{"id":321,"date":"2018-05-27T15:53:47","date_gmt":"2018-05-27T15:53:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/governancesolutions.wordpress.com\/?p=321"},"modified":"2022-09-01T11:55:39","modified_gmt":"2022-09-01T11:55:39","slug":"understanding-africa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sunesishq.com\/notes\/understanding-africa\/","title":{"rendered":"Understanding Africa"},"content":{"rendered":"

First Posted on September 28, 2012 by Solomon Appiah<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What is Africa?<\/span><\/p>\n

Africa is the world’s second largest and second most-populous continent next to Asia in both categories. The continent is made up of 54 sovereign states and some territories. The continent is so vast that one can fit the United States, China, India, United Kingdom, Germany, France within the continent and still have plenty more room.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The map is taken from a CNN story titled, \u201c<\/span>What’s the real size of Africa? How Western states used maps to downplay size of continent<\/a><\/span><\/span>\u201d.[1]<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This continent has been subject to different competing narratives majority originating from Western media outlets and misleading in nature. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Misleading Narrative<\/span><\/p>\n

In the May 13, 2000 print edition of The Economist Magazine, the cover page had a map of Africa superimposed on a black background with the title \u201c<\/span>The Hopeless continent<\/a><\/span><\/u>\u201d. In a May 11, 2000 article entitled \u201c<\/span>Hopeless Africa<\/a><\/span><\/u>\u201d, the Economist explained why Africa is hopeless. It alleged\u00a0that for reasons <\/span>buried in African cultures<\/span><\/strong>, Africans seem\u00a0especially prone to brutality, despotism and corruption<\/strong>\u00a0(The Economist, 2000). In the Economist article dated May 11, 2000 and\u00a0titled \u2018<\/span>The heart of the matter<\/span>\u2019, the magazine explains that \u201c<\/span>Africa\u2019s biggest problems stem from its present leaders. But they were created by <\/u>African society and history<\/strong><\/span>\u201d. The article succumbed to stereotyping 54 counties as if they were one country with a collective history. Fast-forward to 2018, it would seem the continent has proved The Economist wrong. More on that in the last section of this article. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Why Africa Is the Way It Is<\/span><\/p>\n

To rightly and justly evaluate Africa, one has to consider not only what they see, i.e. the EFFECT or symptoms but also the CAUSE(s). To understand this continent, one must consider its internal governmental systems and how they influence the governance of this continent and also the external global governance systems and how they impact on the continent and its internal happenings. External factors that have\u00a0contributed\u00a0to the current political, economic and cultural landscape of Africa\u00a0can be subdivided into historical and current.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The succeeding sessions of this piece attempts to tease out some reasons why the continent is in the shape it is in currently. Then the concluding section will focus on how blessed Africa is and the current opportunities within the continent. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Before I proceed, here\u2019s a disclaimer: This piece is by no means an attempt to justify poor governance or corruption by Africans and their leaders. The author admits that quite a number of African countries suffer from corruption and poor governance and these challenges need to be confronted head-on by African themselves. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Consequences of the European Scramble<\/span><\/p>\n

A <\/span>2011 study<\/span><\/u><\/a> by Stelios Michalopoulos and Elias Papaioannou\u00a0revealed that:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>ivil war intensity is much higher in the historical homeland of ethnic groups that have been partitioned\u00a0by national borders<\/span>\u201d. The study adds that, \u201cregional development is significantly lower in areas of ethnic groups that have been affected by the arti\ufb01cial border\u00a0design\u201d<\/span>. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In the 1800s, European powers carved up Africa thereby creating artificial borders. This is what is known as\u00a0<\/span>the scramble<\/a><\/span><\/u>\u00a0for Africa. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The “Scramble for Africa” is the invasion, occupation, colonization and annexation of African territory by European powers during the period of New Imperialism, between 1881 and 1914. It is also called the Partition of Africa and the Conquest of Africa <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Research proves that Africa\u2019s present condition is in part a consequence of overt and covert actions of European powers such as Great Britain, France, Portugal, Germany and Belgium. These nations annexed sovereign Africa\u00a0states (LAND),\u00a0depleted them of much needed human resource (LABOUR) through the slave trade, partitioned the continent amongst themselves through colonization, and took over their natural resources (CAPITAL) and used it\u00a0 as inputs for their industrialization. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Land, Labour and Capital are the traditional factors of production. These nations developed by impoverishing others. Such actions have consequences. The following section summarizes what happened during the European expansion within Africa and other areas. The next section explains what transpired during the European expansion and how this affected Africa. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

European Expansion Since 1763<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The global expansion of Western Europe between the 1760s and the 1870s differed in several important ways from the expansionism and colonialism of previous centuries\u2026Instead of being primarily buyers of colonial products (and frequently under strain to offer sufficient salable goods to balance the exchange), as in the past, the industrializing nations increasingly became sellers in search of markets for the growing volume of their machine-produced goods\u2026Before the impact of the Industrial<\/strong> Revolution, European activities in the rest of the world were largely confined to: <\/span><\/p>\n

(1) occupying areas that supplied precious metals, slaves, and tropical products then in large demand<\/span><\/p>\n

(2) establishing white-settler colonies along the coast of North America<\/span><\/p>\n

(3) setting up trading posts and forts and applying superior military strength to achieve the transfer to European merchants of as much existing world trade as was feasible. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The adaptation of the non-industrialized<\/strong> parts of the world to become more profitable adjuncts of the industrializing nations embraced, among other things: <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

(1) overhaul of existing land and property arrangements, including the introduction of private property in lands where it did not previously exist, as well as the expropriation of land for use by white settlers or for plantation agriculture<\/span><\/p>\n

(2) creation of a labour supply for commercial agriculture and mining by means of direct forced labour and indirect measures aimed at generating a body of wage-seeking labourers<\/span><\/p>\n

(3) spread of the use of money and exchange of commodities by imposing money payments for taxes and land rent and by inducing a decline of home industry; and <\/span><\/p>\n

(4) where the precolonial society already had a developed industry, curtailment of production and exports by native producers.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The classic illustration of this last policy is found in India. For centuries India had been an exporter of cotton goods, to such an extent that Great Britain for a long period imposed stiff tariff duties to protect its domestic manufacturers from Indian competition. Yet, by the middle of the 19th century, India was receiving one-fourth of all British exports of cotton piece goods and had lost its own export markets.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The changing nature of the relations between centres of empire and their colonies, under the impact of the unfolding Industrial Revolution, was also reflected in new trends in colonial acquisitions. While in preceding centuries colonies, trading posts, and settlements were in the main, except for South America, located along the coastline or on smaller islands<\/strong>, the expansions of the late 18th century and especially of the 19th century were distinguished by the spread of the colonizing powers, or of their emigrants, into the interior of continents<\/strong>. Such continental extensions, in general, took one of two forms, or some combination of the two: <\/span><\/p>\n

(1) the removal of the indigenous peoples by killing them off or forcing them into specially reserved areas, thus providing room for settlers from western Europe who then developed the agriculture and industry of these lands under the social system imported from the mother countries, or <\/span><\/p>\n

(2) the conquest of the indigenous peoples and the transformation of their existing societies to suit the changing needs of the more powerful militarily and technically advanced nations.<\/span>[2]<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

There is no way the abovementioned activities will not leave a scar on the victims. Manifestations of these scars include the many conflicts that Africa of yesteryears faced.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Time Factor<\/span><\/p>\n

The first sub-Saharan African country to gain independence from colonialism is Ghana. It attained Independence in 1957. Ghana is therefore 61 years old. The last country to be rid of the vestiges of colonialism on the African continent is South Africa which wrested freedom from the shackles of Apartheid in 1994 i.e. only 24 years ago. African countries have only been free to rule themselves for 24 \u2013 61 years. Prior to this time, they were subjugated by foreign powers. Compare Ghana the oldest independent sub-Saharan nation with for example the USA. The USA gained independence from Great Britain in 1783 i.e. 235 years ago. The USA has had centuries head start\u2014in building stable state institutions and solidifying its democracy. <\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

It would be thus unfair for anyone to expect Ghana or South Africa to be on the same plane as the USA when it comes to democratic governance or national development. Building solid government, governance and leadership systems takes time and this time can be extended even more when external powers keep interfering in the governance of African countries.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Foreign Interferences<\/span><\/p>\n

Foreign interferences in the governance of African nations in the form of coup d\u2019\u00e9tats\u00a0impede development. A coup d\u2019\u00e9tat\u00a0is\u00a0a strike against the state usually\u00a0entailing\u00a0military intervention. For decades Western powers have been orchestrating coup d\u2019\u00e9tats in many countries in \u00a0Africa and around the world. Let\u2019s first consider one carried out outside Africa and then the first carried out in sub-Saharan Africa.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

1953 Iran Coup d\u2019\u00e9tat<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The 1953 Iranian coup d’\u00e9tat, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup d’\u00e9tat was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name “Operation Boot”) and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project or “Operation Ajax”).[3]<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Mossadegh had sought to audit the documents of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now part of BP) and to limit the company’s control over Iranian petroleum reserves. Upon the refusal of the AIOC to co-operate with the Iranian government, the parliament (Majlis) voted to nationalize Iran’s oil industry and to expel foreign corporate representatives from the country. After this vote, Britain instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Iran economically. Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the British-built Abadan oil refinery, then the world’s largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott[14] while using Iranian agents to undermine Mosaddegh’s government. Winston Churchill and the Eisenhower administration<\/u> decided to overthrow Iran’s government, though the predecessor Truman administration<\/u> had opposed a coup, fearing the precedent that CIA involvement would set. Classified documents show that British intelligence officials played a pivotal role in initiating and planning the coup, and that the AIOC contributed $25,000 towards the expense of bribing officials. In August 2013, 60 years after, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) admitted that it was in charge of both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda. The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out “under CIA direction” and “as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government”.[4]<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

1966 Ghana Coup d\u2019\u00e9tat\u00a0 <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

According \u00a0to <\/span>declassified National Security Council (NSC) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) documents<\/a><\/span><\/u>,\u00a0the first successful coup d\u2019\u00e9tat\u00a0in Ghana in 1966 was CIA assisted and sanctioned by the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson (Lee, 2001;\u00a0 Gebe, 2008;\u00a0 David & Majeski, 2009, p.46-47).<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The coup d\u2019\u00e9tats\u00a0took place on February 24 1966 and by March 4 1966, the coup makers received the international recognition from America\u00a0and the UK. The new unconstitutional government overturned the policies of the ousted government which\u00a0included\u00a0free education and\u00a0healthcare\u00a0in favor of pro-western policies. <\/span><\/p>\n

Initially the Coup makers i.e. the new government were renounced by some African leaders when they went to their first OAU meeting but having received the blessing of the U.S. and Britain, they soon had to be accepted by the OAU.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This precedence of\u00a0unconstitutionally\u00a0overthrowing\u00a0a government with the blessing of strong allies in the West set a bad precedence for the fledgling African democracies.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Still on foreign interferences and the impact on African countries, Charles Taylor, the former President of Liberia\u00a0was instrumental in destabilizing\u00a0his nation and other nations like Sierra Leone through civil wars. The wars brought to the fore\u00a0the selling of what we now call blood diamonds. At his trial, <\/span>he confessed working with the CIA<\/a><\/span><\/u> who initially denied the allegations. Later\u00a0<\/span>the Pentagon\u00a0admitted\u00a0<\/a><\/span><\/u>that this was true but refused to mention the details of the association with Mr. Taylor.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Foreign interferences by way of coup d\u2019\u00e9tats sponsored by the West have played a crucial role in\u00a0retrogressing development in Sub-Saharan Africa.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Corruption<\/span><\/p>\n

Are African politicasters corrupt? Yes! But is this the kind of corruption that is impeding development? Nope.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Honest Accounts Report<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

In a report \u201c<\/span>Honest Accounts? The true story of Africa\u2019s billion-dollar losses<\/a><\/span><\/span>\u201d, published by Health Poverty Action and co-authored by a range of other civil society organizations, the inflows to and outflows from Africa are contrasted. The continent records an annual net loss of US$ 58.2 billion mostly flowing into the pockets of Western governments or transnational corporations, according to the report. Overseas Developing Aid (ODA) coming into the continent is about US$30 billion but the continent loses annually US$192 billion. Africa is thus a net creditor to the world. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In financial terms, the report illustrates the loss to Africa as follows:[5]<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n