DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REVOLUTION AND COUP D’ÉTAT

INTRODUCTION

The concept of change is typically associated with, and a catchword of, progressive theorists and practitioners of politics with left-wing agendas. However, conservative thinkers since Edmund Burke have emphasized that change is the crucial means of governments to facilitate the preservation of the social order. Political and social revolutions occur throughout history.  They are usually the result of poor or oppressive government, and many times end in a worse situation than before.  However, some political revolutions can be seen in a positive way, with the government becoming more responsive to their people's needs.  Whatever the case, political revolutions are major turning points in a country's history. This work will be looking at the conditions that bring about political and social change in the society. And also differentiate between coup d’état and revolution.

SOCIAL CHANGE

The meaning of the term “Social Change” can be better understood if we will discuss few definitions formulated by the eminent sociologists. Some of the important definitions are stated below.

Maclver and Page, “Social change refers to a process responsive to many types of changes, to changes in man-made conditions of life” to changes in the attitude and beliefs of men and to changes that go beyond the human control to the biological and physical nature of things.

H.T. Mazumdar, “Social change may be defined as a new fashion or mode, either modifying or replacing the old, in the life of people or in the operation of society.”

From the analysis of the above definitions we come to know that the phenomenon of social change is not simple but complex. It is very vast and a complicated process. It is a process in which we always face problems in its conditions, forms, limitations, direction, sources, causes as well as consequences.

POLITICAL CHANGE (REVOLUTION)

Political revolution is the overthrow of a government or ruling power by the people or a small group of dedicated insiders. It is usually caused by unjust actions on the part of the ruling party. Political revolution can be accomplished through peaceful resistance, but it is always defined by a desire for an eventual accomplishment of a fundamental change in a country's political organization or governmental constitution.

A political revolution, in the Trotskyist theory, is an upheaval, in which the government is replaced, or the form of government altered, but in which property relations are predominantly left intact. The revolutions in France in 1830 and 1848 are often cited as political revolutions.

CONDITIONS THAT CAUSES SOCIAL CHANGE

Social Structure

The structure of a society affects its rate of change in subtle and not immediately apparent ways. A society which vests great authority in the very old people as classical China did for centuries is likely to be conservative and stable. According to Ottenberg a society which stresses conformity and trains the individual to be highly responsive to the group such as the Zunis is less receptive to the change than a society like the Ileo who are highly individualistic and tolerate considerable cultural variability. A highly centralized bureaucracy is very favorable to the promotion and diffusion of change although bureaucracy has sometimes been used in an attempt to suppress change usually with no more than temporary success. When a culture is very highly integrated so that each element is rightly interwoven with all the others in a mutually interdependent system change is difficult and costly. But when the culture is less highly integrated so that work, play, family, religion and other activities are less dependent upon one another change is easier and more frequent. A tightly structured society wherein every person's roles, duties, privileges and obligations are precisely and rigidly defined is less given to changes than a more loosely structured society wherein roles, lines of authority, privileges and obligations are more open to individual rearrangement

Isolation and Contact

Societies located at world crossroads have always been centers of change. Since most new traits come through diffusion, those societies in closest contact with other societies are likely to change most rapidly. In ancient times of overland transport, the land bridge connecting Asia, Africa and Europe was the centre of civilizing change. Later sailing vessels shifted the centre to the fringes of the Mediterranean Sea and still later to the north- west coast of Europe. Areas of greatest intercultural contact are the centers of change. War and trade have always brought intercultural contact and today tourism is adding to the contacts between cultures says Greenwood. Conversely isolated areas are centers of stability, conservatism and resistance to change. The most primitive tribes have been those who were the most isolated like the polar Eskimos or the Aranda of Central Australia.

Population Changes

A population change is itself a social change but also becomes a casual factor in further social and cultural changes. When a thinly settled frontier fills up with people the hospitality pattern fades away, secondary group relations multiply, institutional structures grow more elaborate and many other changes follow. A stable population may be able to resist change but a rapidly growing population must migrate, improve its productivity or starve. Great historic migrations and conquests of the Huns, Vikings and many others have arisen from the pressure of a growing population upon limited resources. Migration encourages further change for it brings a group into a new environment subjects it to new social contacts and confronts it with new problems. No major population change leaves the culture unchanged.

Technologic Factors:

The technological factors represent the conditions created by man which have a profound influence on his life. In the attempt to satisfy his wants, fulfill his needs and to make his life more comfortable man creates civilization. Technology is a byproduct of civilization .When the scientific knowledge is applied to the problems in life it becomes technology. Technology is a systematic knowledge which is put into practice that is to use tools and run machines to serve human purpose. Science and technology go together. In utilizing the products of technology man brings social change. The social effects of technology are far-reaching. According to Karl Marx even the formation of social relations and mental conceptions and attitudes are dependent upon technology. He has regarded technology as a sole explanation of social change. W.F Ogburn says technology changes society by changing our environment to which we in turn adapt. These changes are usually in the material environment and the adjustment that we make with these changes often modifies customs and social institutions. A single invention may have innumerable social effects. Radio for example has One of the most extreme expressions of the concern over the independence of technology is found in Jacques Ellul's 'the technological society'. Ellul claims that in modern industrial societies technologism has engulfed every aspect of social existence in much the same way Catholicism did in the middle ages. The loss of human freedom and the large-scale destruction of human beings are due to the increasing use of certain types of technology which has begun to threaten the life support systems of the earth as a whole.

Conflict and Change

Tension and conflict in a society also produce change. Karl Marx saw class conflict as the engine that drives societies from one historical era to another. Social class has been considered by Marx as a means to social change. The two classes identified were the capitalists and the workers. Both these classes are based on inequality (We have already discussed it under "social stratification"). Social classes are located in the different relationships of people to the means of production. The relationships become important if a group becomes conscious and organized for action. Out of these two groups capitalists oppose social change, whereas the workers want to change the society. According to Marx the conflict between the two classes is a means to social change. The two classes cannot remain in conflict for all the time. The conflicting situation has to be resolved, and what ever the `give and take' for resolving the conflict, the new situation will be different from the previous one a social change new relationships.

CAUSES OF POLITICAL CHANGE (REVOLUTION)

For Aristotle, revolutions arise from inequalities, numerical or qualitative--from a numerical mass claiming equality denied them, or from a minority claiming a superiority denied them. A revolution may result either in a complete change of polity, or only in a modification of the existing one. An oligarchy is less permanent than a democracy, owing to factions within the oligarchicalbody.

In all revolutions, the conditions which leads up to them is the desire of the many for equality, and the desire of the minority for effective superiority. The purposes with which they are set on foot are profit, honour, or avoidance of loss or dishonour. The inciting occasions are many; jealousy of those who have wealth and honour, official arrogance, fear of the law or of its abuse, personal rivalries, failure of the middle class to maintain a balance, race antagonisms, antagonism of localities, and others.

In democracies, revolutions are due mainly to demagogic attacks on wealth, leading the wealthy of combine, and they result in the establishment of an oligarchy or of a tyranny, a 'popular' military chief seizing the power for himself; or sometimes in replacing a moderate by an extreme democracy.

In oligarchies they spring from the oppressive conduct of the oligarchy, or from dissensions among the oligarchical body--e.g. exclusion of those who think themselves entitled to membership; attraction of the role of demagogue for individual members of the oligarchy; employment of mercenary troops, whose captain seizes power.

In aristocracies they arise from the jealousy of those excluded from power, personal ambitions, great inequality of wealth. In these, and in constitutional governments--the most stable of all--the main cause is the incomplete fusion of the three criteria, wealth, numbers and merit. The comparative stability of constitutions comes from the greater relative weight of numbers. They are, however, more liable to be revolutionised by external pressure. Equality in proportion to merit and security of rights are the true conditions of permanence.

For the preservation of polities, minor illegalities must be particularly guarded against: in oligarchies, personal rivalries, abuse of power by individuals (making short tenures of office advisable), insolence of privilege, tricks to deceive the masses; in oligarchies and constitutional states, excessive concentration of power in individuals or classes; oppression of the wealthy minority in democracies, and of the poor majority in oligarchies.

OF monarchy, the two types are the regal and the tyrannic. The king is the protector of the wealthy against spoliation, of the poor against arrogance. His own or his family's virtues or services have given him the kingship; his aim is excellence, and his authority is maintained by a citizen bodyguard. The tyrant is not a protector; his aim is his personal gratification.

Under monarchies, injustice and arrogance are the causes of insurrection, or fear, or contempt for incompetence, coupled with ambition. Tyrannies are overthrown by collision with external forces, or by private intrigues in the tyrant's entourage, and generally in the same sort of way as extreme oligarchies or extreme democracies. Kingships are endangered by intrigues in the royal family, by the King's personal incompetence, or by his developing tyrannical attributes. Hereditary monarchies are in particular danger from incompetents succeeding. But in a complex society, kingship proper is all but impossible.

A kingship is maintained by the royal self-restraint. The tyrant relies on the material and moral degradation, incapacity and lack of mutual confidence among his subjects, which he fosters by espionage, executions, taxation and the encouragement of licence. Occasionally, the tyrant will seek to secure his position by playing the part and assuming the attributes of a king proper. The shrewd tyrant sees to it that he has the favour of the rich or of the poor.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REVOLUTION AND COUP D’ÉTAT

Revolution

 Most uses of this particular form of the word deal with the overthrow of a government by the people being governed. However, this word is really synonymous with a change. The change could be in government, a change in society, a change in technology, or even a change in the way people think. Just about any radical change can be considered a revolution and there have been many revolutions over the course of history that had nothing to do with violence or insurrection.

Coup d’état

A coup d’état, also known as just a coup, is a very interesting French word that is tantamount with the overthrow of a government. Commonly the actions are brought about from within the government. Contrary to a revolution in the government, which is done by the people, a coup d’état is often comprised of political figures or high-ranking members of the military. These military or government officials try to take control of the government for themselves or try to create a new government. Usually the conspirators consist of a small group of individuals. Most coup do involve some level of violence as forces is often use to take control but a select few have historically been bloodless or at least as bloodless as possible.

CONCLUSION

We generally apply the term revolution to sudden political changes, but the expression may be employed to denote all sudden transformations. A revolution may finally become a belief, but it often commences under the action of perfectly rational motives: the suppression of crying abuses, of a detested despotic government, or an unpopular sovereign, etc.

The sudden political revolutions which strike the historian most forcibly are often the least important. The great revolutions are those of manners and thought. Changing the name of a government does not transform the mentality of a people. To overthrow the institutions of a people is not to re-shape its soul.

REFERENCES

Bates, Robert. 2001. Prosperity and Violence. New York: WW Norton.

Huntington, Samuel P. 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press

Luttwak, Edward (1979). Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook. Harvard University Press.

Leiden, Carl and Schmitt, Karl; "The Politics of Violence - Revolution in the Modern World"; Prentice Hall, 1968.

Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

THE ROLE OF THE MILITARY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF GHANA (critical anaysis)

INTRODUCTION

Ghana is located sub of the Sahara and precisely in the West Africa region. It was a former colony of the British and was popular for its agitation against colonial rule and subsequently became the first black African country south of the Sahara to gain her independence. 

After independence the country’s economy was neither bad nor rosy because the colonial government had ripped most of the country’s natural resources off for their personal gain with much emphasis on gold, diamonds, cocoa, timber and palm oil etc. The country had also been left too much dependent on its colonial masters in all spheres of its policy making structures which included political, economic and social, making it very difficult for the country to make a quick economic take off. For instance although the country gained her independence in 1957, it was not until 1960 that it finally got it republic status.  

The economy of Ghana has faced several distortions and hardship since it colonial masters left it shores to give way for the citizens to take control and administration of the country. The first president Dr Kwame Nkrumah expressed after independence that after political independence comes economic colonialism. It is quite unfortunate that rather than growth and prosperity, the country backslided hugely in its economic and financial spheres like high un-payable foreign debt, poverty, unemployment etc leading to political instability and several undemocratic regimes.

In most cases and instances when the economy begins to face stagnation and difficulties the military take up arms and overthrow the incumbent civilian government. Most military governments that have come to power in Ghanaian politics have attributed their reason for assuming power to the bad Shape of the economy and have resulted to increase in poverty.

Military interference in Ghanaian politics has not been going pretty well for the Ghanaians and the economy itself because they have always brought mass corruption and undemocratic rule in the country putting fear into the public folk anytime they assume power. They have also played a massive role in bringing the economy into shambles. Since lack of expertise and knowledge of good governance is evident in their rule, it is gradually manifested in the way the country is run. As such a stop to their interference in governance will be much appreciated by most Ghanaians and the world at large.

The thrust of this paper therefore is to evaluate the role of the military in the development of Ghana, using the political development theory.

CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION

According to AnkieHoogewelt ‘Development is a process of induced economic growth, of a social change in an internally stratified world’ (Kalu,  &Nwogwugwu, 2010)

According to Walter Rodney ‘Development is an overall social process which is dependent upon increased capacity of members of a society to master the laws of nature (that is science) and apply such laws in the production of tools (that is technology) with which they can control their environment to meet their immediate and future needs. It cannot be seen purely as an economic affair because other segments of the society are also involved’. (Kalu,  &Nwogwugwu, 2010)

According to Claude Ake ‘Development is a systematic and continuous increase of man’s capabilities for mastering his environment satisfy basic human needs and for realizing his potentials’. (Kalu,  &Nwogwugwu, 2010)

THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK

This research will be conducted with the use of the political development theory.

Political Development theory as proposed by Samuel Huntington in his book “Political order in Changing Societies”(1968) explains that in most developing nations or the ‘New Nations’ that is countries that have gained independence in the recent past faces a problem of Political development stagnation as compared to the economic development in these same countries. It stresses that political institutions are not really developed to a stage of incorporating majority of the country in political participation. Instead political participation includes urban dwellers, listeners of radio, and many others as well as the literate. These people pressurize the government of the day to make changes in the institutions and activities of the political atmosphere. According theorists, these demand causes political tensions in these developing countries. “Social mobilization also brings about a change in the quality of politics, by changing the range of human needs that impinge upon the political process”. According to the theory people who have undergone changes in physical and intellectual environment tend to have a dying taste for new forms of needs and wants. (Ekeh, 2001)

These societies try to change its traditional governmental structures and institutions to suit the western forms and types of government which it’s believed to be the only key to address such needs of developing societies. As a matter of fact transformation from traditional forms of government to the western type is bound to face many problems. This is because the western countries that were successful in achieving this type of government had practiced it for decades and centuries before it became stabilized, accepted, popular and successful. Unfortunately developing countries of today want to follow this trend but with a short cut process hoping to achieve success which is not possibly practicable. So developing countries will definitely have problems of supplying and meeting the growing demands because the expertise, experience and processes that the western countries have graduated through have not been followed by these developing countries. As such there is bound to be political tensions and political instability in most of these countries. (Ekeh, 2001)

These states have also been afflicted with weak institutions which cannot engage and control conflicts internally and these demands overrun the government administration making it impossible to run the country properly therefore attracting military take over.

The theory also explains that states that inherited these western forms of government from colonial masters and were not conversant with them since they were new to them unlike their traditional forms that they were used to. Also as former colonies they “inherited patrimonial and clientelistic administrations that lacked sufficient adaptability, complexity, autonomy and coherence to rule effectively”. These civilian governments of the new states practiced factionalized multiparty regimes which as a result brought diverse regimes and governments with confliction ideas and policies that did not make it possible for a smooth running government policy but rather created political adversaries and stalemates.  Apart from that the military in these states lacked professionalism and intervened anytime the civilian governments failed to meet the demands of the people. Also these military regimes enacted policies that also encouraged more successive coups in these new states. (Kwaku, 2008)

The theory explains that social mobilization occurs when governments of developing countries are not able to meet growing demands of the society. This is because these developing countries have borrowed forms of governments which are new and unfamiliar to their native or traditional types of governments or political Institutions which they have practiced over centuries ago to some stage of perfection. Adding salt to injury these developing countries are hoping to achieving success in practicing these forms of governments which were transferred to them from their colonial master or are to be followed as prerequisites for financial support. (Kwaku, 2008)

Analysing from this theory Ghana also encountered such problems with the practice of such borrowed forms of government. Politically active with the education they have about how western countries practicing this government system turn to benefit it citizens. This political awareness makes them agitate for better policies for their interest through political legitimate actions which they have learnt like strikes, demonstration etc. The theory also makes it clear that as former colonies most of these states have very weak political and civil institutional systems making them vulnerable and not able to control and regulate such social unrest. These unrest and social mobilization calls for the military due to the ‘overload’ and spill over effect as the theory explains and the military capitalise on these unrest to also achieve its demands it had anticipated since they are also affected by policies of civilian governments in some way. (Kwaku, 2008)

Developing countries in these years explained above, had much weak political institutions and a high social unrest and participation turnout. These are confirmed by the public sensation in the aftermath of military coups which is welcomed by the masses and society hoping to get their demands solved. Ghana and most developing countries like Somalia and Egypt have not practiced western forms of governments of democracy and its related policies for long to be able to decipher how to encounter associated problems as the theory explains. These countries begun to practiced democracy in just the recent past 1950s to 60s. Due to the inexperience developing countries will continue to face Social Mobilization and unrest till much experience are learnt from it, in order to make its political institutions and system well established and strong enough to face the difficulties and challenges when they set in.

A BACKGROUND TO MILITARY INTERVENTION IN THE GHANAIAN POLITICS

On 6 March 1957 Ghana achieved independence - again, the first British colony in Africa to do so - with Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah as its first Prime Minister. On 1st July, 1960 it became a republic with Kwame Nkrumah as its first President. (Ghana Web, 1994)

Ghana spearheaded the political advancement of Africa and Dr. Nkrumah laid the foundations for the unity later expressed in the formation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU). He was a firm supporter of the Commonwealth and the Non-Aligned movement. (Ghana Web, 1994)

Immediately after independence, the Nkrumah government initiated a socialist experiment in which major social gains were made in education, health and housing sectors. Unfortunately, however, these positive domestic gains were undermined when teh government initiated an aggressive Pan African foreign policy based on teh two-pronmged approach of African Decolonisation and Unity. While the decolonisation schemes were very successful, the Nkrumahist approach to African Unity was seen by his colleagues as too ambitious and was thus shelved for a more conservative and loose continetal organisation.

By the time Nkrumah was carrying out his grandiose schemes, the UGCC which had never reconcilled itself to the fact that an ‘upstart’ political novice had beaten them to what they saw as their natural rights – the ascension to political office – started agitating for seccession from Ghana. Concomitantly, the economy of Ghana was progressively being undermined. Finally, the military staged Ghana's first coup d’état in February 1966.

On 24th February 1966, the government of Dr. Nkrumah was overthrown by the Ghana armed forces and the police. A National Liberation Council (NLC), headed by Lt. General Joseph Arthur Ankrah, was formed to administer the country. (Ghana Web, 1994)

General Ankrah was removed from office in April 1969 and Lt. General Akwasi Amankwa Afrifa became the Chairman of the NLC, which later gave way to a three-man Presidential Commission with General Afrifa as chairman. The Commission paved the way for a general election in 1969 which brought into power the Progress Party government, with Dr. Kofi Abrefa Busia as Prime Minister and Mr. Edward Akufo Addo as president.

The Ghana armed forces again took over the reins of government on 13th January 1972, and Colonel (later General) Ignatius Kutu Acheampong became the Head of State and Chairman of the National Redemption Council (NRC). The name of the NRC was later changed to the Supreme Military Council (SMC). General Acheampong was replaced by General F.W.K. Akuffo in a palace coup in July 1978.  (Ghana Web, 1994)

The SMC was overthrown on 4th June 1979, in a mass revolt of junior officers and men of the Ghana armed forces. Following the uprising, an Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) was set up under the chairmanship of Flt.-Lt. Jerry John Rawlings. The AFRC carried out a house-cleaning exercise in the armed forces and society at large, while restoring a sense of moral responsibility and the principle of accountability and pro- bity in public life. The AFRC was in office for only three months and, in pursuance of a programme already set in motion before the uprising, allowed general elections to be held. On 24th September 1979, the AFRC handed over power to the civilian administration of Dr. Hilla Limann, leader of the People's National Party which had won the elections.

In the wake of the continuing downward plunge of the coun- try, the Limann administration was overthrown on 31st December 1981, ushering in a new revolutionary era of far-reach ing reforms and rehabilitation at all levels. Flt.-Lt. Rawlings became the Chairman of a nine-member Provisional National Defence Ruling Council, (PNDC) with Secretaries of State in charge of the various ministries being responsible to the PNDC .

Immediately on assumption of office, the PNDC set up a National Commission for Democracy (NCD) charged with for- mulating a programme for the more effective realisation of true democracy. The government of the PNDC also provided for the establishment of elected District Assemblies to bring local government to the grassroots.

In 1990, the NCD, at the prompting of the PNDC, organised forums in all the 10 regions of the country at which Ghanaians of all walks of life advanced their views as to what form of government they wanted. These views were collated and analysed by the NCD whose final report indicated that the people want ed a multi-party system of government.

This led to the appointment of a Committee of Experts to draw up constitutional proposals for the consideration of a Consultative Assembly. The Assembly prepared a draft constitution based on proposals submitted to it by the PNDC, as well as previous constitutions of 1957, 1969 and 1979, and the report of the Committee of Experts. The final draft constitution was unanimously approved by the people in a referendum on April 28, 1992.

Among other things, the Constitution provides for an Executive President elected by universal adult suffrage for a term of four years and eligible for re-election for only one addi- tional term. In the presidential elections held on November 3, 1992, Flt.-Lt- Rawlings who stood on the ticket of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), garnered 58.8% of the 3,989,020 votes cast to beat to second place his closest rival Prof. Albert Adu Boahen representing the New Patriotic Party who polled 30.4% of the votes. Other contestants for the presidency were former president Dr. Hilla limann of the People's National Convention (6.7%), Mr. Kwabena Darko of the National Independence Party (2.8%) and Lt-Gen. Emmanuel Erskine representing the People's Heritage Party (1.7%). (Ghana Web, 1994)

In the parliamentary elections held on December 29,1992, the Progressive Alliance made up of the National Democratic Congress, the National Convention Party and the Egle Party won 198 seats out of a total of 200, within the Alliance the NDC won 189 seats, the NCP had 8, the Egle Party 2, and Independents 2. Four parties - the NPP, PNC, NIP and PHP - boycotted the parliamentary elections, dissatisfied with the proposed election strategy.

The Fourth Republic was inaugurated on January 7, 1993 with the swearing-in of Flt. Lt. Rawlings as President and his running mate, Mr.K.N. Arkaah as Vice President. The newly elected Parliament was opened on the same day and elected, Mr. Justice D.F. Annan as Speaker.  (Ghana Web, 1994)

AN EVALUATION ON THE ROLE OF THE MILITARY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF GHANA

Making an evaluation of the role of the military in the development of Ghana denotes how the military has positively developed the Ghanaian nation or underdeveloped Ghana. Thus with series of military coups during the post colonial era this paper sets to analyze the failure and success of the military in the development of Ghana.

THE ROLE OF THE MILITARY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF GHANA

 Although Ghana enjoyed a privileged position in the post-colonial era due to a relatively stable regime with a charismatic leader committed to soliciting international financial support, profitable natural endowments, and a comparatively high stock of human capital. Thus on the long run, the development of Ghana was stunted due to corruption and regular economic crises and primitive accumulation of wealth by the petit and comprador bourgeois which led to frustration and a quest for change by the citizens. Thus leading to a coup by ten-member Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) consisting of junior officers led by Flight Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings overthrew the SMC government in 1979. Thus the flash point of the study will be the Jerry Rawlings regime from 1979 to 1993, in accordance to other military regimes in Ghana.

The Development and Mobilization of the Economy and Natural Resource of Ghana

In August 1983, the Economic Recovery Program (ERP) initiated by the PNDC generated support from the IMF and World Bank, which gave $611 million and $1.1 billion respectively (US Department of State). In addition, Rawlings himself actively solicited at least five billion dollars from Western donors who approved of his economic reforms.   This provided an environment within which economic  growth steadily returned and could then be sustained, based in part on a process of building effective institutions in the area of economic governance and with a high level of both support and pressure from international donors. The most visible institutional example of this has been the Bank of Ghana, which has received the high levels of political protection and technical capacity-building required to help deliver the conditions for macroeconomic stability and improved economic productivity. A different but equally illuminating exemplar of how Ghana’s political settlement plays out in terms of development institutions is COCOBOD (the Ghana Cocoa Board). Although political protection and capacity-building also helped COCOBOD to achieve high levels of productivity for Ghana’s main export crop, this involved defying IFI pressures to liberalize, with some critical observers noting that the country’s political and economic elite (many of whom come from cocoa-growing regions) were particularly predisposed to ensuring that cocoa was protected. Rawlings and the PNDC through the ERP significantly increased foreign debt. The ERP, developed by the PNDC under the guidance of the World Bank and IMF, consisted of three main phases. First, the government intended to minimize expenditures as a means to alleviate pressures on the banking sector, improve tax collection, create incentives for production, and devalue the cedi. Second, the government sought to privatize state-owned enterprises, further devalue the cedi, and eliminate the black market for currency exchange. Third, the government planned to intensify monetary reforms and reduce private corporate taxes in support of the private sector (Library of Congress Country Studies Index).  

The Aid in Decentralization and Formation of the State Structure of Ghana

The current system of local government in Ghana is based on a decentralisation programme that began in 1988 under the quasi-military regime of the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC). One of the stated policy objectives of the 1988 decentralization reforms was to give “power to the people” who had been marginalized in national politics by previous

regimes (Ayee 1994:124). Accordingly, the PNDC promulgated a new Local Government Law (PNDC Law 207) with the primary objective of promoting “popular participation and ownership of the machinery of government by shifting the process of governance from command to consultative processes, and by devolving power, competence and resource/means to the district level” (quoted in Gasu 2006:1). The thrust of the PNDC’s decentralization programme was explicitly stated in the PNDC Blue Book as an attempt to

give “expressions of a fundamental belief of the PNDC that effective participation in the productivity and development of our society and participation in political decision making are the responsibilities of all us” (Ghana 1987, quoted in Ayee 1994:110). Although, successive governments in Ghana since independence have looked to a vibrant local government system to aid the country’s development. Attempts at decentralization of power were introduced in 1974 and 1983. Ghana’s current programme of decentralization was initiated in 1988 when the Rawlings government introduced the Local Government (PNDC Law 207), through which the number of local authorities, then 65, was reviewed and reorganized into 110 district assemblies. The stated aim of the local government reform was to transfer functions, powers, means and competences from the central government to the local government, and to establish a forum at the local level where a team of development agents, representatives of the people and other agencies could discuss the development problems of the district and/or area and their underlying causative factors. On an ideological level decentralization was expected to support democratic participatory governance, improve service delivery and also lead to a rapid socio-economic development.

The Achievement of Political Stability and a Viable Political Institution in Ghana

The achievement of political stability in Ghana is itself a legacy of the earlier shift in the early 1980s, from a lack of political order to a dominant leader settlement under the military rule of Rawlings. The effective mobilization of resources by the Rawlings regime in the past two decades attests to the institutional advantages of Ghana. The introduction of the PNDC in 1979, and later, the peaceable transfer of power to the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in 1992, increased Ghana’s international presence. Moreover, Rawlings carried out his long-term commitment to democracy by passing a new constitution in 1992 that freed political prisoners, allowed the formation of political parties, and articulated an obligation to human rights and free expression (BBC). Although governmental transparency remains an issue, Ghana is considered one of the more politically stable countries in comparison to other developing nations. According to the Center for Global Integrity, Ghana has a moderate rating in the public integrity index, ranking 13th out of 25 index nations. This political stability is thus inherently attractive to foreign investors and critical to sustained economic policy (Gutteridge 1975).  .

The Use of Consensus in the Drafting of Constitution and a Viable Transition to Democracy by the Military in 1993

The current Ghanian constitution which is applauded for its attention on the rule of law, order, and respect for human right was drafted and made by the military regime in the development of a successful trasitional democracy. Thus in 1991, the military government of the erstwhile Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC), unveiled a transitional Programme to return Ghana to a constitutional democracy. A Committee of Experts was appointed to prepare a draft constitution for the administration of Ghana. A Consultative Assembly was set up by PNDC Law 253 to consider the draft constitution. In a referendum organized on 28th April 1992, the draft constitution was adopted by Ghanaians. This marked the start of a new process toward an era of liberal democratic governance. In January 1993, Ghana returned to civilian constitutional rule after eleven years of military rule. The restoration of constitutional government occasioned the birth of several democratic institutions. (Dzorgbo, 2001)

ASSESSING THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF THE MILITARY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF GHANA:

Dictatorship, Violation of Human Rights and the Retainment of Colonial Administration by the Military Rule in Then Underdevelopment of Ghana

In Ghana the first military regime took power in 1966 overthrowing the leader since independence, Kwame Nkrumah. As is much the trend with military coups, the new administration claimed legitimacy on a list of grievances many of which were directly related to the resilience of the military. However, the critical public justification of the coup was the increasingly personalized rule by Nkrumah, most evidenced by the change of the state to a one-party system in 1964.  Nevertheless, upon assuming power, the first military regime and those which followed continuously took up the same infrastructure and institutions used by their civilian predecessors and largely remnant from the colonial rule of oppression Gutteridge (1975). Thus it is no surprise that Boafo-Arthur argues that all four military regimes which ruled during Ghana between 1965 and 1990 “trampled and subverted the fundamental rights of the citizenry” (2005 p. 111). With no institutionalization of good governance and state power heavily restricted to the head of state, any likelihood of any inclusive government was wholly dependent on would-be benevolent dictators (which never emerged). Boafo-Arthur’s further accuses the military regimes of illegal confiscation of property, purposeful exclusion of the citizenry from the governance process and of the 1979 extrajudicial killings of three former heads of state and five high-ranking generals. These killings, ordered by then president Jerry Rawlings, have been justified as a compromise to those within the ranks who wanted a bloodbath during the coup (Jeffries 1989, p. 95). That such an action could be justified on the grounds of compromise speaks volumes to the brute strength of the military regime in its governance tactics.

Corruption And Primitive Acquisition Of Public Wealth By The Military Undermined Ghana Socio-Political Development.

Notably, however, the actual implementation promised by sequential coup leaders was sorely lacking. What was consistent, however, was a diversion of public funds to expanding military interests and redistributing political and economic power amongst military elites (Decalo 1973, p. 117). In turn, Jefferies characterizes Ghana as “a highly personalist (or neo-patrimonial) machine, seeking to benefit individual favourites or networks of clients with varying degrees of concern for larger social aggregates” (1989, p. 75). While it should be noted that in Ghana under military rule business men, academics and the press did gain more freedom, with regards to corruption a best case scenario suggested that petty bribery and corruption remained endemic (Gutteridge 1975, p. 77).  Meanwhile Decalo argues that the scope of nepotism, corruption and smuggling all seemed to broaden with military take-over (1973, p. 119). Furthermore, the military regimes consistently felt threats of counter-coups and indeed Rawlings enacted one because of the immense economic stagnation (Gutteridge 1975, p. 76). In ultimate, though not necessarily unworthy, pessimism Decalo asserts that the little socio-political development did occur during the Ghanaian military regimes was dependent upon the simultaneous increase of personal benefit to those at the top. In other words, the more elites could accrue, the more the state would be pushed along its development track, giving further pause to the motivations behind good governance even considering Ghana’s current position.

Central Control and Foreign Institution Influence in the Politics of Ghana

After Nkrumah’s overthrow in 1966, Ghana experienced political and economic instability with six changes in government between 1966 and 1981 which stunted economic growth.  With the economy even deteriorating further, Flt. Lt. Jerry John Rawlings initiated his coup on December 31, 1981. The abysmal performance of the economy, despite measures put in place by the 1983 budget, forced the Provincial National Defence Council (PNDC) government under Rawlings to embrace the IMF and World Bank’s structural adjustment program as a means to resurrect from economic degeneration. This led to the end of a Marxist, populist ideology to a more “pragmatic” one and one in which the political decision is been influenced by the capitalist west (Dzorgbo, 2001). Thus formulation of policies in devaluation of currency, political instability in the country, trade liberalizing and infringement of political sovereignty by the capitalist west could be blamed on the military regime in the country during this era. Thus this is to the fact that the Ghanaian polity is blessed with gold, thus the SAP loans made the polity of Ghana venerable.

CONCLUSION

The military has played an adverse role in the development of Ghana socio-politically, economically and other aspects like institutional development. Through the military regimes especially the Jerry Rawlings administration, which gave the Ghanaian state its status as one of the most stabilized countries in West Africa. Thus even with this acclaimed role of the military in development, the military has also undermined the internal politics and also through SAP and IMF loans gave foreign institution the ability to penetrate into her sovereignty, which has present day effects.

REFERENCES

Agbodeka, .F. (1992) An Economic History of Ghana: from the Earliest Times, Ghana;

                      Ghana University Press

Boafo, A. K.  (2005). “National Reconciliation or Polarisation? Preliminary Reflections on

                   the Politics of the Ghana National Reconciliation Commission”. In Fawole, W.

                  A., Ukeje, C.(Ed.),  The Crisis of the State and Regionalism in West Africa,

                   Dakar, p. 105-126.

Dzorgbo, D.B. (2001). Ghana in Search of Development: The Challenge of Governance,

                    Economic Management, and Institution Building. Anthony Rowe Ltd:

Decalo, S. (1973). “Military Coups and Military Regimes in Africa”. The Journal of Modern

                      African Studies. 11(1), p. 105-127.

Ekeh, P.P (2001) Theory and Curse of Military Rule and the Transition Program, New York;

                 State University of New York

Ghana Web (1994) Political History of Ghana, Available on the internet at 

                 http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/republic/polit_hist.php Retrieved on

                  the 7th of February 2014

Gutteridge, W. F. (1975). Military Regimes in Africa. Suffolk, United Kingdom:

                  Methuen & Co. Ltd.

Kwaku G.O. (2008) Miliatry Coups in Ghana, 1969-1985; A By-Product of Global Economic

                   Injustice, Sweden; Linkopings Universitet