The constant refrain that we Africans are ‘toddlers’ dependent on the West, China, Russia and whoever else, is nauseating to say the least. The Franc ceased to be legal tender in France on 1 January 2002, yet Francophone Africa has persisted with that currency in the form of CFA Franc. Is France to blame for that? No. CFA countries could have replaced the Franc, and France would have had no reason to object. So why did Francophone Africa persist with the Franc? The Stockholm Syndrome, that’s why! There is a psychological bond between Africa and its ‘abuser’. This pernicious disease is particularly pervasive amongst Africa’s ruling classes who are ‘black on the outside, white on the side’.
The ‘bond’ between ‘abuser’ and ‘abused’ was the indelible mark left by colonialism. The ‘bond’ was Africa’s internalisation of the power relations between ‘coloniser’ and ‘colonised’. A perceived lack of alternatives on the part of the ‘colonised’, which itself was accompanied by a fear factor (the potential loss of the ‘parentship’ of the ‘coloniser’) strengthened the ‘bond’ even further so that subservience had become the norm. The ‘colonised’ identified with the ‘coloniser’, even though the ‘colonised’ might pretend otherwise. The ‘coloniser’, even if not deliberately, used his development practices to effect profound changes to the culture and identity of the ‘colonised’. Since the ‘coloniser’ dominated the field of development, African ways were just simply subjugated; as a consequence of which Africa had become culturally ‘homogenised’.
The ’coloniser’ created an elaborate international web that enabled him to always be on top, to always maintain his advantageous position. The ‘coloniser’ created money as the language of trade, the value of which he determined, to ensure that no matter what, he alone, never the ‘colonised’, got the benefits. To partake in this international charade, Africans were content to use, and/or mimic, whatever the ‘coloniser’ had put in place for them. Their desire to ‘belong’ set Africans apart from others who did well after they too had experienced colonialism in one form or another.
15 million or so Africans through the transatlantic slavery made the wealth that the ‘coloniser’ enjoyed today. Yet, the ‘coloniser’ violently excluded from Europe and America the ‘colonised’, African migrants, who rightly sought to enjoy the fruits of the slavery. The ‘coloniser’ diverted or outsourced the migrating Africans as if they were inanimate. The ‘coloniser’ invested billions and billions of dollars to acquire mining, oil and other economic rights in Africa, colluding with corrupt leaders and elites, to syphon off Africa’s wealth. The ‘coloniser’ knew that little benefit would accrue from these transactions to the ‘colonised’. The ‘coloniser’ transferred to Africa tons and tons of arms and ammunitions knowing that it would destabilise. It was naïve therefore for the ‘’abused’ to hope that the ‘abuser’ would liberate him.
On the face of it, the ‘coloniser’ left the ‘colonised’ to it a generation or two ago. Thus, the atrocities we were putting ourselves through since could be said to be self-inflicted. But were these not just legacies of the Stockholm Syndrome? How else could you explain one African leader building a palace to rival the grandeur of the one in Paris, or why a Nigerian politician used a car as coffin to bury his mother, or why another used his living room to exhibit luxury cars. The belief was widespread, encouraged by the ‘coloniser’, that Africa’s fortune could change if only leaders of integrity were allowed to run things. This is nothing but pipedream. There are no angels in hell. And no matter how long you have been on a wrong road, you are still on the wrong road. Africa’s fortune will not change until the old political structures are broken down, until all the countries created by the ‘coloniser’ are dissolved to form new Africa-designed nations. Africa’s ruling classes and elites, beloved by the ‘coloniser’, habitually used the ‘unity-of-our-nation’ card to blackmail, excuse and normalise criminality.
To progress in the world, Africa must break the deleterious ‘bond’ it had formed with the ‘abuser’. But how to do it?
1. Africa must revert to using locally available resources (become wholly introspective, and replace the African Union with a simple free trade area).
2. Africa must be assertive and clearly communicate its needs (and make those the basis of trade with the outside world).
3. Africa must disengage from its ‘abusers’, old and new (first step is to dismantle the behemoths, redraw country boundaries, and create new smaller manageable nations).
4. Africa must use the memory of its past to create ‘alternative’ ways of doing things (ancient culture, language and tradition are pathways to sustainable development, just ask China and Japan!).