DAWN OF A REVOLUTION (PART 2 OF 3)
In this piece we set to look at similarities and differences between the liberation patterns and the characteristics of a state that precipitate these liberation movements.
Similarities between liberation movements
Big men and the elitist groups
In the different waves of liberation there have emerged leaders who portray themselves as deliverers of the people. Matters must pass through them for approval. It is this system of being that led Idi Amin, Mobutu, Nasser, Senghor and Bokassa to give themselves overarching titles and in some cases even rename their territories. The big man in politics spearheads movements and becomes the final say once the liberation has been achieved.
The Prisoner’s Badge
In politics, if you want to make your opponent greater, lock him up in a cell. There has been no shortage of leaders who have been born out of the attainment of this prisoner’s badge. Many are emboldened after their release and gain even more supporters as was the case with Kenyatta of Kenya, Dr Banda of Malawi, Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia and Mandela of South Africa. Spirited movements have also been born within these prisons and those who died while in custody retained a legacy of martyrdom as was the case with Steve Biko and Patrice Lumumba of DRC.
Militarisation and the rise of the police state
Nations on the brink of liberation often face a period where the incumbent government seeks to exert its dominance by militarizing and reaffirming its control. Depending on the circumstance of the state this may cause the people’s resolve to rise and underground movements come up as a result, as was the case with the Umkhonto We Sizwe wing of the ANC.
A common enemy
John W. Gardner stated:
“Political extremism involves two prime ingredients:an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all”
To rally the people together the leaders of liberation movements often identify a group who bear the blame for the problems of society and it is understood that if the group is disposed of then the people can find a solution to their problem. At independence this group was the white government, during the second liberation the group was the elitist government that had forgotten the needs of the common mwananchi, in the third liberation the group is associated with the plunder of the state. The avenues for identifying this group are still in the open.
Spirit, song and dance
Nyerere once said “In Africa we have problems, but we remain cheerful” Spirited songs have shaped each wave of liberation and it is expected that the third wave as well will have its own music and dance.
Miriam Makeba, one of the singers who shaped the music of resistance to apartheid in South Africa
Differences between liberation movements
Governance structure and scope
The first clear difference is in the territory over which the governance structures are presiding. In the first liberation the governance structures of the Europeans were stretched thin across the continent. Thus, there was the challenge of balancing troops and responding adequately to crises, a problem that the British faced when they were trying to respond to the twin problems of Kaunda’s boycott calls in Zambia and Banda’s Nyasaland ANC which they later proscribed as an illegal organisation. The African governments, however, each have a significantly distinct territory that may serve as an advantage or disadvantage during uprisings. Advantage to the state where the geography can be controlled by it, and a disadvantage where the state forces could end up trapped within.
A new Pan-Africanism
The Pan-Africanism that greeted the first liberation is distinctly different from that during the second liberation and even the present Pan-Africanism. Whereas the first strain was more determined to push for a united concept, the freedom of all African nations, the second and current ones are still grasping at straws in a bid to remain relevant to what the Africans consider themselves to be. This has been contributed by two key factors. The first was the split that African nations made soon after independence. Those who championed the political unity of the continent, led by Nkrumah and later by Muammar Gaddafi were quickly phased out and each nation took up the cloak of sovereignty. Second, attempts by African nations to split from the European powers have been futile at best, under the threat of sanctions and loss of economic benefits that many if not most African leaders are unwilling to comply with. Thus, the Pan-African outfit has been shelved and is drawn out once in a while when a perceived threat to the continent is at bay, as was the case in the matter of slave trade in Libya, but never long enough to make a significant difference.
Electoral Fixing
This trend across the continent differs from the independence and second liberation years where the people demanded for the presence of an election. Now it is a matter of the kind of electioneering done. The convenience of appearing to conduct an election but putting in place predetermined leaders has seen an influx of chaos in different nations over the years. W. E. B Dubois summarised it keenly in ‘The Souls of Black Folk’ where he stated:
By taking away their best equipped teachers and leaders, by slamming the door of opportunity in the faces of their bolder and brighter minds, will you make them satisfied with their lot? Or will you not rather transfer their leading from the hands of men taught to think to the hands of untrained demagogues?
And yet, it would seem almost a paradox, that a state would prevent persons from leading and put in persons they can control, only for the persons who were prevented to eventually end up making the state uncontrollable.
What are the characteristics of a state that precipitate liberation movements?
These characteristics have been evident in Nasser’s Egypt, Toure’s Guinea, Banda’s Malawi, Amin’s Uganda, Moi’s Kenya among other nations. Some are drawn from ‘The Fate of Africa’ by Martin Meredith. I will outline them in brief:
Fusion of the powers of government and an abolished difference between state and government and between the two and the president
Control of media, trade unions, professional syndicates, youth organisations and religious institutions
Personal loyalty to the head i.e. president, prime minister etc Nicolo Machiavelli wrote:
It is much safer to be feared than loved, men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails
System of personal rule, either stated or implied where decisions must be approved by the head
Intolerance for critics
Ruling through parliaments packed with supporters known for their alliegance, in the absence of which coercion is used. Bowers wrote that:
Coercive power exists when one individual or group is able to influence another’s behavior by the threat of punishment.
Appointments based on tribal affiliation and party loyalty
These and others not mentioned are breeding grounds of liberation movements.
In the next piece we will focus on the individual nations