Elliot Ziwira @the Bookstore
Modern day Africa seems to be lacking in inspirational leadership which is driven by selfless service and the desire to uplift the lives of the people, as is depicted in most literary texts by the continent’s writers.
The leadership models of yore, epitomised by people like Sundiata, in “Sundiata: An Epic of Old Mali” (1960), who is determined that his people have enough stamina, willpower and selflessness to withstand any insurgency from within or without, is absent now. This was an era when leaders would proclaim that, “as long as I breathe, Mali will never be in thrall — rather death than slavery. We will be free, because our ancestors lived free.”
As poverty, misery and suffering play havoc on the people, the post-colonial nation state is weighed down by ethnic, religious and socio-economic burdens, which the leaders perpetuate to remain in power. Tribalism as posited by Davison (1992) and Morel (1920), was used by colonial governments to create divisions among Africans; and continues to be a heavy chain around the necks of the oppressed people of colour.
In view of Held’s (2006) standpoint, that African governance issues have their root in the bigger picture reflected on the global geo-political landscape, it is imperative to probe the problematic nature of the concepts of democracy and hegemony, to determine their impact on the dialectical tensions that impinge on progress in Africa.
Power dynamics, as inherited from the colonial state play havoc on the post-colonial nation state. Power has a way of getting into one’s head in quite strange ways and in the case of the leaders as is portrayed in Chinua Achebe’s “A Man of the People” (1966) and “Anthills of the Savannah” (1987), as well as Ousmane Sembene’s “The Last of the Empire” (1981), it corrupts, and when they have absolute power, it corrupts them absolutely as the adage goes.
Because “historical society is a dialectical unity of opposites,” (Bukharin et al 1937: 39), there is bound to be friction between the ruling class and the working class; and within the ruling and ruled classes. The same is seen in the case of military interventions where there is a tussle between civilians and the military, representing the same material demarcations that Marx highlights in his Marxist approach to societal relations.
Hegel extends this further to suggest that there is also bound to be clashes within classes, a crucial position in understanding dialectical tensions leading to military interventions as well. Within these dichotomous groups, further fissures and complexes exist requiring to be unbundled.
The two positions highlighted here all expose the dialectical opposites to be interrogated if one were to understand relations in Achebe’s Kangan (“Anthills of the Savannah”) or the fictional state of Senegal in Sembene’s “The Last of the Empire”. The question that then arises is, Are power struggles on the African landscape a result of the dialectical tussles between classes or within classes?
As individuals find themselves in power, as is the case with Sam, His Excellency, the President of Kangan, they do all they can to consolidate that power and in the process of consolidation, they create enemies; within and outside their camps and all these forces converge and diverge, but impact ultimately on the centre of power with devastating effects.
Because of lack of preparedness on the part of the ruling elite in the post-colonial state, decolonisation remains a simple replacement of one species of men with another (Fanon, 1967). The new leadership, totally unprepared for government and power, simply look to the colonial structures and emulate them.
After all, in many instances, the leaders have always wanted to be where the previous rulers were. This is the precarious situation that Sam finds himself in, a tragedy that the First Witness-Christopher Oriko, aptly captures thus: “His Excellency came to power without any preparation for political leadership — a fact, which he, being a very intelligent person knew perfectly well and which, furthermore, should not have surprised anyone. Sandhurst, after all, did not set about training officers to take over Her Majesty’s throne, but rather in the high tradition of proud aloofness from politics and public affairs.”
Sam is inexperienced in politics and governance and he has power thrust upon him through a coup, which power he uses to achieve his own goals. In the absence of structures to guide him and keep his power in check, Sam gets muddled along the way, actively encouraged by those benefiting from his largess.
As Weber (1905) points out, “power is the ability of an individual or group to achieve their own goals or aims when others are trying to prevent them from realising them”. It is not surprising then that Sam starts to see enemies everywhere the more his power grows and the more he pursues his own interests. The power he has corrupts him and he feels that he has no need of the people to legitimate his power; after all, the same people were not responsible for his ascendancy. The more he takes himself away from the people, the more he falls into the influence of court jesters masquerading as his cabinet. Unfortunately, for him, the same jesters use him for their own benefits and blind him to everything else which works against him.
However, power in Kangan is held largely by self-absorbed and self-serving leaders, who ignore or function in opposition to everyone else, but themselves. Therefore, some form of checks and balances are needed to keep everything in tandem. Beyond this, the other way of checking this power would be through the removal, the ouster from power of the current leaders.
In Kangan, both these options have severe limitations, thus the situation with Sam goes largely unaddressed and leads, slowly, but inevitably to a coup. The dialectical tensions that Sam creates in his own camp as well as in the civilian component of Kangan weaken his power base as voices of dissent begin to rise, making his position precarious. Tragically too, with power concentrated in his hands, there is no attempt to create structures to strengthen democratic frames in Kangan and the country revolves around Sam and his strengths and weaknesses end up defining a whole country.
Thus, as the post-colonial state remains an appendage of the former colonial power, whose apparatus subtly remains in place, the need arises to put in context the reasons for continued suffering, which lead to unrest, despondency and civil strife.
In “Anthills of the Savannah” (1987), Achebe, therefore, lays bare the power dynamics at play in post-colonial Africa which are symptomatic of the virus that seems to be spreading across the continent, making it a subject of ridicule, scorn and entirely dependent on aid, yet it has abundant resources to kick-start its own growth.
Achebe’s position with regards to the dialectical tensions that usually lead to the wrestling of power by the military through coups is informed by the fact that he believes that, despite the challenges around African leadership, if it changes sufficiently, it has potential to change the continent’s politics for the good of the common man.
However, as noted by Nnolim (2004), Achebe believes in a Utopian Africa, where the intelligentsia can help in fashioning ideological vision that can steer the Motherland to safer waters “free from poor leadership, bribery and corruption” (cited in Emenyonu and Uko, 2004: 226).
Achebe, therefore, appeals to Nigeria to be exemplary in leading the African’s dream to a world where “right” leadership decides the future of the continent.
In a seminal paper “The Trouble with Nigeria” (1987) Achebe notes: “The trouble with Nigeria is simply a failure of leadership . . . The Nigerian problem is the unwillingness or inability of its leaders to rise to the responsibility, to the challenge of personal example which are the hallmarks of true leadership.”
Achebe’s appeal, as is depicted in “Anthills of the Savannah”, does not suggest that this enterprise will be easy and that there are ready intellects out there to fill these roles. Rather, it is a difficult undertaking not without false starts, yet Africa must continue on the path because there is need to combine present and past memories, where women, workers, the old and young join hands for the common good.
Group interests, while inevitable, should not be the focal point, so Africans must “stop all this nonsense about religion, about tribe and so on (Achebe cited in Ohaeto, 1997:263), or at least tamper it with larger societal concerns which are crucial.
The scenario depicted reprises itself in many other African states where the rat race for material gain seems to be the driving force behind political decisions. This breeds animosity, hatred and civil strife, leading to those who feel that they deserve as much from the state and those who feel excluded resorting to unconstitutional means to gain power.
