June 4th Has No Revolutionary Bearing And Must Not Be Recognized As A Revolutionary Day

A revolution is the overthrow of a government, system and class and the replacement by another class, system and government by the people by force. In a nutshell, the requirement to satisfy in order to classify an action as a revolutionary action is that, the action must completely change the system in place, the action must replace the government in power and certainly the act must substitute the class in power with another class. Moreover, the act must be initiated by the people or working masses because a revolution is only necessary when the government in power does not serve the interest of the people, when the system in place oppresses and exploits the working masses and when there is an elite class in power that is subjugating the class of the working masses. Furthermore, the revolution must be led by a revolutionary leader under the guidance of a revolutionary ideology. One may ask, what was the guiding ideology for the violent action that took place on June 4^TH in Ghana?

Rawlings by all standards does not qualify to be a revolutionary because he has no revolutionary ideology. Rawlings’ act was never initiated or massively carried out by the working masses of Ghanaians; it was initiated and planned by himself and his cronies in the military. The June 4^th act did not bring to power the working masses of Ghanaians, it only brought another section of the indigenous bourgeoisie class in power that is the officers’ faction of the indigenous bourgeoisie class. Rawlings action brought chaos to Ghana and caused the death and injury of many innocent Ghanaians. The only change we can recognize from that action is that it replaced a democratically elected government with a military dictator, but dictatorship has no bearing in a democratic space. Rawlings’ action on June 4^th is the reason why people quiver at the mention of revolution. Revolution is meant to bring a genuine change in the governance of the nation, and the distribution of resources in the nation. Rawlings military regime led an inequitable distribution of resources. Rawlings military regime followed IMF dictated policies of state divestiture, hence cannot be regarded as a revolution.

Series of military takeover has occurred in the world. For example, the revolution led by Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso, the Cuban Revolution, the revolution of the Vietnamese, the revolution of the Jamahiriyya, led by Colonel Muammar Al Qathafi in Libya. What made these acts complete revolution was the events that took place after the takeover. There was a complete and radical nation building and transformation, did that happen after Rawlings’ treasonous and reactionary rebellion? Also there was an immediate establishment of democratic governance after the takeovers which makes them complete revolutions, contrary to Rawlings’ act, because Rawlings ruled and enjoyed ruling as a military dictator for about nine years, ruling with military decrees, and getting things done under the threat of guns and reactionary violence, this certainly is no revolution.

Research has unveiled that every single Coup’ de tat, sets a country twenty years backwards. Rawlings’ two Coup’ de tats has set Ghana forty years backwards, and his 19 years stay in power made no attempt to reconcile this setback. Rawlings was never a revolutionary and June 4^th action was another criminal act committed against Ghanaians, no wonder the indemnity clause is an entrenched clause in the 1992 constitution.