By David G Maillu
Sunday Times Newspaper, September 21, 1986
1(a) Non-African government regimes are lucky in the sense that when they choose to do their own thing, they are not so much subject to “world criticism.” But wait until an African state has decided to do one thing or other differently from the so-called civilized worlds. Suddenly their the “world intelligentsia” turns enthusiastically to analyze, criticize and, almost unanimously and categorically condemn the move.
‘, ‘1(b) Only that which complies with the thinking and operational line of the industrially developed is, therefore, the right and moral thing. Their thinkers appear not to be endowed with the capacity to put themselves into the shoes the people they criticize and, at least, respect diversity of opinions.
1(c) Nothing else brings this out to view more than The gang of this “world intelligentsias” is most active when it comes to African politics. For some mysterious reasons, the African seems to be the baby or concubine of everybody from that world. Or rather, Africa is the ideological workshop and playground of the industrially developed countries; hence, making African the most dramatic continent in the world. It is not wrong to conclude that Africa the most polarized human communities are the White and the Black. Maybe, to start with, because Africa is black and they are white in their various hues…
1(d) Although political theories from the West and East do not seem to work in Africa, Africa is grappling pathetically with these political theories in trying to solve her domestic and too many problems. And since those imported politics are, indeed, materialistic, countries that are economically stronger than Africa have been known to behave not so much different from the classic deal between a rich person and a poor person. There is an unwritten law somewhere that a person who is materially better than you, is intellectually superior to you. Even a foolish rich man would view a poor intellectual in that relationship. So, in accordance with this school of thought, African states have neither brains, nor soul, nor philosophy because they are poor.
1(e) So enters the debates on the merits and demerits democracy in Africa, socialism versus capitalism, ethnicity versus nationalism, dictatorship fueled by the one-party system in the enforcement of nationalism and so on… For example, there has been a definite and sensible reason why many African went for the one-party system of government, particularly in order to contain and address the destructive dynamics of ethnicity, at the time when the Western advisers would not see any sense in such a move. Most African states are artificially united-nations when, in real sense, they are a complex federal states of diverse ethnicities with no formula for governing them since each tribal “nation” had always lived its own independent way.
1(f) The present boundaries of African states were imposed on them by colonial interests with no ethnological considerations. For example, in Kenya, the British colonial administration split the Maasais between Tanzania and Kenya; Somalis between Somalia and Kenya; Acholis between Kenya and Uganda, and so on. Virtually from every neighbouring state there are people who feel that they belong to others across the border but cannot live as one community because someone somewhere decided that they do not belong to each other. Inherited from colonial masters – that was a grave mistake and politically volatile situation to handle in the formation of a unified nation.
1(g) Can a related people who are separated from each other politically and geographically simply forget their brothers and sisters across the border? Can they declare themselves enemies of each other in their individual development of nationalism? How do these people who have always lived as one community before colonialism and for centuries view a modern government that forces them to live apart and in some cases make enemies with each other?
1(h) The issue of language comes in too. Nearly all post colonial African states have one thing in common. They are states that are made up of peoples who speak their own languages. Some of these problems have been mentioned in the fight against what is generally referred to as “tribalism.” Apparently, most outside African government critics and political theorists do not seem to have the capacity to understand this problem.
1(i) In short, the African leader is faced with the unusual task of trying to make the many diverse nationals within his mega nation, work, perceive, and behave themselves in a unified and nationalistic prescription. This cannot by all means, be an easy task. To govern an African state is much more complex and demanding than governing one of the European countries. An American or German or French president heads a country that speaks only one language.
1(j) If the regime in Africa is a capitalist one, the communists vow to enter into the marrow of that government through the opposition party chief. If the state is a communist one, the capitalist big brother is after the head of the state’s neck, and he is determined to get it through the opposition man. The big brother will arm his man, open bank accounts for him anywhere he wants, bribe him, invite him round the world, sing him praises and so on in order to virtually put him under control.
1(k) Given the pathetic economics of most of the states of Africa and the diversity of the communities that comprise the states, it is not difficult to see why the average African leader is so vulnerable to the might of the super-powers with money. There is as African proverb that he who feeds your mother can beat her while you watch.
1(l) So, the thesis is that the opposition party and its chief belong to the chief’s community, sponsored by the super-power that is against the ruling regime. That has been the take, which has forced many states to opt for one-party system, or dictatorship.
1(m) One needs to look round in Africa and see the practicality of this. African states have been very vulnerable. For, as Christ put it, no house can stand when it has been divided against itself. These are the realities of the present day politics where and when, unfortunately, every small nation is forced to belong to a super-power. The worst is when such small nation has loopholes that give chance to this most painful and costly game of the super-powers in their expansionism programme.
