement with the Ashanti Youth Association and the Ghana Youth Association of Sekondi, and known as the Committee on Youth Organization (CYO). They further objected to the steps l was taking to establish a newspaper in order to publicize our policies to the rank and file of the people”.

The inevitable split came in early June 1949, at a special conference of the CYO in Tarkwa. The militant members of the CYO decided they should break away from the UGCC and form their own political party separate from the UGCC. The party should be called the Convention People’s Party (CPP). It was to be a mass-based, disciplined party pursuing policies of scientific socialism. Its immediate task was to obtain ‘Self-Government NOW’ and not in the shortest possible time.       

The CPP was launched in Accra on Sunday, 12th June 1949, before a crowd of about 60,000 people. In Nkrumah’s speech he declared: “The time has arrived when a definite line of action must be taken if we are going to save our country from continued imperialist exploitation and oppression. In order to prevent further wrangling between the CYO, who are ready for action, and the Working Committee of the UGCC, who are out to suppress this progressive youth organization, the CYO has decided on a line of action that will be consistent with the political aspiration of the chiefs and the people of the country… I am happy to be able to tell you that the CYO, owing to the present political tension, has decided to transform itself into a full-fledged political party with the object of promoting the fight for full self-government now”.

After his speech, while still on the platform, he asked for pen and paper, and used somebody’s back as a support, and wrote his official resignation from the UGCC and then read it to the people.

UGCC Road Blocks

When it came to ‘political speed’ Nkrumah worked with speed of light and the UGCC worked with the ‘speed of snail’. They could not keep up with Nkrumah’s speed so they put many road blocks on his way either to slow him down to their speed or stop him completely.

The first road block put on Nkrumah’s way was when he was summoned to appear before a special meeting of the Ga State Council, the Accra traditional local authority, to explain what he meant by “Positive Action”. At the meeting some of the executive members of the UGCC were there in force demanding the banishment of Nkrumah from Accra. They blamed Nkrumah for creating lawlessness in the Gold Coast.  The Ga Mantse overruled the banishment idea and instead asked Nkrumah to go and explain “Positive Action” to the public. The Reuters’ news agency, representing the imperialist press and supporting the UGCC all along wrote this falsehood about the meeting;

‘Local African Chiefs have sent ultimatum to extremist Home Rule Leader Kwame Nkrumah demanding undertaking by next Wednesday not to cause trouble when Coussey Report on Constitutional advancement of Gold Coast is published next week. He has also been told to promise loyal co-operation of his Convention People’s Party. If he refuses African Authority will “Forcibly Eject” him from Accra to his Native Village of Nzima about 250 miles inland. All Political Leaders promised co-operation in keeping peace except Dr. Nkrumah who said he had “No Guns to Fight” but would resort to Boycotts, Strikes and Spiritual Force to carry the struggle.’

J.B. Danquah

Other obstacle put in Nkrumah’s way was libel suits brought about by all manner of people seeking to stop Nkrumah and the CPP. At a point in time claims against Nkrumah amounted to ten thousand pounds. Supporters of the CPP managed to collect enough money to settle the claims. At a later stage, J. B. Danquah sued the Accra Evening News for libel for an article written about the Kibi ritual murder case. Danquah was awarded damages, but was not content with the damages so he bought the rights of the Evening News paper, the mouth piece of the CPP in order to stop the progress of Nkrumah and the CPP.

According to Nkrumah; “…we had anticipated him. The Head Press, as it then was, was immediately taken over by the Heal Press, which continued to publish the same newspaper under a new name The Ghana Evening News. In other words Nkrumah outwitted Danquah from achieving his objective of closing down the newspaper.

The last obstacle before Independence was achieved was Dr. K. A. Busia, tip to London. After the “Independence Motion” was passed by 72 votes to none, Professor Busia, official leader of the Opposition, actually travelled to London to appeal to the British government not to grant Independence. He said the Gold Coast was not ready for Independence: “We still need you (the British) in the Gold Coast. Your experiment there is not complete. Sometimes l wonder why you seem in such a hurry to wash your hands of us.” Due to the militancy of the masses the British Government rejected his appeal and on 17th September 1956, in response to a formal request from the CPP to the British Secretary of State to fix a firm date for independence, the Governor informed Nkrumah that 6 March 1957 had been decided upon.

At midnight 5/6 of March in the presence of about 100,000 people at Polo Ground the Union Jack (British flag) was lowered, and the red, gold and green flag of Ghana raised with a cheerful cries of FREEDOM! FREEDOM!! FREEDOM!!!

Conclusion

Some political and social commentators from the Danquah-Busia political tradition often speak as if the UGCC was a dynamite movement working hard for the people in the Gold Coast before Nkrumah was invited.  The truth of the matter was that it was Nkrumah who came to inaugurate the UGCC and rallied the masses against British colonialism.   

It must be noted that none of the leadership of the UGCC studied politics as a vocation. They were lawyers, businessmen, doctors and social scientists; politics was a hobby for them. Dr. Kwame Nkrumah was the only professional politician among them. He preached African nationalism in African churches while in the USA. His political message for African liberation and redemption was so strong that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) started investigating him to see if he was a registered member of the communist party.

 Initially Nkrumah had wanted to write his doctoral dissertation on; ‘Imperialism: Its Political, Social and Economic Aspects’. But he later changed it to; ‘The Philosophy of Imperialism with special reference to Africa’. No wonder he used constitutional means to destroy imperialism in the Gold Coast and Africa.

Unlike Nkrumah none of the members of the UGCC studied in depth the ideas of Lenin, Mazzini, Marx, Hegel, Marcus Garvey and others whose thoughts armed him for the liberation struggle. In fact none of them will touch the works of these twentieth century revolutionaries with a ten feet pole. Nkrumah said the book which inspired him most was The Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey with its philosophy of ‘Africa for the Africans’ both at home and abroad. They taught him that the masses when organized with a correct political ideology can achieve their freedom.

5TH PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS

It was the Fifth Pan-African Congress (5th PAC) held in Manchester, England, 15-21st October, 1945 which crowned Nkrumah’s political work abroad. The Congress was attended by more than two hundred delegates from all over the world. The Pan-African legend George Padmore and Nkrumah were co-secretaries of the organizational committee which planned the Congress. Unlike the previous Congresses which were supported by reformist and middle class intellectuals, the 5th PAC was attended by workers, trade unionists, farmers and students, most of who came from Africa. The Congress was under the joint chairmanship of Dr. W. E. B. DuBois, affectionately called ‘Father of Pan-Africanism’ and Dr. Peter Milliard, a medical doctor and a hard core Pan- African activist from Guyana.

The 5th PAC adopted scientific socialism as its political philosophy. Also two Declarations were addressed to the imperial powers, one written by DuBois, and the other by Nkrumah. Both stressed on right and determination of colonial peoples to be free, and condemned capitalist exploitation of the masses. Nkrumah ended his declaration with the following; ‘Today there is only one road to effective action- organization of the masses. Colonial and subject peoples of the world – unite’.  

It was the success of this Congress which influenced the formation of the UGCC in the Gold Coast in 1947 and then invited no other than Nkrumah to become its general secretary. The UGCC was Nkrumah and Nkrumah was the UGCC. When Nkrumah left the UGCC, the UGCC died a natural death.

Nii Ardey Otoo

Organizer; All African people’s Revolutionary Party

Editorial

DEBATING OUR HISTORY

President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo- Addo has compelled all of us to be engaged in a particularly unprofitable exercise of recounting Ghana’s History.

The Insight believes that history is relevant to today and tomorrow but what the President desires is to use history to launch his father and two uncles unto the pedestal of national heroes.

We believe that this exercise is needless because the role of Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah in our history cannot be diminished even with the vilest propaganda.

Nkrumah stands exceedingly tall among his peers in the struggle for national liberation.

As a contribution to this debate, we have published an article on Nkrumah and the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC) which makes it clear that President Akufo- Addo will never achieve his objectives.

THE STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM

By Peter Kofi Amponsah, Chairman of Research Committee, CPP

History chooses unusual people and reveals itself through the drama of their lives. It is also known that in all political struggles, there are individuals whose presence in the field of battle makes a difference? It was the major difference made by the appearance of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah in the field of our battle for political independency that we are about to discuss here.

The story of the struggle for freedom can be found in many of the books of Dr Kwame Nkrumah. What we are about to do here now is not to write a new story but to rearrange and present it in such a way as to make it easier for the reader and also to save him from the labour of having to go through the individual books.

History, which is also concerned with facts, cannot be written entirely impersonally, because many of the facts of history have to do with people, with what they did and why they did it. For this reason, the historian's approach is slightly different from that of the scientist who works by experiments. However, all characteristics of a good historian, with the exception of his style of writing, can be traced either to his knowledge of facts or to his interpretation of them. For one thing, the historian is bound by the facts and people of history. Unlike the novelist,  he cannot invent characters and he must supply credible evidence to support his views on people and events.

After the Second World War had ended, some 65,000 Gold Coast soldiers who had fought as members of the British armed forces returned home. The experience abroad of these ex-servicemen in fighting fascism had broadened their political outlook, and opened their eyes to the injustices of the colonial system. They therefore became a potential force in the anti-colonial movement. Nkrumah and Danquah spoke at a meeting of ex- servicemen at the Palladium Cinema in Accra, on 20th February 1948. A petition was drawn up to be presented to the Governor expressing their grievances. The ex- servicemen who had returned from the Second World War with high expectations demanded the benefits which had \been promised to them during the war, and assistance in finding work.

On 28th February, the ex-servicemen's march set off to present their petition to the Governor. It was originally intended to go to the Secretariat offices. But instead the procession took the road to Christiansborg Castle, the Governor's residence. After the marchers refused to halt when they were asked to do so by the armed police which barred the road, the police opened fire. Three ex- servicemen were killed and many others injured.

The infuriated marchers then turned back to the centre of Accra to join angry crowds out in the streets protesting at the failure of European merchants to lower their prices enough to meet the needs of the people. News of the shooting of the ex-servicemen sparked off days of rioting. Shops and offices of foreigners were attacked. Cars were set on fire. Shops looted. The violence spread to many parts of the country. Faced with widespread disorder, Governor Sir Gerald Creasey declared a state of emergency and troops were called out to restore order in Accra. Later, Kwame Nkrumah and five other members of the UGCC, considered as trouble makers, were arrested.

After the arrest of the Big Six, a Commission of Enquiry was set up by the Governor under Aiken Watson KC to enquire into the disorders. The first thing the Commission did was to call for the release of the prisoners to enable them to appear before it as free men. The rest of the five during their separate Interrogations put the blame on Nkrumah. As a result the Commissioners came to the conclusion that Nkrumah was largely to blame for the disorders. The Commission also found out that the UGCC did not really get down to business until the arrival of Nkrumah on 16 December 1947.

Soon after the publication of the Watson Commission's report, Mr. Obetsebi Lamptey and Mr. William Ofori Atta ransacked Kwame Nkrumah's office in Saltpond while he was away addressing a party meeting. Searching through files and papers they seized every document which they considered might help to prove that he was a Communist. Letters containing the word comrade were considered vital evidence.

Kwame Nkrumah became convinced that the time had come to break with the UGCC and form his own party. They objected to his founding of the Ghana College, established by him to accommodate pupils who had been expelled from schools because they went on strike in support of the Big Six when they were detained in the Northern Territories. Nkrumah had managed to hire a hall in Cape Coast to accommodate the students. The three teachers with whom the college started had lost their jobs for the same reason as their students.

These teachers agreed to work for no pay until the college finances were on a sound basis. Nkrumah himself contributed ten pounds of his twenty-five pounds monthly salary to purchase basic equipment.

At the opening of the Ghana College on 20 July 1948, Nkrumah urged all present and future students to consider laziness a crime: He told them: "Think! Study hard! Work with sustained effort. As never before we want thinkers, thinkers of great thoughts. We want doers of great deeds. Of what use is your education if you cannot help our country in her hour of need?" He said that he envisaged similar colleges being established throughout the country leading eventually to the founding of a University of Ghana.

Another cause of mounting friction between Nkrumah and the UGCC was the founding of the Committee on Youth organization (CYO) which embodied mainly the Ashanti Youth Association and the Ghana Youth Association. Nkrumah intended the CYO to be the youth section of the national movement.

The decision to break away from the UGCC was taken at a (CYO) conference in Tarkwa. The attitude of the Working Committee of the UGCC towards both Nkrumah and the (CYO) made this decision inevitable.

Immediately after the meeting at Tarkwa the (CYO) members rushed to Accra in order to organize a mass rally at the Accra Arena for Sunday 12th June 1949. They were hurrying to keep one step ahead of the Working Committee of the UGCC which had its own plans, they knew.

At the same time the (CYO) was meeting at Tarkwa ,the Working Committee was in conference at Saltpond, and at that meeting they decided that Kwame Nkrumah should be expelled from the UGCC. They took this decision without any reference to the ordinary members of the movement and their intention was to publish this decision before Nkrumah had a chance of announcing the formation of his party.

Kwame Nkrumah was aware that they had already issued a press release which was due to appear in the newspapers on Monday. By the prompt action of the (CYO) members, they took the wind out of their sails in such a way that Nkrumah's expulsion from the UGCC could not be published.

On that Sunday, 12th June 1949 at the Accra Arena, the CYO was transformed into a full political party before a crowd of over 60,000 people. The crowd was uncontrollable.

The following Thursday, 16th June, the Working Committee of the UGCC held a meeting at the Palladium. Mr. Obetsebi Lamptey, when referring to Nkrumah in his speech, used the word "stranger" and declared to the gathering that he failed to understand why the Ga people, who form the majority of the population of Accra should permit themselves to be led by a man who did not even come from their area. This was too much for those who happened to be present and the meeting ended in uproar and confusion against him. The foundation of age-old tribalism had suffered their first irreparable crack. Since Nkrumah proclaimed the formation of the CPP before a crowd of about 60,000 people at Accra Arena the leaders of the UGCC never forgave him.

From that day, they began to side with the colonial authority against the CPP and its leadership.

In 1950 Kwame Nkrumah was arrested and imprisoned for declaring the Positive Action which paralysed the country. The "Positive Action" began at midnight on 8 January 1950. It was clear by then that the government had no intention of calling a constituent assembly to let the people decide for themselves whether they would adopt the Coussey Report or not. The economic life of the country was paralyzed and trouble was unavoidable. The story of the Positive Action is so important that we have to leave it now and treat it as a special paper later on.

In February 1951 the general election under the Coussey Constitution took place. The CPP won thirty-four out of 31 elected seats and also had a majority in the Assembly. Kwame Nkrumah was elected for Accra Central with 22,780 votes about or of a total of 23,122, the largest individual poll so far recorded.

On 12 February 1951 Nkrumah was released from prison. The following day he was invited by the Governor, to form a government. On the same day, Nkrumah called a press conference at which he declared that the constitution under which he was to act as Leader of Government business was bogus and fraudulent, but that it would serve temporarily as a stepping-stone towards self-government.

And once again, members of the Opposition went into action to try to wreck the independence movement. Disgruntled at the success of the CPP in the general election and disappointed at not receiving positions in the new government, they proceeded to try to cause confusion and discontent among the people by announcing that now the CPP leadership had landed themselves "good job's" they had forsaken the policy of self-government now!

Kwame Nkrumah challenged the political opponents of the CPP to join the party in a campaign of “positive Action” in order to achieve self-government now! He invited Danquah, Obetsebi-Lamptey and the Executive of the UGCC, Ollenu, Bossman and the Executive of the National Democratic Party, the chiefs of the Asanteman Council, Nana Ofori Atta I, President of the Joint Provincial Council and chiefs of that Council, Kobina Sekyi, and the Executive of the Aborigines Rights Protection Society all our critics, to notify the General Secretary of the Party in conference to plan a nation-wide campaign of positive- action if the British government rejected a motion for "self- government now".

Nkrumah said: "the sincerity of our political opponents and their connivance with the colonial government may be judged by the fact that not one of them answered the challenge.” On 10 July 1953, Nkrumah introduced into the Legislative Assembly the historic Motion of Destiny. This called upon Britain to make constitutional and administrative arrangements for independence so that all members of the Assembly be elected directly by secret ballot, and Cabinet members be members- of the Assembly and directly responsible to it.

The Motion took Britain by surprise. It demanded self- government now, and in clear commitment by Britain to a date for full independence. Because Nkrumah was using constitutional machinery available to him to put forward his case, Britain could not do anything about the matter beyond insisting on another election. But the results of the June 1954 elections devastated the colonial power and its local agents. The CPP won 72 out of the 104 seats in the Assembly.

In a further effort to resolve the constitutional issue, Nkrumah asked for and received a mandate from the Legislative Assembly to invite the British government to send a constitutional advisor to help formulate a suitable constitution and to advice on devolution of certain powers to the regions.

Sir Frederick Bourne was sent. For nearly three months he traveled to every part of the country and discussed constitutional problems with every organisation and individual who wished to see him. But when he invited Kumasi to meet the leaders of the NLM and their supporters, he found that they did not wish to see him.

The excuse for their unwillingness to take part in any discussion on the constitution was that the government had in November 1955, passed the State Council (Ashanti) Amendment Bill. This bill permitted those chiefs who had been destooled in Ashanti by the Asanteman Council for no other reason than they were supporters of the government against the federalist idea the right of appeal. Under the then existing laws, they had no right of appeal. Clearly this was designed to put an end to this victimization.

Sir Frederick Bourne, in his report recommended the devolution of certain powers and functions to the Regional Assemblies, but that all legislation should be enacted by the central authority. Nkrumah then convened a conference of all the principal representative bodies and organisations in the country to meet at Achimota on the 16^th February 1956, to discuss Bourne’s Report and other matters affecting the form of the constitution. Once again, the NLM and its allies refused to participate. The alliance of the opposition and the imperialists to delay our independence became evident.

The conference was adjourned for a week to enable delegates from the Joint Provincial Council of Chiefs to persuade them to attend. But their mission failed. The delegates tried again later, but were still unsuccessful in getting the opposition to participate. The result was that although the conference agreed on almost all the recommendations of Sir Frederick Bourne its findings were, however not acceptable to the British Secretary of State as providing the necessary conditions for the granting of a firm date for Independence just because the NLM had not taken part in the discussion.

Under these circumstances Nkrumah was compelled to draw up his own constitutional proposals for the sovereign and independent state of Ghana. And put them before the Assembly on 15th May 1956. The motion was debated and passed on 5th June. After which the Assembly was dissolved and a general election declared to take place in July. The British Secretary of State gave the pledge:

"If a general election is held, her Majesty's Government will be ready to accept a Motion calling for Independence within the Commonwealth passed by a reasonable majority in a newly elected Legislature and then to declare a firm date for attainment of their purpose”.

The election was to be the test of opinion for or against a federation. The outcome would show just how much or how little support the political opponents of the CPP had in the country. The Party won 71 seats, increase by the support of one of the Independents, which majority of 40 in the Legislative Assembly. Unlike NLM the CPP won seats throughout the country as a whole and was the only Party which could claim to speak in a national sense. Even in Ashanti, then the stronghold the NLM, the CPP won 8 out of the 21 seats and received 43% of the votes cast, an increase on the previous election.

The reaction of Dr Busia to the decisive election result was to call a press conference in Kumasi and to declare that election had established the opposition case for a federation, since the CPP had not won overall majorities in Ashanti and the Northern Territories. Everyone knew the election had been fought on the federation issue and that the CPP had won more than a reasonable majority. Furthermore, during the course of the campaign, Busia himself had declared that he would be prepared to form a government if the NLM secured anything over 52 elected members. That is, he had accepted the fact that a single overall majority, even of one seat, constituted a democratic verdict.

When the new Assembly was formally opened, the opposition benches were empty except for two me who turned up from Togoland. Afterwards, Busia a friends excused themselves by saying that they arrived late and could not get through the dense crowd outside Assembly.

The Governor, in his speech at the opening ceremony, stated that the government would, that week, introduce a Bill declaring the Gold Coast a sovereign and independent state within the Commonwealth. The following day the opposition tabled an amendment criticizing the proposal as "premature" until a further effort had been made to get "an agreed Constitution”.

          .          

Dr Abrefa Busia

The amendment was defeated by a majority of 37. After this defeat, the opposition issued a statement to the press saying they would absent themselves from the Assembly when the independent motion came before the House. Busia, showing where his real support lay, announced that he considered the struggle centred not in the Gold Coast but in London, and that the opposition would send a delegation to the British government.

Busia, who led the opposition delegation to London, actually appealed to the British government not to grant independence. He said the country was not ready for it: "We still need you (the British) in the Gold Coast". He found some support among sections of the British press, but there could be no denying that the conditions laid down by the Secretary of State, that Nkrumah's motion for independence should be passed by "a reasonable majority in the newly elected Legislature", had been satisfied, and at long last a date for independence was fixed for 6th March 1957.

In a speech marking the 10th Anniversary of the formation of the Convention People's Party Kwame Nkrumah put the whole struggle for independence in its historical perspective when he said: "History shows us that from the signing of the Bond of 1844, which gave to Britain the means of imposing her political control over our country, there have been repeated efforts from patriotic citizens, various times to loosen the grip of alien domination."

"In this connection we are proud to remember the early political pioneers in our country's history, those intellectuals, for example, associated with the Aborigines’ Rights Protection Society and the West African National Congress. Names enshrined in the history of our people are, among others, those of Casely-Hayford, Mensah Sarbah, Atto Ahumah and Dr Aggrey".

"These men, judged in terms of society and time in which they lived, did all they possibly could for their country. They were sincere and dedicated men. I traced the struggle for freedom from the signing of the Bond of 1844 with Great Britain, to the founding of the CPP and the attainment of independence".

Here, Nkrumah, like all great people, recognized greatness in others. It demonstrated his incredible respect for true patriotic citizens of the land by publicly acknowledging the immense contributions of others before him.

Explaining the significance of the events, Nkrumah continued: "Our many sacrifices were rewarded. We are now the masters of the Citadel. The flag of imperialism was lowered and over the ramparts we proudly hoisted our national flag, symbol of our hard-won freedom and the banner of the hope of Africa's total redemption. Our Party flag has a rightful place beside these symbols of nationhood, for it was under the red, white and greed banner that the battle for freedom was fought and won”. See “I speak of Freedom” page 161-162

POWER TO RADIO; REAPING THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE INFO BOX

By Dora Addy

In deep appreciation of what Guglielmo Marconi and others who helped developed the radio as a communications tool, the inventors of the radio have brought life since his creative powers were put to work; radio has brought about more benefits than can be accounted for. His works still live on even after many years of his death. 

The discovery has been most helpful in bringing people together- uniting folks who could not be at the real events but were forced to listen through the airwaves- the amazing football matches, those important presidential campaign expeditions, among others, have coerced people to come together, make friends and share ideas.

The discovery has spurred on many other useful human needs as the telegraph, television and mobile phones, which all followed the suit of wireless communication where signals were sent through the air over long distances.

Radio is serving more purpose than simply being a mouthpiece of the people. It is sustaining human development while creating wealth for many who discover its importance.

Radio still serves a useful reason and remains one of the dominant technological advancements to be developed at the turn of the 20th century. The small info box is receiving some of the most dynamic technological innovations and since its birth, gone through a number of transformations to mark the era and its people.

Travelling through more than one hundred years of its use since the 1901 when the patent rights were granted to Guglielmo Marconi, it was once the ‘wireless telegraphy’, and in this era radio communication was said to be limited to ships.

Historically, it has aided countries that went to war, in its Amplitude Modulation (AM) Frequency in broadcasting, and gained popularity till researchers started finding other forms through the Frequency Modulation (FM) programming, and by the late sixties and early seventies, the FM had come to stay.

Radio is not just fun. There are more benefits to reap than is really realized. Today in Ghana and in many developing countries, radio does not only keep others busy through entertainment; shaping lives for the better through information is an accessible luxury that is quickly determining how well others are preparing themselves for the future- in personal endeavor and business.

RADIO’S DOMINANCE IN GHANA

Since the influx of radio stations commenced in the early 1990s, lives have changed dramatically.

The flurry of more than forty (40) radio stations the capital alone is not only indicative of the freedoms given out to the media; the abundance of such radio entities also signal just how technology is advancing rapidly and catching up even with many in the less-advanced areas.

They too need to be entertained and informed and the rapid development of the release of the super airwaves puts radio in charge and ahead of the other modes of mass communication.

The spurring on of national development has also enhanced the way radio has grown; the adoption of modern communication methods through mobile phones and the internet, and the extensions of the national power grids to many areas today, have majorly allowed others access to radios.

Radio has proved helpful for many- one of the least expensive tech tools. It is light on the pocket and comes in various potable forms that suit users best. At best, battery-operated ones are very manageable.

For social advancement’s sake, democracy cannot be spelled in any other way, except that the people are given the opportunity to have a fair share of the public discourse at the national development front. They say the freeing of the media airwaves have allowed too much freedom, but thinking deeply, many aggravations, which could otherwise be a cause of violence, have been contained properly through radio.

While we all need information to shape our lives, such news is no longer obsolete, and so individuals can better determine what decisions to make based on information, happening at it rolled. Moving along with everyone is very helpful to realize the total impact of social advancement through the various public outputs in policies and interventions.

While some fifteen million people have access to radio in Ghana, education is also being achieved on target. Both young and old can achieve a great deal of education while learning from others on the radio. Our local radio stations do well in imparting knowledge to especially the elderly, in their adult education radio lectures.

HUMAN IMPROVEMENTS

The economic lives of others are being turned around. The commercials potential of radio are very obvious.

Now while multiples of businesses have been dramatically transformed through media exposure via the radio, many others will also continue to enjoy the successes that comes through exposure they receive from advertisements and other services that attract business for growth.

Currently, many others are also involved in the trade of radios, which is fetching, according to them. The import trade of slightly used radio equipment is on the rise today. The harbors are teeming with lots of used electrical appliances, and radios are one of the products in high demand. While imports looks to be the business field of most individuals, the sale of radios is also creating a dynamic financial gateway for many who deal in ‘slightly used’ radios.

In the long run human advancement is met on many scales- social, educational political and economic alike, because radio serves these purposes when it provides multiple benefits that center around building the individual’s social awareness as well as improving his economic gains through diverse means.

RADIO IN THE FUTURE

Whether traditional, digital or satellite, radio will remain the mainstay for ages to come, and the future is solid for radio business operators and consumers.

The future of radio will readily meet technology to give users the very best radio has to offer. Already considering moving on a digital scale, radio will reap huge economic benefits for owners. The structure of radio technology is said to have been built over one hundred years now. In the near future, radio is likely to switch over the internet at huge costs savings and for better efficiencies.

In the future, large players in the local radio industry will reap huge rewards in business as a result of technological advancements of radio in the digital sphere. While radio will be largely hit by consumer and advertiser demands, having extensive coverage will be an added vantage owing to technological growths in radio.

HAS THE MODERN MARKET SUPERSEDED MARXIAN ECONOMICS?

The slump

The convulsions in the economies of S E Asia and Japan make fascinating and disturbing reading. The toll of working class suffering has been, and continues to be, enormous. The fortunes made by some of the new capitalist class in the region, such as the Suharto family in Indonesia, have been correspondingly huge.

The ‘Asian Tiger’ economies were models of energetic, enterprising, extremely profitable, capitalism for the Thatcher and Major governments and their tame economists and financial journalists. Now it has all gone sour—the bubble has burst. Inevitably, its effects will be felt throughout the worldwide capitalist politico-economic system.

Apologists

“Ah! but what we didn’t know,” explain the economics experts, “is that there had been massive corruption, false accounting…” Our wise men of the economy blame corruption for the slump—not capitalism itself. Now, this is of especial interest to those who are radical critics of capitalism—to Marxists. The champions of capitalism have always boasted that this politico-economic system is basic, natural, suited to human nature. Yet now they are pleading that it won’t work properly if people are dishonest and unscrupulous. It’s a rather poor piece of apologetics.

I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised, however. If we look at what academically respectable economists have written over the past 150 years, we can see that they have trotted out some absurd, as well as some very weak ideas. Behind every avowed attempt at analysis and explication has been the implicit assumption that capitalism is a fully viable, inherently stable, healthy, progressive system. In fact, these are the writers whom Marx labels ‘vulgar economists’, the ‘hired prize-fighters’ of capitalism. Their main function has been to justify the workings of capitalism, to confer respectability upon its social effects and institutions, and to concoct excuses for its more blatant inadequacies.

Insofar as they discover or explain anything useful or new about the micro- or macro-economics of this society, it is done in order to afford some means of control over what happens. In other words, they work in the service of the capitalist class and their investing organisations—governments and other financial power groups such as the IMF or the World Bank. In spite of all their efforts, however, slumps, depressions, economic stagnation, have occurred throughout the last two hundred years as if the economists had never existed.

Marx’s approach

Marx’s contention was that such efforts as theirs were futile. Because of the anarchic, secretive and infinitely complex nature of world-wide capitalism, it was, he insisted, unpredictable, uncontrollable and unaccountable to anything but the maximisation of profit. Indeed, he maintained that even the true rate of profit at any one time was an unknowable magnitude because of the averaging-out of profit rates which was constantly being effected by stock markets. And this has been repeatedly borne out over years of experience since he was writing. The experts know very little more now than they did a hundred years ago; and they still cannot predict with certainty which way markets will go.

Marx’s own investigation of capitalism had a completely different approach. Seeing the effects of the pauperisation of peasants across Europe and the herding of untold thousands of undernourished, unhealthy men, women and children into the mines, mills, factories and machine shops of the expanding industrial revolution in Britain, he set about examining the fundamental workings of capitalism so that he could expose the causes of these miseries to view.

He insisted, however, that this type of analysis was of little, if any, use to those whose purpose was to invest and make profits. Instead of supporting, bolstering up and apologising for the effects of capitalism, Marx was analysing and examining it in order to criticise and expose the weaknesses and culpabilities of the system. He wanted to provide intellectual weapons for a revolutionary working class which would, he hoped, jettison capitalism entirely in favour of a world society based upon meeting the needs of its whole people. Such a world society, he and Engels, at different times, called socialism or communism, to mean the same thing.

Modern times

Well, the working class has not yet done what Marx and Engels and William Morris and many other socialists hoped they would. Capitalism has grown and developed scientifically and technologically and it has spread more widely around the world, as Marx predicted. The mass of profit made across the world from the exploitation of working men, women and children today beggars the millions made in Marx’s day into insignificance. The wealth produced is vast; and the possibility of plenty for everyone is painfully obvious with every cut in farmers’ prices and every subsidised meat and butter and wheat mountain that is built up.

It is also obvious with OPEC plans to cut back oil production which were announced last week. And with the overproduction of computer memory chips, motor cars, etc, etc. But what has not changed is the poverty, the starvation and the millions of deaths through malnutrition and squalid living conditions every year. This pauperisation of the new working class has taken place, and is still going on, everywhere where capitalism spreads around the globe. In this, capitalism makes no progress, except to expand the area and the scale of its effects. Now, there are those who say that Marx was entirely wrong to predict that capitalism would produce increasing misery. Looking at Europe and North America, they claim that this social system has brought increased living standards. The trouble is that their view is too restricted. They forget to take in Mexico, Haiti, Brazil and the rest of South America. They ignore Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, Japan, Korea, India and Pakistan, many parts of Africa and so on, and so on. In these countries, Victorian oppression, exploitation, squalor and disease have spread almost everywhere and are still rampant.

And the world’s investors do very nicely out of it all. So much so that large sectors of ‘Western’ industry have been moved out to China and south east Asia. Millions more workers than in Marx’s day are being used as industrial fodder, to be thrown aside when their energy has been sucked dry or the market no longer needs their efforts. And the land, the seas, and the minerals lying underneath both of them are being pillaged and wasted in an orgy of consumerism in order to yield ever greater profits.

Another thing that has not changed is the cycle of booms and slumps. As I was writing this, the Japanese economy, pivotal for E Asia, was sliding into collapse. This feature of social life, the ‘trade cycle’, so peculiar to the capitalist politico-economic system, has occurred with distressing inevitability ever since it began. In spite of countless futile attempts to understand this phenomenon of recession (or depression or slump) which ruins livelihoods and costs many lives, none of the economics professors or government advisors has devised a plan which has ameliorated, let alone prevented, this inbuilt feature of capitalism.

Some capitalist economists, however, have just begun to glimpse a trace of the reality by moving towards Marx’s analysis of the system. In The New Yorker  in October, last year, John Cassidy wrote:

“Early this summer, I enjoyed a weekend at the Long Island vacation home of a college friend—a highly intelligent and level-headed Englishman whose career has taken him (by way of the upper echelons of the British Civil Service and a financial firm in the City of London) to a big Wall Street investment bank. There he has spent the last few years organising stock issues and helping his firm milk the strongest market in living memory. Between dips in his pool, we discussed the economy and speculated about how long the current financial boom would last. To my surprise, he brought up Karl Marx. ‘The longer I spend on Wall Street, the more convinced I am that Marx was right,’ he said. I assumed he was joking.

‘There is a Nobel Prize waiting for the economist who resurrects Marx and puts it all together in a coherent model,’ he continued quite seriously. ‘I am absolutely convinced that Marx’s approach is the best way to look at capitalism.’

Instead, therefore, of becoming progressively out of date as capitalism expands and progresses, Marx’s work increasingly shows itself as forward-looking—prophetic. This is because it laid bare the anatomy and physiology of the capitalist system. Marx showed—not only how capitalism worked—but how it must work, given its class-exploitative structure. What his analysis shows is that, however powerful, sophisticated, labour-saving, energy-efficient, the production processes and the commodities that emerge from it are, capitalism is bound to keep its workers perpetually on the edge of poverty, because, if it did not, they could break free.

This is not just a bitter opinion of mine, or socialists in general: is an objective political/economic fact. It is the basis upon which capitalism continues to exist and operate.

Reality

This state of affairs is, however, not simply “economic”. In fact, as I have repeatedly hinted, there is no such thing as pure economics. The real situation is of a particular pattern of life and work imposed upon society by a dominant class. In other words, it is a politico-economic system.

The fascinating thing is that this way of life is accepted by millions of human beings, not as a regime imposed upon them by other human beings, but as “reality”—”the real world”—”That’s life”, and so on.

The fact is that it is not life; it is not reality, naked and unadorned. It is just a regime, like an African dictatorship or an Amish cult, or a Ku Klux Klan vendetta. Marx showed how it was imposed and how it is maintained. This is the key to his success in analysing its workings and explaining its peculiar features, such as crises and slumps.

The rate of profit

One feature of the workings of the capitalist system which Marx analysed in great detail in Volume III of Capital was the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. He pointed to the increase in mechanisation which capitalists employed to get more and more production out of each worker. To do this, they had to reinvest the bulk of their profit as new capital in buying more and better machinery. On p208 of the Moscow edition Marx writes:

This [capitalist] mode of production produces a progressive relative decrease of the variable capital [that is, wages] as compared to the constant capital [premises, plant and machinery] and consequently a continuously rising organic composition of the total capital. The immediate result of this is that the rate of surplus value, at the same, or even a rising, degree of labour exploitation, is represented by a continually falling general rate of profit.

This corresponds, he says, to a progressive cheapening of products. In spite of the figures being obscured by inflation, we can see that this has in fact happened. A car costs a smaller fraction of the average annual wage than it used to. And the price of personal computers and their components falls almost daily, at present. Nevertheless, Marx goes to a great deal of trouble to demonstrate that this basic tendency of the rate of profit to fall in capitalist production is, in practice, usually offset by countervailing forces, in particular, that force of the speed of technological development. If the rate of extraction of surplus value from the workers escalates at a greater rate than the fall in the rate of profit would be, then the rate of profit can actually continue to rise.

The silicon revolution

The figures involved here are enormous, although we cannot accurately discover them. Moreover, for most of this century, such a rate of increase (outstripping that of the expansion of capital) was impossible. But all that has changed—for the time being. The impetus for the change is probably best attributed to World War II (as are many technological advances). The drive to generate unbreakable codes for radio transmission, on the part of the German forces and the more desperate drive to decipher those codes by the British Intelligence agencies produced a hothouse development of computer capability that cost sums of money that no peacetime capitalist agency, private or public, would have dared to spend. Alan Turing, (the computer genius who killed himself because his homosexuality was intolerable to the society which wanted his expertise) and his colleagues at Bletchley advanced computer design into a new level of complexity and power which demanded a new technology—solid state electronics.

The transistor replaced the thermionic valve but even this was still large and clumsy in comparison to today’s microchip assemblies of millions of transistors and resistors and capacitors in circuits on silicon chips no larger than a fingernail.

The wide range of computers and control systems that have been produced based upon these have replaced millions of workers around the world whose job used to be watching and correcting semi-automatic systems.

Today, not only factory production machines, but the control of power stations, and traffic systems, and motor car engine and braking systems, and washing machines, and almost every other device of any complexity that we use is being handed over to computers, simple or complex, small or large. Somewhere, far down the line, a human being, a member of the working class, is responsible for ensuring that such machines behave impeccably, but he or she now takes charge of a hundred times the number of devices his/her mother or father used to control. Productivity has not simply doubled or trebled, as with older automotive systems. It has risen a hundred or a thousand fold, and still has a long way to go in virtually every field of capitalist investment.

Manufacturing brains

The production of memory chips themselves is a good illustration of this development. Ten years ago, ten megabytes of memory cost roughly £100. Even five years ago, thieves found it worthwhile to break into offices and steal these chips out of the office computers. They were then worth their weight in gold. Today, ten megabytes of memory cost £10.

Hundreds of millions of dollars and marks and yen and pounds have been invested in building more of the highly sophisticated factories which make microchips. Factories in which human contact is avoided everywhere possible because of the danger that people will pollute the sterile environment in which these microscopic production processes are carried out. So the production is heavily automated and computer-controlled.

This fall in prices, precisely along the lines described by Marx, has taken place so swiftly that it has become almost impossible to keep pace with the price changes. Advertisements for these components now say ‘Ring for a quote’ instead of listing a price.

Software

But components that can be picked up, or fitted together, even if they are brains of a sort are only half of the phenomenon of the silicon revolution. The brains are useless without the thinking processes and the thoughts that make brains useful. (The hardware is no good without software.) Alongside companies like IBM, Motorola and Intel, therefore, companies producing computer programs have sprung up and grown at prodigious speeds. Bill Gates, the president of Microsoft Corporation, is now reckoned to be the richest man that ever lived. His capital amounts to something like 50 billion dollars. Of course, a stock market crash could wipe out a large fraction of this value. Capital is like that. But Gates—together with quite a large cohort of multimillionaire directors of Microsoft—has made this colossal fortune in only a few years. The rate of accumulation of capital has been stupendous.

Microsoft, however, have no factories, as such. Their product is not even computer disks. it is the software printed on them, much as music is printed on to CDs, or words and pictures are printed in books. But fiction, and information, and advice have all been common features of books since they were first invented. The difference with the computer programmes which constitute the software is that they actually direct and control machines. They bridge the gap between information and action. In the home, they take the place of servants: washing the clothes, washing the dishes, baking the bread, and so on. But also doing most of the drudgery in writing letters, keeping accounts, and accessing information, in the case of the personal computer.

In industry, they have almost become a new stratum of worker, already instructed in the performance of extremely complex tasks, capable of making decisions in management, medical diagnosis, stock market dealing, etc.

Drawing offices, for example, which used to have rows of qualified draughtsmen hunched over drawing boards, have been replaced by one or two individuals with computers and CAD programmes. Unlike automation, which used error, and the degree of error, to correct or modify error, computerisation is not limited to the confines of the process or system involved, but can introduce new parameters, new instructions, and can learn from experience, becoming increasingly effective and efficient. Above all, computerisation, in contrast with most automation systems, is cheap. Tailor-made software is being increasingly supplanted by versatile off-the-peg programmes.

The future

This new layer of semi-intelligent machinery has multiplied the rate of surplus value extracted from a large range of workers in a relatively sudden boost. This rate of change will most likely go down. Nevertheless, capitalism has moved into a higher gear. From now on, increasing numbers of machines and devices will become ‘smart’. They will perform tasks automatically whenever the pre-determined ‘trigger’ is operated.

For society as a whole, this increases the mass of surplus value being produced enormously. For a socialist world it will be an absolute boon in its removal of drudgery from human beings. For capitalism, however, it will increase the already huge embarrassment of riches. It will increase and sustain the scourge of unemployment for years to come. Moreover, the scarcity that all markets depend on, the scarcity which provides the excuse for keeping workers working hard, and consuming only enough to carry them on to the next pay day, will have to be imposed more and more oppressively, as it becomes more obviously absurd.

More wasteful consumption, pointless pursuits, organised leisure and expensive luxuries will have to be hyped and heralded as necessities in order to sustain the myth that human wants are insatiable and that no productive potential could ever satisfy everyone. More surveillance systems and more control procedures will be needed to ensure that men, women and children of the working class do only what they are allowed to do, and go only where they are allowed to go.

And, of course, the consequences of all this are the more rapid depletion and waste of resources, the more inevitable pollution of the planet with the rubbish that this society generates in increasing quantity and toxicity. For Marx, and for the analysis of capitalism he spent his life developing, all this is ‘the mixture as before’—more massive, more complex, more threatening, more outrageous—but basically unchanged in the way it works. In fact of course, it is basically as it is now just because of the way it has been working since he died 115 years ago.

It was impossible for Marx to foresee the technological and scientific developments which would emerge from the frenetic pursuit of profit. But he knew—far better than anyone else of his time—that the institutionalised avarice and paranoia of the system which was still being established would change the face of the earth, the nature of work, and the relationships of human beings, towards one another and towards the actual planet they lived upon.

It is because of this breadth of vision and this scientific open-mindedness that we value his contribution so much.