How three presidents with different ideologies fought the IMF and the World Bank

(MENAFN– The Conversation) Since independence in 1956, Ghana’s leaders have followed a variety of global ideologies, from center-right to socialist. But the country has also integrated them with local priorities such as anti-colonialism and economic independence, while balancing pressure from the IMF and World Bank.

As a foreign policy researcher, I recently wrote an article examining Ghana’s approach to the International Monetary Fund and the world. bank under the leadership of three presidents: Kwame Nkrumah, Jerry Rawlings and John Kufuor.

I examined this relationship through the lens of Ghana’s economic diplomacy.

My analysis begins with the idea that ideologies guide leaders in dealing with issues such as security, power, and poverty. Ideologies are shared beliefs that shape how leaders interpret and respond to the world.

Presidents Nkrumah, Rawlings and Kufuor took different approaches to Ghana’s relationship with these institutions. But, I argue, this did not mean that they abandoned their ideologies. Rather, their different approaches reflected the fact that they chose to adapt, conform to, or resist international pressure.

My findings suggest that dependence, even for small states, does not mean that ideology is absent or irrelevant. For less powerful countries, ideology still plays a role in foreign policy. While acknowledging Africa’s relatively weaker position in the world, I found that ideologies still matter. And these shifts and compromises show how ideology can be used to resist international systems and serve government goals.

Three Presidents

The three presidents had different ideas about what was best for Ghana, and this was evident in their interactions with the IMF and the World Bank. Their approaches reflected their own views on economic independence and how they saw the West.

Ghana’s association with the IMF dates back to its first president, Kwame Nkrumah. He saw socialism as a path to economic independence. Yet he began negotiations with the IMF—a surprising move given the IMF’s free-market orientation. As Ghana faced an economic crisis in 1965, he remained silent about negotiations with the IMF. He presented some financial measures as his government’s policies rather than as external reforms.

President Nkrumah meeting with President John F. Kennedy in 1961, White House, Washington DCJFK Library.

After Nkrumah’s overthrow in 1966, successive governments continued to work with the IMF, but with mixed results. In 1983, the administration of then military leader Jerry Rawlings included Ghana in the IMF’s Structural Adjustment Program during a severe economic crisis. During this period, the IMF had a strong influence in developing countries, seeking to help economies recover. Some saw this as undermining national autonomy.

The Rawlings administration was considered socialist-Marxist and anti-Western. He was involved with countries such as Cuba, but believed that Western support was necessary when help from the East was not enough. The decision caused tension within his administration. Some viewed the IMF’s involvement as neocolonial intervention. Others argued that it was important for stability. Rawlings sought a middle path, working with the IMF while trying to preserve Ghana’s economic autonomy.

Even under the structural adjustment program, his government maintained some socialist measures, such as unbudgeted spending and wage increases to support the poorer population. He continued to maintain economic relations with socialist governments.

His approach demonstrates the balancing act that small states face: leaders must balance ideological goals with the realities of the global economic system. They often have to make compromises that do not fully correspond to their ideals.

Jerry Rawlings, John Kufuor, Nana Akufo-Addo, John Mahama. Presidency, Ghana

The John Kufuor administration came to power in 2001. This marked a major shift in Ghana’s approach, adopting a “property democracy” that stood in stark contrast to Nkrumah’s socialism and Rawlings’ social democracy. Kufuor’s ideology centered on free markets, individual initiative, and close ties to the West.

Unlike Nkrumah, who viewed the West with suspicion, Kufuor viewed Western countries as partners. He believed that democracy and free enterprise could help Ghana achieve economic independence. For him, economic independence did not mean abandoning the West, but building a strong economy that could prosper throughout the world.

Kufuor’s alignment with the IMF’s free market approach became clear when he adopted the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, which offered debt relief. While some saw it as another way for Western institutions to exert control, Kufuor saw it as a tool for development. He believed that working within a global liberal economic system would ultimately benefit Ghana.

Small countries that fit ideology

The different approaches of Nkrumah, Rawlings and Kufuor show that even small states such as Ghana bring unique ideological frameworks to foreign policy. Guided by socialist, social democratic or liberal values, each leader sought Ghana’s economic independence while adapting to global pressures.

The foreign policies of less powerful countries are not simply pragmatic or imposed. Ideology plays a key role in balancing national priorities with global realities. Ghana has woven ideological commitments into economic diplomacy. This shows that smaller states, despite being dependent, can assert their freedom of action and be accountable to their citizens.

MENAFN21112024000199003603ID1108911465

Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.