Pan-Africanism, Nkrumahism, and the Imagining of the Nation

Reflection

Upon review of Jeffrey Ahlman’s readings regarding the ways in which Pan-Africanism values shaped sociopolitical institutions plus the generational and gendered stipulations for political participants in a Nkrumah-led Ghana, it has become clear that the close relationship between Pan-Africanism and nationalism has inadvertently affected the political participation in Ghana. Pan-Africanism existed as a macrocosmic sociopolitical example of continental nationalism and identity, inadvertently feed by the microcosmic sociopolitical ecosystems within all African states seeking liberation and self-determination. Nkrumah championed Pan-Africanism as a rallying call for the political unity of all Africans, and during his reign, his vision for Ghana named the country as the epicenter for Pan-African thought – which was especially significant considering that Ghana was the first sub-Saharan country to achieve colonial liberation. Nkrumah’s notion of nationalism was marked by the implementation of his ideals in an authoritarian manner as his Convention People’s Party began voraciously seeking a sociopolitical revolution and African unity post-liberation. Nkrumah and the CPP’s ultimate goal was to see Ghana rise up a a trans-national force whose progress was advanced by a socialism-inspired economic agenda that they hoped would spurn rapid economic and technological development that would render African nations equal to other global powers. Although Pan-Africanism and Nkrumahism played eminent roles in the imagining of not only post-liberalization Ghana but the entirety of anti-colonialism Africa, the institutions formed in an effort to achieve Nkrumah’s Pan-African vision inadvertently shaped the balance of power and political participation in Ghana.

The rise of Pan-Africanism gave way to both pro-liberation and pro-unity institutions like the Ghanaian Bureau of Affairs, a controversial Nkrumah-era operation bent on furthering the extremely nationalistic visions of political elites. “In the weeks and months following the country’s independence, Nkrumah and the CPP would not only announce their intentions to renew the Pan-African tradition of Du Bois and Manchester but also begin the process of recruiting key Ghanaian and expatriate technocrats and intellectuals to Accra to aid in the country’s post-independence transition” (Managing the Pan-African Workplace, Ahlman 341). The Ghanaian Bureau of Affairs was a quasi-governmental Pan-African institution that found its place in the Nkrumah administration by upholding a strict level of discipline and operating as a vehicle to achieve Nkrumah’s foreign affairs aims. What was initially Nkrumah’s Office of the Adviser headed by Pan-Afrianist George Padmore and the AAPC Secretariat were two other Pan-African institutions that were swallowed by the Ghanaian Bureau of Affairs (Managing the Pan-African Workplace, Ahlman 344). Discipline and security lied at the forefront Pan-African workplaces and these institutions dutifully embodied the Pan-African mission of unity, but they also served as the epicenters of the observable, critical weaknesses of Pan-Africanism. For instance, “Fears of neocolonial and Cold War subversion constituted a foundational part of everyday life in the Bureau” (Ahlman 349). The Bureau often went to extreme lengths to ensure security, incidents were often dealt with drastically, and employees were monitored expediently and limited severely – yet the institution was not necessarily innocuous themselves. “Groups ranging from the CPPs opposition to the United States credited it with everything from espionage in independent African states to the importation of Soviet arms and the maintenance of Soviet- and Chines-run guerilla training camps in the country. Some have even hinted at the Bureau’s possible involvement in attempted coups in Togo and, even more troubling, a potential Ghanaian hand in the 1963 assassination of Togo’s first Prime Minister and President, Sylvanus Olympio” (Managing the Pan-African Workplace, Ahlman 338). It was nationalism that pushed Pan-Africanism to such extremities, because these institutions were explicitly engaged with the intent to advance the roles of post-liberation African states as world powers at all costs and as quickly as possible.

Pan-African institutions within Nkrumah’s regime also served as vehicles for the most influential sociopolitical players, elites were therein charged with the ability to shape the political arena and dictate the which citizens were able to participate substantially within politics. In addition, Nkrumah-backed Pan-African institutions had the power to control the spread of information in Ghana. The Bureau of African American affairs created The Voice of Africa magazine in 1961 to highlight what they believed to be continental struggles and created a vehicle for the manipulation and control of political participation. The publication became the official mouthpiece official mouthpiece of Pan-Africanist thought and over 10,000 issues were circulated monthly (Managing the Pan-African Workplace, Ahlman 344). The youth in particular were considered instrumental in solidifying Nkrumah’s vision for achieving Pan-Africanism, students were trained to become an ideological implementation factory for the post-liberation regime in order to ensure progress was facilitated and ensured for posterity. “…expatriate students attended these explicitly political institutions, such as the Kwame Nkrumah Ideological Institute in Winneba, while others were sent to the Bureau’s “secret” guerilla training camps…” (Managing the Pan-African Workplace, Ahlman 346). However, Nkrumah’s institutions also facilitated generational and gendered divisions within the citizenry, the Pan-African emphasis on discipline and development did not resonate with all young people and because the party elites could define the scope and expectations of political participation, certain kinds of citizens were disenfranchised by Nkrumah’s version of progress. The Ghanaian Builders Brigade arose in response to the negative effects of rapid unemployment and urbanization that resulted from Nkrumah’s development initiatives (Ghanaian Builders Brigade, Ahlman 87). Although, Nkrumah aimed to galvanize his people with a united front directed towards nation-building, there were populations that he destabilized. The Brigade was militaristic in nature and pushed to, “inculcate a respect for discipline and order into the country’s young men and women and catalyze the development of a new generation of productive and patriotic citizens” (Ghanaian Builders Brigade, Ahlman 88). Some were apprehensive of over these new-founded generational and gender relations under the Brigade, but it was through this channel that political participants were vetted and rewarded with a platform – as long as their views paralleled Pan-Africanism and Nkrumahism. Thus, Nkrumah was able to define what it meant to be considered an intellectual, an “adult,” or worthy of attention in Ghana. The youth were often called upon by the government because of their potential power and symbolism, the frustrations of disaffected young people empowered the mobilization of local and national campaigns driven by appealing benefits like literacy classes, social welfare, and community development projects” (Ghanaian Builders Brigade, Ahlman 90). However, the youth were also used to lash out violently against opposition and opposition parties would respond by coaxing their youth to do the same. Thus, the youths left disenfranchised by Nkrumah’s rule began organizing and protesting the CPP until there were more ethnically-based political parties and associations (Ghanaian Builders Brigade, Ahlman 90). “The Brigade in short provided these young men and women a path towards a socially respected, politically conceived adulthood as they and their communities adjusted to the often disquieting realities of life under Nkrumahist and later military rule” (Ghanaian Builders Brigade, Ahlman 105). Yet, it was also indicative of the ability of Nkurmah and Pan-African institutions had over the ability of their people to participate in politics. As strides were made to make post-liberalization African states greater players in global politics, the same strides were not made for all citizens within their localities.