The question, “is marijuana banned in Ghana?”, upon first reading, would seem like a no-brainer.

The 1990 NACOB law, inherited from the PNDC, seems to leave no doubt that it is:

Section 4

(1) No person shall without lawful authority, cultivate any plant which can be used or consumed as narcotic drug or from which narcotic drug can be extracted.

(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years.

See also:

Section 9

(1) For the purposes of this Law narcotic drug means any of the substances specified in the Schedules to this Law whether in its natural or synthetic form.

The above notwithstanding, I wish to argue in this very brief piece that the seeming clarity is as a result of Ghana’s tendency to deal with issues in silos.

Expertise is routinely construed in terms of “specialisms” and issues are then placed in neat boxes such as “law”, “economics”, “security”, etc., with “experts” appointed to superintend over them.

Alas, there are few issues left in this world that can be dealt with that way. The world has become so complex that virtually every issue is “multidisciplinary”, requiring functional knowledge from multiple disciplines for sound analysis. Ghana’s refusal to get with that program has resulted in an increasing spectacle of “hollow expertise” that enlightens no one. And when such attitudes find their way into policymaking, a highly multidisciplinary terrain, bad thinking can be preserved for decades through institutional power.

In the case of narcotics control, the International Narcotics Control Board has itself advised several times that every country should seek to adopt a multidisciplinary approach, which would mean the involvement of perspectives from the security, public health, psychiatry, psychoactive chemistry, deviance psychology, and many other domains when coming up with sound law and policy.

It is clear that this advice has not had the influence it should have in this country because a multidisciplinary analysis of the three-decade NACOB law would show that the section four approach, purporting to ban all plants containing potentially narcotic substances, is scientifically incompetent and perhaps even unenforceable without courting absurdity.

Yet for three decades this is the law that has been used to criminalise the growing of marijuana in Ghana, sending poor rural farmers to jail, in some cases, for the rest of their natural lives.

The marijuana plant contains four hundred major chemical substances, of which only 15% are primary cannabinoids. None of these cannabinoids by themselves are psychotropic compounds. Under the influence of heat, a small proportion of these yield the acids that eventually transform to tetrahydrocannabinol and Tetrahydrocannabivarin, the only important hallucinogens in this complex chemical array.

Even dried and heavily processed marijuana may have only 3.7% THC content. As a percentage of dry, unprocessed, marijuana (with stalks intact), we are talking, in some documented cases, a THC component of about 0.5%. In short, the overwhelming proportion of the marijuana plant is NOT psychotropic or narcotic at all. 99.5% of the composition of some species of the plant can be wholesome in that regard, and serve as raw material for hundreds of industrial uses.

What is curious is that whilst the 1990 NACOB Law bans plants from which any quantity of narcotic can be extracted, the main substances in cannabis that have psychoactive properties – THC and THCV – are not even listed in the schedule to that law, thus leaving the carte blanche ban on plants in the main body of the law as the primary tool of proscription.

Yet, the international anti-narcotics conventions (1961, 1971, & 1988), whose lists of banned substances (schedules and tables) our laws derive scientific legitimacy from, do not list plants or other “whole organisms”. They list chemical and organic compounds all of which are processed formulations requiring human intervention. Below is the extract relevant to the THC from the 1961 convention (as amended by the 1971 protocol).


A similar approach to categorisation is used in the 1988 convention.


Section 126 of our Public Health Act, which deals with narcotics and psychotropics, subscribes fully to the international schedules and tables of proscribed substances, all of which, as already stated, are chemical formulations.

To allow the current NACOB section 4 regime to stand is to clothe NACOB with the power to ban a wide range of plant organisms purely because they could conceivably be transformed to narcotics.

The problem this unrestrained authority poses is that even nutmeg (yes, that aromatic spice) contains myristicin, a precursor compound for a range of psychedelic compounds. Many variants of acacia and mimosa, and a wide range of poppies have substances that are precursors to many of the substances on the controlled lists.

Phytochemical agents used for their anesthetic properties in traditional, herbal-based, healing practices across Ghana and Africa derive their potency precisely from the fact that plants such as thyme and clove can, with the right processing, generate narcotic effects.

A blanket proscription on plants that are potential sources of narcotics would be like banning glue because of its fast-growing status as Ghanaian teenagers’ favourite substance of abuse.

At this point, one may wonder how the marijuana situation has been handled in more sophisticated jurisdictions, and the answer is simple: by regulating policy with science.

In the US, marijuana has been regarded as a subset of the broader cannabis family, and is legally defined as:

“the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”

In essence, it is properly named in the controlled substance act and isolated for consideration on the basis of the targeted compound: THC.

Furthermore, in repeated guidance, the latest in 2018, the US Drug Enforcement Authority has made it clear that:

“Products and materials that are made from the cannabis plant and which fall outside the CSA definition of marijuana (such as sterilized seeds, oil or cake made from the seeds, and mature stalks) are not controlled under the CSA.”

This has widely been interpreted to mean that most parts of the marijuana plant have always been perfectly legal in America, well before the 1950 introduction of cannabis sativa to the controlled list, and since then under permit.

In actual fact, the US has a long history of distinguishing between agricultural hemp and recreational cannabis, a policy only merely reinforced by the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills.

More than 30 countries around the world have industrialised marijuana production in the same way.

The regulation of hemp production has been meant to ensure that the law does not stray from targeting THC to interference with the phytogenetic aspects of hemp production, which is completely outside the authority of the Narcotic law enforcement agencies in many sophisticated jurisdictions around the world.

It is important, nevertheless, not to confuse this longstanding state of affairs with the recent trend of legalisation of marijuana for recreational purposes, which is another debate whose time shall come.

If NACOB and other security agencies in Ghana want to control marijuana as a plant, instead of narrowly targeting THC, and perhaps THCV, then they need to upgrade their scientific understanding and migrate towards another framework of law: biosafety.

Fortunately or unfortunately, there is already a designated entity responsible for this area of law: the National Biosafety Authority, and a whole platoon of protocols to contend with. At the very minimum, NACOB and its sister agencies would have to show that marijuana, as a hemp, and other plants in the broader cannabis family, are in their natural state harmful to the environment, animal or human life.

Considering that hemp production around the world has not revealed any evidence of biosafety concerns, the most likely outcome, should policy to be improved to conform with sound scientific wisdom in a multidisciplinary framework, would be one that repudiates section 4 of the NACOB law and declares regulated marijuana hemp cultivation as perfectly in line with the President of Ghana’s Planting for Foods & Jobs vision.


Here is a piece of research work that has, slowly but cumulatively, had a very profound effect on my thinking over the years. It is the original work by David Dunning and Justin Kruger that gave birth to the “Dunning-Kruger effect” theorem.

I urge you to make the time and read the paper to the end. Yes, it is a technical paper, and you are very busy. But it is written in such a lively and straightforward style (ahem….a skill I am far from mastering myself) that it can be a finer substitute for your facebooking and gossip news reading if you just give it a chance today. You don’t even have to read it all at one go.

In short, Dunning and Kruger argue that the biggest behavioural deficit in many under-performers (to me, that’s most of us really, since we all perform below our potential most of the time) is the lack of ability to accurately assess our own strengths and weaknesses and ruthlessly work on them. But it is more profound than that because it is more specific: the poorer your skill in a particular domain the weaker your ability to appreciate how really bad you are!

This is very serious. It means that we have blindspots in the areas where we need the most help with.

So, for example, if your logical perception is very weak you are more likely to assume that your logical perception is actually very fine.

If your sense of personal discipline is horrible, you are very likely to think that you are better than most people when it comes to personal discipline (such as sticking to a schedule, prioritising important tasks over feel-good tasks, not letting the momentary spikes of ego get in the way of empathetic communication etc.). If your ability to read how others perceive your attitude and behavior is off, you are more likely to be jumping to conclusions about how much peers and bystanders respect your style, etc.

Dunning-Kruger isn’t some general notion about IQ as many people seem to believe. It is often badly summarised as: dumb people are over-confident and smart people lack conviction.

This is an ironic caricature, given that the concept is about misperceptions and misapprehensions more broadly speaking. Particularly, Dunning-Kruger is about our ability to spot self-deceit and be alerted about pernicious complacency, regardless of our latent endowment of intelligence or intellectual potential; i.e. it is primarily about behaviour not makeup. Behaviour that can and ought to be unlearned. In other words, it spotlights our tendency to get comfortable with our junk.

Over the years, I have come to the view that steadily improving one’s capacity to operate at “peak” requires “routine paranoia”, a constant sense that one’s lack of skill in important domains is causing serious damage even if one is not aware of the full extent of the damage.

Such paranoia should help create a habit of looking around for signs of harm, responsibility for which one can only fragmentarily sense and appreciate, and start working right away to mitigate them as much as one can.

Where I have been less effective is then following the trail from the debris to identify what skill deficits my blind spots are covering up in the first place in order to work more systematically on fixing the root deficits in various skill areas.

It goes without saying, certainly in the experience of many people who have thought long and hard about this, that operating at peak capacity in order to get difficult yet lucrative things well done to the appreciation of those who matter (whether they are clients, peers or the “public”) is a far more rewarding attribute than any credential can ever be.

Credentials are increasingly, in a world of 7 billion people all seeking for glory and fame or at least fulfilment, far too common and much too hard to measure to matter all that much. What everyone is looking for, and is willing to pay for, is the unique capacity to bring very hard concepts into fruition. Almost always, what is required in these contexts are subtle blends of subtle skills, which change from task to task, sometimes almost imperceptibly. A much smaller elite is capable of hitting this truly higher bar. It takes unique, well honed, metacognitive abilities to correctly sense the right skill sets to be prioritised in order to sustain the effective translation of a truly value-adding vision to fruition.

The problem is that very often we don’t even recognise these skillsets because we lack the self-assessment capacity to evaluate ourselves in the areas in which we exert our energies and intellect.

We have serious blindspots about our “cognitive bearings”. We often don’t know what we are actually doing well enough; are ignorant about the skill sets required; and frequently falter in estimating where we are in our efforts to develop and hone those skill sets.

When we start to bumble all over the place, we can’t even tell that we are bumbling, and when we fail we don’t even know that we have failed, much less trace the failure to a lack of capacity in a particular domain so that we can start work on improving it before it begins to ruin the whole endeavour. That is the story of most of our lives.

That is the extraordinary insight of Justin Kruger and David Dunning and why it is so so so critical that we all pause and take a hard look at ourselves, where we are, what we are doing, and how we are doing it.

If we are diligent, and humble, and persistent, we shall begin to see these blindspots and the mess they are covering up and start to address them. As we grow in confidence and wisdom, we may even begin to overcome our weaknesses and start to grow from strength and strength in the direction of our true potential.

Those of us exposed to the Abrahamic faiths during our upbringing know well the allegory: God in the Garden calling out to wo(man), but they are in hiding. Why? Because for the first time in their lives they have tasted the fruit of knowledge. Unfortunately their sudden knowledge of their nakedness had not come with the self-awareness to confront their deepest shortcoming: their lack of responsibility and self-accountability. And from this lack of self-knowledge: the root of eternal damnation.

May our destinies be different.


In the Age of Trump, the temptation to regard the Sino-American geopolitical contest purely in mercantilist-competition terms is strong and growing. For those of us with a more than cursory interest in international political economy (IPE), however, such monomaniacal attractions are fatal.

I intend therefore to remind colleague students of IPE to remain focused on the enduring elements of the Sino-American struggle for a neohegemonic world order by resurrecting less fashionable topics such as the tussle over Central Asia.

The ongoing ruckus in Kazakhstan[1] is as good an excuse as any to bring this fascinating region of the world back to the analytical center stage.  My goal here is to provide a brief overview of of the strategic relationship between China and the United States in the Central Asian arena today entirely from the perspective of a mid-ranking Chinese Strategist. For dramatic effect, I shall even be speaking in the voice of such an actor. Here goes.

[Static. Static clears. Crisp tones. Chinese mid-ranking strategist is in mid-flight.]

Apart from them constituting, collectively, a critical lynchpin in our broader Eurasian strategy, the five Central Asian states are also critical poles of growth in their own right as sovereign owners of large unexplored mineral reserves.

We know of course how diverse these countries are – from increasingly liberal Kyrgyzstan, flirting with Western rapprochement, to virtually unreconstructed pseudo-Soviet Turkmenistan. But despite their critical differences, it is their similarities that matter most for the upcoming analysis. In the rest of this analysis, I shall be referring to the Central Asian arena and any others bearing strong similarity to them within our international sphere of interest as the “Prime Theatres”.

Our Core Leader in his latest exposition on the evolution of the Scientific Outlook of Development, which expands the Three Represents into a durable notion of a homegrown Chinese Dream, has advised us to be “globally-minded” when evaluating evolving conditions in the world system. [2]

This exhortation is not limited to current affairs. It extends as much, my friends, to world history. We cannot evaluate important international developments solely from the perspective of Chinese history and Chinese civilizational constructs.

In looking therefore at the current interplay of forces in the Central Asia arena, against the bigger picture of Eurasia, my proposition is that we learn broadly from great historical shifts. This is very much in line with our contemporary Bing Jia philosophy, in keeping with our nature as the most heterodox of this country’s great schools of strategy; guided constantly by the CCP line, but always seeking to enrich and expand the ethos of Chinese strategy formulation in policymaking.

I must from the outset re-emphasise that our overriding goal should not be the attenuation of American influence in the Eurasian Prime Theatre. If the Americans come to that ignominious end by their own hand, all well and good. But our policy needs not be concerned with expediting that outcome, even if in ever shriller tones so-called China watchers in America continue to accuse China of seeking to supplant American imperialism, wherever traces of it can be found.[3] We must not be distracted.

Instead our goal should be to match – not to displace – and to exceed – not to diminish – America’s influence in Eurasia. The historical and contemporary realities of Central Asia, in many ways the most complex part of Eurasia from our perspective, require some forbearance in any effort to “own” the grand economic and political outcomes in this geography. In the course of our various endeavours, our mere positioning as an “alternative pole” offers valuable optionality to the governments of these regions, thereby boosting our standing without commensurate expenditure of material resources.

Some have accused us of pursuing General Wang’s “Empty Fortress” strategy. Clearly those who hold such a view did not properly read their Qi Shu. It has not been, and it should not be, the goal of our policy to implement “access denial” to American interests, whether overtly or through subterfuge. Our abiding interest has been, and should continue to be, that Asian priorities shape the engagement of any non-Asian powers in these parts. And that includes Russia, India and the European Union.

Despite the obsession of third-rate Western analysts with such framings, the evidence has always been amply clear; as far as Central Asia is concerned, our best minds concur on one thing: the Eurasian corridor is the real prize.

Eurasia is of course a vast geopolity. To avoid costly overreach and strategic drift, we must be careful to align with regional momentum, whilst developing the capacity to differentially engage with the individual countries on the basis of deep appreciation of their domestic dynamics, going beyond elite facades to feel the pulse of the strong undercurrents shaping their economies, socio-political transformation and worldviews.

Our present efforts notwithstanding, it is in these latter respects that we have fallen short, and thus failed to conclusively position ourselves as the credible alternative for meeting the most important ambitions of the five Central Asian states. We should nevertheless be wary of investing in grand alliances. They are rarely the useful instrument of geopolitics that they are held up to be. America’s tactical retreat from the region has conferred it with advantages, a counterintuitive result that is only obvious once close attention is paid to the shifting dynamics. We must be contingent in our strong engagement, applying emphasis to specific concrete outcomes and downplaying fanciful notions of the construction of a new grand hemisphere.

In this brief attempt at a broad-strokes analysis, my goal is to situate the concrete expressions of our strategy – the $100 billion Asian Infrastructure Bank, the $40 billion Silk Road Fund, the $3 billion earmarked allocation for modernisation of defence cooperation, financing for minerals exploitation, scientific installations, industrial investments etc. – inside an ideational framework that shows the perils of grand alliances in this context of Sino-American relations. My approach is to draw on contemporary analysis but with salient lessons from world history constantly in the backdrop.

In summary, our success in the Prime Theatres will depend on how well we are able to respect the following key principles:

  • Our preferences must evolve as our capabilities evolve.
  • We must not create the impression of fixed bargains. Our engagers must understand that the relationship would be reset with changing times and as the strategic environment transforms. We are allied for specific outcomes not on the basis of eternal values.
  • Win-win does not mean that on every transaction both parties get the same payoffs.
  • Tactics is the permanent resolution of temporary problems. Strategy is the temporary resolution of permanent constraints.
  1. The “Operational Challenge” of Agility

As we pursue the legitimate objectives of our national energy security and trade expansion across the Eurasian expanse, Central Asia shall continue to matter greatly for the success or otherwise of our strategy.

We must remember however that the US does not face the energy calculus that confronts us. Today, it is a net exporter of refined petroleum products and 90% self-sufficient in its energy demand profile. Its capacity to play a long game and show greater flexibility in the manner in which it inserts itself into the play for Central Asia’s considerable energy and geographic resources is more assured than diminished precisely because of its tactical retreat from the region and the abandonment of the New Silk Road Initiative pushed by the declining forces of international neoliberalism in the American administration.

If we do not exercise care, our need to secure supplies and to build launchpads for new logistical experiments supporting our export growth policies shall be successfully misrepresented by American provocateurs as a “grab”, and our every move reinterpreted as steps to convert the Eurasian corridor into a tributary serving our selfish interests. Episodic protests against the presence of Chinese migrants and the activities of our companies in the places like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are, alarmingly, recurring at a growing frequency.

We have for long been found wanting in the use of private consulting entities, international norm setting agencies, civil society organisations and NGOs, and academic entrepreneurs, as vanguard elements to intubate the societies in which we operate and thereby better enhance the flow of our interests. This “technical backwardness” has been made into a virtue to inoculate us against one form of the Athenian[4] disease: the hubris of regional moral arbiter. We have so far avoided the impression of being the grand adjudicator of interstate grievances.

But as the troubles in Xinjiang and the instabilities on our western front take on an increasingly regional dimension, and as our counter-terrorism capabilities grow in sophistication, we find ourselves sucked into an American paradigm: the idea of a borderless war on terror. Our recent decisions to restrict the emergence of a free-ranging Islamic diaspora of Western Chinese Muslims by detaining ethnic Kazakhs for re-education in ideological rehabilitation centers has sparked off an unusually loud series of protests from various Kazakh government agencies.[5] We are increasingly having to intervene in border security arrangements in neighbouring Central Asian countries than has ever been necessary.

Even as, under the current administration in Washington, America’s aspirations and expectations for pan-global cooperation on anti-terrorism and assorted similar security initiatives grow more and more modest.

We build giant pipelines from the steppes to cart precious fossil fuels to light up our thirsty industries in the great hinterlands as indeed we should. But by so doing we increase several-fold the surface area of security threats.[6]

With international jihadists continuing to gain footholds in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, and their eyes fixed firmly on Xinjiang, Qinghai and Ningxia, we find ourselves impelled by sheer necessity to dictate terms to hapless governments in the region on how to contain these threats and prevent them from spilling over.

The general incompetence that has been on display in Uzbekistan in the handling of the IMU matter has resulted in the broadening of the nexus of terror taking root in parts of the region into the dreaded prospect of cross-fertilisation with Middle Eastern militancy. It has thrown the paradox of non-interference and shared risk into stark relief.

There are aspects of these security manoeuvres that are beyond our skill, and acknowledging them is the first step towards a clear-eyed reconfiguration of our strategy.

The decision to promote the growth of private security companies and deepen the civilian defence contracting space[7] has received strong endorsement from our Core Leader and as a sign of the seriousness with which the Politburo under his leadership takes the issue, we now have the Central Commission for Integrated Military & Civilian Development.

We have begun to co-opt disgruntled American private military contractors, given them the attention they crave so much but have been denied by their own leaders, and are steadily integrating their capabilities into our mercantile security agenda. We now have close to 6000 private security companies, many of whom are on course to follow the few dozen that have already been integrated into Chinese external security and reconnaissance-surveillance infrastructure, despite some niggling unease amongst the PLA General Staff. Since many of these companies are in their infancy, we expect that mistakes shall be made, but our investments in international expertise, particularly in former American-run entities like the Frontier Security Group[8], should help us rapidly mitigate the effects of inexperience. Unlike directly “running” former American security officers, the ability of American counter-intelligence to react[9] is quite limited.

By continuing to invest in the coordination of state-private security interests, we greatly reduce the frigidity of overt military diplomacy. And, without a doubt, the agility that such operational auxiliaries would confer on the asset fortification objectives of our economic expansion is truly precious. It should enable us to achieve security for our fast accumulating assets abroad without having to deal with the optics and consequences of having state personnel in Chinese uniforms manning arsenal across the steppes, the Caspian and soon the Baltic straits. Private defence contractors, provided we keep their leashes taut, should help us deal firmly with these emerging tactical constraints before they become strategic impediments. Best of all, their camouflaged mobility comes with no diplomatic deadweight.


  1. The “Existential Problem” of Resentment

We must, nevertheless, not trip over the same stumbling blocks that America neglected, and beckon to our own 9/11 moment. If we attract provocations that go to our honour, strategy may dissolve into a series of distractions.

It is critical that in addition to operational agility we also consider the existential risk of “great power resentment”, a permanent problem that we must solve continually, vigilantly. Aided by strategy, and informed by the wisdom of history.

Let us be reminded of the follies of the Hapsburg Philip II who conflated the existential risk of freethinking faced by his catholic imperialism with operational security challenges, and then blundered across Europe even as in his own backyard, anti-dogmatic forces were gathering to seal his doom. When eventually these forces found a centrifugal core in the person of the Lutheran William the Silent, Prince of Orange, an unstoppable chain of events would be unleashed, eventually toppling the rule of the Habsburgs in the low countries. The Spain that survived into the next century was not the thriving and ascendant Spain of yesteryear.

In nurturing and guiding regional alliances against terrorism, we cannot avoid the shadow of America, both as an example of the risks wrought large and as a very real physical presence in many of these situations around the region.

Bogged down in a protracted war with no discernible objective contours, the United States in Afghanistan is in a sorry state. The puppet regime it installed in Kabul is at this point losing bases and considerable amounts of materiel to a resurgent Taleban.

Across the peripheries of this conflict, along thin stretches of land connecting Tajikistan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, our undisclosed forward-operating bases in Bakadhshan, Warkhan and the Fergana should enhance the PLA’s reaction time to incidents in any of the proliferating flashpoints.

With growing strength and confidence, China’s capacity to provide security cover to its far-flung economic undertakings should continue to be carefully calibrated without fanfare. Official silence on all planned base construction activities should continue to be our standard policy. By denying narrational form to tales of our ascendancy we diffuse the concentration of news coverage that create popular perceptions. Popular perceptions in America, long beholden to demagogic forces, inevitably trump the sagely wisdom of elite conclaves.

But it is not only the Americans we have to contend with when it comes to physical extensions of our security cover. In South Asia, we have seen aggressive lobbying by India to prevent Chinese naval presence in what it considers its “sphere of interest”, such as in Sri Lanka. Russia – despite all the overtures we have mutually extended to each other; our obvious need to collaborate on the great, and mightily expensive, Eurasian integration project; and our shared concerns about America’s continued meddling in the region – continues to exert enormous pressure on client governments in Central Asia to deny China any space to erect military installations. The stronger the popular perception of Chinese ubiquity the quicker resentment shall transform into paranoia.

Except in some narrow trade matters, every strategic engagement we have with the Americans, every geopolitical framing we give to the relationship, has this complex, multilateral, character. Our deep and hydra-headed interconnections across every arena in which we play have imposed this canvas upon both of us. And the situation cannot be different when we zoom in on local and trans-local issues in the Central Asian states themselves.


  1. Beware the Delian Symmachy

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the five Central Asian states suddenly found themselves burdened with independence. Their natural tendency, as was the trend across the Global South, particularly in those areas where soviet domination had been strongest, was to look to the Washington Consensus for re-socialisation into the new world order under American and European tutelage. It did not take too long for disillusion to set in, albeit at a different pace for each country.

Like the Aegean City-States in the period before and in the aftermath of the Peloponnesian War, Central Asian nations have evolved a geopolitical worldview under the shadow of imperial threat. Their “Persia” has been at various times, Persia itself, the Mongolian horde, America, the USSR, and Russia, depending on which power was doing the fear-projection and what interests are at stake.

The years of vassalage, marked by varying degrees of subjection, and the memories of having been the main site of many of the Soviet gulags, have induced a distrust of great powers in this corner of the Eurasian Prime Theatre.

Today, we are engaged in a contest for minds and treasure that is not too dissimilar from the period in the lead up to the Peloponnesian War. Whether we are Athens, and America, Sparta; and whether Russia fits well in the robes of Corinth are all questions with evolving answers. The episodic conduct of each great power will put them in whichever Peloponnesian garb fits best for the situational analysis at hand. But whether the endgame is war or not is hardly the most poignant issue here. Because an essential difference between the Peloponnesian context and the context I am discussing is that “Persia” is very often also at every table, and not merely arraying its latest armada across the straits between Piraeus and Salamis.

What, therefore, is primarily at issue is the structure of the alliances that emerge and whether the character of these alliances will breed resentment rather than friendship.

Athens did not lose the war to Sparta merely because it underestimated Sparta’s strengths whilst overinflating the importance of its own naval capabilities. It lost the war because it forced a framework of alliances whose structural purpose once defunct could only become a spigot for toxic resentment and an engine perpetuated by chronic exploitation[10].

The descent of the Delian league into a cesspool of anomie and grievance is a cautionary tale against the pursuit and perpetuation of grand alliances as if they are ends in themselves, and in the belief that once they have settled on a rhythm then they acquire legitimacy purely by striking the same rhetorical notes over and over again.

When a growing power strikes a friendship with weaker neighbours, the power imbalance, so long as there is a continued divergence in growth, shall always remain the fundamental feature of the relationships.[11]

Unless such relationships are purposively steered to achieve the purpose of collective expansion of some kind, to harness the energies of the allies towards productive ends, the symbiosis very quickly always turns to cannibalisation, either in reality or in perception. Every alliance can fall prey to this. But what history teaches us is that the scale of the initial delusion matters. There is a particular class of alliances that deserve even closer scrutiny.


  1. Grand Alliances – Not Always so Grand

The temptation to try and solve multiple, disparate, problems with one uniform tool is very tempting. And of all temptations, the allure of “Grand Alliances” is the most intense.

Throughout history – from the time of the degeneration of the Delian League to the conflagration of the Belle Epoque in the crucible of the Triple Alliance –  even the greatest and savviest political leaders have often misunderstood the purpose of alliances as a means of amplifying the reach of power through synergies where possible and misconstrued them, especially when hallmarked by their scale and pomposity, as trophy symbols.

Instead of regarding and framing alliances as instruments for building power they have been treated as evidence of power and channels for using that alleged power. Yet, like all systems that generate power, alliances become highly flammable when they malfunction due to misconfiguration or misuse.

Few examples from history are as poignant as those that dot the daguerreotype of World War I.

A close look at the pacts underlying the alliances before the war – from the Entente Cordiale to the Ausgleich – reveals their underlying purpose as based on decisions to address specific sore points in the historical relationships amongst these powers. It is not clear at what point the wise and powerful rulers of Europe determined that alliance pacts are mechanical devices for the automatic production of friendship. Rather than the contrivances they indeed are for freeing inter-state relations from historical deadweight to allow future cooperation to proceed unhindered on the merits of clear forward-looking opportunity.

Once locked into these sub-optimal arrangements, every petty folly became magnified by their refraction through outsized geopolitical prisms. War was thus made inevitable by the rigidities imposed through the alliance system.

Neither Germany nor the United Kingdom really needed these wars. The former’s rapidly accelerating industrial capacity and the latter’s far-flung mercantile empire were all that were necessary to free them from the tight constraints of the European theatre so that they could embrace the emerging hyper-globalisation of means and ends.

But bogged down by Europe’s alliance system they unleashed against each other terrifying armaments and masses of soldiery that were impossible to contain in one war. Inevitably a second war was necessary, and by the end of it all both Germany and the United Kingdom had become second-rate powers.

The account above suffices to illustrate the risks of grand alliances. But, once again, it is not the endgame of war that should interest us the most. Even with the entanglements across Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Central Asian states being witnessed today in the Fergana Valley. Even with the interlocking of more nuclear and aspiring nuclear powers across this one range than anywhere else in the World – India vs Pakistan, Taleban vs Iran, China vs India, America vs Russia, etc. – war is not the overarching concern. Not because war is not important, but because when the permutations are run, war drops out far less frequently than many other plausible scenarios. At any rate, Great Power competition among China, Russia and America is remarkably benign due to an unusual coincidence of threat perception than is the case elsewhere (such as for instance, the Indo-Pacific).[12]

The more important takeaway from the historical lessons of World War I is the need to avoid declaratory gestures of comity that serve to signal exclusionary zones of operation. In simple words, to avoid blood oaths, open-ended commitments to collaborate for the attainment of vague and loose prospects.

When we participate in initiatives like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, our aim should not be the creation of interlocking bulwarks against some perceived set of interests, particularly American interests.

Our approach should, instead, focus on the ease with which such diplomatic instruments enable us to quicken the pace of contingent arrangements to achieve our real goals of dotting Central Asia with productive infrastructure to facilitate the next great leap of our economic progress, which if successful should boost overall regional economic capacity, as has happened across the Pacific Rim and elsewhere in East Asia.

Such “instrumental” alliances are indeed critical to opening a new front in our outward economic expansion so crucial to the domestic effort of turbocharging socially inclusive growth again.


  1. America’s Game of Hastening Slowly

As you are already aware, friends, comrades, the US decided a few years ago that maintaining troops in Central Asia is not essential to sustaining its influence in the broader region. As with energy, so, it would seem, with military bases: the US has the luxury of temporary depriorisation.

It is important to remind ourselves that the idea of an integrated Caucasus, paid for by the proceeds of enhanced regional economic synergy, was originally American. Much of the content of their New Silk Road Initiative (NSRI) sits today in the One Belt One Road program, our signature, counterhegemonic, initiative. Rather than gloat over America’s seeming fall from grace, we must study the circumstances of their withdrawal to test them for alignment with the classical doctrines of feigned retreat in the Qi Shu.

When the decision to scale down military exposure to Afghanistan downgraded the command importance of Central Asia, America abandoned the thinking behind NSRI to focus on specific, concrete, opportunities, without any qualms about the longer timelines involved in utilizing its imperialist fronts. Examples abound, but CASA-1000 is as good as any to illustrate this logic.

When American instruments of global economic imperialism – like the USAID, OPIC and EXIM – invest in infrastructure and other economic development projects, they drill down to minutiae to maintain project control.

Their near-hegemonic influence in multilateral financial and economic institutions like the World Bank and the IMF helps distribute project risks, reinforce western legalistic thinking and so-called “corporate governance”, while at the same time increasing the rigour of project design. Strict rules on procurement prevent political capture and incentivises bureaucratic excellence. This approach is indeed slow, and as prone to the risk of resentment as are the fears of “neo-colonial grabbing” we usually have to deal with.  The World Bank-husbanded CASA-1000, for instance, has been nearly a decade in the making, and yet to transmit a single MW of power.

However, there are clear advantages to such methods of holistic penetration. It is important that “soft infrastructure” not be confused with “values” and then dismissed with cynicism. Standards and governance systems have concrete impact on hard outcomes.

For instance, minimising graft not only helps conserve resources, it can also help avoid risks of project failure. Properly aligning market incentives and state priorities ensure commercial sustainability of large-scale infrastructure projects.

CASA-1000 for instance has progressed far beyond the securing of rights of way for the physical infrastructure of gridlines and transformers. It has penetrated deeply into the institutional design of regional electricity markets, slowly altering the landscape for energy investments in the region. Through extended consultations and because of the extensive availability of information, the project has been building sockets for private sector participation across the supply chain. America is not worrying itself with the need for elaborate alliances anymore. It is focused on marketing one core capacity: governance and the technologies to deliver it, to whomsoever is interested.

China’s relative incapacity to execute this kind of institutional penetration has forced many of our programs to suffer considerable atrophy. Our Khorgos Gateway projects are seeing uptake far below expectations. The Turkmenistan-China pipeline complex has become a byword for confusion, following the cancelling of Line D. The failure of the KGMI energy deal in Kazakhstan, after much funfair, has considerably embarrassed the government there. It is clear that money alone is rarely enough in economic power projection.

Whilst much is often made of the fifty-fold growth in our trade volumes with Central Asia, few seem to have noticed that the European Union actually out-trades us. Even tiny Italy currently outperforms us in Kazakhstan, the biggest of the regional economies, by a multiple of nearly two. So long as the region exports natural resources, any country is as good as another on the other side of a trade. Until ongoing efforts deepen the sophistication of these economies, thus giving an overwhelming edge to proximal partners with the stomach for complex execution risks and high rewards, our alliances shall fail to bear full fruit.

All of these facts point to one core reality: our economic position in Central Asia is far from ascendant, and a re-engaged, increasingly more mercantile, America could easily start to unbalance our vantage point for effective manoeuvring. We need as a country to continue to advert our minds to some fundamental shifts currently underway in the region which we can only ignore at our peril.


  1. Our Rendezvous with America

The pieces of the shaken kaleidoscope are still in flux. When they settle, what picture of engagement shall be painted of our strategic face-off with America in Central Asia over the prize of Eurasia?

I have no doubt in my mind that the two powers shall be judged by the degree to which the effects of their direct, perceptible, investments are seen to align with the growing aspirations of younger people, especially the growing middle class of professionals and entrepreneurs.

Throughout the region today, with only marginal differences from place to place, a general sense of disenchantment with the direction of society is pervasive in every country. A strong consensus has been building up that Central Asia has been mismanaged for far too long that any major development is just another in a long line of “reforms” or “transformations” that simply fail to materialise. Cynicism runs very deep in the society. A number of additional factors explain the apathy and anomie.

The contiguity of territorial and national identity of these five states is of more recent vintage than that of most African and Asian states, with the current sovereign boundaries dating only to 1936. A greater proportion of the nepotism, corruption, cronyism and state incompetence we see across these countries stem from this lack of strong national and social cohesion. Zbigniew Brzezinski’s characterisation of the region as the “Eurasian Balkans” was apt in that regard.

On top of this, important environmental challenges, such as the ongoing desiccation of the Aral, have been almost completely ignored, creating conditions that may exacerbate the population pressures in parts of the region in years to come.[13]

The most worrying aspect of the plight of Central Asia, however, is the stagnation of the economic system. Nearly three decades since their independence, the economies of these countries continue to remain shackled to the ups and downs of Russia’s resource sector. Between two-fifths and a full half of the GDP of Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan is estimated to be driven primarily by remittances from their diaspora in the Russian Federation. Desperation at home continues to drive many Tajiks, Kyrgyzstanis, and Uzbeks to Russia, where too many of them slave away in poorly paid jobs under appalling conditions.

These problems make partnerships with great powers fraught with the fear of epimachia, the old Athenian tributary system that was meant to foster regional development but ultimately degenerated into plain exploitation.

Should China be perceived as merely reinforcing the natural resource extractive economy that only benefits the small elite at the top, any expansion of our economic footprint shall increase the appetite for Washington Consensus type reforms and so called “governance transformation”.

Recent democratic shifts are moreover heralding some fundamental shifts in attitudes, generating more optimism, and increasingly fuelling an unprecedented degree of political transparency that is turning resignation and fatigue into agitation, with corresponding demands for a new kind of more surgical reforms. And, unfortunately, China is not very well aligned with the trends in social sentiment.

The massive corruption still being uncovered in Kyrgyzstan following the departure of former leader, Almazbek Atambayev, regularly feature complicit Chinese institutions. Take the Bishkek HPP refurbishment project, for instance, where at least 30% of the $386 million in loans from our Exim Bank were misapplied with the clear connivance of Chinese contractors we imposed. Or the recent mess in Uzbekistan where the daughter of deceased President Islam Karimov, has been implicated in corruption scandals involving large sums of money, with Huawei mentioned at every turn as having facilitated kickbacks. The line that Huawei is a private company is hard to push when the record clearly shows how aggressive we have been in inserting it into technology infrastructure projects across the region.

And who, at every turn, has shown up just when media coverage of these “scandals” are at their peak? The United States of America, with a coterie of multilateral institutions, such as the OECD, in tow, offering help with “governance reforms” and training programs for officials to improve upon “public procurement” and contracting.

Which country is sponsoring so-called think tanks in the region to promote ideas about the dangers of “low diversification” and offering “leadership training programs” for the next generation of entrepreneurial public and private sector leaders? The United States.

Whilst big screen coverage of grand contests may miss these somewhat more subtle undercurrents, I am completely convinced that going forward the strategic context for our relationship with the United States shall be shaped more by these trends than any other.


Final Conclusions & Recommendations

Before I sign off, comrades, allow me to reiterate the key points I have made throughout this brief note:

  1. The success or failure of our Central Asian strategy shall be dependent entirely on how we can influence the emergence of economic synergies at a scale sufficient to underwrite the $1 trillion commitment we have made to the Eurasian integration project. Eurasia is indeed the Prize.
  2. Few opportunities around the world have this scale, occur within our immediate neighbourhood, and open up unexplored prospects with clear win-win payoffs as well as the Eurasian integration project.
  3. Our current alliance building efforts should be contingent on clear performance and should never degenerate into trophy-symbol “grand alliances”. History affords us much insight into the pitfalls of misconfiguring alliance strategy.
  4. In every dimension of each of the above objectives, America’s tactical retreat from the region provides them with exceptional scope to re-enter with better clarity about the opportunities and unbalance the elaborate architecture we are putting in place to drive the corridor integration project.
  5. Should we bungle the alliance framework and fail at genuine partnerships synced with the times, the US is likely to re-enter the fray utilising a Sparta-type monist strategy around the one theme that resonates with the ascendant, aspirational, classes of these countries: “better governance”. Our Delian league shall crumble on charges of symmachia. This is however far from a battle over “values” per se; this is about the control of objective conditions.
  6. Better “governance” is not merely a resuscitation of tired liberal democratic hopes. It is instead “developmentalist” in its own way. In many ways, the ongoing campaign that our Core Leader has launched domestically is buoyed by the same logic, and appeals to similar classes of people at home.

The battle is thus, without any doubt at all, a battle over concrete outcomes in development, state actualisation and political maturity.

It is in short a contest over who can mobilise alliances not just of elites but of whole populations. And victory, in Eurasia and elsewhere, shall not be handed to China on a silver platter. We must win the right to influence the determination of what success looks like in this most vital of strategic theatres.



[1] Gleeful coverage in the elite Western media is indicative of the persisting recognition of the region’s role in the general calculus of the Sino-American relationship. See: (last accessed, 12th July, 2019).

[2] Those who are poorly schooled in the analysis of the rich innovation of our “Marxian localisation” tradition, especially those with Western audiences, tend to overanthropologise what are clear political economy constructs. See, for example, Xing, Lu & Simons, Herbert. 2006. “Transitional Rhetoric of Chinese Communist Party Leaders in the Post-Mao Reform Period: Dilemmas and Strategies.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 92:3, 262-286

[3] See, for instance: McReynolds, Joe. 2017. “Doctrinal Sea Change, Making Real Waves: Examining the Maritime Dimension of Strategy.” The Jamestown Foundation. Though we must admit that some of our own scholars have also been equally grandiose in their formulations. Example: Liao, Yonghe. 1995. “The Right and Wrong of the ‘America in Decline’ Theory.” Dangdai Shijie. But the majority have been very clear-eyed. See: Xu, Jin. 2008. “The Financial Crisis Will Not Upset the ‘One Superpower and Many Powers’ Structure.” Shijie Jingji yu Zhengzhi.

[4] Referring to the ancient, 5th Century, Athenian empire.

[5] A careful view, albeit with a Western lens, is presented in this work:

Gladney, Dru. 1996. “Relational alterity: Constructing dungan (hui), uygur, and Kazakh identities across china, central Asia, and Turkey, History and Anthropology.” 9:4, 445-477. And an Asian perspective:

Weiqing, Song. 2013. “Feeling safe, being strong: China’s strategy of soft balancing through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.” International Politics 50:5, pages 664-68

[6] These are dynamics that are not obscured from even the most blinkered observers. See, for instance: Ericson, Richard. 2009. “Eurasian Natural Gas Pipelines: The Political Economy of Network Interdependence.” Eurasian Geography and Economics, 50(1), pp. 28–57.

[7] See: Nouwens, Meia, and Helena, Legarda. 2018. “Guardians of the Belt and Road: the Internationalisation of Chinese Private Security Companies.” China Monitor, Mercator Institute of China Studies. Also on the www at: (last accessed: December 11, 2018)

[8] FSG has even won contracts from the PLA, and has been permitted to invest in a defence academy that has trained thousands of PLA personnel to date.

[9] Cf. the Ron Hansen case. See: (last accessed, 12th May, 2019).

[10] See: Kallet, Lisa. 2013. “The Origins of the Athenian Economic ARCHE. The Journal of Hellenic Studies.” 133, 43-60.

[11] The tendency towards symmachia is of course widely appreciated amongst careful observers. See: Swanstrom, Niklas. 2005. “China and Central Asia: a new Great Game or traditional vassal relations?” Journal of Contemporary China, 14:45, 569-584

[12] For instance, both China and the United States agree on the need to fortify Pakistan against Indian bullying. Whilst some fret over concerns about China displacing America from Pakistan’s affections, it is not a situation fraught with danger. Iran distrusts both the Taleban and the Islamic State of Khorasan with equal passion, but to the extent that an agreement can actually be made with the Taleban, but not with the apocalyptic Daesh, its objectives may seem to be misaligned with American interests. The truth however is that Iran’s posture in Afghanistan continues to remain defensive. India has historical sound relations with Russia, and, as you know, comrades, they have fought a number of wars with us over territorial issues. But they also distrust American intents for the region as deeply as we do, and are just as rattled by Russia’s growing military engagement with Pakistan as we are. In short, no configuration of enmity is stable enough to prompt a necessary war.

[13] UN data projects a combined cumulative growth exceeding 170% for Tajikistan and Uzbekistan this century. See: (last accessed December 11, 2018).


Prologue: A Pledge Redeemed

(This preamble was initially planned to resemble an epic. Alas, there was not enough pathos.)

In March 2017, during the celebrations to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Ghana’s independence from Britain, the President of Ghana announced the ‘legacy project’ of the National Cathedral, and in the following year’s anniversary, he unveiled drawings by a bona fide Knight of the British Empire, Sir David Adjaye, a Tanzanian-born British Architect of recent Ghanaian ancestry.

For Sir David, the ‘National Cathedral’ is to provide a multifuctional home for “all faiths” smack in the middle of the erstwhile European Quarter of formerly segregated Accra. His designs feature a baptistry; a musical conservatory; an ecumenical auditorium for state functions; libraries and museums; and ornamental gardens[1]. The Cathedral was presented as a fixture in the gallery of recent Adjaye global projects: the National Museum of African American History and Culture; a museum of espionage; and a memorial to extinct species.


Fig. 1. Sir David Adjaye’s vision of a “National Cathedral” in the heart of once-British Accra

Still, the announcements were met with fierce debate. Even claims by Government Communicators that the cathedral shall enable “deep national conversations on the role of faith in building the progressive and prosperous Ghana” couldn’t quieten the agitation. So the President upped the ante: “I am convinced that out of these conversations would emerge ideas and values that should help us build a new Ghanaian civilization.”

If such a fine coup de grâce was meant to stultify his critics, it merely increased their wariness. The petit-elite, in particular, was highly unimpressed. The 14 acres of central Accra land designated for the project already hosted several important government buildings that were now to be pulled down to make way for the $100 million cathedral, in a country where two-thirds of the people don’t have decent housing.

Other critics insisted that Ghana was a secular state. What business did the State have with a cathedral?”.[2] Ghana was a leader in the pan-African liberation from neo-colonialism; why impose something from a Eurocentric-colonial past on the future of this proud, black, country’s heritage?[3] Worse, the President had admitted a personal pledge to God ahead of the 2016 elections to build a “Mother Church of Ghana” should he be blessed with divine victory.

The most committed of the discontents retained an Ivy League PhD-wielding lawyer to file suit at the Supreme Court demanding a halt to the national cathedral project for violating the constitutional proscription against the imposition of a “discriminatory common religious program” in a religiously plural nation.

Government communicators[4] were thus compelled to construct a method of justification unhindered by the need to respond to specific, factual or ideological, critique. Such as: “[the cathedral] will be…an iconic infrastructure for national, regional and international pilgrimage and tourism. It will create jobs, and serve as a catalyst for technology and skills transfer into our country.”[5]

These techniques that the Government deployed to fightback; the vocabularies developed to legitimise the enterprise; and what it all say about the peculiar practice of justification in Ghanaian politics, as evidenced in the invention of new formats and the perpetuation of traditional ones in this specific practice we have labelled as, legacy-communication, are the subject matter of this descriptive essay.

The Ontology of Legacy

There is no difficulty at all in seeing that the President of Ghana, and his political party, use “legacy” as a construct of their own making to refer to a curious, time and reality-warped, admixture of personal, partisan, factional, sectarian, but also State, deployment of power. It is merely coincidence that “legacy” can mean both a received heirloom and a bequest handed down to the next generation.

We can think of it as the appropriation of a very specific religious architectural motif – the cathedral – belonging to one branch, albeit a major one, of Christianity, the episcopal-orthodox polity; but we also need to consider the relevance, not just of ecumenical content, but also of post-colonial national-actualisation ambitions.

This political-communication dispositif, in the language of Foucault[6], brings up the eternal Foucauldian question of “where and how, between whom, between what points, according to what processes, and with what effects, [legacy-communicative] power is applied.” And how exactly that power determines which boundaries and structures should be defended, redefined, dissolved, and reconstituted to make this grand motif of a “national cathedral” sustainable as a “political achievement”.

Success takes as its raw materials the contradictions, paradoxes, confusions, ambiguities and the many gaps inherent in the state-craft, nay stage-craft, that can transform something as static as a cathedral – the crown ornament of a colonial ancien-regime – into a modern legacy of a progressive African State[7].

The Performativity of the Justificatory

There are some Western authors who have done a good job in the Eurocentric tradition of examining how subjective values and meanings can be abused or strained to produce objective power, often oppressive power. Riles, Anderson and Foucault[1] comes to mind.

The principal mechanism is something we can call the “performance” of power. For example, a book burning depends on the books being burned even though that would seem a frivolous point. It would seem that the artists of hate have power already and that the very principle of burning in hate is what matters, and yet the trouble to craft effigies and ensure that real books are at hand matter.  Power Performativity is like that too.

As in the world of Riles, Anderson and Foucault, the minutiae of political drama in Accra matter greatly for the two-sided phase transition between seemingly meaningless, provincial spell-words, on the one hand, and the oral blueprints of the substantive architecture of power, on the other hand. We must pay attention to how babbling becomes towering.

The Ghanaian political communicators’ task is to carefully improvise vocabularies belonging elsewhere in developing-country state-craft – phrases such as “technology transfer”, “youth unemployment”, “national harmony”, etc. – so that the transition from the cathedral as a European religio-architectural motif to the nationalistic imagery of proud legacy can happen seamlessly.

The challenge is akin to the responsibility placed on the continuity Director in a CGI-laden film. It is easy to trip because the CGI elements are infinitely malleable in post-production, making it easy to forget that the underlying motion-capture is as stubborn and gooey as any non-digital mass can be. That is why simple projections of power-words alone cannot do. The sophistry must be far more subtle than that, delicately swapping synonyms with homonyms as the drama of power proceeds.

The shared habitus (the unstated and deep-seated unconscious norms of appreciation among the national Ghanaian audience), as a Pierre Bourdieu might say, of performer and audience dissolves the ordinary meaning of such vocabularies until power has done its work of transforming cathedral into legacy.[8]

So, we come to the essence of power, beyond mere discourse, itself. Anderson has theorised elsewhere about the creation of alternative legitimacies and about the potentiality of the state as the guardian of “generalised tradition”.[9] The Ghanaian cathedralists in improvising their “invented episcopacy” – their spiritually barren Mother Church – paid careful attention to the choice of civilizational experts. Having made “civilisation” the central object of performance, they would not have discharged this burden of “giving meaning” to it without declaring it a discipline, a dispositif in fact, in the finest tradition of Foucault, if they had not exercised the power of determining its credentialed assayers.

For instance, the charge of mental neocolonialism and Eurocentricism (why a cathedral instead of a shrine to Pan-African ancestors?) had to be tackled through illumination, the blinding light of expert-condescension.

Dr. Okeke-Agulu, a Professor of Art History at Princeton, himself of Nigerian ancestry, declared ex cathedra in the New York Times that[10]:

“[the cathedral is] a huge deal. It signals that the country is poised to consolidate the gains of decades of democracy. And the new interdenominational Christian cathedral will inspire ambitious civic architecture projects across the continent that harness the talents of Africa’s emerging artists.”

He further expressed, in response to the ‘misplaced priorities’ charge, “[the] hope [that] it becomes a model for how art museums in Africa can also be multifunctional public institutions. And this is why the criticisms of the cathedral are misplaced.”[11]

Princetonian eminence was supplemented by world-class expertise in civilizational-architecture. Government Communicators reminded everyone who Sir David Adjaye was: a world-acclaimed architect who builds grand tributes to civilisation. “International endorsement” thus serving as a prism to refract, not rebut, criticism.

In this approach, Government Communicators were certainly channeling settled tradition. Despite Ghana’s fierce pan-African, anti-neocolonial, and Black Pride, credentials, the country’s post-independence state-symbol building practice has consistently, right from the Nkrumah era, relied on Western acclaimed architectural experts – Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, Maxwell Fry, Walter Gropius, Kenneth Scott, and James Cubitt, among others.[12]

The third strand of the imposition of meaning enterprise consisted in creative sovereignty.

Government Communicators stressed a forward-looking, free to envision, agenda. By cultivating a “nostalgia for the future”, to paraphrase Riles[13], civilizational license was generated to assign benefits of the Cathedral to future generations, rendering present cost-benefit analysis meaningless, and culminating in a structure akin to what Arjun Appadurai calls “overlapping ecumenes”.[14]

Finally, to be ecumenical is not to be universal. Some exclusionaries remain critical. Ghana’s usually invisible homosexual community was highlighted for negation through a dubious report about a faceless “gay representative” announcing a donation of $6 million for the cathedral, which was dutifully rejected by a suitably mortified Bishop.[15]

Riles has referred to such tapestries of performance somewhere as the “alternating patterns of concreteness and abstraction”.[16] Concrete ideas are juxtaposed with abstract features, until eventually, to channel the version of Nietzsche preferred by Foucault, an invisible, unfunded, cathedral becomes visible as a tangible political achievement.[17]

The failure of multiple fund-raising efforts to raise private funds through donations for the project does not register as a threat to the viability of the physical manifestation of the Cathedral idea at all. The success of the communication enterprise preempts and redefines all notions of attainment. It sets the boundaries of the real and the important and directs the attention to where it is allowed.


Some observers saw in this spectacle the elements of an enchanted democracy.”[18]

In that framing, the sheer absence of conventional bureaucratic deliberation, of fiscal realism, of coherent urbanography, or of anything resembling official project-making in a plural democracy gave credence to the power of phantasmagorical politics. Spectacle prevails where all else retreats.

For those mesmerized by said enchantment, only one pillar of hope remained: Ghana’s fiercely politically independent Supreme Court. Surely, hardnosed, illumination-resistant, Judges would see through this phantasmagorical charade?

But on January 23, 2019, the seven eminent Judges unanimously pronounced:

“In our considered opinion, lending a helping hand to one religious community does not mean a denial or preclusion of support/assistance to another in similar circumstances….The plaintiff’s action fails. It is therefore dismissed.”

The President of Ghana’s position as Patron of the Faith now had both de jure and de facto legitimacy. The performance of power had served the cause of justification faithfully. The cathedral could be counted among the proud props of legacy.


Post-Script: A Developing Performance

A year later, the Speaker of Parliament, the third highest State Official, also tried his hand at bringing to life another phantasmagorical script: the unveiling of the Chamber.

Not to be outdone by the performance benchmarks set by the Cathedralists, the Chamberists upped the box office target to $200 million, the floated construction cost of the eponymous new chamber of Parliament, in fact a massive legislative complex to be erected on top of the ashes of major historical landmarks in that same enclave of Accra where the Cathedral is to rise.

In the overtures, the Speaker intoned solemnly to the gathered pressmen of a coming age of Parliamentary glory where an edifice befitting the second branch of the Ghanaian government shall be adorned with hotels, supermarkets, “plenty eateries”, “diplomatic offices”, mosques, chapels, post offices, gardens, and well….”everything you can imagine”.[19]

High-ranking legislators, led by the leader of the government’s business in Parliament, the aptly named Majority Leader, filed out from back stage to do the rounds on the primetime television and radio shows.

The program of justification included elaborate horror tales of potential acidification of the Speaker’s fine mien by rogues and dissidents perched like venom-slinging reptiles in the public gallery of the present Parliamentary building, a recently renovated emporium of First Republican vintage.

A Senior Journalist of great eminence reminded his national weekend audience that the current Parliament was not originally, just like the Palace of Westminster, designated for the legislature. Its obscure purpose now long forgotten, it has been corralled for nearly three decades now into a role for which it is somewhat poorly suited due to unspecified security challenges.

Sir David Adjaye, back once more on the stage for this edition of his grand architecting tour through Ghana, was detailed in his responses to the press gallery: “the new building would have an underground car park. MPs shall drive straight into the parking lot and then ascend to the main building.” The imagery was not lost on the nation: descent, rebirth and ascendancy.


Fig. 2. Sir David Adjaye’s rendition of the “New Parliamentary Chamber/Complex” dwarfs the Cathedral in the background.

And yet, two weeks into the performance, and this is still an unfolding story, antipathy reigns supreme among the national audience[20]. The performance has sputtered from one lacklustre act to the other with the Minister of Information openly contradicting the Speaker of Parliament about the facts of Presidential assent and fiscal allocation. Accusations of nepotism, breach of procurement laws, and even kickbacks and graft swamp every angle of every vista.[21]

It is clear that the Chamber Music lacked a Cathedral Choir. The careful positioning of Government Communicators and the diligent mastery of improvised vocabularies to mark the seamless transition from the material to the ideal and the concrete to the poetic have all been missing. There is clearly no dispositif guiding the performance here. Bare and bald sentiments about the creature comforts of Parliamentarians and their nocturnal dining habits or the pneumatic suspensions of their vehicular navigation into Parliament do not a proper performance make. The absence of discipline is evident and the poverty of choreography rampant.

Stripped bare of the important props of Government Communication, the sleight of hand of idea-matter transformation, and left to fend for itself in the public gallery[22], the giant edifice construction spectacle designed to project the power of a faction of the Grand Elite in Accra is now at risk of a massive box office disappointment.



[1] Annelise Riles, Benedict Anderson & Michel Foucault.

[1] The engineering firm of AKT II Limited has an official description of the project’s structural merits on its website (, as follows:

Ghana National Cathedral’s main building is split into a semi-buried concrete basement box, housing a multitude of uses including a crypt, museum, chapels, events spaces, prayer rooms, office spaces, car park and more. The concept of this building is to design it in a way that maximises the use of local labour and products, whilst still achieving the architect’s aspirations and the quality befitting.

The podium level acts as a roof for the basement, where the main altar and grand hall exist. Above this level, there is a 100m wide, upper tier structure that is fixed to circular reinforced concrete cores, providing additional seating with a superior vantage point to the main altar, all within a half crescent shape.

The tent shaped roof, inspired by Ghanaian rich history, is framed by deep steel girder-trusses, parametrically designed to maximise structural efficiency whilst fulfilling the architectural aspiration, of creating an 80m wide column-free space. Exposed concrete panels drape from the edge of the roof serving two main functions – being the canvases for future artworks and contributing to the structural performance of the canopy as a whole.

This project is set to position Ghana on the world stage of structures as it will be an integral piece of architecture for locals and visitors alike.

[2] Secularist protestation has been imaged and construed in the literature in a great many ways. We particularly like the framings of Marian Burchardt and his collaborator, Wohlrab-Sahr. In various papers (see, for instance, they postulate the concept of “multiple secularities”, each of which is aligned with different “defense scenarios”. Defense scenarios premised on notions of personal and individual liberty, for example, are held to be as ineffective as those based on notions of the accommodation of religious diversity. Those based on an assertion of nationalist and public program necessity tend to be more robust.

[3] Jerry Rawlings, the longest serving Ghanaian leader, was both a putschist and a professed socialist. The first half of his rule was marked by demolitions of the Central Mosque and structures belonging to Christian-allied lodges, accused of corrupting the justice system through perverse influence over the courts through members who were also judges. During the Nkrumah era, Bishops and other leaders of “foreign imported faiths” had suffered summary deportation. In some ways, the indigenization of Christianity and Islam has proceeded in Ghana to a very thorough degree without any renewal of civic myths of Ghanaian civilizational identity or official state ideology.

[4] This is NOT a generic term. A “government communicator” in Ghana is a definite and specific landmark on the landscape of the country’s political economy. The practice, and the practitioners skilled in it, emerged at a definite point in Ghana’s political history, during the first transfer of power from one regime to the other through democratic means in 2000. They are rarely formally employed by the Government. They are understood to be working for the ruling party, but they hold no formal position. Everyone however knows who is and who isn’t a “Government Communicator” and can recognise the patterns of appearance and interjections into the national conversation, and the set of communicative behaviours that characterise the craft of “government communication”. One may even go so far as mention, with a fair degree of confidence, the types of persons attracted to this role, certain trajectories of their personal career development, and even venture a typology of rank.

[5] See, for instance, this report carried in the Philadelphia Tribune: (last accessed on the www on 27th April 2019).

[6] See: Michel FoucaultSecurityTerritoryPopulation: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977‐78, Edited by Michel Senellart.

[7] There are of course various ways of construing the contradictions of secularist contestation. Foucault, for instance, turns the orthodox competition between Church and State on its head by positing an opposition between pastoral and sovereign forms of power, before proceeding to situate some of the tensions along a Cartesian plane of self-transformation in the nexus between knowledge and power. (See: Michel Foucault. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978. Trans. Graham Burchell. New York & Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007).

[8] A cathedral – its ritualistic character, its proper utilisation in the intercourse between state and church, high cost and complex architecture, and Eurocentric associations – is hardly the object of power’s crystalisation here. Rather it is used as a prop in a particular, concerted, discourse around civilisation, fealty to God, pandering to Pentecostals, national emergence, state grandeur, the court of the statesman, and the piety of personal beneficence enacted through political theatre, which then lays a path through discursive church-state struggles and contestation all the way to a grand religious object’s ultimate emanation from ‘dogged vision’ into magnificent physical form projecting the power of political achievement for the sponsors and their allies, natural and co-opted, amongst the national elite.

[9] See Benedict Anderson, “Census, Map. Museum,” from Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin und Spread of Nationalism, revised edition (London: Verso. 1991), pp. 163-85.

[10] Text accessed via the worldwideweb (as of 27th April, 2019):

[11] Multifunctionality as a constructional ideal of monuments in the contemporary era has become increasingly pervasive. See the case of the Taj Mahal in Hilal Ahmed’s Monumentalisation of the Taj Mahal in Postcolonial India: Secularising the ‘Secular’, Vol. 48, Issue No. 50, 14 Dec, 2013, Revisiting Secularisation.

[12] See: Imagining Architecture: The Structure of Nationalism in Accra, Ghana by Janet Berry in Africa Today, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Spring, 2000), pp. 35-58.

[13] Riles, Annelise, The Network Inside Out, University of Michigan Press, January 2000. Available online at SSRN: (last accessed: 27th April, 2019).

[14] See: Arjun Appadurai, Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy Theory, Culture and Society, 7 (2-3):295-310, 1990.

[15] See: (last accessed: 27th April, 2019)

[16] Ibid.

[17] There is no suggestion here that a cathedral, particularly one that has actually been operating for a while in a distinct communal fashion, cannot transcend any overly restrictive discursive limits and begin to exhibit concreteness. But as some commentators, such as Coleman and Bowman (see: Last accessed 27th April, 2019), have argued, there is an essential praxis associated with the use of cathedrals as a juxtaposition of “sacred ground” and “common ground” through an ethnographic recognition of their “liturgical forms of replication” that cannot be dismissed so lightly. They give the example of how a Muslim politician’s utilisation of cathedral enclosures in certain instances might be associated with the “weakening of Christian moral and ritual boundaries” as a consequence of the “evolving salience of cathedrals in civic space” and the enduring history-creating power of these giant religious objects. These are however already existing cathedrals, many of which have distilled into the communal soil for hundreds of years, participating in the civic transformation of the polity over that lengthy period in the context of multicultural progression. We are in this essay concerned with different scales of transformation and a far more discourse-centric context.

[18] European specialists on Ghana, such as George Bob-Milliar and Karen Lauterbach, described the phenomenon of the Cathedral in terms of an enchanted democracy on these grounds:

“The case reveals an interesting crossover of two dominating trends in which culture, religion and politics merge, namely the ambition to create and define the future of civilization in Africa and the emergence of a theocratic-political elite.”

Text accessible on the www (as of 25th April, 2019): (last accessed: 07th July, 2019)

 [19] See: (last accessed: 07th July, 2019)

[20] See: (last accessed: 07th July, 2019)

[21] See:

[22] See: (last accessed: 07th July, 2019)