Dr Nkrumah Was Not A Dictator

Unarguably, if democracy means absolute freedom, then I would have say that democracy is indeed perfect. Freedom to be or not be is more of an answer than a question. Unfortunately, perfection is an illusion, which makes democracy more or less an illusion in and of itself. Also, some of us would say that democracy is a better alternative to a dictatorship. And my question is; what makes democracy seems better, or even worse than a dictatorship? The notion that the absence of multipartyism means the presence of a dictatorship is utterly false. Further, the presence of multipartyism doesn't in any form, or fashion indicates the presence of democracy. There are certain instances, however, in which democracy could be used to practice dictatorship. Unquestionably, there are also instances, in which dictatorship could be used to practice true democracy. The Greek Philosopher Aristotle once said that democracy has to be absolute before it could prove itself meaningful. Meaning, democracy, in which the freedom to be or not be isn't respected equals to hypocrisy. As you and I know, hypocrisy is the denial of truth, equality and justice.

The late Dr Kwame Nkrumah was dubbed a dictator by the oligarchs, when his preference went to single-partyism. Evidentially, the oligarchs felt threatened by this single-partyism ideology. They knew what single-partyism would have meant for a multi-tribal country like Ghana. This ideology would have prevented the nation's politics from being contaminated, or hijacked by tribalism. Power would, therefore, belong to the people, and not to the representative body of the people. True democracy in both word and deed if you would ask me. Moreover, single-partyism would have centered the nation's wealth in the hands of the majority as opposed to a few. The oligarchs, however, didn't care. There were only interested in filling their pockets with the nation's wealth to the detriment of the nation. They believed in divide, conquer and rule. Therefore, Dr Nkrumah-the unifier-became their enemy. From then on, Dr Nkrumah's life wouldn't be safe with them around. As most of us already know, several assassination attempts were made on Nkrumah's life. Also, the oligarchs conspired with the American empire to kill Ghana's major source of income. Of course, with the intent to bring economic hardship to the country so that the oligarchs could use this as an excuse to stage a coup d'etat. Regrettably, their plan worked out beautifully.

The oligarchs then began selling Ghana off in pieces to the West, the very moment they came to power. The factories, which were built by Nkrumah's government to generate massive employment and wealth were deliberately left to rot and decay. Thus, causing an astronomical financial loss to the country. Also, the oligarchs told the country that Nkrumah used the nation's monies to build factories, which cannot generate either wealth or employment for the country. For this, Ghanaians became more resentful of Nkrumah, especially those unemployed and poverty stricken. Then again, this is exactly what the oligarchs wanted Ghanaians to do. They wanted Ghanaians to blame Nkrumah for their misery so that they could hate him even more. Today, the oligarchs have hijacked the ideology of democracy to dictate to the masses. In fact, if you really look at it; you would see that the so called democratic countries around the world don't practice democracy. If anything, they all practice an oligarchy, in which power rests with a small elite segment of their societies. They people may vote, but the small elite do make the laws to the people's approval or disapproval. The minority make the laws, and the majority have no choice but to obey. It's like having the right to choose without a choice. Now, how could anybody call this democracy?

The question, therefore, remains; why do they call an oligarchy democracy, when oligarchy isn't democracy at all? Who are they trying to trick with this falsehood? According to the oligarchs, multipartyism should mean freedom, when in fact freedom is non existent if you seriously think about it. Nobody is free. Also, freedom to vote does not mean that you have got a representation. This is something, which most people don't seem to think about. So, here we have a case, in which the term democracy is being used by the oligarchs to practice dictatorship. The very oligarchs, who were accusing Dr Nkrumah of being a dictator. See, I don't have a problem with the truth. My only problem with the truth is when the truth isn't told. Single-partyism, which would have looked after the collective interests of the people cannot be called a dictatorship, or can it? Dr Nkrumah was portrayed as a dictator to the world by his enemies, when in fact he was anything but a dictator. They called him a dictator because he wouldn't allow the West to exploit Ghana. If anything, Dr Nkrumah was a unifier, who wanted to use single-partyism to unite the very people, whom he came to serve wholeheartedly and unreservingly.