You Liberate It, You Own It

A revolutionary flounders without a revolution. I believe that idea is at the core of Africa’s problems. The generation of independence leaders in Africa transformed over time into a generation of brutal strongmen and dictators and these men who once gave Africa hope and freedom often left their countries unstable and impoverished.

The idea of a continuing revolution is absurd. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines revolution as “a sudden, radical, or complete change.” However, dictators are big fans of the idea that they are leading a constant revolution. I first encountered this concept when studying Fidel Castro and Cuba in my Latin American film class my senior year of high school. The subjects of the documentaries and characters in the films that we watched were obsessed with the idea of the revolution and being revolutionaries, despite years and years having elapsed since Castro took power in 1959. But it seemed obvious to me that Fidel kept up the pretense of leading a revolution to remain the dictator of Cuba while the human rights of the Cuban people were violated, they didn’t have enough food, and they attempted to find a better life by trusting their lives to rickety rafts.

There is no revolution in Cuba today and if there is a revolutionary movement it is not that of Castro, but one against Castro.

Similar situations occurred all throughout Africa. Kwame Nkrumah led the Gold Coast to be the first European colony in Africa to seek its independence as the country of Ghana. In his years as the Ghanaian leader he incurred a massive debt, arrested members of opposition parties, and promoted flawed policies in nearly every political sector including agriculture, industry, and foreign affairs. Nkrumah’s problem was that because he achieved independence, he came to believe that he could do no wrong. He successfully caused a revolution, but he was not equipped to deal with all the responsibilities of a political leader. Nonetheless, he convinced himself that since he had created Ghana only he was capable of leading Ghana and thus the country suffered. Finally, Nkrumah was overthrown in a coup d’état, another occurrence that was to become a basic theme in Africa.

The same basic story permeates all of Africa. Léopold Senghor was the liberator and first president of Senegal. The Senegalese economy depended on groundnut exports. Senghor held back the economic future of his country by introducing an inept and corrupt groundnut management system and by selling groundnuts at lower than market price. Senegal’s story had a better ending than most with Senghor introducing a multi-party system and voluntarily stepping down from leadership. In Guinea, liberation leader Ahmed Sékou Touré, used brutal force to protect his power by publically punishing anybody that he claimed plotted to overthrow him. Most of these “plots” were figments of his imagination or purposely created so that he could punish his critics. Touré also attempted to rule his country’s economy for twenty years with disastrous affects until he finally reached out to private investors and ruled the country until his death. Julius Nyerere, in Tanzania, promoted African socialism. His ideals were fine enough, but he believed that results could only come about in a one party state and used force to make Tanzanians adhere to his socialist policies. Even as his policies failed, Nyerere refused to blame socialism and kept his country on a downward path.

One of Africa’s strongman revolutionary leaders continues to make news today. Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe refuses to give up his rule as his country plunges into disaster. Zimbabwe only received its independence in 1980 and as such is still stuck under the power of its strongman liberator while the liberators of other countries died, were overthrown, or gave up their power long ago. For many election cycles Mugabe won through rigged elections, but the world finally began to notice in the election that occurred in March of last year. The results weren’t released for a month, but when they were, despite blatant thuggery and ample opportunity for stuffing ballot boxes, Mugabe’s opponent Morgan Tsvangirai was declared to have won more votes (though not enough to avoid a runoff). Mugabe used more extreme and brutal measures that eventually caused Tsvangirai to drop out of the runoff. While a power-sharing deal was signed, it is still uncertain whether it will work. Meanwhile, the inflation and unemployment rates in Zimbabwe have been astronomical (inflation is the highest the world has ever seen and unemployment is around 80%). Mugabe kicked aid workers out of his country and hospitals are mal-equipped to fight the cholera epidemic breaking out in the country, and still Mugabe refuses to give up power, for it is his country.

No matter what, Africa would have had to endure hardships. The European colonizers exploited the continent for their own benefit. Geographically, Africa is far more prone to diseases because of its tropical climate. But if the independence leaders hadn’t been so convinced that the countries they liberated belonged to them and that nobody else could lead the countries more effectively, the countries in Africa would have had more successful economies and greater stability and might be far more developed by 2009 than they are today.