Hi moses, thaanks for this detailed answer. I disagree slightly with you on some of your assertions, or wording. At every major point i am in agreement, and i certainly highly value your claims.
I hesitate at accepting the arguments for legitimization you make as based on the will of the people. I just don't see how any will can be expressed without something like a vote. I don't see why you return to that wording, the will of the people, as though the ruler somehow embodied it.
Maybe the ruler and his followers felt that way; maybe those his regime put out of business or ruled over or taxed or opposed felt otherwise, and no human system exists or existed without some measure of internal conflicts.
Well, i know, as you said, about councils of elders or lineages that hedged sovereign powers; but not everywhere, and not always. My impression is that the great sweep of military regimes, like shaka's, were not like that; in contrast to the more stable rule in w africa of various kingdoms. And i'm just as interest in this same question when it comes to chefferies or local rule.
As i am not the student of this history, but picked it up from general histories or literary texts, the picture i get is very variegated. I also get the impression that arms changed the scene, that the great jihads of the 18th and early 19th century were true military affairs, nothing to do with the "will of the people."
Your criticisms of the colonial enterprise are such that no one nowadays would quibble with you. I prefer to use the word "conquest" in describing it, and you are right that the ideologies of colonialism, their discourses, were riddled with hypocritical or naive pronouncements that innately implied racist superiority of europeans whites etc. but eventually, and before liberation, opposition that grew and grew. Negritude was born 30 years before independences. And i follow foucault in that all systems of oppression include opposition to them. We all know the oppression included the use of tirailleurs and african allies to the colonial regimes, and the regimes were in some measure tools of various dominant african groups. How could it not be the case? It was tutsis, or wolofs, who aligned with the colonial conquerors, and profited from that alignment. With independence, in rwanda and burundi, came a reckoning and revolutions and ultimately genocide. The rulers used these grouos, how could that not have been the case? So mobutu used banyamulenge or tutsis in e congo, and they are still fighting in the guise of m23 against congolese people who really hate them.
That history is marking today's regimes, isn't it? Everywhere?
Ken
Get Outlook for iOS
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 10:51:06 AM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - There Are No Dogmas For the Practice of Democracy
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 10:51:06 AM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - There Are No Dogmas For the Practice of Democracy
Ken,
It's not romanticizing when you point to the "leadership failures" and "crises of succession." It's not romanticizing when you describe the features of precolonial African political systems, which, varied as they were, were legitimate, meaning that they embodied the will of the people. I'm not one of those people who argue that precolonial Africa was a blissful, stable, and crisis-free political universe and that the white man came and messed things up. I am saying that, whatever the faults of the precolonial systems, they had all the four elements of democracy I outlined, and they had accepted consensual mechanisms for dealing with the inevitable political crisis. It's not romanticizing if you're saying that the precolonial political institutions cannot simply, anachronistically be imported into the present but must be included in a menu of ideas and practices to be debated, refined, and modified, if need be, for the present. Also included in that menu are ideas of liberal democracy with provenance in the West. The key point is that the people themselves must make the choice and not be compelled to adopt a system of rule that evolved in Euro-America but is now being sneakily universalized.
Obviously, if one is going to argue, as I do, that precolonial African democratic political institutions should be a baseline or one of the baselines of democratic conversation and "democratization" today, one has to disprove the Eurocentric nonsense that precolonial Africa was a site and incubator of despotism and authoritarianism. That constructed racist lie was used by colonizers as one of the alibis to justify colonial conquest. They claimed that they were civilizing, liberalizing, and democratizing an African political space riddled with tyranny and despotic oppression, and antithetical to democracy.
I had to explain the salient features of the precolonial systems that many observers and analysts often miss, but strangely that act of describing and explaining has earned me the charge of romanization from you. How else does one restore the credibility of African political systems and challenge the erroneous but influential paradigm that there are no African provenances and traditions of participatory, accountable, democratic governance and leadership selection?
This problematic and dismissive view of precolonial and "traditional" African political institutions is so paradigmatic that many Africans have accepted it. I even see traces of it in the questions you've been posing to me and in the views you've been expressing on this issue.
Where do we begin with your question of checks and balances? Have you not heard about the Oyo system of layered political power and leadership, with its vertical and horizontal checks? Have you not heard about Igbo republican leadership systems? Have you not heard about the consensual villagesquare democracy of many African polities? We can debate the scalability of these systems, but that's another debate entirely.
Even in systems that skewed towards the monarchical centralization of power, there were oracular, ancestral, spiritual, and, in the Islamic sphere, theological and clerical checks on the power of the king/queen. There were guidelines, written and unwritten, on how power should be exercised, to what extent, and for what purposes. I don't have the time to go into more detail, but Mandela has a great description of Xhosa democracy in his autobiography, which approximates the essence of a participatory legitimate system that gave everyone a spiritual, religious, and secular stake and in which everyone participated and had a say but not through the divisive instruments of universal suffrage, adversarial elections, and majoritarian tyranny.
Were these protocols and modalities of rule breached and violated ? Of course they were. Did they always function smoothly? No. But people worked out the difficulties associated with them or were willing to try because they were invested in them and shared in their legitimacy. These systems represented something authentically theirs and so they were willing to fight to preserve them. Liberal democracy by contract is alien. It lacks legitimacy in Africa. When the chips are down and when it is troubled, as it is in many parts of Africa, people are not willing to fight for it. Instead, they enthusiastically welcome coups and other authoritarian interventions. You're seeing that in several countries.
Finally, you're absolutely right that any claim that the precolonial political space was some unspoiled, unadulterated, pure, uncontacted, and authentically African is as problematic as the claim that Africans had no notion of democracy and liberal, accountable, and participatory political values before colonization or before interaction with the white man. Africa was never the isolated political exotica that some Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists claim it was. Nonetheless, on the eve of colonization, there were discernible political tendencies and forms that exhibited, however imperfectly, the four tenets of democracy I enunciated in the piece.
My argument, which you say you agree with, is that you cannot ignore those systems. You should not ignore the history, tradition, experience and sociopolitical evolutionary processes that spawned those systems while uncritically copying a system of liberal democracy that the West developed for themselves in consonance with their own political histories and aspirations and then imposed on you by coupling it with economic liberalization reforms and aid during your moment of economic distress. Until you undo that foundational error, you cannot hope for anything other than the cascading socioeconomic and political failures liberal democracy is wroughting on the continent.
On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 4:50 PM Harrow, Kenneth <harrow@msu.edu> wrote:
--Dear moses, i read your thought piece, in which you say you don't wish to romanticize the past in africa. You describe the pre-colonial days as having as systems of governance the following traits: "They were variously founded on consensus, inherited authority, or sacred, religious, and ancestral ordination. What they all had in common was legitimacy, the basic idea of a leader, group of leaders, or a political configuration being accepted as representing the will and interest of a people at a particular time. Not only did these precolonial forms of African democratic practice possess the key ingredient of legitimacy; they had in-built mechanisms of accountability, participation, and checks and balances. Moreover, there were procedures for addressing post-selection grievances and managing the occasional crisis of succession and leadership failure."
I wonder why this is not romanticizing. If it was consensus, i wonder how that accounts for conflicts. You are the historian, so i rely on you to affirm the claim that brother did not kill brother to obtain the throne, as you can read in various epics like Sundiata. Epics are just legitimizing praise singing, not history; but i can't imagine consensus as you describe without the enforcement of the ruling clan/family/lineage.You say representing the will of the people: is this the same as Rousseau's ideal that the revolutionary leaders embodied the will of the people, therefore obviating the need for opposition. That opens the way to the vanguardism, which also was rule without limits.What were the checks and balances, if not also grounded in power? How might they differ from american checks andbalances which are fundamental to democracy? Is voting not a mechanism for participation? Should it be reformed, do you think? Or ditched?All these are questions: i do agree with your plea that local roots of governance not be ignored. But again i wonder how that differs from british conservativism as opposed to french revolutionary thought? Mean 18th c.Lastly, african history was marked by european ties, both for the good and the bad. The bad was slavery and colonialism, and i'd all neocolonialism. These systems had complicity among african peoples, but also, and most importantly, resistance. Shouldn't that function as part of any indigenous element, as it did in s africa's forging a constitution when freeing itself from apartheid?Ken
Get Outlook for iOS
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 9:45:15 AM
To: USAAfricaDialogue <USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com>
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - There Are No Dogmas For the Practice of DemocracyHere (below) is a link to my think-piece in the series from our conference on democracy and religion in Africa. It was published this morning on Africasacountry.com as part of the series. Every week, a new think-piece is published in the series.--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAAHJfPptmOGAETqGRyq4eV87_X1xEMVSJvBxCmGEiufBCwnREw%40mail.gmail.com.
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/BL1PR12MB5191966C36696B1CE49B4F5EDA389%40BL1PR12MB5191.namprd12.prod.outlook.com.
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAAHJfPoip%3DubHnaZkZVwTqk9W9Fms%2BLX%3DLy3U6C-6UqY2%3DsrPQ%40mail.gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment