In fact, no leader has ever led a people without having something in common with the people. Moreover, in other for true leadership to succeed, it needs to have the support of the majority of the people. When Rawlings took over the reigns of power in Ghana, Ghana's bureaucracy was in utter shambles. The nation's bureaucracy was riddled with corruption, which was more or less setting the country on a free-fall. President Limman was cautioned to act or else. Regrettably, no action was taken to curb this ever increasing vice by his government. Therefore, an alternative course of action needed to be taken to save the country from going completely under. See, democracy only matters when it's meaningful to the people. But it becomes total irrelevant when it fails the people. Because then, it could be considered no longer of the people, by the people and for the people. Still more the reason for an alternative system of government to be in place, which would properly address the needs of the people.

There is no doubt that the people of Ghana was disappointed in President Limman's government. Furthermore, the country was disillusioned with the democratic ideology inherited from our former colonial masters. Democracy was not working for the people. All because, this ideology was not deep rooted in our Ghanaian culture and heritage. This ideology was not of us and therefore could never be for us. It was imposed upon us by our former colonial masters. In fact, if democracy is proper as our former colonial masters taught to us believe, then how come that they didn't practice it themselves all the time that they were here colonizing us? Isn't it strange to advise somebody to practise something, which you were not practising it yourself? This is the question which should've have been asked. Unfortunately enough nobody thought of it. It's also worth mentioning that our former colonial masters came to divide and conquer. Sadly enough, we have inherited a system of government from them, which does exactly the same. This system is called democracy. "So what's new after all?" we ask.

The 1981 coup d'etat staged by Rawlings was in fact Ghana's second independence. The dissatisfied youth of Ghana in their military uniform called for change. The country itself wanted change and things simply had to change. The coup d'etat wasn't a mere rebellion for rebellion sakes. It was a rebellion against the ideology of democracy itself. Just like how our first independence, was a rebellion against British imperialism on the African continent. The dissatisfied youth of Ghana in their military uniform saw the light. They were ready to chart a new course with the country. They had seen how democracy had failed and divided the country. The rich were getting richer at the expense of the poor. The poor only got poorer. Corrupt judges were being bought and sold in our courtrooms. The rule of lawlessness as a result of practising democracy was evidential. For sure Ghana needed to change, if she was going to survive as a country.

The 1981 coup d'etat came about as a result of the people's good will for it. The action which Rawlings and his compatriots undertook was in fact, the people of Ghana's secret wish. Both young and old believed in it, otherwise it wouldn't have been successful. The people had grown tired and weary of Limman's government. And honestly, Limman was out of touch with reality.He was not up for the challenge facing the country. Mind you, he was kindly requested by the army to step down, but he didn't. So most naturally something had to give. It must be added that Rawlings by staging that coup wound up saving our country. Thus in the process saving all of us, period. Hence the needed to hail him as Ghana's true son. In brief, Rawlings was you, me and everybody who wanted change for the better. Rawlings saw that which were and asked himself why, but also he saw that which weren't and said why not?