> CONFERENCE OF INTELLECTUALS
> FROM AFRICA AND THE DIASPORA
> Dakar, 6 - 9 October 2004
>
>
> The Diaspora and Africanity
> by
> Archie Mafeje
>
>
> The Diaspora and Africanity
>
> These two terms have come into greater currency recently than ever before.
> The reason is not too far to find.  Due to a continuing crisis on the
> continent over the last 20 years or so and growing Afro-pessimism
> internationally, Africans have felt called upon to reconsider their
> position
> and to assert their Africanity.  In a changing world this requires a great
> deal of rethinking and reorganisation.  Judging by the manifest responses
> of
> the Africans, the immediate problem is external imposition and otherness
> under globalisation.  Globalisation seeks to homogenise everything while
> maintaining huge structural differentials among regions and nations.  This
> gives rise to resentment and strong nationalistic feelings among those who
> are on the receiving end.  On the African continent this is evidenced by
> the
> persistent call for indigenisation of knowledge and greater political and
> economic integration that finds concrete expression in organisations such
> as
> the African Union (AU), sub-regional organisations such as ECOWAS, SADC,
> and
> high-profile initiatives such as NEPAD. Whether or not one agrees with the
> different perspectives adopted by these various organisations, the
> important
> point is that they represent a new Pan-Africanist perspective that is not
> yet fully theorised.
>
> The first question that has forced itself into the foreground is who are
> the
> Africans.  Is it a racial definition, a cultural identity, or a purely
> geographical specification?  This has given rise to all sorts of
> controversies.  There are those who like Achille Mbembe, the former
> Executive Secretary of CODESRIA, maintain that Africans are not black. The
> obvious implication here is that the term "African" has no racial
> connotations.  On the face of it, this would seem to be true because we
> have, among others, North Africans who are of Arab origin and are not
> necessarily black.  We could add to this other groups such as people of
> Indian descent who settled in Africa, especially in East Africa.  All this
> notwithstanding, what appears to be the most pervasive dividing line is
> between people of European origin, variously known as whites or settlers,
> and indigenous black Africans who are by and large sub-Saharan.  In the
> last
> so many decades after independence in Africa this division has been thrown
> into sharp relief by the bitter struggles between blacks and whites in
> southern Africa.  Expressions of solidarity from pan-Africanist
> organisations such as the OAU, the National Liberation Committee, and the
> Frontline States made the division even more stark.
>
> To make things worse, expressions of solidarity are not
> geographically-bound.  The British, the white Americans, and the Germans
> unabashedly took sides with the white settlers in southern Africa.  It is
> possible that in doing so they confirmed the view that whites in Africa
> were
> anything but African.  This view was certainly shared by the Africans in
> the
> diaspora, mainly in the Americas.  But, as one would expect, white racism
> would inevitably draw a sympathetic reaction from those who are similarly
> affected by northern or white domination.  This would expand the canvass
> to
> the Third World in general, without invoking any Africanity.  The areas
> that
> are susceptible to Africanist sentiments are the Americas that were the
> destination of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.  This is where the
> so-called
> African diaspora is to be found and it is here that claims to Africanity
> have been strongest outside the African continent.  It is no mere
> coincidence that the black Americans insist on being recognised as
> "Afro-Americans".  The terminology might be new but the claim itself goes
> as
> far back as the middle of the 19th century when the "back to Africa"
> movement started.  However, the intellectual rationalisation of this
> aspiration did not come until the end of the century.  These appeared in
> the
> works of such well-known figures as Edward Blyden, Marcus Garvey, Jean
> Price-Mars, Aime Cesaire, George Padmore and others.  These are people who
> are credited with having started the Pan-Africanist movement.  If so,
> theirs
> was more than an expression of solidarity with continental Africans.  They
> were committed participants in the Africanist struggles against
> colonialism.
>  In other words, they were Africans in the diaspora in the strict sense.
>
> Since then things have changed and we now have a vaguer category called
> the
> African diaspora.  This has become an ontological category and not a
> historical category i.e. it refers to people of African descent,
> irrespective of who they are, of their ideological and political
> commitment,
> and their self-identification in the New World.  Such an approach is too
> mechanical and too sentimental to make it possible for us as Africans to
> know who are our allies and who are enemies, irrespective of their
> descent.
> It would be very difficult under conditions of rampant American
> imperialism
> to convince any African that black Americans such as Gondolize Rice and
> Collin Powell belong to the fold or are part of us.  Such a claim would
> defy
> any serious political and historical analysis.  A great number of blacks
> in
> the so-called African diaspora know which side their bread is buttered and
> have come to share the same condescending attitudes towards Africa   This
> should not be surprising because by and large people's consciousness is
> determined by their objective material conditions.  It was inevitable that
> some blacks would make it in the New World.  If so, what would make them
> take an interest in anything African?  This is made worse by the fact that
> Africans are universally perceived as nay-do-wells.  Indeed, Africa is at
> the bottom of the global pile and there is no indication that it is going
> to
> extricate itself from this position soon.  Instead, over the last forty
> years things have moved from bad to worse.  Over the last two decades or
> so
> this socio-economic malaise has bred amongst many what is referred to as
> "Afro-pessimism".  This is especially so among non-Africans.  Here, it is
> well to remember that peoples are judged by their performance and that in
> the usual social classifications nobody wants to be associated or
> identified
> with those who hold a low social status.  Why would the African diaspora
> be
> any different?
>
> Sociologists would argue that social identities are socially and
> culturally
> determined but could not argue that they are immutable.  In the case of
> the
> African diaspora it can be shown that physical separation and different
> historical experience could give rise to different identities or
> self-perception.  In Africa the returned slaves in Liberia, Sierra Leone,
> and the Gambia saw themselves as different from the indigenous Africans.
> This continues and, as is known, has given rise to serious political
> problems that cannot be ignored.  In the New World the African diaspora
> has
> got so differentiated, socially and culturally, that no single assumption
> can be made about them.  For that matter, the term "diaspora" cannot be
> used
> as a generic term because historically it has come to connote more than
> one
> thing.  Nor can the implicit conceptual problem be resolved by resorting
> to
> the use of analogies.  For instance, reference is often made to the role
> that the Chinese "diaspora" played in the development of Mainland China,
> Honk Hong, and Taiwan.  First of all, it is worth bearing in mind that the
> Chinese migrated to other parts of the world as economic migrants, except
> perhaps as indentured labour in South Africa after the Anglo-Boer war.
> This
> enabled them to maintain continuing ties with their original communities
> and
> lineages.  Their remittances played an important role in primary
> accumulation in their respective communities of origin and so did their
> capital investments in the countries with which they identify back in
> Asia.
> Here, the organic link is not in doubt.  What is in doubt is whether or
> not
> the Chinese emigrants anywhere outside Asia could legitimately be referred
> to as a "diaspora". Who or what was responsible for their dispersion, and
> what form did it take?   The Indonesian pattern of emigration took a very
> similar form to the Chinese one.  Although it could be argued that most of
> it was a response to Dutch liberal neo-colonialism, the important point is
> that it did not amount to an involuntary dispersion.  In Holland the
> Indonesians were allowed to reconstitute themselves as a community and
> maintain strong ties with their families back home.  They were free to
> establish business networks with their family members in Indonesia, in
> Holland, and as far afield as the United States.  Of course, during the
> Cold
> War they were used to fight Surkano's communism in support of Suharto's
> Oriental-style capitalism. But did all this amount to a dispersal of the
> Indonesians or a diaspora?  While still in Asia, it is interesting to note
> that we never hear of an Indian diaspora, despite the advent of the Indian
> indentured labour in the sugar plantations in Natal and who got completely
> uprooted.  Apart from the South African case, is there an Indian diaspora
> in
> East Africa?  This is a conceptual question that we will leave to others
> or
> to those affected to answer.
>
> It is apparent by now that the term "diaspora" means more than one thing
> and
> that in some cases it is a false claim or an unjustified claim to
> solidarity
> by virtue of common descent, irrespective of intervening historical
> factors
> and acquired new identities in different countries of settlement.  For
> instance, it is obvious that the political elites in the Caribbean like to
> think of themselves as more British than African and in sexual selection
> consciously try to breed out their African physical heritage, especially
> complexion.  In America, while not unduly worried about their complexion,
> those blacks who have it made into the white establishment could not care
> two hoots about Africa or about their supposed brethren on the other side
> of
> the Atlantic.  Nevertheless, a case could be made in their favour. During
> the trans-Atlantic slavery Africans were truly dispersed.  They were
> uprooted from their communities and wrenched away from their families or
> lineages and shipped away to the Americas in their millions.  They were
> sold
> as individual chattels to the highest bidder.  There cannot be a worse
> form
> of degradation of human beings.  However, what is germane to our subject
> is
> the fact that in the New World the African slaves had no community
> existence
> and had lost all ties with their families and communities back in Africa.
> When they were freed, they had absolutely no way of reconstituting these.
> Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the only motto known to them was
> "everybody for him [her] self and God for us all".  They had been
> successfully dispersed.  The only alternative left for them, individually
> or
> collectively, was to "cast your bucket where you are".  This became the
> raison d'etre of their survival and produced different choices and
> identities that were not determined by African descent and ultimately had
> nothing to do with Africa.
>
> Therefore, the notion of the African diaspora, as is currently used, is
> sociologically and historically unsound.  It is populist/sentimental and
> evades a number of hard political questions that can be raised at this
> historical juncture, irrespective of race or colour.  It is fair to admit
> that there is black nationalism that goes beyond the borders of the
> African
> continent.  But our argument is that not all blacks in the so-called
> diaspora are allied with the Africans.  Alliances are made on political
> and
> ideological grounds.  Therefore, thinking and progressive Africans cannot
> embrace all and sundry simply because they are black or originally came
> from
> Africa.  Critical choices have to be made.  The onus rests on the members
> of
> the diaspora to stake their claim on Africa.  It is only then that we can
> hope for a dialogue between them and the continental Africans.  Otherwise,
> we run the risk of opening the door to all kinds of opportunists and
> wolves
> in sheepskins.  It is interesting that when the President of South Africa,
> Thabo Mbeki, rushed to express solidarity with Haitian on their 200th
> anniversary, his delegation was fired upon.  When Aristide fled to the
> Central African Republic, he did not know where he was and he was not
> welcome.  He was aware of this and wished that he could go back to his
> home
> region.  The Americans would have none of it. But the one who made the
> announcement was none other than Aristide's fellow-black, Collin Powell.
> Eventually, when the South African government was persuaded to grant him
> asylum, it found it expedient to hide him away from the people.  So, we do
> not know how the black community view the whole thing and what reception
> they would have given to Aristide, if things had been otherwise.  If the
> notion of a black community that stretches across the seas is taken
> seriously, then it would be emptied of its meaning, if it became a matter
> for officialdom to the exclusion of the popular masses.  Solidarity and a
> common struggle imply a popular movement, as happened in the
> Pan-Africanist
> movement earlier on.  So far, there is no evidence of such in the current
> diasporian effusions.  At the conference on Racism in Durban we saw
> glimpses
> of what we are referring to and, interestingly enough, governments
> (including the post-Apartheid South African Government) did everything
> possible to distance themselves from such diasporic manifestations of
> solidarity.  The point here is not to castigate anybody but simply to draw
> the attention of those concerned to the fact that social differentiation
> among the blacks here and abroad is making it increasingly difficult to
> think of the brethren of the "fellow-oppressed" purely on the basis of
> colour.  Critical choices are being made according to the class interests
> and political agendas of different categories of blacks in Africa and in
> the
> diaspora.  This is to be expected since social heterogeneity is true of
> all
> human populations, however defined.
>
> What seems to matter most here is how social and political choices are
> made
> and particular identities are forged or constructed.  For instance, if we
> as
> progressive African intellectuals are interested in anti-imperialist
> blacks
> in the diaspora, then let that be clear.  There is nothing strange about
> this choice because we use the same yardstick here within the continent.
> All
> that one has to do is to look at the composition of voluntary
> organisations
> formed by progressive African intellectuals in pursuit of their goal to
> liberate Africa. Foremost among these are CODESRIA, AAPS, OSSREA, and
> SAPEM.
>  This is not inconsistent with the aspirations of the founders of
> Pan-Africanism.  The founders of Pan-Africanism were progressive insofar
> as
> they were anti-colonialist and actually staked their claim on Africa.
> Nobody could have denied them that right.  In their case there was no risk
> of continental Africans finding themselves in bed with CIA agents.  Could
> we
> vouch for the same concerning the succeeding generations of Africans in
> the
> diaspora, without qualification?  This is an issue that has to be
> confronted, without sentiment or favour.
>
> It is not as if these questions have not been raised before.  The issue
> that
> has come to the fore most forcefully in recent years is Africanity.  What
> is
> it to be African?   The original formulation by Leopold Senghor was "being
> black in the world".  That was a colonial world that had been created by
> whites.  In that world black identity and self-determination were denied.
> Hence, it became a necessity that blacks free themselves.  It did not
> matter
> where they were for all had nothing to lose but their chains.  They had
> had
> the same point of reference, namely, the liberation of people of African
> descent.  Here, there was unison that made it possible for writers such as
> Senghor and Nkrumah to think in ontological terms such as "negritude" or
> "African personality".  That is all gone now.  Since the abolition of
> slavery and decolonisation in general blacks have got highly
> differentiated
> socially and economically. For instance, as was indicated earlier, blacks
> in
> the New World regard themselves as a little cut above their brethren on
> the
> continent.  Within the continent the division between the oppressors and
> the
> oppressed has grown greater over the last 40 years or so.  Therefore,
> being
> black does not automatically unify them.  There are other over-riding
> interests that should be taken into consideration.  For instance,
> political
> relations among states in Africa and between the ruling elites in the
> diaspora and their continental counterparts are of very little relevance
> to
> the ordinary black people on both sides of the Atlantic.  Therefore, when
> the African elites talk of the diaspora that should be treated with a
> certain amount of scepticism.  Why would they remember black people out
> there across the Atlantic while they have forgotten about those who are in
> their midst here on the African soil?  In the NEPAD document there is
> absolutely no reference to African people but only to African states in
> "partnership" with European states and Canada?  What does this signify?
>
> This means that new class alliances are being made under the banner of the
> new neo-liberalism.  This in itself does not imply the defeat of African
> nationalism.  There is a new and growing sense of Pan-Africanism among
> modern Africans.  The formation of organisations such as the AU, the
> African
> Parliament, and the drive towards regional integration are symptomatic of
> this felt need.  What is not yet clear is which forces are going to be
> determinant in this reconstruction.  African governments are by and large
> undemocratic, if not out-rightly reactionary, and have so far universally
> failed to resolve the National Question.  Owing to this, they are inclined
> to look for alliances from outside.  Yet, the forces of globalisation or
> the
> new imperialism throws them back to their own.  There must be a reason why
> a
> leader like President Thabo Mbeki would find it necessary to write, "I am
> an
> African".  In saying so what constituency was he appealing to?  It is
> obvious that the African revolution or liberation remains unfinished and
> nobody is going to fulfil this historical role, except the Africans
> themselves.  However, they need not do this in isolation.  But what has
> emerged very strongly since the lost decade of the 1980s and the ensuing
> democratisation pressures since the beginning of the 1990s is that charity
> begins at home.
>
> If the above has not yet dawned on the African leaders, leading African
> intellectuals are acutely aware of it.  This has taken several forms. One
> is
> the insistence on Afrocentric forms of knowledge, instead of the usual
> extraverted forms of knowledge. Look at this way, Afrocentrism is nothing
> more than a legitimate demand that African scholars study their societies
> from inside and cease to be purveyors of an alienated intellectual
> discourse.  The underlying conviction here is that this is the only way
> authentic representations can be made on the continent. Indeed, it is only
> logical to suppose that when Africans speak for themselves and about
> themselves, the world will hear the authentic voice and will be forced to
> come to terms with it in the long-run.  In one of his publications Kwesi
> Prah has argued that if we are adequately Afrocentric, the international
> implications will not be lost to those who are genuinely interested.  This
> could apply to the African diaspora as well.  To drive home his point, he
> invoked Mao Tsedong's words of wisdom regarding internationalism: "If what
> we say and do has relevance for our humanity, its international relevance
> is
> guaranteed". This does not by any means rule out international solidarity.
> It simply re-iterates the same basic principle that charity begins at
> home.
> We have seen unapologetic expressions of this in works such as "Our
> Continent, Our Future"  (1999).  Of course, emphatic representations take
> place at different levels.  For instance, there are those who put an
> emphasis on African culture, arguing that culture is the rock-bed of any
> development on the continent.  This goes against the suppositions of
> globalisation advocates who believe that development could lead to only
> terminal i.e. western cultural patterns and values.  This is usually based
> on superficial indices such as adoption of western consumption patterns
> e.g.
> a flare for jeans and revealing clothes, junk food, night clubs, and
> public
> sexuality. In reality this is a passing phase exhibited by the youth who,
> as
> they grow older, revert to traditional values such as husbands not wanting
> their wives or daughters to behave like westerners; or their sons to
> forsake
> patriarchal values.  After so many years of colonial indoctrination this
> is
> observable everywhere in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.  This argument
> is not meant to condone conservatism or traditionalism but to underscore
> the
> fact that other cultures have withstood colonial brainwashing and imperial
> processes of homogenisation.  As such, they offer the best natural point
> of
> resistance against a monocentric world order. Let it be noted here that
> this
> is not an abstracted notion because it is the people who make culture and
> not the intellectuals or politicians.  In other words, they are the
> custodians of national culture.  Intellectuals and politicians can only
> learn from them in order to resolve the National Question successfully.
>
> Since the onslaught of globalisation there has been a great deal of talk
> about a dialogue between cultures.  Up to the time of the Fall of
> Constantinople in the 15th century there had always been a dialogue among
> different cultures, as is witnessed by the rise of the western
> civilisation.
>  What effectively put an end to these open-ended exchanges was western
> imperialism for it sought to reproduce the whole world in its own image.
> Let the westerners deny this and then explain what colonial imposition was
> about.  The issue was not simply capitalism since the civilisations that
> were being over-run could have developed their own capitalism, especially
> in
> Asia.  Global domination, politically, economically, culturally, and
> intellectually, was the major objective.  This continues to be the case in
> practice but it is couched in different terms such as the "New World
> Order"
> after the fall of the Berlin Wall, "globalisation" after the
> universalisation of the "Structural Adjustment " policies by the IMF and
> the
> World Bank, and "free trade" after the foistering of the World Trade
> Organisation on Third World countries by the developed countries.  The
> most
> pernicious of these is "defence of democracy and our values", which is a
> justification for the new American militarism that recognises no national
> boundaries or sovereignty of different nations.  It transpires, therefore,
> that "globalisation" is not a self-imposing world phenomenon that is
> driven
> by blind forces.
>
> The corollary of this is that, if globalisation is a one-sided affair that
> is favoured by those nations that seek to establish a monocentric world
> system, then we should expect resistance from those who are on the
> receiving
> end.  Everywhere, there is evidence of this.  We have already referred to
> the new Pan-Africanism in Africa, the insistence on Afrocentric
> intellectual
> perspectives, and on home-grown solutions.  Regional integration has
> emerged
> as one of the most important building blocks in the effort to withstand
> critical external forces such as globalisation or vertical integration.
> Implicit in this trajectory is a pan-African nationalism that does not see
> individual nations as a point of departure as well as of return.
> Collective
> representations are beginning to be perceived as pivotal in the struggle
> against the unilateralism or monocentrism of the West.  In theory nobody
> disagrees, as is shown by the various declarations of the AU.  But as far
> as
> strategy and orientation are concerned, certain differences are
> discernable
> among African leaders. These are reminiscent of the division between the
> Monrovia Group and the Casablanca Group in the early 1960s.  This was
> apparent in the AU meeting in Durban.  Particularly, divisive was the idea
> of a "Peer Review Group" that was going to be mandated to pronounce on
> matters of "democracy and good governance" on the continent.  For their
> own
> reasons the Western powers strongly endorsed this principle with the hope
> that they would influence the selection of the members of the "Peer Review
> Group".  This was not a vain hope since it was their confidence in the
> latter that would guarantee any funding from them for NEPAD.  They were so
> blatant in their desire that they were outraged when it seemed that due to
> internal pressures the so-called pariah states such as Libya and others
> would be included in the "Peer Review Group".  Of course, things have
> changed dramatically after the capitulation by Libya in the wake of the
> invasion of Iraq by the Americans.  There is no doubt that we all cherish
> genuine democracy.  But the issue is: who is to say?  African peoples who
> are fighting their own petty dictators at home had no say in the
> proceedings
> neither in Addis Ababa nor in Durban.  In the circumstances why should
> anybody believe in any talk about "democracy" and "good governance" by the
> AU/NEPAD and their western mentors?
>
> In the years leading up to the formation of the OAU in 1963 the battle
> lines
> were drawn between radical nationalists and those who believed in the
> empire
> and aspired to being junior partners under the new dispensation.  It is
> interesting that those from the African diaspora, most eminent amongst
> them
> Franz Fanon and George Padmore, identified with the radical nationalists.
> Would the same be expected under the present conditions?  That would
> probably be an illusion.  Notwithstanding the fact that   nobody came out
> unscathed from neo-colonialism, what is most relevant at this historical
> juncture is that the radical nationalists lost out in the battle and could
> not deliver.  In defence of their beleaguered regimes they degenerated
> into
> petty dictators.  Here, one is thinking of great African leaders such as
> Kwame Nkrumah, Sekou Toure, Modiba Keita, Abdel Gamal Nasser, and even
> Julius Nyerere, according to some accounts.  It would be a folly to blame
> history on individuals.  What we are faced with here is a situation
> wherein
> African philosopher kings were turned into defensive petty dictators.
> Under
> neo-colonialism the advocates of what was called "African socialism" were
> greeted with great hostility from the West for obvious reasons.
> Inevitably,
> their political enterprise failed, despite the support some received from
> the Soviet Union.  The socialist rhetoric and association with the
> Communist
> Bloc appealed to the worst prejudices of the West, including the
> brainwashed
> African diaspora in the West.  The failures of the "African socialists"
> were
> explained purely in ideological terms.  The fact that so many neo-colonial
> states also failed dismally in the last 40 years did nothing to show that
> Africans were probably all in the same boat.  The question then is: would
> Afrocentric development help to change the situation and to correct
> mistakes
> of the past?
>
> Radical African scholars are convinced that another development is
> possible
> in Africa.  A group of them held a symposium in Bamako on exactly that
> topic
> under the auspices of ENDA and the Third World Forum (Africa region).  The
> right questions were raised but strangely enough were never followed
> through, as far as I am aware.  Consequently, as of now no clear
> conceptual
> framework has emerged that indicates what would be the modalities of this
> possibility.  In the meantime, as is revealed by the NEPAD trajectory, it
> is
> without doubt that the African neo-liberals in alliance with their western
> counterparts are on the offensive.  Worst still, it is apparent that
> development, as is presently conceived, is going to the business of a club
> of self-appointed states, most of which are patently undemocratic.  Unlike
> the Lagos Plan of Action that involved all sections of society
> (particularly
> the intellectuals) and gave every indication that its proposed development
> strategy was going to be people-centred, NEPAD is divorced from the people
> and its leaders are more concerned about pleasing the donor countries than
> their local constituencies.  Be it remembered that the Lagos Plan of
> Action
> was vetoed by the Americans (cf the Berg Report, 1981) precisely because
> it
> espoused African economic nationalism.  Some of the African intellectuals
> who attended the Bamako workshop on "Another Development is Possible in
> Africa" were part of this move.
>
> Now that the African renaissance is in vogue, it may be opportune to
> revisit
> some of these issues. Primary among these is the question of autonomous
> economic development.  Of necessity, this requires regional integration
> since individual African countries are too weak to go it alone.  One dares
> not say too poor because more value goes out of Africa than comes in,
> despite the vaunted foreign aid.  This is an economic syndrome that
> African
> leaders would rather not talk about because they themselves are deeply
> implicated.  They plunder national revenues and salt them away into
> foreign
> banks.  Yet, under any economic nationalism their primary responsibility
> would have been retention of domestic income, instead of going begging for
> foreign aid that never comes in sufficient amounts to make any difference.
> Economic nationalism would presuppose that any help from outside is
> supplementary rather than determinant.  It is true that African countries
> are not equally endowed and so are the members of the EU.  But the latter,
> having decided on their own brand of economic nationalism so as to
> withstand
> critical pressures from the Americans and the Asians, were willing to pay
> the necessary political price.  As everybody knows, it was not all
> free-sailing.  Certain sacrifices had to be made by the stronger to pull
> up
> the weaker.  The opposite is true of the African countries.  In regional
> organisations the stronger do their best to take advantage of the weaker
> and
> hence regional integration has become a receding goal.  Apart from empty
> rhetoric, African leaders have not yet said what is going to be the basis
> for their regional integration and the ideological underpinnings that
> would
> make it possible.  Unlike the founders of the OAU, they avoid this issue
> like plague and are happy to indulge in diplomatic pleasantries and
> bureaucratic manoeuvres.
>
> It is true that on the political front the issue of democracy and "good
> governance" had been raised in the context of NEPAD and not so much in the
> AU itself.  Indeed, it would have been strange for a club of mainly
> undemocratic states could have raised with any seriousness the question of
> democracy in Africa.  It is obvious that there cannot be democracy on the
> continent, without popular participation.  The movement for independence
> was
> successful precisely because it enjoyed the support of the majority of the
> people.  Likewise, it can be argued that there cannot be any political
> revival in Africa, without popular participation.  When it comes down to
> it,
> who is going to do the necessary work for development?  Surely, not the
> bureaucrats in Addis Ababa.  Renaissance implies a certain euphoria about
> something new with which the general populace identifies.  We saw glimpses
> of this when the democratisation movement was at its height at the end of
> the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s.  That will is still there, as is
> shown by the turn of events in countries such as Zambia and Kenya.  This
> has
> to be transformed into a Pan-African movement.  This is a political
> question
> and not simply a bureaucratic one.  The way in which this issue was raised
> in the context of NEPAD was thoroughly perverse.  First, it was presumed
> that the same representatives of undemocratic African states would sit in
> judgement of which states are democratic and practise "good governance"
> and
> which do not qualify.  Politically, this was extremely divisive and could
> not have forced the African leaders to face themselves and say exactly
> what
> they meant by "democracy" and "good governance".  These terms were being
> prescribed for them by the western leaders and provided grounds for
> conditionality.  How democratic is George Bush or Tony Blair?  We know
> that
> they excel in "good governance", if by that is meant technocratic and
> bureaucratic manipulation of the governed.  This is why progressive
> African
> intellectuals make a distinction between "good governance" and democratic
> governance.  "Good governance", as originally defined by the World Bank
> and
> the IMF, could be an excuse for authoritarianism and marginalisation of
> the
> demos.  We saw that happening during the Structural Adjustment era.  The
> second perversion is that, social philosophically, African leaders had not
> been given an opportunity to say what they meant by "democracy" in the
> context of their proclaimed African renaissance.  Yet, some work had been
> done on this topic by some African scholars such Claude Ake and Wamba dia
> Wamba, and some polemics raged on the pages of the Codesria Bulletin some
> years ago concerning democracy and development in Africa.  It is possible
> that African politicians regard such debates, if they are aware of them at
> all, as esoteric.  But they do not adopt the same attitude towards western
> concepts, which they accept as given as is revealed in the NEPAD document.
> Here, we are treading on treacherous ground since cultural and historical
> differences could be used as an excuse for denying certain freedoms in the
> modern era e.g. women's right to equality.  So, qualitatively what would
> distinguish the African concept of democracy from, say, the western notion
> of democracy that the authors of NEPAD have so uncritically embraced?
>
> Implicit in the debate about democracy, and "good governance" versus
> "democratic governance" are certain cultural connotations that both Claude
> Ake and Wamba dia Wamba hinted at very heavily.  While white racists,
> especially in Southern Africa, believe that universally there was no
> democracy in traditional African societies, anthropologically this is
> unfounded.  For the greater part traditional African societies worked
> through councils and general assemblies.  This is not to deny the fact
> that
> as part of that political landscape were autocratic kingdoms, which
> European
> colonisers approvingly referred to as "centralised governments" through
> which they practised what became known as Indirect Rule.  As is known,
> Indirect Rule was undemocratic and it is interesting that modern African
> "Presidents for Life" have chosen the autocratic model to justify
> establishing for themselves royal republics.  For the ordinary citizens
> these are forbidden grounds and hence the general crisis of democracy in
> Africa.
>
> If in the post-independence era ordinary citizens in Africa have been
> politically expropriated, this does not mean that they have lost their
> Africanity.  Whenever possible, this asserts itself.  For instance, we saw
> this bursting forth during the inauguration of Nelson Mandela as the
> President of the new South Africa after more than three centuries of
> suppression.  This is a measure of the resilience of indigenous cultures.
> Correctly understood, this is the people's last line of defence and an
> indelible source of their identity.  No amount of western theories about
> "westernisation",  "acculturation", or "globalisation" will change this.
> Cultures can only learn from one another and not seek to be substitutes
> for
> one another.  That is a fundamental anthropological principle for culture
> is
> what characterises the human species and at the same time is what
> distinguishes between different peoples.  Any attempt to deny this can
> only
> lead to disaster, as the naïve American monocentrists are about to find
> out.
>  During the holy month of Ramadan in the Middle East it is unthinkable
> that
> you could bring your sniffer-dogs to sniff at individuals and any
> extension
> of their persons.  For that matter, what is the difference between
> beheading
> an "infidel" and simply shooting him?  This does not mean that at any
> given
> time there is no critique of culture.  In the Middle East political Islam
> is
> an issue that is being hotly debated among Moslems of different
> persuasions.
>  Nonetheless, the point remains that culture is an inalienable right of
> the
> people and is not susceptible to appropriation even by "Presidents for
> life"
> or latter-day imperialists.  In Africa, whilst the politicians have been
> far
> from being creative, the people have been most creative in culture.  Here,
> one is referring to music, visual and plastic arts, literary works,
> theatre
> and cinema.  African artists have actually won numerous awards
> internationally and one wonders if African leaders, with a few exceptions,
> had even noticed.  From a socio-cultural point of view, these are the
> beginnings of an African renaissance.  As is known in history during
> periods
> of disillusionment or decadence artists are usually inspired to look for
> alternative meanings.  Whether or not all artists are progressive i.e.
> look
> to the future by making negations of present existence apparent, this does
> not detract from the general observation that the search for alternative
> meanings creates space for cultural action where other avenues for
> self-expression and self-realisation are denied.  This puts into question
> extraverted or abstracted discourse such as is exemplified by the NEPAD
> project.
>
> This brings us face to face with the question of what we mean by authentic
> intellectual and cultural representations on the African continent.
> Without
> answering this question, we cannot even begin to talk about the "African
> Renaissance".  This requires reflective as well as reflexive thinking, a
> séance that will throw into relief all the major problems that face the
> continent and make it possible to exorcise all the attendant evil spirits.
> Only the Africans can do this for themselves.  Authentic representations,
> political, intellectual, and cultural can only come from them.  Here, we
> are
> not talking about speculative history or ontological definitions conceived
> in another universe.  As we said before, charity begins at home.  This
> raises very sharply the question of the role of the African Diaspora in
> the
> African intellectual, political, cultural, and economic renaissance.
> Objectively-speaking and in this era of globalisation, it seems that the
> African diaspora, however defined, are not in a position to appropriate
> the
> African continent.  The most the faithful amongst them can do is to
> maintain
> the usual ties of solidarity and nothing more.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Motor: Köp & sälj din bil här http://carview.msn.se/bilsok/
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/3hSolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/networkafrica/
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>    [log in to unmask]
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~