Post Colonial Challenges in Africa

Underdevelopment: Underdevelopment is about lacking in capacity for self-determination. Development anticipates development,  therefore, one cannot claim to be fully developed. The best we can do is to talk of levels of development. Some individuals have more capacity for auto-determination than others. For some people, the capacity for auto-determination i.e. choosing the way of guiding their lives is too limited that their way of living can with qualification be termed as ‘inhuman’. There are more of such people in some countries and continents than others. Africa falls in the category of continents where many of its people do not have capacity to choose to guide their life in the way that they most desire and need.

The Limitations: Human beings, we said all of them, desire to have capacity for auto-determination. Therefore, only limitations make some to remain in a level of incapacity. I want to consider some of these limitations in contemporary Africa and try to trace their causes. Understanding this limitations and their origin is the only way towards power over them. I assume, and rightly so, that once something has been understood to its roots, that it can be influenced towards desired ends or tolerated for desired ends.

Wars and Conflicts: There is no bigger problem that Africa has faced rather than conflicts. Across Africa, there have been all sorts of clashes and wars. My estimate is very close; I am certain, that only 1/8 of Africa has not experienced war or an armed conflict in the last two decades.

A clan, a tribe, a nation or an individual seeking power, land, water, pastures, a share in the national cake or good governance takes to arms. One of the easy reasons for disparage in Africa is colonialism. As we already discussed, colonialists and other such like intruders quashed the African way of doing things. They introduced a new order that was alien to the African. They introduced groupings that were not in keeping with African cultural political, religious and socio-economic concepts. They used divide and rule policies that pitted some groups of people against others. They extolled some ethnic groups against others. They used or took advantage of old rivalry between some tribes to easily subdue the people of Africa. Once they were gone, conflicts were inevitable. They had arbitrarily divided the lands of Africa into colonies that later became countries. Some countries are along thin stretch on the coast while others were massive lands like the Congo. The rivalry that the Europeans took advantage of to subdue some clans had matured into enmity by the time they left. The tribes they had helped to become elite wanted to lord over others while the others sought to subdue them. The tribes that had been separated due to artificial colonial boundaries wanted to rejoin while the rulers did not want to consider re-configuration of boundaries. Ruling vast lands was impossible for weakly organized central governments that had just adopted the structures the colonialists had left behind. All these and many other factors fueled conflicts and millions died as epitomized by the Rwanda genocide that is as recent as 1994. We can therefore say that Africans remain limited because African systems had been broken and Africans found themselves in a system that was alien and confusing.

Religiously, people in a clan or tribe no longer held same beliefs. Denominations and religions, as many as the types of foreigners that had invaded Africa, had been introduced. Fathers argued against the beliefs of the wife, the sons and daughters and so did the others. Mother called own children heathens because of their religion while the children called their dad pagan, fetish or just devilish because of his beliefs. How can a house pitted against itself because of religious beliefs prosper?

Not only families, regions associated themselves with this kind of grouping that was opposed to the others. We are protestant region and we cannot entertain anyone associated with Roman Catholicism. Some went as far as declaring, a roman catholic can never rule this nation by all means while the discriminated against also issue threats in the same respect.

Politically regions identified with former colonies; we are the French Cameroon, how can we deal with the Anglophones? Our masters the English are capitalist and so it follows that we should be capitalist - What have we got to do with the socialist or communist neighbors? In support of these divisions, the different communist or capitalist western or eastern countries supported, especially militarily, the countries that took definite stands not to deal with neighbors who ascribed to a master with a different ideology. Then neighboring countries remained enemies because they were aligned to masters that were enemies. Consequently, they went ahead to plot against each other. Guerrillas and mercenaries were supported and governments of neighboring countries were toppled because of the most malicious reasons that stemmed from ignorance; ignorant of the fact that conflicts are infectious. If a neighbor is at war, you are also affected in one way or another, especially in the economic realm. Africa lost itself in conflicts and many western countries happily found a market for weaponry.

The neighbors with whom to trade for economic empowerment became sources of burdensome refugees or supporters of conflict in home country. This kind of state was incapacitating. Individuals couldn’t be certain about tomorrow because of conflicts. Opportunities could not be generated because of conflicts and differences that made countries not to work together.

Paternalistic, Pretender and Clientilistic Governments: The people who led the different countries to independence are well known as the ‘Fathers of the nations’. These people were adored and their word was final. Because of their legendary status many of them behaved more like royals than what would have been expected of the freedom fighters that they be deemed to have been. I will take the case of President Kenyatta in Kenya to illustrate what I am alleging. The end of colonialism in Kenya marked a transfer of power from the white elite to the African elites. Kenya gained independence on 12^th December 1963. Mzee Jomo Kenyatta became the prime minister and later president in 1964 when Kenya became a republic. At independence there were two political parties in Kenya: the Kenya African National Union (KANU) and Kenya Africa Democratic Union (KADU). KANU was mainly for the elites and capitalist in outlook. KADU was socialist in nature and the poor centered. In 1964 the only opposition party at that time, Kenya Africa Democratic Union (KADU) dissolved itself and joined the ruling party Kenya African National Union (KANU). The result was that Kenya became a de facto one-party state, and provided the opportunity for the presidency to start amassing enormous powers and creating a personality cult.

As a de facto one party state, law did not prohibit other parties but Kenyatta dealt harshly with anyone who tried to form another party that would oppose him. The likes of Oginga, who tried were arrested and detained without trial. Qualifying for the elections depended on Kenyatta’s wishes and his henchmen’s whims. When Odinga formed Kenya Peoples union (KPU), he was arrested and detained for it. When he got released, conditions that would bar him from being elected in the only party KANU were put in place. The people who became the post-independence ruling class were the few learned Kenyans, who just continued from where the colonialist had left. The Africans were happy because the colonialists had conceded to self-rule but little were they aware of the neo-colonialism that would follow. The African elite took over from the colonialists and perpetuated ethno-supremacy. During Kenyatta's presidency, small Kikuyu elite, the so-called Kiambu Mafia, from Kenyatta’s home district, dominated the political realm. This group undermined, alienating other ethnic groups, as well as many non-conforming Kikuyu.

Kenyatta became the father of the nation and no one dared oppose him. Although some people praise Kenyatta for the apparent prosperity in Kenya during his reign, some people see the contrary. It is true that Kenya somehow prospered from independence to the 70’s. Many factors account for this alleged prosperity. At this time in history, many African states benefited from international funding. Key players in the cold war supported countries in Africa to win allegiance. Kenyatta’s government flourished on this funding. Just after independence, many Africans were still excited about self-rule. They idolized the freedom fighters, patriotism was strong and nationalism was emphasized by most of the leaders. Kenyatta used this euphoria with his call to ‘Harambee’, which means ‘pulling together’. The Harambee call fostered unity and self-reliance but also served to foster loyalty to Mr. President.

The population of Kenya was low and many Kenyans still enjoyed ownership of vast pieces of land. There were more resources; minerals like gold in Kakamega were not yet depleted. The availability of these resources in plenty made Kenyatta to enjoy harmony without having to do much for the people on the grassroots. In areas where the landless asked for rights, Kenyatta acted brutally.  It is alleged that J.M. Kariuki was murdered because his cry that the landless be settled was making him popular among the many that were helpless and voiceless. Kenyatta was keen on amassing wealth and he did very little for the poor in Kenya. While there are many squatters in Kenya today, the Kenyatta family owns one of the largest tracts of land owned by a Kenyan. Their assets can support the whole of Kenya for quite some years, I suppose, - it is one of the richest families in Kenya.

From this example, it becomes clear that the so-called fathers of the nation were not committed to radical break from the past by initiating political and legal reforms. Instead of instituting political and legal reforms, the dictators continued to personalize power and to weaken as well as loot the state institutions. The successive governments have also not tried to work out issues such that they may favor development. Due to tribalism, ignorance and lack of good political will, the political transitions in many African countries do not reflect a change from worse to better but worse to even more terrible. When Mobutu Sseseko left power in Congo, it degenerated into civil wars that have left it crippling all through to the present. When Kenyatta left power, it gave way for the tyrannical Moi whose regime as compared to the Kenyatta was like having taken Kenyans from the frying pan into the real fire.

Therefore, the other limiting factor to African empowerment has been the issue of governance. Good governance requires that the ruled be able to hold their rulers accountable so as to foster responsibility. This requires that the rulers be transparent and submit to working for the common/mutual good. As such, the rulers are not entitled to only furthering their interests but the interests of those who accepted them either by vote or consent as rulers. The rulers should guide and control the ruled just as the ruled should check, balance and direct the activities of the rulers. This calls for reciprocity between the two parties. Africa has been unfortunate as far as good governance is concerned. What many African countries have had in the name of rulers are dictators, vandals, despots or cruel military occupation. In such like cases, patronage, corruption, looting and stuffing of national resources in accounts abroad is the norm. The people are incapacitated because they cannot do anything that goes against the whims and whimpers of the dictators. Those who go against the dictator face his/her wrath, which is often in terms of military cruelty or being denied a share in the national cake.