Let Fidel Castro And Dr Nkrumah Say It Again

Ghana as a country pride herself for being a democratic country. Simply because, she has an electoral system, which allows her citizens to cast their votes every now and then. The country is also governed by the principles, which are embedded in the nation's constitution. The constitution embodies the totality of the powers of the government by the governed. Therefore, we could safely say that the government of Ghana is of the people, by the people and for the people, right?

Well let's see; democracy is derived from the Greek "popular government." The Greek word dêmos means people and krátos means rule. In other words, democracy means the rule of the people.

When you and I behold the masses in a democratic country; what do we see? We see groups and classes separations of people. You have your upper-class, middle-class and low class. All these classes of people are considered "equal" under the glaring eyes of the law. However, none of these classes are qualified to rule except for one particular class-namely the upper class. Why the upper class? you ask. It's because, those in the upper class control the wealth-they have most of the money. And those who have the money control those who don't. It's that simple. Those in the upper-class make the rules, and the rest have no choice but to obey. By the way, control means; restriction, lack of freedom and ruler-ship over someone or something.

Evidentially, both the middle and the low class are being ruled and controlled by the upper-class. These two classes of people are also deprived of their basic human right which is freedom. Therefore, why do we still continue to vote for democracy, which simply stands for upper-class rule only? We would all agree that there are not that much people in the upper-class. Those in the upper-class are in the minority. Strangely enough, they are the ones dictating to the majority. This as a result of their wealth which is symbolic to power. Now, mix the power of money with upper-class rule, and the end result would be upper-class dictatorship. The true definition of democracy in all its hypocrisy. The power over the haves over the have-nots. A pyramidal structure on which a tiny few sit comfortably at the top, while the majority are made to surf deep down below.

Now what about social communism?

The definition of socialism is founded on two fundamental maxims: Thomas Jefferson's, "All men are created equal," and Karl Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. In essence, socialism seeks to realize some sort of equity, and fairness in all the various aspects of society. But the question is; is this quest realistic or indeed attainable? Well, it's true that all men are created equal. However, they are not the same. It's this in-sameness, which makes it nearly impossible to satisfy all men equally. A country which practices social communism often plans, and controls all the various aspects of its economy. Means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively, or by a centralized government. This leaves absolutely no room for outsiders to invest. This form of domestication does make a social communist economy less dependent on external market forces. Thus, less vulnerable to their influences which of course is a positive thing.

On the negative side though, a social communist government controls the prices of all commodities and wages. Meaning, people in social communist countries could be considered deprived of one particular right, which is the freedom to be rich or not to be rich. Simply because, commodity price control in correlation with salary control by a government equals to anti-capitalism. So really, the question which social communism seems to be posing is; what profits a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul? On a personal note, I believe that capitalism will bring about the fall of Western civilization-whatever that means. Human exploitation as a result of greed flourishes very well in a capitalist system. This said, I would also have to agree with Fidel Castro, when he said that if social communism is wrong then so is democracy. In conclusion, which one of these two systems should we choose if we ever get the chance to do it all over again?