Africa WI: Nkrumah remains obscure?

Just started a book "The State of Africa" and a part was dealing with the origins of Nkrumah his role in Gold Coast/Ghana.

Prior to his appointment by the leadership of the United Gold Coast Convention as a full time organiser (before he left them to form the Convention Peoples Party), he hadn't been in the Gold Coast for over twelve years and was unknown to the UGCC leaders. Although he bagged a number of degrees abroad, he was perenially short of money in both the United States and Britain and wasn't getting anywhere being a left wing political activist whilst studying for his law degree.

So what if his name was not recommended to the UGCC or someone else was chosen (who was not as left leaning as Nkrumah which was a reason why he split from the UGCC later) and had remained in Britain instead and continued his law degree? Would he return to the Gold Coast and try and enter politics anyway?

With Nkrumah's absence, how would African nationalism and the Gold Coast develop? The British plan for gradual moves towards greater independance was already in motion, but would this be beneficial or hindering to African development both in the short and long terms? It can for example be argued that given a slower movement towards independance that proper institutions and a proper civil society could be established and cemented into place, with the ensuing stability allowing for better economic and infrastructure development over time. It woud be highly likely that the pro independance but more sympathetic and less radical Joseph Danquah (and with whom the British did and could work with) would become the first Prime Minister.

Without Nkrumah, Ghana could have become quite wealthy (if not more so than it was), such as in 1954 when the world Cocoa price quadrupled, but he OTL seized the profits of the local farmers (the base which got him elected in the first place) and used it to start state investments, most of which failed. Also the Preventative Detention Act would likely never be introduced, something which permanently damaged the country for many years and was used as justification for much terror, arrests and bloodshed.

Thoughts?
 
I agree, without Nkrumah, Ghana would have slowly moved towards independence.
Likely in the early 1960s and as a parliamentary republic (maybe even Federal?) rather than a presidential one. This would no doubt have added to its stability.
If this new Republic of the Gold Coast did retain its wealth better then we also have to consider its relations with its neighbours, some of the funding would no doubt go into the military. Would it intervene against Maurice Yameogo's Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso) or Houphouët-Boigny's richer Cote D'Ivoire or Gnassingbe's poorer Togo?
 
Top