2008 Woodie Awards
Blaming all of Africa's ills on African leaders ignores history
By: Nikhil Gupta
Issue date: 12/7/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
The article addressing Ngugi wa Thiongo's visit asserts, "In attempting to govern itself, Africa had proven that it was capable of governing no one" ("Ngugi wa Thiong'o's Living Legacy," 11/30/07). It further asserts that "within half a generation" none of Africa's independence leaders remained in office, claiming "their plans for progress and unity fail[ed] to materialize." Though the article does celebrate Ngugi's successful movement to decolonize the African mind, it presents a distorted view of history that blames the failures of Africa's decolonization movement on African leaders and governments.
Such a view unfairly tarnishes the reputations of these leaders and perpetuates the myth that post-colonial Africa's political problems are largely African in nature. Closer examination of the governments of Nasser, Nkrumah, and Lumumba shows that not only did some of their visions come to fruition, but that the failings of their administrations were less the consequence of their leadership than of the West's economically motivated interventions.
Lumumba, Nkrumah, and Nasser were swept into power through the support of people's movements, demanding governance that would improve their standards of living rather than perpetuate unjust ethnically based political structures. They faced the gargantuan task of rebuilding nations devastated by the brutal nature of colonization in Africa. Lumumba, for example, had to rebuild a nation with no black civil service or educated class, a consequence of the Belgian colonial administration neglecting to build any intellectual (or physical) infrastructure. These nations further suffered from massive poverty, the result of exploitative colonial economic policies that had bred an entrenched, ethnically determined African elite that was more concerned with maintaining their wealth and power than improving the living standards of the people.
When confronting this, these leaders implemented what at the time were considered the best strategies for reducing poverty and improving standards of living by leading economists in the West-national economies with active government intervention to boost public expenditures. Politics included agrarian reform, construction of national infrastructure, national control of mineral resources, and national industry. Where implemented, these policies were initially successful in improving people's standards of living. Consider Nasser's Egypt, where during the first decade of his rule, economic conditions for most Egyptians, particularly the massive numbers of poor peasants, improved significantly through agrarian reform and the introduction of electricity to rural areas. To write that "plans for progress and unity [had failed] to materialize" denies these successes.
Such a view unfairly tarnishes the reputations of these leaders and perpetuates the myth that post-colonial Africa's political problems are largely African in nature. Closer examination of the governments of Nasser, Nkrumah, and Lumumba shows that not only did some of their visions come to fruition, but that the failings of their administrations were less the consequence of their leadership than of the West's economically motivated interventions.
Lumumba, Nkrumah, and Nasser were swept into power through the support of people's movements, demanding governance that would improve their standards of living rather than perpetuate unjust ethnically based political structures. They faced the gargantuan task of rebuilding nations devastated by the brutal nature of colonization in Africa. Lumumba, for example, had to rebuild a nation with no black civil service or educated class, a consequence of the Belgian colonial administration neglecting to build any intellectual (or physical) infrastructure. These nations further suffered from massive poverty, the result of exploitative colonial economic policies that had bred an entrenched, ethnically determined African elite that was more concerned with maintaining their wealth and power than improving the living standards of the people.
When confronting this, these leaders implemented what at the time were considered the best strategies for reducing poverty and improving standards of living by leading economists in the West-national economies with active government intervention to boost public expenditures. Politics included agrarian reform, construction of national infrastructure, national control of mineral resources, and national industry. Where implemented, these policies were initially successful in improving people's standards of living. Consider Nasser's Egypt, where during the first decade of his rule, economic conditions for most Egyptians, particularly the massive numbers of poor peasants, improved significantly through agrarian reform and the introduction of electricity to rural areas. To write that "plans for progress and unity [had failed] to materialize" denies these successes.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Will K.
posted 12/08/07 @ 9:54 AM CST
First of all, Ms. Gupta clearly misinterprets the article about which she complains. Mr. Park was not assserting that Africa could not govern itself, but rather stating the views espoused by the self-proclaimed vindication of the "old colonizers"--the background context of Mr. (Continued…)
Post a Comment