body-container-line-1

‘Ghana’s economic independence still a mirage’

Feature Article Ghanas economic independence still a mirage
APR 29, 2016 LISTEN

Fifty-nine years after Ghana’s founding President Dr. Kwame Nkrumah’s historicGhana, your beloved country is free forever’ declaration, nonagerian and close Nkrumah ally Charles Heymann, who was there from the very beginning, tells MARTIN-LUTHER C. KING some progress has been made but regrets that the country still has a long way to achieving the economic liberation that Nkrumah envisioned at the dawn of political independence.

Excerpts:
May we meet you?
I am Charles Heymann, one of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah’s cadres. I started as one of the young students that were inspired by Nkrumah’s arrival back in Ghana in December 1947. Before he arrived, we were very ardent supporters of Dr. J.B. Danquah. We used to organise rallies for him at the Palladium, merry villas and so forth. And he was our mentor in so many respects. And at that time we, as youths and young students, organised ourselves into the League of Ghana Patriots. In actual fact, we started as a club until Nkrumah arrived. When Nkrumah met us, he said, ‘Your organisation cannot be a club, it must be a league; but it must transcend the borders of Ghana, to Nigeria to Kenya, to all over Africa’. So it was Dr. Nkrumah that inspired us to change the name to the League of Ghana Patriots. And, the League of Ghana Patriots was very active when the historic meeting at Salt Pond took place after Nkrumah decided that he had to break off from the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC) and form the CPP (Convention People’s Party). So, at Salt pond, the League was involved.

What was the aim of the league?
The aim was that with Nkrumah’s arrival, we were roused to his call for a trans-African liberation movement. And so, the league was essentially for the liberation of Ghana, first, and then the whole of Africa. So it fitted in with Nkrumah’s own concept.

You were there on that historic eve of Ghana’s independence. What was it like?

Nkrumah was a visionary. At the same time, he was very pragmatic and practical. And his vision inspired us to such heights that, as youths were able to organise ourselves to support that vision he brought. For example, Nkrumah fired us up with such saying as ‘across the parapet, I saw the vision of Ghana becoming a metropolis of science and industry’ and so on. That in every respect was something that was a novelty to Ghanaians’ political aspiration as at then. So we caught on to that. He, at a point, organised a committee of youth organisations. And our League of Ghana Patriots became part of committee. So we became an integral youth movement of the CPP when it was formed in June 1949.

Before independence, we owed a lot to the leaders who pioneered the liberation movement, in Ghana first. But essentially, our gratitude must go to people like Nnamdi Azikiwe who formed the NCNC (National Congress of Nigeria and Cameroun). Azikiwe actually edited an important newspaper here, the African Morning Post, which inspired a lot of nationalism in Ghanaians. His article ‘Has the blackman a God?’ incensed the then Gold Coast colonial authorities so much that they banned and deporting him from Ghana. We also had people like (Isaac Theophilus Akunna) Wallace-Johnson, from Sierra Leone, who was a former trade unionist. He inspired the labor movement whilst Nkrumah was organising the political front.

But what were the hopes for Ghana’s future on that eve of independence 59 years ago?

Nkrumah made it clear that Ghana’s independence was meaningless without the total liberation of Africa. That is one. And it meant that we needed to organise a movement that transcended our political narrow concept of nationalism in Ghana. And that was different from all others except that from the nascent period of political agitation in Ghana, we had people like (Joseph Ephraim) Casely Hayford, Arthur Awhuma and others who also pioneered the struggle. But Nkrumah made the difference because he took from Marcus Garvey that aspect of organising practically for those in the Diaspora to respond and organise themselves and then link up with the movement across the Atlantic. I think that made a big difference.

What hopes back then were there of using political independence to quickly gain economic independence for Ghana?

At its first post-formation congress at Ho, in the Volta Region the CPP declared, under Nkrumah’s leadership, that it was going to build a socialist democracy in Ghana. And that aspect of socialism meant there will be a lot of government interventions in creating what we visualised at that time as a welfare state. But the concept developed initially from Nkrumah’s association with the Fabian Society in Britain. And the Fabian ideology was not communist, but aimed at the gradual transformation of society, howbeit with the aim of creating a welfare state. That was Nkrumah’s ideology.

You were a member of the CPP?
Yes. We started from the youth movement, the League of Ghana Patriots which became an integral part of the CPP from the foundation of the party. I joined the civil service where I served in the government transport department; and became a member of the labor movement. I later became elected as the first general secretary of the government transport workers’ union. That formed my basis, leading to my study at the Ruskin College, London. When I was fundamentally educated in labor matters, I joined the TUC (Trades Union Congress of Ghana) when it was re-organised under the new structure in 1968.

You transited from youth leader to labor leader. How did that reflect on your membership and role in the CPP?

We accelerated. First, those of us who were leaders of the League of Ghana Patriots accelerated the pace towards independence. Nkrumah’s independence motion, the motion of destiny, aimed to set out the date, period and terms of our independence. There was a committee that was formed at that time by the colonial government called the Coussey Committee which was to decide the type of constitution that Ghana should have for take-off at independence. But it was badly compromised by the British colonial administration to the extent that they were openly involved in its work. For example, ex-officio members of the committee gave the governor the authority even to veto. So it was the League of Ghana Patriots, as a pressure group in the party, which was very instrumental to frustrating such designs. To that extent, we really played very important historical roles in transforming and accelerating the process towards Ghana’s independence.

What was Ghana like immediately after independence?

Well, the CPP started as a mass party that emerged from the United Gold Coast Convention, which was a collaboration of all national forces: right, left and centre. And this included Dr. Danquah and others. But this national collaboration could not hold because at the point where we had to choose between independence ‘now’ and independence ‘gradually, or at the nearest possible time’ there emerged a cleavage; and, Nkrumah stood his ground that he wanted independence ‘now’. And that really broke the camel’s back, and CPP had to emerge in 1949. After independence, Nkrumah sought the transformation of the CPP from a mass amorphous combination of forces encompassing right, left and centre, including the bourgeoisie, to a vanguard party; a party that is revolutionary enough to liberate Africa. At that point, ideology came into play; and, we had to choose the best kind of ideology that would propel the new independent state. And, this ideology.. I’d told you already that socialism was the basis for ideological transformation; but socialism also had diverse interpretations in actual, practical terms: democratic socialism, communism etc. we preferred democratic socialism. But at that time of the Cold War, just before we had independence, the word was divided into East and West. And, we realised that the Eastern countries were more sympathetic to colonial liberation, even as the colonial forces were trying to negate the pace toward independence. That gave us an option ideologically to lean a little more towards the east. And that brought a lot of problems for us in the process.

Did independence make any difference in the people’s economic situation?

Yes. Ghana being a colony was a colony of fragmented states. We had the colony proper, which was the coastal localities, including Elmina, Cape Coast up to Ga-Adangbe, Fante, of course; and, Volta region. Those made up the Crown colony. Then there was the Ashanti Protectorates which seemed to be under the British Crown but who, however, considered themselves more or less as a state within a state; perhaps because the British acknowledged the kingdom and kingship of the Asantehene, as holding the whole of the Ashante Kindom together. Then we had the Northern Territories which though directly under British rule was, however, quite different in terms of administration from the southern colonial domains. There was also the Trans-Volta Togoland which included the former territories of Germany parts of which were taken over by France and Britain after the Second World War. And so if you ask me that question, I will say that Ghana was not a nation in terms of actual practicality until independence in 1957. Therefore the immediate task the day after independence was one of nation-building, how to integrate all these nation-states, and build a national consciousness that outstrips tribalism, nepotism and all sorts of divisive national tendencies that frustrate national cohesion.

After independence, you grew even closer to Dr. Nkrumah. How did that happen?

After independence, the focus shifted from nationalism in the narrow concept of Ghanaian politics to African politics. And because we had other countries to liberate from colonial rule, we had to set up machinery that can really work out the strategy to actualise the independence of the entire continent of Africa. So Nkrumah created the African Affairs Department, of which the TUC created a counterpart which was the All-African Trade Union Federation. And, that brought us right into direct conflict with what I will call the forces that were against the liberation forces. I was in charge of the African Affairs Department of the labor movement, coordinating all the labor movements in Africa under the auspices of Nkrumah’s African Affairs Department. There was also an African Affairs national committee under Nkrumah, of which I was a member. These efforts all crystallized in the formation of the All-African People’s Conference in 1958. But as these were going on, labor unions of the western countries under the auspices of the ICFTU (International Confederation of Free Trade Unions) were in conflict with the WFTU (World Federation of Trade Unions). And, while we sought our independence from both international labor movements through the formation of the All-Africa Trade Union movement, they also sought the formation of the African Trade Union Congress, under the leadership of Lawrence Borha of Nigeria.

Exactly what did your work coordinating various labor movements in Africa entail?

It entailed our sharing the same political agenda as Nkrumah which he also coordinated with heads of states who shared his vision for Africa, including (Guinea’s) Sekou Toure, (Mali’s) Modibbo Kaita, (Tanzania’s) Julius Nyerere, (Kenya’s) Jomo Kenyatta, (Algeria’s) Ben Bella and (Egypt’s) Gamel Abdel Nasser, among others. There was also Tom Mboya and others.

What happened next?
Well, after that the struggle became intense. Nkrumah’s second agenda was to liberate South Africa and all the states in southern Africa; and, apartheid was at its height then. So we had to create a machinery not only for theoretical orientation but, indeed, for the physical or armed struggle. So it meant that we were in direct conflict which became heightened and intensified by the Congo conflict under Patrice Lumumba. And that also became another of Nkrumah’s headaches.

Nkrumah eventually appointed you Ghana’s ambassador to Algeria, with concurrent responsibility as ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary. How did that happen?

Algeria became independent in 1962. Before then, I was coordinating intelligence on labor for the whole of Africa for the Osagyefo at the African affairs secretariat. In that capacity, I visited Algeria several times to meet leaders there like Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who was then in the army; Houari Boumedienne; and, on the labor side, Masoud bin Saddiq. Those trips helped me understand Algeria far ahead of time. Same also with Cairo, Egypt where I was with colleagues coordinating the labor forces in Ghana. During Nkrumah’s time, people were not picked at random to become ambassadors. In fact, I had served for over ten years in active labor field and political movement before being appointed. Nkrumah saw that we formed the All-Africa Trade Union; and wanted (John) Tettegah, who was one of the icons of revolutionary labor movement in Africa, to join him in national affairs. But fortunately when we went for our congress in Bamako (Mali), Tettegah was chosen as the general secretary. So Nkrumah said to me, ‘Ah, I thought you’ll be pushed to the head of the African labor movement, but John has taken it. But don’t worry, you are already conversant with Algeria; you know all the right people; you were able to get our collaboration with the Algerian political and labor movement. So, go there; you know there already’. That was how I became Ghana’s ambassador to Algeria.

You said you were coordinating intelligence for the African Affairs Committee. Was that committee an intelligence agency?

It was partly an intelligence agency; and, was also practically involved in other exigencies that we had to deal with at that time that involved money, materiel, and training of cadres. We had people like (Zimbabwe’s) Robert Mugabe; even, Lumumba, was then in Ghana. We had people from Angola, as well as from all the liberation forces across Africa. Even in South Africa, we had two movements, the ANC (African National Congress) on one side and the Pan-African Congress (PAC) on the other. But Ghana was more involved with the PAC because they were intensely involved in the actual conflict with white apartheid government. We didn’t really turn our back on the ANC, we were collaborating with them; but in terms of material support, I think the PAC had more support from us.

Would you say the African Affairs Committee achieved Nkrumah’s aim in setting it up?

The labor leaders in Africa at that time, and I can list them: Tom Mboya, Siaka Stevens, (Rashidi Mfaume) Kawawa and others, including Lumumba, and dos Santos were the budding leaders at that time. All of them were labor leaders. So those of us who were pioneers in labor intelligence for African labor coordination had to really go round to convince these future African leaders to support African unity. So we held our first conference in 1961 in Casablanca (Morocco) under the auspices of the Moroccan labor movement, with bin Saddiq and others. King Mohammed IV (of Morocco) inaugurated the conference for us, and thereafter presented a villa in Rabat to Kwame Nkrumah.

Back to current realities. Serially, workers in virtually all sectors of the economy are, or threatening to go, on strike. As a labor veteran, how can the trend be reversed?

I warned this government from the beginning not to over-legalise workers-government-employers’s collaboration. Because if you do that, if you ignore the human factor and what we call industrial psychology, you’ll be missing it. There’s a lot you can win from labor through negotiation than going through the law. If you give it to the labor machinery that you have created you just kill the spirit of give-and-take that is critically vital to labor relations. If you kill the spirit of give-and-take, labor will assert its right to go on strike. And you can’t illegalise strike. Whatever you do, remember that no country has been able to illegalise strike, because that will rather bring social chaos. The small labor department we had which was dealing with industrial relations problems in terms of negotiations, collective bargaining negotiations, negotiations in terms of arbitration and so forth have been taken to the labor machinery they have created. So the labor movement’s grassroots connection is lost. With that kind of reality, there will be no rest in this country. It’s not a question of labor, otherwise you won’t find institutions teaching industrial psychology. If you ignore industrial psychology and you employ a purely legal framework in determining industrial relations matters, you’ll always have conflicts. In fact, I created the workers’ convocation song which I composed in 1958. That’s their song of solidarity; they still sing it. They sing it whenever the labor movement meets before they sing the national anthem.

This is an election year for Ghana. What is your advice for the country’s leaders on maintaining peace before, during and after the elections?

Looking at the right and the left, both the NDC and the NPP, when you look at their programmes, their manifestos, which show the practical aspects of managing the state and the economy, I don’t see any major difference, apart from the fact that, in my opinion, the NDC is more human-centered as against the NPP. But the mistakes they (the NDC) are making undermine that very concept. I fear that if things are not righted and they introduce more stringent measures whose social effects are more damaging on the populace, you may have more protest votes against the NDC. But I, personally, prefer the devil I know to the angel that I don’t know.

There’s this school of thought that sees Ghana’s discovery of oil as the main cause of the country’s recent problems. Is oil a cure or a blessing to Ghana?

To answer that, I look at my big brothers in Nigeria. All over the world, wherever oil is discovered, it becomes an international issue. First there is the exploration concept of technical, scientific and big finance. The second aspect is the royalty in terms of whose law it is, our limitation in terms of exploration, and then our returns in terms of capital that we put into it. To me, he who explores the oil eventually becomes the owner; they only dish out something to you as compensation for as many years as it suits them. And since it’s a technical affair whereby you are digging into unknown areas of the earth, they know what is there. And Ghana’s oil find runs down from Axim to Keta. And I understand that the Keta basin is more than what is being drilled now. The fact is that it is offshore, and of a little distance. And the rocks require a lot more work to get to the oil; and, that has delayed it. But at the moment, I think the politics of oil which has entered Ghana boils down to the fact that our leaders did not properly understand it before they started bargaining. They thought oil was a tool for propaganda, but did not know that oil has brought its own predicament. What we are in, I don’t think we’ll have the benefits of real oil ownership, I think, for the next fifty years.

How would you advice whoever emerges Ghana’s President in this year’s election on returning Ghana back to the paths of glory?

After political independence, our next struggle is for economic liberation from neo-colonial forces that have vested interests in our resources. And we have compounded this by breaking down the foundations that were laid down by Nkrumah to give us a smooth take-off to economic independence. In the absence of that, any leadership that comes up now in Ghana, whatever manifesto they have, must necessarily bow down to the IMF (International Monetary Fund). Otherwise, you cannot exist. So your political agenda and everything must first recognise that you have forces waiting for you to swallow you if you misbehave. But then our politics becomes a politics of dependency. We must recognise that we have sacrificed a lot of nationalists; and if nationalism is sacrificed, then neo-colonialism is well entrenched. And, I can bet you, I don’t know when a leader will come that will be bold enough to take us from the humdrum of this sort of economic subjugation.

Is it a hopeless situation, then?
There is hope. But hope will come from a national leader that recognises factors that can inspire the nation with the truth, which is like the gangrene, or the sore that has been festering and we ignored it for so many years. The fact is that we must know that after political independence, economic independence is the fiercest fight. And that is against the forces of what we call neo-colonialism. Which was why Nkrumah said, ‘If you ignore it, that is your palaver’. If you don’t face the realities of the 21st century, because it’s become a battle of forces; if you ignore the fact that we cannot continue to produce raw materials for Europe before we can survive; if you fail to realise that when we establish our own self-dependent industries millions of workers will be on the streets in Europe and they will be unstable as any society that ever was; if you know that, then African political unions should face realities. We are only managing what is already there; creatively, nothing new is coming to Africa. ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) is not working; the East African union is not working; all the groupings that we had in the past which we ignored because of our respective narrow nationalism have now been replaced by the present ones in terms of supporting foreign interests and monopolies. And so I only pray that the future be guided by a new vision which has courage enough to face the realities.

Thank you Pa Heymann for your time.
You are welcome!

mr2tlx8kjfheymann1

lp2skw7jidheymann2

hmd5gsr11aheymann3

mqht38vjj1heymann4

u8pb621rr4heymann5

q74xob0nniheymann6

imd5gtr21aheymann7

e38ld55cbvheymann8

body-container-line