Please read each of the articles (PDF FILES attached) selected for each chapter (1 to 6) and watch the video selected for each Chapters 1 to 6, then follow these steps: Write a 600-word essay in you

(2004:22) 123 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 The article has therefore two main objectives. Firs t, it attempts to contribute to the vast literature on Pan-Africanism and African unity by re-examining Nkrumah’s ideas on continental unity through the lens of his leadership traits and decis ion making. Second, unlike the existing literature on Nkrumah and African unity which appea rs to be driven by historical analyses/ narratives, this study takes a different approach ( theory-driven) by employing the theoretical framework of Leadership Trait Analysis, ( a theory associated with foreign policy decision- making literature ) to examine Nkrumah’s leadership traits and his de cision making on African unity. In essence, the article attempts to answer t he following research question: To what extent can one explain the decisions of Nkrumah on issues of Pan-Africanism and African unity through his leadership traits? In other words, the article explores the extent to which the theory (LTA) explains Nkrumah’s decision making on Pan-Afr icanism and African unity. The article is structured in two parts. The first part examines the competing ideas on Pan- Africanism and African unity. The second part emplo ys the theory to examine the extent to which Kwame Nkrumah’s leadership traits shaped his decision making on issues of African unity. Furthermore, the article also underscores th e utility of the theory (LTA) and argues that leadership matters (Jackson and Rosberg 1982; Ayitt ey 1998) in any attempt to achieve development and political unity in Africa. Competing Ideas on the Origin of Pan-Africanism Although the concept of Pan-Africanism has been the subject of many scholarly debates and interpretations as far as its origin is concerned, there is a considerable consensus among some scholars (Adogamhe 2008; Williams 2005; Panford 199 6) regarding the broad definition of the concept. For Williams (2005:173), Pan-Africanism is a global movement to unite Africa and its people against racial oppression and exploitation a ssociated with European hegemony. From a continental (African) perspective, M’bayo (2004) an d Okhonmina (2009) argue that Pan- Africanism involves efforts to mobilize continental Africans against colonialism and racism as well as recognizing the concept as the philosophica l grounding for the unity of Africa through the African Union. In fact, the theme ( Pan-Africanism and African Renaissance) for the 50th anniversary celebration ( May 25, 2013) of the AU provides a good description of Pan- Africanism and African unity. According to the Afri can Union: Pan-Africanism is an ideology and movement tha t encourages the solidarity of Africans worldwide. It is based on the belief that unit y is vital to economic, social and political progress and aims to ‘unify and uplift’ people of African descent. The ideology asserts that the fates of all African peoples and countries are intertwined. At its core Pan-Africanism is a belief that African peoples, both on the conti nent and in the Diaspora, share not merely a common history, but a common destiny. (AU Echo 2013:1) 124 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 Most scholars share some commonality on the concept ual definition and the goals of Pan- Africanism, but they differ on the interpretation o f its evolution. Drawing on scholars such as Nantanmbu (1998) and Londsdale (1968), Okhonmina (2 009) categorizes the concept of Pan- Africanism into Afrocentric and Eurocentric perspec tives or interpretations. The Afrocentric interpretation, according to Okhonmina (2009:87) an d Nantanmbu (1998), is often used to explain the struggle by Africans for self-assertion dating back to the era of 3200 B.C. The Eurocentric assumption, on the other hand, interpre ts Pan-Africanism as the response to slavery and colonialism by Africans (Okhonmina 2009; Londsd ale 1968). Williams (2005) shares a similar Afrocentric perspe ctive, but with different interpretation on the evolution of Pan-Africanism. Contrary to the domina nt argument that Pan-Africanism originated from the African diaspora, Williams (2005:174) main tains that there are sufficient reasons to trace the evolution of the concept to the experienc es (slavery and colonialism ) of Africans on the continent of Africa. For Williams (2005), the deep desires expressed by those on the continent for the safe return of their fellow Africans taken into slavery (New World), were manifestations of the ideas of Pan-Africanism. The philosophical n otion of deep desires , in this case, could be interpreted as the longing for unity by Africans for their enslaved brothers and sister s (fellow Africans) who were taken to the land of the unknown . We share the centrality (deep desires for unity) of Williams’ (2005) argument on the continental ma nifestations of Pan-Africanism.

Another continental perspective relates to what Wil liams (2005) describes as the fight by some African warriors like Yaa Asantewaa of the Gold Coa st (now Ghana) and Chaka Zulu of South Africa against European slave traders and colonial domination. Like those Africans who expressed the desires for the safe return of their “stolen” brothers and sisters, the African warriors who fought against the slave traders (European instigators and their African collaborators) also displayed some elements of Pan-Africanism (Wi lliams 2005). While the Afrocentric and Eurocentric categorizatio n of Pan-Africanism might be useful to the broader understanding of the concept, the use of Eurocentrism as an approach by Londsdale (1968) and Okhonmina (2009) is not only problematic , but misleading as well, because of the so- called Eurocentric categorization. Thus, we argue t hat the use of Eurocentrism as a classification terminology appears to suggest that the idea of Pan -Africanism evolved from the European intellectual tradition, rather than the philosophic al heritage of Africa and the African diaspora. In fact, Nkrumah re-echoed a similar sentiment in his book, Africa Must Unite, that: The expression of ‘Pan-Africanism’ did not co me into use until the beginning of the twentieth century when Henry Sylvester-Willia m of Trinidad, and William Edward Burghardt DuBois of the United States of Amer ica, both of African descent, used it at several Pan-African Congresses which were mainly atte nded by scholars of African descent of the New World. (1970:132) 125 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 Regardless of the contending interpretations of Pan -Africanism, many scholars, politicians, and ordinary Africans are certain that the concept has been the philosophical foundation for Dr.

Kwame Nkrumah’s idea of transforming the continent into a strong supra-political union or a United States of Africa (Okhonmina 2009; Olaosebika n 2011; Panford 1996; Biney 2008; Adogamhe 2008; Afari-Gyan 1991). Another element with respect to the competing ideas in the literature deals with whether Nkrumah’s formative thoughts on Pan-Africanism and African unity developed internally or externally. The dominant assumption underscores the fact that Nkrumah’s ideas on Pan- Africanism were externally driven because of his as sociation with Pan-Africanist scholars of the African diaspora such as George Padmore, Marcus Gar vey and W.E.B. DuBois (Olaosebikan 2011; Clarke 1974; Panford 1996; Adogamhe 2008). Al though Nkrumah’s ideas on Pan- Africanism and his subsequent philosophical thought on African common government were inspired by Pan-Africanist scholars of the diaspora (Clarke 1974; Panford 1996), it might be erroneous to argue that Nkrumah’s formative ideas o n Pan-Africanism were exclusively formed outside the shores of Africa. The goal of advancing this argument is not to dimin ish the enormous influence that George Padmore, Marcus Garvey, and W.E.B. DuBois had on Nk rumah’s ideas, but to underscore the point that Nkrumah’s foundational thoughts on Pan-A fricanism started on the shores of Africa.

As Botwe-Asamoah (2005) contends, Nkrumah’s formati ve ideas on nationalism were stimulated by Dr. Kwagyir Aggrey when he was a stud ent at Achimota Training College in the Gold Coast. Besides Nkrumah’s broad ideas on nation alism, Botwe-Asamoah (2005:2) and Biney (2011:12) agree that the philosophical and po litical thoughts of W.E.B. DuBois and Marcus Garvey on Pan-Africanism were also introduce d to Kwame Nkrumah before he left for further studies in the United States of America (US A/US). Nkrumah’s thoughts on African nationalism were further solidified during his scho ol days in the US as well as his involvement in many Pan-African conferences, particularly the 1945 Congress in Manchester, United Kingdom (UK). The 1945 Congress actually deepened Nkrumah’s operational strategies for Africa’s freedom from colonial oppression. In his words: Pan-Africanism and African nationalism really took concrete expression when the Fifth Pan- African Congress met in Manchester in 1945. Fo r the first time the necessity for well- organized, firmly-knit movements as a primary condition for the success of national liberation struggle in Africa was stressed. (Nkrumah 1970 :134) Clearly, Nkrumah’s ideas on Pan-Africanism and Afri can unity as we have seen from the preceding discussion were driven from two main sour ces, namely endogenous and exogenous (Botwe-Asamoah 2005). Figure 1 provides a good ill ustration of the two sources. 126 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 Figure 1 Evolution of Nkrumah’s Ideas on Pan-Africanism and African Unity Endogenous Exogenous Source: Figure 1 was designed by the authors of this artic le with ideas from Botwe-Asamoah (2005) Nkrumah’s Political Life in Africa Having been energized for action to end colonialism following the 1945 Pan-African Congress, Nkrumah returned to the Gold Coast in December 1947 after twelve years in the US and the UK (Nkrumah 1976; Biney 2011). He became the General S ecretary of the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC), a political organization devoted to secure independence for the Gold Coast (Nkrumah 1976). Nkrumah did not last long with the UGCC following his disagreement with the party’s leaders regarding the best strategy for ach ieving political independence for the Gold Coast. Nkrumah broke away from the UGCC on June 12, 1949 a nd formed a new political party called the Convention People’s Party (CPP) with the slogan of “Self-Government Now,” as opposed to the UGCC’s “Self-Government in the shortest possibl e time” (Nkrumah 1976:19). For Nkrumah, the UGCC’s slogan of “Self-Government in the shorte st possible time” was not specific for any urgent action against colonialism. Nkrumah’s interp retation of his CPP’s “Self-Government Now” was for positive and urgent action to end colo nialism now and now! Nkrumah’s CPP won the general election and the party became the platf orm on which the Gold Coast gained freedom from British colonial domination. On March 6, 1957 the Gold Coast became the sovereign state of Ghana with Kwame Nkrumah as the first Prime Mini ster and later President after Ghana became a republic in 1960 (Biney 2011; Nkrumah 1976 ). 127 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 UNITED STATES Nkrumah’s ideas on Pan-Africanism were solidified GHANA Dr. Aggrey introduced the ideas of DuBois & Garvey on Pan-Africanism to Nkrumah UNITED KINGDOM Nkrumah’s ideas on nationalism against colonial dom ination in Africa were crystallized into operational strategies during the 1945 Pan-African Congress Debating Nkrumah’s Ideas on African Unity The collapse of colonialism in the Gold Coast did n ot end Nkrumah’s nationalism, but the era marked the beginning of his support for other natio nalist movements across the continent. In his famous independence celebration statement, Nkrumah (1970: 136) noted that “the independence of Ghana is meaningless unless it is linked up with the total liberation of Africa……While our independence celebrations were actually taking plac e; I called for a conference of all the sovereign states of Africa, to discuss plans for th e future of our continent.” Nkrumah’s major foreign policy decision soon after Ghana gained independence was the first conference of Independent African States he convene d in 1958. The conference, which was held in Ghana, was significant for two reasons. First, a ll the eight independent countries (Egypt, Ghana, Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Liberia, Morocco and Ethiopia) were in attendance. Second, the conference, which was held in April, was seen as th e prelude to the All-African People’s Conference held in December of the same year (1958) in Accra, Ghana. About 62 delegates from African nationalist organizations attended the Dece mber conference where nationalist agitation strategies were devised for the political independe nce of other colonized territories across Africa (Nkrumah 1970; Olaosebikan 2011). The central theme that emerged from the meetings co nvened by Nkrumah was his idea for a political unity of the continent. By the late 1950s to the early 1960s, it was very clear that Nkrumah was so determined to push his unification a genda without any delay. His first major step was taken in 1958 when the Ghana-Guinea Union was formed. Mali joined later to form the Ghana-Guinea-Mali Union (Nkrumah 1970; Olaosebikan 2011). Nkrumah’s idea was energized by the Ghana-Guinea-Mali Union, to the extent that the Union in 1961 produced a draft Charter for the United States of Africa (Olaosebikan 2011; Nkrumah 1970; Biney 2011; Agyeman 1975).

Key components (Olaosebikan 2011:221) of the propo sed African Union Government included:

(1) immediate creation of a continental supra-natio nal political institution, (2) the surrender of sovereignty of independent African states to the su pra-national body, (3) the creation of an African High Command ( a unified defense system) and the (4) harmonization of all sectors (e.g., open borders, one passport and one currency). 128 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 Nkrumah’s reasoning for advancing his ambitious age nda for Africa’s unification was simple. To him, no single independent African country could de velop without a complete political unification of the continent. Although some critics of the idea argued that Africa could not achieve any meaningful political merger because of the non-existence of the so-called necessary conditions (common culture, language, infrastructur e, etc.), Nkrumah maintained that some level of fragmentation might exist, but Africans have muc h more in common to necessitate unity (Nkrumah 1970) through the harmonization of the con tinent’s natural and human resources (Biney 2008, 2011; Olaosebikan 2011). As noted above, some African leaders expressed skep ticism about Nkrumah’s agenda. In fact, sharp differences emerged between leaders who favor ed gradual integration and the more radical group who favored Nkrumah’s idea of immediate polit ical unity. The gradual (moderate) group, also known as the Monrovia Group was made up of Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Togo , Benin and Sierra Leone among others. The more radical gro up, also known as the Casablanca Group consisted of countries such as Ghana, Ethiopia, Gui nea, Egypt, Libya and Mali (Olaosebikan 2011). One of the reasons for the skepticism on Nkr umah’s unification agenda, as Olaosebikan (2011) contends was the fear that the sovereignty o f the newly independent states would be eroded. Other leaders were also apprehensive about what Olaosebikan (2011:223) describes as “Ghana’s hegemonic political ambition and Nkrumah’s purported attempt to become the president of Africa.” Notwithstanding Nkrumah’s dom estic critics (African leaders) , one must also not forget the external machinations of the im perialists against Nkrumah’s vision for a united Africa (Rooney 1988; Biney 2008). In fact, G ebe’s (2008:174) recent work reveals that Nkrumah’s overthrow from power in 1966 was to some extent linked to imperialist influence. Interestingly, some consensus was reached between t he moderate and the radical views, which led to the establishment of the Organization of Afr ican Unity (OAU) in 1963 in Addis Abba, Ethiopia (AU Echo 2013). While a political unity fo r Africa is yet to be attained, the idea, as earlier mentioned, has not diminished completely fr om the general discourse on Africa’s future agenda (Adogamhe 2008: Kete 2012). Perhaps, the tr ansformation of the OAU into the African Union in 2001 demonstrates another element of hope and aspiration for Nkrumah’s ideas. In view of the sustaining nature of Nkrumah’s thoughts , one wonders, as an empirical question of interest, whether his leadership traits and persona lity styles could offer some theoretical explanation for his decisions and advocacy for Afri can unity. In other words, to what extent can Nkrumah’s leadership traits help us to understand h is political behavior and decisions on issues of African unity? The next part of the paper employ s the theoretical framework of Leadership Trait Analysis to answer the empirical question. 129 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 Leadership Trait Analysis Theory: An Overview The Leadership Trait Analysis (LTA) or the techniqu e of measuring leadership traits and personality styles of political leaders has become one of the dominant theories in the fields of foreign policy decision-making and political psycho logy in recent years. The theory is grounded on the conceptual ideas of operational code (values and world views of leaders) analysis of political leaders (Walker 1990). The theory, which was developed by Margaret Hermann, focuses on the leadership/personality traits of pol itical leaders and the way their traits shape decision making, especially foreign policy (Hermann 1980; Dyson 2006; Kaarbo 1997).

Hermann’s (1980; 1999) theoretical idea, which is s hared by other students of foreign policy decision-making (Dyson and Preston 2006; Kaarbo 199 7; Dyson 2006; Kesgin 2012; Gorener and Ucal 2011) underscores the fact that leaders ma tter in shaping foreign policy making. For Hermann (1999:1), understanding the personal charac teristics of leaders matter, because of the realization that their “preferences, the things the y believe in and work, and the ways they go about making decisions can influence our lives.” Ke sgin (2012) reflects on similar ideas on the significance of political elites in foreign policy making. Kesgin (2012:29) argues that individual leaders are not only the center piece of domestic p olitics in terms of their influence on state behavior, but they are capable of employing their p ersonality traits, beliefs, motives, and personal styles in shaping the framework of foreign policy.

Essentially, the idea that individuals matter in sh aping foreign policy has historically been ignored by the traditional theories ( realism, neorealism and liberalism) of international relations (IR). As Gorener and Ucal (2011:359) put it, the do minant theories in IR tend to “emphasize structural factors as critical variables in explain ing international politics.” By implication, the structural explanation of global outcomes (Waltz 1979), which was driven by the Cold War politics was embraced by many IR scholars at the ex pense of the domestic (individual-level) explanation (Hagan 1994). Actually, Hermann and Hagan (1998:12 5-6) have provided some clues in explaining why the individual-level analys is has been historically ignored. According to them, the traditional IR theorists often consider t he individual-level analysis as unnecessary in understanding the “big issues” of IR such as intern ational conflicts/wars, cooperation, security, balance of power and change in the global system (H ermann and Hagan 1998:124). Perhaps, the logic of these traditional theorists rest on the so -called assumption that such a knowledge (individual-level analysis) might not add much to the explanation of the “big issues” in international relations. Like others, Hermann and Hagan (1998:125-6) disagre ed with this assumption and have argued that the post-Cold War era has presented an ambiguo us global environment with political leaders playing pivotal roles in balancing domestic pressur es/constraints with international demands. To put it differently, political leaders matter to the scholarly discourse on the determinants of foreign policy. 130 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 Indeed, leaders define and shape policy outcomes (d omestic and international) through their perceptions, interpretations, strategies, expectati ons and beliefs about the world. In fact, Dyson’s (2006) recent work, which finds a strong connection between Prime Minister Tony Blair’s personality and leadership styles in his decision t o engage Britain in the Iraq War is not only useful to the foreign policy literature (individual -level analysis), but to our discussion as well.

This article attempts to also contribute to the fie ld (opening the black box ), but from an Afrocentric perspective. Tenets of LTA Theory The central assumption of Leadership Trait Analysis , as previously noted, is the recognition that leaders matter in policy decisions, especially in t he field of foreign policy. For scholars in the field of this research, the question of how a resea rcher can collect data for this kind of study continues to be an important issue. According to H ermann (1999; 1980), it could be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to administer psychol ogical tests, questionnaires or series of clinical interviews to political leaders in order to determi ne their personality traits. One way scholars can learn about political elites that might not require any element of their cooperation is to examine what they say (Hermann 1999; Kaarbo 1997). This mea ns that researchers can deduce information on leaders from their public statements , speeches, existing literature, and most importantly from their spontaneous utterances (Herm ann 1999; Kesgin 2012; Winter et al. 1991).

Hermann (1999) describes this methodology as At-A-Distance technique of assessing leaders.

To enhance our understanding of the theory, Hermann (1999) coined a combination of seven traits as key tenets in the analysis of the theory. They include: (1) belief in ability to control events, (2) the need for power and influence, (3) c onceptual complexity, (4) self-confidence, (5) task orientation ( tendency to focus on problem solving ), (6) distrust or suspicion of others, and (7) in-group bias (Hermann 1999:10; Dyson 2006:291; Kesgin 2012:32). These seven variables constitute the central pillars on which the theory is based. For example, an individual leader’s score on these variables are measured through a sys tematic content analysis of verbal statements, policy papers, and interviews (Hermann 1999; Dyson 2006). The underlying assumption is that the more a leader uses certain particular words or phrases in their interview responses, the more significant such issues might be important to them (Hermann 1999; Dyson 2006).

Although LTA theory is largely based on a quantitat ive methodology, we believe that it equally provides a persuasive conceptual framework that mig ht be considered as broad-based and not limited or exclusive to quantitative applications a lone. A careful review of the theory reveals that it could also be applicable to other methods of soc ial science research and inquiry like the qualitative research method. 131 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 In essence, this article’s application of the LTA t o understand the leadership traits of Kwame Nkrumah in his decisions on issues of Pan-Africanis m and African unity are grounded on a qualitative method of inquiry. Therefore, this arti cle departs from the conventional approach when it comes to the application of the LTA theory in foreign policy making literature. While we are mindful of the fact that our approach might gen erate some scholarly debates regarding our choice of methodology, we do not anticipate the uti lity of the theory to be undermined let alone be diminished, but we consider the adoption of the theory as an opportunity to observe its explanatory power from a different methodological p erspective. Our next task is to employ these traits to examine Nkrumah vis-a-vis his policy deci sions. Nkrumah’s Leadership Traits and Decision Making In his piece, Kwame Nkrumah’s Politico-Cultural Thought and Polic ies, Botwe-Asamoah (2005) agrees with Yousuf (1990) and Biney (2011) that Nkr umah was one of the prominent historical/political personalities of the twentieth century. Even after his death, Nkrumah continues to command great respect and admiration a s a visionary leader of his time. For Biney (2008), Nkrumah’s reputation and performance as Gha na’s first president as well as his sterling leadership style of conviction on nationalism canno t pass without recognition. For example, Biney (2008:130) recounts that the popularity and t he leadership credentials of Nkrumah was so high that he was voted as “Africa’s Man of the Mill ennium” in 2009 by African listeners to the BBC Focus on Africa radio program. Tracing the origin of Nkrumah’s personality and lea dership styles, Yousuf (1990) adds that his personality was rooted in the African culture, hist ory, customs and traditions (Owusu 1997), which shaped his sense of natural grace, humor and charismatic personality. Talking about Nkrumah’s charisma, Ake (1966) and Apter (1968) sha re similar views on how Nkrumah transformed his political environment through his c harismatic personality. Like other young Africans of the 1930s and the 1940s, Nkrumah also g rew up under colonialism which subsequently shaped his ideas on nationalism. His p ersonality was equally shaped by his exposure to Western democratic culture, values and principles such as freedom, liberty and the rule of law during his stay in America (Yousuf 1990 ). Commenting on his decision to study in the United States, for example, Nkrumah noted that Africa was partitioned to the point that affected the education of the colonized Africans. S tudents from English-speaking territories went to Britain to study, just as those from French-spea king territories went to France. In his words, “a number of us tried to study at centres outside the metropolis of our administering power…. and that is how America came to appeal to me as a Weste rn country which stood refreshingly untainted by territorial colonialism in Africa” (Nk rumah 1965:1). On Saaka’s (1994:276) part, Nkrumah’s leadership style might be subjected to so me criticisms, but his personality has become part of Ghana’s political tradition which ha s been admired by successive political leaders with respect to his decisiveness and person al magnetism. 132 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 One of the key tenets of the theory (LTA), as we ha ve previously discussed, is the belief in ability to control events. The need for power and s elf-confidence by leaders are two other assumptions of the theory. Hermann (1999), Kesgin ( 2012) and Dyson (2006) agree that political leaders with high belief in their ability to contro l events as well as those with high need for power tend to challenge their environmental constra ints. On the contrary, leaders who are low in these two traits tend to respect or consent to the constraints they face. Drawing on Hermann’s (1999) assumption, this article asks a similar ques tion in terms of whether Nkrumah challenged or respected the constraints he faced as a leader. Applying the theory to Nkrumah’s case, we argue tha t he tends to fit the description of leaders with high belief in their ability to control events . Thus, Nkrumah had a strong belief that he could influence and control events by challenging t he environmental constraints he faced. For the purpose of this study, we define and interpret the environmental constraint as colonialism that existed on the continent of Africa. Without doubt, Nkrumah was aware of the destructive power of colonialism. He also knew how rooted colonialism was but he was convinced that his strong belief and strategic leadership styles were enough to confront his constraint (colonialism) through his decision to become the leading voice fo r the decolonization of Africa. In his book:

Consciencism: Philosophy and Ideology for Decoloniz ation and Development…, Nkrumah advocated for a new African renaissance with no inf luence and history of colonial domination. In his words: “our history needs to be written as the history of our society, not as the story of European adventures” (Nkrumah 1965:63). Armed with these revolutionary ideas against colonialism, Nkrumah returned to the Gold Coast in 1947 and immediately altered the dynamics ( positive action ) of the nationalist movement. Through his trait as a determined political leader with the high belief in his ability to challenge hi s constraint (colonialism), the Gold Coast became the first black colonial territory south of the Sahara to gain independence from Britain in 1957 (Reeck 1976). As Hermann (1999) suggests, leaders with high belie f in their ability to control events also do take active participation in the planning and the e xecution of policy decisions. Nkrumah was no exception. He was actively involved in decisions an d strategies that toppled colonialism in the Gold Coast and other parts of Africa. In his book, I Speak of Freedom, Nkrumah (1976) argues that positive action and good organizational strength we re some of the dynamic forces that helped end the influence of imperialism in Africa. Another example to support our case is worth noting here. Soon after Ghana’s independence, Nkrum ah pursued an ambitious African foreign policy agenda by supporting nationalist movements a cross many parts of the continent (Thompson 1969; Asante 1997). In his other book, Africa Must Unite, Nkrumah noted that “the twentieth century has become the century of colonia l emancipation, the century of continuing revolution which must finally witness the total lib eration of Africa from colonial rule and imperialist exploitation” (Nkrumah 1970:x). Again, the preceding examples have clearly revealed that Nkrumah had a strong personality trai t and the belief in his ability to challenge the constraints he faced. 133 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 Although one cannot ignore the contributions of oth er nationalist leaders like J.B. Danquah of Ghana, Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya and Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, we argue, based on the preceding analysis, that Kwame Nkrumah was the most prominent nationalist leader who was unique and exceptional in challenging the constrain t of colonialism. Further evidence from the literature on Nkrumah sho ws his forceful personality trait as a leader in high need for power and influence at the domesti c and international levels. At the domestic front, for example, Nkrumah and his CPP government consolidated power to the extent that Ghana was transformed from a multi-party system of government into a single party authoritarian state by the mid-1960s (Biney 2008). Nkrumah’s desire for power and influence also reflected in the formulation of his foreign po licy objectives. For instance, Tieku and Odoom (2012) and Gebe (2008) share Thompson’s (1969) view that Nkrumah’s foreign policy at independence was not only robust and aggressive, bu t ambitious with the goal of enlarging his influence, control and power over continental Afric a. For these scholars, Ghana’s foreign policy orientation at independence could best be described as an expression of Nkrumah’s persona and desires. On the international stage, one could argue that Nk rumah’s political thoughts and popularity were beyond Africa. Perhaps this rise to world fame (Grundy 1963; Aluko 1975; Clark 1974) made Nkrumah to become much interested in playing f urther active role on the world stage. A good case in point to demonstrate Nkrumah’s need fo r influence was his strategic diplomatic maneuvering between the former Soviet Union and the US during the Cold War era. While he was mindful of the ideological war between the West and the East, Nkrumah successful employed his influence and power to persuade the US to financially support the construction of the Akosombo Dam in Ghana, while he was still ideol ogically attached to the former Soviet Union (Gebe 2008; Asante 1997). In fact, Asante’s (1997) explanation of Nkrumah’s strategic decision might be useful here. To Asante (1997:35), Nkrumah was not only confident in his ability as an influential leader, but he was just a smart politician who played his game very well and benefitted from the East-West rivalry. On the leadership trait of self-confidence, this ar ticle argues that Nkrumah had displayed key elements of the trait as the theory assumes. In one of his famous statements, for example, Nkrumah noted that: “We prefer self-government with danger to servitude in tranquility…we have the right to live as men…we have the right to govern ourselves” (Biney 2008:130). In another statement regarding the unity for Africa, h e said that:

I do not believe in racialism or tribalism. The concept of ‘Africa for the Africans’ does not mean that other races are excluded from it. No! It only means that Africans shall and must govern themselves in their own countries without imperialist and foreign impositions; but that people of other races can remain on African soil , carry on their legitimate avocations and live on terms of peace, friendship and equality with Africans on their own soil. (Nkrumah 1976:30) 134 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 As the theory assumes, the trait of self-confidence , deals with personal image of self-worth of leaders. Leaders with high self-confidence are more likely to be generally content with who they are and what they can do to influence their environ ment (Hermann 1999). Applying a similar reasoning to our study, we argue that Nkrumah exhib ited high self-confidence to successfully challenge colonialism from two fronts. The first wa s in Ghana, and the second was through his aggressive foreign policy decision to support (fina ncial and material) nationalist movements across Africa (Armah 2004; Thompson 1969). As we ha ve also discussed, Nkrumah’s thoughts were shaped by his interactions (internal and exter nal) with pan-African scholars. It is our contention that Nkrumah’s domestic and internationa l relationships which he fostered against colonialism also shaped his high level of self-conf idence in the fight against colonial domination.

For example, Nkrumah, as we know, participated in m any Pan-African conferences, especially the 1945 conference in Manchester (Nkrumah 1970; Bo twe-Asamoah 2005), which marked a defining moment regarding his journey of “practical nationalism” against colonial domination in Africa. Hermann’s (1999:21) theory also underscores the fac t that political leaders who are low in self- confidence are more likely to be easily swayed on i ssues. In other words, leaders with low self- confidence are often without a well-developed sense of their personality. Again, we argue that Nkrumah did not exhibit any element of a leader wit h low self-confidence about his personality.

As previously mentioned, Olaosebikan (2011) argues that Nkrumah’s radical ideas on continental unity faced stiff opposition from many African leaders who held different views on the subject. While Nkrumah was flexible to some alt ernative ideas, he appeared not to have wavered in his self-confidence regarding his bold i dea on the political unity for Africa. Perhaps, Obeng’s (1979:26) work on the Speeches of Nkrumah offers another important clarification on Nkrumah’s self-confidence in his vision of politica l integration. In a speech delivered in 1960, Nkrumah declared with self-confidence the three mai n alternatives he claimed were open to African states on the future of the continent: (1) to unite and save the continent, (2) to disunite and disintegrate, or (3) to sell out to outside int ervention. Conceptual complexity is another important tenet of the theory that shapes decision making of political leaders. According to the theory, leaders who are more conceptually complex are those who embrace flexibility in reacting to alternative ideas and events. On the other hand, conceptually simple leaders tend to classify ideas and events into either black-white or good-bad dichotomy (Hermann 1999; Kesgin 2012; Dyson 2006). In the case of Nkrumah, this article shares the view that he was a leader who was more c onceptually complex because of the way he interpreted ideas and events as well as his flexibi lity in reacting to alternative ideas. As previously noted, Nkrumah was the prominent voice f or political unity for Africa and was opposed to the idea of regional federations which w as advanced by the moderate leaders as a building block to continental unity. For him, “regi onal federations are a form of balkanization on a grand scale” (Nkrumah 1970:214). 135 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 As we know, Nkrumah’s idea did not receive popular support, but he still exhibited some flexibility and embraced the alternative idea that led to the establishment of the OAU in 1963.

Going by the assumption of the theory, one could cl early notice that Nkrumah displayed high degree of flexibility and openness to information a nd alternative ideas in his decision to accept the alternative proposal. Hermann (1999) would desc ribe such leaders, in this case Nkrumah, as a leader with high conceptual complexity because of his flexibility in reacting to alternative ideas. Again, we find some support from the precedi ng analysis that the leadership trait of conceptual complexity was evident in the decision m aking of Nkrumah. Similarly, we can infer from our general discussion that Nkrumah also displ ayed the trait of a leader who was not only task oriented, but was full of energy, vision and i deas to end colonialism and unite Africa for progress and socio-economic development. The existing literature further reveals that Nkruma h had displayed the trait of leaders with in- group bias and distrust of others. Hermann’s (1999) theoretical construct on these traits (in-group bias and distrust of others ) assumes that political leaders with high in-group bias often maintain a separate identity of their group and try to prote ct their turf from other groups. Similarly, leaders with high trait of distrust have the tendency to be generally suspicious of others with the feelings of uneasiness, misgiving and doubts. In short, lead ers with distrust of others are not only shaped by those feelings of distrust in their decision mak ing, but are also shaped by the way they perceive threats around them as well as their respo nse to those threats. The theory further assumes that leaders with high level of distrust of others are more likely to see the world as dangerous and conflict-prone (Hermann 1999:30). In the case of Kwame Nkrumah, clear evidence from t he existing literature reveals that he exhibited the tendencies of distrust of others in h is policy decisions. For instance, on the widely held suspicion that Nkrumah was nursing a secret ag enda to become the first president of his proposed United States of Africa (Olaosebikan 2011) , he was aware of this widely held suspicion, which might explain his tendency of dist rust for others. As Hermann (1999:31) suggests, leaders who are high in distrust of other s tend to be suspicious about the motives, actions and criticisms of others, especially those they might view as competitors to their ideology or cause. Apparently, Nkrumah’s domestic policy dec isions revealed a lot about his high distrust of others. For example, Biney (2008:131) draws on M azrui’s (2004) analysis of Nkrumah’s political legacy into positive Nkrumahism, which inspires many people for African unity, and negative Nkrumahism, which raises questions about his leadership styles . As previously advanced, Nkrumah’s negative legacy was shown when he changed Ghana’s multi-party system into a single party authoritarian regime by the mid -1960s. Perhaps, the constant assassination attempts on his life might have led to his high dis trust of others, especially his political opponents. Not only did Nkrumah express his distrus t of others by over centralizing his political powers, but he also used his authoritarian powers t o introduce repressive laws (e.g., Preventive Detention Act-PDA ) against his perceived political opponents (Biney 2008).

136 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 For most scholars, Nkrumah might be well known as a visionary and a revolutionary leader who fought for the total liberation of Africa, but he f ailed to promote multi-party democracy in his own country (Tieku and Odoom 2012; Thompson 1969). It is therefore plausible to argue that Nkrumah’s over centralization of power and subseque nt repressing of his political opponents led to the collapse of his leadership. In spite of Nkru mah’s high score on his leadership traits, as far as the theory is concerned, he failed in his attemp t to achieve the political unity he promised for Africa. While our discussion on the stiff oppositio n (opposition argument ) from other African leaders could be responsible for his leadership fai lures (political unity), this article does not, however, intend to simply elevate the opposition ar gument at the expense of other explanations of Nkrumah’s failures. Indeed, we are aware that al ternative explanations such as the machinations of neo-colonial forces, geo-political factors, domestic considerations and strategic calculations and miscalculations on Nkrumah’s part could also explain his leadership failures.

While these alternative explanations are duly recog nized, they are certainly beyond the scope of this current study. Overall, it has been clearly shown from the precedi ng analyses with the supporting cases and examples of how LTA theory provides some utility in explaining the leadership traits of Nkrumah and his decision making regarding the const raints he faced and how he responded as a leader. While the theory provides a broad utility i n helping our understanding of Kwame Nkrumah’s decisions and his ideas (Pan-Africanism a nd African unity), we cannot claim that the theory has provided a complete explanation because of the structural/systemic explanations that might have also influenced Nkrumah’s decision makin g. Conclusion This article has examined Kwame Nkrumah’s philosoph ical ideas of Pan-Africanism and African unity. Undoubtedly, the literature on Nkrumah’s ide as is vast and complex with no shortage of scholarly interest in the subject area because of t he significance of these ideas to the current challenges facing Africa. On May 25, 2013, leaders from all parts of Africa gathered in Addis Abba, Ethiopia, to celebrate the Golden Jubilee (50 years) of the establishment of the OAU now AU under the theme: Pan-Africanism and African Renaissance . Although there is still no consensus on the best strategy to achieve a contine ntal unity, many leaders renewed their countries’ commitment to preserve the idea of Afric an unity. We consider this commitment and hope from our African leaders as one of the high po ints of the celebration. It also reminds us that Nkrumah’s dream for Africa’s political unification (United States of Africa ) continues to occupy a center stage on the general discourse on Africa, thus giving relevance to Nkrumah’s political thoughts, ideas and leadership. 137 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 Consistent with the foreign policy decision-making literature, we also argue that leaders do matter in decision making on any course of action. Based on our systematic analyses, by way of integrating the literature and the theory, we find that the theory offers some useful explanation of Nkrumah’s political behavior and decision making. W e conclude that Nkrumah’s decision making was partly driven by his leadership traits a nd personality styles. Indeed, leaders do matter!… and we share the view that Africa needs vi sionary and strong leadership credentials, like Kwame Nkrumah ( although his leadership was deficient to some exten t) to achieve the dream of the United States of Africa. Clearly, this article is unique and relevant in two ways.

First, the article contributes to the broader liter ature on Pan-Africanism and African unity by examining Nkrumah through the lens of his leadershi p traits and personality styles. Second, the article has successfully integrated the literature on Pan-Africanism and foreign policy analysis, which we believe provide a good starting place for future research agenda for scholars in the global Africana community. 138 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 References Adogamhe, Paul. 2008. Pan-Africanism Revisited: Vis ion and Reality of African Unity and Development. African Review of Integration 2(2):1-34.

Afari-Gyan, Kwadwo. 1991. Kwame Nkrumah, George Pad more and W.E.B Du Bois.

Research Review 7(1 & 2):1-10.

Agyeman, Opoku. 1975. The Osagyefo, The Mwalimu, an d Pan-Africanism: A Study in the Growth of a Dynamic Concept. The Journal of Modern African Studies 13(4):653- 675. Ake, Claude. 1966. Charismatic Legitimation and Pol itical Integration. Comparative Studies in Society and History 9(1): 1-13.

Aluko, Olajide. 1975. After Nkrumah: Continuity and Change in Ghana's Foreign Policy.

A Journal of Opinion 5(1):55-62.

Apter, David E. 1968. Nkrumah, Charisma, and the Co up Daedalus (97): 3. Philosophers and Kings: Studies in Leadership. The MIT Press on beha lf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences.

Armah, Kwesi. 2004. Peace Without Power: Ghana's Foreign Policy, 1957-1 966. Accra: Ghana Universities Press.

Asante, K. B. 1997. Foreign Policy Making in Ghana: Options for the 21s t Century. Accra: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. Asante Kete, Molefi. 2012. The Character of Kwame N krumah’s United Africa Vision. The Journal of Pan African Studies 4(10):12-25.

Ayittey, George. 1998. Africa in Chaos: New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Biney, Ama. 2011. The Political and Social Thought of Kwame Nkrumah . New York: Palgrave MacMillan Press. Biney, Ama. 2008. The Legacy of Kwame Nkrumah in Re trospect. The Journal of Pan African Studies 2 (3):129-159.

139 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 Botwe-Asamoah, Kwame. 2005. Kwame Nkrumah’s Politico- Cultural Thought and Poli cies: An African-Centered Paradigm for the Second Phase of t he African Revolution. New York:

Routledge. Clarke, John. 1974. Kwame Nkrumah: His Years in Ame rica. The Black Scholar 6(2):9-16.

Dyson, Stephen. 2006. Personality and Foreign Polic y: Tony Blair’s Iraq Decisions. Foreign Policy Analysis 2:289-306.

Dyson, Stephen and Preston, Thomas. 2006. Individua l Characteristics of Political Leaders and the Use of Analogy in Foreign Policy De cision Making. Political Psychology 27(2):265-288. Gebe, Boni Y. 2008. Ghana’s Foreign Policy at Indep endence and Implications for the 1966 Coup D’état. The Journal of Pan African Studies 2(3):160-186. Gorener, Aylins and Ucal, Meltems. 2011.The Persona lity and Leadership Style of Recep Tayyip Erdogan: Implications for Turkish Foreign Po licy. Turkish Studies 12(3):357-381.

Grundy, Kenneth W. 1963. Nkrumah’s Theory of Underd evelopment: An Analysis of Recurrent Themes. World Politics 15 (3):438-454. Hagan, Joe D.1994. Domestic Political Systems and W ar Proneness. Mershon International Studies Review 38:183–207.

Hermann, Margaret. 1999. Assessing Leadership Style : A Trait Analysis. Social Science Automation Inc . Hermann, Margaret. 1980. Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior Using the Personal Characteristics of Political Leaders. International Studies Quarterly 24: 7-46.

Hermann, Margaret and Hagan, Joe. 1998. Internation al Decision Making: Leadership Matters. Foreign Policy 110:124-137. Jackson, Robert H., and Rosberg, Carl G. 1982. Personal Rule in Black Africa: Prince, Autocrat, Pr ophet, Tyrant Berkeley: University of California Press. Kaarbo, Juliet.1997. Prime Minister Leadership Styl es in Foreign Policy Decision-Making: A Framework for Research. Political Psychology 18(3):553-581.

140 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 Kesgin, Baris. 2012. Tansu Ciller’s Leadership Trai ts and Foreign Policy. Perception, 17(3):29-50. Kumah-Abiwu, Felix. 2011. Post-Cold War Democratiza tion in Africa: The Paradox of Elections and Democratic Consolidation. West Africa Review (19):67-84.

Legum, Colin. 1975. The Organization of African Uni ty-Success or Failure? Royal Institute of International Affairs 51(2):208-219. Londsdale, John. 1968. The Emergence of African Nat ions: A Historiographical Analysis.

African Affairs 67 (266):11-28.

Mazrui, Ali .2004 . Nkrumah’s Legacy and Africa’s Triple Heritage Between Globalization and Counter Terrorism . Accra: University Press. M’bayo, Tamba. 2004. W.E. Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, a nd Pan-Africanism in Liberia, 1919- 1924. Historian 66 (1):19-44. Nantanmbu, Kwame. 1998. Pan-Africanism versus Pan-A frican Nationalism. Journal of Black Studies 28 (5):561-574.

Nkrumah, Kwame.1965. Consciencism: Philosophy and Ideology for Decoloniz ation and Development with Particular Reference to the Africa n Revolution. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Nkrumah, Kwame. 1970. Africa Must Unite. New York: International Publishers. Nkrumah, Kwame. 1976. I Speak of Freedom: A Statement of African Ideology . Westport: Greenwood Press. Obeng, Samuel. 1979. Selected Speeches of Kwame Nkrumah (Volume 1). Accra: Afram Publications (Ghana) Ltd.

Olaosebikan, Johnson. 2011. Kwame Nkrumah and the P roposed African Common Government. African Journal of Political Science and Internatio nal Relations 5(4):

218-228. Okhonmina, Stephen. 2009. The African Union: Pan-Af ricanist Aspirations and the Challenge of African Unity. The Journal of Pan African Studies 3(4):85-100. 141 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 Owusu, Maxwell. 1997. Domesticating Democracy: Cult ure, Civil Society and Constitutionalism in Africa. Comparative Studies in Society and History 39(1):120-152. Panford, Kwamina. 1996. Pan-Africanism, Africans in the Diaspora, and the OAU. The Western Journal of Black Studies 20(3):140-150.

Reeck, Darrell. 1976. The Castle and the Umbrella: Some Religious Dimensions of Kwame Nkrumah's Leadership Role in Ghana. Africa Today 23(4):7-27. Rooney, David. 1998. Kwame Nkrumah: The Political Kingdom in the Third W orld. Palgrave Macmillan. Saaka, Yakubu. 1994. Recurrent Themes in Ghanaian P olitics: Kwame Nkrumah's Legacy.

Journal of Black Studies 24 (3): 263-280: Special Issue: Social, Economic, P olitical, and Cultural Dimensions of Life in Ghana. Special Edition for the 20 th AU Summit. 2013. AU Echo. Retrieved on 06/02/2013 from http://summits.au.int/en/sites/default/files/ AUEcho_27012013_v2.pdf Thompson, Scott W. 1969. Ghana’s Foreign Policy, 1957-1966: Diplomacy, Ideol ogy and the New State. Princeton: University Press. Tieku. Thomas and Odoom, Isaac. 2012. “Re-orienting Ghana’s Foreign Policy Crowd.” In The Public Policy Making Process in Ghana: How Poli ticians and Civil Servants Deal with Public Problems , ed. by Frank L. Ohemeng, Barbara W. Carroll, and Joseph R.

Ayee. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press. Walker, Stephen. 1990. The Evolution of Operational Code Analysis. Political Psychology 11(2):403-418.

Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics, McGraw-Hill.

Williams, Michael. 2005. “The Pan-African Movement. ” In Africana Studies: A Survey of Africa and the African Diaspor a, ed. by Mario Azevedo. Carolina Academic Press. Winter, David., Hermann, Margaret., Weintraub, Walt er.,Walker, Stephen.1991.

The Personalities of Bush and Gorbachev Measured at a Distance: Procedures, Portraits, and Policy. International Society of Political Psychology 12 (2):215-245.

Yousuf, Hilmi. 1990. Framework of Analysis for Admi nistrative Leadership in African States: Tanzania, Kenya, Ghana and Uganda. JKAU: Econ. & Adm. (3):49-62.

142 The Journal of Pan African Studies , vol.6, no.6, December 2013 Copyright ofJournal ofPan African Studiesisthe property ofJournal ofPan African Studies and itscontent maynotbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without the copyright holder'sexpresswrittenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, or email articles forindividual use.