Under No Circumstances Should Power Ever Again Be Entrusted to the NPP

The Danquah–Busia political tradition, from its inception to the present day, has demonstrated a persistent pattern of hostility toward Ghana’s nationalist and progressive aspirations.

Its historical conduct reveals a political culture marked by insecurity, intolerance for bold leadership, and a chronic alignment with foreign interests over Ghana’s sovereign priorities.

From the pre-independence era, the forebears of this tradition were deeply uncomfortable with Dr. Kwame Nkrumah’s assertive and uncompromising approach to liberation. They doubted the feasibility of achieving independence within a short time frame—not because it was impossible, but because they themselves lacked the conviction and urgency for self-rule.

They were far more at ease negotiating gradualism while dining with colonial authorities than confronting imperial power head-on.

Unable to match Nkrumah’s courage, intellect, and strategic clarity, they turned him into an enemy. A campaign of vile propaganda was unleashed to discredit his character and undermine public confidence in him. Yet, even while imprisoned, the Ghanaian electorate overwhelmingly rejected this deception and voted for Nkrumah, leading to his emergence as Leader of Government Business and subsequently Prime Minister.

On the eve of independence, he restored the nation’s dignity by renaming the Gold Coast as Ghana.

Despite his democratic mandate, Nkrumah was never allowed to govern in peace. He was subjected to relentless harassment, subversion, and multiple coup plots, culminating in the 1966 overthrow of his government through a conspiracy involving foreign collaborators and local agents.

That coup plunged Ghana back into neo-colonial bondage. His development projects were dismantled, national assets destroyed, and even his books were burnt in a deliberate attempt to erase him from history.

The overthrow of Nkrumah dismembered the soul of Ghana and extinguished what had been Africa’s brightest post-colonial hope.

From 1966 onward, Ghana descended into prolonged political instability—military regimes, palace coups, and counter-coups—occurring almost every three years. From the NLC (1966–1969), to the Busia government (1969–1972), to the NRC and SMC regimes under Acheampong and Akuffo, Ghana remained trapped in turmoil until the Rawlings uprising of 1979 ended the SMC II.

Though the AFRC period was controversial, power was handed over within months to the civilian government of Dr. Hilla Limann. However, systemic decay and elite sabotage soon necessitated another intervention on 31st December 1981, ushering in the PNDC era under Flight Lieutenant Jerry John Rawlings.

Contrary to the expectations of the Danquah–Busia establishment, the PNDC did not collapse—despite severe challenges such as the 1983 drought and the mass repatriation of Ghanaians from Nigeria. In fact, these returnees became a productive force in national recovery.

Rawlings’ resilience, combined with his ability to draw capable minds from both CPP and UP traditions, stabilised the nation and finally ended the era of coups in Ghana.

Unable to overthrow Rawlings internally, the Danquah–Busia tradition shifted tactics, mobilising international pressure to force a return to constitutional rule. Rawlings transitioned Ghana into the Fourth Republic, led the NDC to two electoral victories, served his full constitutional terms, and peacefully handed over power in 2001.

Since then, Ghana’s democratic culture has matured, with a clear pattern of two-term presidencies. Yet, the conduct of the Danquah–Busia tradition remains unchanged—characterised by selective nationalism, external dependency, and intolerance toward assertive, intellectually grounded public figures.

The 1966 coup irreversibly derailed Ghana’s development trajectory. Nations Ghana once led economically are now global and regional powerhouses. Rather than showing remorse for their historic role in this derailment, adherents of the Danquah–Busia tradition continue to exhibit the same traits of hostility, hypocrisy, and ideological insecurity.

The sustained attacks on figures such as Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, Sam Nartey George, and Sammy Gyamfi are not isolated incidents; they are consistent with a long-standing tradition of demonising confident, articulate, and nationalist voices that refuse to bow to foreign or elite interests.

Mike kalley
Sociopolitical Analyst.