What do you think?
Rate this book
Black star;: A view of the life and times of Kwame Nkrumah
Fifty years after Ghana's independence, it is now clear that Kwame Nkrumah was 'a black star'. Prime Minister Kwame Nkrumah seized opportunities to lead the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa away from from colonialism. In 1957, he became the first Prime Minister of Ghana. By the time, he was overthrown in a coup in 1966 most African countries, outside the settler-dominated South, had also achieved independence.
Paperback
First published January 1, 1973
About the author
Basil Davidson
103 books78 followersBasil Risbridger Davidson was an acclaimed British historian, writer and Africanist, particularly knowledgeable on the subject of Portuguese Africa prior to the 1974 Carnation Revolution .
He has written several books on the current plight of Africa. Colonialism and the rise of African emancipation movements have been central themes of his work.
He is an Honorary Fellow of the London School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS).
From 1939, Davidson was a reporter for the London "Economist" in Paris, France. From December 1939, he was a Secret Intelligence Service (SIS)/MI-6 D Section (sabotage) officer sent to Budapest (see Special Operations Europe, chapter 3) to establish a news service as cover. In April 1941, with the Nazi invasion, he fled to Belgrade, Yugoslavia. In May, he was captured by Italian forces and was later released as part of a prisoner exchange. From late 1942 to mid-1943, he was chief of the Special Operations Executive (SOE) Yugoslav Section in Cairo, Egypt, where he was James Klugmann's supervisor. From January 1945 he was liaison officer with partisans in Liguria, Italy.
After the war, he was Paris correspondent for "The Times," "Daily Herald" ,"New Statesman", and the "Daily Mirror."
Since 1951, he became a well known authority on African history, an unfashionable subject in the 1950s. His writings have emphasised the pre-colonial achievements of Africans, the disastrous effects of the Atlantic Slave Trade, the further damage inflicted on Africa by European colonialism and the baleful effects of the Nation State in Africa.
Davidson's works are required reading in many British universities. He is globally recognized as an expert on African History.
He currently lives in Staffordshire.
He has written several books on the current plight of Africa. Colonialism and the rise of African emancipation movements have been central themes of his work.
He is an Honorary Fellow of the London School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS).
From 1939, Davidson was a reporter for the London "Economist" in Paris, France. From December 1939, he was a Secret Intelligence Service (SIS)/MI-6 D Section (sabotage) officer sent to Budapest (see Special Operations Europe, chapter 3) to establish a news service as cover. In April 1941, with the Nazi invasion, he fled to Belgrade, Yugoslavia. In May, he was captured by Italian forces and was later released as part of a prisoner exchange. From late 1942 to mid-1943, he was chief of the Special Operations Executive (SOE) Yugoslav Section in Cairo, Egypt, where he was James Klugmann's supervisor. From January 1945 he was liaison officer with partisans in Liguria, Italy.
After the war, he was Paris correspondent for "The Times," "Daily Herald" ,"New Statesman", and the "Daily Mirror."
Since 1951, he became a well known authority on African history, an unfashionable subject in the 1950s. His writings have emphasised the pre-colonial achievements of Africans, the disastrous effects of the Atlantic Slave Trade, the further damage inflicted on Africa by European colonialism and the baleful effects of the Nation State in Africa.
Davidson's works are required reading in many British universities. He is globally recognized as an expert on African History.
He currently lives in Staffordshire.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 4, 2025
Basil Davidson is an interesting man. He lived the events he writes about in this book. There are anecdotes casually interspersed throughout the book of Davidson speaking with Nkrumah, opposition leaders and politically active people. He is definitely sympathetic to Nkrumah's mission, but is not afraid to critique him from the left and from a practical standpoint. Davidson characterizes Nkrumah as a visionary and an idealist, which was both his greatest strength and weakness.
Nkrumah was brought back to Ghana from Britain in 1947 by the UGCC, an early nationalist political party, to act as their general secretary and help lead their movement. He soon split from the UGCC because they were a party of intellectuals, cut off from the people of Ghana. Nkrumah founded the Convention People's Party (CPP), in 1949. Their ideology was extremely simple: self determination and anti-colonialism. The most popular activism of the time was a boycott of imported European goods. It was simple, practical and people could see the direct results of their action. Nkrumah is often accused of being a communist, even in this early period, but Davidson shows how the movement was absent of almost any political ideology, and Nkrumah actually denounced communist ideology repeatedly. It was a smart strategic move, the movement was so broad that everyone could find a place within it, and they did. In 1951, the CPP won something like 90 percent of the votes and won the right to create their own constitution. Nkrumah and the CPP worked strategically over the next 6 years and achieved political independence in 1957. Their policies were moderate and economically orthodox. Everything was done with an air of respectability and etiquette that the British expected. Nkrumah was very talented in this respect, he knew how to negotiate and get concessions out of political opponents.
After 1957, Ghana finally seemed to have a chance to set out on its own and implement social policy that would develop the country. Instead they maintained conventional liberal economic policy. The CPP fixed the price of cocoa, the mono-crop of Ghana, to ensure foreign investors that trade was stable and to reduce inflation. A majority of Ghanaians were rural farmers, and this pushed them further into poverty after years of fighting for improved conditions. Davidson writes, "This might seem to many a time to 'soak the rich' for the benefit of C.P.P. policies of social progress. Nkrumah's government decided to soak the poor. In July 1961 its advisers had their way. The government concluded that the country was living beyond its means, and a budget was brought in to meet the deficit. Nkrumah approved it." This cut everyone's wages at a time when people were already struggling to survive. The port and railway workers went on strike in response. The Takoradi strike was broken by the CPP government. It shows an obvious disconnect between workers and the party. Discontent continued to increase and materialized in multiple opposition parties. These were of course encouraged covertly by the Americans and British. In 1964 Nkrumah outlawed the opposition parties and the state became interlinked with the party.
Nkrumah was a smart theoretician. He saw that Britain had handicapped Ghana by giving it a political revolution without an economic one. He saw the necessity for a revolutionary political party to implement socialist policy. But he could not tie theory to practice. The CPP had become a top-heavy bureaucracy, without a democratic process within it. Party ministers were appointed directly by Nkrumah, not voted in by the people. 1964 cemented this separation from party and people. After achieving independence, the CPP lost its raison d'être, it became reactionary. Nkrumah tried moving too fast after achieving independence. He tried to create a revolution without a mass movement. He brought in communist intellectuals in the 60s but without people to lead this was fruitless.
The failures of Nkrumah are blamed on corruption, socialist economic policy, soviet-style radicalism and the restrictions placed on opposition political parties. Davidson responds to each of these. Corruption was minimal, the CPP's economic policy was liberal and orthodox and Ghana was non-aligned during the Cold War, often working with British advisers. The last critique is interesting. Localized ethnic groups like the Ewe and regional polities like the Ashanti region used the language of European democracy and liberty to challenge and criticize Nkrumah's govt. But they used this language of democracy and the parliamentary Westminster system to pursue the very opposite. Opposition parties like the National Liberation Movement (NLM) were led by chiefs and tribal leaders, the traditional aristocracy of Ghana. They wished to reduce democratic involvement in government, create a system that privileged themselves and allowed for authoritarian control over their respective regions. In a ironic sense they were embodying the true values of Western liberal democracy. Davidson points out that the parliamentary system imported onto Ghana was always going to fail to stop the hostility of opposition parties. "This problem was that the multi-party state on Westminster lines simply would not work on those lines; and it would not work on those lines because the circumstances of Ghana were not at all the same as those of nineteenth or twentieth century Britain." (p.210) Britain had spent the last two hundred years building a national identity united around a monarch and enforced by violence. Ghana's national identity was created in response to British colonialism. Their opposition to colonial exploitation united them but their personal identities were still regional and factional.
The larger picture of Ghana's failure can be found by looking at the material conditions in West Africa. European colonialism stunted the development of their economy. The Ghanaian people were still peasants. The post war developments in the 1950s did not create a proletariat but a large petty bourgeoisie. People were driven by self interest and immediate economic necessity. Skilled, intelligent people still went to Europe to become educated, and worked for the CPP because they saw an opportunity for personal gain, not nation building.
These later failures aside, Nkrumah is a fascinating man and he will always be seen as a hero of the third world for being the first leader to achieve independence in West Africa. I plan on reading his political texts on neo-colonialism next.
"The struggle for liberation has to be understood for what experience has amply shown it to be: a difficult choice between possible alternatives, none of which can offer a 'pure' gain, but only, at the best, a greater gain than loss." (p. 213)
"It was now widely seen that no ex-colony could achieve a genuine and steady progress while remaining with the industrialized countries in the same overall relationship as before. This was a relationship which had helped further development of the industrialized countries, whether directly imperialist or not, but at the price of impelling the ex-colonial countries into a downward spiral of relative but increasing 'under-development'." (p.211)
Nkrumah was brought back to Ghana from Britain in 1947 by the UGCC, an early nationalist political party, to act as their general secretary and help lead their movement. He soon split from the UGCC because they were a party of intellectuals, cut off from the people of Ghana. Nkrumah founded the Convention People's Party (CPP), in 1949. Their ideology was extremely simple: self determination and anti-colonialism. The most popular activism of the time was a boycott of imported European goods. It was simple, practical and people could see the direct results of their action. Nkrumah is often accused of being a communist, even in this early period, but Davidson shows how the movement was absent of almost any political ideology, and Nkrumah actually denounced communist ideology repeatedly. It was a smart strategic move, the movement was so broad that everyone could find a place within it, and they did. In 1951, the CPP won something like 90 percent of the votes and won the right to create their own constitution. Nkrumah and the CPP worked strategically over the next 6 years and achieved political independence in 1957. Their policies were moderate and economically orthodox. Everything was done with an air of respectability and etiquette that the British expected. Nkrumah was very talented in this respect, he knew how to negotiate and get concessions out of political opponents.
After 1957, Ghana finally seemed to have a chance to set out on its own and implement social policy that would develop the country. Instead they maintained conventional liberal economic policy. The CPP fixed the price of cocoa, the mono-crop of Ghana, to ensure foreign investors that trade was stable and to reduce inflation. A majority of Ghanaians were rural farmers, and this pushed them further into poverty after years of fighting for improved conditions. Davidson writes, "This might seem to many a time to 'soak the rich' for the benefit of C.P.P. policies of social progress. Nkrumah's government decided to soak the poor. In July 1961 its advisers had their way. The government concluded that the country was living beyond its means, and a budget was brought in to meet the deficit. Nkrumah approved it." This cut everyone's wages at a time when people were already struggling to survive. The port and railway workers went on strike in response. The Takoradi strike was broken by the CPP government. It shows an obvious disconnect between workers and the party. Discontent continued to increase and materialized in multiple opposition parties. These were of course encouraged covertly by the Americans and British. In 1964 Nkrumah outlawed the opposition parties and the state became interlinked with the party.
Nkrumah was a smart theoretician. He saw that Britain had handicapped Ghana by giving it a political revolution without an economic one. He saw the necessity for a revolutionary political party to implement socialist policy. But he could not tie theory to practice. The CPP had become a top-heavy bureaucracy, without a democratic process within it. Party ministers were appointed directly by Nkrumah, not voted in by the people. 1964 cemented this separation from party and people. After achieving independence, the CPP lost its raison d'être, it became reactionary. Nkrumah tried moving too fast after achieving independence. He tried to create a revolution without a mass movement. He brought in communist intellectuals in the 60s but without people to lead this was fruitless.
The failures of Nkrumah are blamed on corruption, socialist economic policy, soviet-style radicalism and the restrictions placed on opposition political parties. Davidson responds to each of these. Corruption was minimal, the CPP's economic policy was liberal and orthodox and Ghana was non-aligned during the Cold War, often working with British advisers. The last critique is interesting. Localized ethnic groups like the Ewe and regional polities like the Ashanti region used the language of European democracy and liberty to challenge and criticize Nkrumah's govt. But they used this language of democracy and the parliamentary Westminster system to pursue the very opposite. Opposition parties like the National Liberation Movement (NLM) were led by chiefs and tribal leaders, the traditional aristocracy of Ghana. They wished to reduce democratic involvement in government, create a system that privileged themselves and allowed for authoritarian control over their respective regions. In a ironic sense they were embodying the true values of Western liberal democracy. Davidson points out that the parliamentary system imported onto Ghana was always going to fail to stop the hostility of opposition parties. "This problem was that the multi-party state on Westminster lines simply would not work on those lines; and it would not work on those lines because the circumstances of Ghana were not at all the same as those of nineteenth or twentieth century Britain." (p.210) Britain had spent the last two hundred years building a national identity united around a monarch and enforced by violence. Ghana's national identity was created in response to British colonialism. Their opposition to colonial exploitation united them but their personal identities were still regional and factional.
The larger picture of Ghana's failure can be found by looking at the material conditions in West Africa. European colonialism stunted the development of their economy. The Ghanaian people were still peasants. The post war developments in the 1950s did not create a proletariat but a large petty bourgeoisie. People were driven by self interest and immediate economic necessity. Skilled, intelligent people still went to Europe to become educated, and worked for the CPP because they saw an opportunity for personal gain, not nation building.
These later failures aside, Nkrumah is a fascinating man and he will always be seen as a hero of the third world for being the first leader to achieve independence in West Africa. I plan on reading his political texts on neo-colonialism next.
"The struggle for liberation has to be understood for what experience has amply shown it to be: a difficult choice between possible alternatives, none of which can offer a 'pure' gain, but only, at the best, a greater gain than loss." (p. 213)
"It was now widely seen that no ex-colony could achieve a genuine and steady progress while remaining with the industrialized countries in the same overall relationship as before. This was a relationship which had helped further development of the industrialized countries, whether directly imperialist or not, but at the price of impelling the ex-colonial countries into a downward spiral of relative but increasing 'under-development'." (p.211)
August 29, 2019
Basil Davidson's book is a primary source. He worked with Nkrumah. As a result, he writes an apology as opposed to a history.
However, Davidson writes so clearly that difficult concepts are easily understood. Davidson's writing style should be held as an example of good nonfiction: the writer explains himself so the reader doesn't have to do the work of figuring out concepts and thoughts.
However, Davidson writes so clearly that difficult concepts are easily understood. Davidson's writing style should be held as an example of good nonfiction: the writer explains himself so the reader doesn't have to do the work of figuring out concepts and thoughts.
March 28, 2024
This book is an attempt of a biography of Kwame Nkrumah, his governance and early life. Because of the date of the book it primarily focused on the former. This books brevity is both a strength and weakness. I found the book easy to read but there was a lack of complexity or depth that you’d find in other biographical works.
The most interesting part of this, Nkrumah’s governance leaves a lot too the imagination. The book mention the development of corrupt practices but doesn’t really go into depth of its origins. It talks a lot about his successes but doesn’t really go into detail about its effects on working class populations anything aside from government intrigue at a certain point. I would say it is a good starting off point for learning about Nkrumah.
The most interesting part of this, Nkrumah’s governance leaves a lot too the imagination. The book mention the development of corrupt practices but doesn’t really go into depth of its origins. It talks a lot about his successes but doesn’t really go into detail about its effects on working class populations anything aside from government intrigue at a certain point. I would say it is a good starting off point for learning about Nkrumah.
November 4, 2021
It's Basil Davidson enough said! Seriously though, this is a very balanced if not carefully sympathetic look at the life of Kwame Nkrumah. Davidson chronicles the rise of Nkrumah from his days of obscurity in the West as a student to later returning to Ghana to become the anti-colonial juggernaut we now are familiar with. In this book, Davidson attempts to paint to the reader the canvas of social, economic and ideological pressures and processes that ultimately marked Nkrumah. Of the various biographies I've read on Nkrumah none has ever succeeded in unveiling as pronounced and scathing an appraisal of the neo-colonial "Afropeans" the CPP and Nkrumah had to deal with. Simply put, if you're an Nkrumahist, this book is a must read and compliments perfectly, Nkrumah's own autobiographical.
August 22, 2015
I borrowed this book from my father-in-law, knowing very little about Kwame Nkrumah or Basil Davidson. This was a quick enjoyable and interesting book about the political career of the founding father of Ghana. Davidson does a great job putting Nkrumah in the context of his time, describing his constraints. If your interested in Ghanaian history, I highly recommend.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews