Fixing The African 3-C Complex: Colonialism, Corruption and Conflict
October 13th, 2006 | Published in Advocacy, Africa, Corruption, Democracy, Governance | 5 Comments
Africa suffers from three major disease complex, the 3-C complex: the sequela of colonialism, corruption and its various appendages, and regional/sectarian conflict borne out of adversarial politics.
I have been following some conversations on the African blogosphere that speak to these core issues, of the several blogs, Mzansi Afrika and Black Star Journal have interesting posts on colonialism which they try to use to explain why Africa is poor. Naijablog adds the corruption variable to the equation, and Jewels in the Jungle adds the last piece, conflict, as exemplified by the genocide in Darfur. I have made commentaries to all these areas on this blog; however, I have yet to connect all three, and perhaps by so doing several workable solutions may become more apparent.
The 3-C ComplexÂ
African socioeconomic woes can be traced to the 3-C disease complex, and the progression of these woes also follows the order they are listed above.
The colonial masters’ incursion into Africa literally disrupted the continent’s DNA architecture. And since the DNA/gene architecture (composition and sequence) contains the natural blueprint; it is becomes easily discernable how colonialism proves to be disruptive and devastating phenomenon of prolonged effects.
As the progenitor in this disease complex, colonialism directly and indirectly paved way for the other two components. Mzansi Afrika puts this succinctly:
“Colonialism…served at least to put the brakes on local civilisations, so that the ways Africans were doing things before became obsolete and backward and therefore undesirable…colonialism arrested our development in other ways, and one of the most devastating was the carving up of Africa. That act alone effectively destroyed natural nations and saw the birth of artificial countries.”
Anyone with any decent knowledge of African history will understand that land issues hold paramount. The newer and British enforced boundaries divided clans and tribes, and pitched those that coexisted peacefully against each other. These conflicts are still being played out on many fronts on the continent.
Of the three entities described, the effects of colonialism is perhaps the most controversial. Afterall, several colonized regions are doing way better than Africa, particularly South East Asia, just as the Black Star Journal questions:
“But what interests me is differences between development in south and southeast Asia and development in sub-Saharan Africa. Both continents were mostly colonized for long periods of time…while the continents had similiar income levels in the 1960s, Asia as a whole has developed quite a bit since that time while some countries in Africa have actually regressed. What explains the differences?”
SolutionÂ
I have come to the conclusion that no amount of foreign aid, or no type of worldbank-dictated economic policy, or political experimentation would work and have long lasting effect in Africa until the constituent nations make conscious and determined efforts to reorganize their political structures, and to the extent possible, realign and tweak these to suit regional and socio-cultural idiosyncrasies.
Democracy is still the way forward, there is no doubt about that; however, it comes with a crucial requirement, a responsible, informed and active electorate. And this is lacking at the moment. I guess the primary reason for this may be because the business of governance has been moved away from the people and centralized in the hands of few. Perhaps the time is right for African nations to decentralize government.
The centralized form of government being operated by African nations is actually a vestige of the colonial times, it worked then, and suited the purposes for which it was created, but it has proved to be grossly impotent in a post-colonial setting.
As recent events in nations that run centralized/unitary (or pseudofederal) systems of government have shown, it encourages corruption, and promotes the marginalization of minority groups (Niger Delta, Nigeria) or those in opposition (Sudan, Darfur). Centralized government has led to the weakening of critical institutions and permissive of abuse of office (President Jammeh/Gambia).
Several African nations that operate a centralized form of government have had at least one instance of sit-tight leaders (President Omar Bongo Ondimba/Gabon) who schemed their ways into power because of the trappings of the central government. And many more have tried (President Obasanjo/Nigeria) and will continue trying to usurp power under various disguise.
Democracy can be operated under stronger regional/ethnic/confederation systems of government, or true federal republic, with a much more weaker center. The exact opposite of what occurs in Africa today! This bings power closer to the people, addresses issues of ethnic or sectarian violence, and makes trade easier. And under a confederation, there wouldn’t be a need to keep a central army and police, corrupted instruments of state oppression. Instead, lets all adult receive military training and have a reserve army where anyone can be conscripted when the need arises. This will take care of military coup and conflicts, at least make it more difficult.
October 14th, 2006 at 7:20 am (#)
I may be somewhat out of date here, as I only lived in Africa as a child. It does seem to me that the tendency toward “strongman” governments and the continued fallback to military dictatorships will be difficult to transcend. The most brutal dictators and strong militaries seem to arise where there are traditional tribal leaders who must be challenged on national matters. At any rate, this brutal struggle between national authority and traditional tribal authority has shaped much of the post-colonial period.
We do seem to be moving into a new period, however, in which very young, brash, and extremely corrupt figures such as Charles Taylor have been coming rapidly to power in countries with weak tribal traditions. There is also contnued involvement of mercenaries from abroad and from African countries themselves. Finally, international corporations are heavily invested in many countries and now play a role similar but distinct from that of the former colonial powers.
October 14th, 2006 at 5:44 pm (#)
Don, your observations are quite relevant. The situation in several regions of sub-Sahara Africa today mirrors what you mentioned.
The masses are so far removed for the day-to-day issues of governance, either by poverty, conflict or simply frustrated by the cabal that have found a way to hang on to power by manipulating the system under the guise of democracy.
Take Nigeria for instance - a country that runs a federalism system on paper - is constantly plagued with sectarian violence that is either religion or ethnic motivated. Many minority groups feel marginalized and or cheated. There are several instances of ballot-box stuffing that people have generally lost faith in the ballot since they believe their votes do not matter.
Only a system that brings governance closer to the people can fix many of the issues in Nigeria and other African nations. This can be done either by running a true federalism or a conferderation that accords each ethnically distinct group the ability to self govern and determine its fate.
Of course, the masses need to be informed and responsible to play their civic parts. This is easier and more realizable if the playing field is reduced to areas that share similar socioeconomic and political characteristics like ethnicity and religion.
October 15th, 2006 at 4:54 pm (#)
An excellent post. The comparison of SSA and SE Asia in the post-colonial period remains an interesting one. Was SE Asia less affected by artificial partition? I’m not sure - Indochina was equally a carve up was it not? Also, it was the same intervening players - France and England being the two strongest players in the later period.
I keep coming back to cultural/religious differences. There are two main points: 1) South-East Asian countries retained their cultural and religious frameworks more strongly and 2) those cultural and religious frameworks involved a different relationship to work and to power. A 3rd associated point is of course the greater homogeneity of cultures in SE Asia.
A ’solution’ would therefore need to address cultural and religious legacies in the context of cultural difference. You are right, a radical de-centralisation of power would do much to solve these issues with explicit (and painful) engagement with cultural and religious difference.
October 15th, 2006 at 4:55 pm (#)
I meant to say ‘without’ in my last sentence. Oops.
October 15th, 2006 at 11:44 pm (#)
Thanks for your input Jeremy. The differences seen in post-colonial sub-Sahara Africa and South East Asia may be due to the fact that these regions did not share the same dynamics and socioeconomical and political characteristics in their pre-colonial days. One has to realize that while colonialism maybe based on one premise - trade, the colonial masters employed various strategies to achieve their missions, several of which are region-specific and hardly generalizable.
Your statement: “South-East Asian countries retained their cultural and religious frameworks more strongly and 2) those cultural and religious frameworks involved a different relationship to work and to power. A 3rd associated point is of course the greater homogeneity of cultures in SE Asia”, couldn’t have been more accrate, and which the experience of Botswana speaks to in great deal.
Botswana is one region that escaped the colonialism, and today, it is the most “boasted the fastest growing economy in the world…In 2001, per capita income was $7,280, placing it squarely in the ranks of the world’s upper-middle-income nations… It is rated the least corrupt country in Africa, has a rock-solid credit rating, and substantial foreign reserves.”
Why?
“Simon Johnson and James Robinson (three economists, two from MIT and one from Harvard), argues that the Tswana tribes enjoyed pre-colonial institutions that encouraged cooperation, tolerated dissent, and in general provided solid support for the development of a mature civil society. Due to a unique set of historical circumstances, those institutions survived the colonial era.”
Source: Why Botswana Works http://www.howardwfrench.com/archives/2006/09/11/why_botswana_works/