| FAILURE OF AFRICAN LEADERSHIP ON THE CONTINENT |
| DEVELOPMENT BY IMITATION
An FAF Publication
---------------------
Colonization initiated a process of acculturation. Through contact with European colonialists, African natives came to learn of the former's way of life, such as mannerisms, habits of dressing and eating. The process was accelerated by education, the military might of the colonialists, and the general disparagement of African traditional beliefs and customs.
Denigration of Africans and their traditions was a common feature of colonialism, and references to Africans as "primitive" and "backward" punctuated scholarly work. The European colonialists constituted a super-elite group (reference group), who seldom socialized with the natives. They ran their own social clubs and organizations (Rotary and Polo clubs) and generally held the natives in contempt. The anxiety, frustration and hostility produced by acculturation tended to create three general types of personalities: retreatists, malcontents, and ritualists (conformists). The retreatist was the individual who, apparently baffled by the complexity of the new culture, retreated into the sanctity of his traditional world. By fleeing to the rural area, such individual escaped the unrelenting onslaught of denigration by the colonial administrators residing in the urban areas.
The malcontents were generally highly educated and professional. They found the very fact of colonialism unacceptable and were never satisfied with the colonial status. Infused with the ethos of liberty and humanism, this group rejected the subjugation of one human group by another. Although they possessed the qualifications required to work in the colonial administration, most chose, out of high moral and intellectual principles, not to. Instead, they waged a relentless crusade against colonial rule. Out of this group came African nationalist leaders of the anticolonial struggle: Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, and Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, among others.
The ritualists were by far the most predominant type of personality. In experiencing extreme derogation, the victims sought to protect themselves by a psychological reaction mechanism known as identification with the aggressor. They persuaded themselves that if they had characteristics identical to the aggressors', they would not be harmed or destroyed by them. So the ritualists modeled themselves after the aggressors (the colonialists), slavishly imitating their external traits. If the colonial masters wore white shirt and tie, so did they, notwithstanding Africa's hot and humid climate. If the colonialists consumed sardines and drank tea at 4:00 p.m. and Ovaltine at night, so did they.
In their frenzied attempts to imitate the colonialists or imbibe their alien incomprehensible traits, the ritualists never questioned or sought to understand why the colonialists drank tea at 4:00 p.m. or behaved the way they did. Ritualists just aped them -- a mimic syndrome that Africans call "monkey dey see, monkey dey do." Thus, their behavior was by rote or mechanical rather than alert and rational, a fact that often resulted in a confused emotional state.
Although the ritualists were naturally predisposed toward conformism, the colonial government also demanded conformist behavior for the preservation of the status quo and took steps to ensure that the educational system served this purpose. While missionaries were concerned primarily with teaching people to read so that they could absorb the lessons of the Bible, the colonial governments needed only obedient clerks. No large demand for technical skills was envisaged, as the colonies were conceived to be purveyors of raw materials and foodstuffs. Students were taught the French constitution, the British parliamentary system, the geography of the British Isles and France, British history, and French literature. The subjects' relevance was seldom questioned. To ritualist students, education was a passport to white-collar employment, prestige, and the status that had been denied them. What mattered to them most was the acquisition of the magic piece of paper. Indeed, for a placement in the post office, instruction in the British constitution was a requirement.
Gradually an educated class, an elite (evolues), began to emerge distinct from the populace. These African graduates enjoyed salaries that, although well below those of the colonial administrators, were extremely high by African standards. They acted like the European colonialists because to be called "obroni" (white man) was a term of praise. To have obtained part of one's education in Europe or America or even to have merely visited there carried the prestige label "been to." To live in a bungalow (however small) in the European residential area carried prestige. Eating European dishes, inviting Europeans to your home, or generally associating with Europeans was prestigious.
To the elites, Westernization offered a way to gain acceptance or equality. Accordingly, African elites wore Western clothes, spoke Western languages, drove Western cars, and talked about Western art and culture. In Westernizing themselves, they believed that discrimination at the hands of the colonialists would ease. And in proving that they were more "French" than the French, the ritualists hoped that they would be accepted.
POSTCOLONIAL DEVELOPMENT
The Religion of Development
The African nationalists and elites who took over power from the departing colonialists suffered from impatience, feelings of inferiority, the religion of development, and economic illiteracy. The first malaise, which affects almost all Africans, is the predisposition to "catch up" quickly with the rich countries, to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.
After independence, African nationalists and elites settled down to face the daunting challenge of developing Africa, in a manner consistent with African traditions and necessary to uplift African dignity. At the same time, however, there was a deep-seated hatred of colonialism. Emotions were running high after independence. The elites, euphoric over freedom from the colonial yoke, abhorred reminders of their former subjugated status. Colonialism and
imperialism were adjudged to be exploitative and oppressive. Any institution perceived to be "colonial" or associated with colonialism in the slightest way was to be annihilated.
Apart from their hostility toward the "colonial institutions," the elites displayed another inimitable trait: an impatience to develop Africa. They could not be faulted on either proclivity. The colonial regimes were alien and there was clearly the need to develop Africa to suit Africa's own needs, not those of Europeans. The problem, then, was how the elites proceeded to attain their goals. Again, it is important to emphasize that a criticism of the methods and modalities employed does not necessarily mean the goals were unsalutary. As observed earlier, there may be several ways of moving from point A to point B: by walking, running, driving or by using the a rocket-propelled space shuttle. Criticizing one mode as inefficient does not mean one is opposed to getting Point B. A free debate is vital to determine the most efficient mode. Efficiency is determined by cost and rationality criteria. An "efficient" mode is one which is less expensive and rational. For example, food can be cooked within minutes in micro-wave ovens. But its use in Africa, where there is less premium on time, would be inefficient and impractical.
In most African countries, there were no debates about efficient modalities. One individual, often the head of state, determined the mode. If a poor choice was made, the whole country suffered the consequences. There was little avenue for criticism or agitation for change. Those who were brave enough to express it were brutalized, jailed or driven into exile, as we shall see shortly.
The Denigration Of The Indigenous
Having condemned the colonial system as impoverishing, the nationalists and elites found themselves under tremendous pressure to "prove to the world" that they could develop Africa, and quickly, to shame the colonialists. Nkrumah of Ghana, for example, was determined to "achieve in a decade what it took others a century." He also vowed to "demolish these miserable colonial structures and erect in their place a veritable paradise." Virtually all the nationalists shared similar beliefs.
But there was a pervasive belief among the nationalists and elites that Africa's own indigenous institutions were "too backward," "too primitive" for the rapid development and transformation of Africa. Almost everywhere in Africa, the native institutions were castigated as "inferior." Ashamed of the label of "backwardness," the elites embarked upon a program of development that placed obtrusive emphasis on industry. No longer should Africa be relegated to the "inferior" status of "drawers of water and hewers of wood." Industrialization was synonymous with development. Consequently, agriculture and other primary activities were shunned as too "backward."
The natives were urged to abandon their backward ways and adopt "modern methods." For example, Kenya's Minister of National Guidance and Political Affairs, Mr. James Njiru banned the True Love magazine in February 1989, for publishing a cover photograph of naked girls dancing before King Mswati of Swaziland.
He argued that Kenyans should abandon backward cultures for modern ones that are acceptable to foreigners, but this seems to deny that Africans should be proud of their African culture. There is nothing intrinsically virtuous or respectable in Western modes of dress and behavior (New African, March 1989; p.28).
It was widely assumed, not only by African elites but outside experts as well, that the adoption of foreign values was necessary for successful economic development. Development became synonymous with "change." Nkrumah, again, best expressed this attitude. Though agriculture was the main economic activity of indigenous Africa, he felt he could not rely on peasant farmers for a rapid agricultural revolution because they were "too slow to adapt or change their practices to modern, mechanized methods".
After independence the object of Westernization shifted toward gaining international acceptance and equality for the new nation. If Accra, Lagos, or Nairobi looked like London or New York, perhaps the new nation's status would be readily accepted. The elites brought this same unimaginative aping to the field of development. Foreign metropolitan symbols were mimicked. London had double-decker buses; so too must Africa. American farmers used tractors and pesticides; so too must Africa. Rome has a basilica; so too must Ivory Coast.
In 1963, Nkrumah demanded a bylaw from the Accra-Tema city council requiring all advertisements in Accra to be illuminated by neon lighting so that the main streets of the city would resemble Picadilly Circus. The city council approved the bylaw despite the insistence of the Ghana Chamber of Commerce that the lights were impractical in a country where most businesses had few employees and limited capital. When the late Sir Arthur Lewis pointed out to an African prime minister that he was proposing to spend 50 percent of his entire development budget on his capital city, which had only 5 percent of the population, the prime minister was surprised. "But why not?" he asked. "Surely when you think of England you think of London, when you think of Russia you think of Moscow and when you think of France you think of Paris." The most bizarre instance of this so-too-must-we syndrome occurred in 1976, when President Bokassa spent $20 million, or 20 percent of the GNP of the Central African Republic to crown himself "emperor" to prove that, like France, black Africa too can produce emperors.
Hardly any attempt was made to understand why London has double-decker buses or why American farmers use tractors. The concept of development became perverted. The developed countries were industrialized and used modern scientific techniques. Therefore, development was equated to industrialization and the use of modern scientific methods. This sort of reasoning is an example of the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc or what social psychologists call the "refrigerator fallacy." The prevailing tendency to equate industrialization and modernism with development is a manifestation of a pathological condition known as the religion of development. This religion, which shapes or directs much of the elite's development effort, is characterized by the following:
1.  An excessive preoccupation with sophisticated gadgetry, signs of modernism, an inclination to exalt anything foreign or Western as sanctified, and a tendency to castigate the traditional as "backward"
2.   A tendency to emphasize industry over agriculture
3.   A misinterpretation of the so-called characteristics of underdevelopment as causes of economic "backwardness," and the belief that development means their absence
4.   A tendency to seek solutions to problems from outside rather than from inside Africa
5.   Attempts to model African cities after London, Paris, New York, or Moscow
Negative imputations are made to the characteristics of underdevelopment as if there were something intrinsically wrong with having 60 percent of the population engaged in agriculture. This religion of development contributed to the neglect and consequent decline of African agriculture. Agriculture was too "backward" and simply did not feature in the grandiose plans drawn up by the elites to industrialize Africa. Of African leaders, the late Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana epitomized this "religion." He was quite clear on the thrust of his development drive: "Industry rather than agriculture is the means by which rapid improvement in Africa's living standard is possible."
Furthermore, in industry African elites showed a consistent tendency to opt for "modern" capital-intensive techniques and projects that emphasized grandeur rather than economy. For example, conveyors were installed in the State Footwear Corporation factory to move shoes during manufacture, although conveyors were little used elsewhere, even in the United States.
Misconstruction Of The Notion Of Development
Development was almost everywhere in Africa misconstrued to mean "change" and the "adoption of modern and scientific methods." In this rote behavior the real meaning was not clear. The approach was akin to what educators call the "refrigerator fallacy." All teachers have refrigerators and therefore if one tried hard enough to acquire a refrigerator, one would become a teacher! The developed countries were industrialized and therefore if one acquired enough industries (and perhaps a nuclear bomb), presto one would become a developed country.
Clearly, this perverted way of looking at things shifted the emphasis away from the rigorous process of training to become a teacher to the rather facile task of acquiring the "symbol" of the occupation to be considered a teacher. Similarly in development, the emphasis was shifted from understanding the modus operandi to a preoccupation with its symbols. If an African head to state showed off a brand new shiny piece of imported tractor, it would "prove" that agriculture had been "mechanized." Precisely what that tractor was supposed to do to improve agricultural productivity or whether the support infrastructure existed or not was irrelevant. The mere presence of the tractor was of overriding importance. Such antics and obsession with symbolism betrayed a woeful lack of understanding of the development process.
Economic development does not mean the wholesale and blind acquisition of the symbols and signs of modernity. Nor does it mean everything about indigenous Africa must be rejected in favor of alien systems. In fact, the true challenge for development practioners is how to use the existing so-called "primitive, backward and archaic" institutions to generate economic prosperity. These institutions can never be alienated from Africa's peasants. They are part of their culture. One cannot expect these peasants to suddenly renounce their age-old traditions and ways of doing things. Nor is such abjuration absolutely necessary, as demonstrated by the stupendous success of the Japanese. The Japanese did not have to become "Americanized" or "Sovietized" in order to develop.
George Ayittey,
BACK |
|
|
