By
Hana
Ismail Musa -- Somaliland
THE BOOK Africa: what can be done?
Is a massive text written by Ben Turok, edited by Zen Books Ltd., 57
Caledonian Road, London N1 9BU and the Institute for Africa
Alternatives, 23 Bevenden Street, London N1 9BU. Since the book is
about neocolonialism, I have decided to focus on the fundamental
charter of Neocolonial Africa in order to diagnose its intrinsic
contradictors.
The book
is in three parts:
1)
The early
expectation of independence.
2)
The structure of
neocolonialism.
3)
What can be
done?
In part one
the central theme is the examination of the process of the
attainment of independence and how socialists misread the outcomes.
The second part
analyses various examples of neocolonialism and the academic
literature which has grown up around it.
The final part
of the book discuses a way out of the neocolonial trap, arguing that
opposition must be based on a recognition that there are two
enemies: external and internal.
After two decades of neocolonialism in Africa, the
complexities of the system have become obvious in every aspect;
socially, economically, politically and culturally. While
independence brought real benefits to most of the countries, it also
changed the terms of struggles for the masses. While everyone
welcomed independence warmly when it came, political analysts on the
left have been far more critical in retrospect.
Independence was both, victory and handover. National
independence was a battle won in a war which was lost overall.
Independence would certainly not have occurred at all but for the
popular struggle which preceded it, so it was a victory for the
progressive nationalist forces. At the same time, granting of
independence to pressures emanating from the United States after the
Second World War in a Self-motivated effort to carve out its own
sphere of influence made it a handover.
There were powerful anti-colonial struggles against
the Dutch in Indonesia, France in Indo-china and Algeria. Britain
had to use substantial armies in Malaya, Kenya and Cyprus. In the
absence of such strugglers, imperialism would have found other ways
of resolving the differences and difficulties. Decolonization would
have been even more cosmetic. This is not to say that independence
was the fruit of struggle in every country, indeed less militant
countries reaped the rewards of the sacrifices of others.
What of the outcomes? It’s clear that independence
affected Africa’s struggles in a fundamental way. It brought to a
halt the political actions of the nationalist parties and of the
masses that supported them. Expectations were high, and the years of
struggle seemed now to lie behind them.
There are, at least three views on independence:
1.
That it was
fraudulent;
2.
That it was real
but failed to introduce democracy;
3.
And that what
was more important than independence is national liberation.
Thus the post- independence period has been marked by
a fatal lack of economic growth, or rather distorted growth, which
has failed to provide the basic needs of the people as a whole.
Social services have been established in a highly
unbalanced way, the urban over the rural. Similarly, employment has
been created in the non productive sectors and at higher levels
rather than in basic production.
The weakness of the dependency approach was that it
seemed to focus too simplistically on the center-periphery relation.
There is no strategy in lumping together Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia and
Nigeria in one comparative concept of dependency, neocolonialism
etc. Different regimes have taken different paths and socialist who
ignore these differences risk becoming biased in debates and in
their actions.
The classical traditional of Marxism-Leninism has
that the main vehicle for revolution and social transformation is
the alliance of the working class and the peasantry. Although
classes can only be properly understood in their interrelations, in
a society as a totality, it is necessary to consider the role of
individual classes within the whole for the purpose of developing a
strategy of social emancipation.
The main class structures are: the bureaucracy or
state bourgeoisie, politician, civil servants, state managers,
military, petit- bourgeoisie, working class and peasantry.
Generally, we can say the structure of
neocolonialism in Africa showed the neocolonial state serves the
interests of both external and internal bourgeoisie but really it
suggested that there are some structures which are all embracing and
over determining social existence everywhere negating all endeavors
to win meaningful change. The system must change altogether or not
at all. This book is based on a contrary assumption. It assumes that
changes have been won and gains made, despite the power of an
aggressive, penetrating world of capitalism systems which constantly
strives to consolidate its imperialist grip over the globe.
Today, the struggle for socialism in Africa is no
doubt in for the long haul. Not only are the faces of imperialism
and neocolonialism remarkably resilient, but the subjective faces of
the oppositions are slow to develop the necessary consciousness and
organization.
There are frequent conflicts among the elites, and
the masses have often shown that they are willing to rally behind
any credible opposition, from anywhere in the political scope:
quarter-military, trade union or even radical intellectual. What
seems to be required is that socialists exercise that patience and
steady commitment to politics which has earned its rewards in other
areas of the world.
There are many grounds for hope in Africa, despite
the bleakness of the landscape. Where regimes are so discreditable
and condition so hard, resistance rises. Indeed, there are many
indications that the masses have an intuitive understanding of the
real world and its options, which is why they are sometimes capable
of unexpected political action with the appearance of spontaneity
but actually a long process of political maturation.
Personally, Whether or not the concept of
Pan-Africanism is used to express geographic entities rather that an
ideological unity, there is a clear wall for Marxists to break
through constrains and encourage mutual knowledge and support for
the next stage of Africa’s revolution. There is an urgent need for
Africa’s Marxists to give more attention to internationalism. The
history of socials struggle throughout the world has shown how sense
and integrationist solidarity enriches political life and promotes
confidence of ultimate victory. There need not be conflict between
the internationalism and the independence Africa’s movement for
their nation’s interest.