By Jimmy Henry Nzally
Colonialism and nationalist movements
The colonial powers put different administrative systems in place to establish firm control over the local populations. Notably, Great Britain ran a system of administration called the indirect rule system (Reid, 2012). This colonial system worked closely with local institutions, also known as native administration (heads of villages, chiefs, etc.), to secure British interests at all costs: it was a “system under which an imperial power makes use of the indigenous political institutions for a conquered territory for its administration” (Afigbo, 2005: 271). On the other hand, France’s system of colonialism was called as- simulation or direct rule (Betts, 2005). This system viewed territories colonised by the French as an extension of France and Africans as their “subjects”. The French proclaimed that Africans needed to be “civilised” through assimilation into the French culture (Maina, Wycliffe and Makong’o, 2004). These two colonial systems led to “the establishment of a federal type of relationship between [the African system] and the European system, to the destruction of African political systems and to the extension of the European political system over the corresponding society” (Young, 2003: 8). It is therefore clear that both of these imperialist systems imposed on the African continent brought about absolute dominance. Implementing Almond and Verba’s framework, this means that this led to Africans becoming “parochial” in the colonial system in place, whereby the people had very little or no say in the political lives of their own country. In essence, the imposed colonial system dictated their everyday lives and the public was detached from political life. The system was based on slavery and resource exploitation, and it thus instituted enforced rulership. This subjugation instilled a political culture of resistance, which was imbued with a great sense of African national pride or “Africanness”. This rise of nationalism shifted the African political discourse from one in which Africans were mere “subjects” and “parochial” to fighting for full political participation and control. Nationalism called for political, economic, social and cultural emancipation from white rule. After the Second World War, nationalism became indeed one of the major discourses in African politics. This nationalism alluded to the consciousness of Africans (notably the elites/educated) leading to the liberation of the continent from white rule. However, it took decades before the movement for the liberation of black people on the continent took full shape. It was stimulated by the fact that people had become increasingly exploited and controlled by the European colonisers. We can attribute this phenomenon to Almond and Verba’s notion of citizen awareness (cognitive, affective and evaluative), as African elites became aware of the extent of Europeans’ exploitation of the local populations. Nationalism thus served as a mobilising tool, since it implied that people were bonded together (through religious, beliefs, sentiments, institutions, common ancestry, etc.) in nationhood to defend themselves against external occupants. This involved protests against economic activities, land occupation, imposed belief systems and other forces through the mobilisation of local efforts. The concepts of nationalist movements and Pan-Africanism dominated the political landscape across the continent. These concepts metamorphosed into forms of political movement and parties that would play a key role in Africa’s liberation struggle. These movements were led by influential groups, often with the sole aim of taking control from “external European invaders”. Notable examples, as cited by Davidson (1994), include the African National Congress of South Africa, the National Congress of British West Africa, and other movements in northern Africa. The need to fight white colonialists became the order of the day, with organised resistance and protests headed by nationalist leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah (1909–1972) of Ghana, Julius Nyerere (1922– 1999) of Tanzania, Sékou Touré (1922–1984) of Guinea Conakry and Thomas Sankara (1949–1987) of Burkina Faso to name but a few (Young, 2003). It is therefore fair to point out that nationalist movements ushered in some of the most fascinating moments in African political history. This led to the gradual independence of African states. The successes of nationalism had a swift overarching effect across the continent. Using Almond and Verba’s framework, this stage can be identified as a period of mass political participation. This political awareness in the form of full participation gave birth to Africa’s independence struggles and eventually independent African countries. The foremost example is Ghana, the first sub-Saharan African country to gain independence, in 1957, which served as a source of motivation and pride. “The first nationalist breakthrough came in Ghana, with colonial administration stunned first by the disorders in Accra in 1948, and subsequently by the striking success of Nkrumah’s Convention People’s Party in the 1951 elections” (Okoth, 2006: 8). This left colonialists with no other option than to give political freedom to Africans to run their affairs without external control. The gradual gaining of independence from colonial powers marked a huge shift in the geopolitics of the continent. It is observable that African institutions became mixed with European values and, over time, influenced by modernisation projects. The next section analyses the aftermath of European colonisation to help build a better understanding of the political culture of the continent as influenced by Europeanisation (modernisation). It also discusses the consequences, as well as the challenges facing newly independent African states, how these in turn bred politics of one-party dominance leading to autocracy (dictatorship), coups and counter-coups, and other themes in the context of examining Africa’s political culture. Postcolony African politics After the gaining of independence from Europeans/colonisers, Africans were poised to take charge of their internal affairs through established “Western” systems of government. As noted by Nugent (2004: 7), “Few historians would dispute that colonisation left a legacy which endured beyond Independence Day, and many would contend that its echoes still resonate in the twenty-first century”. The continent emerged out of the brutal history of colonisation and its aftermath by giving birth to the postcolony. As noted by Achille Mbembe in his famous book Postcolony, referring to the history between the colonised and the colonisers, “The notion ‘postcolony’ identifies specifically a given historical trajectory – that of societies recently emerging from the experience of colonisation and the violence which the colonial relationship involves” (Mbembe, 2001: 102). In a postcolony, therefore, Africans were in charge as heads of their own governance and administration, as opposed to the earlier relationship. The era of postcolonialism witnessed liberated African leaders consolidating themselves in power using anti-colonial rhetoric. This posed a huge challenge in the long term for the African states. One of the key challenges was having to deal with internal pressure, mainly from the local political opposition. On the other hand, these African leaders were confronted with external pressure from Western governments and donors. As noted by Khapoya (2013), economic dependence on the West meant that these one-party states needed to embrace democratic principles, such as respect for the rule of law, multi-party democracy and a thriving opposition environment. One of the key challenges in postcolonial African politics has been the presence of coups and conflicts. Khapoya further observes that the first 30 years of African independence resulted in “confusion and bewilderment” (Khapoya, 2013: 169). It was a period marked by insecurity, notably conflicts and wars along ethnic lines and within power factions (Arnold, 2008). Cases such as Liberia (1989–2003), Sierra Leone (1991– 2002) and more recently South Sudan (2013 to date) are good reference points. Also, after independence, African leaders argued that the West was continuing to influence and participate in internal African affairs – directly or otherwise. This view was prominent during the period of an upsurge in pro-democracy groups around the continent, especially with the introduction of the structural adjustment programme. As argued by Boafo-Arthur (1999: 60), “specific conditions in a particular country and other externalities [made] it possible for the simultaneous pursuit of structural adjustment and democracy”. It is observable that since independence, Africa’s politics has been significantly influenced by the West and its donor agencies. As an example of postcolonial pressures from the West, indicates that during the period from 1990 to 1993, more than half of the continent’s 52 states were forced to hold elections because of domestic and international pressures. The main argument was that African states needed to open up and allow political opposition. However, African states see this as a form of direct interference, imposing a “Western” form of democracy onto them. A Historical Perspective on Political Culture.
In the postcolony, Africans became subjects under independent African leadership. Going by Almond and Verba’s theory, Africans were expected to become full participants as opposed to being subjects of the recently overthrown colonial system. This did not materialise, since this was clearly a period of transition, for the countries and their people. The way in which the postcolony functioned as a transition period is summed up by the founder of the Africa Leadership Academy based in South Africa (Swaniker, 2014). In a talk in October 2014, he outlined three generations of African leadership in the postcolony. Generation one brought independence for African states during the 1950s and 1960s, generation two is known for gross human rights violations, conflicts and coups, while the final generation is known as “stabilisers”. Today’s postcolonial African political leadership contains a mixture of all three of these generations, although there are some notable examples of democratisation, as we will illustrate in the next section. The Future of Africa’s Democratisation Trajectory In the contemporary context, democratic backsliding has been noticed globally. By “democratic backsliding” we mean that “a democracy is slipping backward in terms of its democratic performance, and there are signs of rising authoritarianism” (International idea, 2021). A Guardian article (22.11.2021) citing the Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (idea) argues that: “More than one in four people live in a backsliding democracy, a proportion that rises to more than two in three with the addition of authoritarian or ‘hybrid’ regimes”. Thurau (2024) cites the latest Bertelsmann Foundation report, which underscores the fact that “there are only 63 democracies now, outnumbered by 74 autocracies”. Moreover, the Freedom House report of 2019 has indicated that to avoid a further decline globally, “Only a united front among the world’s democratic nations – and a defence of democracy as a universal right rather than the historical inheritance of a few Western societies – can roll back the world’s current authoritarian and antiliberal trends” (Freedom House, 2019: 3). The West and the US are no exception to democratic backsliding. For instance, the Guardian (22.11.2021) indicates that the US has witnessed a “visible deterioration” (notably in civil liberties and checks on government). This is the first time that the US has been included in the list of countries experiencing democratic backsliding, which was begun in 2019. The US joined seven other backsliding countries in 2020, notably Brazil, Hungary, India, the Philippines, Poland and Slovenia (International idea, 2021). As observed by carnegie “infringement of individual rights and the freedom of expression are at the core of Europe’s democratic woes”. Post-independence Africa’s transition period has been categorised as chaotic. Arguably, critical assessment of the disturbing culture of oppression, suppression and obsession with presidential incumbency. The continent has been plagued with some of the world’s most brutal dictators who have been determined to stay in power for life. The likes of Idi Amin of (Uganda, 1971– 1979), Muammar Gaddafi (Libya, 1969–2011), Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1997– 2003), Sani Abacha (Nigeria, 1993–1998) and Hissène Habré (Chad, 1982–1990), among others, were eventually forced out of power. Recent cases include Omar al-Bashir (Sudan, 1989–2019), who was forced out of power through a military coup, and José Eduardo Dos Santos from Angola (1979–2017), whose party heads decided to force him to step down. We still have presidents such as Paul Biya (Cameroon, 1982 to date) and Yoweri Museveni (Uganda, 1986 to date) in power, who are determined to stay on to death.
To be continued
