HomeOpinion & AnalysisRe-colonisation: Myth or reality?

Re-colonisation: Myth or reality?

In 1947, Kwame Nkrumah returned to Ghana from his overseas studies at the invitation of the conservative United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC), formed by elitist Ghanaian lawyers and businessmen, to help organise the  party which was calling for independence on the basis of “as soon as possible”.

Immediately after landing in Ghana, it became clear to Nkrumah that the leaders of UGCC headed by leading Ghanaian bourgeois intellectual and lawyer, JB Danquah, were not actually interested in the welfare of the people primarily. Rather they were more interested in replacing  the colonisers in order to maintain their elite status as leaders of the people. But Nkrumah had a different agenda.

Similarly, recent calls by some African leaders to defend their countries from an impending new wave of colonialism could be an organised move to maintain their grip on power while not having the welfare of people at heart.

Nkrumah’s agenda was for the people of Ghana and Africa to become masters of their own destiny, controlling the resources of their lands. Without doubt, vibrations began to occur within UGCC, especially when Nkrumah called for positive action, a peaceful civil disobedience demonstration against colonialism leading to the arrest and detention of the UGCC leadership.

This is undoubtedly the basis of President Robert Mugabe’s anti-Western rhetoric which, in reality, is divorced from pragmatism as it lacks sincerity.

African leaders have been very good at rhetoric, but fail to confront those that they term their enemies all because they lack matching capabilities to achieve their dream or they are not sincere enough, thereby rendering their dream a fantasy that is not backed by any real action.

Mugabe warned African countries at the recent AU summit that they faced re-colonisation from the Western countries that had run out of natural resources which they now sought to find in Africa through re-colonisation.

Mugabe harps on neo-colonisation mostly as  a deliberate ploy to shift the world’s attention from the real thorny issues on the ground in Zimbabwe, such as the impending elections, and also in order to win the sympathy of fellow African nations.

Yes, re-colonisation of Africa could perhaps be a reality, but what has Africa been capable of doing without the West so far?

One needs to consider all this shouting  from summit podiums as claims that the continent is under siege. What are the current African leaders capable of doing to stop this onslaught, if indeed it is on its way? What can Africans provide for themselves on a sustainable basis without relying on Western  technology and financial resources?

And of course, one needs to reflect on why people in Africa continue calling for the departure of autocratic post-independence leaders.

Then, would it be re-colonisation if Africans are assisted to oust their oppressors?
It does not need a man from Mars to prove that former Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi oppressed his own people and there was really nothing sinister in Nato coming to the rescue of the Libyans. It can only be out of the desperation to remain in power that any leader in Africa would call this re-colonisation.


What a deceit!
Dictators dotted across Africa have firm control of the security systems in their countries, keeping their fellow citizens inperpetual fear, with no means to tackle their oppressive leaders except to seek intervention from outside. Only in cases where the outside world has assisted has victory been certain.

President Mugabe lamented how Gaddafi was killed allegedly by Nato- backed forces, creating the impression  that he supported the way the late dictator oppressed his people.

The President chose to define the Libyan ouster of Gaddafi as an act of neo-colonialism in the context of Western desire to control Africa’s resources. He  said since Europe and America had run out of oil, they now sought to siphon Africa’s reserves.

Yet trade relations between the West and Africa have always been there and there is no clear reason why the former would stoop so low as to revert to primitive colonialism in order to access Africa’s resources. 
The truth is quite simple: The re-colonisation rhetoric is nothing but a well-orchestrated ploy by African dictators seeking to strengthen their grip to power by  lying to the world about an imaginary recurrence of colonialism.

stice and therefore falsely accused of purveying a neo-colonialism agenda.
Nkrumah could have never had called for African leaders to maim and kill their own people like what Gaddafi did, like what former Egyptian tyrant Hosni Mubarak did, like what former Ivory Coast autocrat Laurent Gbabgo did. Definitely that could not have been the purpose of Pani-Africanism.

Nkrumah must be turning in his grave, with his Pan-African ideologies being trampled upon by African dictators.

The African statesman could not have urged African leaders to bludgeon their own people in order to stop fresh colonialism from coming on the African continent.

He merely desired an Africa where leaders blended their ideas to unite the continent and take it forward as they break free from colonialism, but now some leaders claiming to have the continent at heart have diverged from the noble ideologies and have turned against their own people, accusing them of dining with imperialists although the people are calling for democratic and peaceful governance on the continent.



Recent Posts

Stories you will enjoy

Recommended reading