Many look at the African continent and shake their heads. It's too complicated, too volatile, ever changing to understand. But what accounts for this volatility? Why has the African continent been so unstable -- politically, economically, and militarily?
Some theorists suggest that it has to do with colonial legacies. If you want to understand why the African continent -- over four decades after independence continues to be so underdeveloped, politically and economically -- turn to colonial legacies. Artificial states, a focus on politicized ethnicity, regionalism -- all of these factors are negative legacies of colonialism. But what about bad political leadership? The African continent has had its share of the Idi Amins, the Bokassa's, the Mobutu's and the Mugabe's. Why has this continent suffered so much for so many years? Is there something unique to the African continent? The African people? African society? Or are the problems of coups d'etats just the process of development?
And what can be done? Should Africans have to deal with continual political upheaval, or has a page been turned in African history? Has the democratic flower taken root in African soil?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Featured Post
Turkey's Ban on Insults against Erdogan
Since 2005 Turkey has had a law against insults against Erdogan known as Article 299. The article declares that citizens can be imprisoned ...
-
Great news! Now you can sit back in the comfort of your own home and actually see (provided you have access to high-speed internet) the phys... -
From 600,000 to 1 million souls slaughtered in just 100 days in Rwanda. Thousands killed, raped and mutilated in Darfur, Sudan. On-going civ...
-
Darfur Sudan. Many Americans don't even know where that is. For many in Darfur, it is hell on earth. An estimated 2.6 million people ha...
8 comments:
It's hard to think about such a complicated problem, some blame colonial legacies, others blame the corrupt leaders. I think that the colonies caused Africans to loose confidence in themselves and forced a lifestyle upon them that they previously were not the least bit used to. Now, we are seeing the African tribal mentality of loyalty to a leader and personal rule amplified through archaic colonial systems. Africa has as much potential as any other land does in terms of peace and prosperity. The difference is that Africa suddenly tossed a system that was unknown to its people and left no choice but to conform to it. I think now we are seeing a transition period between traditional African ways of ruling and colonial government. It will take time for Africa to learn how to govern itself under "African" terms in a fast paced global environment.
This may be a simple answer to a difficult question. But when looking at the reason for coup d'etat's in Africa, I think it is necessary to pinpoint the lack of quality leadership within African nations. If benevolent rule was a major priority in Africa, coup d'etat's might not be so necessary. For instance, if a ruler was content with giving back to his people, what he might normally take for himself, and moving his country toward economic growth the people would most likely respond positively. Of course, benevolent rule is a big step for leaders who are pressured to rule tyranically, in order to remain wealthy or protect themselves from the harm of their opposers once they leave power, but I feel it is a necessary step to lead Africa out of its current state. Someone needs to step in and lead with the public's interest in mind.
I will like to point out that contrary to what some people may believe, Africans are very capable of governing themselves. Strong nations have risen out of Africa prior to any form of Western contact. Kingdoms like the Songhai, Mali, Buganda and Ghana flourished in a calm environment without any form of instruction or guidance from Western democracy.
To also say that military coups are a result of ancient ethnic divisions is also extremely erroneous. People without traditional alliances from numerous different ethnic groups worked together to oust colonialists all over Africa. So despite the difference in ethnicities, Africans are rational human beings with the capacity to unite for their own betterment. Coups are destructive no matter what form they come in, and Africans want the best for their countries. Africans being rational see no need for military coups as a tool to obtain ethnic superiority, as coups destabilize their countries.
As to why there are so many coups in Africa it continuously remains a puzzle. In the past military coups have been results of social revolution led by armies. There have been so many social revolutions in Africa primarily because of poor rule by African central governments. Most civilian leaders of African countries become corrupt when they are elected into office. Government of the people, for the people and by the people rather becomes personal rule riddled with nepotism, patrimonialism and corruption. The oppression of the majority by the minority educated elite causes deep wounds in the heart of the nation. When the wounds begin to kill the nation (destabilizing the economy, elimination of fundamental human rights and extreme poverty), the oppressed majority turn to the only doctors they know (the army) to heal them. The military eliminates the despotic leaders and provide a sort term solution for the oppressed. Unfortunately sometimes when the army comes into power, they begin to also inflict the same wounds caused by the former civilian dictators and then the cycle goes on.
The threat of coups can only eliminated if all Africans become equitable consumers of the African pie of development and prosperity.
A page has been turned in Africa politics. The seeds of democracy planted at independence are beginning to break through the hard crust of African topsoil. The twenty-first century has seen an unprecedented growth in African democracy. Former military dictators and want-to-be presidents for life have began to turn power over to civilian rule. The international community is placing so much pressure on despotic nations to revert to democracy of any sort. For the first time in African countries, civilian governments are replacing civilian governments without any threat of military unrest.
Okomfo,
I agree with your postings. African's are rational people, capable of ruling themselves. And, you're right, they did maintain powerful societies prior to Western involvement. I think the answer to African stability is not searching for the answer under purely Western terms. This may sound insanely unclear, but what if there is some sort of government system that could be divised that would be a hybrid of Western government and pre-colonial African government for African nations. Some way for African nations to rule themselves with global recognition under terms that they want, sort of semi-tribal, semi-democratic terms. This sounds unclear, I know, let me think futher about what I'm trying to say. I'll get back later with more detail.
Post a Comment