Decades of totalitarianism has corrupted the Ghanaian’s image of leadership. In many cases it is represented by a colossus of a man, holding the only map to the promise land, and followed by a pack of hapless folks through the desert.

The roots of this exaggerated image of the people at the helm is traceable to Kwame Nrumah but cemented over decades by the totalitarians who followed, Jerry John Rawlings being their standard bearer. As remarkable as he was as leader, and for which Ghanaians are rightfully grateful, Nkrumah believed himself to be the answer to all of Ghana’s problems – and convinced many to believe as such. Heck, he was exulted with the title of Osagyefo – which means deliverer or redeemer in the Akan language.

To a lot of people Nkrumah was Moses, the prophet who carried Ghanaians out to the promise land, fed and nursed them to maturity.  However, due to his overwhelming dominance of the people’s affairs, and the people’s collective resolve to imagine him as the bearer of all their burdens, no one remembers Ashford Inkumsah, who served as minister of Interior and Housing; Lawrence Abavana, a minister without a portfolio; and J.B. Erzuah, who was the minister of education – to name a few in Nkrumah’s cabinet whose accomplishments, whatever they were, perished along with them.

Former president and one-time Head of State Jerry Rawlings also believed himself to be a first-rate deliverer. If one could manufacture a perfect leader in the figment of the Ghanaian’s imagination it would be Rawlings. Indeed he has frequently justified his decision to seize power twice through a military coup with the argument that “his people needed him to do what he did to save the country from even worse bloodshed.”

Whether that is true is a debate for a different time. But one cannot dispute that Rawlings saw himself as deliverer of the downtrodden because of the encouragement of many. It is the fault of our exaggerated view of leadership that a common soldier believed he could lead a country of scholars, tacticians, and technocrats for two decades to a nonexistent land of prosperity and without bothering to show any progress.  What else did you expect him to do when there were people walking behind him cheering him on as “Junior Jesus?”

Herein lies my point: As a people, because we are so fond of delegating our responsibilities to saviors and redeemers, we have convinced ourselves, maybe subconsciously, that we are too weak to fend or do right for ourselves.  After all why do we need to work so hard when we have a ‘Redeemer’ at Flagstaff House? Why do we have to play our part to stop corruption when all that is needed is for ‘Junior Jesus’ to come down from Osu Castle and whip the market women to lower their prices?

In my view totalitarianism has harmed Ghana more than poor leadership.  At the very least the bad leaders of Ghana’s past and present are recognizable. The problem with Nkrumah and Rawlings and the messianic characters in our history is that they’ve completely disfigured our notion of good leadership and obscured our understanding of the limits of power.

Thanks to them Ghanaians believe the solution to all of their problems lies with a single person or group of people. And, consequently, everything that ails the county is a result of the people or person at the top. There is no middle ground. Meanwhile completely absolved from wrongdoing or any responsibility are the masses who are so eager to chant hosanna after politicians with fantastic promises.

Truly, we set ourselves up for failure each time we put our faith in these messianic characters. As long as we continue to seek a deliverer or a redeemer to guide as on a journey to prosperity, the Ghanaian will find themselves frequently stranded in a hopeless state. The people we are likely to elect would be those more astute at embellishing reality. Lacking the charm and grace of a messiah, technocrats will continue to fare poorly in Ghanaian elections, and pastors are more likely to influence our economy than economists.

It may take a few more decades to absolve ourselves completely of the psychosomatic impact of totalitarianism. My hope is that the next generation will start to see their leaders in more practical terms.  They are humans, not gods.  In the finest democracies around the world the people do not look up to one person or a few individuals for all their needs. Power is shared by many so that blame could be shared in proportional measure. That in itself is an insurance against the possibility of an idiot assuming the highest office under the guise of being a redeemer. The system functions because the role of a leader is reasonably confined – beginning, first of all, in the minds of the electorate.

David Dankwa is a Ghanaian-born journalist who resides in the United States. He is currently editor of The Africonomist newsletter, and also works as a strategic communication specialist for several large corporations.

He is available at news@africonomist.net