UNDER- DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA
Under- development is caused by internal structures, while development is caused by either internal or external influence.
Underdevelopment is conceptualized by Samir Amir as a process where there is continued exploitation in an economy to the extent that the full economic surplus along the chain is not available for the re-investments. Instead through manipulated relations of structures, the surplus is expropriated or exported outside the economy. Samir Amir analyzed the third world development dilemma and argued that under- development in the third world is structural, particular structures have been constructed to particularly promote extraversion.
REASONS FOR AFRICAS UNDERDEVELOPMENT.
Samir Amir identified the following structures as critical structural arguments of under- development:
1.The transformation of the third world economies-Third world economies made a transition to capitalism not through a system that empowered them to reap maximum surplus from their resources because the necessary value was never added within the economy. Instead the goods were added value was exported elsewhere. This transfer of value consequently denied the third world the opportunities to realize maximum returns from their resources. Instead, through extraversion, the surplus accrued outside the third world. This is what Rosa Luxembourg called transfer of wealth between modes of production. Furthermore, the third world emerged as a source of cheap raw materials to be added value elsewhere hence the structural reliance that emerged between the periphery and the center- was such that industrial capacity was to be stagnated within the third world economies because allowing them the internal capacity for industrialization would undermine surplus accumulation at the center. This explains the forceful tendency to deprive the third world of autonomous development capacity.
2. Amir observed that there is a tendency towards export markets which accounts for a significant amount of total production-Unfortunately, these are goods which have been conditioned by the industrialized economies which also dictate the quality. However third world
states import goods and services in which they have no voice at all, in terms of form and quality. The consequence with this is that the domestic economy neglects local market to satisfy foreign markets, yet comparatively their import- export trade perpetually reflects balance of payment deficits. Over emphasis on export markets exposes the domestic markets to unnecessary cheap imports which flood such economies, consequently undermining domestic production.
3.Amir observed that the nature of specialization in production was such that the third world was misled to undertake a distorted form of specialization which had marginal returns-Yet the industrialized economies specialized on high returns. The net effect is that international trade contributes to under- development in the third world through unequal specialization.
4.Amin also observed that the behavior of capital invested in the third world is so distorted to the extent that such capital did not promote multiplier effects of investments, for instance the economy did not witness some spillover into indigenous hands, instead foreign capital largely came in as direct investments, since rarely does it allow local shareholding or in the event that it does. It allows minority shareholding. The consequence of this is that monopoly emerges in the economy and market opportunities will be dominated with foreign capital. Equally the attendant profits are profits are exported back to the industrialized economies.
5. The technology which drives development has been applied in a negative way in the third
world- This is because this technology does not create more opportunities for productive engagement particularly in the labor advantage that third world countries enjoy. Instead it reduces opportunities for productive engagements and that it pushes labor out of production. Moreover, these technologies are more based on profit maximization and not on enhancement of domestic investment capacity. Foreign technologies have become so dominant and shaped production to a situation where labor returns are finding themselves more marginal without necessary opportunities.
6.Amin observed that foreign capital underpays labor to the extent that domestic capacity in terms of investment cannot grow since wage labor continues to decline steadily while labor efforts continue to be sold so expensively.
7.Amin realized that the markets in the industrial economies were increasingly becoming exclusive-This means that a form of protectionism was emerging so that domestic production is safe guarded. Whereas means the third world markets were becoming so inclusive or highly liberalized. The net effect of this is that industrialized countries are able to safeguard surplus formation so that external the goods do not destabilize the domestic economy whereas the third world through unchecked liberalization has seen its market taken away by capital further worsening underdevelopment.
In conclusion, Amin noted that the features that actualize underdevelopment are strongly embedded into various structures, be it economic, social political or institutional so that the international institutions. The social systems, the social behavior and the economic organizations collectively are influenced institutionally through a pattern regularized to perpetuate transfer of value. The consequence being the source of production is derived from achieving autonomous capacity for surplus formation because it transfers such opportunities elsewhere. Amir was convinced was convinced that the structural linkages between the third world and the industrialized economies promoted what he termed under-development through unequal development.
The periphery capitalist mode of production has the dual feature of a modern technology and low wages within the framework of the capital is social organization. The productivity cannot be very high in the periphery countries. The labor is cheap, but its productivity is also low in the periphery countries, economic growth is blocked because such countries are dominated by the center. Since there is domination by the center, the development of underdevelopment is neither regular nor cumulative. Development in such countries is somewhat jerky and discontinues.
Theories of Development
Both Western and Third World scholars have come up with various theories aimed at explaining development and underdevelopment. Such theories attempt to reveal why some countries are developed, while others are not; why some countries are exceedingly rich, while others are extremely poor; and why some countries appear to be amenable to change and development, while many others seem to be vulnerable to retrogression and underdevelopment, as well as how underdeveloped countries can fast-track and achieve development. This unit vividly explains these various theories with particular emphasis on Modernisation and Dependency theories.
What is a Theory?
A theory is a set of ideas that are logical and which establishes a correlation between causation of a phenomenon and its effects. A theory does three things – It helps us to understand (describe), explain and predict a phenomenon.
Therefore, theories of development help us to comprehend and analyse the concepts of development and underdevelopment as they relate to the world we live.
Modernisation Theory
This is the oldest theory of development. Modernisation theory sees development from the prism of western civilisation. Its major exponents include Gabriel Almond, Bingham Powell, David Coleman and Lucian Pye. Also, some classical economists and sociologists such as Adam Smith, W.W Rostow, Henry Maine, Ferdinand Toennies, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and so on, did make significant contributions towards the advancement of modernisation theory. According to this School of Thought, development simply means industrialisation and modernity which are exemplified by the Western industrialised capitalist nations.
Almond and Powell in their essay titled “Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach”, and Almond and Coleman in their piece titled “The Politics of Developing Areas” argued that development is the evolution of a political system through series of stages, from a traditional state to modernity characterised by equality, cultural secularisation and structural differentiation.
Cultural secularisation is the process whereby members of the society become rational, critical and analytical in their socio-political actions. Their orientations towards politics become pragmatic and participatory as a result of the increase in their knowledge of the political objects, norms and values (Cognitive Orientation) and also because of the increase in their feeling of attachment, involvement and rejection of the political objects and issues (Affective Orientation), as well as the increase in their objective judgments and opinions about the political objects and issues (Evaluative Orientation). When this happens, a participant or civic political culture replaces parochial and subject political culture which initially characterised the political system. On the other hand, Structural Differentiation is the process whereby roles change in the society. Old roles are transformed and new roles accompanied by new structures to perform them emerge. Division of labour and specialisation ensue, and this results in the total transformation of the society. At this point, the society achieves development having attained its optimum cultural secularisation and structural differentiation, and as a result, acquired the capacity to maintain law and order, to attract socio-political participation, distribute resources and privileges accordingly, and to win the loyalty, support and commitment of its citizens which is nation building.
Therefore, the Underdeveloped World can achieve development by imbibing the development attributes of the Capitalist West. Also, some Western sociologists have attempted to explain why the West is developed, while the Third world is not, and how the latter can achieve development. In his view, Henry Maine submitted that development is a movement from a society characterised by status to the one characterised by contract. A status society is ascriptive, particularistic and non-individualistic, while a contract society is achievement oriented, universalistic and individualistic.
Talcott Parson further theorised that traditional and modern societies have five characteristics. For Traditional society, these include:
Affectivity (influenced by emotions in their socio-political actions);
Collective-Orientation (acting in groups such as family, age-grade, religious fraternity, etc);
Diffuseness (Diffusion of roles and relationship such that the whole of the personality is involved);
Particularism (judgement is not based on universally accepted principles, but rather on limited beliefs);
Ascription (social status and reward are based on birth instead of achievements). On the other hand, modern societies are characterised by neutrality and objectivity, self-orientation, specificity, universalism and achievement.
For these scholars, the Western countries are Contract, Gesellschaft and Modern societies and that is why they are developed, while the Third World countries are Status, Gemeinschaft and Traditional societies and that is why they are underdeveloped. Therefore, the only way Third World countries can achieve development is by discarding their traditional feature and emulating the values and norms of the West. Moreover, Western economists were not left out in this quest for a theory that can explain the causes of development and underdevelopment across the globe.
Adam Smith attributed the increase in the wealth of nations to development which was made possible by the increase in production and capitalist principles. Similarly, W.W. Rostow described development as economic growth which could only be attained by passing through five stages which he called “Stages of Economic Growth”. These include:
The Traditional Stage
The Transitional Stage
The Take-off Stage (where savings and investments increase significantly and revolutionise tools and methods of production)
The Drive to Maturity Stage
The High Mass Consumption Stage.
In Rostow’s calculation, it is only the USA that has attained the stage of high mass consumption, or even surpassed it. He argued that every society that desires development must go through these stages of economic growth, and that the Western countries that are developed today passed through these stages to achievement.
Therefore, non-Western countries that desire development should copy the development paradigm of the West. All in all, the modernisation theorists see development from the prism of western civilisation. For them, development means industrialisation and modernity or Westernisation. They argued that the West is developed because it has certain socio-political and economic attributes that are amenable to positive change and development. The underdeveloped states don’t possess such attributes, thus they lack development. But, they can achieve development by trying to be like the West via the imbuement of Western culture. Today such Western culture expresses itself in form of capitalism or globalisation which advocates for liberalisation and market economy where the so-called “invisible hands of the forces of demand and supply” regulate the economy.
Dependency Theory
Dependency theory is also known as Underdevelopment theory/the Radical School of Thought/the Neo-Marxist theory. It came as a direct response to the short-comings of the Modernisation theory in explaining why the core is developed, while the periphery is underdeveloped. Its proponents include; Andre Gunder Frank, Walter Rodney, Frantz Fanon, Samir Amin, Claude Ake, et cetera. Dependency theory sees development and underdevelopment as two sides of the same coin in the sense that they are the inevitable outcomes and the physical manifestations of the World Capitalist system and its inherent contradictions and exploitations. The theory classified the world into two – the Core or Centre (which is made up of the industrialised capitalist nations), and the Periphery or satellite (which is
made up of the colonised and poor countries of the world).
Dependency theory argues that the export of capitalism by the West to other parts of the World and its resultant colonialism cum neo-colonialism is responsible for the underdevelopment and dependency of the Third World. Capitalism is driven by the quest for profit maximisation, the theory argues. The quest for profit maximisation compelled the Europeans to search for cheap raw material, cheap labour and markets for their finished goods. This led to colonialism and the subsequent neocolonialism through which the resources of the colonised were, and are still being exploited. In this regard, Claude Ake in his classic work – A Political Economy of Africa, submits that: The contradictions of capitalism not only transform it, they also transplant it. The transplanting of capitalism arises from those contradictions which reduce the rate of profit and arrest the capitalisation of surplus value. Confronted with these effects, it was inevitable that the capitalist, forever bent on profit maximisation, would look for a new environment in which the process of accumulation could proceed apace. Capitalists turned to foreign lands, attacked and subjugated them and integrated their economies into those of Western Europe. This is perhaps why V. I. Lenin submitted that “imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism”. Colonialism and neo-colonialism led to the incorporation of the economies of the colonised peoples in the world capitalist economic system at a subjugated position. This produced two consequences in the world – development in the industrialised capitalist states, and underdevelopment as well as dependency in the colonised or Third World countries.
The process of underdevelopment, laments Immanuel Wallerstein, started as far back as 16th century (1450-1640) during mercantilism and slave trade, and later, colonialism, during which the Western Europe enriched itself with the human and material resources it siphoned from the other continents, particularly from its colonies in Africa and Latin America where millions of slaves and huge raw materials were transferred to Europe. The plunder of Africa or rather, Asia and Latin America by European capitalist powers, enhanced development in Europe in one hand. On the other hand, it led to underdevelopment of the colonies and their dependency on the former for survival. That is to say that the development of the Centre is as a result of the exploitation and the consequent underdevelopment of the periphery. Therefore, the relationship between the Periphery and the Centre could be likened to that between a seed and a plant. Just as a seed has to die in order to germinate and give life to plant, the periphery had to be underdeveloped in order to give development to the Centre. But while the relationship between a seed and a plant is natural and symbiotic, that between the Periphery and the Centre is man-made and parasitic.
Andre Gunder Frank, like other Dependency theorists, believes that the Periphery feeds and nourishes the Centre with its cheap labour and cheap primary commodities (cocoa, cotton, palm oil, rubber, groundnuts, crude oil, etc), while the Centre stagnates and under develops the Periphery with its capitalist greed, export of expensive finished goods, unfavourable terms of trade and exploitative international politico-economic capitalist policies and institutions such as globalisation, the IMF and the World Bank. All these factors individually and collectively, have led to underdevelopment of the Third World Countries and their seeming perpetual dependency on the Industrialised Capitalist States. Therefore, the Dependency School of Thought recommends that the only way the Third world can achieve development is to “delink” their economies from their source of exploitation and underdevelopment which is the International Capitalist Economic System, and chart a new path to development which should be built on socialist principles rather than on the foundation of exploitation of one country by another which
capitalism advances.
HISTORICAL TRENDS IN GLOBAL CAPITALISM
Imperialism
Colonialism
IMPERIALISM.
What is Imperialism?
Imperialism refers to a situation whereby one economy controls another directly or indirectly, formally or informally. Imperialism occurs when a strong nation takes over a weaker nation or region and dominates its economic, political or cultural life. There are two types of imperialism, formal imperialism and informal imperialism.
FORMAL IMPERIALISM is whereby a powerful foreign state manages the day to day political, social and economic affairs of another weaker state, i.e. British colonialism in Africa.
INFORMAL IMPERIALISM is whereby a powerful state indirectly works through local intermediaries to manage a distant society. For example the British ruled India indirectly though the monarchs.
Imperialism according to Lenin can be regarded as the highest form of capitalism. This is because capitalism induced monopoly .In this case monopoly finance capital became too dominant forcing nations and private corporations to compete to control the worlds natural resources and markets. It was therefore necessary to expand capitalism beyond the boundaries of nation sates. Imperialism was enhanced through colonialism.
Imperialism policy was practiced by European nations in Japan throughout the 1800s and early 1900AD where in each case a nation would experience industrialization prior to practicing imperialism in a foreign nation.
Imperialism has been defined as the economic domination and exploitation of an economy through structural linkages. Many have argued that colonial structures gave rise to imperialism because It laid the foundation for externalization of third world economies to the western European states In his analysis; Joseph Schumpeter viewed imperialism as relations in which one economy through different ways. Rosa Luxembourg viewed it as transfer of value between modes of production; Equally Harry Madoff viewed imperialism as a process where one country economy is so strategic between to economies where one economy is so strategic as to influence the flow of benefits. However, in understanding imperialism, the writing of Lenin v1 remains outstanding particularly in explaining the third world development dilemma.
CHARACTERISTICS OF IMPERIALISM
Lenin summarized the key characteristics of imperialism and linked them to the process of development. These characteristics included;
1.Imperialism, according to Lenin is the highest stage of capital development in which capital has acquired monopolistic and domineering tendencies. These are reflected quite clearly in investment opportunities in different areas.
2.Secondly monopolization of proactive sectors is quickly gaining currency where different forms of investment in production have been taken over by firms, syndicates, corporation or trusts.
3. monopoly has been witnessed in the source of raw material where producers have been captured by imperialistic capital which shapes the kind the kind of production that they participate in. obviously, imperialistic capital will not allow producers to increase the value input costs.
4. Lenin observed that bank and industrial capital have entered into a partnership where particular investments are conducted virtually through monopolistic arrangement-A clear example is that since capital is scares in the third world particular is that since capital is scares in the third world, particularly banks arrange to provide capital through investments which ensures that the consumer has no room to source for better terms of capital elsewhere. Since these are long-term investments, it present imperialistic capital with a good opportunity to continue dominating local banks team these strategies and adopt them with serious consequences. This kind of partnership is extremely over-exploitative because it takes advantage of monopoly and dominance by ensuring that the market is under their control.
5.Lenin realized that imperialistic capital has seen major emphasis being placed in exports of capital and not commodity of goods;-capital is exported through different institutions but disguised as development. For instance the World Bank, IMF or the various UN Agencies, intergovernmental or bilateral relations are some of the opportunities through which capital isexported to the third world. Consequently monopolization has now acquired international form where corporations, firms of syndicates have dominated the world and portioned it as spheres of economic influence. They control particular products, their distribution channels, pricing and other related opportunities that may be a source of capital formation. In short imperialism has seen capital enlarge and transcend territorial boundaries in different countries. In fact monopoly is creating a mass culture in different economies by way of integrating economic production.
6.Imperialistic capital easily dominates and monopolizes investment opportunities by going beyond the logics of economics. For instance they build a formidable political network which comes in handy in terms of favorable policy decisions which traditionally do influence investments. Equally imperialistic capital constructs social networks to be driven intensively by consumerism. This means that they are also outlets through which purchasing are done.
7. In view of the above, then Lenin noted that the third world development process is characterized by difficult and cunning investment capital. A systematic structure from colonialism persists today but through different form. For instance colonialism which encouraged surplus extraction through commodities shifted to imperialistic capital that thrives by
using capital by monopoly to dominate and perpetuate extraversion.
REASONS THAT EXPLAINS IMPERIALISM.
There are several reasons why imperialism policy occurred. Walter Rodney in his book How Europe Underdeveloped Africa gives the following reasons.
The imperialism policy was fueled by the nearly insatiable demand for cheap raw materials and the need for Markets to buy manufactured goods. The raw materials included iron and cotton from were steel and textiles could be derived.
The forces of Industrialization caused nations to begin looking outside their borders for competitive or cheaper and more abundant sources of more raw materials.
Foreign populations were seen in the lenses of Vast markets where goods produced in domestic markets by the industrialized nations could be sold. 4. Nationalism which can be explained as the pride of one’s country also contributed to the growth of imperialism. Citizens were proud of their country’s accomplishments which sometimes included taking over foreign countries. As the European nations became competitive with each other and in the spirit of nationalism, there was an increased pressure to practice imperialism in order to maintain the balance of power in Europe.
Balance of power was another factor that contributed to imperialism. This is a scenario where European nations were forced to acquire new colonies to achieve a balance with their neighbors and the competitors.
As Europeans took over foreign lands, they viewed the culture of native populations as inferior to their own.
The ‘white man’s burden’, the belief that the whites have the responsibility to save Africans from themselves, from the human natures point of view, this is impossible because human nature is essentially selfish and ego centric.
The “White Man’s burden was yet another cause for imperialism where the Europeans sense of superiority made them feel obligated to civilize the ‘ heathen savages’ they encountered.
THE IMPACT OF IMPERIALISM IN AFRICA
The concept of imperialism resulted to very profitable foreign policy which came at the expense of the foreign regions where it was being practiced.
Imperialism as well led to the cultural diffusion, where exchange of ideas and culture between the West and the East took place. Such cultures have given us the modern education systems and democratic principles.
Imperialism has now integrated itself into the world economy where free capital has transformed to the imperialistic capital, the one that dominates people.
Imperialist capital is notorious for destroying domestic capacity in production but tremendously encouraging consumerism because that is the only way of widening the market outlets.
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE IMPERIALISTIC CAPITAL
Lenin V1 provides the most comprehensive analysis of the characterization of imperialistic caopital. According to Lenin; imperialistic capital has the following features:
It is a situation in which capital has acquired prominence/significance to the extent that there is monopoly of production, distribution and marketing to such a level where few individuals control massive opportunities (Monopoly).
Imperialistic capital today emphasizes export of capital goods but it is less interested on commodities as exports
Lenin noted that imperialistic capital relies heavily on a brand name as a flagship of their goods and services in different market outlets e.g. coffee, Nokia, Sony, Samsung, Philips etc.
Imperialistic capital is characterized by in-house diversification where various products are produced in house but with a widespread geographical presence to ensure that diverse markets are not only controlled but interlinked.
Lenin noted that imperialistic capital has led to a situation in which bank, finance and investment finance have merged to form a financial oligarchy.(Big monopoly) which today determines ‘profit margins in investments’.
Imperialistic capital has in the recent times transcended economic interest to capture critical political constituency in order to lobby for favorable policies. This has led to negotiations with the political systems resulting to an environment which sustains monopoly and domination.
Worse off, imperialistic capital has now moved further to capture the psychological aspect of human beings through charity proposals or corporate social responsibility.
According to Lenin, Imperialistic capita has acquired a global monopoly where the world has been divided into profit geographical entities through elaborate boardroom strategies.
Imperialistic capital has perfected market segmentation whereby the capacity of a market is determined, the trends and styles are established so that products become so dynamic to factor in these fundamentals. The net goal is to ensure that sustainable and continuous profit maximization through change of style and not substance.
In conclusion, Imperialistic capital defines modern political economy because its major interest is to maximize on economic gains that have been threatened at home so that markets abroad are treated with a lot of interest, because they compensate for losses elsewhere. Imperialistic capital today has become highly strengthened through advancement in information and communication technology. Foster transport system and the idea of globalization.
COLONIALISM AND NEO-COLONIALISM
Colonialism is a form of temporally extended domination by people over other people and as such part of the historical universe of forms of intergroup domination, subjugation, oppression, and exploitation (cf. Horvath 1972). From a world-system's perspective, much of the history of the capitalist world-economy is a history of colonialism, consisting of repeated and more or less successful attempts by the core to create a periphery, to control it politically in order to exploit it economically. The term colonialism refers to a large-scale political and economic system that allows one geopolitical entity (such as a nation-state or city-state) to establish controls beyond its
traditional geographic borders in the service of increased profit or power.
Colonialism implies foreign political domination and subordination of oversea territories for effective economic exploitation. The process ensured the continued supply of raw materials and food to meet the needs of the industrialised nations of Europe. Colonialism in the views of Offiong was not merely a system of exploitation but one whose purpose was to repatriate the profit to the metropole.
Colonialism and its Impact on Africa
The 15th Century marked a significant stage in the wave of empire building by many European countries. This was made possible as a result of innovations in science and military technology as major European powers such as Spain, Portugal, Britain and France deployed explorers and military power in the quest for commercial advantage overseas. As merchant embarked on intense pursuit for market advantages, European governments exploited the opportunity to provide protection to their nationals and seeks political control of overseas territories. The economic strategy underlying the relationship between colonies and colonisers during this era of classical imperialism is described as mercantilism. In essence, this refers to the philosophy and practice of governmental regulation of economic life to increase state power and security. State power was assumed to flow from the possession of national wealth measured in terms of gold and silver.
The quest for accumulation of wealth propelled states to pursue and maintain favorable balance of trade. One way through this was pursued was through the scramble for colonies as this provided the opportunity for monopoly capitalism which shut out commercial competition and guaranteed exclusive access to untapped markets and sources of cheap materials. Consequently, each state was determined to monopolise as many oversea mercantile opportunities as possible.
Colonial rule in Africa was an act of political expropriation made possible by the use of force and the threat of the use of force to extract surplus from the continent. This instrument of force manifested in the series of repressions and coercions on the colonised which to Adeniran (1983: 195), resulted not only in the loss of their land to the colonisers but also in lose and re-orientation of their culture. The eventual political domination of Africa was accomplished using the force of superior ammunitions.
The colonial option for Africa therefore became plausible not just as a system of exploitation of the continent, but one whose main objective was to repatriate profit from the satellite to the metropole. Here, African labour and resources were expropriated for the development of the metropole Europe. The logical deduction at this point is that the development of Europe and America is a part of the same dialectical process through which Africa became underdeveloped.
Some available historical records demonstrate that Europe began its conquest of Africa back into the fifteenth century with the colonisation of Angola (1442) and Mozambique (1505) by Portugal. Between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, France occupied parts of Senegal (1637), Reunion (1663) and Mauritius (1715) while the Dutch settled in the Cape in 1652. The British occupied Sierra Leone in 1808 and Cape Colony in 1814; the French took Algiers in 1830 and Equatorial Africa in 1841. In 1842, the Gold Coast (now Ghana) became a British protectorate while Natal was declared a British colony in 1843. Britain began the invasion of present Nigeria with the conquest of Lagos in 1851. They further occupied Basutoland in 1868, invaded Ashanti in 1873 and annexed Transvaal in 1877, while the French invaded Tunis in 1881 (Offiong; 2001).
The motives of European colonial enterprise in Africa are reflected in the 1878 address of Henry Morton Stanley (the Navigator) to the assembled businesspersons of Birmingham Chamber of Commerce. Here, Henry the Navigator stressed that he has thrown open the gateway of Africa to their enterprise. In his words,
There are forty million naked people beyond the gateway and the cotton spinners of Manchester are waiting to clothe them. Birmingham’s foundries are glowing with the red metal that shall presently be made into ironwork in every fashion and shape for them, and the trinkets shall adorn those dusky bosoms: and the Ministers of Christ are zealous to bring them, the poor benighted heathen, into the Christian fold (Davidson; 1984: 172).
In 1885, Jules Ferry, the French Premier of the Chamber of Deputies highlighted the dominant reasons for colony acquisition as:
In order to have access to the raw materials of the colonies
In order to have markets for the sale of manufactured goods of the home country and
As a field for the investment of surplus. (Offiong; 2001: 63).
The period from the Berlin Conference to the end of the First World War in 1919 was characterised by imperialist wars against established African kingdoms and empires. Several punitive expeditions against restive groups were administered to force African resistance to colonial domination to submission. In some areas in tropical Africa where pastoralists attempted to escape from the burden of colonial exploitation, the colonial authorities adopted the Scorched Earth policy which ensured that anything that will be relevant to the enemy (in this case, the natives) including the homes, animal and crops were destroyed. Consequently, even in areas where the colonial authorities succeeded in establishing effective colonial control, it was at great expense to the continent of Africa.
The eventual imperial domination of Africa by metropole Europe was accompanied by the various colonial administrations over the emasculated territories. European officials had full possession of the constitutional powers within the territories under the protection of European controlled armed forces. They controlled the civil service, judiciary, prison service and educational system, all of which were designed to buttress the interests of the colonial metropolis.
Colonial authorities in Africa designed several draconian laws that facilitated the subjugation and exploitation of Africa. Some of the laws banned strikes, trade unions, and as in francophone Africa, proscribed political parties and political activities till adoption of the Loi Cadre in 1956, suppressed criticisms, arrested, incarcerated and banished political leaders and severely restricted franchise in the area where it was granted. It is no vain assertion to reason that the epidemics of corrupt and oppressive political leadership that is now prevalent in most parts of Africa are but a colonial heritage, especially as African political leadership simply inherited the structures and orientations left behind at independence by colonial Europe.
One of the obnoxious policies of the colonial era was the use of Forced Labour. This involved Africans working compulsorily for the colonial authorities and in some cases in plantations owned by European farmers. People were conscripted to build roads and rails lines. Some 20,000-conscripted workers died during the construction of the rail that linked the French side of Stanley Pool on the Congo River to the sea, the Congo Ocean. (Offiong; 2001: 60) Native Congolese were also compelled to surrender certain percentage of rubber for a minimal price. The effect of these was that the Congolese had to travel faraway from home to work under extremely dangerous conditions and by extension, had to neglect the production of basic food crops for domestic consumption. The Belgians enforced this requirement through mass terror, which involved armed expeditions, the use of hostages, mutilations and outright killing. Any resistance from the natives brought merciless retribution by colonial expeditions and the flight of the people away from the rivers of Congo to less ecologically favourable areas.
The description of forced labour in Italian Somaliland, during the 1930s by a colonial official was that it remained ‘a good deal worse than slavery’. A slave cost money and will be cared for by his owner, as he cares for his donkey, and if a slave should die, the owner must buy another. But when a Somali native dies after being assigned to his Italian colonial employer, or becomes unfit to work, it is merely a matter of his employer asking the government to provide another one for nothing. There existed near similar situation in almost all the colonies where forced labour was applied.
Describing the situation in colonial Mozambique, Joan Maquival gives a picture of his experience with forced labour:
The company paid money to the …government and then the government arrested us and gave us to the company. I began working for the company when I was twelve… The whole family worked for the company: my brothers, my father … my father earned 150 escudos a month ($5.30). He had to pay 195 escudos tax yearly. We didn’t want to work for the company, but if we refused, the government circulated photographs and manhunt was started. When they caught them, they put them into prison, and when they came out of prison, they had to go and work without pay… Thus in our own fields, only our mothers were left… All we had to eat were the little our mothers were able to grow. We had to work on the tea plantations but we didn’t know what it tasted like. Tea never came to our homes. (Roberts and Barnes 1974).
When the company came to exploit our region, everyone was forced to cultivate one field of cotton… The time of cotton growing was a time of great poverty, because we could only produce cotton; we got a poor price for it and we did not have to produce cotton. The people didn’t want to. They knew that cotton is the mother of poverty, but the company was protected by the government. We knew that anyone who refused to grow it would be sent to the plantation in Sao Tome where he would work without any pay at all. So as not to leave the family at all, we had to grow cotton. The company and government work together closely to enforce the system (ibid).
Beyond the forced labour, the colonial authorities adopted the method of taxation to get labour to work in the plantations and mines. The usual taxes were the poll tax for each animal, hut tax for each house and head tax for each individual. His policy of taxation forced the natives to leave their individual and family farms to work in mines and plantations owned and controlled exclusively by Europeans. Forced migrations in search of paid jobs resulted in the abandonment of traditional subsistence agriculture upon which the African family hood depended to work in European plantations. It also resulted into excessive labour, which succeeded, in putting down the wages payable to Africans. This plunder of the African economy contributed immensely to the continents underdevelopment.
Colonial exploitation of Africa also manifested in the wage discrepancy between Europeans and African workers. For instance, the records of an American shipping company, Farrell Lines show that in 1955, of the total amount spent on loading and discharging cargo moving between Africa America, 1/6 went to Africans and 5/6 went to non-Africans for loading and off loading the same amount of cargo. Furthermore, the Nigerian coal miner in Enugu earned 1/- per day for working underground and 0/9d per day for jobs on the surface during the colonial era, while their counterparts in Scotland and Germany earned far much more (Rodney 1971). This also extended to the colonial civil service. European civil servants in the Gold Coast (now Ghana) received an average of 40 pounds per month, with quarters and other privileges. Africans got an average salary of 4 pounds. In Morocco and Algeria, the wages of Africans when compared to their Europeans counterparts were 16% and 25% respectively.
It is noteworthy to highlight that such colonial investment in Africa such as roads and rail network, were not aimed at the economic development of the colonies, rather, they were an extension of the plots by imperial Europe to siphon the bulk of Africa’s wealth. For instance, the roads and railway networks in Africa were designed to link major minerals and plantation towns within the hinterland and eventually connect them to the coastal states to facilitate the exploitation and exportation of Africa’s resources and eventual distribution of imported European products.
In Nigeria, the colonialist monopolised economic activities, thereby preventing the emergence of an indigenous entrepreneurial class. Taubman Goldie successfully eliminated Africans from the lucrative trade along the Niger Delta by imposing taxes, which the Africans could not afford. Africans were also charged more export fees than the Europeans. (Crowder; 1968) In the late 1930s, the United African Company (UAC), controlled over 40% of Nigeria’s export and import trade, and in 1949, it controlled 34% of commercial merchandise imports in the country, and bought on behalf of the Nigerian Marketing Boards, 435 of all Nigerian non-mineral exports.
Education was another instrument of colonial exploitation of Africa. This is because the nature of colonial education was aimed at producing the relevant low cadre work force to facilitate the attainment of European colonial interest and aggrandisement in the continent. It must be realised that this motive is indeed a negation of the fundamental role of education, which seeks to preserve the social structures and lives of the individual members as well as the promotion of social change in the society.
Colonial education in Africa simply focused on a few Africans who will assume low cadre position as clerks, interpreters and elementary teachers. The goal was to produce a body of subordinate workers that will help enhance the domination and expropriation of surplus from Africa to metropole Europe. This was not an educational system that emerged from African environment for the interest of the Africans, neither was it designed to boost the pride and confidence of the Africa recipients or to enhance the rational use of the wealth of the continent. Rather, colonial education in Africa was education for subordination, exploitation, the creation of mental confusion and the perpetuation of underdevelopment in Africa (Rodney; 1971: 264).
Indeed, colonial educational policies in Africa were characterised by limitation inside limitations. First, it was aimed at inhibiting mass enlightenment relevant for desirable social change and afterwards was inhibited by the political and financial calculations of the colonial administration especially as the metropolitan government and their African administration often claimed that there were insufficient funds to spend in education. For instance, in 1958, the British colonial office in Northern Rhodesia insisted that: Until more money becomes available for the building of school, no rapid progress can be expected and the practical prospects of providing full primary education for all children therefore remains fairly remote (Offiong; 1980).
The lame attitude of the colonial authorities towards education in Africa is demonstrated in the meagre resources allocated to this sector of the budget of many African states. In 1935, the total allocation to the educational sector in the whole of French West Africa was only 4.03%. In the British colony of Nigeria, it was only 3.4% and as late as 1946, Kenya only apportioned 2.26% of its revenue to the education of Africans. The impact of this poor allocation was that, by 1938 only 22,000 people were enrolled in school in the whole of French Equatorial Africa (Chad, Central Africa Republic, Gabon and Congo Brazzaville) and the French provided education for 77,000 pupils in French West Africa with a population of at least 15 million (ibid).
On the political front, colonialism mangled polities, divided communities and coerced unrelated people into alien geopolitical clones, called states in Africa. This resulted into the fragmentation and in most instances, the erosion of traditional authorities. The emerging colonial state built and thrived on the overdeveloped coercive apparatus for the subjugation of the African natives. Resistance to colonial oppression was brutally suppressed. In Congo Leopoldville, King Leopold of Belgium reduced the population of that country from 20 million to 10 million inhabitants within a decade. As such William Kornblum (Kornblum; 1998:189) never exaggerated by insisting that the fierce scramble by European powers for colonial acquisition in Africa led to the extermination of millions of natives in continent.
The emerging multi-ethnic and highly heterogeneous postcolonial state inherited these overdeveloped state structures. The quest to control the state and its apparatus and the increasing tribalisation and sectionalisation of the highly overdeveloped structure of the states in post colonial Africa as well as the epidemics of leadership failures and gross abuse of state power has remained central to persistent crises of armed conflicts and underdevelopment in the continent.
Neo-Colonialism
The second quarter of the twentieth century was marked by very significant global events like the outbreak of the Second World War (1939), signing of the Atlantic charter (1941), emergence of the United Nations Organisation (1945) and increase in the wave of nationalism in Africa and elsewhere. The logical consequence of these unfolding events was the emergence of new states, which gained political independence from the powers of metropole Europe. By the late 1960s, several African countries had gained political independence. It was with dismay that these countries realised to their chagrin that political independence never meant total independence. Neo-colonialism emerged as a higher form of exploitation of these new states, which were entrapped in the strangleholds of the western capitalist Europe.
In his essays on neo-colonialism, Nkrumah (1966) conceived it as the embodiment of Clientele sovereignty or fake independence characterised chiefly by the practice of granting a sort of independence by the metropolitan power, with the concealed intention of making the liberated country a client state and controlling it effectively by means other than political ones. In essence, neo-colonialism implies granting flag independence with one hand and taking back with another. Nkrumah further insisted that where neo-colonialism exist the power exercising control is often the state which formerly ruled the territory in question. This is because a state in the grip of neo-colonialism is not master of its own destiny because neo-colonialism is the worst form of imperialism. It means power without responsibility for those who practice it and exploitation without redress for those who suffer from it.
Nkrumah further described neo-colonialism as a definite and last stage in the development of imperialism. This stage to him is more insidious, complex and dangerous than the old colonialism. It not only prevents its victims from developing their economic potentials for their own benefits, but it controls the political life of the country, and support the indigenous bourgeoisie in perpetuating the oppression and exploitation of the masses. Under neo-colonialism, the economic system and political policies of independent territories are managed and manipulated from outside, by international monopoly finance capital in league with the indigenous bourgeoisie. Communication, banking, insurance and other key services are controlled by neo-colonialist. (Nkrumah; 1973: 313) The multinational corporations and the International Financial Institutions (IFI) are the prominent channels through which neo-colonialism operates.
Woddis (1981:251), in his essays on neo-colonialism observed that as the intensification of the activities of national liberation movements in Asian and African countries in post World War Two era, the emergence of the satellite socialist countries and peace movements in Europe and America, compelled the imperialist to retreat, it provoked new strategies for the continued economic domination and spread of political influence of the colonial metropole on the third world. This strategy manifested in neo-colonialism and its decisive element remained the economic control of erstwhile colonies by the big metropole.
