[Socialism Today, No 10, July-August 1996, p. 20-24]
In the 1950s, with African nationalism at its height, the buzzword in Africa was „development‘. Since that dream of growing prosperity, Africa, despite its immense natural wealth, has become a continent beset by famine, drought, civil war and brutal dictatorships. What went wrong? James Long reports.
„Africa’s economic decline in the past 20 years, as well as its recent binge of warfare – 80-something civil conflicts in the past three years by a UN count – has lead to the new term, ‚Afro-pessimism‘.
„Economists at the World Bank and IMF have even begun studying what they call ‚the Africa effect‘ where normal economic stimuli such as lower taxes, interest rates or inflation don’t seem to have the same positive impact in Africa as in the rest of the world’s economies“. (Johannesburg Star, 18 April, 1996).
These brief paragraphs sum up the failure of the so-called New World Order to produce any fundamental improvement in Africa. All reports show that the majority of the world’s poorest countries are in Africa. The World Bank lists 32 countries as ’severely indebted low-income countries‘ (SILICs), 25 of which are in Sub-Saharan Africa. Africa is the one continent which is definitely predicted to lose out as a result of the GATT deal which set up the new World Trade Organisation.
These bare facts are given real meaning, tragically, in terms of people’s lives. Oxfam reported earlier this year that 300 million Africans, more than half the continent’s population, will be living in poverty by the year 2000. Only half the population has the most basic of health care, and less than half the children finish primary school – and these figures are getting worse. While in the last 15 years Africa’s population has increased by 49%, food production has only risen by 41%.
But there is nothing inevitable about this situation. Oxfam reported that Sub-Saharan Africa transfers to its international creditors four times as much as they spend on health care, and more than they spend on primary education plus primary health care.
Oxfam gave a simple example: „For less than is currently being spent on debt, it would be possible by the year 2000 to make social investments which would save the lives of around 21 million African children, and provide 90 million girls with access to primary education“. In many countries the situation is actually worsening. In Zambia per capita spending on primary school children is about 17% of the level in 1985 and health care spending is at 70%.
Debt repayments to the imperialist financial institutions and countries cripple many African countries. In the early 1990s Zambia received $550m in development aid, but $350m went straight out of the country again as this was given only to pay-off past debts.
* *
*
Historically, imperialism portrayed Africa as the „dark continent‘ as a justification first of all for the slave trade and then for the European powers colonisation, the ’scramble for Africa‘, during the last century, The imperialists were so cynical that they actually organised a meeting, the 1884 Berlin Conference, to slice up the continent between them.
Echoes of this imperialist viewpoint continue today with the idea that something inherent within Africa prevents its development. The immensity of the economic and social crisis which grips the continent can, when no socialist alternative is seen, lead to the idea that the morass is due to ’something wrong‘ in the ‚character‘ of Africans.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Compare for example Nigeria and Germany. Nigeria has a 25% larger population, far more natural resources and more cultivable land. Why then is Germany the world’s third strongest imperialist power and Nigeria, despite its oil, an underdeveloped neo-colonial country now facing continuing decline?
It is not at all a question of Nigerians being ‚less hard-working‘. Despite the absence of winter, life is far more difficult and tiring in Nigeria than in Germany. Nigeria’s productivity is lower but that reflects the paucity of investment in Nigeria, not an unwillingness to work.
Why then did Africa not develop? The answer lies in the fact that the modern economy first developed in western Europe and north America. These first countries then exploited their initial lead to dominate the world, On the basis of their growing productivity, wealth and power. the European powers first simply exploited Africa, most brutally in the slave trade, and then later militarily conquered it. However European colonisation was not simply accepted: in parts of Nigeria for example armed resistance to being forced into the British Empire continued until the beginning of this century.
Colonialism obviously meant that the empires were run for the benefit of the imperialist powers, which in Africa were Britain, France, Portugal, Belgium and, until 1918, Germany. But even after independence the ex-colonies remained under the effective domination of imperialism through the advanced capitalist countries‘ grip over the world economy. The international monopolies and financial institutions used this power to block, or severely cramp, the independent development of rivals in most of the ex-colonial countries. This resulted in the majority of these countries becoming, in reality, neo-colonial nations.
The recent development of the so-called Asian ‚Tigers‘ does not. in fact. contradict the analysis that the world economy is dominated by the advanced capitalist countries. A large part of these countries development has been based upon heavy foreign, i.e. imperialist controlled, financing. But this has not happened in Africa. In 1995 Sub-Saharan Africa received 3% of private foreign investment, while 59% went to East Asia and the Pacific.
Africa’s lack of development has resulted in falling living standards, instability and the weakness of democratic rights. It is also reflected in the fact that in some countries the richest layer are mainly the military chiefs and top politicians, not the ordinary capitalists.
After independence in the 1950s and 1960s a number of African countries attempted to lean on the then USSR and other Stalinist states as a counter-weight to the pressures of imperialism. The rapid development, in many cases, of the Stalinist states into modern societies (especially in regard to basic services, education and health care) meant that countries like the USSR, China and Cuba were attractive models of development, especially to youth and workers. The mid-1970s victories in Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique over Portuguese imperialism, along with the US defeat in Vietnam, further radicalised significant layers in Africa.
But like all areas of the world, since 1990 Africa has been deeply affected by the collapse of Stalinism.
* *
*
Already some contradictions were developing during the 1980s. The end of the international economic upswing meant sharpening economic conditions. This in turn produced a new wave of radicalisation within which there was widespread popular support for socialism, especially in Nigeria and South Africa. All Nigerian governments had been openly pro-capitalist, for example – but the country’s rapid collapse meant that in 1987, when a military-appointed commission conducted a survey of the views of the Nigerian population, it found that a majority of Nigerians wanted socialism. In South Africa the then close ties between the apartheid regime and capitalism resulted in the newly-formed workers‘ organisations, such as the COSATU union federation, rapidly adopting the goal of socialism.
But, while the main political beneficiaries of this mood were leaders who looked to Moscow, this was at the moment the Stalinist regimes were themselves entering into their own crisis. Increasingly beset by economic problems Moscow was turning more and more away from supporting regimes elsewhere.
A sign of this was already shown in Africa in 1982 when Moscow advised a delegation from then newly in power Rawlings regime in Ghana not to nationalise the economy and to turn to the West for economic support. Rawlings followed this advice and moved to crush the „soviet‘-like bodies, the Workers Defence Committees in the workplaces and the Peoples Defence Committees in the areas, which were then rapidly developing throughout Ghana.
A few years earlier Moscow had similarly advised the Sandinistas not to follow the Cuban example and instead maintain a „mixed‘ (i.e. capitalist) economy in Nicaragua. In Zimbabwe Mugabe, who once described himself as „Marxist‘, happily ran a capitalist government and, during the 1980s, imprisoned Marxists.
The unfolding economic crisis in the 1980s led the imperialists to increasingly demand austerity programmes, the hated „Structural Adjustment Programmes‘. But while popular discontent to these policies was growing, the opposition leaders were moving rightwards. The signs of malaise in the Stalinist countries combined with the crisis in those African countries, like Tanzania and Zambia, which had attempted to maintain a more independent position from imperialism, further pushed the „left‘ leaders to the right.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s the opposition broke through to the surface. There was the so-called „democracy wave‘, in which in 35 out of 48 African countries democratic movements emerged. Although the African working class is in a minority, in a number of countries it was the main force behind these movements. There were a wave of strikes after 12 Francophone African countries suffered a sharp drop in wealth when French imperialism devalued the CFA franc by 50% in the early 1990s.
* *
*
Workers struggles were most clearly seen in South Africa, even though the apartheid regime had a unique character. But the role of the working class did not mean that the movements resulted in socialist victories. Capitalism was able to continue through either multi-class coalitions (often called ’national conferences‘ or ‚Governments of National Unity‘) or via the policies of the new leaders. Stalinism’s collapse meant these leaders, who were not Marxists, saw no alternative to capitalism. Thus Zambia’s former trade union leader Chiluba carried out austerity measures once he was elected president in 1991.
But there is already a recoil against the ’structural adjustment‘ policies of austerity, devaluation, ‚liberalisation‘ and de-regulation. Most significantly this has been seen in Kerekou’s recent return to power in Benin. Kerekou won the May presidential election with an anti-IMF and anti-World Bank campaign which also promised „ending privatisation and some re-nationalisation‘.
Previously Kerekou had been in power between 1972 and 1991 and defended his Stalinist-like regime with ‚Marxist‘ rhetoric. He lost office to a former World Bank official Suglo in 1991 but the subsequent austerity regime gave Kerekou 52.5% of the vote this year. However, it is clear that Kerekou already has a problem in the contradiction between what his supporters expect and what he will do.
A very important aspect of the new mood that is developing is that opposition to the austerity policies is combined with a new anti-imperialist sentiment. Imperialist agencies like the World Bank and IMF are seen as pushing austerity policies and demanding that the economies are „liberalised‘, i.e. that all remaining barriers to the international monopolies are dropped.
Not content with driving down living standards with the CFA franc devaluation, the French government regularly sends in troops, most recently in the Central African Republic, to prop-up regimes friendly to Paris.
French imperialism is perhaps the most active in supporting repressive regimes, but all the world powers support the dictatorships as long as it is in their interests to do so. Thus the USA and the European Union reject sanctions on Nigerian oil, hoping instead to do a deal to persuade the Abacha regime to hand over to a ‚friendly‘ civilian-fronted government.
But all of this means that there is growing opposition to what is seen as a „re-colonisation‘ via the back door. The hostility to imperialism is mounting and anti-imperialist demands, such as nationalisation of imperialist assets and repudiation of debts, will increasingly figure in movements in Africa.
* *
*
From experience it is clear that capitalism is not able to really develop Africa. All the indicators show that the continent is going back. Of course the imperialists try to present one or two ’show-piece‘ countries: in the late 1980s it was Ghana and currently it is Uganda. But these do not remain ’show-pieces‘ for long and even then their development is often uneven.
Uganda is being praised for being the first ever African country to have a double-figure GDP growth in one year (10%). But per capita income is around $200 per year and the country depends upon $800 million in annual aid just to pay its foreign debt bill. Moreover, much of this growth is centred around the capital, Kampala, in the south of country where President Museveni comes from. Uganda’s north has not benefited and there is a growing rebellion among the northern tribes.
Uganda is just one of the African countries which has seen a growth in ethnic division and warfare. Of course the break-up of Yugoslavia shows that this is not just an African phenomenon. But the combination of the failure to develop economically, the falling living standards, the completely artificial boundaries of African countries and the often tribal-based ruling cliques, all mean that national questions are key issues.
There will be progressive elements. like the fight against discrimination, in some of the demands raised by different tribes or nations. But in general the tendency towards the break-up of countries will be a regressive development because separation will be seen as the alternative to national, class-based struggles. This is not to say that Marxists support the existing state boundaries or are opposed to self-determination. If a nation wants its independence then clearly Marxists will support that white explaining that independence on its own will not solve the problems. We understand that unity can be built only on a voluntary basis.
In Nigeria the military’s annulment of the 1993 presidential election has sharply increased national tensions To many in the south it seems that the northern-born military rulers acted to prevent a southern-born representative, for the first time in Nigeria’s history, becoming president. The conclusion which is being drawn is that Nigeria, which itself was only created by the British in 1914, should breakup. In Nigeria this is not yet a majority view – there is a fear of a bloody break-up or a repeat of the 1967-70 civil war – but it is growing. However this development was not inevitable. At a number of times during the 1980s and in the early 1990s the Nigerian labour and student movements led a struggle against the military. However despite the immense hostility towards the military and the heroism of the working masses and youth, these movements were not successful, primarily because there was no leadership prepared or able to give a clear direction. With the defeats, especially of the 1994 oil workers strike, the national question acquired a sharper prominence.
Now that this has occurred the future movements in Nigeria will be even more complicated. A policy of unity in struggle, combined with opposition to any forced state-backed „unity‘, will be the only way to unite working people from different backgrounds.
Movements do not develop in straight lines. In South Africa the ending of the apartheid regime and the ANC/South African Communist Party policy of running capitalism, produced a relative lull in the movement. In Nigeria the 1994 defeat, combined with a worsening economic situation, has put severe strains on the movement despite the deepening hostility to the regime. In such periods the role of those who remain active and committed to the ideas of socialism is vital, because when the movement revives again they can play an extremely important role. The international labour movement has an obligation to provide assistance not just in times of struggle but also when the movement is under pressure.
* *
*
Africa is facing a stark future. The economic crisis is increasing the tendencies towards the break-up of societies. The crisis in agriculture tends to drive people towards the cities, but the lack of work in the cities creates huge numbers of unemployed or semi-employed who can hardly survive.
This means that there is no basis for stable periods of capitalist democracy. Unable to satisfy even basic needs, capitalism is forced to repeatedly return to dictatorial methods to continue its rule.
But is not just a question of dictatorship. Already the 1990s have seen four African countries – Burundi, Liberia, Rwanda and Somalia – effectively disintegrate. Other countries could, if they remain on a capitalist basis, go the same way.
But there are two sides to every development, Alongside the growth in tribal and national tensions there is the growing anti-imperialist sentiment combined with the internationalist idea of linking the struggles in Africa together. Given Africa’s history a successful socialist movement in one country would have a tremendous continent-wide effect.
On a capitalist basis Africa’s future in this period of world economic depression will be one of falling living standards, dictatorships and the threat of ethnic break-up. The task of preventing this falls upon the labour movement. A socialist internationalist policy, which would gain a tremendous echo both within and without Africa, is the only policy which can meet this task.
Schreibe einen Kommentar