This is somewhat of a prequel to one of the early posts on the blog titled the Historical Case for a United African State, however this covers a slightly different area of the same topic.
At the bottom of the article are all the books and articles I used with the omission of online resources, some of which are hyperlinked through the article. This is to give you a snapshot of the reading I did to inspire the essay, all of which I'd highly recommend if you want a deeper perspective on the work of Pan-African thinkers and leaders.
In this essay, I’ll be evaluating the viability of the pan-African philosophy from a social, and political perspective. My aim is to also explore whether the concept of a financially free Africa is practical in this increasingly harsh economic climate and whether a united state will solve the problems on the continent. A united Africa would be the third most populous nation on the planet with the ability to draw upon its massive depths of manpower of natural resources. However, as with any large nation the threat of instability would lurk at every corner making this proposal merely a textbook theory rather than an international superpower.
The basis of Pan-Africanism is the idea of self-reliance. Primarily meaning being free of economic dependence on ex-colonial powers and contemporary neo-colonialist states. As argued by African Studies expert Micah Tsomondo, Pan-Africanism is a socialist liberation ideology, advocating against the wealthy and powerful.
 |
| Dr. Walter Rodney (1942-1980) |
An Independent Africa
The historical case behind self-reliance aims to attribute the lack of development, widespread poverty and conflict on the continent on European injustices, as was done by author and academic Walter Rodney. In his work Rodney pointed towards Western exploitation as the root cause, specifically the extraction of resources and slavery. Kwame Nkrumah took a similar line of reasoning, instead looking towards more contemporary examples of neo-colonialism. He alleged that the US government, alongside its European allies were overthrowing pan-African governments to prevent the formation of a United African state. He pointed to the Ghanaian coup of 1966 where CIA backed army officers seized power before going on a dismantling of his state-run public services, disrupting the progress he made towards uniting the continent. Additionally, he claimed that 17 other administrations which shared in his continental vision were toppled by military groups supported by Western powers.
In my eyes, the main point being missed by the Pan-Africanist side is the benefits that multi-national organisations bring to the continent. The Nkrumah government, seen by so many as the blueprint for a self-reliant state, was economically unstable. IMF reports stated that 1/3rd of the nation's 30 state run enterprises were losing money with food prices rising by 11% in a year. Despite the obvious challenges the Ghanaians were faced with, the government, tied down to its Pan-African obsession, rejected a US offer of 100 million dollars' worth of food over a seven-year period. Upon hearing this, it should come as no surprise that the ensuing coup was done under the premise that Ghana was staring into the barrel of economic catastrophe.
If we were to move towards the current political climate, pan-Africanists are somewhat having their wish granted to them through the isolationist policies President Trump is bringing to his second term. The administration cut funding to GAVI, a leading provider of lifesaving vaccinations on the continent whilst USAID, funded development of infrastructure, schools and hospitals. Suggestions that this was done for sinister motives are still prevalent. US Congressman Scott Perry claimed that USAID funded terrorist organisations across the world, including West Africa’s ISIS-linked terror group Boko Haram. It’s important to note this claim is unsubstantiated and was denied by USAID.
As much as the message of the importance of self-reliance is still being spread, it’s estimated that these aid cuts will lead to countless deaths on the continent. The Lancet Medical Journal reported that these cuts will lead to an excess 14 million deaths by 2030, even specifically mentioning that the higher levels of funding went to LMICs, particularly African countries. If Africa was truly capable of aspiring to self-reliance, then there would be absolutely no concerns of foreign aid cuts as the continent would simply co-operate through dispersing funds from the already set aside programmes around aid and foreign development.
Eritrean dictator Isaias Afwerki was a trailblazer for eliminating USAID funding whilst rejecting World Bank and IMF loans. As bold as an initiative this might seem, the most recent United Nations Development Report in Eritrea ranked the nation 178th out of 193 countries in terms of HDI with a rating of 0.503. Additionally, in a report on poverty in the nation, author and editor Ravinder Rena estimated that about two thirds of Eritreans were living in poverty with more conservative estimates putting the figure at around 50%, a clear failure of the Afwerki experiment.
Comparatively, we can see the massive boosts to living standards that loans gave to Seychelles, the highest-ranking African nation according to the Human Development Index whose economy flourished after going through IMF reforms in 2008. An IMF report cited socialist economic policies as the reason for repeated budget deficits and the accumulation of massive amounts of debt. The fund gave support through a 26-million-dollar loan agreement as well as directing economic policy in the nation. The big anti-IMF arguments on the pan-African side is the lack of financial autonomy when taking loans. Frequently the example of Nigeria is brought up, whose IMF loan in the 1980s came with conditions which devalued the Naira and implanted austerity economic policies. The devaluation of oil made it cheaper on the global market, allowing the big-buying West to profit at Nigeria’s expense whilst austerity measures led to Nigeria being home to the most people in extreme poverty of any nation in the world.12 However, for every Nigeria there is a Seychelles or ex-Soviet state whose willingness to cooperate with global powers allowed them to stabilise their economies, improving living standards for ordinary people.
The United State of Africa
After claiming that Africa is struggling due to anyone but themselves, the next claim is that uniting the continent under one government will be the silver bullet to their economic and social problems.
Hypothetically, how would this state operate? The current African Union is more of a political alliance rather than the pan-african utopian vision. Gaddafi, speaking in 2009 stated "I shall continue to insist that our sovereign African countries work together to achieve the United States of Africa, with a single military force, a single currency and a passport for Africans to move freely around Africa,". This is the idealistic vision which I’ll be looking at.
 |
| Artwork outside Cape Coast Castle, Ghana |
Currently, rebel and militia groups are growing increasingly prevalent across Sub-Saharan Africa. The M23 rebel group, backed by Rwanda, have been locked in combat with Congolese forces whilst Jihadist groups grow increasingly more active across the Sahel region. A united army would theoretically, go some way to solving this with currently two million active military personnel already in national armies. The real question is whether these soldiers would be willing to go to battle for a region they have no real affiliation to. US military anthropologists produced work on something known as the devoted actor which argued that a soldier is able to risk their life for something (an act which one might refer to as irrational) to a greater extent if they have share a sense of belonging with those around them, referred to in the study as identity fusion. The question as to whether this proposed combined military force would be feasible is to judge whether people truly share this unified identity, which for much of recent history, simply hasn’t been the case. Divisions over land, disputes and ethnic differences have stoked division and hatred on the continent. Some may say it was the fault of Western delegates at the Berlin Conference who divided Africa into arbitrary lines without regards to cultural or regional differences amongst the populations, others might point to the failures of democracy in the developing regions. However, whoever is at fault, the claim that all nations would be willing to fight for one another as a united military power is unlikely.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat
Then there is the question of democracy. Researchers at Afro Barometer found that faith in democratic institutions is at an all-time low and continually falling with less than half of surveyed Africans claiming that they have faith in their President, courts of law or parliament. Additionally, it’s possible to claim that the pan-African movement is in direct conflict with democratic principles. Nkrumah, upon winning a majority sought to become President for life with control of the one legal party in the nation. He cited the division that having an opposition caused, instead opting to ask Ghanaians to work towards the one vision his party was proposing. To solidify this into the constitution he held a referendum, winning with 99.91% of the vote, a result which many have claimed to be rigged. In his book, Muammar Gaddafi dedicated a third of it to talking about the ’problem of democracy ‘, claiming that even in supposedly valid elections, a dictatorship arises through, potentially, 49% of the population being” ruled by an instrument of government they didn’t vote for”. Anti-democratic sentiment is still prevalent amongst African leaders as seen by the recent closure of the independent electoral commission by Burkina Faso’s Ibrahima Traore. This all suggests that if this state were to emerge from the existing pan-African vision, the likelihood is that the style of government would be significantly more autocratic than what we see in the West. This supposedly maximises efficiency and streamlines the national vision ensuring the most effective form of government. However, evidence from recent history would suggest otherwise. The Arab Spring and the toppling of al-Assad are the contemporary examples of public support in autocracies eroding over time. With no democratic method to depose of their leader, people turned to protest and violence. In his article 'This Is Why Autocracies Fail', NYT journalist David Brooks explained how the nature of autocratic states, more specifically the clamping down of freedoms, both societal and political lead to brain drains and poorly informed decision making. This is considered as a necessary sacrifice by some to ensure order and stability under the government and is the system of government used in numerous of the modern global powers. However, a state of 1.5 billion under an autocracy would simply be revolts waiting to happen as there is no logical way that substantial opposition doesn’t arise under the reign of an imposed leader or leadership group. The ability to suppress opposition works effectively in areas such as Russia and China where historic suppression has created a culture of obedience to the nation's leadership. Africa, on the other hand, has a long history of people using either deposition through elections, coups, revolutions and uprisings, where the people actively play a role in deciding their leadership. An autocracy on the scale of a whole continent would be unworkable whilst maintaining democratic principles would simply be a continuation of the situation across the majority of Africa.
To conclude, the pan-African mission can be likened to the Communist utopia of Karl Marx, a pretty idea in imagination, but a nightmare in terms of detail and largely unachievable in practice. Uniting under one national identity may have the potential to boost economic potential through the pooling of raw materials and workforces, making it seem optimal in theory. But the reality is that the continent is too divided for this to actually operate. Leaders would be unwilling to sacrifice their economic and national sovereignty to the benefit of states they’ve been locked in conflict with for decades. However, the vision can very much be one the AU aspires towards. Removal of trade barriers, freedom of movement and further economic co-operation are all parts of Agenda 2063, the African Union’s 50 year-plan to economic prosperity, however whether they’ll be implemented is a different question entirely.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Rodney W. (1972) How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, London
- Hersh S. (1978) – ‘C.I.A. Said to Have Aided Plotters Who Overthrew Nkrumah in Ghana’, New York Times: 6
- Nkrumah K. (1968) Dark Days in Ghana, London
- Rake A. (1966) – ‘Is Ghana going bankrupt?’, Transition 24: 26-29
- Times Archive (1964) ‘Ghana: One Party, Four Walls’, Time Magazine
- Gaddafi M, (1975), The Green Book – English translation. London