Chapter One
The Pre-Colonial Period & European Advocacy
The history of Ghana has gone through series of metamorphosis and transmutation with lots of theories from academics and ancient tales. Many books about the history of Ghana have minimal conflicting issues pertaining to the origin of Ghanaians. Ghana has a very long and winding history. By the very end of the 15th century, different groups of people, particularly, ethnic groups have already settled. History, more oral has it that the Akans were the first to inhabit modern day Ghana as early as the 10th century followed by the people of Dagomba. These migrations resulted in part from the formation and disintegration of a series of large states in the western Sudan (the region north of modern Ghana drained by the Niger River). Strictly speaking, Ghana was the title of the king, but the Arabs, who left records of the kingdom, applied the term to the king, the capital, and the state. The 9th-century Berber historian/geographer Al Yaqubi described ancient Ghana as one of the three most organized states in the region (the others being Gao and Kanem in the central Sudan). Its rulers were renowned for their wealth in gold, the opulence and affluence of their courts, and their warrior/hunting skills. They were also masters of the trade in gold, which drew North African merchants to the western Sudan. The military achievements of these and later western Sudanic rulers, and their control over the region's gold mines, constituted the nexus of their historical relations with merchants and rulers in North Africa and the Mediterranean.
It seems clear from oral traditions, as well as from archaeological evidence, that after the establishment of the Akan kingdom states in the 10th to 11th century, the Dagomba state, was the earliest kingdom to emerge in modern Ghana, being well established by the close of the 15th century. Although the rulers of the Dagomba states were not usually Muslims, they brought with them, or welcomed, Muslims as scribes and medicine men. As a result of their presence, Islam influenced the north. Muslim influence was then spread by the activities of merchants and clerics.
In the broad belt of rugged country between the northern boundaries of the Muslim-influenced state of Dagomba, and the southernmost outposts of the Mossi kingdoms (of what is today the southern Burkina Faso and northern Ghana border), were people who were not incorporated into the Dagomba entity. Among these people were the Kassena agriculturalists. They lived in a so-called segmented society, bound together by kinship tie, and ruled by the head of their clan. Trade between Akan kingdoms and the Mossi kingdoms to the north (of what is today the northern Ghana and southern Burkina Faso border) flowed through their homeland, subjecting them to Islamic influence.
Under Chief Oti Akenten (r. ca. 1630–60), a chain of fruitful military operations against neighbouring Akan states brought a larger neighboring territory into alliance with Ashanti. At the end of the 17th century, Osei Tutu (died 1712) became Asantehene. Under Osei Tutu's rule, the confederacy of Ashanti states was transformed into an empire with its capital at Kumasi. Political and military consolidation ensued, resulting in a firmly established centralized authority. Osei Tutu was strongly influenced by the high priest, Anokye, who, tradition asserts, caused a stool of gold to descend from the sky to seal the union of Ashanti states. He was said to have used hair and nail samples from every chief of the Ashanti Empire as a sacrifice to do this. Stools already functioned as traditional symbols of chieftainship, but the Golden Stool represented the united spirit of all the allied states and established a dual allegiance that superimposed the confederacy over the individual component states. The Golden Stool remains a respected general symbol of the traditional past and figures extensively in Ashanti ritual.
Osei Tutu permitted newly conquered territories that joined the confederation to retain their own customs and chiefs, who were given seats on the Ashanti state council. Tutu's gesture made the process relatively easy and non-destructive, because most of the earlier conquests had subjugated other Akan people. Within the Ashanti portions of the confederacy, each minor state continued to exercise internal self-rule, and its chief jealously guarded the state's prerogatives against encroachment by the central authority. A strong unity developed, however, as the various communities subordinated their individual interests to central authority in matters of national concern.
By the mid-18th century, Ashanti was a highly organized state. The wars of expansion that brought the northern states of Dagomba, Mamprusi, and Gonja under Ashanti influence were won during the reign of Opoku Ware I (died 1750), successor to Osei Kofi Tutu I. By the 1820s, successive rulers had extended Ashanti boundaries southward. Although the northern expansions linked Ashanti with trade networks across the desert and in Hausa land of the Mossi and Kassena to the east, movements into the south brought the Ashanti into contact, sometimes antagonistic, with the coastal Fante, as well as with the various European merchants whose fortresses dotted the Gold Coast.
However, several scholars such as Arhin, Busia, Danquah, De Graft Johnson, Drah, Sekyi and Casely Hayford have perceived that the pre-colonial society in Ghana was democratic. Personally, I vehemently agree with this perception. Through critical analyses of our earlier days as captured by either academic publications or tales, the ‘demos’, i.e., the people were actively involved in the affairs of the state. This was evident in the occurrences of series of protestations by the youth. However, Kumi Ansah-Koi disagrees fervidly with this argument. He argues that in any democratic state, the ‘demos’, that the people or masses, should play a pivotal role in the system. He goes to link up by saying that in the pre-colonial era, the youth, who formed majority of the people played second fiddle to the aged, the sanctity of customs, traditions and superstitions and to the royalty. “There was no genuine democracy as the masses were subjected to various types of oligarchies. Even though the vast majority of the population could have said to have a say in government and governments were probably geared towards their several interests, the majority certainly did not exercise rule in society. This was the preserve of an oligarchy of royalists, the aged and particular office-holders who were themselves hemmed in by tradition, superstition and various customary practices….” One very fundamental point he drove home was the misconception that the opposite of democracy is autocracy. He goes on further to say that this misconception arose because of two factors: - “(i) earlier writers tried to glorify the African by identifying its system with the rudiments of the now universal norm of democratic rule, (ii) the desire to demonstrate that democracy- the ideal form of rule- is not peculiar to Europe and that traditional African societies had also aspired towards that ideal.” Well Ansah-Koi is right concerning the fact that the opposite of democracy is not autocracy. This misconception largely travels. Democracy and autocracy are not directly opposite as to how often, people tend to say if a country is not autocratic, then it should unquestionably, inter alia without doubt be democratic. Auto as meaning self and ‘cracy’, from the Greek word Kratis, meaning power is rather sharp definitive. In this sense, autocracy as a political phenomenon is appreciated, by more, rather than all, as one and only one. I beg to differ. I see autocracy as a situation where a person seizing power and solely does his will with little or no prior consultations (personal definition). I am no scholar but it takes a more in-depth understanding and positive conceivability rather than a theoretical conception to appreciate my definition. An autocratic leader may and can be far more vision oriented than a democratic leader. Autocracy should be more of a prescriptive phenomenon rather than one-faced. It can be positive (slimmest probability) and negative (often). It is my strong observation that the pre-colonial era has an element of autocracy in it. This is because the choice of leadership was confined to a particular family and not open. However, the era was more democratic so the element of autocracy was ignored unknowingly.
Casely Hayford and J. W. de Graft-Johnson in analyzing the democratic state system used the expression ‘native state system’ and ‘African state government’ respectively. Hayford observed that the traditional system had
an element of representation which is key – just like that of the legislature. To him, there was a well-defined hierarchy of authority which defined the parameters of power ensuring certain checks and balances. Busia also held in his opinion that the pre-colonial era was democratic very firm – thus, his theory of elective principle. The elective principle is emphasized by him in this way: - “each royal family presented a number of possible candidates and a careful selection was made from among all the eligible candidates in which the queen mother played an important role.” Even though I strongly venerate Busia as one of the finest African political philosophers, I disagree with him on this. His assertion, to me can be linked to a one party state which is not at all democratic. My question is, why one and not two royal families?
Any autocratic leader will as much as possible try to resist any opposition in his territory. The fact that the era was democratic and not autocratic is underlined by the attitude of the British then. The British were intelligent. If the British realized our system was autocratic, they will have resorted to winning the people rather than the leaders. This is because, as often, the people would have be discontented with the rule of their respective leaders and it will be pragmatic to win the people by taking out their leader. This is evident as in the case of the Ashanti and Dormaa war. It is my strong conviction that the British perceived our system as that of being democratic because of their focus on winning the leaders rather than the people.
The Portuguese were the first Europeans to arrive. By 1471, they had reached the area that was to be known as the Gold Coast. The Gold Coast was so-named because it was an important source of gold. The Portuguese’s interest in trading for gold, ivory, and pepper so increased that in 1482 the Portuguese built their first permanent trading post on the western coast of present-day Ghana. This fortress, a trade castle called São Jorge da Mina (later called Elmina Castle), was constructed to protect Portuguese trade from European competitors, and after frequent rebuilding and modifications, and still stands. The Portuguese position on the Gold Coast remained secure for over a century. During that time, Lisbon sought to monopolize all trade in the region in royal hands, though appointed officials at São Jorge, and used force to prevent English, French, and Flemish efforts to trade on the coast. By 1598, the Dutch began trading on the Gold Coast. The Dutch built forts at Komenda and Kormantsi by 1612. In 1637 they captured Elmina Castle from the Portuguese and Axim in 1642 (Fort St Anthony). Other European traders joined in by the mid-17th century, largely English, Danes, and Swedes. The coastline was dotted by more than 30 forts and castles built by Dutch, British, and Danish merchants primarily to protect their interests from other Europeans and pirates. The Gold Coast became the highest concentration of European military architecture outside of Europe. Sometimes they were also drawn into conflicts with local inhabitants as Europeans developed commercial alliances with local political authorities. These alliances, often complicated, involved both Europeans attempting to enlist or persuade their closest allies to attack rival European ports and their African allies, or conversely, various African powers seeking to recruit Europeans as mercenaries in their inter-state wars, or as diplomats to resolve conflicts.
By the latter part of 19th century the Dutch and the British were the only traders left and after the Dutch withdrew in 1874, Britain made the Gold Coast a protectorate—a British Crown Colony. During the previous few centuries parts of the area were controlled by British, Portuguese, and Scandinavian powers, with the British ultimately prevailing. These nation-states maintained varying alliances with the colonial powers and each other, which resulted in the 1806 Ashanti-Fante War, as well as an ongoing struggle by the Empire of Ashanti against the British, the four Anglo-Ashanti Wars.
All through most of the 19th century, Ashanti, the most powerful state of the Akan interior, sought to expand its rule and to promote and protect its trade. The first Ashanti invasion of the coastal regions took place in 1807; the Ashanti moved south again in 1811 and in 1814. These invasions, though not decisive, disrupted trade in such products as gold, timber, and palm oil, and threatened the security of the European forts. Local British, Dutch, and Danish authorities were all forced to come to terms with Ashanti, and in 1817 the African Company of Merchants signed a treaty of friendship that recognized Ashanti’s claims to sovereignty over large areas of the coast and its people. I strongly believe the British in particular, foresaw the solid intricacies of the Ashanti and since then began to think through strategies to take out the Ashanti. I suspect this pricked the British to start rolling out their ADVOCAY which later gave birth to their INTELLIGENCE GAME.
The British were not happy with the Ashanti’s sovereignty over the large areas of the coast and its people. They will certainly not sit down for the Ashanti to call the shots. What can they do rather than using a bunch of discontented people to achieve their parochial interest? Here, their ADVOCAY started. Maybe or maybe not, the Ashanti incursions became too severe. The British then deferred to convince some of the coastal and Fante chiefs to rely on them for protection. From the Ashanti point of view, the British had failed to control the activities of their local coastal allies, had this been done, Ashanti might not have found it necessary to attempt to impose peace on the coastal people. Literature has it that the objective of McCarthy was to promote peace and end the slave trade but, personally, I think this observation is shallow. McCarthy encouraged the coastal people to oppose the Kumasi rule. He closed the great roads to the coast. Incidents and sporadic warfare continued. This led to the 1824 British military attack. McCarthy was killed and most of his men wiped out. This indicated to Ashanti authorities that the Europeans, especially the British, did not respect Ashanti. The protection paradigm as concocted by the British formed the basis of their deception of an advocacy.