By Kwame Zulu Shabazz

What does freedom mean in an African context? Can a country be free when outside donors rule its budget? Does it mean that there is nothing to celebrate about the achievement of Ghana ’s independence in 1957? Does it mean that there is still much work to be done?

On March 6, Ghana celebrated its “Golden Jubilee,” referred to as “Ghana @ 50.” It marks a half century of independence from colonial oppressor Great Britain.

Fifty years ago, Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah declared, “Ghana, your beloved country, is free forever!”

Freedom can be a fleeting thing. Perhaps what is most instructive about the “Ghana @ 50” celebrations is that the Ghanaian government is forced to rely on western donors, most notably Britain, for funding. It makes one wonder how Ghana is truly free? What can freedom mean for Ghanaians when 70 percent of the central government’s budget is provided by outside donors?

In Ghana, it has become something of a fashion for Ghanaian analysts to compare the country’s progress as a nation with that of Malaysia, which also gained its independence in 1957. But in every comparison, Ghana comes up short in major indicators of human and economic development.

I have always been skeptical of the usefulness of these sorts of comparisons. After all, the post-colonial social, political, and economic challenges of Ghana and Malaysia, respectively, must have been very different. But if one is bent on comparisons, an instructive juxtaposition would be with the first sub-Saharan nation to break free from colonialism: the Sudan. Having gained its independence on Jan. 1, 1956, Sudan had a 14-month head start on Ghana.

What is important to note is that the Khartoum regime and the Southern Sudanese rebels have only in the past few years negotiated (very shaky) resolutions ending the longest and most neglected conflicts on the African continent. More recently, the Darfurian region of western Sudan is in the throes of a humanitarian disaster – what some international observers are calling genocide. Consequently, the lives of ordinary Darfurians are extremely precarious as they continue to be squeezed by rebel groups on one side and nomadic militias (so-called “janjaweed”), allegedly backed by Khartoum, on the other.

Ghana, for its part, has experienced four military coups (at least one of which featured U.S. and British intelligence agencies as co-conspirators), sporadic instances of state-sponsored violence, and a severe recession in the early 1980s. But unlike Sudan, Ghanaians have never known the ravages and devastation of civil war. Ghana is, despite the historical volatility of its central government and deep political divisions between the National Democratic Convention and the New Patriotic Party, a relatively stable nation. This stability may have had something to do with Nkrumah’s tireless efforts to propagate pan-African nationalism.

What is incontrovertible is that Ghana’s independence was an achievement of Ghanaian elites Nkrumah and J.B. Danquah, Afro-westerners W.E.B. DuBois and Marcus and Amy Jacques Garvey, and thousands of Black Diasporan radicals who identified with the African anti-colonial struggle. Most importantly, Ghana’s independence was the accomplishment of ordinary Gold Coasters (Ghanaians) who refused to abandon their dignity even when faced with the most overwhelming odds.

In other words, “Ghana @ 50” is, by definition, a pan-African affair of great significance. It is proof that, as Ghanaian President John Kofi Agyekum Kufuor recently pointed out, all is not “doom and gloom” in Africa. Ghanaians and, as Nkrumah would have it, Africans generally, have much to celebrate, but there is still much work to do.

Let’s get busy!

Editor’s note: Kwame Zulu Shabazz is a doctorate scholar at Harvard University . He can be reached at kwameshabazz@gmail.com.