"Africa is in a mess," Julius Nyerere said not long before he died. Add to that, for discussion in this forum, an excerpt from a hard-hitting and highly controversial book by an African writer Godfrey Mwakikagile, entitled "The Modern African State: Quest for Transformation," pp. 238 - 239:

It is a tragedy that the world's richest continent is, paradoxically, also the poorest. We have not exploited our full potential. That is why we always beg for help from other countries, while other people laugh at us behind our backs; our lack of progress being attributed to our "meager"
intellect. And we help reinforce those stereotypes. We beg too much.

But we do have the potential to reverse that, regardless of what our detractors say, some of whom are the very people who exploited us ruthlessly, and continue to do so under the
new international economic order - globalization - over which we have no control. But our failure to help ourselves - we can't even feed fellow Africans who are starving - and develop our countries, in spite of all the enormous potential we have to do that, does not make us look very good before the rest of the world where we are already despised probably more than anybody else. And much of that potential, the labor and the resources, has been stifled or squandered under black governments since independence in the sixties.

What's wrong with Africa? Bad leadership probably more than anything else. It explains our stunted economic growth. If the leaders would only listen to what the people have to say, and let them manage their own affairs in the best way they know how; and if they would also listen to their critics who might have better alternative policies and solutions to our problems, things would be much different, and our countries much better off than they are today. But they are too arrogant to listen. The result is what we have today: nothing to show for our 40 years of independence in terms of development.

Just look at how the rest of the world sees us. We don't have a single developed black nation on earth - not one; a dismal performance with serious racial implications, reinforcing stereotypes about our innate inablity to do for ourselves what others have done for themselves. Nigeria, once black Africa's great hope, has proved to be a great disappointment despite her great potential in terms of manpower and natural resources which would have been more than enough to make her a middle power in the international arena, in the same league with countries such as Canada and Italy.In the early seventies, Nigerian leaders and the elite even talked about the country's potential capacity to build an atomic bomb within a decade or so. Tragically, all that potential went down the drain under corrupt military dictators who siphoned billions of petrodollars into their pockets through the decades, earning this African giant the unenviable distinction as one of the poorest countries in the world.

Another giant nation, the Congo, potentially the richest country in Africa, has been a monumntal disaster since independence in 1960, pulverized from within. In fact, it ceased to be a state under Mobutu Sese Seko who bled it to death. And it may continue to exist as an empty shell for many years to come if it does not disintegrate into fiefdoms dominated and exploited by warlords and other strongmen.

South Africa is, indisputably, the most developed country on the continent. But it is not a typical black nation; there are millions of whites, as well as Indians and Coloureds. And it was developed under white rule. Most of its scientific achievements and industrial progress requiring high-level manpower are attributed to white scientists and skilled workers, for obvious reasons. Blacks were denied equal opportunity, education and skilled training during apartheid. Therefore they did not contribute to South Africa's scientific and technological advancement as much as whites did.

Angola is another country with enormous potential, endowed with abundant natural resources including oil, a dazzling array of minerals, and extremely fertile land. But it has been devastated by civil war for almost 30 years, reducing it to rubble. It will take several decades, probably two generations at least, to rebuild.

The list of failed states across the continent goes on and on. And nothing is going to change without radical transformation. The transformation must entail the complete overhaul of the institutions and power structures we inherited at independence. And it must take place across the entire spectrum, economic and political as well as social, to reflect African realities; accommodate and harmonize conflicting ethnoregional interests through extensive devolution of power to prevent secession and national disintegration; and harness the full potential of the people across the continent to develop our countries. The quest for transformation of the modern African state requires bold initiatives and compromises. But, unfortunately, in most countries across the continent, it is a task that has hardly begun.

your mising out SEVERAL important things about africas development. keep in mind africa was the LAST continent to get rid of its colonial powers, and all of the governments there are relatively young, while in asia, and even the americas the govt.s are around 150 - 400 years old.

if you look at any young country, you see harsh times. in latin america, as well as the united states, the first hundred years of their governments existences they were little more than third world nations, or below. many latin american countries are the same now.

also, africa is NOT as fertile as you may think. the fertile areas, rain forest places, are not good for planting because they get depleted very quickly of minerals, and then desertification sets in. ask the brazillians about that, because thats exactly whats happening there as well.

much of far southern and near saharan africa, as well as far eastern africa is pretty much desolate and incapable of farming as well.


the dictatorships are the result of young nations attempting to westernize too fast just after colonial dictatorships. the reason why there are so many is because most african countries gained independence at around the same time, hence they are all about the same age, and in the same stage of growth. Eventually, when the people get too tired of it, they will grow out of it.

Good try, but not very convincing.

Do you also have excuses for civil wars raging across the continent? South Africa itself, one of Africa's great hopes, was almost torn by civil conflict, Zulus in the Inkatha-Freedom Party fighting the ANC. Look at Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Angola, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Mozambique, Congo-Brazzaville - over 10,000 people killed in the capital Brazzaville alone, in four months, July - October 1997 in a senseless civil war between President Pascal Lissouba's loyalist troops and Denis Sassou-Nguesso's Cobra militia. Sassou-Nguesso is a member of the Sanga tribe, a northerner; Lissouba, a Bakongo, a southerner: a clear-cut case of ethno-regional rivalry.

Also look at Congo-Kinshasa, the so-called Democratic Republic, a misnomer: almost 3 million people dead in a civil war in less than three years from August 1998 - when the latest fighting broke out - to June 2001. And also look at the civil conflicts in Uganda, Central African Republic, in Kenya where ethnic cleansing has been instigated by President Moi himself and other KANU heavyweights, including many cabinet members.

Even Tanzania itself, where the author comes from, is not as stable as its
admirers - you may be one of them, I don't know - claim it to be. You know the conflict over Zanzibar, don't you? And it's more than just the stolen election in 1995 and 2000. The islanders demand more autonomy - why not? The majority probably want to secede. In fact, President Nyerere himself, who engineered the union, said he would let Zanzibar go if that's what the majority of the Zanzibaris wanted. See his article, "Why We Recognised Biafra," in "Africa Contemporary Record: 1968 - 1969," p. 651:

"As President of Tanzania it is my duty to safeguard the integrity of the United Republic. But if the mass of the people of Zanzibar should, without external manipulation, and for some reason of their own, decide that the Union was prejudicial to their existence, I could not advocate bombing them into submission. To do so would not be to defend the Union. The Union would have ceased to exist when the consent of its constituent members was withdrawn. I would certainly be one of those working hard to prevent secession, or to reduce its disintegrating effects. But I could not support a war on the people whom I have sworn to serve - especially not if the secession is preceded by a rejection of Zanzibaris by Tanganyikans."

Well, the Tanzania union government used helicopter gunships to bomb Zanzibaris fleeing in boats to Kenya after the chaos and violence that accompained the 2000 presidential elections. Why don't hold a referendum to let the people decide whether or not they want to remain part of the union?

Look at the civil war in Senegal where Casamance province has been fighting to separate since 1983. And look at Cote d'Ivoire. Ivory Coast was one of Africa's most stable countries. But it's now split along ethnoregional and religious lines after the military coup on Christmas Eve 1999. Alassan Ouattara, a Muslim northerner and former prime minister, was not even allowed to run for president.

And Africa's giant, Nigeria: torn by ethnic and religious conflicts. Since the inauguration of President Olusegun Obasanjo in May 1999, more than 10,000 people have been killed across the country, and many Nigerians are wondering whether their country can really survive as a single political entity. And just as many are saying they should break up along ethnic or regional lines. The debate is going on now. Read Nigerian newspapers, and talk to some Nigerians if you know any. The conflicts in Nigeria are also religious, Muslim North versus Christian South.

What about the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea in 1998 - 1999 over a barren patch of land? Two bald-headed men fighting over a comb! They spent billions on weapons while their people were starving. Where are their priorities? Over 100,000 people were killed in Africa's bloodiest conflict - in terms of firepower - since World War II.

Yes, wars stunt economic growth, they destory countries. Look at Zimbabwe. Totally destroyed. President Nyerere advised Mugabe, "You have inherited one of the jewels of Africa. Keep it that way." He has done exactly the opposite, while fellow African leaders and ordinary people applaud him.

What about corruption? The money African leaders steal and deposit abroad every year far exceeds the amount of foreign aid they get within the same period. The Kenyan elite has over $5 billion stashed away abroad, an amount that equals or exceeds the national debt. Mobutu's fortune, probably $10 billion stolen, at least equalled his country's national debt. One of the world's potentially richest countries is now a total wreck. Thanks to Mobutu. The per capita income of the Congo - Zaire - was far higher in 1958 before independence than it was throughout Mobutu's tenure and beyond. In 1964, Zambia had a per capita income of $200, South Korea's was $120. Today South Korea's per capita income exceeds $10,000, while Zambia's is a pathetic
$400.


At independence in 1957 and even in the early sixties, Ghana was richer than Indonesia. So was Nigeria. In fact, Ghana, Nigeria, Zambia, and even Uganda were all richer than Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, today's Asian tigers. What happened to those African countries?

Military dictator Ibrahim Babangida of Nigeria is worth more than $30 billion, petrodollars siphoned off from national coffers; his successor sani Abacha, worth more than $5 billion, also stolen from the national treasury, mostly petrodollars. Yet the people of the Niger Delta have nothing, not even clean water, except pollution.

All these figures come from Godfrey Mwakikagile, "The Modern African State: Quest for Transformation." Ghanaian author and economics professor George Ayittey also paints the same bleak picture, with damning statistics, in his books "Africa in Chaos," and "Africa Betrayed." Mwakikagile also has more in another one of his books, "Economic Development in Africa." Please visit amazon.com and barnes and noble and read what fellow Africans and others say about their books in the customer review section. Just click on customer review to read them. The reviews themselves are loaded with facts, documented.

Talk about fertile land? Every African has an average of 4 acres of arable land. Yet less than 1 acre per person is under cultivation. Source of this data? Adebayo Adedeji, former Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA); it also comes from the UN and other sources.

You can also read Mwakikagile's and Ayittey's books at one of the university libraries, including the Uiversity of South Africa, the University of London (SOAS), Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, University of Chicago, the University of Dar es Salaam, the University of Botswana, the University of the West Indies, the University of california - Berkeley, UCLA, and many others, including public libraries such as the British Public Library, and the New York, Boston, and Los Angeles Public Libraries, as well as universities in Australia: Curtin, New South wales, Northwestern Australia, and others, including public libraries and universities in Singapore, Sweden, Germany, France, even the public library of the China.

Israel is a desert, is it not? What about the city-state of Singapore? What natural resources do they have? And what arable land? Compare that with what African countries, even the poorest, have in terms of natural resources, and arable land.

Sure enough, it takes a long time to develop. But what do African countries have to show for their 40 years of independence? Misery.

And can you explain the brain drain? Why are all those trained Africans fleeing abroad? In the past 5 years, according to veteran Kenyan journalist Philip Ochieng, an unrepentant Marxist in spite of the fact that Leninism-Marxism is a discredited ideology, African lost more than 600,000 trained people in the past five years. Why?

Also read Keith Richburg's "Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa."

And I'm black myself.

Face reality.

that was a nice and long post, and though you made a few references to books written about africa (all from european outsiders, mind you), you still have said nothing to disprove anything i said.

in fact, you didnt seem to read anything i posted. i just told you that civil chaos is common in newly formed nations, and most of africas countries are less than 50 years old. not to mention the fact that while under colonial rule, the africa nations werent allowed to develop as the american and asian colonys were in order to keep the africans dependant and to keep their labour cheap, as well as their resources.

i also explain to you why the lands you deemed 'fertile' cannot be farmed. i wont say it again, but i will tell you that several countries in the americas had that same idea about fertile rainforest lands, yet when they cut it down, the rain washes away all the sediment and the land quickly become unplantable. OR the slash and burn techniques enrich the land temporarily, but without proper regeneration that the forests are used to, the land gets used up too fast. ask the brazillians, argentinans and the peruvians about this.

also, in most of eastern and southern africa, there simply isnt enough drinking water to properly support the population. in some places there may be, but theres no technology to get to it, or purify it properly.

Im afriad all that jibber jabber and nonsense really doesnt stand up to the widely accepted truths, which are taught in almost every accredited college text book, as well as accepted by the worlds best and most educated sociologists. Im afraid your very very very long arguement just doesnt stand up.

-see other post in other thread.


rather than giving a long drawn out counter to you words, ill just give you SPECIFIC college texts (thats college approved, not written by any single author, and therefore not subject to single mindedness)-

Cultural Geography: A Critical Introduction-1st ed.
Donald Mitchell,Donald Mitchell

The Human Mosaic : A Thematic Introduction to Cultural Geography-8th ed.

Human and Cultural Geography: A Global Perspective-1st ed.

Essentials of World Regional Geography-3rd ed.

World Regional Geography: The New Global Order 2nd Edition-2nd ed.


and before you go about and give me links or references to various books written by single authors, let me cite again that these are college text books written by MANY people in their approved fields, not a single author attempted to sell books, or with a single mind frame on the issue being spoken of.

Dear Loonster,

I have been fortunate enough to have the exchanges on this thread forwarded to me. I understand where you are coming from. Yours is a "sympathetic" view of Africa; perhaps a sincere effort on your part to "understand" Africa's problems. Africa suffered greatly under colonialism, Western imperialism and the slave trade. Having "recently" gained their independence, these "young" African countries are bound to run into serious problems - tyranny, chaos, corruption, conflict, etc. All that is granted but like many other "sympathetic" Westerners, you FAIL to make the following distinctions:

1. Between the LEADERS and the PEOPLE. The leaders have been the problem; not the people,
2. MODERN and TRADITIONAL Africa. The latter is the home of the real people of Africa. This is where you will find true and uplifting stories of personal endurance, resilience and hope. The modern sector, the abode of the ELITES, is lost. It is the source of most of Africa's tensions and conflicts which are essentially STRUGGLES or competition for POWER.

In fact, any student of modern Africa who fails to recognize these distinctions would not only commit a grievous mistake but also produce treatises that are out of touch with reality. You can write the entire post-colonial history of modern Africa around this rubric: The Power Equation. The quest for power, the machinations and maneuvers to retain it and the destructive consequences. All these have NOTHING to do with colonialism, racism or American imperialism. Why the obsession with POWER? Because (1) Power to enrich oneself oneself and allocate resources to one's cronies and tribesmen (2) Power to crush one's enemies (3) Power to perpetuate oneself in office.

If you want to understand why rich countries are rich and poor countries poor, just look at how the rich in each got rich. In the U.S., the richest man is Bill Gates with a personal fortune of about $67 billion. He got his wealth by producing SOMETHING (computer software, Microsoft) and sold it in the MARKETPLACE. His wealth is produced in the PRIVATE sector and there is something to show for his wealth.

Now come to Africa. Who are the richest? They are ALWAYS, ALWAYS HEADS OF STATE and ministers. What did they produce or what do they have to show for their wealth? NOTHING. They made their money by raking it off the backs of their suffering peasants!! That is NOT wealth creation; it is wealth redistribution. The part which gets my goat is that, the stupid idiots don't invest the loot in their own countries but take it instead to Switzerland and other Western banks.

The LEADERS have failed and betrayed their people and I am not the only black African saying this. I have compiled what other Africans are saying at The Free Africa Foundation website. Here is the link:

http://www.freeafrica.org/africanvoices.html

Best Wishes,

George Ayittey,
Washington, DC