Evaluate the reasons why Namibia (South West Africa) achieved its independence significantly later than Ghana (Gold Coast).

Candidates are likely to focus on the period beginning with the early years of the independence struggle in Ghana (Gold Coast) and Namibia (South-West Africa) through to Namibian independence in 1990. They may contrast the circumstances of the independence movements in the two countries as well as the response of the colonial powers before reaching a conclusion as to the reasons why Namibian independence came much later than Ghanaian independence.

Indicative content

• In Ghana the colonial power was Britain, which by the mid to late-1950s was gradually coming to terms with the inevitability of decolonization in Africa. Namibia was administered as a trust territory of the UN. However it was, in effect, governed as a fifth province of apartheid South Africa, a country that was determined to continue its rule over the colony.
• Ghana did not have a white settler community that might have opposed the transfer of power to Africans. In contrast, Namibia had a large population of Afrikaans and German-speaking whites.
• Britain had spent some time preparing Ghana for self-government by promoting education and involving African politicians in the administration of the colony. In contrast, the education and involvement of Africans was completely neglected by the Germans, and subsequently by the South Africans, in Namibia.
• While Ghana had one of the most developed economies in West Africa, much of the wealth was held by private companies that were largely white-owned. Britain was convinced that these firms would continue to operate without government interference in post-independence Ghana, and that Britain would itself benefit from positive economic relations between the two countries. South Africa, by contrast, was steadfastly determined to hold on to the vast mineral wealth of Namibia.
• The South West African People’s Organisation (SWAPO) waged a bitter armed struggle against colonial occupation, unlike Nkrumah’s Convention People’s Party (CPP) in Ghana, and it could be argued that this made an early, negotiated transfer of power impossible.The
• British feared that Nkrumah might embrace socialism (and ultimately membership of the Soviet bloc) if they continued to resist his efforts to achieve independence. By contrast, Sam Nujoma, the SWAPO leader, was already a committed socialist and not a man to whom the anti-communist South Africans would wish to entrust an independent Namibia.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, the list is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.

[20 marks]