Introduction

The narratives surrounding the struggle for Ghana’s independence and immediate post-independence nation building have proven stubbornly male-centered. We see this play out during the commemoration of Independence Day every March 6 as well as during other functions such as Founders’ Day. State ceremonies officially praise the efforts of men, namely, Kwame Nkrumah, Ako-Adjei, Edward Akufo-Addo, Joseph Boakye Danquah, Obetsebi-Lamptey, and Ofori Atta, known as the Big Six. Where this state-led historical narrative is contested, the emphasis rarely departs from the masculinization of heroes. The Big Six earned the name following their arrest by the colonial authorities in connection with the February 28, 1948, riots (Austin 1964). Even though they were not responsible for the riot, these men are memorialized as Ghana’s heroes.

This masculinizing of history is not distinctive to Ghana. Cooper (1994, p. 1523) asserts that the “metanarrative of nationalist victory—and many of the tales of resistance—have most often been told as stories of men, with a rather macho air to the narrating of confrontation.” The masculinization of history is not just peculiar to state-led functions aimed at celebrating patriots; historical publications have rarely departed from this scene setting. According to Allman (2009, p. 30), the silence on women’s role can be attributed to the emphasis on a kind of social history writing that rarely broaches the political implication of women’s namelessness. Geiger (1997, p. 10) also notes that women’s political actions and history “disappeared” in a cumulative process whereby written accounts reinforce and echo the silence of previous ones.

In recent decades, however, several scholars have attempted to write women back into mainstream history. Women’s political roles as activists, organizers, and financiers have been explored (Coquery-Vidrovitch, 1997; Cummings-John & Denzer, 1995; Denzer 1994; Dolphyne 1991; Hafkin and Bay 1976; Kwafo-akoto and Ardayfio-Schandorf 1990; Robertson and Berger 1986). In the Ghana specific context, Alman’s (2009) work on “the disappearance of Hannah Kudjoe” is also an exemplar of how women can be written back into mainstream history. Despite these attempts to emphasize women, the leading women largely remain unnamed in the accounts on Ghanaian independence.

Some of the scholarship on women has been written by activist in academia or within the women’s movement, often writing about themselves (Coker-Appiah and Cusack 1999; Mama 2020; Manuh 1991; Mensah-Kutin et al. 2000, Mensah-Kutin 2010; Tsikata 2009; Tsikata 2001). Recent studies with a renewed focus on women’s mobilization in Ghana include the work of Amoah-Boampong (2018), Allah-Mensah, Osei-Afful (2019), and The Women’s Manifesto for Ghana (2004). They highlight the actions of women and other allies in the fight for the reformation of the structures that delineate differential economic and political opportunities for men and women. Other studies exploring women’s issues broach topics such as women’s experience of colonialism and the disparate impact of globalization (Mama 2020). The exploration of women’s roles has, however, rarely led to state-led memorialization of the women who distinguished themselves in Ghana’s independence in the 1950s and post-independence nation building in the 1960s and 1970s.

While some existing studies are profoundly revealing in delineating women’s issues, and in some instances focus on the historicity of women, thus far, no exclusive attention has been paid to the gender memorializing gap. This paper answers one central question: how do state-led memorializing practices create gender disparities in how male and female patriots are honored for their service to the nation? In answering this question, I further explore three specific questions. First, how has Ghana erased women from mainstream historical narratives? Why are women’s roles in nation building underappreciated? How are the silences maintained?

I refer to the leading women of Ghana’s nationalist struggle as the unnamed. While one can make nuanced distinctions among different instances, I refer to all exclusions—such as exclusion from political positions, which in turn fuels exclusions from mainstream history and memorializing practices such as commemorative dates—as the unnamed. This paper concentrates on the leading women whose meritorious services led to quantum leaps in Ghana’s nationalist struggle for independence in the 1950s and consolidation of the nation state post-independence.

The paper is organized as follows. The next section synthesizes the literature by situating the issues in the discourse on women’s political marginalization and memorialization. Following this is a method section that delineates the data I deployed to ground the analyses of the issues. Next, I analyze thematic issues in response to the objectives of the paper. This includes explaining the erasure of women from history as sanctioned forgetting by political regimes, or as accidental forgetting. I then explain the erasure of women from mainstream historical narrative as partly a function of state-led differential naming, honoring, and memorializing practices in Ghana. Further, I elucidate why the silencing of women is maintained and how the silencing belies their political labor. Following this section, I show how we can memorialize women fairly to reconstruct their histories from the margins. I present a guide for state-led memorializing which is inclusive of several interest groups and intersectional rather than extractive. The concluding section reiterates the importance of researching, naming, memorializing, and reconstructing these women by centering them in the mainstream independence and post-independence narratives. Throughout the paper, the goal is to make a case for a fair memorializing practice that legitimizes and historizes women as leaders and founders of Ghana.

Synthesis of the Literature

Women’s Political Role and, Patriotism: Recognition, and Underappreciation

The exploration of nationalism and Ghana’s independence in older studies rarely valorized the efforts of women. Seminal works like Austin (1964), Padmore (1953), and James (1977) explore nationalism and political party developments in the Gold Coast. They make only passing references about women as part of the plebian masses or backbone of the political parties (James 1977, pp. 55–56, 131; Padmore’s 1953, pp. 67 and 115). While these studies are revealing in describing aspects of the history of mass mobilization and nationalism, women’s organizations are obscured by the larger history.

Some attempts have been made over the last few decades to focus on the political and nationalist roles of women: to rewrite women into the mainstream history. Attention has been paid to women’s organizations, activism, their political empowerment and marginalization, and the intervention by male-led governments in their mobilization across the country’s different epochs (Allah-Mensah 2005; Apusiga 2014; Fallon 2008; Medie 2013; Prah 2004; Tripp et al. 2009). Scholars have highlighted the inner workings of these organizations, their goals, histories, and their achievements (for example, Fallon 2008; Hassim 2006; Steady 2006; Tripp et al. 2009; Tsikata 2009).

The contributions of women included forming resistance movements (Lazreg, 1994; Mba 1982). Women worked as organizers of political parties and toured several regions with the men to develop party branches, first for the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC), and later for the Convention People's Party (CPP) when the UGCC split (E. Tsikata 1989 p. 77; Manuh 1991). Some of the movements formed included the Accra Women’s Association, the Ghana Girl Guides Association, the Accra Market Women Association, the Ghana Women’s League (GWL), and the National Federation of Gold Coast Women (NFGCW); also, alliances of voluntary groups, such as Gold Coast Women’s Association and various market women’s groups, formed around 1953, notably under the leadership of Mrs. Amartiefio (Awumbila, 2001).

After independence, Ms. Hannah Kudjoe formed the All-African Women’s League (AAWL), later renamed the National Federation of Ghana Women (NFGW). This organization emphasized issues pertaining to the “registration” of customary marriages and forging of pan-African and international networks. During the early post-independent period in the 1960s, the GWL and the NFGW were merged to form the National Council of Ghana Women (NCGW) (Awumbila, 2001; Daily Graphic, 1960a, b, p. 3; Mensah-Kutin et al. 2000; Tsikata 1989).

In July 1960, the NFGW organized the Conference for Women of African Descent which brought together 150 delegates from Africa, West Indies, the USA, the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the Afro-American Heritage Association, and the United Church Women in the United States (Wuver 1960, July 13, p. 8). Through these groups, women across the class spectrum both educated and non-educated actively participated in activism and nationalist struggles in Ghana and beyond. They were noted for initiating acts of civil disobedience (for example, the 1948 riots). Through these groups, they mobilized other women and men in support of political nationalist causes. They were the major financiers of the Convention People’s Party (CPP) (Nkrumah 1957). These acts created conditions that made political change possible (Austin 1964; Awumbila 2001; Manuh 1993; Tsikata 1989; Nkrumah 1961). Their activism brought the first political party, Nkrumah’s Convention People’s Party to power in 1957.

Individual Roles: Leading Women of Ghana’s Independence and Post-independence Nation Building

This section foregrounds the contributions of specific women to the nation’s building, drawing on what is a rather limited body of existing scholarship. Scholarship on these women is limited because the tradition of providing written accounts of the careers and personal philosophies of nationalist leaders is a male-dominated territory. A few published biographies exist about other countries (Sweetman, 1984; Mirza and Strobel 1989; Denzer 2005) and in Ghana (Allman 2009; Amenumey 2002; Mensah-Kutin and Akrofi-Quarcoo 2007; Vieta 1999). These biographical studies make it possible to identify some of the women of our own nationalist struggle.

The first is Hannah Kudjoe. The story of her disappearance from mainstream history has been narrated by Allman (2009). She was the CPP organizer, the propaganda secretary, and a founding member of the Committee on Youth Organization (Apter 1955). She was a signatory to the document that threatened the split of the CPP from the UGCC in the wake of the deposition of Nkrumah as general secretary on condition that Nkrumah who was then ousted as secretary be reinstated (Austin 1961). Kudjoe evaded detention and continued to organize rallies, and meetings, creating slogans in praise of Nkrumah during the ban on public gatherings (Allman 2009). She founded the All-African Women’s League (AAWL) after independence in 1957 which was focused on pan Africanism. Her resistance, her mobilizing prowess, and her enormous contribution to the struggle earned her the nickname “Convention Hannah” (Allman 2009, p. 12; Ghana Yearbook 1961, p. 210). Her ability to organize the masses towards the cause of the CPP and ultimately Ghana’s independence surpassed her male colleagues’.

Sackeyfio-Lenoch (2018, p. 29) also names some of the women who were thick in the struggle for independence, such as Evelyn Amarteifio, who created the National Federation of Gold Coast Women (NFGCW) in 1953—and other influential women such as Sophia Doku, Margaret Martei, Susanna Al-Hassan, and Annie Jiagge. Sackeyfio-Lenoch describes them as influential in “local, regional, and transnational dialogues” about the place of women in the context of nation-building.

A group of women namely Akua Asabea, Ayisi Ankrah, Ama Nkrumah, and Hannah Kudjoe led rallies across the country, mobilizing people and funds in defense of the arrested UGCC leaders despite the ban on public gatherings (Vieta 1999, pp. 127–131). I name this group of women, the “Big Four” in this paper. Akua Asaabea was also arrested and imprisoned for taking part in the positive action campaign. She earned the nickname “James Fort Prison Graduate” after her release from prison. She worked together with Mabel Dove at the offices of the Evening News, raising nationalist consciousness with their publications (Austin 1964, p. 115; Vieta 1999).

Mabel Dove Dankwah worked at the offices of the Evening News. She urged Ghanaians to support the CPP and Kwame Nkrumah through her publications, and informed readers about the progressive policies of the CPP. According to Vieta (1999), her writings were defiant of colonialism. Several other women became propaganda secretaries of the CPP including Sophia Doku, Leticia Quaye, Hannah Kudjoe, and Ama Nkrumah. These women managed the campaign of the CPP in the press.

Leading market women also played significant roles in the nationalist movement that led to Ghana’s independence. They took part in the 1948 boycott (Padmore 1953, p. 67; Oppong 2012, p.40). They campaigned in the remote part of the country where the CPP could hardly reach (James 1977, p. 55). They also mobilized funds from other traders for party activities (Oppong 2012, p. 41). The ingenious political activism of women was crucial in enabling Nkrumah and the CPP to win the elections in 1951 while still in prison and to win subsequent elections in 1954, 1956, and the eventual independence in 1957.

How Women’s Patriotism Is Underappreciated

Women were instrumental in the independence struggle of Ghana and other African countries: spreading nationalist ideologies, funding political activities, founding and leading political parties, taking parts in civil disobedience, forming organizations, organizing rallies, canvasing for votes, defying public orders to organize rallies, getting arrested, composing party songs and slogans, and launching petitions for the release of men who were arrested.

Beyond their enormous contribution to the nationalist independence struggle and post-independence nation building in the 1960s, Swantz (1985, p. 159) notes that “women became targets and not actors in development.” In the efforts to get women’s votes they were not regarded as “ignorant.” Only after independence did the problem of how to organize women arose (Swantz 1985). The scene where women’s activism is encouraged, and exploited but later denied is not unique to Ghana. Other scholars note similar trends in Tanzania, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria where women organized and played frontal roles in the nationalist liberation efforts but were rarely rewarded with political positions in their countries as male leaders monopolized the spoils of office (Denzer 1987, pp. 451–452; Geiger 1997; Mba 1982; Schmidt 2002).

In the Ghana-specific context, Manuh (1991) notes that all the cabinet ministers in Nkrumah’s government were men. In May 1960, however, ten women got elected to parliament. The women are Comfort Asamoah, Sophia Doku, Christiana Wilmot, Ayanori Ayambila, Lucy Anin, Regina Asamany, Grace Ayensu, Mary Koranteng, Victoria Nyarku, and Sussanna Al-Hassan. This recognition stemmed from the reservation of ten seats out of one hundred and fourteen for women in parliament (Madsen 2019; Manuh 1991, p. 132). The CPP government under Nkrumah also nominated Mabel Dove to stand on the ticket of the party in the Ga rural electoral district in the 1954 elections, and she won (Oppong 2012, p. 33).

A few women were appointed to various leadership positions. Sophia Doku for instance was appointed as a welfare officer at the Department of Social Welfare in 1953. She also became the first female camp Superintendent of the Builders Brigade in 1958 (Ghana Yearbook 1962).

Seats in parliament were not open to all women. Eligibility criteria existed, including being an active party member with proven accomplishments, and having fluency in both English and Vernacular. The two leading nationalist women—Hannah Kudjoe and Evelyn Amarteifio—who formed and led organizations which benefited the CPP efforts were not nominated to stand for election (Denzer 1992, pp. 217–236). Similarly, Akua Asabea, Ayisi A Ankrah, and Ama Nkrumah were not asked. Men activists who played roles in the CPP ended up standing for Parliament, serving as ministers, or heading departments (Allman 2009, p. 27).

One positive reward was reforming the civil service policy requiring women employees to resign upon marriage. There was also discussion of permitting pregnant married women to opt to resign or stay in service on their own volution, rather than forcing them to leave their post (PRAAD ADM 13/1 /22. Cabinet Minutes “Employment of Women in Government Service,” 20th October 1953).

Yet, an underappreciation of women intensified when the CPP government began to sideline the leading women who had worked hard to organize the independence struggle. The government also subsumed all women’s groups under one recognized body. According to Adamafio (1982, pp. 116–19), the two large women’s groups in Ghana with distinct identities, namely the previously mentioned GWL and the Ghana Federation of Women, known earlier as the National Federation of Gold Coast Women (NFGCW), were brought under one wing, the National Association of Ghana Women, to control it. The purpose of the merger was to control women because of the fear they were becoming too powerful.

At the inauguration of the new women’s group, the leadership (patrons) was offered to either women MPs or wives of leading party activists. These included Madam Fathia Nkrumah, First Lady of Ghana, Lady Akiwumi, wife of the former speaker of the National Assembly, Mrs. Sophia Doku, the first National Secretary, and Mrs. Margaret Martei, National Secretary. Other executives of the Council included Mrs. Ruth Botsio and Mrs. Nkumsah who were Trustees. The former executives of the GWL, Lady Korsah and Mrs. T. A. Casely Hayford, were National Chair and Vice Chairperson respectively (Daily Graphic, 1960a, b, September 12, p. 4; Manuh 1991, p. 126).

This phased out any influence of the leading women nationalist particularly Mrs. Kudjoe and Mrs. Amarteifio who were in the trenches with the men during the nationalist struggle that led to independence. The powers (extensive arbitrary powers) by male-led governments ensured women’s organizations and mobilizations were done on terms that rarely broached the subject of power, for example, the Preventive Detention Act of Ghana passed in 1958 (Apter 1972; Apter 1955), while women have worked to contest the state for a fuller citizenship where access to institutional and political power is equitable (Tsikata 2007) that has rarely yielded equality in political representation. Women’s representative in the legislative arm of government has never exceeded 15% since independence (Bauer 2017a, b). Women’s appointment to ministerial positions stands at 19.25%, ambassadorial appointment is 12.36%, and Municipal and District Chief Executives appointments 17% (Dzradosi et al. 2018).

Memorialization

The valuing of labor is important for recognition and pay. Once labor is valued for its contribution, it is easy for people to be paid commensurably. Payment for labor can also be in the form of honoring or memorializing. In this context, memorialization is explored in relation to how it makes and legitimizes heroes and de-historizes others in the process.

Memorializing people by naming monuments and institutions after them, or honoring them with commemorative dates and public holidays, influences how the public perceives the roles they played in the achievement of our independence and post-independence. Memorializing people through monuments is important to preserve memories (Olick 2007). Importantly, memorialization can also enable symbolic reparation (Olick 2016). Doing commemorative activities and mounting monuments enable people to remember those who played active roles in Ghana’s independence struggle. The government of Ghana has employed commemorative dates, such as the Founders’ Day, to honor the Big Six, while women have not been memorialized in proportion to their contributions. This point is even more relevant today, given the recent masculinization in the memorializing of public universities. This paper adopts the term gender memorializing gap or honoring gap to explain the differential honoring or memorializing of men and women and how that de-historicizes women in the process.

Methods

The relevant data include images and portraits of the national currency. Specifically, the 200-, 100-, 50-, 20-, 10-, 5-, and 2-cedi notes and the 50-pesewa coin. These notes are embossed with portraits of people considered to have played significant roles in founding Ghana. This article also examines commemorative dates to make a case for how governments memorialize men and women differently. It also focuses on the recent naming of universities in Ghana to show that memorializing practices still favor men. Tables 1, 2, and 3 list the currency of Ghana and commemorative dates that celebrate mostly men.

Table 1 Ghana’s national currency (Cedis and Pesewas) and those with their portraits on them
Full size table
Table 2 Ghana’s national currency and the place of patriots on it
Full size table
Table 3 Commemorative dates and those memorialized
Full size table

Findings

On De-historizing Women

The State-Sanctioned Erasure of Women: Marginalization from Politics (1960s–1970)

Geisler (2004, p. 143) notes that all nationalist liberation movements across Africa have benefited from the participation of women and their militancy. In Ghana, the women were deep in the trenches with the men, organizing mass demonstrations, convening, participating, leading petition, hiding from the police when prison was eminent, being loyal members and leaders of the nationalist movements, risking their lives amidst bombings and assassinations, and financing campaigns. They were, however, offered little opportunities to gain political representation. Any potential counter to the hegemonic male political leadership was suppressed (Crehan 1997, p. 133). To preserve any aspect of their power meant striking a patriarchal bargain (Kandiyoti 1988). The CPP leadership was comfortable phasing the powerful leading women out and giving the positions to wives of the men they considered loyal. The men who control both state structures and function as gatekeepers to the neophytes in public domains can sanction a leading woman’s disappearance (Aubrey 2001, p. 1).

We can draw examples of such disappearances from even those who are noted in written works for dealing fairly with women. A case in point is Kwame Nkrumah. Nkrumah’s party, the CPP, reserved ten seats out of one hundred and fourteen for women in parliament in acknowledgement of their contributions towards independence (E. Tsikata 1989, p. 77; Manuh 1991). This is the first of such quota systems effected by “the Representation of the People (Women Members) Act in 1959” for women in Ghana (Allah-Mensah 2007). Under Nkrumah’s leadership, the National Council of Women in Ghana (NCWG) was formed to enable them to contribute to development in Ghana. The formation of this group is credited to Nkrumah and the CPP as an effort to include women in the highest decision-making body and politics in general (Madsen 2019, p. 6). According to Manuh (1991, pp. 127–128), Nkrumah had a vision of African womanhood steeped in high moral standards, which would form the basis of African nationhood. Although scholars politely present Nkrumah and his approach towards women in politics in a good light, what others have to say about Nkrumah and the CPP politics of sanctioning the disappearance of women is telling. For example, several men were recognized and rewarded with ministerial positions and were asked to present themselves for parliamentary positions as compared to women even though the profile of the leading women exemplifies their roles as equal in importance and complementary to the leading men (Allman 2009, p. 27).

Tawiah Adamafio, Nkrumah’s Minister of Information, was asked to merge the two large women’s groups with distinct identities—the Ghana Women’s League (GWL) and the Ghana Federation of Women known earlier as the National Federation of Gold Coast Women (NFGCW)—under one wing (the National Association of Ghana Women), so that they could be controlled. He explained the disagreements that ensued among his male colleagues about how powerful the united women’s group could become:

We foresaw a situation where this NCGW [National Council of Ghana Women] would grow so monolithic and powerful that the party could lose control of it. When you had its leadership bristling with dynamic women intellectuals and revolutionaries and the organization had become conscious of its strength, it could break off in rebellion, form a party by itself and sweep everything before it at the polls. The ratio of women voters to men then was about three or more to one and the position could well arise, where Ghana would be ruled by a woman President and an all-woman cabinet, and the principal secretaries and Regional Commissioners were all women, and men would be relegated to the back room! It would be disastrous for Ghana, for, I could see men being ridden like horses! A male tyrant could be twisted round a woman’s little finger. An Amazonian tyrant could only probably be subdued by a battery of artillery (Adamafio 1982, pp. 116–19).

Evidently, women’s activism, their intellect, their revolutionary ideas, their organizing prowess, their power, and autonomy were valuable in the resistance against colonialism, and yet these same traits were dreaded by the men when the campaign for independence was successful. They needed the movements, but on the terms set by men. Even the leadership of the GLW was offered to either MPs or wives of leading party activists (Daily Graphic, 1960a, b; Oppong 2012, p. 91).

Contesting the State for Equal Citizenship (1970s–1980s)

The marginalization of women from accessing institutional and political power on more liberating terms did not end in the late 1960s. The terrain only shifted from one male-led political administration to the next. In the 1980s however, the International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA) in Ghana was formed to champion the call for women’s political participation (Britwum 2017). In March 1982, the Federation of Ghanaian Women (FEGAWO) was formed (Prah 2004).

In the 1980s, Ms. Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings formed the 31st December Women’s Movement on 15th May 1982 with a large following (Assimeng 1990, p. 63). There are contradictory accounts of the achievements of the movement (Allah-Mensah 2007; Aubrey 2001; Fallon 2008; Madsen 2010; Manuh 1993). While the movement has been praised for instituting credit schemes, setting up nursery schools, promoting small scale industries, and encouraging women’s participation in politics (Allah-Mensah 2007, p. 254; Madsen 2010, p. 195), others have compared the movement to the first lady-led movements in recent times and described as limited activism (Prah 2004)—or femocracy (Mama 1995; Prah 2004). Aubrey (2001, p. 105) defines femocracy as “systems in which female autocracies parallel and serve male dictatorships whilst advancing conservative gender ideologies to the detriment of democracy and gender equality”. Prah (2004) notes that the leaders of femocracies are usually wives of Presidents who derive their power from being married to their husbands. Femocracies, also known as the first lady syndrome (Mama 1995), clip the wings of independent women’s movement, and they end after their husband’s regime within which they were embedded. It is difficult to blame “femocrats” for their actions because clipping the wings of other women to ensure they operated only on the terms of the male-dominated political structure was the only patriarchal bargain they can ride on to be considered worthy of power themselves.

Women’s organizing after independence was crucial because historically Ghanaian women have had little access to the institutionalized power needed to readily change their institutional powerlessness (Mama 2020). Women have contested the state by striving for equal opportunities and fuller citizenship at the ideational, and, rarely, on a physical protest level mostly through new women’s organizations (Darkwah 2014, p. 18). For example, the Coalition of Women’s Manifesto was formed to press on government and civil society to adopt a ten-point area of concern (Abantu for Development 2004; The Women’s Manifesto for Ghana 2004). The manifesto did not tackle gender discriminatory naming, honoring, and memorializing state-led practices as a key concern. It would be productive to problematize gender selective recognition, and memorializing as a key subject in the manifesto’s preamble and to include it as the eleventh concern that governments and civil society must address.

Despite the myriad of women’s rights groups in Ghana, their collective impact has been marginal. The numbers in terms of political representation and institutionalized power are negligible despite the continuous appeal for change (Bauer and Darkwah 2019). The collective mobilization and organizing efforts of women have, however, led to the passage of the Domestic Violence Act (Adomako-Ampofo 2008; Anyidoho et al. 2020). The original Domestic Violence Bill contained deterrent measures on marital rape. Yet, marital rape became a point of contestation (Darkwah 2014, p. 19). The Ministry of Women’s Affairs, who should ideally be interested in the passage, paradoxically led a coordinated campaign to stir up opposition to the bill. Consequently, the parliamentary motion to pass it was defeated (Mama 2020, p. 7). The Ministry, like other institutions in Africa, and international development practice more widely, is comfortable in dealing with issues couched in terms such as girls’ education and empowerment that focus on income generation projects and micro-credit schemes because these causes do not broach the power question explicitly. Beyond these, any attempt to broach the subject of power relations, injustices, and women’s rights tends to be seen as subversive. Hence, a kind of intentional amnesia regarding the gendering of power (Anyidoho and Manuh 2010; Fallon 2008).

Erasure of Women from Mainstream Historical Narratives

Differential Naming, Honoring, and Memorializing Practices in Ghana

The political marginalization of women and male-centered nationalist stories preceded and conditioned women’s disappearance from state-led memorialization. Differential memorializing practices, such as commemorative dates, masculinization of pictures embossed on the national currencies, and the naming of monuments predominantly after men, have further excluded women from historical narratives.

Commemorative Dates: Founder’s Day Versus Founders’ Day

The Founder’s Day commemorative date is a public holiday observed every 4th of August. The National Democratic Congress (NDC) government introduced it in 2009 to celebrate Nkrumah as the founder of Ghana. The NDC’s Founder’s Day was marked by a public holiday every September 21 to coincide with Nkrumah’s birthday. The NPP government in 2017 changed the date from September to August 4, to coincide with the formation of The Aborigines’ Right Protection Society (ARPS) in 1897 and the formation of the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC) in 1947. They also changed the position of the apostrophe in the name Founder’s to Founders’ to include the Big Six in the narrative as founders of Ghana.

This commemorative date is observed to celebrate the enormous contribution of nationalists who are considered founders of Ghana. High politics thus influenced the change in dates and name. Yet, every act of commemoration involves exclusion, which mostly affects women. The production (and reproduction) of history through commemorative acts involves contestations around the parochial interests of male-led political governments and leads to the resurrection of some males and the overwriting of many others from mainstream historical narratives. The contentions around who to commemorate and who to exclude have centered men. It has been about which male nationalist is worthy of commemorating and never about which woman nationalist to include. The contentions surrounding such acts mean the metanarratives are still subject of ongoing (re)negotiations and this paper calls for the inclusion of women as founders of Ghana.

National Currencies: the Big Six Versus the Big Four

Earning a place on a country’s national currency is a memorializing practice. In 2007 the cedi was devalued, and a new Ghana cedi was introduced. The new denominations 1, 5, 10, 20, and 50 cedi were all embossed with the image of the Big Six by the NPP government. In explaining the features of the new Ghana cedi, the Bank of Ghana annual report noted that, “All the notes have one portrait at the front, comprising six distinguished Ghanaians who spearheaded the struggle for Ghana’s independence (Bank of Ghana Annual Report 2007, p. 33). Also on the front is the Independence Arch, the symbol of the political independence of Ghana.” This extract is the mainstream male-centered narrative of Ghana’s independence story. This is a single story of our nationalist struggle often re-enforced during state-led commemorative acts. Overlooked is that the road to Ghana’s independence is a process which involved both men and women. Below is a picture of the Ghana cedi notes.

All the notes in Fig. 1 have the portraits of men.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Source: https://www.istockphoto.com/photos/ghana-money

The 5-, 10-, 20-, 50-, 100-, and 200-cedi notes with the portraits of the Big Six.

Full size image

New pesewas were also introduced following the redenomination. The new denominations were 1, 5, 10, 20, and 50 pesewas. The GPC 50 is embossed with the image of Rebecca Naa Deedei. According to the Bank of Ghana Annual Report (2007, p. 36), “The 50Gp bears the image of a market woman which symbolizes the significance of women in business and their contribution in building the Ghanaian economy and society as a whole.” This statement does not describe Naa Dedei as a particularly distinguished woman who spearheaded Ghana’s independence. She is memorialized in connection to business and the economy. In Fig. 2 is the 50-pesewas coin with Naa Dedei.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Source: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6996.html

The 50-pesewas coin with a picture of a woman, Rebecca Naa Dedei’s picture.

Full size image

The NDC government also introduced the new two Ghana cedi with Kwame Nkrumah’s picture and a text “Centenary of the birth of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah” (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Source: https://globalvoices.org/2010/05/18/ghana-new-two-ghana-cedis-notes-unveiled/

The 2-cedi note with the picture of Kwame Nkrumah.

Full size image

Adotey (2019) suggests that the move by certain parties to commemorate specific political figures with commemorative acts is to legitimize themselves in relation to the roles their preferred political figure played in founding Ghana. This is because historical narratives of Ghana’s independence are important for electoral victories. While Adotey (2019)’s explanation alludes to the place of high politics in such commemorative and memorializing acts, both men and women played frontal roles in the political struggle for Ghana’s independence and any attempt to masculinize that history is questionable, for example, the Bank of Ghana’s Annual Report (2007) description of the features of the new denominated cedi which note six men as the “six distinguished Ghanaians who spearheaded the struggle for Ghana’s independence.”

Those known as the Big Six were shot to such prominence primarily because of their arrest in relation to the 1948 riots. They were not the only leading nationalists. There were women nationalists too. Akua Asabea, a leading woman of the CPP, was also arrested in connection with the Positive Action Campaign, earning her the name James Fort Prison graduate (Asante Sentinel 1954). The arrest of the Big Six would be meaningless if they were not eventually released to rejoin a campaign that managed to continue without them. Leading women continued the fight. They mobilized both funding and other human resources and support for their release. They covertly evaded police detection to continue with the resistance struggle, organizing rallies and leading petition drives for the release of those whose images are now embossed on the currency. The women who played these crucial roles were—in addition to Akua Asabea—Ayisi A Ankrah, Ama Nkrumah, and Hannah Kudjo (Vieta 1999, pp. 127–131). I name them the Big Four in this paper. Their lack of memorialization alongside the men they worked with gives life to the differential honoring practices that historizes men as the founders while at the same time de-historizing women.

The Masculinization of Memorializing with Public Universities

There are many examples of naming practices that honor mostly men. Some of the monuments named after men include sports stadiums, parks, roads, interchanges, etc. Here, the focus will be on the recent naming and renaming of universities. Table 4 below shows the universities that were named in the Public University Bill Memorandum of 2020.

Table 4 Recent naming of public universities
Full size table

There is limited scholarship capturing naming and memorializing practices in Ghana. Adotey (2019) notes that among the reasons for memorializing practices is the appropriation of legacy. He describes the NDC’s memorialization of Nkrumah as an attempt to appropriate Nkrumah’s legacy for political gain as the party has at times been considered a “bastard” or orphaned party with no historical links to any civilian political heritage. The NDC also do not have any direct links to the founding narratives of Ghana. Appropriating is, thus, a way to gain legitimacy. He also posits that these historical narratives are important in gaining electoral victories. The memorializing practices of the NPP exalt those belonging to the United Party (UP) and the UGCC tradition. The recent naming of public universities is a similar case in point.

Discussion

Effects of the Silencing

Community work, public service, and collective resistance that were important in the movement for political independence are rewarded differently for men and women. Men are acknowledged, praised, and rewarded with positions, and integrated in mainstream narratives of these historic moments. The erasure of women has implications.

First, it leads to the “de-historizing” of women. Male-centered history become the norm and any potential counter-hegemonic accounts of history which seek to include women are suppressed (Crehan 1997, p. 133). The men who are accorded reverence in these historical narratives did not necessarily do anything exceptional relative to what the leading women of the times did (Allman 2009, p. 17). For example, the Big Six were arrested in connection with the 1948 riots, an event they had no hands in organizing (Austin 1964, p. 75; Commission of Enquiry into Disturbances in the Gold Coast, Andrew Aiken Watson 1948). Madam Akua Asaabea was also arrested in connection to the Positive Action Campaigns in 1950 earning her the nickname, as mentioned earlier, of James Fort Prison Graduate (Vieta 1999, p. 131; Austin 1964, p. 115).

Leaving the leading women unnamed or honoring them underwhelmingly in commemorative acts encourages the cycle of gender determined memorialization. Furthermore, there is nothing fair about exploiting the political labor of women and refusing to honor and credit them for their contributions. Additionally, it creates the perception that playing eminent roles in nation building does not guarantee one’s place in history, but it is gender determined. Advocating the commemoration of women who played leading roles will enable a counter narrative that adds to or correct the single story of Ghana’s independence.

Speaking Back to History

Speaking back to history may not necessarily redeem the image of the erased; however, it sets the record straight where there is misinterpretation, and marginalization aimed at silencing the achievements of women in the nationalist struggle for independence and in post-independence nation building. Where historical narratives and documentaries put women in the margins despite their equally valuable contributions, speaking back to history asserts their centrality to the roles they played. There are recent specialized publications which explore women’s organizations and their inner workings as well as individual women’s ingenuity (Mama 2020; Tsikata 2009). However, it is imperative to address issues of power and political representation in relation to official, governmental memorializing, or commemorative practices.

Apart from speaking back to history in our writings, honoring women also implies valuing their political labor and ending the practice of simply co-opting women’s power and excluding them from political and institutional power. While various governments, both military and civilian, are guilty of such practices in the past, this has rarely improved in recent times. The percentage of women in the legislature of all republics in Ghana has not exceeded 15% at any point in time (Bauer 2017a, b; Madsen 2019). Honoring them means valuing their political labor and achieving parity in key political positions.

There have been conversations about memorializing patriots in the naming of public institutions in Ghana in recent times. The conversations do not broach the gender-determined hierarchies in such naming of monuments and memorializing practices such as using commemorative dates and holidays to honor patriots. The public sentiment is that, instead of naming institutions after personalities, naming should be based on geographical location of the institution, and or the mission establishing the institution. Given the importance of memorializing practices or naming for the legitimization of positions of power (Adotey 2019, p. 131; Rosenberg 1999), the lack of representation of women in the memorialization of people whose work and sweat built the country is both political marginalization and a theft of history. For instance, it is a theft of history to celebrate six men as founders excluding the four women who led a petition drive for their release. It is theft of history to exclude the only woman who participated in the founding meeting of Ghana’s first nationalist party in state-led memorialization (Allman 2009, p. 13). There would be no Ghana without the bristling intelligence, organizing prowess, and the similar and complementary roles women played.

Naming or Memorializing Women Fairly

Without prejudice to the strategic, excellent, and pre-eminent role of the leading men in Ghana’s pre-independence (1950s), independence (1957), and post-independence(1960–1970s) nation building efforts, the leading women also played a part in Ghana’s independence. They should be memorialized. There is, however, no document or process that objectively details how we memorialize the meritorious roles of people in Ghana. Memorializing is inevitably political if leading women can be erased from mainstream history or state-led memorialization and commemorative acts without questions. So far questions and contestations on unfair memorializing practices have focused on the inclusion or exclusion of men (citifmonline.com 2017; ghanaweb.com 2017; graphic.com 2017; mynewsgh.com 2017).

There is cause to distrust political regimes in their ability to lead a fair memorialization practice. Consequently, even in the face of bare facts of significant contributions by leading women, it is still not sufficient for women to cement their places in Ghana’s mainstream historical narratives or the causes they championed. Speaking back to history through academic writing alone may not necessarily redeem the image of the erased or unnamed. Consequently, there should be a fair template for memorializing women that guarantees fairness. This, should include acknowledging the problem, renaming the already named monuments to include women, collecting data and information about the achievements of these women and making it mainstream information, employing a highly participatory methodology, and being inclusive of institutions, civil society organizations, and traditional councils in the naming process. Acknowledging that there is bias in the naming and memorializing process which privileges men as compared to women is the first step towards rectifying the gender determined memorializing problem.

We can rename our already named institutions and monuments to make them inclusive of women. We can revise the currencies embossing the pictures of the Big Six to include the portraits of the Big Four. We can also begin with the commemorative dates. For example, the Founders’ Day should be celebrated to include the leading women who led a petition drive for the release of the Big Six. As previously mentioned, they are Akua Asabea, Ayisi Ankrah, Ama Nkrumah, and Hannah Kudjoe. They led and organized rallies across the country, mobilizing people and funds in defense of the arrested UGCC leaders despite the ban on public gatherings (Vieta 1999, pp. 127–131).

It is crucial to research further the achievements of leading women. The findings should be made mainstream and accessible to the public. The creation of a museum dedicated to women’s history in Ghana is advisable. We can name it the Hannah Kudjoe Museum of the History of Women. We can collect all the stories, memoirs, newspaper articles that mention leading women and ordinary women, and any material however fragmented in relation to women including videos and audios of their campaigns and mobilization efforts. Most importantly, the process of naming should be inclusive of civil society organizations, different professional and interest groups, the youth, market groups, industrial groups, labor organizations, teacher union groups, the traditional councils, and any groups of interest.

Not Even in the Footnotes? Write Your Own Counter-Hegemonic History

It is important for women to document their contributions or to write their memoirs. The place of high politics explains how those in the helm of every regime consolidate state power. In consolidating state power, leaders or governments have sanctioned the erasure of women and men. Concerning the men, the erasure of Kwame Nkrumah from the history of Ghana was also sanctioned. Azangweo (2006) notes the destruction of documents that follow military coups and the proscription of things and materials connected to previous regimes. If recent memorializing practices are anything to go by, it can be noted that a change in government also means the proscription of things previous governments have done and the marginalization of others in historical narratives. While proscribing others and delegitimizing their roles as forbears in nationalist struggles serve as basis for a kind of counter-narrative and counteraction when a different political party wins political power (Adotey 2019, pp. 127 and 131), these actions are too politicized and are inevitably masculinized.

According to Allman (2009, p. 15) and Schiebinger (2004), cultural and political struggles, local and global priorities, funding patterns, disciplinary hierarchies, and personal and professional biases can shape what is recovered and what we do not research. Writing and getting it published are also political. Thus, given that both elites and non-elites played roles in the nation building of Ghana, if recognition, naming, and memorialization are done through writing and publishing alone, then a section of Ghanaians risks disappearing in the future. Yet, we should be able to get people to document as much of their lives and contributions as much as possible.

Several attempts are being made to rewrite women into mainstream history. Darkwah, for example, publishes the conversation she had with a Ghanaian female inventor, Veronica Bekoe, for the role her invention, the “veronica bucket,” played in containing the COVID-19 pandemic in Ghana (Darkwah 2022). Other women in recent times, mostly activists, are writing about themselves and their organizations: for example, The Women’s Manifesto for Ghana (2004). Denzer (1992; Cummings-John & Denzer 1995 pp. 17–20) notes the difficulty in accessing sources of West African women because they rarely published accounts of their careers and personal philosophies. Evidently, if women are shouldering much of reproductive work, usually unpaid, doing more of the informal work with hardly any financial security, working in formal sectors with a gender pay gap, and doing the bulk of the community work and political activism, there is hardly any time left to write.

Conclusion

This paper examined the differential valuing of the political labor of men and women towards Ghana’s independence struggle and post-independence nation building. It highlighted the erasure of Ghanaian women from the historical narratives of Ghana, in commemorative practices, and in monument naming despite their frontal roles.

The paper explains women’s erasure from Ghana’s mainstream history as a function of state-sanctioned disappearance. The differential honoring and memorializing tend to de-historize women. The paper emphasizes how this theft robs women of their places in the history of Ghana. The paper offers some guidelines to enable fair memorializing practice. This includes acknowledging the gender biases in our memorializing practices, researching the unnamed women, making their information mainstream, renaming our already named monuments to include them, and embossing the portraits of women, particularly the Big Four on our national currencies with the men. It also advocates for the memorialization of women with commemorative dates, and a documentary film on the role of women in Ghana’s independence movement. Policy-wise, guidelines for naming monuments must include a gender equal clause. We can create a distinctively fair template for honoring and naming that takes account of gender and other axes of inclusion. This is not about creating gender wars; it is about making sure our naming and honoring are gender inclusive rather than gender extractive. Let us give honor to those whose honor is due.