The course will present an overview of different theoretical approaches to notions of “nationalism” and “ethnicity” from a sociological anthropological perspective. It will also consider questions regarding the relation between national and ethnic identity, and state formation, national consciousness and ethnic consciousness. The course will be held 18 - 23 June, 2007. the Deadline for applications is May 11, 2007

VENUE : School of Oriental & African Studies, Main Building , Thornhaugh Street, London WC1.

SATURDAY 24 MARCH, 2pm to 5pm .
1)Background To Kwame Nkrumah's Journey To North America And Europe . Room G52
SATURDAY 31 MARCH, 2pm to 5pm.
2)Kwame Nkrumah in North America And Europe.Room G52, SATURDAY 14 APRIL, 2pm to 5pm.
3)Kwame Nkrumah In Anti-Colonial Movement in The Gold Coast And Politics Until 6 March 1957. Room G52
SATURDAY 21 APRIL, 2pm to 5pm.
1)Kwame Nkrumah As Prime Minister And President Of Ghana. (Room to be announced later)
SATURDAY 5 MAY, 2pm to 5pm.
1)Kwame Nkrumah From 24 February 1966 To 27 April 1972. Room L67
SATURDAY 19 MAY, 2pm to 5pm.
1)Kwame Nkrumah Legacy Politics From 27 April To Today. Room 67

I have been struggling with a commissioned article for an online journal about ‘the rule of law’. I was not sure which angle to take, given the multifaceted entry points to this widely used and abused concept and the even more diverse practice and bad practice in real and lived experiences. The question is whether the rule of law is simply a concept used by powerful nations or classes to legitimise their domination of the poorer and weaker nations and classes. When it suits their interests, they will preach rule of law. But they will quickly dispense with any notion of the law, if their interests are threatened.

Another related issue is the normative assumption that all citizens or countries are equal before the law, that our actions are circumscribed by the law whether we are rulers or the ruled, prisoners or presidents, men or women, the minority or the majority, whatever our religion, region, ethnicity, race, nationality, class or clan, whether we are rich or poor countries.

Globally these are not good times both for the concept of the rule of law and the notion of equality before the law. Western countries in general, the US in particular, demand democracy, rule of law and compliance with ‘international standards’, in spite of their continuing flouting of those same standards. Only last week, the US State Department released its annual ritualistic reports on human rights conditions everywhere around the world, except in the US itself!

The report predictably condemns those labelled pariah states - Sudan, Eritrea, etc, and remains silent or lenient about the current darlings of the US - Ethiopia, Kenya and others, while avoiding its own abuses. How can a country that bombs other peoples as it pleases; illegally detains thousands in a third country; and abducts citizens of other countries in the name of ‘rendition’ be so shameless as to be issuing such reports? After Guatanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Somalia, the US should be humble enough not to lecture anyone about rule of law: because it is the most powerful rogue state today. It is so law abiding that it has never signed up to the International Criminal Court (ICC), and will go to war for ‘UN resolutions’!

Bad practices of the West, the US in particular, undermine any regime of international law, and aid other countries in their flouting of international and national law. A situation where everyone is guilty, or potentially so, does not create an environment in which everyone would wish to voluntarily respect the law. Instead the law is interpreted in terms of what you can get away with. For instance, so far, the ICC has been bedeviled by accusations that it is only poor countries, along with regimes and dictators that are out of favour, which are facing trials, such as the late Milosevic or Charles Taylor. Until the day George Bush, Tony Blair or their generals are brought to trial before the ICC for foisting a war that even the UN, albeit belatedly, declared ‘illegal’, no one will believe that international law respects either persons or nations.

However the hypocrisy and lawless behavior of the US should not excuse other states not being law abiding. The bad manners of others should not be a license for the lawlessness of our own leaders. We should ask why is it that only they want to copy Western leaders or declare their sovereignty when it comes to bad practice? Why can they not copy them in terms of respecting and defending their citizens?

For instance, drought regularly occurs in some regions of America but does not become famine, because the country stores enough to take care of most emergencies. Ethiopia and Eritrea on the other hand are ready to beg for food for their citizens but willing to fight wars on behalf of the same citizens. Why is Meles Zenawi willing to be a Bush in Somalia, but not vis-a-vis his starving compatriots?

The past two weeks have not been good for law, human rights, citizenship rights and the democratic movement in Africa in general. As I write, the leader of the opposition in Zimbabwe, Morgan Tsvangirai, and other colleagues are in hospital as a result of injuries sustained from the police and other security agents who had arrested them allegedly for participating in an ‘illegal’ prayer meeting. You do not have to be a sympathiser of the opposition MDC to condemn the callousness of the Zimbabwean police and other security thugs. Does Tsvangirai really deserve to be beaten up on the television?

Assuming he and his colleagues are indeed guilty of an illegal act, is it not the responsibility of the courts to convict or acquit them? Is it the duty of the security service to administer punishments to suspects? Supposing they are acquitted by the courts, what penalties would the police thugs pay for their brutalities? Even an accused person has human rights, as do prisoners, irrespective of the gravity of their crimes.

In Uganda, the judiciary that many members of the opposition and human rights activists have always criticised - if sometimes unfairly - as too timid, complacent or conservative, has finally found its voice. It confronted the excesses of the executive over the years, after being pushed against the wall by consistent lawlessness of security agents. All observers and critics agree that rebels and judicial activists are made of sterner stuff than the painfully moderate and loyal personalities of Justice Odoki and Kanyihemba. When such legal luminaries begin to support strikes instead of the President and his over zealous boys (and boys they all are), berating the judges, or threatening to ‘fix the judges’, then they should look at their own bad manners. No government that claims to be based on the will of the people, rule of law and constitutionalism can disobey the courts as and when they please, and expect the citizens to be law abiding.

What threatens a culture of the rule of law taking root in Africa is not the criminals, rebels or disloyal opposition, rather the many reluctant democrats who occupy state houses across this continent. Because we deify them as presidents, they think they have the right to preside over any matter that concerns their citizens: from our toilets not flushing, through who we sleep or should not sleep with, to how judges should interpret the law.

Consequently those who serve them in the security and intelligence agencies believe they can get away with anything, including torture, abuse, humiliation, corporal punishment, intimidation and other kinds of excesses, in the service of their masters. The rule of law will remain a pipe dream so long as presidents perpetrate or condone these acts. It must be a ‘first’ that President Museveni made a grudging apology to the judges. More importantly however, both the president and his trigger-happy security elements need to accept that the rule of law is not a ‘katogo’ meal (a Ugandan delicacy for the masses, bits of this and that, similar to what Kenyans call Sukumawiki) made in state house that they can cherry-pick.

In Nigeria, Obasanjo has the same a la carte attitude to parliament, judiciary and the country. He simply goes on regardless of what the law says, or the people feel. These cavalier attitudes to the law are undermining the principle of separation of powers, and any notion of checks and balances. They are creating elective dictatorships across the continent.

If these presidents think the law is wrong, they can change it through the parliament. But they should have no discretion to choose which of the laws they obey. Similarly, citizens who think a particular law is wrong or unjust, can exercise their right to lobby or campaign to change it, including even defying such laws - as many defied the infamous Pass laws in apartheid South Africa or many colonial laws in the nationalist era. But they must also be ready to face the consequences. The state is not the personal property of the president. Therefore those opposed to him or her should not be treated as if they are ungrateful tenants. We have to deliberately de-programme ourselves, so as not to see opponents as ‘enemies’, and difference in opinion as treason.

Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem, is Deputy Director, Africa, UN millennium Campaign and more recently General-Secretary of the Global Pan-African Movement.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

On the 2,000th day since Eritrea's "Black Tuesday" crackdown on media in 2001, Reporters Without Borders (Reporters sans frontières, RSF) urged Eritreans abroad to demand explanations for the imprisonment of at least 14 journalists, four of whom are feared dead.

An interview with a hero of Haitian Resistance, singer and grassroots Lavalas organizer, Annette Auguste ("So' An"): So An was seized from her home by US Marines as part of the 2004 coup d'etat in Haiti, and held as a political prisoner for more than 2 years. Jail did not stop her from organizing
or from singing, and she's still doing it today.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/294/kwame-nkrumah.jpg
Nii Ardey Otoo defends Nkrumah and the CPP's declaration of a one-party state in Ghana.

It is often said that Kwame Nkrumah had his faults. This statement is used to provide grounds to criticise Kwame Nkrumah's policies, which his critics are not comfortable with.

Among the so-called mistakes attributed to Nkrumah was the declaration of Ghana as a one-party state. According to imperialist propaganda, Nkrumah declared Ghana a one-party state because he wanted to rule Ghana without opposition. This propaganda has gained credence through the pronouncements of some African intellectuals, such as Professor Ali Mazrui.

The truth is that from 1951 until Nkrumah was overthrown by the American CIA, Nkrumah and the CPP won every election with overwhelming majorities. Even when the British jailed Nkrumah for three years, for publishing a so-called seditious article in the Cape Coast Daily Mail, the CPP won an overwhelming majority of the votes. Nkrumah received the largest individual poll ever recorded in the history of Ghana: 22,780 votes out of a possible 23,122. This is because Nkrumah and the CPP chose the people first, while the opposition chose themselves first.

The declaration of a one-party state by Nkrumah was not for selfish reasons, as imperialist propaganda states. According to Nkrumah, the multi-party system is divisive, and a newly independent state needs the energy and enthusiasm of all the people to move forward. In a speech to the Indian Council on World Affairs, 26 December 1958, Nkrumah said 'We, in Africa, will evolve forms of government, rather different from the traditional Western pattern, but no less democratic in their protection of the individual and his inalienable rights'. In his book, Africa Must Unite, Nkrumah wrote: 'If the will of the people is democratically expressed in an overwhelming majority for the governing party, and thereby creates a weakening of the accepted two party system, the government is obliged to respect the will of the people so expressed. We have no right to divide our mandate in defiance of the popular will of the people.'

In a speech to the National Assembly on 1 February 1966, 23 days before he was overthrown, Nkrumah warned with great alarm, 'A one-party system of government is an effective and safe instrument only when it operates in a socialist society.'

In Class Struggle in Africa, Nkrumah wrote, 'Every form of political power, whether parliamentary, multi-party, one-party, or an open military dictatorship, reflects the interest of a certain class or classes in society. In a socialist state, the government represents the workers and peasants. In a capitalist state, the government represents the exploitative class. The state then, is the expression of the domination of one class over other classes'.

Yet through subversion, lies, corruption, the IMF, World Bank, and CIA pressures, the enemies of African progress and political unification have influenced most African politicians and intellectuals by prescribing the multi-party system as the only form of political governance. Even though the effects of multi-party system have been disastrous everywhere in the developing world, any leader with a vision of an alternative form of governance, would be overthrown by the CIA. And that is what happened to Nkrumah.

Presently it is happening to Presidents Chavez in Venezuela, and Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Proper scrutiny of world political history, will lead one to discover that in the 20th century, great political strides were achieved by one-party socialist systems.

The People's Republic of China also used a one-party socialist-system to build their country from a peasant economy, to a great regional super power. It is now challenging the world's only super power in all aspects of science, technology, and business - this came about in less than 60 years.

Vietnam also used a one-party socialist system to militarily defeat both French colonialism and USA neo-colonialism in the 20th century. Cuba used a one-party socialist system to build their nation despite the embargo imposed by USA and her allies.

Kwame Nkrumah used a one-party socialist system to lead the people of Ghana in nation building. In only nine years, Nkrumah and the CPP built the most modern road network in Ghana, including the Accra-Tema Motorway. Since his overthrow, other governments have not added a single kilometre. The Akosombo hydroelectric project was also constructed under Nkrumah and the CPP government. Dr. K.A. Busia, then leader of the opposition, described the hydroelectric project as a 'communist inspired prestige undertaking'. But this dam created the Volta Lake and it is the primary source of Ghana 's electricity forty years later. Other infrastructure built under Nkrumah and the CPP provided pipe-born water, housing, schools and hospitals.

In education, Nkrumah and the CPP achieved more in nine years, than the British did in 100 years of colonial rule; and more than all the successive governments after Nkrumah and CPP. There was free and compulsory education. Free education was provided from primary to university level. Textbooks were supplied free to all pupils in primary, middle, and secondary schools. Night schools for adults, males and females, were created as part of a mass literacy campaign. The state farm corporation developed a 20 square mile rubber plantation. Soon after Nkrumah's overthrow, this valuable plantation was given to the Firestone Rubber Company of the USA . Even the prison system was improved under Nkrumah and the CPP government. Nkrumah and the CPP built the most humane prison in Ghana, Nsawam Prison, the only prison in Ghana that had recreational facilities, a church, a mosque, and a library. Today, it is overcrowded and antiquated, as all successive governments after Nkrumah have turned a blind eye to the prison situation in the country. In short, Kwame Nkrumah laid the foundations for Ghana's development in every sector of the country.

The time has come for African intellectuals, and politicians, to stop analyzing Nkrumah through the eyes of the neo-colonialists. They must assess him on his political and developmental programmes, and on his contributions to the political and economic advancement of Africa. Professor Ali Mazrui, a leading neo-colonial intellectuals, still analyzes Nkrumah through CIA propaganda. Ali Mazuri said that 'Kwame Nkrumah was one of Africa's greatest sons, but he was not one of Ghana's greatest servants'. On the contrary Kwame Nkrumah was so busy serving Ghana, he did not so much as get time to build a one-bedroom house for himself.

On the one-party system, Ali Mazrui said, 'Nkrumah's policy of trying to create one Ghana by abolishing separate parties was usurpation'. However the introduction of one-party state in Ghana was an act of Parliament. It was not a decision implemented by Nkrumah alone.

One imperialist strategy in African politics is to brainwash us into believing that unless our constitution is based on an imitation of the Western Parliamentary system, we can't engage in politics and democracy. This notion must be overturned. Our intellectuals must rid themselves of this colonial mentality. Kwame Nkrumah devoted his life's energy to Africa's political freedom and unification. His achievements are there for all to see. Militants the world over admire how he set colonialism ablaze in Africa. Nkrumah has shown us the way, and we must walk it with confidence.

Colonial powers never educate their victims (those they called subjects) in how to win freedom. But Kwame Nkrumah taught us how to do it. 'Free market', 'privatisation', 'NEPAD', 'Structural Adjustment Programme', 'Highly Indebted Poor Country', 'globalisation' are all imperialist attempts to deceive Africans to participate in our own exploitation. In Nkrumah's words: 'There are only two ways of development open to an independent African state. Either it must remain under imperialist domination via capitalism and neo-colonialism, or it must pursue a socialist path by adopting the principles of scientific socialism.'

The choice is for us. Either we chose the path of the freedom fighters, or we follow the CIA gospel preached by the neo-colonialists.

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

The spirit of Nkrumah and Pan-Africanism still lives on in Ghana today through its various citizenship laws. Ghana is the first African country to provide the right to return, and indefinite stay for Africans in the diaspora. The government also recently passed legislation giving Ghanaians in the diaspora the right to vote.

As we commemorate Ghana at 50, let us not forget the founding father of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah and his notion of pan-Africanism. Kwame Nkrumah pursued the political independence of Ghana and committed himself to the struggles against foreign domination in other African colonies. He cemented Arab-African ties through special friendships with Egyptian leader Gamar Abdel Nassar. He welcomed Africa freedom fighters such as Malcolm X, W. E. Dubois, and George Padmore. He established a continental radio station (the External Service of Radio Ghana), which helped fuel the African liberation struggle. To this end, Kwame Nkrumah envisioned pan-African citizenship for all peoples of Africa.

50 years later, Ghana continues the vision of Kwame Nkrumah in its generous citizenship laws that provide for a permanent home for peoples of African descent. In 2000, Ghana introduced the Dual citizenship Act 2000 under which a citizen of Ghana may hold the citizenship of any other country in addition to his Ghanaian citizenship. A person of non-Ghanaian origin could also apply for Ghanaian citizenship by registration if s/he is an ordinary resident of Ghana, and by naturalization if s/he has made a substantial contribution to the progress or advancement in any area of national activity.

However, critics of the law point to the fact that the 2000 Act was intended to reward Ghanaians in the diaspora who have acquired another citizenship but contribute greatly to the national development of the country. In fact, following the enactment of the law, Dr. Addo-Kufuor, then acting Minister of Interior explained that Non-Resident Ghanaians had remitted US$400,000,000 annually to boost Ghana’s economy against contributions of Foreign Direct Investment, which since 1994 to 2002 had contributed US$1.6, or about US$200,000,000. Indeed the acquisition of Ghanaian citizenship by registration and naturalization is subject to ability to speak and understand an indigenous Ghanaian language.

Nevertheless, Ghana is the first African nation to provide the right to return and indefinite stay for Africans in the Diaspora. Under Section 17(1)(b) of the Immigration Law, Act 573 of 2000, the Minister may grant the 'right to abode' to a person of African descent in the diaspora with the approval of the President. Some say, this provision was aimed at tapping into the rich African Americans who have returned to Ghana since its independence and taken up residence in the country, and rewarding those who contribute to the budding tourist industry.

Despite the contestations and shortcomings, all these achievements indicate the persistence, hard work and pan-African spirit of the Ghanaian government, Ghanaian parliament, ordinary Ghanaians, and Ghanaians and other African peoples in the Diaspora. Last year, the Ghanaian Parliament responded positively to lobbying of Ghanaians in the Diaspora by passing the Representation of the People Amendment Bill, (ROPAB) granting them right to vote in national elections. In December 2008, Ghanaians in the diaspora will vote for the first time in Presidential elections through absentee ballots. Their next move is to challenge through Ghanaian courts a provision in the Citizenship Act, 2000, which prohibits Ghanaians who have acquired citizenship of another country from standing for political office in Ghana. Later this year, the same group working with Benjamin Afrifa of the Africa Federation, Inc. intends to launch an African TV station broadcasting from the US. The TV station will broadcast African diaspora affairs as well as continental affairs. Ultimately, Ghanaians hope to carry on Kwame Nkrumah’s mantle, and influence other Africans in the diaspora to engage fully in their own nations.

I hope that all African countries will follow suit by allowing us free access to our continent without visa restriction and administrative humiliation. It is true that some African countries have embraced Kwame Nkrumah’s pan-Africanism and granted citizenship to African immigrants or refugees. For instance, Tanzania granted citizenship to Burundian refugees in the early 1990s and offered long-term stay to many freedom fighters from Mozambique, South Africa and Uganda. Senegal extended citizenship to Mauritanian refugees expelled from their home country in 1989. These gestures of welcoming Africans as citizens in other African countries needs to be recognizsd and encouraged throughout Africa.

It is a pity that in most African states, we continually experience unfriendly citizenship and immigration laws in the name of 'national security'. Many countries still in fact still uphold laws inherited from colonial regimes that have either separated nations across the border or deemed Africans as strangers in our own continent. It is often easier to enter an African country carrying a European or North American passport than, say, a Ugandan passport. For instance, Senegal, which parades itself as the 'Land of Teranga' still upholds an immigration law inherited from the French that makes it hard for Africans bearing a passport from a non-ECOWAS country to enter. This is not to suggest that a Senegalese does not need a visa to enter Uganda, however, the process is less cumbersome particularly for African visitors. Why should a country that struggled to rid itself of the colonial regime still uphold colonial law as national law? Why don’t we in Africa give preferential treatment to each other as members of the African Union, similarly to how this is done in EU or the United States? Or is movement within Africa a right for only African diplomats, Europeans and North Americans?

As a start, we could abolish visa regimes for Africans in preference for regional arrangements similar to the Economic Community of West Africa States (ECOWAS) and the East African Community (EAC). We could also follow the EAC arrangement and issue African Union passports to all peoples of Africa, from the African continent and the Africa diaspora. Opponents of free borders argue that people will migrate en masse from their homes/regions of economic hardship and stay indefinitely in economically well-to-do countries if borders were made more porous. However, evidence within the ECOWAS, EAC or the EU illustrates that where borders are open to community members, people move back and forth. Everyday, Ugandans, Kenyans, Guineans, Senegalese and others within the EAC and ECOWAS community move freely between the borders and return to their places of permanent residence. In fact, the greatest pan-Africanists are the border communities engaged in daily socio-economic and cultural activities across the borders, such as the Masaai along the Kenya-Tanzania border, the Peulh along the Seno-Mauritania border and the Luo on the Uganda-Sudan border.

However, a fear of one's neighbour guides immigration and citizenship policies in most of Africa. Zimbabwean traders who travel across the border to Botswana are subject to stringent entry visa restrictions and high fees even though both countries are member states of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). This trend, though not unique is particularly disturbing coming from Botswana whose economic development owes a lot to the huge number of African professionals who have lived and worked in Botswana for many years. Many are still denied the right to citizenship based on unfair residence laws that grant short-term stay with hardly any chance to qualify for legal permanent residence. Similarly, many Africans whose ancestors were taken as slaves to Europe and the Americas have expressed disappointment about being excluded from the new dual citizenship regimes sweeping Africa. Whereas African Presidents appeal to Africans living in the diaspora to participate in national development, incentives are provided for those 'who left on their own free will', as against those whose ancestors were sold into slavery. On the other hand, there are sentiments among Africans on the continent that it is possible to be a national without being a citizen, and the latter should be reserved for 'those left behind' who are working for national development. For instance, Oteng-Attakora, a Ghanaian writer, argues that although Ghanaians in the diaspora have family ties and their remittances may alleviate the pain of the fortunate few, they neither pay taxes nor create jobs that would contribute to national building.

Ultimately, African states should borrow a leaf from Israel, which encourages and in fact solicits all persons of Jewish heritage to immigrate to Israel and gathering a in of its exiles. The African Union could sponsor annual tour to Africa (like Israel does for the Jewish diaspora) to visit the homeland. If called upon, interested Africans of the diaspora will finance their own trips to the homeland, as evidenced by on-going return and tour trips to the Cape Coast in Ghana, Goree Island in Senegal and others. Certainly, the Africa diaspora has a role to play, not only in lobbying for political rights but also in contributing to national development and promotion of the African affairs. Until we as Africans learn to value and trust each other, we cannot demand other countries, particularly in Europe, Asia and the Americas to value us. VIVA OSAJEFO!

* Doreen Lwanga is a Pan-Africanist and a Scholar of Citizenship and Security in Africa. She can be reached at [email][email protected]

* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at pambazuka.org

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem returns from a weekend in Accra where they are busy preparing to celebrate 50 years of independence. For Ghana’s ruling party, the New Patriotic Party and President Kuffour, the 50th anniversary celebrations are problematic. How do they celebrate the legacy of Nkrumah and Pan-Africanism when they and their forbearers opposed him and his party, the CPP (Convention People’s Party)? Well, they do so by having the 'mother of all parties' and attempting to make political gain out of the celebrations.

Last weekend I was in Accra to participate in a symposium at the Great Halof the University of Ghana, Legon. It was organised by a coalition of Nkrumahist and other prgressive forces under the aegis of the African People’s Platform.

The choice of the dates (23-24 February 2007) for the two day workshops were not accidental. On 24 February 1966 the government of Dr Kwame Nkrumah, founder, leader of the independent state of Ghana, and trail-blazer of the anti-colonial movement and foremost Pan-Africanist leader of the mid-2oth century and probably most popular of all times, was overthrown in a military coup orchestrated by domestic reactionary forces and their imperialist backers notably the ex-colonial masters, Britain and their American cousins through the CIA. Two monographs compiled by the Socialist Forum of Ghana: 'THE GREAT DECEPTION: The role of the CIA and right wing forces in the overthrow of Nkrumah', and 'FIGHT BACK: A Response to anti-Nkrumah provocations' refreshes our memories about the local and international context of the various challenges that Nkrumah faced both in life and even in death.

Amidst the official celebratory mood, the Legon symposium sought to situate the independence struggles and Ghana’s emancipation within the context of: the ideals of the Osagyefo on Ghanaian, African and World politics; The fight for freedom, justice and the continuation of the anti-imperialist struggles today; and the struggles of ordinary peoples for a just new economic and social order. It is part of the many alternative celebrations by Ghanaians who feel marginalised by the official anniversary or are dissatisfied with the Opportunistic politics of the celebrations.

President Kuffour is generally seen as a very decent man especially outside Ghana but even many domestic opponents will give him the benefit of the doubt. However ordinary decency is not enough when it comes to state craft. For instance many Nigerians will attest to former head of state, General Yakubu Gowon’s honesty as a person and swear by his personal integrity even more than 20 years after his overthrow. But in the same breath they will condem the profligacy and crass incompetence of his administration in managing post Civil war Nigeria. There are too many uncomfortable parallels with Ghana’s Mr Nice guy President who overwhelms people with his gentlemanliness!. Politically it is too apologetic to continue to perpetrate the sophistry of ‘the good leader ... bad advisers’ about our leaders. If they are so good how come they surround themselves with ‘bad people’. They choose these advisers so they should have responsibility for accepting or not accepting their advice. The flip side of this of course is the disclaimer by many of these advisers soon after they are booted out of office or the president is shown the back door. They mostly come with claims of ‘we told him but he did not listen’. They never tell the public why they remained with a client who never follow their advice. They are all
guilty of political opportunism and that’s why they can only give excuses for their conducts but no convincing explanations.

President Kuffour and the ruling New Patriotic Party have a wider political problem about celebrating Ghana’s 5oth annivessary. They come from the anti –Nkrumahist tradition of Danquah-Busia political families. Their forebears even opposed Nkrumah and the CPP when he moved ‘THE MOTION OF DESTINY” that heralded the final exit of the British colonialists. They collaborated with imperialism to overthrow Nkrumah thereby orphaning not just Ghana but the African revolution. Ironically Kuffour’s victory is the first time that reactionary political group has ever won a democratic election (Busia’s victory was orchestrated by the military junta). The poachers of independence struggle have now become the game keepers hence their ambiguity and cheap politics about the celebrations.

They are trying to celebrate and have the mother of all parties, make enormous political, diplomatic, commercial, cultural, tourism and all kinds of gains from the land mark but are pained to acknowledge the main architect of not only Ghana’s independence but a man who represents the best in the aspirations of Africans for liberty, freedom and dignity.

It is not a dishonour to Nkrumah but a reflection of the small mindedness of Mr Kuffour’s party because for many people inside and outside Ghana the independence of Ghana was not conceivable without the courageous leadership of the Osagyefo. As Basil Davidson said of Liberation struggles in Portuguese Africa 'no hand is big enough to cover the sky'. Nkrumah does not need governments and presidents to remember him as he continues to be an inspiration for millions of Africans and freedom loving peoples across the world.

It does not mean that Nkrumah did not have his own faults as a person or a leader but he has endured because no one since after him has come near his socio-economic and political achievements for Ghana. For many decades until the latter years of Rawlings’ rule and now Ghanaians did not know power shedding as is common among their richer cousins, oil-cursed Nigeria. When Nkrumah conceived of the Akosombo and the Volta Dam projects they were not meant for Ghana alone but for the whole region. He also did not see it as merely provision of electricity but within a wider industrialisation strategy. This point was discussed in detail by Yao Graham of the Third World Network within the context of energy privatisation in Ghana and the West Coast of Africa.

At the Pan-African level we have not seen another leader who has been so inspiring in his example of complete dedication to the ideals of Pan-Africanism and a better humanity. Many pretenders have come forward and but have not had the staying power of the Osagyefo. Today many of them scramble to be friends of imperialism (now euphemistically referred to as donors, development partners, friends from abroad etc betraying their peoples, Africa and the possibilities of a better humanity at the alter personal power.

It is too petty to deny our nationalist heroes/heroines their place of honor in our history simply because our masters of today were either not born then or played no role in them or were on the opposite side of freedom or even on account of what those nationalist leaders may have become later. History is a lived experience that cannot be erased.

It is not only Kuffour and the ruling party of Ghana that are ambiguous about Nkrumah. Even the former military dictator turned reluctant democrat, Jerry John Rawlings has always been anti-Nkrumah. in typical empty populism he claimed that there was nothing to celebrate in the 5O years of Ghana's independence. He was so much in a hurry not to give any credit to Nkrumah that he even forgot that 20 of the 50 years he was rubbishing were under his misrule. Nkrumah was in power for only 10 years and yet all the other forty years combined have not equalled his record!

There are many 50th anniversaries coming up in the next few years and it would be interesting to see how the present occupants of our state lodges celebrate them . For instance how would President Museveni and the increasingly exclusionist and revisionist NRM government (if they are still in power) celebrate Uganda’s 50th anniversary in a few years time? Would they try to write Obote/UPC out it or downplay his role as the NPP is doing and not succeeding with Nkrumah? How would Guinea mark its 50th anniversary next year, with or without its dead-but-not yet buried military dictator who took over after the death of the radical Nationalist, Ahmed Sekou Toure who was a popular leader but made many mistakes too.

If current leaders are sure of their own loyalties and commitment to the cause of their peoples they will not need to be hunted by the legacy of their predecessors. So unsure of their place in history that some of them like Museveni are beginning to honor themselves with statutes completely oblivious to what happened to other self-worshipping gestures most recently Saddam’s many statutes in Iraq that were pulled down with glee once the myth of immortality with which dictators always decorate themselves.

For many years Museveni refused to allow any street to be named after him and also have his picture on the national currency like previouis leaders. But now he has started launching his own statues. May be he does not trust Ugandans to honor him after he leaves office or dies, so he is on a 'DO IT YOURSELF' narcissism. A sage once said: greatness does not abide in how many honors one has BUT IN DESERVING THEM.

Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem, is Deputy Director, Africa, UN millennium Campaign and more recently General-Secretary of the Global Pan-African Movement.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Kwame Nkrumah: From pan-African visionary to one-party state dictator? Peluola Adewale looks back on the legacy of one of Africa's most famous political leaders.

The independence of Ghana on 6 March 1957 was a watershed in the history of Africa, being the first in black Africa. It was a catalyst in the struggle for liberation from colonial rule on the continent. For the African masses one man's stood out, Kwame Nkrumah. Inspired by the independence of India from Britain in 1947, he saw the possibility of defeating imperial Britain with coordinated and consistent political struggle. He thus became a quintessential anti-colonialist. His return to Ghana and formation of the anti-colonialist Convention Peoples Party (CPP) gave radical impulse to the independence struggle and set the stage for the exit of the British colonialists.

Unlike the current generation of African leaders who are mostly only satisfied with earning foreign exchange from the sales of natural resources and self-enrichment, Nkrumah was genuinely committed to using the resources of Ghana for industrial development and economic growth. Ghana was rich in bauxite which could be used to manufacture aluminum, even for exports if there were a reliable power supply. This together with the need to produce electricity for industrialisation informed the Volta Dam project. The project was only half-succeeded, but nobody could reasonably doubt the positive intention behind it.

Nkrumah openly asserted that capitalism was too complicated to achieve the goals of development. But beyond the rhetoric of anti-capitalism and scientific socialism in his celebrated speeches and writings, he never truly cut links with capitalism and imperialism. His socialism was based on the Stalinist Soviet Union model and a utopian African version. This was the undoing that made it impossible to achieve his lofty goals. For instance, his government relied on a bureaucratically run marketing board - a colonial invention - to mobilise the required resources from the sales of cocoa, the country's economic mainstay. This created a more enabling avenue for official corruption than the provision of basic needs and infrastructure development that it was originally designed to achieve.

Nkrumah set up state owned companies and public utilities, apparently to provide some basic needs for the people. But lack of democratic management and control of the companies by the workers themselves bred crippling mismanagement and corruption. They did not only fail to largely achieve their objectives, they became a curse rather than a blessing. Since Nkrumah could only use the revenue from cocoa to bail out public companies, he had to sacrifice poor farmers. The government, through the market boards, reduced the price paid to farmers for cocoa in order to raise more revenue. This was at a period when there was an increase in the price of cocoa on the world market, and farmers expected fortunes. They were thus highly disappointed and demoralised. This culminated in a series of events that made Ghana lose its place as the world's largest producer of cocoa.

The economic downturn created a social crisis that made the government of the self-styled Osagyefo ('the Redeemer') - the once hope of Ghana and beacon of Africa - unpopular. The government's response to the various worker agitations worsened the situation. Rather than mobilising workers and the poor to break completely with capitalism, Nkrumah became dictatorial and took draconian measures against the widespread protest and disaffection to his government. Unfortunately, Nkrumah who had once proclaimed during the anti-colonial struggle, 'if we get self-government, we will transform the Gold Coast (Ghana) into a paradise in 10 years', almost turned the country into hell for workers and opposition alike. He declared strike actions by workers to be illegal, arrested and detained opposition without trial, and declared Ghana a one-party state with him as life president.

There remains no doubt that Kwame Nkrumah was one of the greatest African nationalist leaders. The military coup in 1966 that dethroned him, provided him the opportunity to give more speeches and writings on Africa's development. He was a pan-Africanist, par excellence, with a radical and socialist flavour. However, Nkrumah was not a fully rounded Marxist. This limitation largely contributed to his inability to actualise his objectives and goals.

Their limitations notwithstanding, Nkrumah and his kindred spirits still tower above the current generation of African leaders who have rolled back, the gains of the 1960s that saw massive investment of public resources in developmental projects. The rapacious colonialists refused to develop the continent despite sitting on its fabulous wealth. They only provided infrastructure that would aid exploitation of the resources of the continent. This placed enormous responsibility on the new African leaders after the independence to begin the process of necessary development and develop a welfare state. The idea of a welfare state, built on the Keynesian theory of state interventionism in the economy was fashionable globally in the period after the independence.

In the present era of neo-liberalism the current corrupt leaders of Africa have embarked on the shameless sale of the patrimony of their nations, built with public resources, to the rapacious capitalists locally and internationally. The new set of African leaders has bastardised the original idea of African solidarity, championed by Nkrumah and others. They have come up with initiatives such as the New Partnership for Africa Development (NEPAD) designed to rely on the exploitation of Africa's resources in the service of the West, and the anti-poor neo-liberal economy, as vehicles for development. With this vicious, anti-poor, pro-capitalism, it is no surprise that the idea of Nkrumahism, despite its limitation, has remained alluring to many individuals, genuinely interested in the development of Africa.

It is possible to state that the shortcoming of an Nkrumahist welfare state was not due to the personal failings of Nkrumah; rather that it arose from his attempt to seek improvement and development within the confines of capitalism. Africa is the weakest link of global capitalism. Here a revolutionary movement could start, with international working class solidarity, that could defeat capitalism and imperialism.

Kwame Nkrumah in his speech, 'I Speak of Freedom: A Statement of African Ideology', spoke of economic cooperation and political union among African countries as the viable means of bringing about full and effective development of the continent's natural resources for the benefit of African people. This statement is still largely relevant today. But to be truly valid, and achieve the desired objectives, such economic cooperation and political union was intended to be built on genuine socialist programme that aimed at formation of socialist confederation, if possible, a federation of Africa in solidarity with the working class internationally. This together with discovery of the first-hand ideas of Marxism as taught by Marx, Engel, Lenin and Trotsky should be the task of workers and poor masses in Africa.

* Peluola Adewale writes for the Socialist Democracy, Lagos, Nigeria

* Please send comments to or comment online at pambazuka.org

Heavily armed gangs, fleeing Haiti's dangerous slums in the face of U.N. peacekeeper raids, have established new bases in provincial areas, creating panic in rural populations, officials and residents say.

Nearly two months since U.N. troops began launching heavy attacks that they say are aimed against gang members in poor neighbourhoods of Port-au-Prince, roadblocks and barbed wire remain in place and the atmosphere is grim.

Tajudeen reports back from the launch of the Citizenship Rights in Africa initiative (CRIA) held last week in Kampala, Uganda. If we are all Africans, and recognised as such, then we can stop 'foreignising' people who disagree with us, or referring to other Africans as aliens, or discriminating against fellow citizens as 'indigenes' or 'settlers', and practising other forms of xenophobia that are so rampant across Africa. An African citizenship will, he says, restore to all of us what is naturally ours - being African.

Last weekend I returned to Kampala for a few days. It is always a pleasant return for me in a way I do not or expect to be welcomed to Lagos, or feel very homely in my current abode, Nairobi, now more notoriously referred to as Nairobbery. Kampala is a city bursting with all kinds of construction: roads, hotels, bungalows and shopping malls. It is a frenzy the economics of which I have not been able to understand. They are all ostensibly being built for the Commonwealth Summit (CHOGM) being held in November. No expense is being spared and the government is in overdrive to give all kinds of subsidies and concessions to ensure that all these luxury apartments are completed before the summit begins. In this rush it is strangling the struggling domestic furniture industry because CHOGM builders can go to Malaysia and import all that they need with little or no tax. After the summit what will happen to these hotels? Would a one-week summit generate returns to keep them open forever? It is clear that in spite of all the rush some of them may never be completed, while some may find other uses, and the very big ones like the new Serena Hotel should survive having risen from the ashes of the old Nile Hotel to the status of a hotel 'fit for a Queen'.

My visit was not about touring the dizzy heights of Kampala. I was in town to participate in a launch of a very important campaign sponsored by the Global Pan African Movement (PAM), the International Rights Initiative (IRRI) and Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI): Citizenship Rights in Africa Initiative (CRAI).

It is a matter that concerns all Africans. We may call ourselves Ugandans, Nigerians, Malawians or whatever, but are we really citizens? Do we really enjoy the full rights, freedoms and feel the complementary obligation to be loyal and voluntarily discharge our duties towards these states? I am always envious at the rate at which Western governments dispatch airplanes and soldiers to take their citizens out of any conflict situation, whether war or natural disaster, across the world. Hence Westerners are often the first refugees from any theatre of conflict. How many times has an African government mounted the same operation to rescue their citizens?

How many times have we heard any of our numerous diplomatic representatives in Europe or America or even in Africa make any public comment about the treatment of their citizens in the countries they are resident in? But let one Westerner be unfortunately lost in some impenetrable forest anywhere in the world, and the ambassador or high commissioner and the full weight of their propaganda machines - the BBC, CNN, VOA, RFI - would be brought to be bear on all of us; and if it is in Africa our security establishments will do anything to find the missing Westerner yet may not raise a finger for their own citizens. That is why many of our people will not run to the police or the army or 'government people' when they are in trouble.

The one aspect of citizenship that makes news is the now routine arbitrary denial of citizenship to compatriots who may have fallen out with the powers that be. The most recent demonstration of this is the publisher of the only surviving privately owned media in Zimbabwe, and also the proprietor of the Mail and Guardian in South Africa, Trevor Ncube. Because he would not toe the line, the Zimbabwean government refused to renew his passport, denationalised him and rendered him stateless. An older, well-known case is that of Jenerali Ulimwengu, who is the CEO of the Habari Corporation, publishers of several Kiswahili and English language newspapers in Dar es Salaam. Of course there was the more famous case of Zambian President Kaunda who was denationalised by his successor, the little man with even smaller brain, Chiluba, who was later 'discovered' to be of DRC origin himself.

Jenerali and Trevor were at this meeting and gave chilling, if sometimes ridiculous, accounts of the processes leading to their denial of citizenship. Trevor has brothers and sisters who are not in trouble at all, and Jenerali also has siblings who were never the subject of any investigation by the Mkapa government. What is common to both cases is that the matter was purely political. The first time I met Mkapa, it was Jenerali who took me to his house near the Aga Khan hospital in Dar. He was certain that 'he was our man' to succeed President Hassan Mwinyi. Our man indeed!

But Trevor and Jenerali or Kaunda are lucky because their cases became a source of huge embarrassment to their governments who had to back-off either in court or gave in politically. There are millions of people across this continent who are affected. According to the press statement issued at the launch of CRAI:

'Tens of millions of Africans have been victims of the pandemic of statelessness and denial of citizenship. In terms of the number of people affected and the implications for peace and security, it is easily the most serious human security and human rights problem on the continent today.'

It further stated: 'Statelessness and the arbitrary denial of citizenship violate human dignity, undermine the integrity of government and its institutions, dislocate families, destroy the livelihoods of those affected, and render the victims open to further abuses of their rights and lead to war.'

Leading international and African advocacy groups joined the three organisations in launching CRAI. It is a cry for liberty in which all of us have a role to play, either as part of the problem, or as part of the solution. Anyone of us could be a victim. The solution is very simple: accept Africans as Africans and treat them with dignity anywhere they may be as legal African citizens, from Cape Town to Cairo.

If we are all Africans and recognised as such then we can stop 'foreignising' people who disagree with us, or referring to other Africans as aliens, or discriminating against fellow citizens as 'indigenes' or 'settlers', and other forms of xenophobia that are so rampant across Africa. If we disagree we should try to solve them peacefully or understand the basis of our differences without resorting to stripping our opponents of their humanity and citizenship.

Rights should derive from our being human beings and the state has an obligation to protect all of us as citizens regardless of the circumstances by which we come about our citizenship which may include, ancestry, birth, settlement, marriage, migration, naturalization. Conferring African citizenship on all Africans may not solve all our problems but it provides an important legal and political basis for us to hold our governments accountable and enjoy the full rights of political and socio-economic participation wherever we may be without fearing expulsion and statelessness. It will also remove the insult that non-Africans are freer to move around the continent, especially those holding North American and European passports, while Africans are routinely humiliated and treated as 'others'. We are both 'others' abroad and still 'others' in Africa. Do we not deserve a place to call 'ours' where we can enter or leave without hindrance? We may never quite be Nigerians, South Africans or Kenyans, Chadians or any of the other possible colonially-induced artificial creations, but at least we can be who we are: AFRICANS. An African citizenship will restore to all of us what is naturally ours.

* Dr. Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the deputy director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Peter Hallward, professor of philosophy at Middlesex University, interviewed ousted Haitian president Jean Bertrand Aristide while in exile in South Africa. The interview covers a whole spectrum of issues including the social, political and economic problems facing the country and elicits Aristide's own views of the crisis and his own future.

I spent New Year with two visiting friends, both of them Ugandan, who have been living outside of the country for most of their lives. One is more Nigerian than I can ever claim to be. He is married to a Nigerian, and I am not. He has lived in the country for the past 30 years, which I have not done. Having left home at 22, I could not go back for a decade and a half. I have never spent more than one month there since 1999, when I was ‘allowed’ back. The other friend crossed over to yankee-land, studied, worked and became famous - though he has never lost his Kabale roots. The former is Professor Okello Oculli and the latter is ‘Mr Terrific’, the hugely popular anchorman of VOA’s mass audience programme, Straight Talk Africa.

We were invited to dinner by an Eritrean sister, the immediate director of the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Nairobi, Aki Aseghedech, and her visiting brother, the former long-term minister in the EPLF government of Eritrea, Tesfaye. Tesfaye - like a few other prominent refugees from president Afworki’s one-man rule - is now working with the UN.

They say opposites attract in marriage but there are more opposites than cupid could conjure up between these two siblings. Aki is a hot-blooded radical who sometimes makes me seem like a ‘moderate’! But the brother is more sedate - though no less a revolutionary. He is one of those stoics who can keep his brains on ice while his heart is on fire.

You can just imagine the kind of conversation, intellectual and political exchanges around that dinner table that night. Five widely travelled and politically committed Africans, none of them in their country of birth, but feeling no less African. All angry because they know that their individual countries and Africa as a whole can and deserves to do better than it is doing at the moment. Our heated conversations and passionate exchanges over all kinds of topics and themes from the global to the local gave me more hope than anything that although this continent might be down, it is not out: not yet, and it will not be, so long as there are many Africans not giving up on themselves, and on Africa. But it also confirmed to me the necessity to heed Karl Marx’s advice and move from ‘interpreting the world’ to ‘changing it’.

I had promised a friend that I would come to their church. So soon after honking in the New Year, we left Aki’s beautiful home in one of the most posh areas of Nairobi - which residents call Nairobbery - because of the high rate of crime! Since I was the driver, my two guests had no choice but to go to where I was going. And that’s how we arrived at the Parklands branch of the Nairobi Pentecostal Church, joining the faithful in their midnight service for the New Year. There were hundreds of worshippers who had been keeping vigil all night, pouring out their hearts to God in anticipation of good tidings. One would have thought that I, being born a Muslim, would be the most uncomfortable in the church. But thanks to my missionary education, lifelong love of Christmas carols and Christian choirs, I acquitted myself well. But one of my guests was more uncomfortable. He cannot remember when he was last in a church. Just imagine a scenario in which a Muslim was trying to placate the nerves of a person born and christened in a church! But that’s another story, to be continued another time. Anyway, we survived the service.

Okello has again been visiting Nairobi, and we got involved in church-related conversations again. A few days ago, in my office, we were engaged in a half day discussion about God in Africa. A firebrand Anglican reverend, responsible for mobilising 45 million Anglicans on this continent, came to my office to say hello. We were still halloing three hours later. Our discussions soon veered towards the church in Africa. The context is a Kenya that has been gripped by the story of a very popular born-again reverend, Rose Wanjiru whose desire to marry another Charismatic priest from South Africa had been the subject of a very public legal tussle. It turns out that this self-proclaimed bishop has been married before and had children. The husband in question went to court to stop the marriage, and also demand ‘his conjugal rights’ from a woman he had married under customary law and had never divorced! The courts stopped the marriage. The battle continues both in the law courts and the court of public opinion. However it has raised questions about the role of the church, and the ever-growing born-again, Pentecostal charismatic church across the continent.

Okello, our Anglican reverend sister, and I spent hours discussing this. There were no conclusions to our exchanges, though a number of issues are becoming clear. First, the Pentecostals are occupying a vacuum created by the established churches, which focus more on delivering their herd to heaven. Whereas, the Pentecostals offer God’s kingdom on earth. Second, while the established churches preach humility, poverty and guilt, the born-again (or mulekole as they are called in Uganda) preach prosperity and ‘feel good’ ideologies. For instance Bishop Wanjiru admits to fornication, children outside marriage, witchcraft and all kinds of failings, but then says, ‘see what God has done in my life, if I can make it so can you’.

These ideologies offer hope to the hopeless in a way that no government, president or CSO activist can do. We know many of them are fraudulent but their supporters believe they are God’s ‘little angels’ with all kinds of miracle prayers that can solve their immigration problems, marriage and other relationship challenges, barrenness, even HIV/Aids. And even but more importantly: their poverty. They offer bargain priced prosperity, as captured in one of their more popular slogans, 'a giver never lacks'. The more you give to God the more you are entitled to expect. They proclaim ‘Jesus is the answer’; but never quite tell their believers what the question is. What can or should we do about it? It is not enough to say ‘religion is the opium of the masses’, because it is both the rich, the very rich, the poor and poorest who are flocking to be saved. It is not just the ‘uneducated’ masses, but our highly educated and professional classes who are seeking salvation and refuge from the helter-skelter rat race of their lives.

And it is not only these churches that are witnessing revivals, but all religions. Many Muslims are becoming radicalised thanks to Bush and Blair’s ‘wars on terror’, that has made Islam and Muslims targets. Are the manmade problems of the world so out of control that ‘Only God’ can solve them? Or are we inventing God as a shield and convenient excuse to avoid facing up to these problems, both personally and politically? What has God got to do with poverty? What has he got to do with rapacious globalisation, intolerance, Iraq, the Niger Delta, Darfur, Palestine and Lebanon? It is about time God issued a disclaimer!

* Dr. Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned Pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

The 8th Ordinary Session of the African Union ended in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on Tuesday. Although the theme of the summit was “Science and Technology in Africa’ it was the political and Peace and Security issues that dominated media attention. This is not unexpected because the summit is the most important political and diplomatic forum for Africa. And since the AU was launched, there have been concerted efforts on the part of Africa’s leaders to make it relevant despite many criticisms and doubts by both Africans and outsiders. One indication of this is the large number of leaders who attend these summits and the increasing openness even on the most controversial issues.

There has also been more formal and informal spaces opened up for engagement by different stake holders in Africa whether African or onternational NGOs and CSOs, business sector, think tanks, etc. Gone are the days when the summit used to be dominated by largely ‘special invitation, ‘special guest’ chosen at the whims and caprices of the bureaucrats of the Union who were generally more disposed to welcoming all kinds of foreigners, but fearful of ‘trouble makers’ from Africa!

Almost anybody who wants to engage with the AU has some access and opportunity to do so. That only a few of our NGOs and CSOs engage, is both a reflection of residual cynicism and also of the donor-driven agendas to which they are captive. On the other hand, the lack of engagement by broader social movements and popular forces is due to continuing perception that the AU is essentially a leaders’ forum and since many of them have gripes against their national leaders they are suspicious of the Pan Africanist credentials of these leaders.

That cynicism, whether amongst CSOs/ NGOs or our Social movements, is tantamount to behaving like the proverbial ostrich. There are many windows for engagement that can only become gates of opportunities if used by Africans to expand the frontiers of democratic governance and accountability of our institutions. They will not change of their own accord but as a result of constructive dialogue, or sometimes confrontational approaches, but remaining engaged all the same.

Often outsiders are quick to grasp the opportunities and significance of our institutions than we are, since we are too consumed by our own alienation from our governments. For instance could it be by accident that all major international NGOs (INGOs) have representation in Addis Ababa, monitoring, engaging and lobbying the AU on all kinds of issues? Increasingly these INGOs are appointing Africans to represent them. But these Africans will mostly be carrying out the self-given mandate of these organizations and their interests. Sometimes they may coincide with ours, but often they do not in a most fundamental sense. Our misery is their career.

The political landscape in Africa is changing and generally for the better even if the challenges of democratization and development continue in many countries. It is a work in progress that should make us focus on the larger pictures and trends instead of the ‘problems’ no matter how overwhelming they may seem.

Would it have been possible in the old OAU for Sudan to have been rejected twice in succession in its claim to assume the chair of the organization? In the old days, the argument would have been that what is happening in Darfur is an ‘internal affair’ on which Sudan’s ‘sovereignty and territorial integrity’ could not be questioned.

But these days those arguments do not hold sway anymore. We may not have collective sovereignty in place but it is no longer a case of “leave my victims to me and I leave yours to you’. We have moved from non-interference to non-indifference. What happens in all African countries is legitimate concern of other African states. A new sense of shame has arrived where bad conduct by leaders and states are frowned at, and public opportunities for rebuke are used instead of the old ‘diplomatic hush- hush’.

In the past Sudan would have threatened to leave the Union. But today, Sudan remains despite the snub. Clearly, Sudan’s rulers judge their interest better served by remaining than by leaving.

The isolation of Sudan on the Darfur issue also demonstrates how Civil Society activism in dialogue with progressive African governments, Union bureaucrats and other concerned Africans can yield positive result. It is not the noise of the US or Britain or their NGOs (who are the ones the BBC, CNN regularly quote) that has made it impossible for Sudan to become Chair of the AU. Instead there is consensus among Africans that a country like Sudan that is so flagrantly and massively abusing the rights of its own people -- orchestrating their mass death -- is just not able to speak in our name. Pressures were not only being exerted by the West: there have also been serious pressures, cajolery, all kinds of carrots and inducements on Sudan, its allies in the Arab League (which announced its contribution for Peace Keeping in Darfur only a few days before the Summit), and filial support from some North African countries in support of Sudan’s claim to the Chair. But the AU still said: NO to Al Bashir. In saying that we are saying: No to Genocide in Darfur!

Even the reluctance by many states to contribute troops to Somalia is not a weakness, but a statement that Africa will no longer act as proxies for the US or any other foreign interests. Ethiopia might wish to be the Americans’ trojan horse, but the rest of the states are not so eager.

* Dr. Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned Pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Violent and organised crime threatens to overwhelm Haiti. The justice system is weak and dysfunctional, no match for the rising wave of kidnappings, drug and human trafficking, assaults and rapes, says the International Crisis Group.

I would like to thank Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem for his candid and courageous piece on NGOs as paymasters of CSOs. I share his basic sentiments, and think it is important to have this kind of reflection. However, he makes certain underlying assumptions that need to be challenged, and I hope he won’t mind this deconstruction.

I disagree most with the sweeping statement that African participants “often become prisoners of their sponsors.” This is a gross and simplistic caricature of the complex relationship between the “foreign paymasters” and CSOs. It tends to portray the latter as an uncritical ‘rent-a-crowd’ unable to see what they are getting into, and blissfully oblivious to the manipulation of those who have money. It seems to assume that paymasters and CSOs have never known each other before, have not built relationships of trust over the years (and trust is earned, not bought), and have done the transaction of attending the WSF only in front of the airline ticket booth just before flying to Nairobi.

I certainly think the participants Dr Abdul-Raheem was referring to are not blissfully naïve. I would say they know their needs, they know exactly who they are dealing with, and they know the choices they are making -- most of it involves complex calculations of benefit and cost, of what one may get in return for, say, turning up at a paymaster-sponsored event. Some of them may even turn their heads around and ask, “Who is manipulating whom?” CSOs are struggling and are in a constant battle to raise resources, and dealing with paymasters is not necessarily selling out.

I agree there is a need to challenge, even constantly, the legitimacy of NGOs. But again, Dr Abdul Raheem resorts to simplistic caricatures when asking who NGOs are accountable to and whom they are loyal to. I thought he would have known better that many NGOs have complex (sorry for using this term again) governance structures. They have functional boards (some of which have a majority southern membership), transparent recruitment, periodic evaluations and open books of account. Fund-raising, especially with northern government sources, is governed by policy and legal documents, and clear terms of reference. While such funding relationships may not be ideal, remain far from perfect, and one can poke holes into it, a simplistic conspiracy theory just won’t hold.

I agree too that there are scams, and that these should rightly be exposed and opposed. Which is why some of these paymasters talk to each other, to sort out multiple accounting, bogus ticket refunds, etc. What I object to is the insinuation that nothing is being done about these serious issues, especially when the scams are brought out into the open. The problem with blanket accusations too is that it also smears those who are forthright and doing well. If there is a scam, the best way of dealing with it is to name and shame responsibly.

Another fundamental objection I would raise – do NGOs not have the right to make noise? Dr Abdul-Raheem seems to imply that simply because they are paymasters, NGOs do not have the right to speak in events like the WSF. NGOs do “crowd out” CSOs who have a greater legitimacy to speak. Mainly because they professionals, NGOs tend to be slicker, quicker to the draw, and often become too zealous in marketing themselves and in getting others to carry their agenda. But please don’t rush to the conclusion that they are not legitimate actors. I am sure that some NGOs can also be considerate when these issues are raised before their faces.

Finally, the most irritating question Dr Abdul-Raheem asks, “how come the nationalists freed this continent from the yoke of colonialism without writing proposals to any funder?” They may have not written proposals, but many anti-colonial movements, I believe, recognised the contributions of people-to-people solidarity to their success. Proposals, if we take a less cynical view of it, can simply be seen as mechanisms to manage solidarity. My bottom line is, please, let us not go to the extent of denying the value of solidarity. When proposals become too cumbersome and have turned instead into mechanisms for manipulation, then by all means, let us challenge it.

I have no answer to Dr Adbul-Raheem’s most insightful question – why are our peoples not willing or able to support our activism? It is spot on and a good point. Until someone else comes up with answers, I would argue that solidarity relationships shouldn’t be ruled out, even if there are, clearly, problems that need to be sorted out. I maintain my belief that southern organisations can stand their ground in dealing with paymasters. I respect and value Dr Abdul-Raheem’s sentiments, but his framing of the problem is flawed.

The World Social Forum (WSF) that took place in Nairobi was one of those 'once in a life time' events for many people; and 'once a year' events for the veterans who continue to attend every one.

It is an all-comers forum. For instance, the gay and lesbian lobby in Africa are there along side the Maoists, Anachists, peasant movements, trade unionists, radical scholars, grassroots movements, all kinds of gender activists and more. The reactionaries will say: all lunatics are in town.

It should be no surprise if there were many Africans since this is taking place in Africa, but so marginalized are we in our own affairs that one is always happy to see Africans at these meetings even when they are happening here. Many of the usual suspects are around, from the veteran radicals to the budding ones; and not only from Africa but from across the world. If you want to gauge the state of global revolutionary consciousness, the frustrations, the challenges and opportunities of the global forces for change and transformation, the WSF is the place to be.

But these gatherings always frustrate me for many reasons. One; they show up Africa's weaknesses whether they are held outside or inside Africa. One of the critical areas is our level of participation and preparedness. A majority of the African participants - even many from Kenya itself - were brought by foreign paymasters or organisations funded by outsiders. Often they become prisoners of their sponsors. They must attend events organized or supported by their sponsors who need to put their 'partners' on display, and the 'partners' in turn need to show their loyalty to their masters.

Two; even when these meetings happen in Africa, the participation of local groups and citizens are constrained by the three factors of fees for participation, language of discourse, and location. Local activists and sympathizers in the WSF had to organize a protest and even a temporary occupation before the fees for Kenyan participants were waived.

Three; we go to these events without adequate preparation about our own agenda and line up behind other peoples' not-so-hidden agendas, although at this WSF there were a number of attempts to forge a Pan-African agenda before the summit consultations. One of them was the Pan-African Youth Forum working closely with the Youth Commission of the WSF. But the truth remains that many of the youth who came did so on the platform of one donor or the other and were mostly not African.

This dependence on foreigners, both financially and ideologically, is so pervasive that it cannot be ignored anymore. There are signs that an increasing number of Africans are not only outraged by it but becoming ashamed by it, and are looking for ways and means of freeing our activism from the clutches of donor funding and donor-driven agendas. These issues were frankly and honestly discussed at many forums before and during the summit.

This dependence on foreigners raises a lot of disturbing issues about the state of Africa's NGOs and CSOs, and their capacity to contribute to lasting changes in the social, economic and political conditions of Africans in favour of social justice.

The first is a question of legitimacy. Who do these NGOs represent? Who are they accountable to? To whom do they owe their loyalty: to their donors or to the African people they claim to speak for? The second is the related question of the generally anti-government posture of these NGOs. They take money from foreign governments/agencies like DFID, USAID, DANIDA, SIDA, allegedly as independent CSOs. But why should foreigners be helping us to be independent of our own governments? How are their own citizens independent of them? The same African NGOs that queue up to suck up to all kinds of foreign governments and funders will raise their eye-brows and shout 'autonomy' and 'sell out' if any of their members has close financial or political links with their own governments.

In effect, the autonomy they are asserting is one of being sovereign against their own government and subservience to any foreigner. Where governments are illegitimate or have bad governance records this may hold for sometime, but in the long run it delegitimises the NGOs concerned.

The third issue is the constant conflation of NGOs to mean CSOs which should not be the case. Genuine CSOs will include trade unions, guild and professional associations, self-help groups, village or town associations, faith-based charities or interest groups, etc. Their most distinctive character is that they are voluntary, membership-based and generate their funds from their members.

How many of our busy-body, noise-making NGOs qualify in this sense? It is similar to our governments being dependent on the aid of outsiders, and we demanding that they should be accountable to us. We do not pay taxes but demand representation and wonder why the leaders are more responsive to any noise that comes from outsiders?

The worst excesses of the dependence on foreign sponsors are the various scams that have developed in many of these NGOs about 'creative accounting', which does not mean accountability: Per diem wrangles, multiple claims, bogus ticket refunds, multiple accounting, budgeting and reporting for similar proposals from the same organisation and many other unsavoury practices that make these organisations not dissimilar to the governments we climb on holy mountains to attack for being corrupt, inefficient and unaccountable.

And this issue of dependence on foreign donors is not just because there are no resources. How come the nationalists freed this continent from the yoke of colonialism without writing proposals to any funder? Why are our peoples not willing or able to support our activism? Could it be that the people do not associate themselves with the self-given mandate of these largely middle-class led, elite focused, and urban-based counter elite? Or worse still, people may be seeing that these self-declared crusaders, whether foreign or local, are only there for their own interest. The proliferation in the last decade of MONGOs (My Own NGO), GONGOs (Governmental NGO) , BONGOs (Business NGO), PONGO (Private NGO), all over Africa, may be an indication of democratic openings, or state collapse, or of the irresponsive state, but are not good indicators of building democratic, people-led, people-based organisations connected to and organically linked to the wider social movements without whom social progress, democracy and development is not possible.

If they truly belong to the masses the masses will defend them. And if they are truly based on the interests of our peoples their first allegiance will be to those they serve.

In that sense it should worry us that the African participation in the first ever WSF in Africa in Nairobi is more of a gathering of NGOs than that of the real social and political movements and peoples' organisations who can make lasting change possible. Many of our successful NGOs and INGOs, like their forebears, have become gate-keepers - or to use a better term - commissioned agents between the masses and their oppressors, occupying spaces for the poor and the marginalized when most of them do not or no longer belong to that class or share their vision of change.

* Dr. Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned Pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

The Nigerians In Diaspora Organisation (NIDO), has honoured President Olusegun Obasanjo with an "Exemplary and Visionary Leadership Award". NIDO in Americas Chairman, Ola Kassim, announced the award at a dinner in Toronto, Canada, to end the four-day First Nigeria Worldwide Diaspora Conference.

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem hastens to the defence of his ten theses on the new leaders in Africa (http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/panafrican/39066). The power-worshippers, he says, believe only in one thing: power. And whoever is wielding it at the moment, they have only one party, which Nigerians call AGIP (Any Government In Power)

My piece last week has, predictably provoked a number of reactions from all kinds of corners.

First, there were those who say ‘we told you so’ or ‘welcome to your senses’. They were cynical about the 'New leaders' from the start and were never as enthusiastic about them as I and many others were.

Secondly, there were the hardcore believers in these leaders who still believe that they are progressives caught up in the realities of holding power in a dependent state and are engaged in tactical manoeuvres rather than strategic sell out.

Thirdly, there were those who agree with all the analysis but believe that the problem is more structural than personal degeneration. That the system is amenable to the excesses that we decry and all of us can become its victims unless we are willing to take it on fundamentally.

And finally, there were those who accuse me of still being naively puritanical by expecting that people in power can behave differently.

I must concede that all of these have elements of truth in them. But they do not diminish the points I made last week. We are not judging these leaders by intention alone. It is on their record in office. And most of them have now been in power for more than a decade. There is no need to be smug about ‘we told you so’ because those who do not make mistakes are those who do nothing. The fact that history may not turn out the way we like does not mean that we stop doing things unless we are ‘sure’ we will succeed.

Political independence did not bring economic independence and liberation to our peoples in many countries, does that mean we go along with the recolonisers who argue that everything has been going wrong since colonialism ended in Africa? We can critique the anti-colonial movement and struggles without throwing away the historical and political victories it brought to us. Without those struggles many of us may never have had the opportunity to go to school or even realise that what we were having was neo-colonialism.

Similarly the ‘New Generation’ of African leaders did bring about many positive changes. Maybe their ‘historic mission’ is to stabilise neo-colonialism. Therefore it is the responsibility of other generations to transform the situation. As Achebe used to say, many critics criticised him not for the book he had written but the ones they should have written!

Those who are happy that the New Leaders turned out as bad as they feared remind me of some of the Trotskyites who were jubilant at the collapse of the old Eastern Bloc believing it proved their case against Stalinism without realising that the right wing counter revolution was directed at all socialist forces whatever their differences.

The undying band of believers in these leaders are a mix bag of the usual power worshippers, genuine patriots and faithful supporters. The power-worshippers believe only in one thing: power. And whoever is wielding it at the moment, they have only one party, which Nigerians call AGIP (Any Government In Power). You will find them in every government virtually since Independence singing the same praises of the leader as everything, omnipresent and omniscient, and if he is not in charge the “country will collapse! Initially our new leaders detested such characters and shunned them but over time you find such people are getting closer to them, as their former comrades and decent people move away from them. There are many such charlatans around president Museveni in Kampala today.

There are also many genuine patriots who think that the leaders still mean well but are constrained by circumstances both objective and subjective to become ‘moderate’ given the fact that reactionary forces are the dominant forces globally. Such patriots try to preserve some progressive nucleus within the regimes. In many countries the leaders tolerate them and used them especially in propaganda at election time, in the grassroots mobilisation and to maintain progressive contacts internationally. But often they lack real influence in government policy that is policed by pro IMF/WB technocrats. They are given direct access to the President or made advisers but no access to real policy.

In the end they become apologists for the leader blaming ‘people around him’ for misleading him. But the key question is who appoints these advisers? Is it not the President or Prime Minster himself? How come we are always ready and willing to blame ‘those around the president’ instead of the president who surrounded himself with those people in the first place?

As for my friends who take a more structuralist view of the challenges: I agree with them, but only up to a point. I have been around many corridors of power long enough to know and be very sympathetic to the pathetic demands on an African leader, not just the president. Anybody with some office, comes under extreme pressures from family, clan, friends, relatives (in the most expanded sense), in laws, cronies, fellow officials, not t talk of the corporations, foreign governments, companies, etc.

All of them seeking one favour or the other. People in power are supposed to deliver miracles, legislators are supposed to bury every constituent who died, donate generously at various Harambee in Kenya, pay school fees and even participate in the wedding of their constituents! The reason why this is so is the extreme poverty faced by majority of our peoples and also some enabling cultural norms that perpetrate this. The other reason has to do with the weaknesses of our institutions.

The challenge of leadership is to find a more institutional and collective public policy bases for dealing with these problems. Instead, what you get is a more personalised power relations that has turned the New Leaders into destroyers of institutions. If any of them were to die today there will be so much chaos because they have not allowed institutions to develop their own autonomy. They have become the system, rendering the country like an aeroplane on a long haul with only one pilot and no auto pilot mechanism! Any leader who cannot imagine life without leading or the country surviving without him is on an expensive ego trip on the backs of his or her peoples. If after 20 years of presidents in power, people in Kampala or Harare can still not imagine life without the president, then we should ask: what have these leaders being doing in all these decades?

Finally, I am too involved not to realise that power both objectively and subjectively changes those people entrusted with power, the people around them but a progressive person must show their progressive credentials in the face of all the challenges. At the end of the day the questions to be asked must include: what do you stand for? In whose interest are you governing? How do you want to be remembered? By the size of your bank account and number of cars in your garage or the fabulous mansions you own across the world? Or the honest service you gave to your country?

We adore Castro today and remember Nyerere with nostalgia as we celebrate Madiba, not because they did not make any mistakes buy because we knew where they stood and on whose side they are. The problem that most of the ‘New leaders’ face is that people just do not know on whose side they are anymore. And in some cases the painful truth is that they seem to be there only for themselves. And will do anything (including enlisting as headmen, pointsmen or foremen for imperialism) to remain in power.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the Deputy Director, Africa, for the UN millennium, Campaign. He writes this weekly column in his personal capacity as a concermed Pan Africanist.
* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org