| AFRICA'S ELITE |
The Intellectuals
The most treacherous aspect of Africa's postcolonial descent into tyranny was the blatant support provided by some of Africa's best and brightest. Without the support of Africa's intellectuals and scholars, the institution of repression would scarcely have been possible. These intellectuals offered various arguments to justify the institution of one-party socialist/Marxist systems and military regimes in Africa.
Some of the arguments were partly ideological (aversion to Western capitalism and civilization). One strand in these arguments maintained that multi-partyism was a "Western phenomenon" and that "democracy is alien to Africa." The other arguments were partly situational and partly mischievous. They echoed the dictators' call for "national unity" among Africa's numerous tribes. Single-party systems were necessary to suppress tribalism and channel all national energies into real development for the people. Dissent and opposition politics were divisive. But all these promises proved hollow and false.
In the 1960s the cause for which African intellectuals compromised their principles was independence from colonial rule. This overriding goal kept many African intellectuals from discussing participatory forms of government and from challenging dictatorships. Believing that the end justified the means, many intellectuals expected the masses to make sacrifices to fight colonialism. These sacrifices included political rights. Few intellectuals were willing to challenge the denial of these rights and risk being portrayed as colonial agents.
The rights, however, were not restored after independence. Shrewd African despots manufactured the specter of neocolonialism and other enemies, and demanded additional sacrifices from the people to fight these specters. The political systems they proposed ranged from African socialism to African unity. Africa's intellectuals were willing to accept any tyrant who would assert African pride by standing up to or humiliating colonialists and imperialists; for example, the intellectuals were ecstatic when Idi Amin made British residents of Uganda carry him on their shoulders. Thus, during the 1960s and 1970s African intellectuals abandoned critical inquiry and supported tyrants for various causes: promoting African unity, fighting apartheid and colonialism, and taking "drastic action" to deal with emerging economic crises.
The development promised by Africa's despots never occurred. In fact, the only real development that took place was in the wallets of the wabenzi ("Mercedes-Benz men"). While African economies were being mismanaged, the elites were raiding the national treasury. Famine and starvation appeared while Africa's foreign debt zoomed to a staggering $270 billion. "National unity" proved elusive. One-party rule, which was supposed to promote social equality, national unity, and harmony, failed to achieve any of those objectives. On the contrary, it was divisive and characterized by coercion and intolerance. For example, one-party rule exacerbated ethnic divisions since top party and government positions were often filled by members of the president's tribe. Attempts to enforce unity fanned separatist movements in Angola (Cabinda), Ethiopia (Eritrea), Cameroon (Anglophones), Somalia (the north), Sudan (the south) and Tanzania (Zanzibar). As Wolfgand Dourado, a former Zanzibar attorney general, put it: "There was an enforced unifying process through the one-party system that is bringing about this disintegration. If they had gone to multipartyism before, Somalia would have been saved. Sudan could have been saved. They are now paying the price of one-party dictatorship. They tried to force disparate people into union without accomodating minority rights" (The Washington Post, March 25, 1992; p. A29).
Back in the 1960s, most of the intellectuals who ardently supported one-party states never contemplated the danger of disintegration after they collapsed. More unbelievable, the soldiers who stepped in "to clean up the mess" were hailed by intellectuals as "saviors." Some intellectual crackpots even argued that soldiers were "professional," "apolitical," "dedicated," "competent," and "efficient." As professionals, soldiers would put the national interest above all others and inject discipline into government administration. But as we saw in Chapter 7, the soldiers proved themselves to be no saviors and were themselves remarkably undisciplined.
But there was an ulterior motive: greed and self-aggrandizement. In an article published in West Africa (March 21-27, 1994), M.I.S. Gassama wrote:
With few exceptions, it could be argued that the majority of the African elite -- civilian and military -- have not only disappointed their people but unscrupulously abused their trust by over-indulging in a get-rich-quick bonanza during the post independence era.
Instead of trying to contribute to the meaningful socio-economic development of their countries, they chose rather to become tools of economic paralysis and political doom. This sad state of affairs was not aided by their self-inflicted alienation, class bias and mental confusion. Due to a basic misconception, education to most of them means nothing more than power and wealth at the expense of their own poor uneducated kith and kin. Fascinated by the flamboyant lifestyle of some of their colonial predecessors, this select coterie of African intellectuals were quick to jump innto their shoes through a hasty Africanisation process that eventually led to rampant corruption and mismanagement. On account of greed and lack of conscience, the vast majority of them only strove to transform themselves overnight into petty bourgeouis or nouveau riches by massive embezzlement of public funds with impunity in a free-for-all rat race . . .
This folly on the part of some of our intellectuals has resulted in untold hardship and misery for the innocent African masses who continue to bear the brunt of the social tension and economic mess they left behind . . .
The politician has his way of playing on the emotions of the masses and getting them to vote him into power, confident that once he gets there they will, in all probability, have very little chance of voting him out.
As for the academic, he inundates them with all manner of theories about the irrelevant while the civil servant is busy devising new bureaucratic intricacies that impede change and progress and make life more unbearable for them, even though they are the very people he is supposed to serve (p.495).
So many of Africa's professors sold out by singing praises of tyrannical regimes in exchange for an appointment or a Mercedes-Benz! And so many journalists flouted the imperatives of their own profession--objectivity and balance--to please autocratic regimes. Even the barbarous military regimes of Idi Amin of Uganda and Samuel Doe of Liberia could find professors to serve at their beck and call. Professional standards, ethics, integrity, and probity were sold off by Africa's "educated" to win favors. To cite just one published example: "Dr. S. K. B. Asante, chairman of the Committee of Experts that drafted the proposals for Ghana's constitution, has admitted that the new proposal for a president and a prime minister was the result of a direct PNDC order requiring the committee to arrive at such a conclusion" (West Africa, Sept 23-29, 1991; p. 1576). (Emphasis added.)
In a letter to The Ghanaian Stateman (June 28 - July 11, 1994), Kwaku Obeng wrote:
"Some of the few intellectuals of the NDC are unprincipled opportunists who have betrayed scholarship. For example, how can a personality like Harry Sawyerr (minister of education in military-turned civilian Rawlings regime) tell the whole world that nobody can stop them from celebrating the day he was violently and unconstitutionally removed from office? Again, how can one understand an intellectual like Totobi Quakyi, who was at the forefront of students' struggle against the late Acheampong's (military) dictatorship only to turn round to resolutely defend a similar system" (p.4).
Ismail Rashid, a Sierra Leonian exile in Waterloo, Canada, provided a few other examples:
"We should not forget the opportunism, cowardice and unprincipled role of a section of the so-called intelligentsia in leading us into our present quandary. Lawyers, doctors, professors and a whole host of other "educated" people willingly participated in the general repression and corruption that was characteristic of APC (All People's Congress) rule . . .
In 1980 and 1985, this elite remained muted and in some cases condemned the widespread protests against the APC dictatorship and the deteriorating economy by workers and students. In fact, it endorsed the punitive measures taken against these protestors. A classic representative of this class is the present Vice President, Dr. Abdullai Conteh, who came to power on the crest of student protest in 1977, and who criticized President Momoh's succession to power as the work of an insidious "cabal which will only destroy the nation." Needless to say, Dr. Conteh ended in that same cabal as a leading actor.
Finally, the nation cannot forget the opportunism and cowardice of the SLPP (Sierra Leone People's Party). After the death of so many people in the 1977 elections to ensure that the SLPP had a voice in parliament, its leading members, including its present chairman Salia Jusu-Sheriff, crossed over to the APC. For over 13 years, they also partook in the rape of the country" (New African, May 1992, p.10).
A more recent case was that of Sierra Leone's fearless human rights lawyer, Sulaiman Banja Tejan-Sie. He never hid his distaste for military politics and on several occasions called for a national conference comprising pre-National Provisional Ruling Council (NPRC) political parties and other groups to prepare the way for civilian rule. He was a vociferous critic of the ruling NPRC over human rights abuses and was reported to have a personal dislike for the military. He was hailed on student campuses as a young radical barrister and was invited to student conventions, giving lectures on human rights and negative consequences of military rule. Suddenly in April 1995, he joined Sierra Leone's military-led government as Secretary of State in the Department of Youth, Sport and Social Mobilization.
"His detractors have not pardoned the man who only recently wrote that `unless and until the army is isolated from the political process, we will always have a divided nation, thereby exacerbating the poor living standards of our poverty-stricken people" (The African Observer, May 2-15, 1995; p.11). The editors and proprietor of the Concord Times said they were shocked by the "about face" of their paper's solicitor. A notice in the newspaper announced that, having shifted alliances, Tejan-Sie would "no longer be a part of the family" (The African Observer, May 2-15, 1995; p.11).
This type of collaboration allowed tyranny to become entrenched in Africa. Doe, Mobutu, Kaunda, and other dictators stayed in power by buying off or co-opting Africa's academics and opposition leaders. For a pittance, many would sacrifice principle to serve under an army sergeant whose level of education hardly matched half of theirs. Kwaku Annor, a Ghanaian, berated:
"Liberia's tragedy should be an object lesson to Africa's academics, who, all too often embrace any coup leader no matter his intelligence or record. Had the Movement for Justice in Africa (MOJA) group on the campus of the University of Liberia not provided Doe with "intellectual" legitimacy, he may not have destroyed Liberia. African universities should be the breeding ground for democratic interchange and compromise, not hotbeds for rabid radicalism" (West Africa, Oct 15-21, 1990; p. 2648).
Following the annulment of Nigeria's June 12, 1993 presidential elections, which were won by Chief M.K.O. Abiola, and the subsequent takeover of power by Gen. Sani Abacha, Wole Soyinka, a Nobel laureate wrote:
"We, the populace, wasted chances by failing to choose the right leadership when we had the chance. Shagari [President of Nigeria, 1979-1983] was a disaster. Not even his personality, tolerance, whatever that means, not even his great admirers would deny that he was a disaster for the nation in terms of implementing policy decisions. His reign was a zero, a minus.
What is our own culpability in all of this, we the intellectuals, the creative people? Depending upon my mood, I have been inclined sometimes to excoriate the entire tribe of intellectuals . . . [But] I would limit our culpability to the fact that we are divided, that we have too many sycophants among us who enjoy wining and dining in the corridors of power" (Index on Censorship, Aug/Sept 1993; p.33).
One lesson for Africa's academics is that singing praises to a tyrannical regime offers them no protection against future missteps: "Six Malawian and two European Bishops were detained by Malawian authorities for circulating a pastoral letter which denounced `unfairness and injustice...bribery and nepotism in political, economic and social life' and claimed that the suppression of dissent had created `a climate of mistrust and fear.' President Banda expressed bewilderment at the letter, claiming `the very same Bishops had praised me to the sky'" (West Africa, March 23-29, 1992; p. 518).
But are Africa's intellectuals capable of learning? Over 500 of them met in Kampala, Uganda, for the 7th Pan-African Congress (April 3-8, 1994). As New African (June, 1994) reported:
"More than a dozen resolutions were passed, each bashing imperialism on the head. `The control of Africa remains in foreign hands.' one resolution said. `In most African countries, imperialism has the co-operation and compliance of ruling elites. [And] the result is that Africa is being forced into dangerous levels of economic impoverishment, social decay, and chemical genocide.'
As expected, the World Bank and the IMF got a good slice of the cake. `The Congress maintains that the IMF and the World Bank are supervising an economic order which does not provide the means for African development and growth, but instead structurally adjusts Africa into increasing poverty, debt and underdevelopment.'
But the real thrust of the Congress' message and the main thread that linked the dozen resolutions was the fear that Africa today faced a threat of recolonization.
Recolonisation was coming via the World Bank and the IMF, and as a way of showing their revulsion, Africans should boycott the 50th anniversary celebrations of the World Bank scheduled for July 15, 1994, the Congress said . . .
The fight for reparations from Europe and America for the sins committed during the Slave Trade was also endorsed by the Congress. But the delegates shot themselves in the feet by accepting that the Arab World, which started the African slave trade in the first place, should be excluded from paying reparations (p.33).
Words cannot describe such garish display of
intellectual underdevelopment. If those Pan-Africanists really stood for a "liberated" Africa, they would have held their conference in an African country, not only liberated from colonialism but also military despotism. Uganda at the time of the conference was under military government, which of course wined and dined the delegates. The Pan-Africanists only see external enemies (imperialists, World Bank and the IMF) but not internal ones (military buffoons and collaborators). They also see the biases of Western racists but not their own biases. Such antics can only be characterized as intellectual failure.
According to Yoweri Museveni, Uganda's head of state, "Many so-called `educated' Africans seemed to have sent their brains on holiday and hired out their hands to Western academics" (Africa Forum, Vol. 1, No. 2; p. 11). That may indeed be so as when the Pan-Africanists gathered in Kampala, but at least that was a little better than the brains of some African leaders--thoroughly eaten by insects, to use President Moi's own words.
Nonetheless, the intellectual class need to clean up its act. There are various professional organizations run by the "educated": the legal profession, university lecturers, students union, trade unions, journalists association, etc. Each of these should have its own set of rules governing, among other things, the political activities of its members. The Bar Association, for example, should require that none of its members swear in an unelected head of state. Similarly, the University Lecturers Association should require that none of its members serve any military regime in any capacity. Each organization should stipulate the punishment -- for example expulsion -- that would occur should any of its members breach the regulations. It is not the charisma, rhetoric or tribe of the military dictator which should sway these professional bodies. They should stand on principle. If they abhor dictatorships, then they should enjoin their members not to serve under one. Withholding intellectual support and legitimacy would accelerate the demise of the military or despotic regime. It is that simple.
*************** George Ayittey, |
|
|
