DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW THAT DECTATORIAL TENDENCIES IN AFRICA HAVE THEIR ROOTS IN PRE COLONIAL POLITICAL ENTITIES?
To a greater extend the view that dictatorial tendencies in Africa have their roots in pre-colonial political entities is valid. The way modern day African leaders rule indicates that they have traits of the pre-colonial chiefs’ way of rule. This assertion is evidenced by how the pre-colonial chiefs used to appoint their chiefs, how they appointed the board of elders and advisors which have a resemblance to what the current presidents are doing right now. The pre-colonial African chiefs would die in power and the kings were authoritarian in this way decision making lay in their hands which resembles the way of rule by the current presidents. In pre-colonial Africa resources were confined in the hands of royalty. To show loyalty paying tribute by commoners was one of the customs the pre-colonial states practiced which may be similar to current tax paying. Trade was also concentrated in the hands of the chiefs and it would mostly benefit them and one would relate to the current situations in Africa. The pre-colonial politics was associated with violence it was rule by mighty and any opposition would be silenced through violent acts the same as the then presidents way of handling politics. In pre-colonial Africa the army was under the chiefs’ control just like in the modern day Africa. However not all the dictatorial practices have roots in the pre-colonial era but some can be traced to the colonial period. The African presidents want to remain in power to protect their country from European colonization. During the pre-colonial era the educated were the ones who ruled thus the African presidents follow that suit as they are the ones educated.
Dictatorial tendencies by current African states can be traced back to pre-colonial Africa in that African chiefs would die in power similar to what the current African presidents are doing. Hochschild postulates that the history of pre-colonial Africa has their chiefs dying in power just like the postcolonial who desire power so much that they prefer to die as sit tight rulers1. The modern African leaders as soon as they are chosen to power just like in the past they do not allow anyone to take over, power would be rested in their hands for good even if their term expires. Although the elections would be carried on it is done for disguise as rigging has become day to day practice in most elections being carried on. African presidents like Gaddafi of Lybia, Mubarack and Bingu Wamutharika are amongst the presidents of Africa who have died in power. According to Hamzat major reasons for the inability of many African countries like Nigeria or Ghana to operate an open, accountable and limited government has a long historic origin from slave trade, to the pre-colonial era where dictatorship and authoritarianism is the major.2 This is just the same as the pre-colonial times where chiefs were lifetime rulers Mzilikazi of the Ndebele state.
The dictatorial tendencies by postcolonial presidents can be traced back to pre-colonial Africa since they are all authoritarian. African way of rule is not open ,no freedom of speech ,no freedom of participation as power is centralized in their hands .African leaders experimented with different forms of democracy liberal, social, participatory and consociation, among others. Countries like Uganda even dabbled with a genre of democracy that President Yoweri Museveni termed no- party democracy because it tended to reduce ethnic politics and its centrifugal tendencies. Leaders fear because the democratic process could mean their dethronement through the ballot box for poor leadership thus they do not live room for freedom to the citizens as pointed out by Hochschild.3 Uncannily, leaders would rather prefer to serve as President and Prime Minister for life. In cases where constitutional provisions could prevent them from staying in power some have attempted to abrogate such provisions as what happened in Uganda and the failed attempt in Nigeria. This applies in pre-colonial West Africa where the commoners had no say in how the royal class operated.
Moreover, the fact that modern African leaders operate just like the pre-colonial chiefs that is authoritarian is supported by the fact that contemporary political scene in Africa is characterized by the distancing of political rights of the majority from real political power and influence. The vast majority of African people are second-class citizens in their own countries who are used as voters to elect the political elite every four or five years. The so called multiparty democracy n most African countries like Zimbabwe and Kenya has not necessarily translated into greater democracy, as demonstrated by the series of coups and genocides that took place in African countries in the immediate post-colonial period. For instance when Paul Kagame came to power in 2000, Rwanda's president inherited a nation still raw from the brutal genocide of 1994 which claimed up to one million lives. But during his heavy-handed time in power, the country's ranks for press freedom have plummeted and a suspicious number of public and political opponents have been harassed or have died in increasingly suspicious circumstances4.the violence in the state was also used by Tshaka in the Zulu state that’s similarly to the current news.
The way African post colonial presidents’ deal with opponents in politics violently can be traced back to the pre-colonial era. During the pre-colonial era if anyone wanted to rise against the chiefs he would be beaten up to death or punished badly by the army. In most African countries opposition party members have been brutally beaten up, killed or the party seized to operate as it has recently happened in Zimbabwe. The current Zimbabwean president was even quoted even saying ‘elections are generally violent and no one is spared. ’Meredith is of the view that the ruling party Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta is embroiled in major controversy over electoral violence.5 He has pleaded innocent to murder and other charges for an alleged role in organizing violence that left more than 1,000 people dead after Kenya's 2007 elections. Burkina Faso's Blaise Compaore is another African leader who seized power by bloody coup. The Burkina Faso president’s 1987 uprising left his predecessor Thomas Sankara dead who himself had taken power four years earlier alongside Compaore. Afolayan emphasizes that violence, alone, violence committed by the people; violence organized and educated by its leaders, makes it possible for the masses to understand social truth and gives the key to them.6
The hereditary practice which was practiced by the pre-colonial chiefs shows that dictatorial tendencies in Africa have their roots have their roots in pre-colonial Africa. for instance during the Tshaka the Zulu reign Tshaka and Sigujani fought over kingship as they all want to inherit their fathers chieftainship. In modern day Africa in DRC presidents like Lorent Kabila whose post was inherited by Joseph Kabila. It is also happening in Swaziland where kings still inherit power from their fathers or brothers the same as Botswana with the Khamas.
The pre-colonial chiefs were believed to have descended from God which also applies to the post colonial presidents. Some presidents are believed to have the supernatural powers thus they are sacred. In the pre-colonial era Changamire Dombo lived in isolated in the mountains, he was believed to have had two hearts. Thus his power was not opposed, he was feared and whatever he said was believed to be divinely sent and not to be opposed. This applies to Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana who lived isolated, believed to be heavenly sent and no one had to grab power from him. According to Marideth as part of his personality cult .Nkrumah assumed grand titles such as Man of Destiny ,Star Africa ,His Dedication and most famous of all ,Osagyefo meaning ‘victor in war or the redeemer. his presence became inescapable ,his profile embellished coins ,banknotes ,postage stamps ,his statue stood outside parliament ,his name appeared in neon lights ,his birthday became a public holiday and framed photographs adorned offices and shops.7this explains that the dictatorial tendencies is not a new phenomenon in Africa.
The pre-colonial chiefs had their resources confined in the hands of the ruling class which is peculiar to what is being practiced by the post colonial presidents. African chiefs like Mzilikazi owned all the resources in the Ndebele state including cattle and minerals. There was the Zansi who were the ruling class and was the elite group .Nugent points out that human rights groups claim Angolan president Jose Eduardo do Santos has murdered many and exploited the country's resources to his own gain.8 According to Alemazung capitalism is little more than an organized system of thievery and corruption thus many political leaders and African leaders use their power to take resources and money for their own benefits. The minor citizens are failing to enjoy their resources. For instance in Zimbabwe the Chiadzwa diamond mine was put in the hands of Vice President Mujuru. The Zimbabwean ministers are believed to be the ones that own the mines and farms. Williams perpetuates that the government and its agents not to visualize the state as an instrument of accumulation of personal gains.10
However, the dictatorial tendencies by African presidents can be linked to the colonial era. Most African presidents fought for independence and took over power from the white colonial masters. Thus they want to stay in power all in the name of ensuring the sovereignty of their countries and to enjoy the benefits of the independence. Bradwell After independence, the colonial masters continued what they called development politics for the ex-colonies, based on their intention to secure the control of resources, the economy and politics of the ex-colonies.11 Development politics as it was introduced by the colonial masters during the colonial era. The African leaders who remain in power since independence to show people their good leadership, training for capacity building and stringent standards of integrity and ethical behavior. They want to prove to the westerners that they can rule their countries and are better presidents.
The colonial Africa was ruled by the educated thus the African dictators follow the suit. The government is full of the members who have been educated in the west and they can’t even communicate with their citizens. The myth of African rulers as intrinsically undemocratic and tyrannical permeates the frequent references in Western media and books to dictators like Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin Dada, Jean Bedel Bokassa or Mobutu Sese Seko as “African big men”, “African strong men” and “African despots”. The rulers in Africa are well educated and informed people. They know as well as I do that without initial support from Western and other non-African countries many of these tyrants would never have achieved power, or would not have been able to rule for a long time without being ousted by popular revolt. But through their constant use of the adjective “African” to describe these dictators, they are, consciously or unconsciously, attributing their existence to their Africanity rather than to external circumstances.12
In conclusion, one can note that the dictatorial tendencies by the African leaders are not a new phenomenon in the world; it is just history repeating itself. Most dictator practices by African chiefs in the pre-colonial era have been planted into the post colonial Africans. It also needs to be highlighted that, not all dictatorial tendencies have pre-colonial blueprint. The colonial period also have an influence in post-colonial politics
Bibliography
Afolayan, .The challenge of ethnicity and conflicts in Africa: The need for a new paradigm. Emergency Response Division, United Nations Development Program. 1997
Afolayan. Africa in the New Millennium: Towards a Post-Traditional Renaissance. Pretoria: University of South Africa Press.2004
Bradwell, The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.3, no.10, September 2010
Colonial Africa. New York: Macmillan.
Hamzut, (2004) Designing West Africa: Prelude to 21st Century Calamity. New
Hochschild, Adam (1998) King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in
London/New York: Free Press.
Meredith, Martin (2005) The State of Africa: A History of Fifty Years of Independence,
Nugent, Paul (2004) Africa since Independence: A Comparative History. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Scherrer, Christian P. (2001) Genocide and Crisis in Central Africa: Conflict Roots, Mass
Violence, and Regional War. Praeger Publishers
Williams A. B. Zack:African Mosaic: Political, Social, Economic and Technological Development in the New Millennium,Cambridge Scholars Publishing .UK2009
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dictatorial tendencies by current African states can be traced back to pre-colonial Africa in that African chiefs would die in power similar to what the current African presidents are doing. Hochschild postulates that the history of pre-colonial Africa has their chiefs dying in power just like the postcolonial who desire power so much that they prefer to die as sit tight rulers1. The modern African leaders as soon as they are chosen to power just like in the past they do not allow anyone to take over, power would be rested in their hands for good even if their term expires. Although the elections would be carried on it is done for disguise as rigging has become day to day practice in most elections being carried on. African presidents like Gaddafi of Lybia, Mubarack and Bingu Wamutharika are amongst the presidents of Africa who have died in power. According to Hamzat major reasons for the inability of many African countries like Nigeria or Ghana to operate an open, accountable and limited government has a long historic origin from slave trade, to the pre-colonial era where dictatorship and authoritarianism is the major.2 This is just the same as the pre-colonial times where chiefs were lifetime rulers Mzilikazi of the Ndebele state.
The dictatorial tendencies by postcolonial presidents can be traced back to pre-colonial Africa since they are all authoritarian. African way of rule is not open ,no freedom of speech ,no freedom of participation as power is centralized in their hands .African leaders experimented with different forms of democracy liberal, social, participatory and consociation, among others. Countries like Uganda even dabbled with a genre of democracy that President Yoweri Museveni termed no- party democracy because it tended to reduce ethnic politics and its centrifugal tendencies. Leaders fear because the democratic process could mean their dethronement through the ballot box for poor leadership thus they do not live room for freedom to the citizens as pointed out by Hochschild.3 Uncannily, leaders would rather prefer to serve as President and Prime Minister for life. In cases where constitutional provisions could prevent them from staying in power some have attempted to abrogate such provisions as what happened in Uganda and the failed attempt in Nigeria. This applies in pre-colonial West Africa where the commoners had no say in how the royal class operated.
Moreover, the fact that modern African leaders operate just like the pre-colonial chiefs that is authoritarian is supported by the fact that contemporary political scene in Africa is characterized by the distancing of political rights of the majority from real political power and influence. The vast majority of African people are second-class citizens in their own countries who are used as voters to elect the political elite every four or five years. The so called multiparty democracy n most African countries like Zimbabwe and Kenya has not necessarily translated into greater democracy, as demonstrated by the series of coups and genocides that took place in African countries in the immediate post-colonial period. For instance when Paul Kagame came to power in 2000, Rwanda's president inherited a nation still raw from the brutal genocide of 1994 which claimed up to one million lives. But during his heavy-handed time in power, the country's ranks for press freedom have plummeted and a suspicious number of public and political opponents have been harassed or have died in increasingly suspicious circumstances4.the violence in the state was also used by Tshaka in the Zulu state that’s similarly to the current news.
The way African post colonial presidents’ deal with opponents in politics violently can be traced back to the pre-colonial era. During the pre-colonial era if anyone wanted to rise against the chiefs he would be beaten up to death or punished badly by the army. In most African countries opposition party members have been brutally beaten up, killed or the party seized to operate as it has recently happened in Zimbabwe. The current Zimbabwean president was even quoted even saying ‘elections are generally violent and no one is spared. ’Meredith is of the view that the ruling party Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta is embroiled in major controversy over electoral violence.5 He has pleaded innocent to murder and other charges for an alleged role in organizing violence that left more than 1,000 people dead after Kenya's 2007 elections. Burkina Faso's Blaise Compaore is another African leader who seized power by bloody coup. The Burkina Faso president’s 1987 uprising left his predecessor Thomas Sankara dead who himself had taken power four years earlier alongside Compaore. Afolayan emphasizes that violence, alone, violence committed by the people; violence organized and educated by its leaders, makes it possible for the masses to understand social truth and gives the key to them.6
The hereditary practice which was practiced by the pre-colonial chiefs shows that dictatorial tendencies in Africa have their roots have their roots in pre-colonial Africa. for instance during the Tshaka the Zulu reign Tshaka and Sigujani fought over kingship as they all want to inherit their fathers chieftainship. In modern day Africa in DRC presidents like Lorent Kabila whose post was inherited by Joseph Kabila. It is also happening in Swaziland where kings still inherit power from their fathers or brothers the same as Botswana with the Khamas.
The pre-colonial chiefs were believed to have descended from God which also applies to the post colonial presidents. Some presidents are believed to have the supernatural powers thus they are sacred. In the pre-colonial era Changamire Dombo lived in isolated in the mountains, he was believed to have had two hearts. Thus his power was not opposed, he was feared and whatever he said was believed to be divinely sent and not to be opposed. This applies to Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana who lived isolated, believed to be heavenly sent and no one had to grab power from him. According to Marideth as part of his personality cult .Nkrumah assumed grand titles such as Man of Destiny ,Star Africa ,His Dedication and most famous of all ,Osagyefo meaning ‘victor in war or the redeemer. his presence became inescapable ,his profile embellished coins ,banknotes ,postage stamps ,his statue stood outside parliament ,his name appeared in neon lights ,his birthday became a public holiday and framed photographs adorned offices and shops.7this explains that the dictatorial tendencies is not a new phenomenon in Africa.
The pre-colonial chiefs had their resources confined in the hands of the ruling class which is peculiar to what is being practiced by the post colonial presidents. African chiefs like Mzilikazi owned all the resources in the Ndebele state including cattle and minerals. There was the Zansi who were the ruling class and was the elite group .Nugent points out that human rights groups claim Angolan president Jose Eduardo do Santos has murdered many and exploited the country's resources to his own gain.8 According to Alemazung capitalism is little more than an organized system of thievery and corruption thus many political leaders and African leaders use their power to take resources and money for their own benefits. The minor citizens are failing to enjoy their resources. For instance in Zimbabwe the Chiadzwa diamond mine was put in the hands of Vice President Mujuru. The Zimbabwean ministers are believed to be the ones that own the mines and farms. Williams perpetuates that the government and its agents not to visualize the state as an instrument of accumulation of personal gains.10
However, the dictatorial tendencies by African presidents can be linked to the colonial era. Most African presidents fought for independence and took over power from the white colonial masters. Thus they want to stay in power all in the name of ensuring the sovereignty of their countries and to enjoy the benefits of the independence. Bradwell After independence, the colonial masters continued what they called development politics for the ex-colonies, based on their intention to secure the control of resources, the economy and politics of the ex-colonies.11 Development politics as it was introduced by the colonial masters during the colonial era. The African leaders who remain in power since independence to show people their good leadership, training for capacity building and stringent standards of integrity and ethical behavior. They want to prove to the westerners that they can rule their countries and are better presidents.
The colonial Africa was ruled by the educated thus the African dictators follow the suit. The government is full of the members who have been educated in the west and they can’t even communicate with their citizens. The myth of African rulers as intrinsically undemocratic and tyrannical permeates the frequent references in Western media and books to dictators like Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin Dada, Jean Bedel Bokassa or Mobutu Sese Seko as “African big men”, “African strong men” and “African despots”. The rulers in Africa are well educated and informed people. They know as well as I do that without initial support from Western and other non-African countries many of these tyrants would never have achieved power, or would not have been able to rule for a long time without being ousted by popular revolt. But through their constant use of the adjective “African” to describe these dictators, they are, consciously or unconsciously, attributing their existence to their Africanity rather than to external circumstances.12
In conclusion, one can note that the dictatorial tendencies by the African leaders are not a new phenomenon in the world; it is just history repeating itself. Most dictator practices by African chiefs in the pre-colonial era have been planted into the post colonial Africans. It also needs to be highlighted that, not all dictatorial tendencies have pre-colonial blueprint. The colonial period also have an influence in post-colonial politics
Bibliography
Afolayan, .The challenge of ethnicity and conflicts in Africa: The need for a new paradigm. Emergency Response Division, United Nations Development Program. 1997
Afolayan. Africa in the New Millennium: Towards a Post-Traditional Renaissance. Pretoria: University of South Africa Press.2004
Bradwell, The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.3, no.10, September 2010
Colonial Africa. New York: Macmillan.
Hamzut, (2004) Designing West Africa: Prelude to 21st Century Calamity. New
Hochschild, Adam (1998) King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in
London/New York: Free Press.
Meredith, Martin (2005) The State of Africa: A History of Fifty Years of Independence,
Nugent, Paul (2004) Africa since Independence: A Comparative History. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Scherrer, Christian P. (2001) Genocide and Crisis in Central Africa: Conflict Roots, Mass
Violence, and Regional War. Praeger Publishers
Williams A. B. Zack:African Mosaic: Political, Social, Economic and Technological Development in the New Millennium,Cambridge Scholars Publishing .UK2009
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Comments
Post a Comment