Grandiose Parlor

5 Responses to “Fixing The African 3-C Complex: Colonialism, Corruption and Conflict”

1. I may be somewhat out of date here, as I only lived in Africa as a child.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.

   By Don Thieme
   October 14, 2006 at 7:20 am

2. 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.

   By imnakoya
   October 14, 2006 at 5:44 pm

3. 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.

   By Jeremy
   October 15, 2006 at 4:54 pm

4. I meant to say ‘without’ in my last sentence. Oops.

   By Jeremy
   October 15, 2006 at 4:55 pm

5. 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/

   By imnakoya
   October 15, 2006 at 11:44 pm

Leave a Reply