In the mind of many, even some on the geographical
entity called Africa, the term African means Black African. Taking this cue, and also
convinced that the historical experiences of Black Africans are different from
those of non-black Africans, I have used the term Africa in this essay to refer
only to black Sub-Sahara Africa. And the term African refers to Black Africans.
The history and the present state of contemporary
Africa and the apparent quagmire it has found itself in, in terms of political
and social orientation, development and a rightful dignified place among the
comity of nations confound the observer and present a challenge to those who
honestly believe in the potentials of its un-harnessed unified capacity to
improve the conditions of lives of its people and to contribute to world
development.
Despite its historical claims to being the birthplace
of the human race, Sub-Sahara Africa in the twenty-first century is still
confined to and kept at basic survival levels more than five million years
after the first African added reason and logic to instinct. Why is Africa still grappling with survival, when others on the
same planet, having taken this level for given are focusing and working
untiringly on improving the quality of their existence? Where does the problem
lie? Who is to blame?
It is no secret that the apparently simple task of
ensuring basic survival is a daunting task, a near impossibility; natural and
mostly man-induced disasters appear to have conspired to limit the survival
chances of the African to pre-historic times levels. Any talk of improvement of
quality of life in contemporary Africa seems superfluous
when mere survival continues to remain at stake.
The primary duty of the collective, under any pretext
connoting an organized entity lies in enhancing the chances of its own survival
by drawing on the collective effort and resources to provide conducive
environment for individual survival. Survival thus becomes a crucial social
responsibility of the collective towards individual members. In this situation,
the individual, unhampered by inconsequential trivialities of life, feels free
to harness his creative resources towards improving the quality of his
existence and by extension, the quality of existence of the collective.
In Africa, it appears that the reverse is the case.
The struggle for survival appears to have been left on the shoulders of the
common man in an environment that does not only limit possibilities, but is
also inherently hostile to potentials. The role of the state becomes an
ethereal mystery only decipherable by god-politicians
while the existence of government in its present form actively counteracts
and subjugates the aspirations of the common man. This noxious cloud that hangs
over the most basic needs of the African reduces any discussion (by African
politicians and their foreign masters) of improvement of quality of life to a
puerile daydream in a self-deluding trance of nebulous political discourse.
The question of an African contribution to world
development on equal platform with other nations, not as individuals in the
service of different institutions of the world or as unconnected independent
individuals, becomes distant particles of a dream unintelligible to the
visionary eyes of the most politically progressive of telescopes. Africa has to move unaided from basic survival stages in
order to give any relevance to its intention of contribution to world
development.
It does not suffice to romanticize the role of
individual Africans who have excelled in different aspects of human endeavor or
the forced, despicable contribution of slavery to the industrial revolution in
Europe and North America as African
contribution to world development. It is the unified contribution of Africa as
a continent of diverse peoples and resources, making a mark predicated on its
experience, its context and in its own manner, as per universally acceptable
parameters that would liberate Black Africa from prejudices. That Africa has
what it takes in terms of its abundant human and natural resources, the
bedrocks of any cultural, industrial and technological revolution, is not in
doubt even in the mind of the most cynical critic. Africa
is not however known in the world to have harnessed any of these resources to
the betterment of the conditions of its citizens and the world at large, rather
it is known as a compliant profligate source of its human and natural
resources.
Africa
as a continent has lived by the principle of a “good native” who turns out his household and puts all his family
possessions at the disposal of the foreigner in the name of hospitality,
expecting to get his reward either in heaven or be recompensed with the same
generosity by the beneficiary of his profligacy. The African soon faces immense odds and
conditions for the smallest of concessions when his beneficiary plays host and
is humbled into gratefully accepting a fraction of what he had parted with.
The ease with which Africa
parts willfully with its resources or is manipulated into doing so informs the
view and the behavior of others towards African resources. African resources
have taken the hue of god-given gifts,
which should either not be paid for or underpaid for. From cotton prices to
African footballers’ fees in Europe, the
underlying concept has been the same since the first contact of the African
with the foreigner. These gifts,
either offered willingly by the African, or spiraled away under manipulation or
in some cases by bullying have informed the nature of the relationship of
foreigners with Africans. Unlike the African, foreigners recognize the
importance of the enormous human and natural resources available in Africa as crucial in their march away from survival level
to quality level. Winston Churchill, former prime minister of the United
Kingdom in his Address to
Textile Workers on Tarrif reform in Lancashire in 1909, lent credence to this view when he said “the safety of
the North and its industries is contingent on how it is able to control or
manipulate the raw material base which is in …Africa particularly”.
The continent, still unsure of the potentials of these
resources and not having any social, technical or even political infrastructure
in place to put them to use, took the easy route of asking the beneficiaries of
its profligacy for all forms of assistance. Assistance in finished products and
fractions of GDP, not means of putting their resources to use. As a chosen or
imposed policy Africa seems to have sentenced
itself to a beggar status, an inveterate recipient of aid, with all attending
contempt. Aid to Africa is then conditioned by Africa’s beneficiaries who have
now metamorphosed into donors and
development experts on a whole bundle of conditions, which benefit them on the
long run and undercut Africa’s chances of
emerging from its vicious quagmire. The direct consequence of this is a near
irreversible damage to the psyche and dignity of the African. Yoweri Museveni,
Ugandan president, at the African Union Conference titled “Africa in the 21st
Century: Integration and Renaissance”, held in Dakar
in October 2004 confessed that “aid has failed to transform Africa.
Whatever aid Africa received since independence has been wiped out several
times over by the losses we have suffered in trade. The greatest subversion to
Africa’s development has been …the protectionism in EU, Canada, USA
and Japan”.
One is inclined to ask from the point of view of a common man and at the risk
of unleashing the fury of pundits, both local and international that if the
words of Mr. Museveni were true, why then do African leaders continue to accept
solicited and unsolicited aid being conscious of its nefarious effects on Africa? Why have they actively participated in making aid
a major industry in Africa? Why have they
consciously allowed aid to transform into potent instruments of manipulation as
was the case with mirrors, guns, trinkets and alcoholic drinks during the slavery
period? African history appears to be going round in circles. The age-old
vulnerability of the trusting African is still the same, only the price with
which he sells changes with times.
The acceptance of aid and unsolicited concessions in
the “forgiveness of debts” has only introduced a new dimension into the
perception of Africa’s resources. The donors
of aid now impose their legitimate rights to these resources and even dictate
the terms and conditions under which these gifts
should reach them. There is no doubt that the historical largesse or profligacy
of Africans has not brought any advantage to Africa.
The failure of African socio-economic experiment of
profligacy in the name of hospitality,
whether willingly or under duress demands that Africa should make a calculated
and conscious effort to reduce the squandering of its human and natural
resources and harness them to improve not only the conditions of its people but
also make unquestionable technological contribution to humanity at large. Alpha
Oumar Konare, the Chairman of the Commission of the Africa Union in a speech in 2003 said “the requisite
conditions necessary for Africa to become a force to be reckoned with, a force
we can rely upon include.… the optimal use of all our assets, namely the
immense human and natural resources…”. This is a re-echo of the preambles of
the Organization of African Unity Charter that states “Conscious of our
responsibility to harness the natural and human resources of our continent for
the total advancement of our peoples in all spheres of human endeavor”. These
are the echoes of the mind of any black African, but then the question of how
far the African leaders are prepared to go in order to begin this process
promised in 1963 and revisited in 2003 by Mr. Konare immediately comes to mind.
It is not difficult to see that the answer is “not too far”, given their “historical
ties”, and of course the fear of losing their jobs in case they step on the
wrong toe of the international community
of beneficiaries of Africa’s largesse.
Some Western scholars and indeed many Africans would
argue that Africa is making some progress according to its own calendar, making
its own mark in its own way. This view is not only condescending but smacks of
a deliberate conspiracy to delude the African that despite being stuck at survival
levels of humanity’s pedestal he is making some imaginary progress. The quality
of life cannot be relative; therefore human endeavor to improve the quality of
life cannot be condemned to “African calendar” or to some other bogus calendar.
That Africa has to quickly move up from
survival level is a historical obligation that cannot be spread over some
spurious calendar. Africa has to know when to call its losses (not that it has
much to lose now anyway), accept past mistakes and re-organize itself as articulated
by Mr. Konare so as to occupy its rightful and dignified place among nations.
Black Africa could only take this place among nations when it consciously makes
efforts to put its human and natural resources to useful service in order to continuously generate home-inspired
inputs not only to enhance its survival, but to improve the quality of its
existence. As a continental goal, these inputs have to be proportional to the
inputs of other nations, which have had a head-start that qualifies them as “developed”. The parameters of
measurements of these inputs cannot be different from one race to the other;
the parameters are universal and are the yardsticks with which groups of
peoples are measured and classified as developed or primitive. The lower the
inputs of a people as per universally acceptable parameters, the lower they are
put on the scale of “development” and
the more prejudice is meted out to them.
It is an unfortunate reality of our existence that
Nigeria with the largest population of black people in the world and with its
immense human and natural resources neither has the vision nor the capacity to
move the black race forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment