The Key distinction between the ARPS and the NCBWA (46) was the historical and political constraints they encountered and their territorial reach.
As far the Crown was concerned, the ARPS and NCBWA did not have what it took to be recognized as legitimate deputies of Gold Coast and West African people.
Because despite the nationalist rhetoric and polemics of both the ARPS and NCBWA of representing the people, neither could quite demonstrate a sociological and consultative link to the laity.
The ARPS and the NCBWA did, however, bring the questions of political, economic, and moral sovereignty into the discursive theatre of anticolonial politics which, from thence, would remain fixtures in the discourses of colonialism and anticolonialism.
This sentiment is reflected in the view of the NCBWA that Africans (53) could no longer be denied these principles and ideals.
It is true because the NCBWA did not, looking back, establish a meaningful courtship with the masses.
The years between when the NCBWA folded and WW II (roughly from 1920-1938) saw their own variety of socionationalism, covering a mosaic of interests stretching anywhere from land grievances, employment issues, and the demands for fair farming practices and pricing of Cocoa which was rapidly emerging as the mainstay of income for the colonial government and the dwellers of the Southern Forest Belt who grew this cash crop.
Much like the mosaic nature of political and historical actors of the late nineteenth to when the NCBWA dusked, socio-political and historical actors of the pre-World War II era were also eclectic.