On "African Solutions to Africa's Problems"

On "African Solutions to Africa's Problems"

Some pundits have, while rejecting imperialist intervention, opined that regional organizations like AU should be empowered to "peacefully" resolve what they term 'political crisis' in Libya - another way of providing safe landing for Qaddafi or smothering the revolution. It is suggested that the AU will act fairly in the interests of Africa as against the western interventions, which are coloured with ulterior motives. They opined that AU and African leaders would act independently. All this argument is not only incorrect but also outlandish in every sense.

In the first instance, an attempt to refer to the revolutionary wave in Libya as mere political crisis is slapping the truth in the face. Indeed the revolt, even if led to imperialist intervention and derailment, as we have analyzed severally, was initiated by mass revolt of workers, youth and poor people, reflects failure of the pro-capitalist economic orientation of the Qaddafi regime. In the real sense, the so-called African solution was nothing but an attempt to save Qaddafi regime, rubbish the revolutionary initiative of the working people and youths of Libya and thus save many corrupt African rulers (all of whom are pro-imperialist, corrupt and presiding over rotten, crony neo-colonial capitalist system) from the calamity that may befall them through the domino effects of Qaddafi’s ouster. This idea of “African Solution to Africa’s crisis” only represents the interests of emerging entrepreneurial capitalist class who want to use the veil of pan-African nationalism to improve their stake in the struggle for foreign-capitalism-dominated African markets and economy. Genuine revolutionary programme will reject imperialist intervention but on the other hands campaign for the defeat of Qaddafi regime through their revolutionary independent efforts, by building solidarity with the working people and youths in not only Libya but throughout the region.

The idea that AU (comprising pro-imperialist and corrupt rulers) can act fairly is indeed ridiculous, as the contemporary history of Africa has shown. The parochial and narrow interests of local ruling elites in Rwanda, Libya and Uganda (of course in collaboration with foreign multinational corporations) played active roles in the continuation and brutality of the Congo war. The same goes for wars in Liberian, Sierra Leone and Cote D'Ivoire, where local leaders in Nigeria, used their state military powers (in collaboration with western powers) to protect their narrow (and imperialist) interest. Indeed, African rulers intervention in local regional 'crises' have led to more brutality, as they transport their brutal and crude Machiavellian idea to regional level. In case where they are not militarily involved, their stance has always in support of local ruling regime; and where they are forced to oppose to oppose such regimes, may be when their interests are infringed upon or forced by their imperialist masters (as exemplified in the Zimbabwean case where some rulers like Angola's sit-tight Dos Santos opposed Mugabe).

This is clearly exemplified by the bankruptcy of the so-called African leaders and AU leaders in the Libya issue where none of them initially condemned the atrocities of Qaddafi, until prompted by imperialism. None of them could even publicly condemn the NATO war in Libya. In fact, South Africa (along with other African temporary member states in UN Security Council i.e. Nigeria and Gabon), which is now spearheading the so-called African solutions voted for the war in Libya at the Council meeting. Surely, the African solution is the nothing but dirty job to clean up the mess created by imperialist intervention in Libya. Currently, the Libyan crisis has spilled over to the rest of Africa, where militia used by Qaddafi and the opposition have spread their tentacles to the neighboring countries. For instance, al Qaeda base has been traced to Libyan desserts while Tuareg militias used by Qaddafi during the imperialist intervention played major role in the Mali political crisis and subsequent civil war. Some of the Islamist militias have been suspected to infiltrate violent Islamists, Boko Haram in Nigeria. Currently, African forces are being used to clean up western imperialists’ mess; a role they gladly accept. After French forces faced in Mali that has forced it to extend its mandate, African rulers were asked to do the remaining dirty jobs. All this shows the weakness of African ruling classes and their subservient to global imperialist forces.

But could African "leaders" have done better or acted independently of imperialism? The facts speak for themselves. Africa, as a continent is a latecomer to the orbit of global capitalism, and as such, its development is tied to the changes in global capitalism and capitalist geopolitics, albeit as a dependent. This meant the development of African countries are dictated by the economic interests of colonialists and major capitalist countries; both during the colonial and post-colonial periods. The imperialist capitalists, compelled to grant independence as a result of growing global mass movement and change in global political relations (discussed earlier in this essay), ensured that African economies and politics are tied to the apron string of global capitalism. Through sponsored coups, manipulated elections, instigated and fueled wars, loan burdens, etc, African economies and politics are made perpetually prostrated. However, where local movements showed signed of leading to emergence of progressive governments, open or sponsored wars and massive repressions are carried out. Consequently, many African countries never get off the ground economically and politically while others like DR Congo, have been embroiled in crises since their flag independence.

While the presence of Soviet Union and alternative progressive (despite its limitations) economic system provided many African governments leverage, so many others were tied down by imperialism. Of course, as against what was obtainable in the 1950s to early '80s, when many African states are still influenced by the idea of welfare state and the presence of the Soviet system, which gave them opportunity to still maneuver and make pretense to nationalism in order to get more favours from imperialism (or Soviet Union), the present uni-polar geopolitical system and its neo-liberal economic arrangement have compelled them to be at the mercy of imperialist capital. Due to capitalist division of labour and imbalance (and inequality) in global capitalist system, African countries have been mere suppliers of raw materials and cheap labour to global capital (both within and outside the continent) or at best they are used as extension of multinational corporations' productions where they provide cheap labour and easier access to raw materials and markets. The overall result is the dependence of African states on the benevolence of the imperialist capital (as the prices of raw materials and terms of trade are determined by the imperialist capitalist centres in the west, whose economic and military clouts, and colonial history make the determinants of policies).

The introduction of brutal neoliberal capitalism since the late 1980s has led to worsening of the living conditions of vast majority of African population, which has eroded any veneer of legitimacy of most African rulers, most of whom are corrupt (and rely on imperialist capitals to sustain their ostentatious lifestyles and loots). This makes them to rely more on imperialism for survival and privileges; which means subjugation of the continent to greater exploitation by foreign capitals and turning the continent to imperialist playgrounds. With this kind of relation, African rulers and African states and organizations will be mere tools in the hands of imperialism. Even when some of them protest sometimes (like the protest again unequal trade policy at the WTO or the so-called EU instigated EPA), it will only be a smokescreen that will never last a time. In many cases, imperialism may co-opt some leaders amongst them for legitimacy to further brutal exploitation (as seen in the recent invitations extended to some African states like South Africa and Nigeria, in the G8, G20 and now UN Security Council).

The recent idea of a United State of Africa, proposed by the now dead Moamar Qaddafi, and which African rulers have recently re-echoed is nothing but an attempt by the illegitimate leaders to gain more privileges from imperialism and consolidate their rule at home. In reality, inasmuch as they cannot go beyond the confines of neo-liberal capitalism (to which they rely on for their personal and economic survival), the idea of such a united state will be a mirage. The basic question is: will such United State of Africa challenge the global capitalist arrangement that put Africa and other third world region in perpetual slavery and as sources of cheap materials? Doing this will surely require Africa developing its technological, scientific, mineral and human potentials without the influence of imperialism, which can only be possible if there is a capitalist class which can sacrifice its immediate profit interests for the long term interests of developing capitalism in Africa. This will require a complete overhaul of the present neo-colonial capitalist economic and political structures and building a new structure in the form of the post-World War II Europe, with massive state investment in industry, infrastructures and implementation of protectionist economic policy. This will surely mean declaring an open "war" with imperialism, which will arouse the political consciousness of the working and oppressed people of the continent. This in itself will raise the idea of going beyond capitalism – the monster that African rulers will never want.

Indeed, the current set of African rulers and its capitalist class are made in the image of colonial rulers with their economic and political careers tied to imperialism. They are the vassals of imperialism in the continent, and they are comfortable with that, even if it does not favour a section of them at one time. The idea of such a United State of Africa playing different layers of global capitalist forces (e.g. using alliance with China, Russia or India to get more concessions from the west) is only sensible if these other capitalist centres are themselves independent of the current global capitalist relation – where national economies are inter-dependent and intertwined, under US leadership – or if they operate a different socio-economic system, as witnessed during the Cold War era. If at all, the United State of Africa is formed with this kind of orientation, it will only substitute one form of imperialism with another. More than this, there can hardly be any consensus amongst African rulers, whose local economic interests and commitments vary. More importantly, the scramble for influence by some African states with stronger economic clouts like South Africa and Nigeria; coupled with diverse regional and territorial interests of various capitalist class in different countries, in their quest for control of resources and wealth in other countries will only make such idea a mirage or a marriage of convenience.

If at all it is formed, it will a better tool of imperialist capital to further its profit interests in the continent by further integrating these corrupt regimes into its orbit, the same way Arab League – which was formed as an the anti-Zionist platform in the late 1960s – has become a pawn in the chessboard of imperialism, while most of its rulers have soften their anti-Zionist rhetoric in favour greater integration into capitalist world.

Of course, Africa needs internal integration to achieve its full potentials and provide comfortable living standards for its teeming population. Nevertheless, this cannot be achieved either under imperialist capitalism or by the corrupt capitalist political class but by the working people building alternative socialist societies throughout the continent. Gone is the era of limited progressive pan-Africanism witnessed during the post-world war II independence era in Africa. As said earlier, Africa has been fully integrated into the global capitalist orbit; and its neo-colonial capitalist class, in this age of neo-liberalism, cannot play any fundamental progressive role. Only revolutionary, democratic socialism (and not its caricature and horrible mockery supposedly practised by some petty bourgeois, undemocratic leaders during the Cold War era), point the way forward. This will mean putting the enormous mineral, natural and monetary resources and productive forces under the democratic control and management of the working people, professionals, oppressed and youths from the community, factory and workplace levels organized up to the national level. This is when the idea of voluntary confederation, and if possible federation of Africa can make practical meaning. This presupposes the formation and building of genuine, fighting and revolutionary working class movements and political platform in Africa countries, which will link up in solidarity, to confront global and continental capitalist structures and exploitations, through alliance and solidarity with working class movements in Europe, Asia, Latin America, etc. If this revolutionary programme looks unrealistic, then the idea of a United States of Africa that will serve the interest of the majority working and poor people, is itself a mirage. The spread of revolts and revolutions across the MENA region shows the feasibility of a continental revolutionary programme. 

KOLA IBRAHIM

This article was extracted from the forthcoming book, 'Revolt in the Maghreb: Revolutions and Counter revolutions in MENA'. It's originally written in 2010, but edited subsequently.