Fifty-five years ago today, Ghana (formerly known as the Gold Coast) declared independence from British colonial rule. In doing so, it became the first sub-Saharan African colony to gain independence from European Colonialism.
While this milestone in Africa's history was groundbreaking, Ghana's independence was not merely a celebratory sigh of relief. The journey to and immediately following independence was filled with political conflict not only between the new nation and Britain, but also among Ghanaians themselves.
As independence transitioned from an ambitious ideal into a realistic and likely revolution, two strong political groups emerged to lead the way: The National Liberation Movement (NLM) led by Kofi Busia and the Convention People's Party (CPP) led by Kwame Nkrumah. Both groups strove for independence but disagreed on one critical aspect of the new nation's government: The presence of chieftaincy.
The institution of chieftaincy had been prevalent in the Gold Coast for generations, but became the center of controversy as independence drew closer. The NLM felt that chieftaincy's continuance in the new nation was vital to maintaining their traditional ways of governing while the CPP and Nkrumah believed that it was too outdated and inefficient for Ghana to achieve any success as a new nation.
At its core, chieftaincy had many systematic flaws in the eyes of a modern government, but it also had many advantages over a typical democracy. The system of hierarchal chiefs was often criticized for frequent nepotistic behavior, but it was also usually considered an institution in which the rulers (chiefs) were much closer to the people whom they were actually ruling over.
In 1949, Nkrumah founded the CPP after a year of rapid popularity among a variety of working class groups. He spoke out against the British oppressive rule and claimed that the Gold Coast was ready to become its own nation right now. He was also a strong proponent of Pan-Africanism — a movement directed towards the liberation and unification of all Africans.
Nkrumah was an eloquent orator and gained much of his popularity from this quality. His party even won the first British-organized election in 1951 even though he was currently in prison for organizing a series of boycotts and strikes the year before.
Despite Nkrumah's resounding popularity among the majority party in Ghana in 1958, he began a downward spiral as his suspicions of political opponents motivated him to begin passing legislature that eliminated many Ghanaians' freedoms. One of which was the Preventative Detention Act, which allowed the government to arrest any person suspected of treason without due process of law. He also declared himself the Prime Minister of Ghana, giving himself a lifelong term. As far as chieftaincy went, he continued to discount and attack the institution.
Eventually, when Nkrumah was out of the country, a military coup overthrew his administration and he never returned to Ghana. The highest chief was immediately "restooled" in his esteemed position in an attempt to reinstall the beaten-down system of chieftaincy. Today chieftaincy merely functions symbolically alongside the parliamentary democracy.
The story of Ghana's independence and its subsequent political conflicts seem to be encircled around the clash between tradition and modernization.
Even in our own university we have witnessed significant transformation and advancement comes only with the sacrifice of tradition. Is one necessarily more effective than the other and can they ever truly coexist? In my opinion, DePauw has proudly and successfully maintained this balance between innovation and tradition — a feat not so easily achieved in Ghana as this controversy has existed since its independence back in 1957 on this very day.
— Freestone is a sophomore from Brownsburg, Ind., majoring in history and biology.
features@thedepauw.com