Greetings,
Here is the mail posted by FOROYAA without the codes. I hope that nothing
significant has been removed whilst I was removing the codes.

------- Forwarded message follows -------

Published in FOROYAA of 25-28 October 1999.

THE BURIAL OF JULIUS NYERERE

The Criticisms and the Facts

On 14 October 1999, Julius Nyerere departed. He was 77 years old and he
died at St Thomas Hospital in London. Many heads of state paid respect to
him.
Eventually, his body was flown to Musoma and transported by road to his
home in Butiama for a family burial.

Prior to his burial, critics and admirers utilised all forms of media to state
their various opinions about him.

It is important to emphasise that individuals do not make history. It is
people who build political, economic and social systems. Individuals can
influence the history makers either by giving them inspiration and clarity to
ensure that they carve a destiny under the sun that can guarantee them
liberty in prosperity or serve to fetter their awareness and thus deprive them
of the ability to be the architects of their own destiny. Individuals can either
be part of the problem or part of the solution.

Hence, if we want to judge Nyerere fairly, we must identify his proper place
in the struggle for the liberation of the African people to achieve liberty,
dignity and prosperity.

We must, therefore, ask the question: Was Nyerere part of the problem or
part of the solution? In order to answer this question, we must enter into
dialogue with Nyerere. Unfortunately for many critics, like one Dr George
B.N. Ayiteh, a Ghanaian Associate Professor of Economics at American
University, Washington DC, and Ludovick Shirama, a Tanzanian and
Research Assistant at the Free Africa Foundation, Washington D.C., history
is interpreted without relying on the facts which provide for its basis.

To them, the Nyereres and the Kwame Nkrumahs constituted the problem of
Africa and were not part of the solution. They do not society in its process of
change and development, but see reality as fixed concepts which lack
contextual framework. Consequently, they could easily pass judgement after
assuming the posture of prosecutor, judge and jury.

It is, therefore, important to revisit African history and put the facts in
their proper context. In order to do that, we must also contextualise the
history of the world. Those who focus on Africa without focusing on the world
outside of Africa at each given historical period can neither understand
Africa nor the world.

It is very important to bear in mind that liberation has been a process. It
started with a process of identity formation with many Pan African
Congresses being held. The Fifth Pan African Congress of 1945 laid the
basis for the national liberation struggle which culminated in the attainment
of political independence of most African countries in the 1960s.

While the African peoples were struggling for independence, the colonialists
were struggling to impose their domination. They imposed monarchies on the
African people and were ready to go to war to maintain their domination. It
stands to reason that the will of the people could not be the determinant of
African Governments under colonialism. Colonialism was a fetter to
democracy and progress. Hence, the establishment of democratic states
was inconceivable as long as colonialism existed. Hence, those who were
the architects of African independence achieved the first stage of the
liberation of the African people, that is, liberation from colonial domination.

Once liberation was achieved, the African governments were confronted with
the task of economic emancipation and the establishment of governments
which will give authority to the people and ensure that authority derived from
the people is utilised to achieve their aims and aspirations.

The problem which these early liberators faced should be fully understood
before they could be properly judged. Take the two people we mentioned,
who claim that stadia, streets and all sorts of monuments were erected in
the name of the Nyereres and the Kwame Nkrumahs. Yet they are writing
their analysis from Washington D.C. forgetting that monuments, capitals,
streets of all sorts are named after the Watons, the Thomas Jeffersons.
They, who may be students of American government, could have read about
concepts like Jeffersonian Democracy yet history teaches us that George
Washington was opposed to the establishment of many parties in the United
States and refused to continue leading when it was clear that a multiparty
system was emerging.

Suffice it to say, he was never directly elected by the people, but was
elected by an Electoral College for two terms, yet he is considered the father
of the American nation and his memory is celebrated everywhere in the
United States.

Needless to say, George Washington owned slaves. The same thing with
Thomas Jefferson, who was the author of the famous Declaration of
American Independence. Kwame Nkrumah and Nyerere never owned slaves.
However, history permits us to judge George Washington and Thomas
Jefferson in a good light for having struggled for the liberation of America
according to the limit set by their time and circumstances. If we judge them
outside the bounds of their times and circumstances, we will begin to
question their greatness for he or she who transforms one's fellow human
being into a slave cannot be considered to be a defender of liberty and
humanity.

We must say at the time that the Kwame Nkrumahs and Nyereres were
fighting for independence, people in Germany were just emerging from
fascism and were trying to redefine their own identity. The Fourth Republic in
France also came into being in 1945 and in the elections for a National
Assembly women in France voted for the first time.

History teaches that De Gaulle resigned as President in January 1946
because of his disagreement with the Assembly. De Gaulle opposed the new
constitution which did not provide him with the strong executive powers he
wanted to assume. A bloody war was imposed on the Algerian people by
France and the French army which was being defeated in Algeria in 1958
rebelled and threatened to overthrow the government unless De Gaulle was
called back to power. History teaches us that de Gaulle became Prime
Minister and imposed emergency powers in France for six months. He also
gave birth to a new constitution which gave him greater powers and the
powers of parliament were reduced. In December 1958, an Electoral College
elected De Gaulle as President to a 7 year term.

When De Gaulle was imposing his absolute power on the French people by
the threats of arms, Kwame Nkrumah was organising in 1958 conferences of
independent African states in April, 1958 and all-African peoples conferences
comprising liberation movements and political parties throughout the
continent to prepare the ground for the total liberation of the African continent
from colonialism.

De Gaulle is, however, seen as a great leader by the French people.
However, our Dr George Ayiteh wants to consign the Nkrumahs and the
Nyereres to the camp of political bandits who robbed Africa of a future.

They say in their paper that it is criminally irresponsible for people to
accord the Nkrumahs and Nyereres the respect that is being given to them
by those who knew their contributions. We must assert that nothing can be
more criminally irresponsible than to give the impression that the Kwames
and the Nyereres were enemies of Africa without comparing their contribution
with those who were the original inspirers of liberation movements in other
countries or comparing them with other leaders of their times.

In order to understand the Kwame Nkrumahs, the nyereres and Lumumbas,
one must understand the type of world that existed in the late 1950s and
early 1960s.
It was a world of covert and overt actions to suppress the colonised people
from achieving liberation. It was a world of terror a world of plots a world of
sinister plans to promote the selfish interests of those who controlled the
world economy. They had disinformation at their services to be able to
manipulate the minds of the people who were struggling for liberation.


In 1958, when Kwame Nkrumah was transforming Ghana to be a bridgehead
for the total liberation of the African Continent, the Ku Klux Klan reigned in
the United States. Black people could not ride the same buses with white
people.
They could not sit in the restaurants or drink from the same water fountain.
In fact, Mrs Rosa Parks' defiance of the City's Segregation Ordinance of
Montgomery, Alabama led to a trial and conviction.

Kennedy is seen as a saint. However, he presided over a nation where the
Ku Klux Klan murdered black people with impunity. U.S. Congress served
the humiliating role of debating whether to pass legislations outlawing
discrimination on the basis of race.

In short, whilst Kennedy was the President of the United States, there were
laws which barred black people from holding certain employment in the
conduct of voter registration and access to public accommodation. Police
dogs, batons, suppression of all sorts followed the civil rights protest
movement.

The world in which Kwame and Nyerere lived when they assumed office was
a world where people in the North and South were all kept ignorant. They did
not know what democratic rights were. All of them worshipped their leaders.
Narrow nationalism was the order of the day, and each nation was trying to
impose its power on the world.

The task which confronted the Nkrumahs and Nyereres were two-fold. How to
quickly deliver economic prosperity to a marginalised people who were kept
completely ignorant under colonialism and had no sense of nationhood, but
were in fact divided into tribal groupings and were living under local
authorities who behaved like monarchs above them.

How was democracy to be brought to such a people? By declaration from
above?
Clearly, the task was a great one and required the decolonisation of minds.

Furthermore, how were they to build independent national economies when
colonialism had reduced their individual countries into cocoa producers,
groundnut producers, tea producers and importers of everything else. They
were confronted with a situation where the colonialists had not created any
avenue for the local population to become owners of capital so as to invest in
a local economy.

On the contrary, it was the colonial multinational corporations which
controlled imports and exports, mines, plantations and industrial
establishments. What could such people do to create a national economy?
This was the rationale behind nationalization ventures, be they ill-fated or not.
If one studies the economies of Taiwan, of Singapore, one would see that the
state intervened in all these countries because of the lack of wealthy
capitalists who would take control of the productive enterprises of their
economies.

Our Dr George Ayiteh talks about economic failures. It seems that he has
not read Nkrumah who declared from the very beginning that all African
governments were going to fail if they failed to build a union of African states.
He told them that all their economies were controlled by multinational
corporations which controlled mines, factories, communication networks, all
the institutions which make a nation economically viable, and that individual
economies would not be able to compete with these multinational
corporations.
They would invest where they want to invest and deprive countries which they
want to deprive. No wonder foreign direct investment of 90 billion dollars in
1997 which went to developing countries, only 2 million went to Africa.

Hence, what has happened in Tanzania constituted mere coping strategies
in the face of economic domination by the former colonial masters.

So-called intellectuals like Dr George Ayiteh have the responsibility of
examining this net in which Africa finds itself and come up with ideas which
can facilitate the liberation of the African continent rather than engage in
this empty quackery which those who controlled us yesterday still occupy
us with, thus depriving us of being the architects of our own destiny.

Kwame Nkrumah had indicated that the economic Commission for Africa
should have been the depository of research findings and should have been
the embodiment of theest intellectual standard that could be produced on the
African Continent that it could have mobilised African intellectuals who
would be able to continuously provide knowledge and guidance for the
development of the African Continent.

The circumstances which surrounded these people limited their own
contributions not because they did not have the heart and the vision to
contribute every ounce of their strength for the liberation of the African
Continent. We, therefore, recognise the honourable aspirations and our heart
cries with them that they have gone to their graves without seeing them
fulfilled.

However, as Lumumba said, the history of Africa must be re-written. We can
assure them that a new generation is emerging which will never be found
guilty of not empowering the people a new generation which will eradicate the
conception that the people need political messiahs in order to attain
liberation a new generation which will teach the people that they are
their own saviours that the role of leaders is to provide them with
knowledge, clarity so that they will know where they are going and how to
get there a generation which will not only be satisfied in establishing
systems where people will determine their manner of government, but will
also give them power to participate in the administrative life of their societies
by forming village committees which will take part in planning projects,
developments of all sorts, as well as monitor the finances, the resources, the
tendering and the implementation of those very projects on their behalf.

We will come back to this very analysis of the economic strategy that
Kwame Nkrumah had which was foiled in another analysis.

For the purpose of paying our respect to Nyerere, it is important to do what
we said should be done, that is, to engage in a dialogue with him.


ON LEADERSHIP

Let me emphasize that this leadership I am now talking about does not
imply control, any more than it implies bullying or intimidating people. A
good leader will explain, teach, and inspire. In an ujamaa village he will do
more he will lead by doing. He is in front of the people, showing them
what can be done, guiding them, and encouraging them. But he is with them.
You do not lead people by being so far in front or so theoretical in your
teaching that the people cannot see what you are doing or saying. You do
not lead people by yapping at their heels like a dog herding cattle. You can
lead the people only by being one of them, by just being more active as well
as more thoughtful, and more willing to teach as well as more willing to learn
from them and others.

This is what Nyerere said on 1 January 1968 at a seminar organised by
university students. Now, may we ask: Can this be the words of a tyrant?


NYERERE ON FREEDOM

And equally, it is impossible for one people to free another people, or
even to defend the freedom of another people. Freedom won for a people by
outsiders is lost to those outsiders, however good their intentions, or
however much the outsiders had desired to free their oppressed brothers.
That is the nature of freedom it has to be won, and protected, by those who
desire it.

Of course others can help a people who are struggling for freedom
they can give refuge, facilities for action, and they can give moral and
diplomatic support to an oppressed people. But no group or nation - however
powerful - can make another group or another nation free. The struggle must
be waged by those who expect to benefit from it. If the persecuted and the
oppressed have really been denied their human rights, and if there really is
no peaceful means of progress available to them, then they have the right to
demand of the rest of us that we should support their struggle - and not join
their oppressors on the grounds of maintaining peace. But we cannot replace
their struggle, and we should not try. For if we do so we are not trying to
free our brother we are simply trying to replace one oppression by a
different one. It may be less harsh, it may take different forms but it
will not mean freedom for those who now lack it.

Now, may we ask: Can someone who wanted to be a megalomaniac utter
such statements.


NYERERE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

There is a continuing need for an extension of human rights throughout
the world that surely is incontrovertible. We cannot rest where we are
because some of us are comfortable or content. Those of us who are free to
develop ourselves and our nation have no right to demand that the
oppressed, the victims of discrimination, the starving, and the persecuted,
should acquiesce in their present condition. If we do make such a demand
we are ourselves becoming their prosecutors and their oppressors. The
peace which exists while such human conditions prevail is neither secure nor
justifiable.
We have no right to be patient with the wrongs suffered by others.

Yet peace is of vital importance to us all social change and the
improvement of the human condition must, therefore be made possible by
other means - means which do not involve killing and destruction. For we do
have a right to demand of our fellow human beings that they should secure
change by peaceful means if these are open to them. We do have a right to
demand that those who seek change should use every opportunity which
exists for peaceful change, even if this appears to mean the slower progress
of adapting the society in which they live rather than the excitement of pulling
it down upon the bodies of all - including themselves. We musist upon this.
But if every avenue of peaceful change has been closed if people are made
outcasts in their own society, and denied any possibility of securing change
through participation - do we then have any right to demand our peace at the
price of their slavery?

Surely peace under such circumstances is neither to be expected, nor to
be justified?

This recognition of the ultimate paramountcy of human rights if not a
justification for national interventionism, nor a call for some people to
attempt to free other peoples. No nation has the right to make decisions for
another nation no people for another people. Some of us, like Tanzania,
may fervently believe in a socialist organisation of our society as being both
morally right and economically practicable. Others may believe equally
fervently in capitalism, or in Communism. But none of us could or should,
assume that what we have decided to be right for ourselves must
automatically be right for others. For the truth is that it is what ale want for
themselves at a particular time which is right for them no one else is
justified in trying to impose a different way of life.


NYERERE ON JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF GOVERNMENTS

Yet I wonder if there is any country in the world where it can be truly
said that no citizen is ever humiliated by the agents of this government, and
no injustice is ever perpetrated against the people? I certainly could not
make such a claim for Tanzania. In fact, I believe that all of us, everywhere,
have to wage a constant struggle to support the supremacy of the people.
We have to be constantly vigilant to ensure that the people are not used by
the individuals to whom they have entrusted power, and are neither stifled by
bureaucracy and inefficiency, nor misled by their own ignorance.


NYERERE ON PEOPLE-CENTRED DEVELOPMENT

.... a man (woman) is developing himself (herself) when he (she) grows,
or earns, enough to provide decent conditions for himself (herself) and his
(her) family he (she) is not being developed if someone gives him (her)
these things. A man (woman) is developing himself (herself) when he (she)
improves his (her) education - whatever he (she) learns about he (she) is
not being developed if he (she) simply carries out orders from someone
better educated than himself (herself) without understanding why those
orders ha been given. A man (woman) develops himself (herself) by joining in
free discussion of a new venture, and participating in the subsequent
decision he (she) is not being developed if he (she) is herded like an animal
into the new venture. Development of a man (woman) can, in fact, only be
effected by that man (woman), development of the people can only be
effected by the people.


NYERERE ON THE ESSENCE OF LIBERATION

For what do we mean when we talk of freedom/ First, there is national
freedom that is, the ability of the citizens of Tanzania to determine
their own future, and to govern themselves without interference from
non-Tanzanians. Second, there is freedom from hunger, disease, poverty.
And third, there is personal freedom for the individual that is, his (her)
right to live in dignity and equality with all other, his (her) right to
freedom of speech, freedom to participate in the making of all decisions
which affect his (her) life, and freedom from arbitrary arrest because he (she)
happens to annoy someone in authority - and so on. All these things are
aspects of freedom, and the citizens of Tanzania cannot be said to be truly
free until all of them are assured.


NYERERE ON DEMOCRACY

There are, however, two essential elements of democracy without which it
cannot work. First, is that everyone must be allowed to speak freely, and
everyone must be listened to. It does not matter how unpopular a man's
(woman) ideas, or how mistaken the majority think him (her). It does not
make any difference whether he (she) is liked or disliked for his (her)
personal qualities. Every Tanzanian, every member of a community, every
member of a district council, every member of parliament, and so on, must
have the freedom to speak wi fear of intimidation - either inside or outside the
meeting place. The majority in any debate must have the right to speak
without fear of persecution it must be defeated in argument, not by threat of
force. The debates leading to a decision must be free debates. And even
after a decision has been made free discussion about it should be allowed to
continue.

Secondly, Nyerere also wrote: Discipline must exist in every aspect of
our lives. And it must be willingly accepted discipline. For it is an
essential part of both freedom and development. The greater freedom which
comes from working together, and achieving things by cooperation which
none of us could achieve alone, is, only possible if there is disciplined
acceptance of joint decisions....

Yet provided decisions are made after free and friendly discussion, and
by majority will, the essential discipline should be freely accepted, and
should in fact, be largely self discipline....

An ujamaa village is a voluntary association of people who decide of
their own free will to live together and work together for their common good.
They, and no one else, will decide how much of their land they will cultivate
together from the beginning, and how much they will cultivate individually.
They, and no one else will decide how to use the money they earn jointly -
whether to buy an ox-plough, install water, or do something else. They, and
no one else, will make all the decisions about their working and living
arrangements.

We can go on and on to show the honourable aspirations of the earlier
pioneers of the national liberation struggle. We now challenge Dr George
Ayiteh and Ludovick Sherima to give us examples in Africa of leaders who
have made success ofr countries. Menghistu called himself a Marxist.
Mobutu, a capitalist a capitalist, but both maintained tyranny over their
people. This shows that the classification of leaders into Marxists and
capitalists is all meaningless. Claims and practices do not necessarily
amount to the same things.

What is clear is that these two people cannot give us examples in Ghana of
people who have done more to enlighten the African people to be the
architects of their own destiny than Kwame Nkrumah. We challenge them to
prove us wrong.
Ghana served as the bridgehead for the liberation of the African continent.
Tanzania served as a bridgehead for the liberation of the peoples in Southern
Africa. This is incontrovertible and no one has done more to educate the
African people to become the architects of their own destiny in Southern
Africa than Nyerere.

The problem is that African scholars are reading the works of those who have
plagiarized what has been written by many pioneers of the national liberation
movement and who are critics of them instead of going back to the source. It
is better to remove the books produced by Kwame, Nyerere, Frantz Fanon,
Cabral and so on and so forth from the dusty shelves and read them with
sincerity and honesty.

We hope that the person who has posted the article produced by Dr Ayiteh
and Ludovick Shirama would also post them our article and tell them that we
are ready to engage in polemics. They can show their acceptance by doing a
critique of what we have just published.



HALIFA SALLAH

------- End of forwarded message -------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------