Africa: A Place to Leave Alone

[DoctorKenney]

This is a very interesting excerpt from a book by a US Policymaker, who describes Africa's deep-rooted issues and makes a prediction as to what will happen in Africa over the next century. His name is George Friedman, and he's the founder of Stratfor, a private intelligence group:

 

 

 

A similar irony surrounds what is probably the least meaningful way of trying to make sense of Africa, which is in terms of contemporary borders. Many of these are also holdovers representing the divisions among European empires that have retreated, leaving behind their administrative boundaries. The real African dynamic begins to emerge when we consider that these boundaries not only define states that try to preside over multiple and hostile nations contained within, but often divide nations between two contemporary countries. Thus, while there may be African states, there are—North Africa aside—few nation-states.

 

Nigeria, for instance, ought to be the major regional power, since it is also a major oil exporter and therefore has the revenues to build power. But for Nigeria the very existence of oil has generated constant internal conflict;

 

The wealth does not go to a central infrastructure of state and businesses but is diverted and dissipated by parochial rivalries. Rather than serving as the foundation of national unity, oil wealth has merely financed chaos based on the cultural, religious, and ethnic differences among Nigeria’s people. This makes Nigeria a state without a nation. To be more precise, it is a state presiding over multiple hostile nations, some of which are divided by state borders. In the same way, the population groupings within Rwanda, Uganda, and Kenya are divided, rather than united, by the national identities assigned to them. At times wars have created uneasy states, as in Angola, but long-term stability is hard to find throughout.

 

Only in Egypt do the nation and the state coincide, which is why from time to time Egypt becomes a major power. But the dynamic of North Africa, which is predominantly a part of the Mediterranean basin, is very different from that of the rest of the continent. Thus when I use the term Africa from now on, I exclude North Africa, which has been dealt with in an earlier chapter.

 

Another irony is that while Africans have an intense sense of community—which the West often denigrates as merely tribal or clan-based—their sense of a shared fate has never extended to larger aggregations of fellow citizens. This is because the state has not grown organically out of the nation. Instead, the arrangements instituted by Arab and European imperialism have left the continent in chaos.

 

The only way out of chaos is power, and effective power must be located in a state that derives from and controls a coherent nation. This does not mean that there can’t be multinational states, such as Russia, or even states representing only part of a nation, such as the two Koreas. But it does mean that the state has to preside over people with a genuine sense of shared identity and mutual interest.

 

There are three possible outcomes worth considering for Africa. The first is the current path of global charity, but the system of international aid that now dominates so much of African public life cannot possibly have any lasting impact, because it does not address the fundamental problem of the irrationality of African borders. At best it can ameliorate some local problems. At worst it can become a system that enhances corruption among both recipients and donors. The latter is more frequently the case, and truth be known, few donors really believe that the aid they provide solves the problems.

 

The second path is the reappearance of a foreign imperialism that will create some foundation for stable life, but this is not likely. The reason that both the Arab and the European imperial phases ended as readily as they did was that even though there were profits to be made in Africa, the cost was high. Africa’s economic output is primarily in raw materials, and there are simpler ways to obtain these commodities than by sending in military forces and colonial administrators. Corporations making deals with existing governments or warlords can get the job done much more cheaply without taking on the responsibility of governing. Today’s corporate imperialism allows foreign powers to go in, take what they want at the lowest possible cost, and leave when they are done.

 

The third and most likely path is several generations of warfare, out of which will grow a continent where nations are forged into states with legitimacy. As harsh as it may sound, nations are born in conflict, and it is through the experience of war that people gain a sense of shared fate. This is true not only in the founding of a nation but over the course of a nation’s history. The United States, Germany, or Saudi Arabia are all nations that were forged in the battles that gave rise to them. War is not sufficient, but the tragedy of the human condition is that the thing that makes us most human—community—originates in the inhumanity of war.

 

Africa’s wars cannot be prevented, and they would happen even if there had never been foreign imperialism. Indeed, they were being fought when imperialism interrupted them. Nation-building does not take place at World Bank meetings or during the building of schools by foreign military engineers, because actual nations are built in blood. The map of Africa must be redrawn, but not by a committee of thoughtful and helpful people sitting in a conference room.

 

What will happen, in due course, is that Africa will sort itself out into a small number of major powers and a large number of lesser ones. These will provide the framework for economic development and, over generations, create nations that might become global powers, but not at a pace that affects the next decade. The emergence of one nation-state that could introduce a native imperialism to Africa could speed up the process, but all the candidates for imperial power are so internally divided that it is hard to imagine a rapid evolution. Of all of them, South Africa is most interesting, as it combines European expertise with an African political structure. It is the most capable of Africa’s countries. But that very fact leaves it with divisions that make its emergence as a regional power harder to imagine with each passing year.

[DoctorKenney]

This author is basically saying, that the reason why there's so much instability and chaos in parts of Africa, is due to the existence of artificial states that should never have existed.

 

European colonial boundaries have resulted in multiple hostile tribes sharing the same nation, and this is obviously going to result in civil war and instability.

 

Somalia, ironically, is in a unique position because we share a common language, religion and culture. But we haven't been able to grow past our tribe identities and form a genuine nation.

 

 

 

Another irony is that while Africans have an intense sense of community—which the West often denigrates as merely tribal or clan-based—their sense of a shared fate has never extended to larger aggregations of fellow citizens. This is because the state has not grown organically out of the nation. Instead, the arrangements instituted by Arab and European imperialism have left the continent in chaos.

 

 

[Mahiigaan]

 

The auther, being a Yankee 'basaas' knows the inns and outs of the dark Continent. The legacy of the White man laid the foundation for the perpertual chaos in Africa after they packed their baggage all the way to where they come from. They knew that Africans will need them as time passes.

But why Somalia, which defies the prerequisite for chaos in the African States?. I think the answer can be deciphered from our earlier history, before the arrival of the White man?. Somalis never a had a common social community other than their clan. The focal point of their egalitarian nomadic life was their clan, with some coexistential treats (xeer) and through marriage. The tribal bondage is sacrosant to the Somalis. It is in their DNA, you either accept it or die

State, a 'gaalo' political parlance is alien to the unsophisticated nomadic skinny. He would rather understand with no efforts the clan. State concept. Tell him your clan is a State and voilla it rings in his simpleton mind!.

Strong Central government, advocated by the South, is a waste of time. If the State concept is devolved to clan States, the nodic Faarax will take care of his new found nugget and it will never let it slip from his hands. The problem of this hypothesis is unsustainable.

The new Federocetemol, prescribed by the West and further hastily developed by the Faaraxs will create more problems if several disparate clans are lumped together!. Neighboring clans have always grazing, water and other frictions and other disputes. So, how the Somali problem could be solved is to everyone's guess.

 

[Mahiigaan]

 

The auther, being a Yankee 'basaas' knows the inns and outs of the dark Continent. The legacy of the White man laid the foundation for the perpertual chaos in Africa after they packed their baggage all the way to where they come from. They knew that Africans will need them as time passes.

But why Somalia, which defies the prerequisite for chaos in the African States?. I think the answer can be deciphered from our earlier history, before the arrival of the White man?. Somalis never a had a common social community other than their clan. The focal point of their egalitarian nomadic life was their clan, with some coexistential treats (xeer) and through marriage. The tribal bondage issacrosant to the Somalis. It is in their DNA, you either accept it or die

State, a 'gaalo' political parlance is alien to the unsophisticated nomadic skinny. He would rather understand with no efforts the clan. State concept. Tell him your clan is a State and voilla it rings in his simpleton mind!.

Strong Central government, advocated by the South, is a waste of time. If the State concept is devolved to clan States, the nodic Faarax will take care of his new found nugget and it will never let it slip from his hands. The problem of this hypothesis is unsustainable.

The new Federocetemol, prescribed by the West and further hastily developed by the Faaraxs will create more problems if several disparate clans are lumped together!. Neighboring clans have always grazing, water and other frictions and other disputes. So, how the Somali problem could be solved is to everyone's guess.

 

[Mahiigaan]

 

The auther, being a Yankee 'basaas' knows the inns and outs of the dark Continent. The legacy of the White man laid the foundation for the perpertual chaos in Africa after they packed their baggage all the way to where they come from. They knew that Africans will need them as time passes.

But why Somalia, which defies the prerequisite for chaos in the African States?. I think the answer can be deciphered from our earlier history, before the arrival of the White man?. Somalis never a had a common social community other than their clan. The focal point of their egalitarian nomadic life was their clan, with some coexistential treats (xeer) and through marriage. The tribal bondage issacrosant to the Somalis. It is in their DNA, you either accept it or die

State, a 'gaalo' political parlance is alien to the unsophisticated nomadic skinny. He would rather understand with no efforts the clan. State concept. Tell him your clan is a State and voilla it rings in his simpleton mind!.

Strong Central government, advocated by the South, is a waste of time. If the State concept is devolved to clan States, the nodic Faarax will take care of his new found nugget and it will never let it slip from his hands. The problem of this hypothesis is unsustainable.

The new Federocetemol, prescribed by the West and further hastily developed by the Faaraxs will create more problems if several disparate clans are lumped together!. Neighboring clans have always grazing, water and other frictions and other disputes. So, how the Somali problem could be solved is to everyone's guess.

 

[DoctorKenney]

The Somali Nation hasn't grown organically yet. The concept of nationhood doesn't exist, and sure there might be some Somalis who wave the Blue Flag, but actual Nationalists are in short-supply in our community

 

Remember, Germany used to be a land of disparate kingdoms and cities, all of them hostile to each other, but they spoke 1 common language. Over time, and with the help of Bismark, Germany was unified into 1 country in 1871 and the rest was history. They became a powerful nation overnight.

 

And it's due to a lack of political maturity. We've developed slower than the Europeans did, but after some time and after enduring some growing pains, I could be optimistic that Africa will be stabilized within several generations, but it'll be slow, painful process.

 

 

[Tallaabo]

My colleague who is from West Africa told me once that if the Europeans did not colonise Africa, today Africa would be home to very few large, strong, and stable countries built by strong conquering ethnic groups much like China and Russia.

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

Could be but Africa Talaabo before the Europeans was very inferior very low in civilization maybe There were a few kingdoms such as the king dom of Songhay who managed to create trade routes and build strong armies and all of that. But them conquering other parts and creating larger states would have taken hundred of years, They would have still dealt with strong other warring tribes and empires

[Dr_Osman]

My prognosis has always been that Africa and Asia are backwards today because they applying a foreign system be it communism, democracy, dictatorship or whatever it is which is alien to their way of life and culture. A political system must be forged locally, it must be from the locals culture because then it will gain acceptance and the people confidence. Notice how Africans and Asians tend to always hate their govt, it's usually high in corruption, etc it's because people simply find this system alien to them and they should because it isn't theirs, it's someone else from europe. It is a tactic the europeans used knowing that africans would never recover because the systems they put in place, they knew it would take centuries before anyone would finally accept it and make it apart of their culture and in the mean-time europe can keep growing. The europeans know this because it took them a long damn time themselves starting from the dark ages till it fully developed was around 500 years. It will take longer for Africans and Asians. It's a set way to ensure they always fail because their trying to work themselves into the box the white-man drew even though that box has got nothing to do with their local culture. That can explain why alot of african and asian empires used to be huge back in the day because there was no importing of this foreign political systems, the systems were developed locally from the people being governed culture.

 

I know alot of people say hey democracy works for europe and america and they successful, therefore it will work for everyone, that is where they just unwise. They don't know how long it took europe to even get to that stage and there is no guarantees we will even get to that stage and if we do it will take alot longer because it simply isn't our system. As for Somalia their issue is quite simple, their is no point applying foreign systems like communism, democracy, etc, because tribe is 1000 year old institution, it is embedded into the culture, those foreign political systems aren't embedded at all and to get it to embedd will take a long long long time and that's if it even works. We saw the start of democracy and 60s and how it turned into clan parties and that was mainly because the uniting factor 'colonialists' left, their was simply nothing there to unite us anymore and hence we saw the seat as a way to rule and if another clan was on there that mean we were being ruled. This was a fundamental issue because remember these clans just came out of autonomous loose end type of federal structure where each clan ruled himself, there was never a single ruler in somalia before colonialists, so they all enjoyed their autonomy. Somalis weren't doing as bad as you may think back then, they were even giving foreign aid to gulf states. This autonomous nature was taken away by colonialists and they brought their own political system 'centralism'. This is where it went haywire, the autonomous nature of the clans was gone, so that means their survival was at stake now and to survive meant that power seat that was put in 1 place. They started forming and putting on their clan masks under multiparties which were simply clan parties and then start putting on new masks in the form of rebel groups and this just continued untill the state totally collapsed. Now we have other other masks like shabab, secession, etc, we still haven't learned that masks won't solve our problems, what will solve our problem is diagnosing the root cause of why we are wearing these masks and you will see it goes back to that powerful institution 1000 years old TRIBE.

 

The only answer that can really replicate how we lived prior to colonialization is federalism, it ensures clan can survive and have their self rule like they always did but they will always cooperate with one and another on things that are shared between which is obviously the nation. I call it a unity in cooperation rather then say unity in domination of centralism. This is possible because if you look deeply back in our roots before colonialism, you will see that even though clans were autonomous they did work together when things of mutual interests arose, this mutual interest could be somalia or the federal govt while our clan survival or self rule can be replicated in autonomous states. This will now ensure clans dont need to fight since their self rule is still there plus they can cooperate on things of mutual interest the federal govt. I don't support federalism merely because Puntland does, if I saw it is unrealistic, I wouldn't support it at all. But I see it is realistic because if somalia wasn't federal that would means clan lose the survival and will feel their being ruled by another clan which will only lead to the same in the past of constantly fighting for the seat. Once that survival factor is addressed clans won't busy fighting for it or seeking it, they will focus on other things like development, cooperation on mutual interests, etc.

 

So as far as Somalia is concerned I think a federal structure is the best solution when u look at our history, culture, behaviours and the way we like to operate which is self rule at a clan level while cooperation at a level where things are mutually shared between a clan ie; the nation.

 

But the political system we will use I think right now is simple masks, I am not a big fan of democracy, communism or anything foreign, we tried that in the 1960s and it didn't work. Sure we had political parties were clans cooperated but as soon as clans felt jepordized they would leave and form their own party hence providing that somalis used it also as a mask for clan agenda. Why do we need masks for is the question I always ask myself, why can't we embrace how god created us and our way of life, why cant we be like dubai and use local systems and forget the nonsense that comes from europe or america because it will take centuries to adapt to which is exactly what they want so we continue being in a state of perpertual failure for a couple of centuriIes untill their system becomes embedded in our culture because thats only when a political system can succeed. For example majority rules is not somali culture, they believe more in consensual style of culture, so democracy is against one of the basic foundations of our culture which is to talk, comprise, and share equally not based on whos got the most votes but in a balanced clan way that shows all clans count and have a say.

 

I am big fan of Puntland system it is local system based on clans, however I am not a fan of how they still use districts, we don't need to use districts, we need to use clans and do it in a way where all clans are equal not more not less and have agreed way on how to handle deadlocks. I think Puntland system is perfect but it needs fine tuning so one clan is more then other so to speak and that really needs to go back to traditional culture. I think if we rule our ppl on what they know best which is tribe this will satisfy them because that is what they respect not 'masks' like shabab, multi parties, etc. They wear the masks for clan agendas and don't want to seen as tribal but people are not blind or stupid, we are in deep denial of our own culture, so its going to be hard for us to create a system around our culture that our people are confident in and trust and believe in and will protect not these parties where if a clan loses something they will destroy a party, a state, etc.

 

As somalis we need to really look at ourselves honestly and learn to appreciate our culture, the whiteman is succesful not because he copied others but used his own systems that his own people accepted and this came down to how their culture was and what people trusted and had confidence in. Once they got that, they protect their nation because it is there and they love it and cherish it and export to others knowing full well its not for them but to keep them bog down trying to fit into it for centuries while they keep moving forward. Smart people the europeans, it's like us exporting our old political systems like xeer or xiis and saying 'here u go europe' you make ur people work with that, can u imagine how long it will take, the lack of confidence the ppl would have in the system would mean they would abuse it, and they would be in a constant state of trying to fit into a box we carved out for them.

 

I think as somalis we need to assess our culture and see what somalis respect, devise plans to put that into our system. We know somalis love clan, so make clan top priority on how the govt runs, we know somalis love islam, make sure islam is there. We need to go into our culture deep and see what it is the people respect and giving it to them and saying 'happy' now you dont need to fight the govt, learn it, it is your own system that u understand like your fathers did and I bet you they will progress in seconds and love their country and govt because they know its tailor made for them BY THEM and for THEM

[Tillamook]

 

"Rome wasn't build in a day"

 

Give Africa time!

[DoctorKenney]

That's definitely true Dr Osman. We Somalis are attempting to rebuild our nation using European-style modes of governance...which would NOT work for us at all.

 

Siad-Barre style Russian Communism has proven to be a failure, while American-style Secular Democracy has also proven to be a failure. We need our own systems of governance, one that reflects our own culture, and I strongly agree with you that a loose system of Federal States is the best way to reach this objective.

 

Notice what Friedman wrote here:

 

 

What will happen, in due course, is that Africa will sort itself out into a small number of major powers and a large number of lesser ones. These will provide the framework for economic development and, over generations, create nations that might become global powers, but not at a pace that affects the next decade. T

he emergence of one nation-state that could introduce a native imperialism to Africa could speed up the process,

but all the candidates for imperial power are so internally divided that it is hard to imagine a rapid evolution.

 

Somalia has an advantage over Congo, Nigeria, Uganda and other African countries. We share a language, a common ethnicity, and a similar culture. If we could get all clans to cooperate (however far-fetched this might sound right now), then Somalia could be a strong, stable AFRICAN nation-state....and then Somalia could lead the charge to introduce a native Somali-style imperialism to Africa and could help assist in sorting out the internal problems of all these other African States.

 

We could be a role model for the rest of the continent. But these petty troublemakers who are in power right now don't have the vision or the will to help make this happen

 

Somalia could be the gateway into Africa, and Somalia can also play a huge role in spreading Islam throughout the continent and helping to stabilize these African countries. In a couple of generations, Africa could see a major shift in the way it does things, and Somalia could lead the way here.

 

We have an ENORMOUS advantage, and it's frustrating as to why we don't use it

 

 

 

The only way out of chaos is power, and effective power must be located in a state that derives from and controls a coherent nation.

 

 

[burahadeer]

trouble with Africa is tribalism,a curse with a cycle of violence never seem to vanish.Look at Asia that had independence same time as Africa, India/ pakistan(1948),Malaysia,indonesia(late 50s),china put together by Mao in 1949,Look at North Africa(arab) etc.I think otha races had noteworthy civilizations and transcended tribal politics long before even the white man showed up in their shores.They had strong institutions where the concept of pluralism and togetherness existed prior colonization.

Where in the above countries would you find equivalent to: hausa,ibo,fulani,kikuyu,luo,hutu,tutsi etc.They might have some religious friction in some places like India but nothing that leads to massacres,genocide and tribal dominated gov'ts.

Africa for sure is left in the dark ages and has a long,long way to go.

Nothing in the books can fix except maybe clean,honest authoritarian that stays for so long which is unlikely in this day and age of democracy.Rather time will take its toll.