In the 19th Century we had the “scramble for Africa” by the European countries, mainly by Belgium, France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Few countries escaped colonisation. South Africa was different, occupied by French and Dutch settlers in the 1600’s the process of occupation and colonisation was very different to other countries. The process in Zimbabwe was similar, although dominated by the British.
Then in the 20th Century the whole process unscrambled – a real hotchpot of different forms of transition to some sort of local government. Some peaceful transitions, others violent but by the end of the century, Africa had thrown off the shackles of colonisation in all its different forms. All were in one way or another, victims of exploitation. The colonial history of India has been well documented and highlights the way in which the colonial forces successively stripped India of its wealth.
What is less understood and still pervades all of Africa is the impact of the cultural, legal and political practices and norms that accompanied colonisation. Language and religion complicated it all. These foreign influences were for a while totally dominant in each country and very little was understood or even tolerated of the indigenous cultures, religions, languages and political systems that had controlled the continent before the colonial scramble.
In the case of my own country, Zimbabwe, the settlers who occupied the country by force in late 19th Century, reinforced by British influence, simply dominated and no cognisance or recognition was given to local culture and tradition. The Missions followed and reinforced these new ideas and the imposition of Western culture. It was, in anthropological and human terms, a real mess. The final act in this process was the imposition of a western style Government on each country at Independence which changed the people in charge but assumed that these new governance structures would be good for the country going forward. In many cases the basic principle was some form of democracy.
The process of decolonisation is not over, even though we are well down the track, and the outcome is not pretty. Even in South Africa where no direct colonial powers were involved in the transition, and even though the new Constitution was hammered out and adopted by consensus, the final form of government is not yet settled.
Surely this outcome was to be expected. There is plenty of evidence that Africa had its own systems of government before the colonial powers occupied the continent. They had established basic rules for life, language, religion and culture. In many cases these were maintained throughout the process of colonisation and occupation and when the colonial powers withdrew, the old traditions came to the fore, took control and tried to reassert their influence in post-colonial reality – Parliaments, money, legal systems and a strange thing called a constitution. Even the armed forces were lost in the maze, not understanding their role, if any, in society, but now holding modern weapons.
When I was in my 20’s I worked in remote rural areas and for the first time in my life, found myself working with and among rural communities who ran themselves the way their Ancestors had managed their affairs for Centuries. It was completely fascinating to be allowed to sit on the outskirts of a Dare or Chiefs Council in a Village of mud huts. The dignity of the process, the wisdom shown as the Community elders debated a problem. Once a decision was reached, it was adopted without further debate by the Community.
Years later I was elected the Member of Parliament for a seat in Bulawayo. I found myself in a room that closely resembled the Parliament in London, down to the green benches we sat on, the two sides opposing each other with the Government on one side and the Opposition on the other and a strange animal called the “Speaker” managing the debate and procedures being followed, down to a “Sergent at Arms” who escorted me out of the Chamber when the Speaker ordered my removal. I came out of a battlefield where the opposing “democratic forces” contested each other for influence and power. It was a strange feeling sitting opposite those who had literally been killing colleagues in the Districts we came from.
How was this superior to the circle in a rural village of older men making decisions by consensus? Our elders did not need a white wig, to command respect. Without a lengthy and peaceful transition, the shambles that has followed Independence in Africa should have been anticipated. The fact that we are all surprised and even disappointed by it all shows how little the complexities are understood.
In our own internal transition from the Mugabe Regime to what has become known as the Second Republic is a further example of how complex the situation is and the need for Africa to take stock and ask itself how we might govern ourselves in a way that is both representative, accountable and stable. In our case, once elements in our leadership decided that Mr. Mugabe had to go, all they had to do was to push the buttons on our military structures and in a matter of days, the man who had completely dominated our country for 37 years was forced into retirement. It was a military led coup but the outcome legitimatised the process. Our people came out on the street in their millions and thanked the army.
The foreign Community witnessed this and accepted that the action taken represented the general will of the people and the transition was re-interpreted as a “Military Assisted Transition of Power”. In Niger we must be very careful as to how we interpret what has happened there. The people of Niger seem to have accepted what the Army has done in removing the elected government from power. This does not mean that the army will do a better job, but it does question the legitimacy of the democratic process. In our case that did not arise, because the Army here had a clear idea of who they wanted to replace Mr Mugabe.
Under Mr Mugabe the military had an increasing role to play in the administration of the country. But remained subservient to civilian (democratic?) authority. After managing the MAT, they have returned to this role, but do not under estimate their influence in our society.
We need to recognise that democracy does not necessarily represent the best way to organise representative and accountable government. In business such a policy would quickly create chaos and instability. Competition sorts out the good from the bad. Perhaps African leaders need to focus on tiered levels of government with only the best and tested reaching the top. Decision making not by contestation but by consensus. Coupled to this building a peoples army and police service, accountable to the Communities they live among.
Above democracy we need stability. We need Civil servants and leaders who will serve the interests of the people. We need to know our safety is guaranteed and respected and our assets secure. As one African leader said recently, “our people cannot eat democracy”. Let’s follow Deng Xiaoping’s advice and ask ourselves “what works for us”. There is nothing inherently superior in Western Society and culture. In fact, I am becoming more and more concerned about what is happening in the West. We need to find an African way across this river.
Source Zimbabwe Situation