Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of imperialismKwame Nkrumah 1965
Introduction
THE neo-colonialism of today represents imperialism in its final and perhaps its most dangerous stage. In the past it was possible to convert a ... read full comment
Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of imperialismKwame Nkrumah 1965
Introduction
THE neo-colonialism of today represents imperialism in its final and perhaps its most dangerous stage. In the past it was possible to convert a country upon which a neo-colonial regime had been imposed — Egypt in the nineteenth century is an example — into a colonial territory. Today this process is no longer feasible. Old-fashioned colonialism is by no means entirely abolished. It still constitutes an African problem, but it is everywhere on the retreat. Once a territory has become nominally independent it is no longer possible, as it was in the last century, to reverse the process. Existing colonies may linger on, but no new colonies will be created. In place of colonialism as the main instrument of imperialism we have today neo-colonialism.
The essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside.
The methods and form of this direction can take various shapes. For example, in an extreme case the troops of the imperial power may garrison the territory of the neo-colonial State and control the government of it. More often, however, neo-colonialist control is exercised through economic or monetary means. The neo-colonial State may be obliged to take the manufactured products of the imperialist power to the exclusion of competing products from elsewhere. Control over government policy in the neo-colonial State may be secured by payments towards the cost of running the State, by the provision of civil servants in positions where they can dictate policy, and by monetary control over foreign exchange through the imposition of a banking system controlled by the imperial power.
Where neo-colonialism exists the power exercising control is often the State which formerly ruled the territory in question, but this is not necessarily so. For example, in the case of South Vietnam the former imperial power was France, but neo-colonial control of the State has now gone to the United States. It is possible that neo-colonial control may be exercised by a consortium of financial interests which are not specifically identifiable with any particular State. The control of the Congo by great international financial concerns is a case in point.
The result of neo-colonialism is that foreign capital is used for the exploitation rather than for the development of the less developed parts of the world. Investment under neo-colonialism increases rather than decreases the gap between the rich and the poor countries of the world.
The struggle against neo-colonialism is not aimed at excluding the capital of the developed world from operating in less developed countries. It is aimed at preventing the financial power of the developed countries being used in such a way as to impoverish the less developed.
Non-alignment, as practised by Ghana and many other countries, is based on co-operation with all States whether they be capitalist, socialist or have a mixed economy. Such a policy, therefore, involves foreign investment from capitalist countries, but it must be invested in accordance with a national plan drawn up by the government of the non-aligned State with its own interests in mind. The issue is not what return the foreign investor receives on his investments. He may, in fact, do better for himself if he invests in a non-aligned country than if he invests in a neo-colonial one. The question is one of power. A State in the grip of neo-colonialism is not master of its own destiny. It is this factor which makes neo-colonialism such a serious threat to world peace. The growth of nuclear weapons has made out of date the old-fashioned balance of power which rested upon the ultimate sanction of a major war. Certainty of mutual mass destruction effectively prevents either of the great power blocs from threatening the other with the possibility of a world-wide war, and military conflict has thus become confined to ‘limited wars’. For these neo-colonialism is the breeding ground.
Such wars can, of course, take place in countries which are not neo-colonialist controlled. Indeed their object may be to establish in a small but independent country a neo-colonialist regime. The evil of neo-colonialism is that it prevents the formation of those large units which would make impossible ‘limited war’. To give one example: if Africa was united, no major power bloc would attempt to subdue it by limited war because from the very nature of limited war, what can be achieved by it is itself limited. It is, only where small States exist that it is possible, by landing a few thousand marines or by financing a mercenary force, to secure a decisive result.
The restriction of military action of ‘limited wars’ is, however, no guarantee of world peace and is likely to be the factor which will ultimately involve the great power blocs in a world war, however much both are determined to avoid it.
Limited war, once embarked upon, achieves a momentum of its own. Of this, the war in South Vietnam is only one example. It escalates despite the desire of the great power blocs to keep it limited. While this particular war may be prevented from leading to a world conflict, the multiplication of similar limited wars can only have one end-world war and the terrible consequences of nuclear conflict.
Neo-colonialism is also the worst form of imperialism. For those who practise it, it means power without responsibility and for those who suffer from it, it means exploitation without redress. In the days of old-fashioned colonialism, the imperial power had at least to explain and justify at home the actions it was taking abroad. In the colony those who served the ruling imperial power could at least look to its protection against any violent move by their opponents. With neo-colonialism neither is the case.
Above all, neo-colonialism, like colonialism before it, postpones the facing of the social issues which will have to be faced by the fully developed sector of the world before the danger of world war can be eliminated or the problem of world poverty resolved.
Neo-colonialism, like colonialism, is an attempt to export the social conflicts of the capitalist countries. The temporary success of this policy can be seen in the ever widening gap between the richer and the poorer nations of the world. But the internal contradictions and conflicts of neo-colonialism make it certain that it cannot endure as a permanent world policy. How it should be brought to an end is a problem that should be studied, above all, by the developed nations of the world, because it is they who will feel the full impact of the ultimate failure. The longer it continues the more certain it is that its inevitable collapse will destroy the social system of which they have made it a foundation.
The reason for its development in the post-war period can be briefly summarised. The problem which faced the wealthy nations of the world at the end of the second world war was the impossibility of returning to the pre-war situation in which there was a great gulf between the few rich and the many poor. Irrespective of what particular political party was in power, the internal pressures in the rich countries of the world were such that no post-war capitalist country could survive unless it became a ‘Welfare State’. There might be differences in degree in the extent of the social benefits given to the industrial and agricultural workers, but what was everywhere impossible was a return to the mass unemployment and to the low level of living of the pre-war years.
From the end of the nineteenth century onwards, colonies had been regarded as a source of wealth which could be used to mitigate the class conflicts in the capitalist States and, as will be explained later, this policy had some success. But it failed in ‘its ultimate object because the pre-war capitalist States were so organised internally that the bulk of the profit made from colonial possessions found its way into the pockets of the capitalist class and not into those of the workers. Far from achieving the object intended, the working-class parties at times tended to identify their interests with those of the colonial peoples and the imperialist powers found themselves engaged upon a conflict on two fronts, at home with their own workers and abroad against the growing forces of colonial liberation.
The post-war period inaugurated a very different colonial policy. A deliberate attempt was made to divert colonial earnings from the wealthy class and use them instead generally to finance the ‘Welfare State’. As will be seen from the examples given later, this was the method consciously adopted even by those working-class leaders who had before the war regarded the colonial peoples as their natural allies against their capitalist enemies at home.
At first it was presumed that this object could be achieved by maintaining the pre-war colonial system. Experience soon proved that attempts to do so would be disastrous and would only provoke colonial wars, thus dissipating the anticipated gains from the continuance of the colonial regime. Britain, in particular, realised this at an early stage and the correctness of the British judgement at the time has subsequently been demonstrated by the defeat of French colonialism in the Far East and Algeria and the failure of the Dutch to retain any of their former colonial empire.
The system of neo-colonialism was therefore instituted and in the short run it has served the developed powers admirably. It is in the long run that its consequences are likely to be catastrophic for them.
Neo-colonialism is based upon the principle of breaking up former large united colonial territories into a number of small non-viable States which are incapable of independent development and must rely upon the former imperial power for defence and even internal security. Their economic and financial systems are linked, as in colonial days, with those of the former colonial ruler.
At first sight the scheme would appear to have many advantages for the developed countries of the world. All the profits of neo-colonialism can be secured if, in any given area, a reasonable proportion of the States have a neo-colonialist system. It is not necessary that they all should have one. Unless small States can combine they must be compelled to sell their primary products at prices dictated by the developed nations and buy their manufactured goods at the prices fixed by them. So long as neo-colonialism can prevent political and economic conditions for optimum development, the developing countries, whether they are under neo-colonialist control or not, will be unable to create a large enough market to support industrialisation. In the same way they will lack the financial strength to force the developed countries to accept their primary products at a fair price.
In the neo-colonialist territories, since the former colonial power has in theory relinquished political control, if the social conditions occasioned by neo-colonialism cause a revolt the local neo-colonialist government can be sacrificed and another equally subservient one substituted in its place. On the other hand, in any continent where neo-colonialism exists on a wide scale the same social pressures which can produce revolts in neo-colonial territories will also affect those States which have refused to accept the system and therefore neo-colonialist nations have a ready-made weapon with which they can threaten their opponents if they appear successfully to be challenging the system.
These advantages, which seem at first sight so obvious, are, however, on examination, illusory because they fail to take into consideration the facts of the world today.
The introduction of neo-colonialism increases the rivalry between the great powers which was provoked by the old-style colonialism. However little real power the government of a neo-colonialist State may possess, it must have, from the very fact of its nominal independence, a certain area of manoeuvre. It may not be able to exist without a neo-colonialist master but it may still have the ability to change masters.
The ideal neo-colonialist State would be one which was wholly subservient to neo-colonialist interests but the existence of the socialist nations makes it impossible to enforce the full rigour of the neo-colonialist system. The existence of an alternative system is itself a challenge to the neo-colonialist regime. Warnings about ‘the dangers of Communist subversion are likely to be two-edged since they bring to the notice of those living under a neo-colonialist system the possibility of a change of regime. In fact neo-colonialism is the victim of its own contradictions. In order to make it attractive to those upon whom it is practised it must be shown as capable of raising their living standards, but the economic object of neo-colonialism is to keep those standards depressed in the interest of the developed countries. It is only when this contradiction is understood that the failure of innumerable ‘aid’ programmes, many of them well intentioned, can be explained.
In the first place, the rulers of neo-colonial States derive their authority to govern, not from the will of the people, but from the support which they obtain from their neo-colonialist masters. They have therefore little interest in developing education, strengthening the bargaining power of their workers employed by expatriate firms, or indeed of taking any step which would challenge the colonial pattern of commerce and industry, which it is the object of neo-colonialism to preserve. ‘Aid’, therefore, to a neo-colonial State is merely a revolving credit, paid by the neo-colonial master, passing through the neo-colonial State and returning to the neo-colonial master in the form of increased profits.
Secondly, it is in the field of ‘aid’ that the rivalry of individual developed States first manifests itself. So long as neo-colonialism persists so long will spheres of interest persist, and this makes multilateral aid — which is in fact the only effective form of aid — impossible.
Once multilateral aid begins the neo-colonialist masters are f aced by the hostility of the vested interests in their own country. Their manufacturers naturally object to any attempt to raise the price of the raw materials which they obtain from the neo-colonialist territory in question, or to the establishment there of manufacturing industries which might compete directly or indirectly with their own exports to the territory. Even education is suspect as likely to produce a student movement and it is, of course, true that in many less developed countries the students have been in the vanguard of the fight against neo-colonialism.
In the end the situation arises that the only type of aid which the neo-colonialist masters consider as safe is ‘military aid’.
Once a neo-colonialist territory is brought to such a state of economic chaos and misery that revolt actually breaks out then, and only then, is there no limit to the generosity of the neo-colonial overlord, provided, of course, that the funds supplied are utilised exclusively for military purposes.
Military aid in fact marks the last stage of neo-colonialism and its effect is self-destructive. Sooner or later the weapons supplied pass into the hands of the opponents of the neo-colonialist regime and the war itself increases the social misery which originally provoked it.
Neo-colonialism is a mill-stone around the necks of the developed countries which practise it. Unless they can rid themselves of it, it will drown them. Previously the developed powers could escape from the contradictions of neo-colonialism by substituting for it direct colonialism. Such a solution is no longer possible and the reasons for it have been well explained by Mr Owen Lattimore, the United States Far Eastern expert and adviser to Chiang Kai-shek in the immediate post-war period. He wrote:
‘Asia, which was so easily and swiftly subjugated by conquerors in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, displayed an amazing ability stubbornly to resist modern armies equipped with aeroplanes, tanks, motor vehicles and mobile artillery.
‘Formerly big territories were conquered in Asia with small forces. Income, first of all from plunder, then from direct taxes and lastly from trade, capital investments and long-term exploitation, covered with incredible speed the expenditure for military operations. This arithmetic represented a great temptation to strong countries. Now they have run up against another arithmetic, and it discourages them.’
The same arithmetic is likely to apply throughout the less developed world.
This book is therefore an attempt to examine neo-colonialism not only in its African context and its relation to African unity, but in world perspective. Neo-colonialism is by no means exclusively an African question. Long before it was practised on any large scale in Africa it was an established system in other parts of the world. Nowhere has it proved successful, either in raising living standards or in ultimately benefiting countries which have indulged in it.
Marx predicted that the growing gap between the wealth of the possessing classes and the workers it employs would ultimately produce a conflict fatal to capitalism in each individual capitalist State.
This conflict between the rich and the poor has now been transferred on to the international scene, but for proof of what is acknowledged to be happening it is no longer necessary to consult the classical Marxist writers. The situation is set out with the utmost clarity in the leading organs of capitalist opinion. Take for example the following extracts from The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper which perhaps best reflects United States capitalist thinking.
In its issue of 12 May 1965, under the headline of ‘Poor Nations’ Plight’, the paper first analyses ‘which countries are considered industrial and which backward’. There is, it explains, ‘no rigid method of classification’. Nevertheless, it points out:
‘A generally used breakdown, however, has recently been maintained by the International Monetary Fund because, in the words of an IMF official, “the economic demarcation in the world is getting increasingly apparent.”’ The break-down, the official says, “is based on simple common sense.”’
In the IMF’s view, the industrial countries are the United States, the United Kingdom, most West European nations, Canada and Japan. A special category called “other developed areas” includes such other European lands as Finland, Greece and Ireland, plus Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. The IMF’s “less developed” category embraces all of Latin America and nearly all of the Middle East, non-Communist Asia and Africa.’
In other words the ‘backward’ countries are those situated in the neo-colonial areas.
After quoting figures to support its argument, The Wall Street Journal comments on this situation:
‘The industrial nations have added nearly $2 billion to their reserves, which now approximate $52 billion. At the same time, the reserves of the less-developed group not only have stopped rising, but have declined some $200 million. To analysts such as Britain’s Miss Ward, the significance of such statistics is clear: the economic gap is rapidly widening “between a white, complacent, highly bourgeois, very wealthy, very small North Atlantic elite and everybody else, and this is not a very comfortable heritage to leave to one’s children.”
“Everybody else” includes approximately two-thirds of the population of the earth, spread through about 100 nations.’
This is no new problem. In the opening paragraph of his book, The War on World Poverty, written in 1953, the present British Labour leader, Mr Harold Wilson, summarised the major problem of the world as he then saw it:
‘For the vast majority of mankind the most urgent problem is not war, or Communism, or the cost of living, or taxation. It is hunger. Over 1,500,000,000 people, some-thing like two-thirds of the world’s population, are living in conditions of acute hunger, defined in terms of identifiable nutritional disease. This hunger is at the same time the effect and the cause of the poverty, squalor and misery in which they live.’
Its consequences are likewise understood. The correspondent of The Wall Street Journal previously quoted, underlines them:
‘... many diplomats and economists view the implications as overwhelmingly — and dangerously — political. Unless the present decline can be reversed, these analysts fear, the United States and other wealthy industrial powers of the West face the distinct possibility, in the words of British economist Barbara Ward, “of a sort of international class war”.’
What is lacking are any positive proposals for dealing with the situation. All that The Wall Street Journal’s correspondent can do is to point out that the traditional methods recommended for curing the evils are only likely to make the situation worse.
It has been argued that the developed nations should effectively assist the poorer parts of the world, and that the whole world should be turned into a Welfare State. However, there seems little prospect that anything of this sort could be achieved. The so-called ‘aid’ programmes to help backward economies represent, according to a rough U.N. estimate, only one half of one per cent of the total income of industrial countries. But when it comes to the prospect of increasing such aid the mood is one of pessimism:
‘A large school of thought holds that expanded share-the-wealth schemes are idealistic and impractical. This school contends climate, undeveloped human skills, lack of natural resources and other factors — not just lack of money — retard economic progress in many of these lands, and that the countries lack personnel with the training or will to use vastly expanded aid effectively. Share-the-wealth schemes, according to this view, would be like pouring money down a bottomless well, weakening the donor nations without effectively curing the ills of the recipients.’
The absurdity of this argument is demonstrated by the fact that every one of the reasons quoted to prove why the less developed parts of the world cannot be developed applied equally strongly to the present developed countries in the period prior to their development. The argument is only true in this sense. The less developed world will not become developed through the goodwill or generosity of the developed powers. It can only become developed through a struggle against the external forces which have a vested interest in keeping it undeveloped.
Of these forces, neo-colonialism is, at this stage of history, the principal.
I propose to analyse neo-colonialism, first, by examining the state of the African continent and showing how neo-colonialism at the moment keeps it artificially poor. Next, I propose to show how in practice African Unity, which in itself can only be established by the defeat of neo-colonialism, could immensely raise African living standards. From this beginning, I propose to examine neo-colonialism generally, first historically and then by a consideration of the great international monopolies whose continued stranglehold on the neo-colonial sectors of the world ensures the continuation of the system.
Contents | Marxism in Africa
Kafui Ama 10 years ago
Please be patient and read this to the end.
By Craig Murray, former Deputy British High Commissioner to Ghana
In 2004, Craig Murray was famously removed as British Ambassador in Uzbekistan after accusing the Uzbek go ... read full comment
Please be patient and read this to the end.
By Craig Murray, former Deputy British High Commissioner to Ghana
In 2004, Craig Murray was famously removed as British Ambassador in Uzbekistan after accusing the Uzbek government of human rights abuses. But from 1998 to 2002, Murray served as Deputy High Commissioner in Ghana. Here he tells how, against all odds, he helped leave a legacy of free and fair elections in the African country... It was November 1999 and I'd been Deputy High Commissioner in Ghana for almost a year - the culmination of 15 years' Foreign Office service in Nigeria, Warsaw and the equatorial Africa department in London.
I'd always been passionate about Africa and had immersed myself in its minutiae. Nevertheless, my father, who had a timber yard in Ghana in the Sixties, offered a little extra counsel before I departed, aged 40. 'If you see any good-looking girl, aged about 30, light skinned, whatever you do, don't touch her - she could be your sister!'
Not that this was a big concern for me. My most pressing duty was the 1999 State Visit by the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, Enhanced Coverage Linking the Duke of Edinburgh, -Search using: Biographies Plus News, Most Recent 60 Days, accompanied by Robin Cook, the then Foreign Secretary. It was a three-day blur of activity, the teeming crowds displaying an uncomplicated and old-fashioned reverence.
A warning that the Duke was averse to looking at things without useful purpose proved absolutely right. As we stood looking at the strip of brass laid in a churchyard that marked the line of the Greenwich Meridian, he said to me: 'A line in the ground, eh? Very nice.'
Ghana epitomises much of the best of Africa, but also throws into relief the tragedy of the continent. It has maintained its higher education and has fewer extremes of wealth than elsewhere. But at independence in 1957, Ghana was richer than Argentina, Brazil, Malaysia or Singapore. Today, those countries are at least ten times as wealthy.
Corruption, cronyism, economic mismanagement, irresponsible lending by the West and the dumping of cheap food all did for Ghana. When I arrived with my wife Fiona, and children Jamie and Emily, Ghana had been ruled for 20 years by Flight Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings.
The son of a Stirlingshire pharmacist and a local woman, he seized power in a coup in 1979, but claimed to have won presidential elections in 1992 and 1996, despite allegations of vote-rigging.
In his early years, Rawlings unleashed a political terror on Ghana. His campaign against the middle classes resembled Mao's Cultural Revolution. People were persecuted for having savings or two indoor lavatories. Market women were sometimes killed for 'profiteering'.
The Queen's visit delighted Rawlings, who craved international respectability. I, too, was determined to make the most of the trip, by helping ensure Rawlings gave up power by the start of 2001, as the constitution required because he had served two four-year terms.
The Queen's speech to the parliament in the capital, Accra, was to be the focus of the visit and I had contributed to its drafting. It contained the usual guff about a future based upon partnership, but there was a sting in the tail. 'Next, year, Mr President,' the Queen intoned, 'you will step down after two terms in office in accordance with your constitution.' The opposition benches went wild and the Queen stopped, looking in bewilderment at the hullabaloo.
Afterwards, Robin Cook was furious. 'It's a disaster. Who the hell drafted that?'
'Er, I did, Secretary of State,' I said. 'I might have guessed! Who the hell approved it?' 'You did.' Cook's Private Secretary had to dig out the draft he had signed. After the State banquet, I retired to a hotel bar with the Royal Household. The senior staff had withdrawn to allow the butlers, footmen and hairdressers to let off steam.
The party appeared, to a man, to be gay. Not just gay, but outrageously camp. We'd taken the hotel for the Royal party, but allowed the British Airways crew to stay. Now three cabin stewards, two Royal footmen and a Royal hairdresser were grouped around the piano singing hits from Cabaret. I was seated on a sofa and across from me in an armchair was a member of the Household who seemed out of place. The valet looked to be in his 60s, a grizzled NCO with tufts of hair either side of a bald pate, a boxer's nose and tattoos on his arms.
He was smoking roll-ups. I turned to the old warrior and said: 'Don't you find all this a bit strange sometimes?' He lent forward, put his hand on my bare knee below the kilt I wore on ceremonial occasions and said: 'Listen, ducks. I was in the Navy for 30 years.' I think he was joking, but some things are too weird even for me. The lower reaches of the Royal Household are one of them.
One enjoyable aspect of our time in Ghana was the constant stream of visitors. Among them was Peter Hain, the Minister for Africa. Hain, a good footballer, agreed to play in a charity match between children from a community football scheme and the High Commission.
Unfortunately, the ground was hard and the opposition turned out to be super-fit professionals. After a heavy tackle, I went down. Result: a dislocated shoulder. I couldn't move my arm for eight weeks. Other visitors included Clare Short, at the time Secretary of State for International Development.
She was in Ghana to try to persuade it to join a debt relief scheme. At a dinner for her, a Minister had made a speech about how much Ghana had learnt from the British Empire. Short stood up and expostulated: 'The British Empire! Don't tell me about the British Empire. I know about British colonialism. My father was Irish and we know about British colonialism. I'll tell you what the British did to your country. They exploited it, that's what they did. They exploited it.' After a few moments of stunned silence, the dinner continued.
On another occasion we were joined by Bobby Charlton, who came to Ghana seeking support for England's bid to host the 2006 World Cup. He was still an astounding player at 60 and it was good of him to get on the pitch for a local community football programme. Nevertheless, I found Charlton disappointing. He was self-centred and ratty - one of those heroes you wish you hadn't met.
Conversely, Roger Moore, a UNICEF goodwill ambassador, was charming and suave, just as you would expect, with a fund of brilliant stories beginning with lines such as: 'One day, Frank, Dean, Tony and I decided to play a trick on Marilyn ... ' He was also well briefed about children's issues in Ghana and was prepared not just to do PR, but to get his hands dirty helping in refugee camps without a camera in sight.
I was less taken with Jamie Theakston.
The BBC were filming a wildlife programme in Ghana, looking at the endangered green turtle population near Ada. A group of young volunteers had accompanied the BBC team to help the newly-born turtles to reach the ocean. But one girl, in her mid-20s, had streams of mascara running down her cheeks. She claimed Theakston had just broken up with her - yet here he was, surrounded by young women, enjoying the adulation.
I had bigger concerns, however. Ghana's presidential and parliamentary elections were due in December 2000 and there were signs that its 11 million voters might be preparing for a change of government. Enthusiasm for politics was everywhere. Even in the meanest village, people gathered under the banyan tree listening to FM stations on a battered transistor and arguing about the coming change.
In the West, tired of our politicians' deceit, we no longer much value democracy. It is wonderful to see a people exercising for the first time their power over those who would govern them. Our job was to see the elections were free and fair, with Britain funding a £10 million programme for photo-ID cards to reduce electoral fraud. The exercise eradicated one million fake names.
Another practical new weapon was indelible ink: when somebody voted, their thumb was painted to stop them casting more than one vote. India was the only source of a truly permanent ink that could not be washed or rubbed off. I had also persuaded the Foreign Office to provide experts from the Electoral Reform Society. Further valuable additions were two British MPs, Roger Gale and Nigel Jones.
Rawlings's party, the National Democratic Congress ( NDC), put up the vice President, John Atta Mills, as its presidential candidate. The opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) fielded John Kufuor. There is a tribal element in Ghanaian politics: the Ewe people vote overwhelmingly NDC; the Ashanti overwhelmingly NPP.
It was clear the governing party would not abandon power easily. Alarmed that it would lose, it had the high court declare the ID cards illegal because they disenfranchised legitimate voters. But the ruling was to no avail - the people took over. Polling station officers decided they were going to use ID cards anyway.
When first- round votes on December 7 were tallied, Kufuor had 48.4 per cent against Atta Mills's 44.8 per cent. The opposition was heading for a small majority but, with no candidate exceeding 50 per cent, a run- off was required. Ghana's 30 or so FM stations were vital in bringing democracy, so it was no surprise that the NDC moved against them.
On the evening before the poll, I took Roger Gale and Nigel Jones to visit Joy FM, possibly Ghana's most influential station. We were sitting in the office when an armed posse of Rawlings's security men arrived, saying they were closing the station on the President's instructions.
‘Good evening,' I said. ‘I am Craig Murray, Deputy British High Commissioner, and these gentlemen are Mr Roger Gale MP and Mr Nigel Jones MP, members of the British Parliament.' Gale added: ' Obviously there has been some mistake.
I thought I heard you say that you were closing down the station, but we are here to visit our fellow democracy, Ghana, and democracies don't close down radio stations.' The goons left. Joy FM never was closed. However, the NDC started to think I was a part of their problem and they assigned a secret service team to follow me around.
As the second round on December 28 approached, we discovered a problem: not enough Indian ink. We had paid for more, but it had to be specially made and would not be ready until December 24. This was cutting it tight and action was needed. Chartering a private plane to set off from India on Christmas Eve was easier said than done. Whitehall was in festive mode and unlikely to sanction spending quickly, so I used the Embassy's budget to pay for it.
Ghana's government did not want the Indian ink to get in and I was concerned it would be delayed by customs officials. So on Christmas Day 2000, instead of eating turkey, I stood baking on the airport tarmac. When our plane taxied in, we unloaded the boxes of little ink bottles on to two trucks. I escorted these out of the VIP gateway, helped by a substantial tip to the guards.
The truck drivers then delivered the ink to regional centres for distribution to constituencies. This was a game being played for high stakes, with real danger of civil war.
Hotheads in the ruling party might claim electoral fraud and mount a military takeover. The Ashanti could also react violently to losing. Every embassy was updating evacuation plans. Around 1am, the results started to come in. There was a more or less consistent swing to the opposition candidate, John Kufuor. You could have cut the atmosphere with a knife.
The coolest man in Ghana that night was the wry, chain-smoking Electoral Commissioner, Kwadwo Afari- Gyan, who received constant threatening phone calls instructing him to fix the result. Each time, the Electoral Commissioner replied: ' The result will be what the result will be. I am just making sure it is fairly counted.' Then, taking his umpteenth call, he stiffened. He summoned me to listen: it was his wife. Soldiers had come to their bungalow, taking her and his children hostage and threatening to kill them if he did not deliver the ' right' result.
Kwadwo barked down the phone: ' Put their leader on.' ‘Listen you little *****,' he snarled. 'How dare you come to my house and threaten my wife and children. I am sitting here with the British Deputy High Commissioner and he knows what is happening. Now get out of my home before we have you thrown into jail!' The soldier said: ' Yes, sir; sorry, sir.' Kwadwo then told his wife not to worry and calmly returned to his work.
By 3am on the second night only two constituencies were still to declare. Even if every voter there went for Atta Mills, Kufuor could still not be beaten.
The opposition had won - an African country ... had shown that democratic change could be achieved peacefully. Kufuor's eight years as President saw economic growth of more than 70 per cent - the first prolonged period since independence when Ghana was not getting poorer. But Ghanaians chose to exercise their democratic right to change and earlier this month narrowly elected Atta Mills.
Ghana is the only country in Africa to achieve the democratic norm of power alternating peacefully between parties at successive uninterrupted elections.
As I look back on my involvement with Africa over 30 years, I remain most proud of helping Ghanaians to attain democracy. It is an example that sadly, the rest of the continent has so far done little to follow.
But Ghana remains there - a glimmer of hope, an example to others and a rebuke to cynics who claim democracy is not possible in Africa.
Kwobia,Toronto 10 years ago
It is not the fault of democracy.It is the misinterpretation of democracy is the problem.
It is not the fault of democracy.It is the misinterpretation of democracy is the problem.
Ghana ba 10 years ago
Mr writer thank you very, you have said it. God bless you.
Mr writer thank you very, you have said it. God bless you.
papillon 10 years ago
The average African mindset makes democracy unsuitable that is why we see so many coups and wars all ove the continent. Our laws are not observed due to ignorance and gullibilty of the masses who allow greedy & selfish politi ... read full comment
The average African mindset makes democracy unsuitable that is why we see so many coups and wars all ove the continent. Our laws are not observed due to ignorance and gullibilty of the masses who allow greedy & selfish politicians to manipulate them.
We have lived together and in peace for years so why can't we continue to do so? God have mercy.
Pelicles 10 years ago
The Greeks who introduced that form of government into this world, have had their fare share. No human institution is perfect but it is the people practicing it will strive to make it work better. Making the human instituti ... read full comment
The Greeks who introduced that form of government into this world, have had their fare share. No human institution is perfect but it is the people practicing it will strive to make it work better. Making the human institution working better is the problem confronting we Africans.
Democracy or whatever institution we will choose to practice will work better if we will respect the rule of law and be truthful.
Name a single nation on this planet that is well developed but despised the rule of law and love dishonest people? No and never.
African leaders fronts of the rule of law because as long they have been voted into power, they have the mindset that they are above all and sundry and instead of serving the people, they prefer to be served.
Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of imperialismKwame Nkrumah 1965
Introduction
THE neo-colonialism of today represents imperialism in its final and perhaps its most dangerous stage. In the past it was possible to convert a ...
read full comment
Please be patient and read this to the end.
By Craig Murray, former Deputy British High Commissioner to Ghana
In 2004, Craig Murray was famously removed as British Ambassador in Uzbekistan after accusing the Uzbek go ...
read full comment
It is not the fault of democracy.It is the misinterpretation of democracy is the problem.
Mr writer thank you very, you have said it. God bless you.
The average African mindset makes democracy unsuitable that is why we see so many coups and wars all ove the continent. Our laws are not observed due to ignorance and gullibilty of the masses who allow greedy & selfish politi ...
read full comment
The Greeks who introduced that form of government into this world, have had their fare share. No human institution is perfect but it is the people practicing it will strive to make it work better. Making the human instituti ...
read full comment
African politicians are just greedy!
there is problem in Africa