Introduction
The independence which Africa gained during the post-colonial period is primarily associated with the direction of African nationalism. However, researchers have argued that the continent’s nationalist ideas focused on freedom and independence, ignoring the social needs of the population. Moreover, the new states adopted the models of the European systems without sufficient resources and infrastructure. Thus, African nationalism was not ideologically grounded and deliberate but focused on the short-term goal of liberation. However, the independence of the continent was the only possible option which could have been realized differently.
Flaws of African Nationalism
The nationalist movement to combat the colonial order in Africa was conceived on the European model. According to Davidson, the nation-state for the supporters of nationalism was “the harbinger of all democratic benefits that people could wish for.” However, all African ideas about nation-state life were based on opposition to the colonial period, which was considered disastrous for the continent. Independence was perceived as the only way to eliminate the burden of imperialism. However, Africans were under colonial rule for a long time and lost sight of their national heritage. The division of Africa into sovereign states was planned by the former Empires, which developed their own policies.
The African desire for independence from the imperialists was expressed in the form of freedom from the legacy of colonialism. Davidson notes that promising nationalist ideas were lost due to “purely African irresponsibility or incompetence.” African nationalism could be far-sighted if its ideologues were primarily focused on the needs of the African regions. The common aspiration of the nationalist movement was freedom from the colonial burden and not the transformation of former colonies into nations with their own values and sovereignty. Compared to the national liberation of the states of Central and Western Europe, African states did not have their own cultural identity. In the case of decolonization in European countries, one can talk about the restoration of old orders, while African states considered their pre-colonial heritage as a relic of the past. In other words, Africans did not have their own history and national consciousness, which could form the basis of nationalism. Social needs in the form of better food, housing, education, and medicine prevailed on the ideological component.
African nationalists inevitably relied on Britain and France for the organization of new states since they had no experience of forming such models. However, the former imperialists did not care about the needs of Africans but about their enrichment and increased exports. Additionally, relocation of the majority of the population from rural areas to cities “became the curse that would afterward spread an epidemic scourge of relentless poverty.” African nationalism made its foundation not the legacy of its people but the structural crisis of the colonial era. The oppression of rural areas and production and the prioritization of the urban population has become the main reason for the spread of poverty among the African population.
African nationalism was built on the ideas of statism to achieve the goals of economic progress. African leaders believed that modernization was possible thanks to extensive government control over the economy, a “strategy inherited from the colonial era and encouraged by an influential school of Western development economists.” This aspect is key in the destruction and degradation of agriculture on the continent, which was the basis for the well-being of the population. Industrialization and urban jobs were conceived as a mechanism to end Africa’s dependence on exports and imports. Thus, agriculture was considered an inefficient branch of the economy, which had to be replaced by more profitable production.
Industrialization was a disaster for the African continent, as it implied European infrastructure and resources, which African countries did not have. Moreover, the nationalist ideas that originally originated from the desire for independence later ceased to be valid. Africa, which in the pre-colonial period was composed of many tribes, contained many heterogeneous communities which did not share common values, was now divided according to ethnographic planning. Urbanization has eliminated the ethnic loyalty of many peoples, which has led to internal conflicts. Thus, the new leaders sought to create a state that would unite all tribes and communities without emphasizing the importance of their ethnic identity.
Thus, African nationalist movements widely adopted the models of colonial rule and state structure. However, they ignored factors unique to the African continent, including ethnic diversity, climate, the role of agriculture, social needs, and resource constraints. Davidson implied the absence of a design of the transition from the colonial period to the national suitable for the African continent, indicating the “lack of ideological thought.” Lord Delamere notes that already at the beginning of the 20th century, land in the African colonies was “absurdly cheap.” The letters also note that it is extremely profitable and simple to grow various raw materials on such land. However, the imperialist government did not seek to develop agriculture in the region since, together with independence, it could give Africans the opportunity to highly profitable export of coffee, tobacco, or cotton. The industrialization process prevented Africans from using these resources to improve the economic and social situation of the continent. Instead of focusing on the strengths of the local population in the form of agriculture as the main source of food, the colonial legacy imposed its own rules on the continent.
African leaders expressed the values of their continent exclusively in the form of anti-colonial struggles. Secou notes that “the political leader who is freely chosen by a people, maintains a natural link between his action and the culture proper to his people.” However, the continent did not rid itself of colonial moral, intellectual and cultural oppression but adopted it. Davidson, as Secou, notes that the education established by colonial missionaries creates the intellectual elite of African states. At the same time, most of the population is deprived of the opportunity to receive it. Thus, the imperialist order was applied to all spheres of the continent’s life in the process of gaining independence.
At the same time, the continent’s cultural and national identity was ignored. Nationalist leaders were not concerned with the long-term prosperity of Africa and the restoration of its diversity; they only aimed at anti-colonialism. Ultimately, they adopted the features of imperialist states but did not adapt them to the African context. Post-colonial Africa is an artificially created set of nation-states which do not meet the needs of society but exist as a manifesto of resistance to colonial oppression. At the same time, African nationalism ignores the possible paths of the continent’s development, relying on the usual paternalism of European states. Long-term thinking was difficult or even impossible for the nationalist generation of Africa precisely because the leaders had no idea of the continent’s pre-colonial history. They perceived the only possible solution in adapting the European model, which replaced the true legacy of Africa.
Alternatives to Independence
Urbanization and the division between town and country, which followed independence, have become a major cause of inter-ethnic conflict in Africa. Mamdani notes that “the anti-colonial struggle was first and foremost a struggle against the hierarchy of the local state, the tribally organized Native Authority, which enforced the colonial order as customary.” The need, in this case, was the maintenance of national, ethnic characteristics and customs. However, nationalist leaders and elites imposed on the population a colonial model of organizing sovereign states. With regard to Africa, however, other options besides decolonization and independence could not exist since the population considered colonialism as the main problem of the continent. Davidson notes that the anti-colonial mood was optimistic and gave hope for a bright future for Africa. While within the continent, there were problems of tribalism and ethnic conflicts, the communities were able for some time to unite under the aegis of nationalism to fight the Empires.
Independence, although it did not bring Africa social and economic prosperity, made it possible for the continent to restore cultural identity. However, the colonial legacy became part of the national identity for Africans. The independence allowed Africa to become aware of internal contradictions since, in the colonial period, all attention was directed to Europeans as opponents and suppressors. Other options for decolonization, in this case, do not seem possible since the discontent of Africans with the power of the imperialist states was gradually growing. Moreover, Britain and France, as well as other imperialist states, were losing their strength and power and would soon be unable to control the continent. The consequence could be possible anarchy and a militarized division of power. However, it can be assumed that the natural transition from colonialism to nationalism could have produced much more positive changes for Africa. The focus of the nationalist movement on the social needs and cultural heritage of pre-colonial Africa could create more favorable conditions for the subsequent development of the continent.
Bibliography
Collins, O. Collins, ed. Documents from the African Past. Princeton: Marks Wiener Publishers, 2009).
Davidson, Basil. The Black Man’s Burden: Africa and the Curse of the Nation-State. New York: Time Books, 1992.
Langley, Ayo. Ideologies of Liberation in Black Africa: Documents on Modern African Political Thought from Colonial Times to the Present. London: Rex Collings, 1979.
Mamdani, Mahmood. Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1996.
Meredith, Martin. The Fate of Africa: A history of the Continent Since Independence. New York: Public Affairs, 2011.