Igbo Presidency And The Yoruba Model 


By Dapo Thomas

Censured and dispraised for their tragic attempt to bifurcate the country, the Igbos, forty three years after the civil war, remain the only major ethnic group to be invested with the nation’s presidency. Between 1970 and now, the two major ethnic nationalities-Hausa/Fulani and the Yoruba, and even the minority Niger Delta-have shared that exalted position at different times. In a manner of ex-cathedra, the North and the evolving aggressive minority in power have started fresh portentous political carapace for the re-possession of the presidency in 2015. 

Confined to the humiliation of their partial incorporation into the nation’s political system despite having shown some remorse for the inglorious civil war, the Igbos now resorted to “neither-here-nor-there” politics. They  have tried “centre politics”, “mainstream politics”, “Ihu Oma politics”, “Chukwu ga eme ya politics”, “concoction politics”, “general politics”, “and so on and so forth politics”. The only one they have not tried is “opposition politics”. This political fickleness potentiated them with the number two position-Vice President-in the Second Republic.

Nettled by the impotence and opportunism of this manoeuvering that earned them only four years of vice presidency in 43 years (this is without any prejudice to Ebitu Ukiwe’s short stay in office), I believe the Igbos need a radical overhauling of their political philosophy by rebranding and articulating it just like the Yorubas have settled for progressive politics. Let the Igbos come up with a dominant political ideology as different from the extant ragtag idiocies which cast them as a group without political discipline. This perception is what is responsible for the derisive treatment they receive from other ethnic groups. No nation is willing to concede its presidency to a group with a perceived image of un-seriousness and political indiscipline.

I read Godwin Alabi-Isama’s interview with The Nation on Sunday (July 14) and his only contribution to the Igbo presidency jujitsu was this consolatory prophesy: “…the Igbo will rule this country in the near future only if they stop trading and start manufacturing what they are selling.” I need to know what the respected General meant by the phrase “the Igbo will rule the country…” Did he mean “economic domination” or “political control”? If he meant the former, I agree with some reservations because of the Igbo business sagacity. But if he meant the latter, I respectfully disagree with his weak linkage between mercantilism and political control. Economic power not properly deployed for political expediency cannot confer automatic political control on any group. The Igbos are responsible for whatever humiliation they are suffering today within the Nigerian state, not because of the civil war, but because they are deluded by the misconception that their economic power alone can make them relevant. They must understand that their economic power needs to be complemented by a corresponding political power feasible only through a political revolution that they need to undertake with dispatch.   

One thing that may stymie the execution of this revolution is lack of a central figure to play the toughie. Since the death of Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, the Igbos, with profound apologies to few of them with outstanding profiles, have not had another political leader with the clout, credibility, charisma, personality, intellect and national acceptability that the Zik phenomenon epitomized.

 

What we have is the emergence of individual Igbo leaders with antecedents that question their credentials to pursue and promote the kind of political revolution one is canvassing for. Besides, most Igbo businessmen that could be counted upon to undertake this revolutionary agenda are government contractors who may not be ready to sacrifice their economic interests and political influence for an Igbo national cause.

 

They are likely to succumb and kowtow to a vindictive government that may find the pursuit of their political agenda too antagonistic. With this kind of attitude and ennui to the Igbo cause, it is doubtful if the Igbos can come out of this political gridlock.In lieu of a credible personage, prosecuting the political revolution through a socio-cultural organisation like Ohaneze Ndigbo may not be a bad idea.

My only fear, one that has been confirmed by the flighty fragmentation of Afenifere, a similar organization by the Yorubas and the castration of the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), is that the organisation may be weakened and become polarised by the pursuit of self interests and multiple agendas by individual members of the organisation who, under such circumstance, may be pressured into abandoning the collective interest of the nationality for their own political and economic goals.

 

Consequently, the Igbo unity which is required for the reinforcement of the protestation against their privations is kibbled by the shenanigans of loose cannons who prefer the lure of filthy lucre to the collective good of their people.

The Igbos need to learn one or two things from the Yoruba on matters relating to political revolution. After the demise of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the undisputable progenitor of Yorubas’ progressive politics, another Yoruba national figure, Moshood Kashimawo Abiola, emerged. He single-handedly promoted the Yoruba political agenda and also ensured that he committed his resources to the cause until he became the elected President of the country.

 

But he was prevented from enjoying the fruits of his victory through an annulment that threw the entire nation into a political turmoil that led us to where we are today. After his death, the Yoruba came up with the Afenifere revival with the objective of promoting and protecting the Yoruba political interest in a nation where a particular ethnic nationality had a rabid tendency for dominating the political space through deft manipulations.

 

Despite the traditional hatred that the Yoruba progressives have for the conservative reactionaries of the PDP, they still came together in 2003 to give massive support to one of their own, Olusegun Obasanjo who leveraged on the Yoruba factor to cajole his kinsmen into supporting him for the presidency. The Yoruba sentiments, which in a way, facilitated his victory, later came to be the albatross for the fragmentation of the Afenifere. This was when (or should I say this was why?) Bola Tinubu decided to pick up the mantle of the Yoruba leadership Emboldened by the conviction that the Awolowo legacy must be preserved, rather than withdrawing and insulating himself from politics after the electoral waterloo of 2003, where all the South West states except Lagos, went to the PDP, 

Tinubu fought Obasanjo, PDP and even some Afenifere “Iscariots” to a standstill until he recovered all the “conquered” states except one that he lost through treachery. But his ACN party was compensated with the victory of Adams Oshiomole in Edo State.

 

Another radical dimension of the Yoruba political revolution was the institutionalisation of the Awolowo political ideology and philosophy. Through this process, they have stimulated the propagation and intellectualisation of the revolution which was aimed at the socio- political transformation of the Yoruba people, their culture, history, politics, literature and their mentality, instructively, relating to their status, pedigree, role and significance in a polarised polity that is full of power intrigues.

 

Bola Tinubu, the symbol of the revolution, established the Obafemi Awolowo Institute of Government and Public Policy and appointed Professor Adigun Agbaje, a renowned political scientist as its pioneer Director-General. In a similar fashion, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, the governor of the state of Osun also established the Awolowo Centre for Philosophy, Ideology and Good Governance with Professor Moses Akinola Makinde as its Chief Executive Officer. In addition, the Ekiti State Governor, Dr Kayode Fayemi also came up with a Graduate summer school concept packaged by Drs Wale Adebanwi and Ebenezer Obadare with Professor Niyi Osundare as the first guest lecturer.

The objective of these various institutional initiatives is to ensure that the Awolowo vision for the Yoruba and his political philosophy remain relevant within a complex polity. Awolowo may be dead but through these various intellectual channels and mechanisms, his philosophy and ideology are kept alive and active.

 

But this is not the case with the Igbos who seem to have abandoned the Zikist political philosophy and ideology. And this explains why the Igbos’ political relevance and value within the larger polity are under threat because the Zik vision and political philosophy which should be the theoretical guide for their political participation had long been jettisoned. Any political agenda, either of an individual or of a group, that is not vision-driven is flawed conceptually for lacking a fundamental inspiration that is germane to its attainment.

Until the Igbo academics, politicians, businessmen, statesmen, bureaucrats, traders and the rest of the citizens come together as a people and as a nation to agree on a common Igbo political agenda and pursue it with focused cohesion, the presidency will remain elusive to them. And more important, is the fact that they need more than Ohaneze Ndigbo to realise this goal. They need to review their “centre politics” or what they call “mainstream relevance” if the revolution was to achieve its political objective. 

The justification for the Igbos’undignified embrace of mainstream politics baffles me. I wonder why they have to enslave themselves to an exploitative centre when they have the capability to liberate themselves and their tribe from the oppression of the “amorphous centre”.Their argument is that their region will suffer if they play opposition politics.

 

I am convinced that the Yoruba as a people, and as a nation, never had problem financing their infrastructure development and social programmes for playing opposition politics. All elected representatives; the governors, members of the National Assembly and all the members of the State Houses of Assembly under the ACN, have keyed into the Awolowo vision of development. 

[size=16pt]Being genuine Awo disciplines, and having imbibed his principle and discipline on governance, all the governors of the ACN in the South West are making judicious use of their internally generated revenue for their infrastructure development and social programmes same way Obafemi Awolowo executed his projects and programs when he was the premier of the Western Region. None of the governors in the South West is waiting for federal “handout” for the execution or funding of their infrastructure development and social programmes.[/size] 

If the Igbos now claim that opposition politics will cause them development deficit, it only illustrates the fact that their leaders lack the discipline to utilise their resources for the good of their people in a judicious manner .

While not trying to prick any conscience on the tragedy of the civil war, it is a worthwhile reminder for all ethnic groups in the country to know that war remains a senseless and irresponsible means of achieving one’s political objective. It is lack of strategy and wisdom that makes a marginalised and neglected people to adopt war as a means of achieving their political goal.

 

Modern politics, especially in a democracy like ours, has sufficient mechanisms that can be explored and exploited to compel relevance and participation in the nation’s power-sharing at all levels.It is in the interest of the Igbos to put their house in order and coordinate their political operations to avoid a situation where the other ethnic groups will just be using them to “count scores” – a derogatory phrase invented by the youth for exploitation.

Dr. Thomas teaches History at the Lagos State University (LASU), Ojo

The Concept of international organizations

Eric C. Okechukwu M A History

 

Introduction

Many forces generate clashes between countries, including economic rivalry and disputes over trade, the desire to dominate strategic land or sea areas, religious or ideological conflict, and imperialistic ambition. All national governments develop organizations and policies to meet these and other situations. They have foreign ministries for the conduct of diplomatic relations with other countries, for representing them in international organizations, and for negotiating treaties. Some governments conduct programs such as foreign aid, cultural exchange, and other activities designed to win goodwill abroad 1.

 

The development of international organizations has been, in the main, a response to the evident need arising from international intercourse rather than to the philosophical or ideological appeal of the notion of world government. The growth of international intercourse, in the sense of the development of relations between different peoples, was a constant feature of maturing civilizations; advances in the mechanics of communications combined with the desire for trade to produce a degree of intercourse which ultimately called for regulation by institutional means 2. It will quickly become apparent that the meaning of international organisations is in the eye of the beholder, for scholars of different persuasions and disciplines have contending and even irreconcilable views of whether international organisations matter in international politics, and of the conditions under which they might 3.

 

This lecture introduces definitions, functions and concept of International Organisation. Distinguishing the concept, facts, benefit and limitations, type of roles they play, the formations, limitations and finally the list of International Organisation.

 

Definitions of International Organization

An international organization has been defined “as a forum of co-operation of sovereign states based on multilateral international organizations and comprising of a relatively stable range of participants, the fundamental feature of which is the existence of permanent organs with definite competences and powers acting for the carrying out of common aims. In the widest sense, international organization can be defined as “a process of organizing the growing complexity of international relations; international organizations are the institutions which represent the phase of that process. They are the expressions of and contributors to the process of international organization, as well as, the significant factors in contemporary world affairs 4.”

 

Apart from the above, international organization is the process by which states establish and develop formal, continuing institutional structures for the conduct of certain aspects of their relationships with each other. It represents a reaction to the extreme decentralization of the traditional system of international relations and an effort by statesmen to adapt the mechanics of that system to the requirements posed by the constantly increasing complexity of the interdependence of states. International organizations may be regarded as manifestations of the organizing process on the international level 5

 

Also, international organization is an organization with an international membership, scope, or presence. International Organisation is a specialisation within the Political Science master programme. It covers various aspects of global governance from multiple social and political science perspectives6. An international organization is “a body that promotes voluntary cooperation and coordination between or among its members7.” International Organizations, while often a vessel of state actions, have also themselves become actors. International organizations are organizations, comprised of states, to pursue some sort of common purpose or objective. Often, these organizations set the rules for behavior and activity among state and non-state actors in the international system.

The Historical Development of International Organizations

Although embryonic forms of international organizations have been present throughout recorded history, for instance, in the form of the so called amphictyonic councils of ancient Greece, the late-medieval Hanseatic League or such precursors as the Swiss Confederation and the United Provinces of the Netherlands, it was not until the nineteenth century that international organizations as we know them today were first established. Moreover, it was not until the nineteenth century that the international system of states (at least within Europe) had become sufficiently stable to allow those states to seek forms of cooperation 17. 

 

Situations soon arose in which the essentially bilateral relationships established by diplomatic embassies or missions were inadequate. For example, a problem would arise which concerned not two but many States, and whether what was proposed was a series of negotiations or even a formal treaty, there had to be found a means for representing the interests of all the states concerned. The means was the international conference, a gathering of representatives from several states; simply diplomacy writ large. The peace of Westphalia in 1648 emanated from such a conference, as did the settlement after the Napoleonic wars in 1815 through the congress of Vienna and, even later, the post-1918 settlement negotiated at the Paris conference of 1919 and embodied in the Treaty of Versailles. After the watershed, Westphalian peace of 1648, international so-called congresses had become a regular mode of diplomacy: whenever a problem arose, a conference was convened to discuss it and, if possible at all takes steps towards a solution. After the defeat of Napoleon, a new development took place 18. 

 

The Congress of Vienna of 1815 had seen the initiation of the “concert system” which, for the purposes of any study of international organization, constituted a significant development. As sponsored by the Czar Alexander I, what was envisaged was an alliance of the victorious powers pledged to conduct diplomacy per ethical standards, which would convene at congresses held at regular intervals. In fact, four congresses were held between 1818 and 1822 - at Aix-la-Chappelle (1818), at Troppau and Laibach (1820, 1821), and at Verona (1822) - but the idea of regular congresses was later abandoned and meetings took place as occasion required. The attempt to secure regular meetings was, however, a significant recognition that the “Pace” of international relations demanded some institutions for regular multilateral negotiations 19. 

 

Moreover, the Congress of Vienna (1815) and its aftermath launched some other novelties as well, the most remarkable of which was perhaps the creation of a supranational military force under the command of Wellington. Clearly, any general post war settlement demanded a more general participation in the negations than could easily be achieved via the traditional methods of diplomatic intercourse. Bilateral negation also proved inadequate for other problems of a general nature. The congress of Berlin of 1871 was convened to consider the Russian repudiation of the regime for the Black Sea which had earlier been established at the Paris Conference of 1856; conferences met in Berlin in 1884 and 1885 to attempt to regulate the “Scramble for Africa” which led to commercial rivalry and political antagonism between the European powers. The Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 were an effort to secure, on a multilateral basis, agreement on different aspects of the law relating to the conduct of warfare on land and on the sea, and on the duties of neutral states 20. 

 

The peace conferences of The Hague had given the small sates a taste for international activism: in particular, the 1970 conference approached universal participation, with forty-four states being represented. Moreover, due in part to its near-universal participation, organizational experiments took place, one of them being that recommendations (so-called ‘voeux’) of the conference were passed by a majority vote, instead of unanimity 21. The “concert of Europe” remained a quasi- institutionalized system even after the Holy Alliance had broken up, until the First World War destroyed the balance of power on which it rested (or rather confirmed its demise); the London conferences of 1912-13, at the end of the Balkan Wars, were the last conferences or congresses convened within the framework of the “concert system.” The conclusion of a conference would normally be accompanied by a formal treaty or convention, or, where no such binding agreement was desired or obtainable, by a memorandum or minutes of the conference 22. 

Intergovernmental Organizations: An intergovernmental organization (IGO) is composed of nation-states and it promotes voluntary co-operation and coordination among its members. Decisions and agreements reached in this type of organization however are not enforceable, and the members remain independent. The crucial aspect of an IGO is that the members do not surrender any power (or sovereignty) to it. The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization 8. 

 

Furthermore,” international organizations are an institution that come and go in accordance with the significance of the dynamism of international relations and as the process it exists as an established trend. International organisation, it was the stimulus of the existing process ready at hand that automatically led, after the collapse of the League of Nations, to the creation of new organizations like the U.N. Thus, international organization is the process by which states establish and develop format and continuing institutional structures for the conduct of certain aspects of their relationships with each other. It represents a reaction to the extreme decentralization of the traditional system of international relations and the constantly increasing complexities of the interdependence of states’’.

The following are the essentials of international organization, the institution:

  1. Its origin is based on multilateral international agreement.
  2. The institution has a personality of its own, which is distinct from that of its individual members.
  • It has permanent organs which carry out common aims.

As compared to the will of all members, its organs exhibit autonomy of will. The fact that they do not always hold true does not, as such, deny their value in general 9. 

One of those characteristics is that international organizations are usually created between states, or rather, as states themselves are abstractions, by duly authorized representatives of states. For one thing, there are international organizations which are themselves members of another international organization and sometimes even founding members. The EC, thus, is a member of the FAO, and a founding member of the WTO. Still, we do not exclude the WTO and the FAO from the scope of international organizations simply because they count another organization among their members. Generally, international organizations can only be created by states 10. 

Not all such organizations created by states are generally considered international organizations. States may, for example establish a legal person under some domestic legal system. Perhaps an example is the Basle-Milhouse Air-port authority, a joint venture, between France and Switzerland and governed French law. Moreover, sometimes treaties are to be implemented with the help of one or more organs. For instance, the European Court of Human Rights is entrusted with supervising the implementation of the European Convention on Human rights. Yet, the Court is not considered to be an international organization in its own right; it is, instead, often referred to as a treaty organ.

The Conceptual of International Organizations

International Organizations (IOs) have become a central part of international relations. As Hurd (2014) writes: “As interdependence increases, the importance of international organizations increases with it. We find international organizations in one form or another at the heart of all of the political and economic challenges of the twenty-first century”. As Ian Hurd (2014) explains, international organizations “…are constituted by international law as independent entities, separate from states that make them up as their founders and their members. The practical expression of this independence varies greatly across organizations, but in a formal sense they are corporate “persons” much like firms are “persons” in domestic commercial law. This means that they have legal standing, with certain rights and obligations, and can sue and be sued”.

On the one hand, they are their own entity, and are often treated as such, and they are often made up of states, of which the leaders of those said states have their own domestic and international political interests. In fact, Hurd says as much, saying that “The dilemma of international organization as a practice in world politics is of course that these actors are composed of units which are themselves independent actors, and so formal international organizations are always collective rather than unitary actors. When they operate as “agents” they are unitary actors in the same way that national governments, also composed of many individuals and factions, are recognized as unitary actors in world politics 11.”

IGOs range in size from three members to more than 185 (e.g., the United Nations [UN]), and their geographic representation varies from one world region (e.g., the Organization of American States) to all regions (e.g., the International Monetary Fund). Whereas some IGOs are designed to achieve a single purpose (e.g., the World Intellectual Property Organization), others have been developed for multiple tasks (e.g., the North Atlantic Treaty Organization). Their organizational structures can be simple or highly complex depending on their size and tasks. The role that international organizations can play depends on the interests of their member States. States establish and develop international organizations to achieve objectives that they cannot achieve on their own. By the same token, States will not permit international organizations to do things that constitute, in the eyes of these States, interference in their internal affairs 12. 

An IGO is an organization composed primarily of sovereign states (member states), or of other intergovernmental organizations. General international organization in the twentieth century is a reaction to the grim reality of violent conflict among states and a response to the danger of future conflict. Moreover, the functional theory of international organization, which explicitly stresses the development of agencies devoted to cooperative solution of problems in the economic and social realm, is ultimately concerned with the issue of political and military struggle; functionalism treats the promotion of welfare as an indirect approach to the prevention of warfare. Hence, international organization reflects the variety of viewpoints and purposes which prevails among governments.

 

International organizations are characterized, by supporters and critics alike, as arrangements for cooperation among states. Most accurately, international organization can be said to rest upon a dualistic conception of international relations, one which acknowledges both conflictual and cooperative relationships as basic features of the multistate system. In principle, international organization represents an attempt to minimize conflict and maximize collaboration among participating states, treating conflict as an evil to be controlled and cooperation as a good to be promoted. In these terms, international organization both denies the inevitability of war and other manifestations of hostility among nations and expresses a commitment to the harmonization of international relations 13. 

International organization does not introduce a distinctive conception of international relations but gives expression to whatever viewpoints may be dominant in the international political arena. This analysis indicates that international organization is essentially a process of developing a new structural and procedural framework for the interplay of national governments within the context of the multistate system. It represents an attempt by statesmen to improve the operation of that system by enhancing the institutional equipment available for the conduct of relations among states and by promoting the general acceptance of standards of state behavior compatible with the minimum requirements of an orderly system.

Insofar as international organization represents a reformist movement within the multistate system, it expresses the awareness of national leaders that international order is requisite to the promotion and protection of the most basic interests of their states. The quest for order through international organization does not involve repudiation of national interests or subordination of national interests to an overriding internationalism, but at most it involves the redefinition of national interests in conformity with the demands of increasing interdependence and the commitment of statesmen to the pursuit of those interests within the revised framework provided by international organization 14. 

In fact, international organization approach conflictual and cooperative aspects of international affairs. Some international agencies are primarily concerned with problems of conflict, while others emphasize the promotion of collaboration: within the United Nations, for instance, the Security Council is illustrative of the former type and the Economic and Social Council of the latter. Moreover, conflicting interests of states intrude upon programs of cooperation, making it necessary for cooperation-oriented agencies to deal with problems of conflict, and the common interests of states provide how conflict-oriented agencies undertake to cope with tendencies toward international disorder. Thus, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a regional agency inspired by the East–West conflict after World War II, but it relies upon cooperation among its members to enable it to meet the dangers posed by that conflict. Similarly, the concept of collective security envisages cooperative action by most members of a general international organization as the essential means for deterring or defeating aggression.

One of the concept of international organisation is that their activities, just like those of governments under the Rule of Law, ought to be subject to standards. Those standards may be internal to the organization, or external, and are often summarized under the heading of constitutionalism. The Second Concept Of International Organization: Historically, international organizations have often, perhaps always, been conceptualized as entities endowed with a single task:

  1. the management of common problems.
  2. Organizations, so the standard story goes, are really the extensions

         of states, doing those things that states cannot do on their own.

 

In other words, the concept that dominates in the literature is a concept of an international organization as endowed with tasks; a concept of an entity created by states to do the sort of things states cannot do on their own,

for whatever reason:

  1. manage an international waterway,
  2. monitor human rights violations,
  3. provide loans so as to facilitate economic development,
  4. facilitate smooth industrial relations, et cetera.
  5. Even the management of peace and security can, on this view, be reduced to, indeed, a managerial task, something best left to experts.

 

Another concept of international organisation according to the words of Mr. Grenville Clark advocated the rise of a new body of political leaders; young leaders would be "better trained in the technique of framing a limited world government and less inhibited by old habits of mind, to international organisation." this will be better than "Much of the slowness in moving toward world order has been due to the difficulty of seeing just how the machinery of a limited world government could operate. As the study of the application of Federalism to the world problem proceeds, this mental block will tend to disappear." One of the concept of international organization then is a three management-oriented, functionalist and progressive concept, built on the lines of modernism; I shall refer to it as the managerial concept. It presupposes two things:

  1. first, that institutionalized cooperation between independent states will contribute to the solution of common problems
  2. and second, that increased cooperation through international organizations will lead to a better world.

 

Another concept of international organisation is that it should be left into the hands of experts, properly educated as they are, and shortsighted things such as sovereignty or the national interest will be overcome by pure reason. And this is often the avowed aim of international organisation.

 

One of the concept of international organisation as stated by the words of a former director-general of the ILO, who held that "...international organizations must remain constant in their fidelity to the principles of objectivity and vigor in pursuing the goals of working for improved international understanding and for peace." The march towards heaven would be unstoppable; nothing less than the `salvation of mankind' would depend on international organizations, to use Nagendra Singh's phrase. Importantly, this managerial concept is also quite intolerant: instrumental as it is, it cannot tolerate the thought of other concepts being equally useful. As an emanation of what Michael Oakeshott refers to as rationalism, it has to insist that there cannot be any alternatives. Or rather, that such alternative way of organizing as do exist are bound to be inferior.

 

This first, managerial, concept plays out in a variety of ways within international organizations. It results, e.g.,

  1. in depoliticisation of political issues;
  2. it leads to deformalisation of decision-making,
  3. and it results in the use of expert bodies and what in Europe is so characteristically called `comitology'.

 

There is, however, and always has been, A Second Concept Of International Organization. This is the concept of the international organization as a classical agora: a public realm in which international issues can be debated and perhaps, decided. International organizations are not created to solve every problems, much less to save mankind. Instead, they are created as fora where states can meet, exchange ideas, and discuss their common future, not necessarily with a view to solving problems, or indeed even reaching an outcome, but merely for the sake of debate itself. International organization is not a debating clubs, rather political organs established to keep each other in check.

 

The British political philosopher Michael Oakeshott made distinction between societas and universitas. Oakeshott used these two notions to describe and analyze variations in the modern state since the 15th century. For Oakeshott, societas referred to agents related to each other, usually on the basis of a pact or agreement, by bonds of loyalty. The loyalty would not be loyalty to a common project, but rather to legality: the members of such a societas were "related to one another in the continuous acknowledgement of the authority of rules of conduct indifferent to the pursuit or the achievement of any purpose."

 

By contrast, universitas denotes a purposive association of people, people banding together in order to achieve a common purpose, to attain an acknowledged end, or to promote a specific interest. Oakeshott's contention is not so much that one concept evolves into another, but rather that the tension between the two concepts "is central to the understanding of the character of a modern European state and the office of its government." Mutatis mutandis, I think the same applies to the law of international organizations, much of which can be understood as the result of the interplay or tension between the two different concepts of international organization.

 

Thus, the tension between the two concepts may help explain why we can both chide the WTO for doing too much and for doing too little; it may help explain why we can criticize the UN for both having expanded beyond its proper mandate, and for not doing enough to redeem the world.

 

The two concepts both a play a role in the life of international organizations. Already the language used by international lawyers suggests the predominance of the managerial concept. International lawyers speak of the `personality' or `identity' of organizations; they speak of organizations having powers and a `volonté distincte' of their own; they speak of the organization exercising tasks and functions; indeed, the dominant theory about organizations is one which focusses on their functions, and there with is firmly grounded in the managerial concept.

 

There are conceptual sound reasons why this managerial, or functional, approach could dominate the scene. The managerial approach suggests that organizations do only what their founders tell them to do; that they do not develop any initiatives of their own except such as can be reconciled with their founders' intentions; and that they do not have any rights, privileges or immunities that cannot be traced back to the desires of the founders.

 

In short, the managerial approach aims to kill two birds with one stone, so to speak: it suggests both that organizations can be active in the service of some defined good cause, while at the same time suggesting that there are clear limits to what exactly the organization can do. Hence, for states, jealously guarding their sovereign prerogatives, the managerial concept proved a wonderful way of coming to terms with a new phenomenon. And international lawyers embraced the epistemology because that is what international lawyers are trained to do: take states and their intentions seriously.

 

Still, while the managerial concept may play first fiddle, the agora concept always shines through, e.g. in the oft-heard critique of organizations should mot be `talking clubs`. One major challenge of the managerial concept is that it must has singularly to keep organizations in check, against taking liberties, abusing their privileged status and, most of all perhaps, of becoming too active. It is a cliché perhaps, but to some extent organizations have become the victims of their own success, for precisely by achieving results they have come to threaten the state - or, more accurately perhaps, they have come to be seen as threatening the state.

 

This may help explain why all the talk at present is about the responsibility and accountability of organizations, of remedies against international organizations, indeed of constitutionalism. The relation between the two concepts, then, is fairly symbiotic. The state as well as organisations need each other in order to achieve balance. But there is more to it, in that the managerial concept is increasingly being used to justify other, less formal, forms of cooperation, ranging from 'trans-governmentalism' to`unilateralism'. The spirit of `getting things done' should is alive and kicking internal organisations.

 

The two concepts of international organization, then, are interrelated, and much of the law is shaped in the interplay between them, but together they do not form an airtight system of communicating barrels. Informal mechanisms may appear, unilateralism may appear, and vertical systems (governance by topic rather than by territory) may appear. And all of those may appear simultaneously and vie for prominence; there is no a priori reason why, say, the AIDS medication crisis should be approached through the WTO rather than the WHO, some social welfare scheme set up under UN auspices, or even as a matter of human rights. Likewise, there is no a priori reason why public regulation should be given priority over private regulation: why not apply a code of conduct drawn up by the pharmaceutical industry? Or, conversely, a code of conduct drawn up by NGOs?

 

Still, in this competition, international organizations have a comparative advantage, and their comparative advantage is threefold. First, the agora concept of international organizations suggests that organizations can be seen as the ideal playground of politics: an insulated place where the minds can meet, opinions be voiced, and temporary coalitions forged. As someone put it recently in a different context and using a striking image, thus conceptualized an organization may act "as the surface on which the search for justice is conducted."

 

Second, and related, this holds true all the more so in a world where territorial-based government is losing in relative importance. It is not, of course, the case that the state is dead and buried: the state too is of value both as the repository of values and culture, and as a neutral platform for the conduct of politics; but it is to note that often enough, states alone are incapable of either getting things done, or of getting things done in a legitimate manner. Organizations then can assist not just in getting things done, but also in doing them legitimately.

 

Third, the formal international organization would have the advantage of being purposive. What states do not have, and what private regimes do not have either (or have too much, perhaps) is the facility to be used for certain particular goals. To the extent that the world is malleable or soft, it is malleable or supple through international organizations. Those can be given assignments; those can be given tasks and functions. By contrast, such authority over the private sector is eminently lacking.

 

In the end, then, this once again underlines how societas and universitas hang together; it once again underlines that it is a mistake to think of international organizations as either one or the other. While it may be strategically or normatively useful, on occasion, to highlight the managerial concept or instead to emphasize the agora concept, at the end of the day what makes organizations tick, and what makes them so useful with a view to global governance and steering the global market, is precisely the interaction between the two concepts of international organization.

 

Benefits of International Organizations

  1. International organizations can provide smaller states an opportunity for stronger economic power. This can also help build relationships with larger states in which some believe can prevent war between one another.
  2. IO’s also give states an opportunity to be efficient and that is why states join them.
  3. IO’s provides opportunity for secured worldwide trade.
  4. International organizations can benefit the larger states because it shows others that they are willing to not always get their way on issues and it allows them to work with others.

 

Limitations of International Organizations

  1. Cultural differences: very hard to deal with such difference. Beyond the expertise to understand and overcome.
  2. Monitoring multiple countries: It is very important and at the same time very difficult to closely analyze all the economic and other dynamic situations all over the world.
  3. Resistance from the domestic organizations: the domestic organizations may not be in favor of centralization of power.
  4. and political hurdles: Different countries with different political parties may lead to diversified the government restrictions and administrative limits.

 

Role of International Organizations

The participating countries define the function of the International Organizations.

  1. The objective of international organization is to study, collect and propagate information, setting up of laws that are internationally accepted.
  2. The international organizations also help in cooperation between different countries by setting up negotiation deals between them.
  3. The international Organizations also help in technical assistance.
  4. Setting of international Norms through technical Analysis: The International Organizations play an important role in collecting statistical information, analyzing the trends in the variables, making a comparative study and disseminate the information to all other countries.
  5. There are some intergovernmental organizations that have set international Minimum standards. Such norms are difficult to be set at the state level.
  6. Supervisory Role: There are some international organizations that perform certain supervisory functions. The supervisory system of the UN is very weak. In contrast, the supervisory mechanism of the ILO is quite strong. The European Union, together with the Commission and the Court of Justice, has a relatively strong supervisory mechanism.

 

  1. Technical Assistance: An important role in the recent times, is lending out technical cooperation to the member countries. By technical cooperation we mean the provision of intellectual or financial material to the countries, which require them.
  2. Negotiating and Setting Up Multilateral Agreements: Amongst all the roles and activities of the international organizations, the most important is negotiating and setting up multilateral agreements. Minimizing the transaction costs can strengthen the cooperation between different countries.

 

Beside They Also Provide Lucidity and Information. For negotiations, forums for bargaining are set up and focal point structures are constructed during negotiations. The multilateral agreements that are settled by the international organizations occur in sections like environment protection, development trade, crime, human rights, etc 15.

International organizations serve many diverse functions, including

  1. collecting information and monitoring trends (e.g., the World Meteorological Organization),
  2. delivering services and aid (e.g., the World Health Organization),
  1. and settling disputes (e.g., the World Trade Organization).
  2. By providing political institutions through which states can work together to achieve common objectives,
  3. international organizations can help to foster cooperative
  • IGOs also serve useful purposes for individual states, which often use them as instruments of foreign policyto legitimate their actions and to constrain the behaviour of other states.

Although the daily operations of most international organizations are managed by specialized international bureaucracies, ultimate authority rests with state members. IGOs often work closely with other organizations, including NGOs (e.g., Greenpeace and Amnesty International), which serve many of the same functions as their IGO counterparts and are particularly useful for mobilizing public support, monitoring the effectiveness of international aid, and providing information and expertise. Although many of the thousands of NGOs direct their activities toward less developed countries in Africa and Asia, some of which have authoritarian forms of government, most of these groups are based in developed states with pluralist political systems. Only a small fraction of NGOs is international in scope, though they have played an increasingly important role in international relations 16.

Formation of The International Organization

A constituent act (charter), which is a type of international treaty, is the basis for the creation and activities of each international organization. The charter usually establishes an organization’s goals, principles, structure, and activities and is the highest law for an international organization and its members. Its provisions must accord with and must not contradict the norms and principles of modern international law. The highest body of most international organizations is the general assembly (conference) of all members, which meets periodically (either annually or once every few years). The competence of the general assembly usually includes the adoption, review, amendment, and alteration of the constituent act. In addition, the general assembly handles the admission of new members, the establishment of a dues scale, and the adoption of a budget. u Most international organizations are governed by an executive council (for example, an executive committee or presidium).

 

  1. As a rule, each international organization has a standing secretariat headed by a secretary-general or director.
  2. In addition, auxiliary consultative bodies are usually established (commissions, committees, working groups, and councils.
  3. The decisions of an overwhelming majority of international organizations are recommendations; that is, in a strictly legal sense, they are not binding on their members.
  4. International organizations contribute to the resolution of major international problems.
  5. Some international organizations give financial support to NGIOs so that they can implement concrete programs or conduct research in which the interstate organizations are interested.

 

The disadvantages of this system of ad hoc conferences were,

  1. first, that for each new problem which arose a new conference had to be convened, generally upon the initiative of one of the states concerned. The necessity of convening each conference anew complicated and delayed international co-operation in dealing with the problem.
  2. Second, the conferences were not debating forms in the same way as the later assemblies of the League and the United Nations; delegations attended very much for the purposes of delivering statements of State policy and, though concessions were often made, the conferences had a rigidity which disappeared in the later” Permanent” assemblies of the League and the United Nations.
  3. Third, the conferences were held by invitation of the sponsoring or host state; there was no principle of membership which conferred an automatic right to representation.
  4. Fourth, the conferences adhered to the strict rule of state equality, with the consequence that all states had an equal vote and all decisions required unanimity. As will presently be shown, there are matters in which it is necessary to subjugate the will of the minority to that of the majority if progress is to be made, and the unanimity rule represented a serious restriction on the powers of the ad hoc conference.
  5. It might also be said to be a disadvantage of the conference system that, as a political body, the conference was not ideally suited to the determination of legal questions. There were many cases in which the issues before a conference, although of a primarily political character, involved questions of law, of the rights or duties of the states under international law. The Paris conference of 1856 and the Berlin Conference of 1871, in dealing with the regime in the Black Sea, dealt very largely with legal issues. However, it must be remembered that there existed side by side with the conference system the traditional means of solving legal disputes, by mediation, conciliation or arbitration although there was in this field, as in the field of political settlement, an equal need for the creation of some permanent machinery. It is also unlikely that a rigid separation between” Political” and “legal” questions can ever be achieved to allocate the latter exclusively to judicial tribunals; politics are rarely “pure” and political matters do not cease to be such because they involve legal rights 23.

 

However inadequate the system of ad hoc conferences was for the solution of the political problems arising from international intercourse, it was even more inadequate for the regulation of the relations between groups of people in different countries arising from their common interests. The nineteenth century saw, therefore, an impassive development of associations or unions, international in character, between groups other than governments. This was followed by similar developments between governments themselves in the administrative rather than the political field.

 

The private International unions or associations sprang from the realization by non-governmental bodies, whether private individuals or corporate associations, that their interests had an international character which demanded the furtherance of those interests via a permanent international association with like bodies in other countries. In those fields where co-operation between governments became imperative, there developed the public international unions; these were, in fact, an essay into international organization in the administrative sphere. The transition from private to public organizations was gradual, and not generally accepted definition of the public international union has over been reached. in general, however, they were permanent associations of governments or administrations based upon a treaty of a multilateral rather than a bilateral type and with some definite criterion of purpose 24.

 

Finally, the nineteenth century saw the creation of such intuitions as the Rhine Commission, to deal with issues of navigation, or issues of pollution, on a regular basis. Following the establishment of the Rhine Commission in 1915, several other river commissions were established -managing the Elbe (1821), the Douro (1835) the Po (1849) - and, after the end of the Crimean War, the European Commission for the Danube in 1856. At roughly the same time, organizations started to be established by private citizens, to deal with international issues. Thus, in 1840, the world Anti-Slavery Convention was established, and in 1863 a Swiss philanthropist, Henry Dunant, Created the Red Cross 25. 

 

The rise of modern organizations

It became clear that in many areas, international cooperation was not only required, but also possible. True enough, states were sovereign and powerful, but, as the river commissions showed, they could sometimes sacrifice some of their sovereign prerogatives to facilitate the management of common problems. The most obvious area in which international cooperation may be required is perhaps that of transport and communication as indicated by the creation of those river commissions. Regulation of other modes of transport and communication quickly followed: in 1865 the international Telegraphic Union was established, followed in 1874 by the universal postal Union and in 1890 by the international Union of Railway Freight Transportation 26. 

 

Still other areas did not lag considerably behind: in 1903 the International Office of Public Health was created, and in the field of economics the establishment of the Metric Union (1875), the International Copyright Union (1886), the International Sugar Union (1902) and the International Institute for Agriculture (1905) may be mentioned as early forerunners of present-day international organization. Indeed, some of these are still in existence, albeit under a different name and based on a different constituent treaty: there runs a direct connection, for example, from the early international institute for Agriculture to today’s FAO. Slowly but surely, more and more international organizations became established, so much so that public international law gradually transformed (or is said to be gradually transforming) from a law of co-existence to a law of cooperation.

 

Many of the substantive fields of public international law are no longer geared merely to delimiting the spheres of influence of the various states, but are rather geared towards establishing permanent mechanisms for cooperation. Around the turn of the twentieth century it appeared indeed to be common knowledge that the organization of interstate cooperation had become well accepted in international law. The breakthrough for international organization however, would be the year 1919 and the Versailles peace Settlement which followed the First World War. On 8 January 1918, US president Woodrow Wilson made his famous ‘fourteen points’ Speech, in which he called for the creation of a “general association of nations. Under specific covenants for affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike 27.

 

Wilson’s plea was carried on the waves of public opium in many states and would lead to the formation of the League of Nations. And not only that the international Labor Organization was also established at the 1919 peace Conference. The League of Nations was the first international organization which was designed not just to organization operation between sates in areas which some have referred to as ‘low politics’, such as transport and communication, or the more mundane aspects of economic co-operation as exemplified by the Metric Union, but to have as its specific aims to guarantee peace and the establishment of a system of collective security, following which an attack against one of the member-states of the League would give the rest the right to come to the attacked state’s  rescue.

 

The League failed in its own overriding purpose: preventing war. On the ruins of the Second World War the urge to organize was given a new impetus. As early as August 1941, American president Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill had conceded the Atlantic Charter, a declaration of principles which would serve as the basis, first, for a declaration of the wartime allies, and later, after the State Department had overcome President Roosevelt’s initial reluctance to commit himself to the creation of a post-War organization, for the Charter of the United Nations. Also during the war, in 1944, the future of economic cooperation was mapped in Bretton Woods, where agreement was reached on the need to cooperate on monetary and trade issues, eventually leading to the creation of the international monetary Fund and the General Agreement on tariffs and Trade, among others 28. 

 

The resurrection of the largest battlefield of the Second World War, Europe, also came accompanied by the rise of several organizations. The Council of Europe was a first attempt, born out of Churchill’s avowed desire to create the United States of Europe, so that Europe could become an important power alongside the US and the UK. To channel the American Marshall aid, the Organization for European Economic co-operation was created (In 1960 transformed into the Organization for Economic co-operation and Development),  and a relatively small number of European states started a unique experiment when, in 1951, they created the supranational European Coal and Steel Community, some years later followed by the European economic Community and the European community For atomic Energy, all three of which have now been subsumed into the European Union. The northern and western states that remained outside would later create an alternative in the form of the European Free Trade Area, while the state-run economies of the east replied with the creation of the council for mutual Economic Assistance (usually referred to as Comecon). 

 

The influence of the Cold War also made it felt through military cooperation in Europe. Western Europe saw the creation of the Pact of Brussels (which later became the Western European Union) and the North Atlantic treaty Organization. Eastern Europe saw the creation of the Warsaw Pact, while east and west would meet, from the 1970s onwards, within the framework of the conference on security and cooperation in Europe (CSCE), which in 1995 changed its name to reflect its increased organization structure into organization for security and co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Moreover, elsewhere too organizations mushroomed. On the American continent, the early Pan-American Conference was recreated to become the Organization of American States 29.

 

In Africa, the wave of independence of the 1950s and early 1960s made possible the establishment of the organization of African Unity in 1963, with later such regional organizations as Ecocas (in central Africa) and Ecowas (western Africa) being added. In Asia, some states assembled in Asean, for their security, Australia and New Zealand joined the US in Anzus. A relaxed form of cooperation in the Pacific Rim area, moreover, is channeled through Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC). In short, there is not a part of the globe which is not covered by the work of some international organization or other; there is hardly a human activity which is not, to some extent, governed by the work of an international organization. Even academic research is at the heart of the work of some organizations, most notably perhaps the International Council for the exploration of the sea (ICES) originally set up as scientist’s club, having Fridtjof Nansen as one of its founders, but later ‘internationalized.

 

List of International Organizations

UN Organizations Political & Economic Organizations Financial Organizations Sports Organizations Other Organizations Food and Agriculture Organization African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) African Development Bank Asian Football Confederation (AFC) Community of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP) International Atomic Energy Agency Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Asian Development Bank Confederation African de Football(CAF) EDU - Intergovernmental Organization (EDU) International Civil Aviation Organization Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF) Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) International Labor Organization(ILO) Common Market of East and Southern Africa(COMESA) - Inter-American Development Bank(IADB) Confederation Sudamericana de Fútbol (CONMEBOL) International Committee of the Red Cross United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Commonwealth of Independent States International Monetary Fund Fédération International des Échecs (FIDE) International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Economic Community of West African States Islamic Development Bank(IDB) Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

 

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, European Free Trade Association, World Bank International, Cricket Council(ICC), International Maritime Organization, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees(UNHCR), Indian Ocean Commission, International Olympic Committee(IOC), International Organization for Migration (IOM), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD), International Paralympic Committee (IPC), International Telecommunication Union, World Food Programme (WFP), Organization for Security and Co- operation in Europe (OSCE), International Rugby Board (IRB), Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons(OPCW), World Health Organization(WHO), Union of South American Nations (Unasur/Unasul), Oceania Football Confederation (OFC), Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO), Union of European Football Associations(UEFA), Universal Postal Union World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), World Trade Organization(WTO) and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 30.

 

CONCLUSION

This topic discusses about the definition, benefits, limitations and the types of international organizations present. The concept and type of roles they play, the formations of international business and finally the list of IO. To conclude this topic, we did share with you about the facts of the international organizations that takes place in the international business. After all the limitations like cultural differences, domestic and governmental hurdles and other global problems still we can conclude that the contribution of IOs towards world economy and the global business environment creation is its biggest advantage which strengthens its existence.

 

NOTES

  1. https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-system/The-functions-of-government#ref417004
  2. Mizanie Abate and Alemayehu Tilahun, Journal, The Historical Development of International Organizationshttp://www.abyssinialaw.com/study-on-line/item/475
  3. http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/sites/default/files/programme_ resources/lse/lse_pdf/subject_guides/ir2085_ch1-3.pdf
  4. Mizanie Abate and Alemayehu Tilahun http://www.abyssinialaw.com/study-on-line/item/474-meaning-and-scope-of-international-organizations.
  5. http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/political-science-and-government/international-organizations/international
  6. https://www.slideshare.net/sourabharay/international-organization-55132044
  7. John McCormick. The European Union: Politics and Policies.Westview Press: Boulder Colorado, 1999. p.10. http://carleton.ca/ces/eulearning/introduction/what-is-the-eu/extension-what-are-international-organizations/
  8. John McCormick. The European Union: Politics and Policies.Westview Press: Boulder Colorado, 1999. p.10. http://carleton.ca/ces/eulearning/introduction/what-is-the-eu/extension-what-are-international-organizations/
  9. Mizanie Abate and Alemayehu Tilahun http://www.abyssinialaw.com/study-on-line/item/474-meaning-and-scope-of-international-organizations.
  10. Mizanie Abate and Alemayehu Tilahun http://www.abyssinialaw.com/study-on-line/item/474-meaning-and-scope-of-international-organizations.
  11. http://internationalrelations.org/international-organizations/
  12. Karen Mingst, https://www.britannica.com/topic/international-organization.
  13. https://www.slideshare.net/sourabharay/international-organization-55132044, http://uia.org/archive/types-organization/cc
  14. https://www.slideshare.net/sourabharay/international-organization-55132044, http://uia.org/archive/types-organization/cc
  15. https://www.slideshare.net/sourabharay/international-organization-55132044, http://uia.org/archive/types-organization/cc
  16. Karen Mingst, https://www.britannica.com/topic/international-organization.
  17. Mizanie Abate and Alemayehu Tilahun, Journal, The Historical Development Of International Organizationshttp://www.abyssinialaw.com/study-on-line/item/475.
  18. Mizanie Abate and Alemayehu Tilahun, Journal, The Historical Development Of International Organizationshttp://www.abyssinialaw.com/study-on-line/item/475.
  19. Mizanie Abate and Alemayehu Tilahun, Journal, The Historical Development Of International Organizationshttp://www.abyssinialaw.com/study-on-line/item/475.
  20. Mizanie Abate and Alemayehu Tilahun, Journal, The Historical Development Of International Organizationshttp://www.abyssinialaw.com/study-on-line/item/475.
  21. Mizanie Abate and Alemayehu Tilahun, Journal, The Historical Development Of International Organizationshttp://www.abyssinialaw.com/study-on-line/item/475.
  22. Mizanie Abate and Alemayehu Tilahun, Journal, The Historical Development Of International Organizationshttp://www.abyssinialaw.com/study-on-line/item/475.
  23. Mizanie Abate and Alemayehu Tilahun, Journal, The Historical Development Of International Organizationshttp://www.abyssinialaw.com/study-on-line/item/475.
  24. Mizanie Abate and Alemayehu Tilahun, Journal, The Historical Development Of International Organizationshttp://www.abyssinialaw.com/study-on-line/item/475.
  25. Mizanie Abate and Alemayehu Tilahun, Journal, The Historical Development Of International Organizationshttp://www.abyssinialaw.com/study-on-line/item/475.
  26. Mizanie Abate and Alemayehu Tilahun, Journal, The Historical Development Of International Organizationshttp://www.abyssinialaw.com/study-on-line/item/475.
  27. Mizanie Abate and Alemayehu Tilahun, Journal, The Historical Development of International Organizationshttp://www.abyssinialaw.com/study-on-line/item/475.
  28. Mizanie Abate and Alemayehu Tilahun, Journal, The Historical Development of International Organizationshttp://www. abyssinialaw.com/study-on-line/item/475
  29. Mizanie Abate and Alemayehu Tilahun, Journal, The Historical Development of International Organizationshttp://www.abyssinialaw.com/study-on-line/item/475.
  30. https://www.slideshare.net/sourabharay/international-organization-55132044, http://uia.org/archive/types-organization/cc

 

ERIC C. OKECHUKWU  

IMPACT OF COLONIALISM IN AFRICA!

 

Introduction 

History is the compass that wise people use to locate themselves on the map of the world. A peoples’ history tells them who they are. What they have been, where they have been, where they are now, but most importantly, where they still must go. True African History is a powerful weapon against colonial history that has been used for mental enslavement and colonisation of the African people.

Colonialism is about the dominance of a strong nation over another weaker one. Colonialism happens when a strong nation sees that its material interest and affluence require that it expand outside its borders. Colonialism is the acquisition of the colonialist, by brute force, of extra markets, extra resources of raw material and manpower from the colonies1. The first objective of colonialism is political domination. Its second objective is to make possible the exploitation of the colonized country. When we talk of colonialism in Africa we are talking of phenomenon, which took place between 1800-1960s. It is a singularity which is part and parcel of another spectacle called imperialism. In fact, colonialism is a direct form of imperialism. Therefore, it is often said that “all colonialism is imperialism, but not all imperialism is colonialism”.

 

This work “IMPACT OF COLONIALISM IN AFRICA”, took critical look on the definitions, theories, antecedents, the reasons for colonization and the strategies used to achieve the colonial objectives. Then, the impacts of colonialism in Africa state. The examination revealed that the present primary role of African states in the international world economy as the dominant sources of raw materials and major consumers of manufactured products are the results of long years of colonial dominance, exploitation and imperialism. Accordingly, on attainment of independence by most African states from their colonial overlords, it was extremely very difficult to disentangle from the colonial perfected role for the state because of the systematic disarticulation in the indigenous economy and the basic tying of same with the external economy of the colonizers.

 

The work also made an amazing revelation by discovering through analysis that the deep-seated corruption in most African states and the selfish behaviour of some of the political leaders to sit tight in office even when they have obviously outlived their usefulness in the eyes of their people, are attributable to the effects of colonialism and imperialism. The work concludes and recommends that for African states to overcome their present social, economic, political, health, education woes, etc., there is the urgent need for the people and the leadership to create their own indigenous identity, culture, technology, economy, education, religion, craft, etc. that would be interwoven in good governance 1. The work will be examining colonialism under two broad headings. There will also be conclusion/reflections at the end of the chapter 2.

 

Antecedents, Definition and Outline

Colonialism is not a modern phenomenon. World history is full of examples of one society gradually expanding by incorporating adjacent territory and settling its people on newly conquered territory. The ancient Greeks set up colonies as did the Romans, the Moors, and the Ottomans, to name just a few of the most famous examples. Colonialism, then, is not restricted to a specific time or place. Nevertheless, in the sixteenth century, colonialism changed decisively because of technological developments in navigation that began to connect more remote parts of the world. Fast sailing ships made it possible to reach distant ports and to sustain close ties between the center and colonies. Thus, the modern European colonial project emerged when it became possible to move large numbers of people across the ocean and to maintain political sovereignty despite geographical dispersion.

 

This entry uses the term colonialism to describe the process of European settlement and political control over the rest of the world, including the Americas, Australia, and parts of Africa and Asia. The ascension of the colonialism ideology was based on the belief that colonies were an essential attribute of any great nation. Whether the reason was economic, political, or diplomatic the quest for overseas possessions was of paramount concern for European nations. Thus, more explorations took place, and these events took on a new meaning.

 

Colonialism began because of changes in the mode of production in Europe (For example, the emergence of industrial revolution). The industrial revolution ushered in a new process of production in place of the earlier slave based economy. The problem of how to lubricate machineries came up with the emergence of the industrial revolution. The slave trade and slavery have by this time fulfilled their basic function of providing the primitive capital. The quest for the investment of the accumulated capital and the need for raw materials led to the colonization of Africa. As soon as any European power moved into a part of Africa, others were likely to follow for fear of losing future opportunities. In that way, tentative, low-cost initiatives in the 1870s evolved into the “scramble” for Africa. Yet despite the rivalries, a collective cultural arrogance shared by European colonizers asserted itself. At the Berlin Conference of 1884 and again at the Brussels Conference of 1889-1890, these European powers set out rules for claiming territory in Africa and agreed on the duties of a colonizing power and preventing Africans from trading in slaves, arms, or liquor. Africans were perceived as disorderly and incapable of self-control or economic progress, and Europeans were viewed as responsible and disciplined. 3

 

The words “Colonialism” cannot be used without invoking their highly politicised pasts as the  European statesmen, insisting that they brought economic progress to the world and relief from backwardness and despotism to Africa. One of the difficulties in defining colonialism is that, it is hard to distinguish it from imperialism. Both colonialism and imperialism were forms of conquest that were expected to benefit Europe economically and strategically. Though, they differ, the term colony comes from the Latin word colonus, meaning farmer. This root reminds us that the practice of colonialism usually involved the transfer of population to a new territory, where the arrivals lived as permanent settlers while maintaining political allegiance to their country of origin.

 

Like the settlement of North America, Australia, New Zealand, Algeria, and Brazil, that were controlled by a large population of permanent European residents. But imperialism, on the other hand, comes from the Latin term imperium, meaning to command and it often describes cases in which a foreign government exercises power over another, whether through settlement, sovereignty, or indirect mechanisms of control 4 and typical examples include the scramble for Africa in the late nineteenth century and the American domination of the Philippines and Puerto Rico.

 

New Encyclopedia of Africa defined “Colonialism as the erection by a state of an apparatus of administrative control over peoples who are defined as distinct” Nonetheless colonization necessarily implied the rule of one people over another.5 But, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defined Colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another. 6 Colonialism is the direct and overall domination of one country by another based on state power being in the hands of a foreign power (For example, the direct and overall domination of Nigeria by Britain between 1900-1960).

 

Middle-class ideology in nineteenth-century Europe derived its power from its claims to universality, to the superiority of the free market, the rationalist heritage of the Enlightenment, the orderly structures of states, and the rightness of self-rule, but sees colonization necessarily implied the rule of one people over another.

 

Lenin’s sees colonialism as a sense exploitation, for them, colonization was an extractive process, producing super profits for capitalists in remote wealthy metropoles, misery for local workers, and stagnation for colonial economies. Colonialism, by which the continent was organized and administered for maximum economic exploitation. However, colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another. Apart from the above, some scholars say that colonialism is the practice of creating settlements in lands geographically distant from the parent land. Besides, for Africans, colonialism was thus, in a sense, a continuation of the slave trade in other ways—the exploitation of the black peoples in situ.

 

Theories of Colonialism

Colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another. But, as the legitimacy of colonialism has been questioned. The political theorists struggled reconciling ideas about justice and natural law with the practice of European sovereignty over non-Western peoples. As the tension reached its zenith, most political philosophers began to map out theories to defend the legitimacy of colonialism and imperialism. The middle-class ideology in nineteenth-century Europe derived its power from its claims to Universality, to the superiority of the free market, the rationalist heritage of the Enlightenment, the orderly structures of states, and the rightness of self-rule, but to them colonization necessarily implied the rule of one particular people over another

 

Another of such theory is the principles of colonialism known as the “civilizing mission,” which suggested that a temporary period of political dependence or tutelage was necessary for “uncivilizedsocieties to advance to the point where they can sustain liberal institutions and self-government 7.

 

Moreover, the theory of Natural Law and the Age of Discovery was used. The Spanish conquerors sparked a theological, political, and ethical debate about the use of military force to acquire control over foreign lands. This debate took place within the framework of a religious discourse that legitimized military conquest to facilitate the conversion and salvation of indigenous peoples. The Spanish explicitly justified their activities in terms of a Religious Mission to bring Christianity to the native peoples. To care for the souls of Christ's human flock required Papal jurisdiction over temporal as well as spiritual matters, and this control extended to non-believers as well as believers.

 

Apart from the above, liberalism and Empire is a theory that Europeans had the obligation to “civilize” the rest of the world. Though some critics like Diderot says that colonial empires frequently become the sites of extreme brutality 8. (Muthu 2003) But, he goes ahead to grants that it is legitimate to colonize an area that is not actually inhabited, he insists that foreign traders and explorers have no right of access to fully inhabited lands 9. (Muthu 2003: 75)

 

But, Marxism and Leninism analyses imperialism as a system oriented towards economic exploitation. Thus, for Lenin and subsequent Marxists, sees imperialism as a historical stage of capitalism that the basis of European political expansion is but the persistence of economic exploitation even after the end of direct political rule. Marx predicted that the bourgeoisie would continue to create a global market and undermine both local and national barriers to its own expansion. The core dynamic of capitalism is expansion that leads to overproduction and competition among producers drives them to cut wages, which in turn leads to a crisis of under-consumption.

 

To prevent economic collapse is to find new markets to absorb excess consumer goods, thus, some form of imperialism is inevitable. By exporting population to resource rich foreign territories, a nation creates a market for industrial goods and a reliable source of natural resources. Alternately, weaker countries can face the choice of either voluntarily admitting foreign products that will undermine domestic industry or submitting to political domination, which will accomplish the same end 10. Marxist approach is apparent about imperialism, a term which usually means Western economic domination, regardless of whether such power is exercised directly or indirectly (Young 2001) 11. The goal of this entry is to analyze the relationship between Western political theory and the project of colonialism. This is how European thinkers justified, legitimized and challenged political domination.

 

Reasons For Colonization

Prior to the late nineteenth century, various imperial countries nibbled at the edges of Africa, but rarely did these conquering nations penetrate inland and more rarely still did they try to alter African societies. Before this time, the effects of Europe’s economic power demonstrated through trade in slaves, ivory, gold, and other commodities were widely though unevenly felt in Africa, influencing but not determining the political and economic structures of coastal and inland communities. So, colonialism in the late nineteenth century was self-consciously interventionist.

 

The colonization of Africa by European powers was necessitated by several factors. Notable, among the factors was the emergence of the Industrial Revolution which brought about a rapid change in the socio-economic transformation and technology of the European countries. The industrial revolution led to increase in production. The progress in the industry went faster than the progress in agriculture. It was becoming increasingly hard or difficult for the agriculture to satisfy the demand for raw materials required in the industries. There was therefore, the need for the European powers, for example, the British to go outside the country to look for additional raw materials 12.

 

Moreover, the advancement of military technologies and the self-confidence of middleclass culture gave European elites a sense that their ways of organizing life stood not only for might but also for progress. Africa became an object of reformist imperialism because it could be portrayed as a slavery-ridden continent that was held in check by tyrants and isolated from the beneficial effects of commerce.

 

Furthermore, because of the decline in agricultural production, there was the problem of how to produce Enough Or Adequate Food To Feed The Fast-Growing Urban Population. In other words, the rural area as in Britain for example, were finding it increasingly difficult to produce enough food to feed the increasing urban population. Similarly, there was also need for market, not only to produce raw materials but for food to sustain the increasing population. Because of rapid increase in technology, new products were produced at a faster rate than the populations could dispose of. Africa with her large population constituted a ready market for such products. Furthermore, as result of low wages paid to workers, there was accumulation of profits by the industrialists at a faster rate than they could invest back. There was under-utilization of capital in Europe, and a need to find where these capitals will be transported and invested for the creation of new products. It was during this process of investment of the surplus capital that imperialism emerged. Chinweizu (1978, p. 35) 13.

 

While discussing the European conquest of Africa noted that “when Europe pioneered industrial capitalism, her demands upon the resources of the world increased tremendously. In addition to obtaining spices for her tables and manpower for her mines and plantations in the Americas, Europe set out to seize for her factories the mineral and agricultural resources of all the world. Her need to take African manpower to the Americas declined. She needed instead to put African labour to work in Africa, digging up for her the riches of African mines; the trading companies that had for centuries bought and sold on Africa’s coast were found inadequate for seizing and carting off the raw materials of the African hinterland. Europe now felt a need to export her power into Africa’s interior to reorganize the farms, mines and markets for Europe’s greater profit.

 

Her adventures banded together, obtained charters from their national governments, and came to seize the African markets, from the African middlemen with whom for centuries Europe had been content to trade. Africa’s coastal rulers naturally resisted all encroachments and battled to maintain the status quo. They strove to retain their position as middlemen, importing and distributing European wares to the hinterland, and collecting produce from the hinterland markets and selling it to European merchants who came to the coast. The new breed of European merchants, however, wanted direct access to the hinterland markets so that, by eliminating the profits of the African middlemen, they could enlarge European profits and directly supervise African production. The situation was ripe for conflict”. There was a severe struggle and conflict between the colonialists and the African chiefs in the attempt to take full control of the African economy.

 

The colonialists needed raw materials for their industries and the way the African economies were organized at the time, they were not sure of steady supply of the required raw materials. This situation necessitated the quest for direct take over and control of the economy and administration of the African enclaves and states. The colonialists had to direct the economy in such a way that the required raw materials were produced. For example, if the colonialists required palm oil for their soap making industry, they had to compel Africans to concentrate on the production of this commodity in commercial quantities so that the industry concerned could have adequate and steady supply of this product. If the colonialists did not take full control and direct production in the economy, the African people who are the producers might decide to produce yams more than palm oil, because this might be what was in high demand within the local economy 14.

 

The colonialists also had to take direct control of the African economy and political administration to produce the type of food required for their industrial workers back home. One of the reasons for the colonization of Africa as we know is that the colonialists required additional food supply and spices for the fast-increasing urban population because of the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution initially came with decline in agricultural production in Europe and thus it was hard for the rural areas to produce enough food for the increasing urban population. There was therefore, the need for market not only for the population of raw materials but for the food to sustain the increasing population.

 

Similarly, there was need for the colonialist to take direct control of the African economy and political administration to reorganize the economy and the markets to make it possible for integration into the world market and international economy. The African economy before colonization was primitive and based on barter system. Since one of the objectives of colonialism was to find market for the European manufactured goods and raw materials for the industries, there was need for an organic linkage between the African economy and market with that of the international system controlled and directed by the colonizers. Through direct control of African economy and political administration made possible colonialism 15.

 

Africa was compelled or forced to accept the international division of labour which assigned her the compulsory role of production of agricultural raw materials required by the industries in Europe. This explains why up till today, the role of Africa economy and states in the world market or international trade is the production of primary goods and agricultural products. The advanced countries of Europe controlled the production of manufactured goods. As we know, one of the reasons for the colonization of Africa was the need for a suitable market where the numerous European manufactured goods could be easily disposed of at a reasonable profit. Since the African economy was essentially based on barter system, there was the need to monetize the economy to be in line with the European market and the international trade standard. This money was introduced as the only official acceptable medium of exchange and to enforce this, there was need for the colonialist to take direct control of the administration of the African colonies.

Furthermore, there was also the need for the colonialist to take full control of the African economy and administration to ensure that Africa was made a consumer nation for European manufactured goods. If this situation was not guaranteed, it would affect the development and progress of the new industrialization in Europe, because most of the industries would be compelled to close if there are not ready market and consumers for their products. Also, direct control of the African economy and political administration enabled the colonialist to ensure that African colonies or states did not take to manufacturing. It helped to restrict Africans and their technology to the confines or role of producing only primary goods or agricultural raw materials needed by the industries in Europe. This is the main reason why today African states find it very difficult to industrialize and to go into full manufacturing. This also explains why Africa is a consumer nation for foreign manufactured goods. The situation equally accounts for the present underdevelopment of the African states and their technology 16.

The colonialist had to take direct control of African economy and administration as a means of protecting the capitals they had transported from Europe to be invested in Africa. We are aware that one of the reasons for colonization of Africa was because the colonialists were looking for where to invest the surplus capital which was accumulated as a result of the industrial revolution. It was felt among the European merchants that for effective and efficient management, as well as maximization of the capitals transported to the African colonies, there was need for their home governments either to take direct control of the African economy and political administration of the area or grant them permission to do so through a charter.

Such a charter for instance, was granted to the Royal Niger Company by the British government until 1900 when it was revoked and the British government had to take full control and administration of Nigeria. The capital brought in by the European merchants had to be protected through direct control and administration of the colonies to create a conducive atmosphere for its operation. It is important to note that initially, Africans lacked the type of technology necessary for the exploitation and maximization of the exported capitals 17.

There was therefore the need to reorganize and reorient the African labour force to adapt to the requirements and demands of the exported capital. To get Africans interested in working for the Europeans or the industrialists/merchants who had exported the capital, there was need for compulsion or use of force. The capitals transported and industrial organizational life associated with it were alien to the African economy and labour force.

It was therefore hard for the Africans to voluntarily and willingly move to seek for job in the new industries developed with the exported capital. The problem or question then was how the Africans could be compelled to work in the new industries and change their work attitude to that of industrial life without revolt or with minimum violence. The only option was to take direct control of their economy and political administration and then use government machinery through the proclamation of laws to compel them to move from their enclave and to abandon their traditional system of production in preference to that of their colonizers. Hence, the need for direct colonization of the African territories and the consequent imperialism.

The Strategies to Achieve Colonial Objectives

The question we now wish to ask is, what factors made it possible for the direct colonization of Africa by European powers? In other words, what strategies did the colonialists use to maintain their direct economies and political domination of African states or territories during the period of colonial rule of the continent? The colonialists used several methods and strategies to compel Africans to submit to colonialism and colonial administration. These included the use of conquest, forced labour, taxation, monetization of the economy, and payment of low wages. We now wish to examine how the colonialists used the above strategies/methods to maintain effective occupation and administration of their African territories during the period of colonial rule in the continent.

The first method or strategy used by the colonialist to colonize and maintain effective occupation and administration of African territories was by conquest. The various African states or territories were conquered politically, economically, culturally, socially and enslaved. Commenting on the assault and conquest by Western Europe upon the rest of us, Chinwezu (1978, p. 3) aptly noted thus: “For nearly six centuries now, Western Europe and its Diaspora have been disturbing the peace of the world. Enlightened, through their Renaissance, by the learning of the ancient Mediterranean; armed with the gun, the making of whose powder they had learned from Chinese firecrackers; equipping their ships with lateen sails, astrolabes and nautical compasses, all invented by the Chinese and transmitted to them by Arabs; fortified in aggressive spirit by an arrogant, messianic Christianity of both the Popish and protestant varieties; and motivated by the lure of enriching plunder, white hordes have sailed forth from Western European home lands to explore, assault, loot, occupy, rule and exploit the rest of the world” 18.

And even now, the fury of their expansionist assault upon the rest of us has not abated”. Conquest made it possible for the European powers who were the colonizers to take direct control and effective occupation of African territories? According to Chinweizu (1978, p. 36), in response to pressure from their traders, the European powers began systematically to interfere with the sovereignty of African states and to intrude upon their internal affairs. The Europeans began to help one faction to depose a ruler and install another, and to bestow honours, titles and recognition upon those whose rule they found it in their interest to support. The officially trumpeted goals of such interference were to suppress the slave trade and to promote “legitimate” trade 19. 

As elsewhere around the world, with the British in the lead, European insistence upon dominating trade brought gunboat diplomacy to the shores of Africa. European industrial power, embodied in the gunboats, had come to overawe Africa. The general effect was to undermine the power and sovereignty of African states. This era of gunboat diplomacy, consular interference and trader intrigue was inaugurated in 1810 when a British squadron of four ships with a total of ninety-eight guns was sent out to patrol some three thousand miles of the West African coast. Its mission was twofold: to enforce the British law of 1807 that declared the slave trade illegal and to protect British “legitimate’ traders”, that is, those who did not deal in slaves.

The arrival of the squadron exposed the military and political weakness of the African states. Where the African rulers had, for over three centuries, protected trade in their domains and guaranteed the peace of the coastal markets, they could no longer do so. Their ability, and hence their right, to determine the rules and limits of trade within their domains withered under the shadow of British guns. With gunboat sheltering them, British traders quickly lost their fear of and respect for the authorities of Africa’s coastal states and principalities. They began to intrigue and displace Africa traders from control of the African side of the Euro-African trade. Before long, the British forced unequal trade treaties upon them and insisted that they open the markets of their hinterland to British participation. When African rulers resisted such demands, trade wars and shooting wars erupted”. In fact, conquest or use of force was the most effective and efficient strategy which enabled the European colonialists to maintain direct control and domination of African economy and political administration.

Apart from conquest, another effective instrument or strategy which enabled the colonialists to maintain direct control and effective occupation of the African territories was the use of forced labour. Africans were forced to work in the colonial plantations and industries. Since Africans were not used to colonial economy and system of production, there was need to compel them by force to work for the colonialists. This is because, since the new economy is alien to them, there was no way they can give their labour force willingly and voluntarily. To force Africans to work in the mines, sugar plantations and industries the colonialists employed several strategies to compel them to make their labour force available. Commenting on the colonial order and the use of forced labour in Africa, Chinwezu (1978, p. 55) observed that “having by conquest become masters of the continent, the European rulers of Africa began to seize resources and to organize their rule for long and profitable stay” 20.

First, they began to take out of African use of occupancy whatever land they wanted, and they simultaneously assembled African labour to mine the land for gold, copper, diamonds, asbestos, tin, iron and zinc, or to farm it for wool, sisal, palm-oil and kernels, cotton, cocoa, rubber and groundnuts. But as the African people were reluctant to dispossess themselves of their lands and unwilling to work for the profit of Europeans, such land as the Europeans wanted had to be confiscated and African labour compelled. The means of doing this was the adopting by a white ruling race of legal measures designed expressly to compel the individual natives to whom they apply to quit land, which they occupy and by which they can live to work in white service for the private gain of the white man. When lands formerly occupied by natives are confiscated, or otherwise annexed for white owners, the creation of a labour supply out of the dispossessed natives is usually a secondary object”.

Yes, the creation of labour supply out of the dispossessed natives is a secondary issue because the people lived on land and make their means of livelihood or survival from tilling and working on the land. Since they had been dispossessed of their lands, they had no other means of survival or livelihood than to work for the colonialists unwillingly. They were compelled to work for the colonialist because they must survive together with members of their families. Chinwezu further noted that another method used by the colonialists to compel labour from Africans was the use legal coercion.

In Sierra Leone, for example, a high Analysis of Colonialism and Its Impact in Africa and burdensome “hut-tax” was imposed. Its collection was harshly enforced. In other to earn money to pay it, Africans had to sell their labour to white men. Where taxation failed to turn out an adequate supply of African labour, compulsory labour ordinances made it “obligatory on persons of the labouring classes to give labour for public purposes on being called out by their chiefs or other native superiors. In 1895 such an ordinance was passed in the Gold Coast to compel chiefs to furnish carriers for a military expedition against Ashanti. But where, as in South Africa, the chiefs did not, for whatever reason, provide their allotted quotas of labour, native police were sent out to ‘collect the labour’. In South Africa, to meet the insatiable demands of the mines, methods more fruitful than compulsory labour ordinances were devised 21. 

The grand plan was to break up the tribal system which gives solidarity and some political and economic strength to native life; set the Kaffiron an individual footing as an economic bargainer, to which he is wholly unaccustomed, take him by taxation or other ‘stimulus’ from his locality, put him down under circumstances where he has no option but to labour at the mines”. Through forced labour the colonialists could maintain direct control and effective occupation of the African territories. Their control and effective occupation of the African economy and political administration was unchallenged. The colonialists appropriated the surplus labour of Africa for their own profit and development. The African labour force was dehumanized and incarcerated. 

Another effective strategy which the colonialist used to maintain direct control and domination of African territories was taxation. Taxation in the form introduced by the European colonizers was alien to most African people. Some African communities such as in Northern Nigeria paid tax to their rulers but this could be in cash or kind. The colonial authority insisted that Africans should pay their tax in colonial currency. The implication of this was that Africans would be compelled to work either in the colonial civil service or in the industries and plantations to earn the colonial currency to pay their tax. Since Africans were not allowed to pay their tax in kind such as using yams, cocoa-yams, livestock, palm oil, etc., they were indirectly compelled to make their labour services available for the colonialist to earn the money to meet up with their civic colonial obligation.

The colonialists imposed taxes on Africans for two reasons. The first was that it was a source of labour for their industries and plantations. The second reason was because they wanted the colonies to bear the cost of the personnel and the administration. The colonialists were not interested in using their own funds to run the colonial territories and administration. Their policy was whatever was spent for running the colonial administration must be raised and generated locally. Taxation was a very good effective instrument for mobilizing 22. 

African labour to work in the colonial plantations and industries: The punishment against a tax defaulter was enormous and overwhelming. Africans dreaded not to pay tax. Tax evasion was very difficult because the colonialists devised a very effective system of collection and accountability. The colonialists had up-date record or statistics of adult tax payers in any community. In some communities, they did the collection through the assistance of the traditional institution. Africans were also made to see taxation or tax payment as a civic responsibility to the state. The implication of this was that a defaulter was treated as a criminal and the offence committed was against the state. This intimidatory approach to taxation was strong enough to compel almost all adult African males to seek for employment in the colonial services to earn adequate money to pay their tax. Thus, African labour was made readily available for colonial use 23. 

Monetization of African economy was another effective instrument or strategy used by the colonialists to take direct control and political administration of the African territories. Prior to colonization, African economy was essentially based on barter system. Furthermore, even where a sort of currency was introduced these currencies lacked general acceptability, were too heavy or bulky and hardly divisible into smaller units of exchange. In fact, the currencies lacked the good qualities of a modern medium of exchange. It was necessary for the colonialists to monetize African economy to integrate it into the world market and international trade. 

The currencies introduced in the African territories were those used by the colonialists back home. It was therefore easy for them to regulate the use and value of the currency as a means of maintaining effective control of the African economy and their administration. The colonialists made the currency too difficult for Africans to obtain. The way they did this was to make the prices of raw materials and agricultural products produced by Africans to be too cheap.

 

On the other hand, the colonialists made the prices of goods manufactured by them to be too dear or high, so that an African would spend all he had toiled for, for year or more to purchase a little of the foreign goods. The implication of this was that Africans kept on working hard and making their labour service available to the colonialists to enjoy some of the foreign manufactured goods they required. The consequence of this was that while Africans kept on becoming poorer, the colonialist profits kept increasing.

 

Since the currency used in the African colonial territories was controlled by the colonialist, they determined the character and nature of development of the African economy and political administration. In fact, monetization of the African economy and introduction of currency institution was an effective imperialistic instrument used by colonialists to maintain effective control and domination of African territories 24.

 

The last strategy used by the colonialists to maintain direct control and administration of African territories was the payment of low wages to Africans employed in the colonial service. The payment of low wages to Africans was seen by the colonialists as a method or strategy to compel more Africans to make their labour services available to the colonial plantations and industries. For example, if a man was married and working for the colonialist, what he receives as wage could not keep him and his wife, family and relatives alive.

 

The implication of the low wage paid to the African man was that his wife, children, relatives etc. would be compelled to join the colonial service to make ends meet. This was to the advantage of the colonialists because more labour force was made available for use in the plantations and industries. If the African man had been initially well paid or rewarded, there would be no need for his wife, children and relatives to join the colonial service. Instead, they would have worked in his farms or enter trading. The low wage payment was as effective as other strategies earlier discussed, used by the colonialists to maintain effective control, domination and administration of the African territories. What we intend to examine now is the impact of colonialism in Africa 25.

 

IMPACT OF COLONIALISM IN AFRICA

The Europe came up with the Trans-Atlantic Trade. There was massive loss of African population and skills. Some historians have estimated that the Gold Coast (today’s Ghana) alone, lost 5OOO to 6OOO of its people to slavery every year for four hundred years. Prof. Walter Rodney asks a pertinent question: “What would have been Britain’s level of development had millions of her people been put to work as slaves out of their country over a period of four centuries?” As if slavery, had not already done enough damage to Africa’s people, European leaders met in Germany from December 1884 to 26 February 1885 at the imperialist Berlin Conference and sliced Africa into “Portuguese Africa”, “British Africa”, “German Africa”, “Italian Africa,” “Spanish Africa”, “French Africa” and “Belgian Africa.” There was no Africa left for Africans except Ethiopia, encircled by paupers of land dispossessed people who were now the reservoir of cheap native labour for their dispossessors. While Somalia, a tiny African country, had the misfortune of becoming “British Somaliland”, “Italian Somaliland”, and “French Somaliland.”

 

The major impact of colonialism in African is that it brought about the under-development of African territories in many ways. It is usually argued in favour of colonialism that it brought western education and hence western civilization to the shores of Africa which by implication is a positive contribution towards African development. This argument will appear to be true on the surface or superficially, but if it is subjected to critical analysis, it will reveal the hollowness or emptiness of colonial education, which is partially responsible for the present African underdevelopment. The   colonial education was not rooted in African culture and therefore could not foster any meaningful development within the African environment because it had no organic linkage.

Furthermore, colonial education was essentially literary; it had no technological base and therefore antithetical to real or industrial development. The poor technological base of most of the present day African states, which has been responsible for their underdevelopment stems from their poor foundation of education laid by the colonialists. Colonial education essentially aimed at training clerks, interpreters, produce inspectors, artisans, etc., which would help them in the exploitation of the Africa’s rich resources.

Colonial education did not aim at industrialization of African territories or at stimulating technological development within the African environment. Colonial education brought about distortion and disarticulation in African indigenous pattern of education which was rooted in African technology. Before fully embracing colonial education, Africans were good technologists, advancing at their own rates with the resources within their environment. For example, Africans were good sculptors, carvers, cloth weavers, miners, blacksmiths, etc. They could provide and satisfy the technological need of the various African societies.

The introduction of colonial education made Africans to abandon their indigenous technological skills and education in preference to one which mainly emphasizes reading and writing. This was the prelude or foundation for the present poor technological base of African states which has perpetuated their underdevelopment. As we know, education that is not deeply rooted in a people’s culture and environment cannot bring about any meaningful technological advancement. This has aptly been shown in the unsuccessful attempt at the so-called technological transfer, which is more of a myth than reality.

When introducing inferior education for African mental enslavement in South Africa, Hendrik F. Verwoerd that arch implementer of apartheid colonialism said, “There is no place for him (the African) in the European community above the level of certain forms of labour. Until now, he (the African) has been subjected to a school system which drew him away from his community and misled him by showing him the green pastures of the European society where he is not allowed to graze.” ’26

Another important impact of colonialism in Africa is the disarticulation of their economy.  Colonialism distorted African pattern of economic development in many ways. There was disarticulation in production of goods, markets, traders, transport, provision of social amenities and pattern of urbanization etc. the colonialists introduced a pattern of international division of labour which was to the disadvantage of Africans.

They assigned to Africa the role of production of raw materials and primary products for use by their industries at home. Africans were not allowed nor encouraged to go into manufacturing. The only industries Africans were encouraged to build were those that would facilitate in the processing of the raw materials for export. The African raw materials were bought at a very low price while manufactured goods from abroad were sold at expensive price. This situation accounted for the impoverishment of most Africans.

There was also disarticulation in the type of goods produced by Africans.  The colonialists compelled Africans to concentrate in the production of goods meant for export. Africans were not encouraged to produce those goods required by the local population. This made many Africans to abandon the production of food items required to feed the teeming and growing population. The effect of this was food shortage and escalation in food prices. The present-day situation where Africans now import their food is a carry-over from colonialism. The point being stressed here is that colonialism distorted the satisfaction of local needs in terms of food production and other requirements in preference to production and satisfaction of foreign needs especially the industries.

Colonialism also disarticulated African markets and trades. The traditional or original African marketing centres were distorted by colonialism. Most of the traditional African marketing centres or routes were formed based on local needs. When colonialism came, and introduced a different need, this changed the original or Analysis of Colonialism and Its Impact in Africa traditional marketing centers to new marketing centres because it rendered them irrelevant. Colonialists created new marketing centres and routes where their required raw materials could be easily bought and evacuated back home. This led to the gradual decay or death of most of the original or traditional marketing centres thereby distorting African pattern of development and urbanization. As we know, most of these traditional African market centres constituted the traditional or original African centres 27.

 

Colonialism also made African trade to be mainly export import oriented. It integrated African trade and economy prematurely into the world market and international trade. It is a known fact that before a local economy fully integrates itself into the world economy or trade, it must have developed adequately its internal dynamics and forces of production. The consequences of premature integration are that such economy will be hijacked by the more advanced ones; and the vagaries in international trade will make the country concerned a perpetual debtor.

Furthermore, premature integration cannot absorb shock from the international market and will never enjoy trade balance or comparative advantage. The export-import orientation pattern of African economy introduced by colonialism does not allow for accelerator and multiplier effects necessary for economy advancement and development. The raw materials produced by Africans were not used by industries located in Africa but abroad. Therefore, there was no organic linkage between the agricultural sector and the industrial sector in Africa. Consequently, the African economy could not move forward because the surplus profit appropriated from the economy by the colonialists are not ploughed back or spent within the economy 28. This is where the accelerator and multiplier effects necessary for economy advancement and development come in.

As we know, goods and services are sold for profit and income generation. If for example, Japan, an industrialized nation sells Sanyo television to an African state which could be Nigeria, the money paid for the product serves as profit and income for the television company located in Japan. If the company uses the money paid to it to buy something in Japan, it helps to accelerate the economy of Japan. This accelerator effect was totally absent in African territories during the period of colonialism. The absence of the accelerator factor/effect, created the propensity for Africans to keep importing continuously from outside without depending on their own goods.

 

Furthermore, the multiplier effect concerns the reinvestment of profit appropriate from an economy. For example, under a normal economy and circumstance, when a profit is made from an economy, it is re-invested to stimulate and generate new profit. The profit can be reinvested into new enterprises within the economy. The re-investment of accumulated profit into an economy helps the economy to move very fast and to generate new profits. The ability of re-invested profit to bring out new profit is referred to as multiplier effect. This was absent in the African economy during colonialism. This is because the colonialists did not re-invest profits appropriated from the African economy, rather they transferred the profits abroad for the development of their home economy and this greatly accounted for the present underdevelopment of most African economies 29.

 

The colonialists distorted and disarticulated the development of a comprehensive transport system in Africa. The transport network developed was not to link different towns and rural areas for purpose of effective communication and development. Transport routes were built by the colonialists to enable them to evacuate easily the raw materials from their sources or base to the destination point where they could be effectively exported abroad. The transport network developed was essentially rails and seaports. There was no good effort to develop an organised road network which would help to improve the lives of the African people and their interaction with their relations in the different parts of the territories. The distorted, disjointed and disarticulated transport system developed by the colonialists did not allow for effective agricultural and economic integration within the different parts of the African enclaves and territories. There was therefore absence of economic integration and cooperation among the African territories during the period of colonialism.

Colonialism also brought about disarticulation in the provision of social amenities and the urbanization pattern in Africa. Most of the little social amenities provided during the colonial period were concentrated at a place. This made most people to migrate from the rural areas where these amenities were virtually non-extent to colonial urban centres where they could be found. The consequence of this was the struggle and over-use of these amenities and the attendant overcrowding of the areas (cities) and the problems of urbanization. The consequent problems of disarticulation of provision of amenities and urbanization include rural urban migration, overcrowding, filthy and slump environment, poor hygienic condition, spread of epidemic disease, social vices, tribal and ethnic problems etc. The management of the above problems created by colonial distortion and disarticulation of amenities and urbanization on Africa has remained a single most important problem confronting African states today 30.

 

Another important impact of colonialism in Africa was the emergence and institutionalization of classes and class struggle in the socio-economic and political life of the people. Colonialism aided a clear emergence and development of classes in Africa. These classes include comprador bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, proletariat and the peasant. The African petty bourgeoisie serve as the conveyor belt through which the colonialists exploited and siphoned the economy of African countries. There is a great harmony of interest between the African petty bourgeoisie and the European comprador bourgeois. This was why during the period of political independence, it was the African petty bourgeois that got the mantle of leadership. The African petty bourgeois maintained the same relationship with the erstwhile colonial masters and therefore they run the economy and political administration of their states in the same manner as the colonialists did. Most of the African leaders or petty bourgeois maintain strong link with their erstwhile colonial masters.

The African petty bourgeoisie maintained the long exploitation of the proletariat and the peasant classes. The rampant and complex nature of political instability and socio-economic malaise being experienced in most African states today have recourse to the nature and character of classes introduced in Africa by colonialism. The economic and other resources of Africa are shared between the petty bourgeoisie and their European/ colonial counterparts, even in this contemporary time. The nature of political power struggle and distribution of wealth as well as economic resources in the contemporary African state are a reflection of the understanding and harmony of interest between the African petty bourgeoisie and their colonial partners/friends. The severe impoverishment of most Africans by their petty bourgeois leaders and marginalisation as well as oppression of the masses by those who have access to state power are offshoot of colonialism or colonial hang-over among African states 31.

 

Political Impact Of Colonialism  

Colonialism has far reaching influence in the political aspect of the continent. The present political system of the continent is the direct reflection of the colonial system. Colonialism greatly influenced the politics of the continent by replacing indigenous institutions by strange administration. Africa had a better democratic culture that suited its people and culture in the pre-colonial era which later dismantled through the influence of slavery, colonialism, and neo-colonialism 32.

Interestingly noted that the “contemporary state in Africa is a remnant of a colonially imposed system”. African states adopt the colonialists’ centralized state system which produced ethnic and authoritarian based political culture.  Colonialists neither interested to flourish democratic system in Africa nor prepared African states to administer themselves effectively in the post-independence era, instead, they used and threw them. Besides, it is clearly noted that "the colonial state in Africa was an authoritarian bureaucratic apparatus of control and not intended to be a school of democracy 33."

This shows the fact that state was used as instrument of exploitation throughout the colonial era. During the colonial era, there was no such concept of African popular participation. This malpractice inherited by the post-independence African leaders. It is due to this fact that Africa has suffered from, inter alia, evils of corruption and authoritarianism since the time of independence.  Hence, what African states inherited from their colonizers is their undemocratic and authoritarian rule. Since the very purpose of Europeans was to exploit the resources of Africa, they employed undemocratic system of administration which is something forcefully imposed from the above. Putting it differently, they failed to consider the interest as well as realities of African people. What Europeans planted in Africa or African leaders familiarized with is, therefore, the cruel administration used for utilizing the continent. The colonial experience of post-independence African leaders greatly impacted their way of administration, which is highly autocratic. Brutality of the colonialists’ system of administration was inculcated in the mind of anti-colonial leaders of the time which later become leaders of the independent African states 34.  

Moreover, the notion of ethnicity left behind by the colonial powers has posed adverse impact on the overall political system of African states. Ethnic division which was multiplied by colonial system left persistent rivalry and conflict in the continent and thereby resulted in exclusion and marginalization in African political societies 7. Also, asserted that the fragmentation of ethnic identities into several states and the uneven socio-economic development among several ethnic groups become an obstacle to manage diversity 35. Instead of being rectified, this unholy colonial legacy has been exacerbated in the post colonial period 36. It is common practice to favour one ethnic group over the other and blurred and distorted inter-ethnic relations in the post-independence ear. By doing so, post-independence leaders aggravated inter-ethnic conflicts.   

Colonialism has also its own contribution in the present Africa’s political party system. The colonial administrators and political elites made decisions on behalf of the indigenous population without considering their idea or consulting them. Inheriting from this monopolized system, African political parties become a top-down organizational structure and therefore tend to be autocratic. Argued that “African political parties originated in the non-democratic setting of colonial rule which was neither democratic nor legitimate”. This shows that African party system has inherited the undemocratic colonial tradition. 37

Even though multi-party system is introduced in Africa it is not genuinely exercised. Though parties can emerge, the environment has not been conducive to compete and hold the power of the government. Even it is common to see many opposition political parties in Africa banned, criminalized their activities or undermined their contribution to national policy. Most post-independent governments perverted into one-party states or military dictatorships characterized by corruption and inefficiency 38. Any form of opposition to the state faces ruthless oppression and imprisonment 39. Hence, democratizing Africa becomes very challenging in this contemporary era. The African rulers are also known to be highly corrupted, which could be traced back to the legacy of colonialism. Colonial powers’ evil socio-political culture produced the habit of corruption in public service of the contemporary Africa 40.

By the 1960s, after years of fighting for independence, most Western colonial territories (e.g., Nigeria, Ghana, Algeria, etc) had gained self-rule. Sovereignty, however, did not bring with it freedom from imperialist influences. Colonial legacies were visible in the desire of the new governments to keep the boundaries that were created during colonial times, in the promotion of ethnic rivalry, in the continuation of inhumane and unjust actions against minority populations, and in the practice of distributing the country's resources in an uneven manner41.

Also, after being under foreign rule for decades, newly independent governments often lacked governmental institutions, good governance skills, and the governing experience needed to effectively rule their newly sovereign nations. In most cases, the transition from colonial province to independent state was a violent and arduous journey 42.

The Boundaries issue in the colonial era was a blunder. "Over a hundred new nations were born during the process of de-colonisation. Most of these new nations, however, ... had not existed at all as nations before colonization, or they had not existed within the post-colonial borders." Most colonial satellite borders were created either through conquest, negotiation between empires, or simply by administrative action 43, with little or no regard for the social realities of those living in the areas 44.

Nevertheless, many of the leaders and governments of post colonial and post-Soviet states have fought to keep the territorial boundaries created by past imperialist governments. As a result, a number of boundary conflicts have arisen within post-colonial and post-Soviet territories. Parties to these conflicts justify and legitimate their side's position, using different historical boundaries as evidence for their claims. For example, the Libya-Chad conflict involves a dispute over 114,000 square kilometers of territory, known as the Aouzou Strip 45. Libya justifies its claims to this territory based on ancient historical boundaries, while Chad justifies its stance based on boundaries established during the colonial period 46.

Unequal Distribution of Resources is practiced by colonial powers. The practice of favoring one ethnic, religious, racial, or other cultural group over others in colonial society, or of giving them a higher status, helped to promote inter-group rivalries, and often contributed to the unequal distribution of resources. Favored or privileged groups had access to, or control of, important resources that allowed them to enrich their members, at the expense of nonmembers. For example, under colonial rule the elite of the northern province of Leninabad (now the province of Sugd in Tajikistan) were given almost exclusive access to governmental positions. As a result of their control of governmental policies, they sent a disproportionate share of the country's development and industry to this northern sector. The consequence of this action was that by 1992, over half of the country's wealth had been distributed to this one province 47.

 

Human Rights: The status, privilege, and wealth of colonial ruling populations were often maintained and upheld through the use of policies that violated the human rights of those living in the colonized areas. Unjust policies subjected colonized populations to the loss of their lands, resources, cultural or religious identities, and sometimes even their lives. Examples of these brutal policies include slavery (e.g., British-controlled territories), apartheid (e.g., South Africa), and mass murder.

 

Today, many post-colonial governments have adopted unjust colonial practices and policies as a means to preserve their dominant status. Rights with regards to traditional lands, resources, and cultural language are denied to many populations, as groups that were marginalized under colonial occupation continue to be marginalized under postcolonial governments. Human-rights violations, including horrific events of mass murder and genocide, can be found in postcolonial Rwanda, Kenya and South Africa, to mention but few.

 

Lack of governmental institutions, skills, and experience for the most part, colonial satellite societies were repressive and undemocratic in nature. Domestic governmental systems and structures were controlled and operated either from abroad or by a select domestic, privileged group. Consequently, when liberation came, these states lacked the internal structures, institutions, and legalitarian way of thinking needed to create good governance systems. The result is that many postcolonial, although independent, are still ruled by repressive and restrictive regimes. For example, Melber (2002) states, "(t)he social transformation processes in Zimbabwe, Namibia, and South Africa can at best be characterized as a transition from controlled change to changed control 48.

There seems to be a very important connection between peace and stability and economic development, and this can be seen in Africa where arbitrary division, grouping, and using one ethnic group, or tribe against another by European powers during colonization has left frictions and hostilities among tribes, ethnic groups or even countries. Many African countries since they got independent from their colonial masters (countries which had colonized them), have never been in peace and stability. This conditions sap the Africa’s efforts to develop its economy and create backwardness instead. Political instability, fighting for control of government and resources create disturbances in humans’ everyday way of life in Africa. Masses of population are displaced and properties destroyed as a result of unrest and political struggles bred by colonialism. As a result the population is always on the move and therefore can’t cultivate crops for food. This situation always leads to hunger and famine, and to contain this problem, the resources which could have been used for economic developments are wasted in an attempt to stop this human induced disasters. For example, large sum of money is used for humanitarian assistance and for mediations of talks aimed at settling conflicts peacefully. Countries such as the Sudan, Uganda, Chad, Somalia, just to name a few, provide examples of how political instability affect economic development.

 

On the other hand, if peace and stability prevail in a country, that country prosper economically. Peace and stability give a country or government opportunities to focus its attention on economy; labour, natural resources and capitals are used effectively and efficiently. Political stability also allows foreign investors to invest in a country which boosts that’s country’s economy. Few African countries such as Kenya where political stability prevailed for two decades has become self-sufficient in food productions, became one of the world exporter of tea and coffee, and attained agricultural growth of 3 percent average yearly (One World, pp.82) Another effect of colonization in addition to instability is that African economies of colonization era were geared to fit for exportations. Large pieces of fertile lands were used for cash crops leaving less fertile and small portion of lands for food crops. This makes it difficult to produce enough food for consumption within the exporting countries of cash crops. It also has an impact on economies at the time when cash crop prices drop in the international market due to competition

There are two main things that Africans must do to advance Africa’s authentic liberation. African rulers must exercise sovereignty over African lands and riches and use them for the benefit of their people. This is true national independence from colonialism and imperialism. Secondly, education is the key to the development of Africa, wise control of her raw materials and use of her human resources. Quality education is the key to creating, owning and controlling Africa’s wealth and mentally decolonising her people’s captured mindsBut it starts with the recognition that the greatest damage colonialism did was on our minds. We must decolonise our minds. Only mentally liberated Black people with a vision for our country and continent can win Africa’s authentic liberation for themselves and their children.

 

However there some positive impact of colonialism which includes the introduction of Christianity which brought about more religious mission opportunities. Most of the missionaries introduced education in Africa by establishing mission schools to educate the local people and helped them to learn more about their land and culture. The Europeans defended the Africans against their enemies or gave them weapons to enable them defend themselves whenever they were attacked by their enemies and this made some of the Africans feel safer. Also, the Europeans brought new technology to Africa; they were provided with tools for farming and introduced new crops like maize and manioc from the New World. They built more infrastructures like medical facilities, transport and communication network, schools and established plantations for the growing of cash crops like cocoa, coffee, tea, rubber and cotton.

 

Apart from the above, many Africans learned the languages of their colonial masters like English, French and Portuguese which has given them more advantage to be able to communicate in the present globalised world without any difficulties. Colonialism also made the world aware of Africa’s rich culture although they adopted some the European culture, its abundance in natural and mineral resources and introducing the countries to trade on the international markets. New goods including household goods were introduced to Africa. More African jobs were created and some of the people learnt new trade making especially the tribal groups that sided with Europeans richer. More stronger and better institutions were established to govern the people which they exist in most of the countries till today. Apart from the above, colonialism help translating many Africana languages in to writing. That people can write their language like Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa, etc…

 

CONCLUSION

Colonization of Africa was not a very easy one. The colonialists fought with the chiefs and the African middlemen at the coast before they could penetrate the hinterland or interior. The reasons for acquisition of colonies by the colonialists as we have earlier mentioned include: the need for raw materials; the search for new market for the metropolitan industries where their surplus manufactured products because of the industrial revolution could be sold; the need to provide more food for the growing urban industrial population; and the need to find a place where the surplus accumulated profit from the industrial revolution could be invested to make more profit. The African colonies or territories were grouped into different categories. There were colonies that were sources of minerals; colonies for plantation crops; colonies for European settlement and colonies for peasant production. The colonies under the first three categories include Congo, South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc. The colonies under the last category which is peasant production include Nigeria, Ghana, etc., also some of the colonies were selected as labour reserved while some others were simply trading areas. The colonialists had different policies for their colonies. For example, Britain used the system of indirect rule. Indirect rule policy concerns with the ruling of the people through their own people or traditional institutions with a close supervision from the British government. Also, the French, another major colonizing European power in Africa, used the policy of assimilation and associations.

Assimilation concerns with the total integration of the French colonial colonies into the main French government in Paris. Association policy came at a later stage because of the problems the French government encountered from their initial application of the policy of assimilation. The French assimilated the “assimilalables” and associated with the “unassimilables”. In the Belgium-s Congo, the policy was different from that of the British and French, and this was also applicable to other European colonizing powers in Africa.

Colonialism had a devastating effect or impacts on the African colonies. It is responsible for the present situation explained by Walter Rodney in his book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Also, this fact was vividly articulated in Chinweizu, The West and the Rest of Us.  Colonialism introduced a dichotomy between the centre and the periphery nations. The periphery nations are exploited by the centre nations. The periphery nations produce raw materials which are expropriated by the centre nations. Africa is periphery nation because of her colonization. African colonies produced raw materials which were expropriated by the colonialists (centre nations) 40.

Furthermore, colonialism introduced a dual economic structure within the African economy. It also brought about disarticulation of African economy, education, trade, market, transport and currency institution. Colonialism made African colonies dependent by introducing a monocultural economy for the territories. It also dehumanized African labour force and traders. It forced Africans to work in colonial plantations at very low wages and displaced them from their lands. Similarly, the business of African traders or middlemen were taken over from them and controlled by the colonialists.

Colonialism did not allow for industrialization of Africa. It assigned Africa the role of production of primary goods or raw materials in the international division of labour. Colonialism encouraged and intensified class struggle, tribalism and ethnicity within the African colonies. These were strategies introduced by the colonialists to perpetuate or prolong their rule and domination of African territories. An example is the British colonial policy of “Divide and Rule” in Nigeria.

Finally, colonialism shaped both the economic and political structure of African colonies to be in line with the need of the metropolis. It ensured that African economic and political structures both in form and content serve the interest of their home government (European powers). Colonialism therefore, in all intents and purposes was a disservice to Africa 49.

 

REFERENCES

  1. http://www.bachelorandmaster.com/criticaltheories/about-colonial-postcolonial-theory.html#.WM27PvLluSo
  2. Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture Stephen Ocheni; Basil C. Nwankwo (2012). Cross-Cultural Communication, 8(3), 46-54.
  3. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophyhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism
  4. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  5. New Encyclopedia of Africa, 2008 From World History in Context,http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/whic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?
  6. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism
  7. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  8. Muthu, Sankar, 2003. Enlightenment Against Empire, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  9. Muthu, Sankar, 2003. Pg. 75, Enlightenment Against Empire, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  10. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  11. Young, Robert, 2001. Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell.
  12. Chinweizu, C. A. (1978). The East and the Rest of US. Lagos: Nok Publishers (Nigeria) Ltd.
  13. Chinweizu, C. A. (1978), pg. 35, The East and the Rest of US. Lagos: Nok Publishers (Nigeria) Ltd.
  14. Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture Stephen Ocheni; Basil C. Nwankwo (2012). Cross-Cultural Communication, 8(3), 46-54.
  15. Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture Stephen Ocheni; Basil C. Nwankwo (2012). Cross-Cultural Communication, 8(3), 46-54.
  16. Chinweizu, C. A. (1978). The East and the Rest of US. Lagos: Nok Publishers (Nigeria) Ltd.
  17. Chinweizu, C. A. (1978). The East and the Rest of US. Lagos: Nok Publishers (Nigeria) Ltd.
  18. Chinweizu, C. A. (1978), pg. 3. The East and the Rest of US. Lagos: Nok Publishers (Nigeria) Ltd.
  19. Chinweizu, C. A. (1978), pg.36, The East and the Rest of US. Lagos: Nok Publishers (Nigeria) Ltd.
  20. Chinweizu, C. A. (1978), 55, The East and the Rest of US. Lagos: Nok Publishers (Nigeria) Ltd.
  21. Basil C. Nwankwo (2012). Cross-Cultural Communication, 8(3), pg. 46-54
  22. Basil C. Nwankwo (2012). Cross-Cultural Communication, 8(3), pg. 46-54
  23. Basil C. Nwankwo (2012). Cross-Cultural Communication, 8(3), pg. 46-54
  24. Basil C. Nwankwo (2012). Cross-Cultural Communication, 8(3), pg. 46-54
  25. Ake, C. (1980). Revolutionary Pressures in Africa. London: Zed. Ake, C. (1981). A Political Economy of Africa. Longman, Geria.
  26. Apartheid: The Story Of A Dispossessed People, Motsoko Pheko page 15O Marram Books London 1984.
  27. Cohen, D. I., & Dnil, J. (Eds.) (1981). Political Economy of Africa. London: Longman.
  28. Ejimofor, C. O. (1987). British Colonial Objectives and Policies in Nigeria, The Roots of Conflict. Onitsha, Nigeria: African FEP Publisher Ltd.
  29. Heyer, J., et al. (1981). Rural Development in Tropical Africa. London: Macmillan.
  30. Kalu, O. U. (Ed.) (1978). Readings in African Humanities: African Cultural Development. Enugu, Nigeria: Fourth Dimension Publishers.
  31. Nnoli, O. (1980). Ethnic Politics in Nigeria. Enugu, Nigeria: Fourth Dimension Publishers.
  32. (Farah & IJCISS Vol.2 Issue-2, (February, 2015) ISSN:3394- 5702 International Journal in Commerce, IT & Social Sciences. A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories International Journal in Commerce, IT & Social Sciences.                                         http://www.ijmr.net.in email id- This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Page 90 Mazongo, 2011: 2).
  33. Wyk (2007:3)
  34. Copson, Raymond W. (2001) “Africa Backgrounder: History, U.S. Policy, Principal Congressional Actions.” CRS Report for Congress.  
  35. Alemazung, Joy Asongazoh (2010) “Post-Colonial Colonialism: An Analysis of International Factors and Actors Marring African Socio-Economic and Political Development.” The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.3, no.10.  
  36. Kidane Mengisteab (2011) “Critical Factors in the Horn of Africa’s Raging Conflicts.” Discussion papers 67. Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.
  37. Salih et at, (2007:41) “Political Parties in Africa: Challenges for Sustained Multiparty Democracy.” Africa Regional Report Based on research and dialogue with political parties. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
  38. Gordon, April A. and Gordon, Donald L., eds. (2013:4). Understanding Contemporary Africa. Fifth Edition. USA: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
  39. Mazrui, 1994:61
  40. Gordon, April A. and Gordon, Donald L., eds. (2013:4). Understanding Contemporary Africa. Fifth Edition. USA: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
  41. ,,, …
  42. Rodney, W. (1982). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa.  Enugu, Nigeria: Ikenga Publishers.
  43. Mark N. Katz. "Collapsed Empires." In Managing Global Chaos: Sources of and Responses to International Conflict, ed. Chester A. Crocker, Fen Olser Hampson and Pamela Aall, 25-37. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 1996, p. 29
  44. Mark N. Katz. "Collapsed Empires." In Managing Global Chaos: Sources of and Responses to International Conflict, ed. Chester A. Crocker, Fen Olser Hampson and Pamela Aall, 25-37. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 1996.
  45. Mark N. Katz. "Collapsed Empires." In Managing Global Chaos: Sources of and Responses to International Conflict, ed. Chester A. Crocker, Fen Olser Hampson and Pamela Aall, 25-37. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 1996.
  46. Posthumus, Bram. Chad and Libya : Good Neighbors, Enemies, Brothers - But Never Trusting Friends. 
  47. Randa M.Slim "The Ferghana Valley: In the Midst of a Host of Crises." In Searching for Peace in Central and South Asia: An Overview of Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Activities, eds. Monique Mekenkamp, Paul van Tongeren, and Hans van de Veen, p. 141-142
  48. John Schoeberlein, "Bones of Contention: Conflicts over Resources." In Searching for Peace in Central and South Asia: An Overview of Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Activities, eds. Monique Mekenkamp, Paul van Tongeren, and Hans van de Veen, p. 88.
  49. Nwankwo, B. C. (1990). Authority in Government. Makurdi, Nigeria: Almond Publishers Makurdi.

Igbo Presidency And The Yoruba Model


By Dapo Thomas

Censured and dispraised for their tragic attempt to bifurcate the country, the Igbos, forty three years after the civil war, remain the only major ethnic group to be invested with the nation’s presidency. Between 1970 and now, the two major ethnic nationalities-Hausa/Fulani and the Yoruba, and even the minority Niger Delta-have shared that exalted position at different times. In a manner of ex-cathedra, the North and the evolving aggressive minority in power have started fresh portentous political carapace for the re-possession of the presidency in 2015. 

Confined to the humiliation of their partial incorporation into the nation’s political system despite having shown some remorse for the inglorious civil war, the Igbos now resorted to “neither-here-nor-there” politics. They  have tried “centre politics”, “mainstream politics”, “Ihu Oma politics”, “Chukwu ga eme ya politics”, “concoction politics”, “general politics”, “and so on and so forth politics”. The only one they have not tried is “opposition politics”. This political fickleness potentiated them with the number two position-Vice President-in the Second Republic.

Nettled by the impotence and opportunism of this manoeuvering that earned them only four years of vice presidency in 43 years (this is without any prejudice to Ebitu Ukiwe’s short stay in office), I believe the Igbos need a radical overhauling of their political philosophy by rebranding and articulating it just like the Yorubas have settled for progressive politics. Let the Igbos come up with a dominant political ideology as different from the extant ragtag idiocies which cast them as a group without political discipline. This perception is what is responsible for the derisive treatment they receive from other ethnic groups. No nation is willing to concede its presidency to a group with a perceived image of un-seriousness and political indiscipline.

I read Godwin Alabi-Isama’s interview with The Nation on Sunday (July 14) and his only contribution to the Igbo presidency jujitsu was this consolatory prophesy: “…the Igbo will rule this country in the near future only if they stop trading and start manufacturing what they are selling.” I need to know what the respected General meant by the phrase “the Igbo will rule the country…” Did he mean “economic domination” or “political control”? If he meant the former, I agree with some reservations because of the Igbo business sagacity. But if he meant the latter, I respectfully disagree with his weak linkage between mercantilism and political control. Economic power not properly deployed for political expediency cannot confer automatic political control on any group. The Igbos are responsible for whatever humiliation they are suffering today within the Nigerian state, not because of the civil war, but because they are deluded by the misconception that their economic power alone can make them relevant. They must understand that their economic power needs to be complemented by a corresponding political power feasible only through a political revolution that they need to undertake with dispatch.   

One thing that may stymie the execution of this revolution is lack of a central figure to play the toughie. Since the death of Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, the Igbos, with profound apologies to few of them with outstanding profiles, have not had another political leader with the clout, credibility, charisma, personality, intellect and national acceptability that the Zik phenomenon epitomized.

 

What we have is the emergence of individual Igbo leaders with antecedents that question their credentials to pursue and promote the kind of political revolution one is canvassing for. Besides, most Igbo businessmen that could be counted upon to undertake this revolutionary agenda are government contractors who may not be ready to sacrifice their economic interests and political influence for an Igbo national cause.

 

They are likely to succumb and kowtow to a vindictive government that may find the pursuit of their political agenda too antagonistic. With this kind of attitude and ennui to the Igbo cause, it is doubtful if the Igbos can come out of this political gridlock.In lieu of a credible personage, prosecuting the political revolution through a socio-cultural organisation like Ohaneze Ndigbo may not be a bad idea.

My only fear, one that has been confirmed by the flighty fragmentation of Afenifere, a similar organization by the Yorubas and the castration of the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), is that the organisation may be weakened and become polarised by the pursuit of self interests and multiple agendas by individual members of the organisation who, under such circumstance, may be pressured into abandoning the collective interest of the nationality for their own political and economic goals.

 

Consequently, the Igbo unity which is required for the reinforcement of the protestation against their privations is kibbled by the shenanigans of loose cannons who prefer the lure of filthy lucre to the collective good of their people.

The Igbos need to learn one or two things from the Yoruba on matters relating to political revolution. After the demise of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the undisputable progenitor of Yorubas’ progressive politics, another Yoruba national figure, Moshood Kashimawo Abiola, emerged. He single-handedly promoted the Yoruba political agenda and also ensured that he committed his resources to the cause until he became the elected President of the country.

 

But he was prevented from enjoying the fruits of his victory through an annulment that threw the entire nation into a political turmoil that led us to where we are today. After his death, the Yoruba came up with the Afenifere revival with the objective of promoting and protecting the Yoruba political interest in a nation where a particular ethnic nationality had a rabid tendency for dominating the political space through deft manipulations.

 

Despite the traditional hatred that the Yoruba progressives have for the conservative reactionaries of the PDP, they still came together in 2003 to give massive support to one of their own, Olusegun Obasanjo who leveraged on the Yoruba factor to cajole his kinsmen into supporting him for the presidency. The Yoruba sentiments, which in a way, facilitated his victory, later came to be the albatross for the fragmentation of the Afenifere. This was when (or should I say this was why?) Bola Tinubu decided to pick up the mantle of the Yoruba leadership Emboldened by the conviction that the Awolowo legacy must be preserved, rather than withdrawing and insulating himself from politics after the electoral waterloo of 2003, where all the South West states except Lagos, went to the PDP, 

Tinubu fought Obasanjo, PDP and even some Afenifere “Iscariots” to a standstill until he recovered all the “conquered” states except one that he lost through treachery. But his ACN party was compensated with the victory of Adams Oshiomole in Edo State.

 

Another radical dimension of the Yoruba political revolution was the institutionalisation of the Awolowo political ideology and philosophy. Through this process, they have stimulated the propagation and intellectualisation of the revolution which was aimed at the socio- political transformation of the Yoruba people, their culture, history, politics, literature and their mentality, instructively, relating to their status, pedigree, role and significance in a polarised polity that is full of power intrigues.

 

Bola Tinubu, the symbol of the revolution, established the Obafemi Awolowo Institute of Government and Public Policy and appointed Professor Adigun Agbaje, a renowned political scientist as its pioneer Director-General. In a similar fashion, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, the governor of the state of Osun also established the Awolowo Centre for Philosophy, Ideology and Good Governance with Professor Moses Akinola Makinde as its Chief Executive Officer. In addition, the Ekiti State Governor, Dr Kayode Fayemi also came up with a Graduate summer school concept packaged by Drs Wale Adebanwi and Ebenezer Obadare with Professor Niyi Osundare as the first guest lecturer.

The objective of these various institutional initiatives is to ensure that the Awolowo vision for the Yoruba and his political philosophy remain relevant within a complex polity. Awolowo may be dead but through these various intellectual channels and mechanisms, his philosophy and ideology are kept alive and active.

 

But this is not the case with the Igbos who seem to have abandoned the Zikist political philosophy and ideology. And this explains why the Igbos’ political relevance and value within the larger polity are under threat because the Zik vision and political philosophy which should be the theoretical guide for their political participation had long been jettisoned. Any political agenda, either of an individual or of a group, that is not vision-driven is flawed conceptually for lacking a fundamental inspiration that is germane to its attainment.

Until the Igbo academics, politicians, businessmen, statesmen, bureaucrats, traders and the rest of the citizens come together as a people and as a nation to agree on a common Igbo political agenda and pursue it with focused cohesion, the presidency will remain elusive to them. And more important, is the fact that they need more than Ohaneze Ndigbo to realise this goal. They need to review their “centre politics” or what they call “mainstream relevance” if the revolution was to achieve its political objective. 

The justification for the Igbos’undignified embrace of mainstream politics baffles me. I wonder why they have to enslave themselves to an exploitative centre when they have the capability to liberate themselves and their tribe from the oppression of the “amorphous centre”.Their argument is that their region will suffer if they play opposition politics.

 

I am convinced that the Yoruba as a people, and as a nation, never had problem financing their infrastructure development and social programmes for playing opposition politics. All elected representatives; the governors, members of the National Assembly and all the members of the State Houses of Assembly under the ACN, have keyed into the Awolowo vision of development. 

[size=16pt]Being genuine Awo disciplines, and having imbibed his principle and discipline on governance, all the governors of the ACN in the South West are making judicious use of their internally generated revenue for their infrastructure development and social programmes same way Obafemi Awolowo executed his projects and programs when he was the premier of the Western Region. None of the governors in the South West is waiting for federal “handout” for the execution or funding of their infrastructure development and social programmes.[/size] 

If the Igbos now claim that opposition politics will cause them development deficit, it only illustrates the fact that their leaders lack the discipline to utilise their resources for the good of their people in a judicious manner .

While not trying to prick any conscience on the tragedy of the civil war, it is a worthwhile reminder for all ethnic groups in the country to know that war remains a senseless and irresponsible means of achieving one’s political objective. It is lack of strategy and wisdom that makes a marginalised and neglected people to adopt war as a means of achieving their political goal.

 

Modern politics, especially in a democracy like ours, has sufficient mechanisms that can be explored and exploited to compel relevance and participation in the nation’s power-sharing at all levels.It is in the interest of the Igbos to put their house in order and coordinate their political operations to avoid a situation where the other ethnic groups will just be using them to “count scores” – a derogatory phrase invented by the youth for exploitation.

Dr. Thomas teaches History at the Lagos State University (LASU), Ojo

Igbo Presidency And The Yoruba Model


By Dapo Thomas

Censured and dispraised for their tragic attempt to bifurcate the country, the Igbos, forty three years after the civil war, remain the only major ethnic group to be invested with the nation’s presidency. Between 1970 and now, the two major ethnic nationalities-Hausa/Fulani and the Yoruba, and even the minority Niger Delta-have shared that exalted position at different times. In a manner of ex-cathedra, the North and the evolving aggressive minority in power have started fresh portentous political carapace for the re-possession of the presidency in 2015. 

Confined to the humiliation of their partial incorporation into the nation’s political system despite having shown some remorse for the inglorious civil war, the Igbos now resorted to “neither-here-nor-there” politics. They  have tried “centre politics”, “mainstream politics”, “Ihu Oma politics”, “Chukwu ga eme ya politics”, “concoction politics”, “general politics”, “and so on and so forth politics”. The only one they have not tried is “opposition politics”. This political fickleness potentiated them with the number two position-Vice President-in the Second Republic.

Nettled by the impotence and opportunism of this manoeuvering that earned them only four years of vice presidency in 43 years (this is without any prejudice to Ebitu Ukiwe’s short stay in office), I believe the Igbos need a radical overhauling of their political philosophy by rebranding and articulating it just like the Yorubas have settled for progressive politics. Let the Igbos come up with a dominant political ideology as different from the extant ragtag idiocies which cast them as a group without political discipline. This perception is what is responsible for the derisive treatment they receive from other ethnic groups. No nation is willing to concede its presidency to a group with a perceived image of un-seriousness and political indiscipline.

I read Godwin Alabi-Isama’s interview with The Nation on Sunday (July 14) and his only contribution to the Igbo presidency jujitsu was this consolatory prophesy: “…the Igbo will rule this country in the near future only if they stop trading and start manufacturing what they are selling.” I need to know what the respected General meant by the phrase “the Igbo will rule the country…” Did he mean “economic domination” or “political control”? If he meant the former, I agree with some reservations because of the Igbo business sagacity. But if he meant the latter, I respectfully disagree with his weak linkage between mercantilism and political control. Economic power not properly deployed for political expediency cannot confer automatic political control on any group. The Igbos are responsible for whatever humiliation they are suffering today within the Nigerian state, not because of the civil war, but because they are deluded by the misconception that their economic power alone can make them relevant. They must understand that their economic power needs to be complemented by a corresponding political power feasible only through a political revolution that they need to undertake with dispatch.   

One thing that may stymie the execution of this revolution is lack of a central figure to play the toughie. Since the death of Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, the Igbos, with profound apologies to few of them with outstanding profiles, have not had another political leader with the clout, credibility, charisma, personality, intellect and national acceptability that the Zik phenomenon epitomized.

 

What we have is the emergence of individual Igbo leaders with antecedents that question their credentials to pursue and promote the kind of political revolution one is canvassing for. Besides, most Igbo businessmen that could be counted upon to undertake this revolutionary agenda are government contractors who may not be ready to sacrifice their economic interests and political influence for an Igbo national cause.

 

They are likely to succumb and kowtow to a vindictive government that may find the pursuit of their political agenda too antagonistic. With this kind of attitude and ennui to the Igbo cause, it is doubtful if the Igbos can come out of this political gridlock.In lieu of a credible personage, prosecuting the political revolution through a socio-cultural organisation like Ohaneze Ndigbo may not be a bad idea.

My only fear, one that has been confirmed by the flighty fragmentation of Afenifere, a similar organization by the Yorubas and the castration of the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), is that the organisation may be weakened and become polarised by the pursuit of self interests and multiple agendas by individual members of the organisation who, under such circumstance, may be pressured into abandoning the collective interest of the nationality for their own political and economic goals.

 

Consequently, the Igbo unity which is required for the reinforcement of the protestation against their privations is kibbled by the shenanigans of loose cannons who prefer the lure of filthy lucre to the collective good of their people.

The Igbos need to learn one or two things from the Yoruba on matters relating to political revolution. After the demise of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the undisputable progenitor of Yorubas’ progressive politics, another Yoruba national figure, Moshood Kashimawo Abiola, emerged. He single-handedly promoted the Yoruba political agenda and also ensured that he committed his resources to the cause until he became the elected President of the country.

 

But he was prevented from enjoying the fruits of his victory through an annulment that threw the entire nation into a political turmoil that led us to where we are today. After his death, the Yoruba came up with the Afenifere revival with the objective of promoting and protecting the Yoruba political interest in a nation where a particular ethnic nationality had a rabid tendency for dominating the political space through deft manipulations.

 

Despite the traditional hatred that the Yoruba progressives have for the conservative reactionaries of the PDP, they still came together in 2003 to give massive support to one of their own, Olusegun Obasanjo who leveraged on the Yoruba factor to cajole his kinsmen into supporting him for the presidency. The Yoruba sentiments, which in a way, facilitated his victory, later came to be the albatross for the fragmentation of the Afenifere. This was when (or should I say this was why?) Bola Tinubu decided to pick up the mantle of the Yoruba leadership Emboldened by the conviction that the Awolowo legacy must be preserved, rather than withdrawing and insulating himself from politics after the electoral waterloo of 2003, where all the South West states except Lagos, went to the PDP, 

Tinubu fought Obasanjo, PDP and even some Afenifere “Iscariots” to a standstill until he recovered all the “conquered” states except one that he lost through treachery. But his ACN party was compensated with the victory of Adams Oshiomole in Edo State.

 

Another radical dimension of the Yoruba political revolution was the institutionalisation of the Awolowo political ideology and philosophy. Through this process, they have stimulated the propagation and intellectualisation of the revolution which was aimed at the socio- political transformation of the Yoruba people, their culture, history, politics, literature and their mentality, instructively, relating to their status, pedigree, role and significance in a polarised polity that is full of power intrigues.

 

Bola Tinubu, the symbol of the revolution, established the Obafemi Awolowo Institute of Government and Public Policy and appointed Professor Adigun Agbaje, a renowned political scientist as its pioneer Director-General. In a similar fashion, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, the governor of the state of Osun also established the Awolowo Centre for Philosophy, Ideology and Good Governance with Professor Moses Akinola Makinde as its Chief Executive Officer. In addition, the Ekiti State Governor, Dr Kayode Fayemi also came up with a Graduate summer school concept packaged by Drs Wale Adebanwi and Ebenezer Obadare with Professor Niyi Osundare as the first guest lecturer.

The objective of these various institutional initiatives is to ensure that the Awolowo vision for the Yoruba and his political philosophy remain relevant within a complex polity. Awolowo may be dead but through these various intellectual channels and mechanisms, his philosophy and ideology are kept alive and active.

 

But this is not the case with the Igbos who seem to have abandoned the Zikist political philosophy and ideology. And this explains why the Igbos’ political relevance and value within the larger polity are under threat because the Zik vision and political philosophy which should be the theoretical guide for their political participation had long been jettisoned. Any political agenda, either of an individual or of a group, that is not vision-driven is flawed conceptually for lacking a fundamental inspiration that is germane to its attainment.

Until the Igbo academics, politicians, businessmen, statesmen, bureaucrats, traders and the rest of the citizens come together as a people and as a nation to agree on a common Igbo political agenda and pursue it with focused cohesion, the presidency will remain elusive to them. And more important, is the fact that they need more than Ohaneze Ndigbo to realise this goal. They need to review their “centre politics” or what they call “mainstream relevance” if the revolution was to achieve its political objective. 

The justification for the Igbos’undignified embrace of mainstream politics baffles me. I wonder why they have to enslave themselves to an exploitative centre when they have the capability to liberate themselves and their tribe from the oppression of the “amorphous centre”.Their argument is that their region will suffer if they play opposition politics.

 

I am convinced that the Yoruba as a people, and as a nation, never had problem financing their infrastructure development and social programmes for playing opposition politics. All elected representatives; the governors, members of the National Assembly and all the members of the State Houses of Assembly under the ACN, have keyed into the Awolowo vision of development. 

[size=16pt]Being genuine Awo disciplines, and having imbibed his principle and discipline on governance, all the governors of the ACN in the South West are making judicious use of their internally generated revenue for their infrastructure development and social programmes same way Obafemi Awolowo executed his projects and programs when he was the premier of the Western Region. None of the governors in the South West is waiting for federal “handout” for the execution or funding of their infrastructure development and social programmes.[/size] 

If the Igbos now claim that opposition politics will cause them development deficit, it only illustrates the fact that their leaders lack the discipline to utilise their resources for the good of their people in a judicious manner .

While not trying to prick any conscience on the tragedy of the civil war, it is a worthwhile reminder for all ethnic groups in the country to know that war remains a senseless and irresponsible means of achieving one’s political objective. It is lack of strategy and wisdom that makes a marginalised and neglected people to adopt war as a means of achieving their political goal.

 

Modern politics, especially in a democracy like ours, has sufficient mechanisms that can be explored and exploited to compel relevance and participation in the nation’s power-sharing at all levels.It is in the interest of the Igbos to put their house in order and coordinate their political operations to avoid a situation where the other ethnic groups will just be using them to “count scores” – a derogatory phrase invented by the youth for exploitation.

Dr. Thomas teaches History at the Lagos State University (LASU), Ojo

 THE CRY OF THE DOVE (I)


— Jan 16, 2014 2:45 am | 2 Comments

On November 10, 2013, The Nation on Sunday carried a very interesting article by Dapo Thomas entitled “The Fall of the North”. Dapo laments the decline of the north to its sorry state now. This article is so incisive that I have decided to bring it verbatim, so that those who may not have read it will be able to read it now. The Hausa have a saying: Kukan kurciya jawabi ne; mai hankali ke ganewa. That is: The cry of the dove is a speech; only the discerning can understand.

With the coming centennial anniversary of the amalgamation of the north and south to form Nigeria as well as the approaching elections, Mr Dapo Thomas’ article couldn’t have come at a better time. The issues he raised are very cogent. He has exhibited a very good understanding of the subject too. As required by the occasion, he is very blunt, since there is no need to call a spade by any other name but a spade.

My point of disagreement with the article is about the chain of events in terms of timing — when the decline (and fall) of the north started. Mr Thomas is of the belief that the deposition of Sultan Ibrahim Dasuki by the Abacha regime marked the turning point. I beg to disagree. I think the overthrow of President Shehu Shagari by the military triggered the whole decline. As events have proven afterwards, that military incursion was so unnecessary: it created the Abacha phenomenon, he being the one that announced Shagari’s overthrow; and precipitated the destruction of the bond of not only northern but indeed national unity.

The north’s story is told by others because there are no authors of books here anymore, whether in the eastern or western education. Anytime America wants to go anywhere, we know that they will go to project and defend their interests. But they always have a vehicle, whether it is democracy or human rights, even though deep down it is about US interests. These current northern leaders make it so obvious that they want “power” to “return” to “the north”! Meanwhile, they bring “leaders” who think mouse is a big rat instead of a part of a computer!1. 

Let us accept the fact that the north is having an enormous problem. Let us look inwards to see where the mistake, sin, crime or wrong has been committed and try to correct them. After all, we are all imperfect. Meanwhile, happy reading below:

The caliphate and the emirates have declined. Their spiritual fountain is drained. Their political influence has withered. Their command structure is stunted. The foundation of “One North, One People” has crumbled. The Abubakar Saddiq III legacy has been imperiled. All his 50-year efforts to have one formidable north are going down the drains. The House of Sardauna has cracked. The winds are torturing the troubled souls of the mullahs. The people of the North are in disarray. The elite have scattered. The politicians are fighting. The peasants are grieving. The almajiris are grumbling. The haramists are in the trenches running helter-skelter. The picture is real and the message is clear: the North has fallen. Its ancestors are crest-fallen, wondering if a region whose present is in jeopardy can boast of a future that is politically worthy. The power of the North has gone awry and the Arewa has lost its aura.

Sir Ahmadu Bello and Sir Abubakar Saddiq III were great visionary leaders of the North whose pertinacious astuteness and political ingenuity were aimed at the consolidation of the Northern hegemony and unity within the complex polity of the Nigerian state. Leveraging on Uthman Dan Fodio’s enigmatic persona, both men inspired in their followers the imperativeness of protecting and sustaining the vision of dominance. Some people always confuse dominance with domination. Dominance is about relevance and influence while domination is about subjugation and conquest. The intention of these two great leaders, as evident in their populist sentiments and philosophy, was not for the North to dominate other components of the Nigerian State, but to carve a solid political influence for themselves to be able to protect the interests of the North. More fundamentally, these two great leaders were mindful of the incursion of Christianity into their territory. They wanted a North that will remain compact as to guarantee the immutability of their religious character and cultural identity.

This Northern dominance agenda was something encapsulated in the terms of reference of the constitution consultative committee set up by the Northern Elders on February 15, 1986, immediately after the Babangida administration inaugurated the Political Bureau. One of the objectives of the committee, among others, “was to get the North to generally and in a concerted manner articulate the form of constitution that would provide stability and project the interest of the North as well as Nigeria. It also identified “the need for the North, as far as possible, to speak with one voice”, more so “in view of the “disadvantageous” position the North has been pushed into”. I do not understand what the Northern Elders meant by “…the disadvantageous” position the North has been pushed into” but I can assert that there was some insincerity in this statement because the only one that should complain of being pushed into a “disadvantageous” position during the military era was the South.

However, I admit that, in the present dispensation, the North appears to be in a “disadvantageous” position politically. But whose fault is it? The north became a victim of its own scheme. One of the members of the military (elite) corps that it trained to protect the hegemony of the North was the one that planted the seed of decline in all that is glorious about the North. The moment Sani Abacha demystified the mystique of the Sultanate; the entire North became stripped of the myth of inviolability surrounding it. It was clear that the violation of the caliphate, which for the North was a symbol of spiritual and political authorities, rubbished the personality – cult of the Caliphate and the emirates.

The cracks presaging the fall of the North were there all along but, regrettably, nobody considered them ominous. First was the query issued by Alhaji Abubakar Rimi, the then governor of Kano State, to the Emir of Kano, His Eminence Alhaji Ado Bayero, on July 9, 1981. Next was the dissolution of the Muri Emirate headed by Alhaji Umaru Abba Tukur by the then governor of Gongola State, Col. Yohanna Madaki, in July 1986 and the climax of these institutional desecrations was the dethronement of the Sultan of Sokoto, His Eminence  Alhaji Ibrahim Dasuki by Sani Abacha on April 20, 1996, after reigning for eight years. All these were portentous actions signposting the decline of the oneness of the North. But they were discountenanced because circumstances took care of them: the Kano riots which followed Rimi’s disrespectful query, the non-ceremonial removal and retirement of Yohanna Madaki by the Babangida administration, and the celebrated death of Sani Abacha.

 

Dr. Thomas teaches History at the Lagos State University (LASU), Ojo




  

Amalgamation-When Will Lugard Rest In Peace

Amalgamation was a contingency of history. Nigeria was, and still is, a contraption of the incompatibles. Frederick Lugard was the lord of the confusion. The likes of Prof. Richard Olaniyan and Dr. Kayode Fayemi who are theorizing on amalgamation and the national question, are constructionists engineering a change that may appear complex.

Aside from his major crime-converging or amalgamating ‘the strange assorted’ into the Nigerian state. Ccscc Ed, Lord Lugard’s other offence was to commit a historical sin, the kind of sin that will be difficult to forgive and forget. Nay, his sin was to fall into the trap of history and historians whose major preoccupation is the persecution and over-reporting of historical offenders. Men of evil and errors like Hitler and Lugard can hardly rest in peace because historians like Profs Olaniyan and Akin Alao will keep reminding them in their graves, of their past evil and blunders. What blunder did Lord Lugard commit?

Let’s hear Olaniyan and Alao in their re-packaged book: The Amalgamation and Its Enemies: “As the first governor of Northern protectorate of Nigeria, Sir Frederick Lugard failed in the development of the economic potentials of the North. He became too excited, fascinated and obsessed with the means (indirect rule and power) at the expense of the end (an economically viable Northern Nigeria). When he therefore proposed the amalgamation of the two protectorates, he probably wanted to conceal his failure and inadequacies…”

Olaniyan and Alao’s imperial judgement must have been influenced by what Antrobus wrote about Lugard: “Sir F. Lugard has many good qualities. He has plenty of goals, he is full of ideas and he is not afraid of taking responsibility. But he is not a prudent or farseeing administrator, his schemes are not well thought out and he has more than once involved us in heavier expenditure than contemplated.”

I know that the historian’s main responsibility is to commence his investigation from reasons for an action and causes of an event, I submit humbly that Olaniyan’s generalist approach to the Lugardian blunder was conceptually inappropriate. Accusing a man, a dead man for that matter, of covering up his “failure and inadequacies” with an idea he thought was in the best interest of his colonial office, and the people of Nigeria, without taking into cognizance some “vast impersonal forces” that might have compelled his action, was incorrect.

This is why I am inclined to agree with Prof. Segun Gbadegesin’s argument when he wrote that “there are three possible approaches to the evaluation of the act of amalgamation.” He submits: “First, it is not self-contradictory for one person to hold both verdicts. One may renounce the act of colonization and amalgamation as a morally reprehensible deed because it violates the principle of justice. On the other hand, one may look at the outcome of the amalgamation in terms of the overall good it supposedly produces, from a utilitarian perspective, and consider it an act of GOD.”

Second, one may see amalgamation as well as its outcome as an act of GOD. From a fatalistic point of view (what will be will be), if GOD did not want it, Lugard and his British constabulary would not overpower the forces of resistance in the north and south. Whatever GOD allows to happen is good, no matter our human understanding. Therefore, the amalgamation was not only an act of GOD, it was also good. This is the spirit of theodicy. But it may also be argued that the outcome of the amalgamation was good for the peoples of the north and south. And since GOD is the author of whatever is good, it was an act of GOD.

This is his third approach. One may see first, the amalgamation in itself as a morally heinous deed for the reason stated above, and second, its consequences for the people of the north and the south as terribly bad. In this case, the motivation for and the outcome of amalgamation is morally obnoxious, whatever small mercies proceed therefrom.

I maintain that the issue of amalgamation transcends what history alone can explain except it is willing to extend the frontiers of its search and discourse to the philosophical realm. Agreed Lugard was the actor of the amalgamation and should be made to carry the responsibility of its “unworkability”, what role do we assign the “vast impersonal forces” that possibly influenced Lugard’s action? It must be understood that important as the role of the great man is in the historical process, this role is just one of the several factors facilitating historical process. And any attempt to interprete the historical process exclusively on the basis of the declared motives or intentions of the principal historical actors or on the basis of options made by these actors, or from the actors, deriving from these actions, is doomed to futility.

Again, Lugard is morally permitted to justify or defend his action by blaming it on “determinism” which imposes limitations on man and his actions. If we assume, rightly or wrongly, that actors’ choices and therefore, actions, are pre-determined and therefore such actors are exonerated from their actions, why do we still haunt Lugard in his grave for a mistake that was “pre-determined”? Trying to look at determinism and other possibilities that compelled Lugard’s action is not to automatically exclude him, as a historical actor, from the consequences of his action, but to explain that, with determinism, events that happened as they have happened could not have happened differently unless something in the cause or causes have also been different. This is why some writers believe that amalgamation was a contingency of history that has placed a moral and patriotic burden on us all in ensuring that we do not negate it. The challenge we have as a nation and as a people, is to accept our present predicament as a condition deserving of a clinical resolution.

The discourse on national question which is one of the burdens imposed on us by amalgamation is one way of creating the energy and mental capacity for an enduring resolution. The beautiful thing about Olaniyan’s book is that it attempts a comprehensive recording of the debate on national question, capturing both the sensible and the ridiculous, with a view to reflecting the totality of the arguments from north to south. This forms the concluding chapter of this must-have book which contains a heavy dose of intellectual capsules.

If Olaniyan’s narratives and investigation of amalgamation are tangentially theoretical, Kayode Fayemi’s treatment of the National Question in his book, Regaining the Legacy, is understandably technical. Exhibiting his expertise in theoretical constructs, Fayemi called for a collective reflection on the future of the nation and how we can evolve the institutional mechanisms to manage our diversity and difference. He posits: “Since the dawn of independence, Nigeria has been driven by numerous dissensions and crises that have exacerbated the fault-lines of our plural, multi-ethnic society where diverse groups were yoked together by our erstwhile colonial warlords, the British, for their own administrative and pecuniary interests.”

This is the big difference between the historian and the political scientist. While Olaniyan was talking about “Lugard’s failure and inadequacies” and how the mistake was made, Fayemi was talking about “reflecting on the future”. But Fayemi’s reflection on the future was made easy because the historian, Olaniyan, was able to provide him the “historical cause(s)” for our diversity and difference. To reinforce this, Fayemi explains: “…the status of the National Question and which troubles the national consciousness is traceable to the structural deficits and imbalances evolving from the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates of Nigeria to form a unified colony by colonial Governor-general, Lord Lugard in 1914.”

Another historian Prof. Siyan Oyeweso, the ubiquitous intellectual of histo-politico vocation, is contemplating using his birthday to do a “reflection” on the illusions and the realities of the amalgamation. The intervention, which is his own contribution to nation-building, is to generate additional materials for the literature on amalgamation and raise the bar of national discourse especially on the national question.

Oyeweso’s intervention captivates me for certain reasons. First, it will be stimulating to know the interpretive context in which “illusions” and “realities” will be enclosured. Is the discourse going to adopt a traditional approach to interpreting illusion as “a historical mishap or a failed vision,” in which case, Lord Lugard will be persecuted as usual? Or is it going to look at “illusion” as a philosophical concept which becomes paralysed after a head-on collision with geographical and political realities? Then what are these realities? Fayemi attempts a political description: “These imbalances have deepened and become entrenched to the point of enabling certain groups within the emergent state to persistently thrive and hoard benefits to the exclusion of others from what ought to be a national communion. This has transpired, even when the privileged groups did not necessarily possess the material base or the merit to justify the privileged advantage.”

I have deliberately labeled Fayemi’s description “political” because his articulation of “realities” seems at variance with another reality; which is that the phrase “certain groups” contains some ambiguities. Is he talking about the political class and its subsidiaries or is he talking about ethnic nationalities and their militias or is he talking about the social stratification whereby the decadent discontents feel excluded from the nation’s Commonwealth by the privileged groups?

Whatever it is, the reality of our political situation is that every group, every ethnic nationality and every social group can justify abandonment, exclusion, marginalization and neglect. The way our political system is structured provides justification for perpetual complaint, acrimony and agitation. This position is also supported by Fayemi when he attributes the reasons for the national question to the “faulty political architecture of the country passed down from colonial rule and deepened by a self-serving and rapacious postcolonial elite, which not only privatized the state for personal gains, perpetrated bad governance and played up divisions to sustain its base, but promoted an authoritarian ethos that enabled poverty, violence and crime.”

I am not too sure if this paper was written before or after Fayemi had regained the ‘Ekiti’ legacy, but I want to believe that now that he too has joined the league of “postcolonial elite” or “postcolonial ruling class”, he may have a rethink on this statement which looks more like an indictment of the elite and the ruling class which he belongs.

Though Prof. Olaniyan has never held any political office nor has he ever been the governor of any State like Fayemi, this does not exclude him from sharing in the blame for the failure of the elite to rectify “the mistake of 1914”. I agree that he is playing his role in nation-building by his active participation in the development of the human mind as a university teacher and judging by the quality of books he churns out. But he may reduce the level of his frustration about the nonchalance of the political class to nation-building if he considers active political involvement especially in the backroom where he can operationalise what he has been theorizing. The political space no longer condones intellectual enterprise that lacks palpable practicality.

My final appeal to our egg-heads is that in the course of showing ourselves as thorough professionals, we must refrain from judgements that tend to excoriate the dead, for the simple reason that they are handicapped by eternal silence which prevents them from justifying their actions or explaining their inaction.

 The advantage the living have over the dead should not be abused to the point of “flogging a dead man” who has no right of reply. Nothing could be more wicked than this. As a historian myself, I know history deals with the past actions of historical actors but must we lose our sense of decency and morality because we want to report the past? We can avoid judgements in reporting the past especially when there is no evidence to vilify the dead.

Unlike Hitler whose actions led to the deaths of millions of people, Lugard was a man whose “mistake” led to the birth of a great nation with potential for global prominence. The elite, or the political class, should be held responsible for failing to rectify this “mistake” because it was, and still is, convenient for them to keep exploiting it to achieve both political and economic expediency.

Nigerians should allow Lugard to rest in peace. The mistake he made was rectifiable and correctable. If our leaders lack the political will to correct “the mistake of 1914” we the people can force them to come up with “the correction of 2014” if we are not comfortable co-existing together as a nation and as a people. This can be the national answer to the national question. Why keep blaming the dead for what the living can correct?

Dr. Thomas teaches History at the Lagos State University (LASU), Ojo

HOME / THURSDAY COLUMN / THE CRY OF THE DOVE (I)
The Cry Of The Dove (I)
Abba Mahmood
— Jan 16, 2014 2:45 am | 2 Comments
On November 10, 2013, The Nation on Sunday carried a very interesting article by Dapo Thomas entitled “The Fall of the North”. Dapo laments the decline of the north to its sorry state now. This article is so incisive that I have decided to bring it verbatim, so that those who may not have read it will be able to read it now. The Hausa have a saying: Kukan kurciya jawabi ne; mai hankali ke ganewa. That is: The cry of the dove is a speech; only the discerning can understand.

With the coming centennial anniversary of the amalgamation of the north and south to form Nigeria as well as the approaching elections, Mr Dapo Thomas’ article couldn’t have come at a better time. The issues he raised are very cogent. He has exhibited a very good understanding of the subject too. As required by the occasion, he is very blunt, since there is no need to call a spade by any other name but a spade.

My point of disagreement with the article is about the chain of events in terms of timing — when the decline (and fall) of the north started. Mr Thomas is of the belief that the deposition of Sultan Ibrahim Dasuki by the Abacha regime marked the turning point. I beg to disagree. I think the overthrow of President Shehu Shagari by the military triggered the whole decline. As events have proven afterwards, that military incursion was so unnecessary: it created the Abacha phenomenon, he being the one that announced Shagari’s overthrow; and precipitated the destruction of the bond of not only northern but indeed national unity.

The north’s story is told by others because there are no authors of books here anymore, whether in the eastern or western education. Anytime America wants to go anywhere, we know that they will go to project and defend their interests. But they always have a vehicle, whether it is democracy or human rights, even though deep down it is about US interests. These current northern leaders make it so obvious that they want “power” to “return” to “the north”! Meanwhile, they bring “leaders” who think mouse is a big rat instead of a part of a computer!1. 

Let us accept the fact that the north is having an enormous problem. Let us look inwards to see where the mistake, sin, crime or wrong has been committed and try to correct them. After all, we are all imperfect. Meanwhile, happy reading below:

The caliphate and the emirates have declined. Their spiritual fountain is drained. Their political influence has withered. Their command structure is stunted. The foundation of “One North, One People” has crumbled. The Abubakar Saddiq III legacy has been imperiled. All his 50-year efforts to have one formidable north are going down the drains. The House of Sardauna has cracked. The winds are torturing the troubled souls of the mullahs. The people of the North are in disarray. The elite have scattered. The politicians are fighting. The peasants are grieving. The almajiris are grumbling. The haramists are in the trenches running helter-skelter. The picture is real and the message is clear: the North has fallen. Its ancestors are crest-fallen, wondering if a region whose present is in jeopardy can boast of a future that is politically worthy. The power of the North has gone awry and the Arewa has lost its aura.

Sir Ahmadu Bello and Sir Abubakar Saddiq III were great visionary leaders of the North whose pertinacious astuteness and political ingenuity were aimed at the consolidation of the Northern hegemony and unity within the complex polity of the Nigerian state. Leveraging on Uthman Dan Fodio’s enigmatic persona, both men inspired in their followers the imperativeness of protecting and sustaining the vision of dominance. Some people always confuse dominance with domination. Dominance is about relevance and influence while domination is about subjugation and conquest. The intention of these two great leaders, as evident in their populist sentiments and philosophy, was not for the North to dominate other components of the Nigerian State, but to carve a solid political influence for themselves to be able to protect the interests of the North. More fundamentally, these two great leaders were mindful of the incursion of Christianity into their territory. They wanted a North that will remain compact as to guarantee the immutability of their religious character and cultural identity.

This Northern dominance agenda was something encapsulated in the terms of reference of the constitution consultative committee set up by the Northern Elders on February 15, 1986, immediately after the Babangida administration inaugurated the Political Bureau. One of the objectives of the committee, among others, “was to get the North to generally and in a concerted manner articulate the form of constitution that would provide stability and project the interest of the North as well as Nigeria. It also identified “the need for the North, as far as possible, to speak with one voice”, more so “in view of the “disadvantageous” position the North has been pushed into”. I do not understand what the Northern Elders meant by “…the disadvantageous” position the North has been pushed into” but I can assert that there was some insincerity in this statement because the only one that should complain of being pushed into a “disadvantageous” position during the military era was the South.

However, I admit that, in the present dispensation, the North appears to be in a “disadvantageous” position politically. But whose fault is it? The north became a victim of its own scheme. One of the members of the military (elite) corps that it trained to protect the hegemony of the North was the one that planted the seed of decline in all that is glorious about the North. The moment Sani Abacha demystified the mystique of the Sultanate; the entire North became stripped of the myth of inviolability surrounding it. It was clear that the violation of the caliphate, which for the North was a symbol of spiritual and political authorities, rubbished the personality – cult of the Caliphate and the emirates.

The cracks presaging the fall of the North were there all along but, regrettably, nobody considered them ominous. First was the query issued by Alhaji Abubakar Rimi, the then governor of Kano State, to the Emir of Kano, His Eminence Alhaji Ado Bayero, on July 9, 1981. Next was the dissolution of the Muri Emirate headed by Alhaji Umaru Abba Tukur by the then governor of Gongola State, Col. Yohanna Madaki, in July 1986 and the climax of these institutional desecrations was the dethronement of the Sultan of Sokoto, His Eminence  Alhaji Ibrahim Dasuki by Sani Abacha on April 20, 1996, after reigning for eight years. All these were portentous actions signposting the decline of the oneness of the North. But they were discountenanced because circumstances took care of them: the Kano riots which followed Rimi’s disrespectful query, the non-ceremonial removal and retirement of Yohanna Madaki by the Babangida administration, and the celebrated death of Sani Abacha.

₦airaland Forum
Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 1,762,470 members, 3,415,053 topics. Date: Monday, 13 March 2017 at 09:20 AM
  
Igbo Presidency And The Yoruba Model - Politics - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Igbo Presidency And The Yoruba Model (247 Views)
2019 Igbo Presidency-we Are Not Interested-ipob / Igbo Presidency Not Feasible In 2015 – Junaid / Iwuanyanwu Dismisses Igbo Presidency In 2015 (1) (2) (3) (4)

(0) (Reply)
Igbo Presidency And The Yoruba Model by OPCNAIRALAND: 8:47am On Aug 04, 2013
Ohaneze Ndigbo

By Dapo Thomas

Censured and dispraised for their tragic attempt to bifurcate the country, the Igbos, forty three years after the civil war, remain the only major ethnic group to be invested with the nation’s presidency. Between 1970 and now, the two major ethnic nationalities-Hausa/Fulani and the Yoruba, and even the minority Niger Delta-have shared that exalted position at different times. In a manner of ex-cathedra, the North and the evolving aggressive minority in power have started fresh portentous political carapace for the re-possession of the presidency in 2015. 

Confined to the humiliation of their partial incorporation into the nation’s political system despite having shown some remorse for the inglorious civil war, the Igbos now resorted to “neither-here-nor-there” politics. They  have tried “centre politics”, “mainstream politics”, “Ihu Oma politics”, “Chukwu ga eme ya politics”, “concoction politics”, “general politics”, “and so on and so forth politics”. The only one they have not tried is “opposition politics”. This political fickleness potentiated them with the number two position-Vice President-in the Second Republic.

Nettled by the impotence and opportunism of this manoeuvering that earned them only four years of vice presidency in 43 years (this is without any prejudice to Ebitu Ukiwe’s short stay in office), I believe the Igbos need a radical overhauling of their political philosophy by rebranding and articulating it just like the Yorubas have settled for progressive politics. Let the Igbos come up with a dominant political ideology as different from the extant ragtag idiocies which cast them as a group without political discipline. This perception is what is responsible for the derisive treatment they receive from other ethnic groups. No nation is willing to concede its presidency to a group with a perceived image of un-seriousness and political indiscipline.

I read Godwin Alabi-Isama’s interview with The Nation on Sunday (July 14) and his only contribution to the Igbo presidency jujitsu was this consolatory prophesy: “…the Igbo will rule this country in the near future only if they stop trading and start manufacturing what they are selling.” I need to know what the respected General meant by the phrase “the Igbo will rule the country…” Did he mean “economic domination” or “political control”? If he meant the former, I agree with some reservations because of the Igbo business sagacity. But if he meant the latter, I respectfully disagree with his weak linkage between mercantilism and political control. Economic power not properly deployed for political expediency cannot confer automatic political control on any group. The Igbos are responsible for whatever humiliation they are suffering today within the Nigerian state, not because of the civil war, but because they are deluded by the misconception that their economic power alone can make them relevant. They must understand that their economic power needs to be complemented by a corresponding political power feasible only through a political revolution that they need to undertake with dispatch.   

One thing that may stymie the execution of this revolution is lack of a central figure to play the toughie. Since the death of Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, the Igbos, with profound apologies to few of them with outstanding profiles, have not had another political leader with the clout, credibility, charisma, personality, intellect and national acceptability that the Zik phenomenon epitomized.

 

What we have is the emergence of individual Igbo leaders with antecedents that question their credentials to pursue and promote the kind of political revolution one is canvassing for. Besides, most Igbo businessmen that could be counted upon to undertake this revolutionary agenda are government contractors who may not be ready to sacrifice their economic interests and political influence for an Igbo national cause.

 

They are likely to succumb and kowtow to a vindictive government that may find the pursuit of their political agenda too antagonistic. With this kind of attitude and ennui to the Igbo cause, it is doubtful if the Igbos can come out of this political gridlock.In lieu of a credible personage, prosecuting the political revolution through a socio-cultural organisation like Ohaneze Ndigbo may not be a bad idea.

My only fear, one that has been confirmed by the flighty fragmentation of Afenifere, a similar organization by the Yorubas and the castration of the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), is that the organisation may be weakened and become polarised by the pursuit of self interests and multiple agendas by individual members of the organisation who, under such circumstance, may be pressured into abandoning the collective interest of the nationality for their own political and economic goals.

 

Consequently, the Igbo unity which is required for the reinforcement of the protestation against their privations is kibbled by the shenanigans of loose cannons who prefer the lure of filthy lucre to the collective good of their people.

The Igbos need to learn one or two things from the Yoruba on matters relating to political revolution. After the demise of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the undisputable progenitor of Yorubas’ progressive politics, another Yoruba national figure, Moshood Kashimawo Abiola, emerged. He single-handedly promoted the Yoruba political agenda and also ensured that he committed his resources to the cause until he became the elected President of the country.

 

But he was prevented from enjoying the fruits of his victory through an annulment that threw the entire nation into a political turmoil that led us to where we are today. After his death, the Yoruba came up with the Afenifere revival with the objective of promoting and protecting the Yoruba political interest in a nation where a particular ethnic nationality had a rabid tendency for dominating the political space through deft manipulations.

 

Despite the traditional hatred that the Yoruba progressives have for the conservative reactionaries of the PDP, they still came together in 2003 to give massive support to one of their own, Olusegun Obasanjo who leveraged on the Yoruba factor to cajole his kinsmen into supporting him for the presidency. The Yoruba sentiments, which in a way, facilitated his victory, later came to be the albatross for the fragmentation of the Afenifere. This was when (or should I say this was why?) Bola Tinubu decided to pick up the mantle of the Yoruba leadership Emboldened by the conviction that the Awolowo legacy must be preserved, rather than withdrawing and insulating himself from politics after the electoral waterloo of 2003, where all the South West states except Lagos, went to the PDP, 

Tinubu fought Obasanjo, PDP and even some Afenifere “Iscariots” to a standstill until he recovered all the “conquered” states except one that he lost through treachery. But his ACN party was compensated with the victory of Adams Oshiomole in Edo State.

 

Another radical dimension of the Yoruba political revolution was the institutionalisation of the Awolowo political ideology and philosophy. Through this process, they have stimulated the propagation and intellectualisation of the revolution which was aimed at the socio- political transformation of the Yoruba people, their culture, history, politics, literature and their mentality, instructively, relating to their status, pedigree, role and significance in a polarised polity that is full of power intrigues.

 

Bola Tinubu, the symbol of the revolution, established the Obafemi Awolowo Institute of Government and Public Policy and appointed Professor Adigun Agbaje, a renowned political scientist as its pioneer Director-General. In a similar fashion, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, the governor of the state of Osun also established the Awolowo Centre for Philosophy, Ideology and Good Governance with Professor Moses Akinola Makinde as its Chief Executive Officer. In addition, the Ekiti State Governor, Dr Kayode Fayemi also came up with a Graduate summer school concept packaged by Drs Wale Adebanwi and Ebenezer Obadare with Professor Niyi Osundare as the first guest lecturer.

The objective of these various institutional initiatives is to ensure that the Awolowo vision for the Yoruba and his political philosophy remain relevant within a complex polity. Awolowo may be dead but through these various intellectual channels and mechanisms, his philosophy and ideology are kept alive and active.

 

But this is not the case with the Igbos who seem to have abandoned the Zikist political philosophy and ideology. And this explains why the Igbos’ political relevance and value within the larger polity are under threat because the Zik vision and political philosophy which should be the theoretical guide for their political participation had long been jettisoned. Any political agenda, either of an individual or of a group, that is not vision-driven is flawed conceptually for lacking a fundamental inspiration that is germane to its attainment.

Until the Igbo academics, politicians, businessmen, statesmen, bureaucrats, traders and the rest of the citizens come together as a people and as a nation to agree on a common Igbo political agenda and pursue it with focused cohesion, the presidency will remain elusive to them. And more important, is the fact that they need more than Ohaneze Ndigbo to realise this goal. They need to review their “centre politics” or what they call “mainstream relevance” if the revolution was to achieve its political objective. 

The justification for the Igbos’undignified embrace of mainstream politics baffles me. I wonder why they have to enslave themselves to an exploitative centre when they have the capability to liberate themselves and their tribe from the oppression of the “amorphous centre”.Their argument is that their region will suffer if they play opposition politics.

 

I am convinced that the Yoruba as a people, and as a nation, never had problem financing their infrastructure development and social programmes for playing opposition politics. All elected representatives; the governors, members of the National Assembly and all the members of the State Houses of Assembly under the ACN, have keyed into the Awolowo vision of development. 

[size=16pt]Being genuine Awo disciplines, and having imbibed his principle and discipline on governance, all the governors of the ACN in the South West are making judicious use of their internally generated revenue for their infrastructure development and social programmes same way Obafemi Awolowo executed his projects and programs when he was the premier of the Western Region. None of the governors in the South West is waiting for federal “handout” for the execution or funding of their infrastructure development and social programmes.[/size] 

If the Igbos now claim that opposition politics will cause them development deficit, it only illustrates the fact that their leaders lack the discipline to utilise their resources for the good of their people in a judicious manner .

While not trying to prick any conscience on the tragedy of the civil war, it is a worthwhile reminder for all ethnic groups in the country to know that war remains a senseless and irresponsible means of achieving one’s political objective. It is lack of strategy and wisdom that makes a marginalised and neglected people to adopt war as a means of achieving their political goal.

 

Modern politics, especially in a democracy like ours, has sufficient mechanisms that can be explored and exploited to compel relevance and participation in the nation’s power-sharing at all levels.It is in the interest of the Igbos to put their house in order and coordinate their political operations to avoid a situation where the other ethnic groups will just be using them to “count scores” – a derogatory phrase invented by the youth for exploitation.

Dr. Thomas teaches History at the Lagos State University (LASU), Ojo

 
 

ERIC C. OKECHUKWU

 

IMPACT OF COLONIALISM IN AFRICA!

 

Introduction

Colonialism is about the dominance of a strong nation over another weaker one. Colonialism happens when a strong nation sees that its material interest and affluence require that it expand outside its borders. Colonialism is the acquisition of the colonialist, by brute force, of extra markets, extra resources of raw material and manpower from the colonies1. The first objective of colonialism is political domination. Its second objective is to make possible the exploitation of the colonized country. When we talk of colonialism in Africa we are talking of phenomenon, which took place between 1800-1960s. It is a singularity which is part and parcel of another spectacle called imperialism. In fact, colonialism is a direct form of imperialism. Therefore, it is often said that “all colonialism is imperialism, but not all imperialism is colonialism”.

 

Read More

It's easy to get started creating your website. Knowing some of the basics will help.

What Is A Content Management System?

A content management system is software that allows you to create and manage webpages easily by separating the creation of your content from the mechanics required to present it on the web.

In this site, the content is stored in a database. The look and feel are created by a template. Joomla! brings together the template and your content to create web pages.

Read More

It's easy to get started creating your website. Knowing some of the basics will help.

What Is A Content Management System?

A content management system is software that allows you to create and manage webpages easily by separating the creation of your content from the mechanics required to present it on the web.

In this site, the content is stored in a database. The look and feel are created by a template. Joomla! brings together the template and your content to create web pages.

Read More

It's easy to get started creating your website. Knowing some of the basics will help.

What Is A Content Management System?

A content management system is software that allows you to create and manage webpages easily by separating the creation of your content from the mechanics required to present it on the web.

In this site, the content is stored in a database. The look and feel are created by a template. Joomla! brings together the template and your content to create web pages.

Read More