Founders' Day, Not Founder's Day (1)
'It was Warren G. Harding, then a Republican Senator from Ohio, who coined the phrase 'Founding Fathers' in his keynote address to the 1916 Republican National Convention he used it several times thereafter, most prominently in his 1921 inaugural address as President of the United States of America '- Wikipedia on: The Founding Fathers of America.
'In 1973, Historian Richard B Morris identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington'- Wikipedia on: The Founding Fathers of America.
The argument as to whether to make 21 st September every year in Ghana a Founder's Day or a Founders' Day is not a simple matter of the use of an English punctuation mark, the apostrophe (') to indicate possession - for one 'founder' or for a number of 'founders'. This is similar to Martyr's Day which would be a day to celebrate only one martyr where the apostrophe lies between 'r' and 's' but being a day for a number of martyrs, the apostrophe lies after 's', that is, Martyr's Day or Martyrs' Day.
One would have thought that given the political trajectory of this country at this time, political discussions would be done in a compromising manner, consciously doing away with subjective fanaticism, ideological hero-worshipping, stand-offish defiance, political obscurantism and abject demagoguery. The talkers and listeners have their sides- their opinions, biases, whims, caprices and idiosyncrasies- sometimes not based on objective analysis of facts but perceptions, propaganda and self-cognition.
Sometimes, it is easier and more seasonable to enter into a debate with 'babies with sharp teeth' because such babies can 'bite' and when they do, one can also 'descend into the gutters' and bite them back, equally spewing invectives at them in retaliation, in a ' tooth-for-tooth' fashion. The situation is different when a respectable, erudite, knowledgeable elder statesman takes a side on an issue and dismisses the argument by those who do not think like him as 'naïve and ludicrous'. 'Naive' is synonymous with: childish, ignorant, immature, inexperienced and unsophisticated. 'Ludicrous' is synonymous with: absurd, farcical, unreasonable, ridiculous, preposterous, and nonsensical. I simply dismiss these adjectives because none of them applies to me, even though I have criticized and continue to criticize the adoption of a day as a 'Founder's Day' to celebrate a single Ghanaian as having founded Ghana!
The argument over who 'founded' Ghana will obviously be kept alive repetitiously; so will the argument supporting each side, that is, whether by one person or a group of persons. Objective political scientists and dispassionate historians have a duty to set the records straight: wordsmiths have an equal task to tell us the etymology and the legitimacy of the word 'found' in the Ghanaian historical and political context
It is not surprising that Apostle Kwamena Ahinful is 'cut to the quick when the remnants of his (Nkrumah's) opponents argue that the Founder's Day should be pluralized as Founders' Day when he boastfully confesses to having adopted Nkrumah as his academic and political mentor right from 1947. It is not everyone in Ghana that sees Nkrumah the same way. And who are the 'remnants of Nkrumah's opponents'? Did any of Apostle Ahinful's closest relatives suffer detention under Nkrumah?
In an editorial on 22 nd September, 2011, Daily Graphic wrote: 'The Mills's administration took the bold decision (declaring 21 st September as Founders Day) in 2009 to honour the man whose foresight and vision led to independence for the country… Founder's Day should narrow the ideological differences among the major political players in the country, for; after all, politics is about promoting the welfare of the people'.
How would the declaration of a Founders Day 'narrow the ideological differences among the major political players…'? What is the trade-off?
This is where, in contrast, I find Daily Guide's editorial of 21 st September, 2011 really intelligent and heart-warming. It says: 'Today, we mark once more the birth of one of the men whose untiring efforts gave birth to what is known as Ghana… The definition of a founder of this country continues to remain a controversial issue, considering the contribution of others whose efforts in re- locating Kwame Nkrumah to Ghana to support the independence struggle already burning cannot be swept under the carpet'.
Questions that tickle the minds of the apologists for Founders' Day include: When was the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC) formed, and what was its mandate? Why was Nkrumah brought back to Ghana by the UGCC, with his passage of 100 pounds from the port of Liverpool in the United Kingdom paid for by Pa Grant? What was the assignment given to Nkrumah as General Secretary of the UGCC? Who provided the resources for his movements to the nook and cranny of the country? Who suggested the name 'Ghana' to replace 'Gold Coast' at independence?
It is fruitless at this stage to re-visit the gloomy days from 1949 to the time of the achievement of independence on 6 th March, 1957. But we may be tempted to recall that while Nkrumah's own party, the Convention Peoples Party, was sloganeering 'self-government now'; the opposition party or parties were touting 'self-government at the shortest possible time'.
It is to be argued whether independence was achieved 'now' in 1949 when CPP was formed or 'at the shortest possible time': One could argue that the flamboyant Nkrumah out-smarted the discreet opposition leaders. As noted by Richard Wright, Nkrumah said at a rally at Wenchi, Busia's home: 'I don't care how many university degrees that Busia and Danquah have between them! They don't know politics! Why, they are scared of you, as scared of you as the British are! … Busia, he is a (….). Let him keep to his sociology! As a politician, why, he's not worthy to stoop down and untie my shoestring'. It was the forbearance and moderation on the part of the people of Wenchi that saved the situation for Nkrumah!
Nor did Busia spare Nkrumah's dictatorship. He wrote: 'Kwame Nkrumah played hard on the illiteracy of his fellowmen and women, marshalling the majority of the eighty percent illiterate citizens around himself, and working them up against the rightful authors of Ghana's independence…These big brains, J.B. Danquah, Akufo-Addo, Obetsebi-Lamptey, William Ofori-Atta, and many others…His majority of illiterate followers- disregarded brain and wisdom in favour of brawn…' Who did Busia think were the 'rightful authors of Ghana's independence'? The labelling of the CPP voters as 'Verandah Boys' was counter-charged by the opposition being labeled as 'elitist'. After independence in 1957, Ghana dealt a blow to the British monarchy and converted into Republicanism in 1960 with Nkrumah being challenged for the Presidency by J.B. Danquah. Nkrumah won. In 1964, Ghana was turned into a one-party state, after a referendum which CPP claimed to have won by 99.91%! From then on, anyone who was known or even suspected to be a political opponent was dispatched to Nsawam Maximum Security Prison or any Ghanaian prison under the notorious Preventive Detention Act. Dr J.B. Danquah who was an opposition leader was whisked away to Nsawam where he died 'like a dog'. It was like someone teaching you to swim, and you helping him to drown. The 'winner-takes-all' system by which the winning party commandeered all the booties and goodies of political life ensured that the rich got richer and the poor, poorer. The bootlickers and opportunists, including some of the District Commissioners dispatched their political opponents into detention and married their wives!
On 13 th March, 2002, Professor Ali Mazrui, the renowned African international cultural historian and political scientist, gave a lecture in Ghana under the theme: 'Nkrumah's Legacy and Africa's Triple Heritage In The Shadow of Globalisation and Counter-Terrorism'. His conclusion about Nkrumah was that: '…he started as a democrat and ended as a dictator. Nkrumah was a great African but not a great Ghanaian'. In comparison with Nkrumah, the eminent historian and political scientist said this about Rawlings: …'he began with a coup in 1979, came back with a military take-over in 1981, won power through the ballot box in 1992 and again in 1996, and stepped down in 2000 without manipulating the system to his personal or his party's advantage'.
If now, with the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992, we are proud advocates of democracy (with a governing party and opposition parties), to the extent that Article 3 of the Constitution ostracizes the establishment of a one-party state, then what do we say about the personalities who had espoused this principle all this while and suffered humiliation, mockery, torture and even death for upholding this very principle which had been spurned by the very person who is being proclaimed as having founded this country?