Abstract: Abstract The focus of this article is to re-evaluate Nkrumah's legacy in terms of controversies surrounding him as political figure and his vision for achieving continental union government for Africa via Pan-Africanism as solution to many economic, social and political problems. Second, this work reviews Ali Mazrui's positive and negative Nkrumahism construct, and examines Nkrumah's single party state from 1964 onwards and thus his authoritarian system of government which led to an increasing concentration of power and an undemocratic government. is reminder not of what Africa is, but of what Africa must become. Kofi Hadjor, 1986. Introduction As twenty-first century unfolds, face of Nelson Mandela is instantly recognisable around globe. That of Kwame Nkrumah, who was once Nelson Mandela of 1950s and 1960s is less known to new generation of Africans on African continent and in Diaspora. Therefore it is essential that achievements, relevance and reassessment of Kwame Nkrumah's role and contribution to African history are acknowledged. However, among diehard African political activists and Pan-Africanists, Nkrumah was and continues to remain revered hero, committed nationalist and Pan-Africanist deserving of high esteem. Yet, Nkrumah's historical reputation is shrouded in considerable ambivalence and controversy. His performance as independent Ghana's first leader and his policies on domestic, African and international stage have continued to generate lively debate within African studies and in popular forums. African listeners to BBC Focus on Africa reflected popularity of Nkrumah in poll in December 1999. Nkrumah was voted Africa's Man of Millennium. In New African 2004 poll of 100 greatest Africans Nkrumah was considered number two, a true son of Africa. The top position was given to Mandela. However, as Charles Abugre suggests, Nkrumah's historical legacy is far from being monolithic. He writes: Dead politicians are different things to different people. Both their good and their wrong define goal posts and hence playing fields upon which survivors take their positions in society. Their good is usurped, their failures exhumed and magnified as appropriate and in accordance with creed. It is in nature of humanity to review past, for in doing so we not only define our own essence but also seek to learn lessons if we genuinely desire to do so. Shakespeare wrote the evil that men do lives after them but good is interred with their bones. Of deceased political figures, Abdul-Raheem writes: Politically, victims and beneficiaries remember both. It is balance between two [the good and bad achievements] that determines their place in politics of memory, which, like all memories, is prone to being selective.i Even General J. A. Ankrah, who headed Supreme Military Council that took over after 24 February 1966 coup d'etat that toppled Nkrumah, confirmed that his place in African history had been assured. In short, Nkrumah has been vilified and revered for both his failures and achievements by scholars and ordinary people alike. However, it is imperative that we contextualise Nkrumah and understand what motivated him, for present generation is far removed from indecent denial of human and particularly political rights Africans were subjected to. Given that whites ruled over Africans during colonial era and believed it was their destiny and responsibility to do so, because Africans were racially inferior, marked height of European imperial arrogance and racial supremacy. The white man's burden justified European economic exploitation and political domination over Africans. Nkrumah courageously challenged this prevailing orthodoxy in his readiness to mobilise thousands to fight for political independence, go to prison and his various axioms. …
Publication Year: 2008
Publication Date: 2008-03-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 48
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot