|
Prof
Olawale Albert’s Pinched, Ditched or Jinxed Africa
By
Adagbo Onoja
Newsdiaryonline Feb 27,2011
For a continent like
Africa whose modernisation has been such a painful
process for the majority of the populace, the continuous
re-examination of each and every proposition is at the heart of
Afrocentric consciousness. This is the sense in which Professor
Issac Olawale Albert’s recent Inaugural Lecture, impressively
titled, “Pinched, Ditched or Jinxed? The Mantra of African
Solutions to African Problems” should interest all of us.
When is a problem
African and what constitutes Africanity?
Prof. Albert’s is an
interesting voice because he is coming from the University of
Ibadan, about the only one still standing, with respect to
minimum attributes of the university. Most universities in Nigeria have been bastardized. This
has nothing to do with the students or their lecturers but a
consequence of the devastation wrought on the university system
in Nigeria by the World Bank and its
local ambassadors. It is such that the value system has totally
collapsed. At the last count, for instance, one of them
announced over 100 First Class Degrees and probably thought it
was doing something great when it was actually embarrassing the
universe of inquiry.
The second reason Prof
Albert should attract our attention is, having just got his
professorship, his Inaugural Lecture gives Nigerians an idea of
the professorial capability of the average academic in Nigeria.
For, the culture of Inaugural Lecture died a long time ago in
the Nigerian university system. Only in a number of them is the
culture just being brought back from the graveyard or observed
but mostly in a manner anti-thetical to the very idea of the
culture.
But then, what did
Albert say? First was his basically discursive expose of the
ideology of ‘African Solutions to African Problems’. His account
is that it is the Western world’s adaptation of the logic of
battlefield medical science by French medical team in deciding
which casualties to attend to during the First World War. There
were those who were likely to live regardless of what care was
given, those who were going to die regardless of what care was
given and those for whom immediate care would mean much. By the
1990s when the Cold War was over, Africa had become, in the Western mind, a case of a dying
casualty irrespective of what care was given. Hence, the notion
of African solutions for African problems, a way of telling
Africans that they were on their own, with particular reference
to containing Africa’s numerous wars and violent conflicts
through African based Preventive Diplomacy, Peace Keeping, Peace
Making and post conflict Peace Building. In other words,
‘African solutions to African problems; is not an innocent
phrase but a contextually loaded one.
Second is the lecturer’s
interrogation of the concept of African problems. What, for
example, do we make of an Obama saying to Africans, “your future
is up to you”? Is this a home truth or a case of Obama’s
escapism into sound bytes?
Will America’s endless search for
‘regimes we can call our friends’ allow Africans to really
decide their future? Or do those who say here and there that the
future of Africa is in the hands of Africans imply the
possibility of a future when the Africans and their political
leaders would be tired of their sufferings and decide to get
angry at the local and international system which accounts for
the drudgery of their existence? Or does the slogan mean the
pinching, ditching and jinxing of the Africans by the
international community?
Reduced to whether
Africans are the origin of their own disconnect from modernity
or some extra-African forces, Professor Albert’s answer is that
the Africans share the blame to a greater extent. What this
means is that he disagrees with Walter Rodney and co who argue
that European imperialism underdeveloped Africa, saying in his own way, that Rodney’s position
suffers from Marxist mono-causality. And that after all, Asia
and Latin America equally experienced Euro-American
imperialism but over which many Asian and Latin American
countries have transcended. For him, the political rascality,
the hereditary democracy and permanent presidency that define
the African leadership landscape must be uniquely African
problems for which we can’t blame outsiders. He isolates the
amorality of leadership in Africa, particularly the syndrome
where a leader rules as long as he lived only to be succeeded by
his son, as has happened in Eyadema’s
Togo, Omar Bongo’s
Gabon
and Kabilla’s DRC.
With a leadership like
these, Africa found herself
buying into the ideology of ‘African solutions for African
problems’ but in a different sense from that of their white
patrons. For the African leaders, According to Prof, ‘African
solutions for African problems’ is a framework which can help
keep international community from pressuring these local
dictators. In inter-African relations, the slogan, he says,
helps African leaders to support each other’s illegalities, a
case he illustrates with South Africa’s endorsement of the 2007 elections
in Nigeria
as a case in point.
His argument here needs to
be quoted extensively, “Shawn
Hattingh’s piece on how South
Africa
supported the fraudulent 2007 election in
Nigeria
is quite interesting He observed that the ballot papers for the
election, which were printed in
South Africa, contained no
counterfoils or serial numbers which would have made vote
rigging difficult. Though 65 million Nigerians were
registered to vote during the election, INEC printed only 40
million ballot papers. To worsen the situation, only 30% of
these ballot papers were ever sent to
Nigeria
from South
Africa
where they were printed. The rest were still lying in South Africa
when Alhaji Umar Yar’Adua was pronounced the winner of the 2007
election. Rather than adopt silence as his own humble variation
on the mantra of “African solutions to African problems”,
President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa who knew more than any
other person about the structural nature of the 2007 electoral
fraud in Nigeria and who indeed had spent the best of his time
as an African leader talking about the “African Renaissance”,
was the very first person to congratulate Obasanjo and Yar’Adua
on a job well done.”
The quotation
continues, “Worldwide condemnation of the election and
Yar’Adua’s admission in his inauguration speech that the process
that brought him into office was deeply flawed did not deter the
South African leader. He still invited Yar’Adua to Tshwane (Pretoria) to have a personal congratulatory
meeting with him. Why this obvious indiscretion?
Quoting the
labour analyst further, he puts the answer to “South
Africa’s policy towards Africa, in the form
of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), the
relationship that it has with the ruling party in Nigeria, and the expansionist agenda that South
African corporations and parastatals have in Nigeria… Despite what the ANC
government claims, South Africa’s
foreign policy towards Africa is not based on Pan-Africanism or
anti-imperialism; it is rather based on promoting South Africa's expanding business
interests on the continent. In reality, the South African
state’s interests, in both the domestic and African arena, have
become fused with those
South Africa’s
capitalist elite”.
In other
words, South Africa felt more committed to protecting its
investments in Nigeria (which include MTN, DSTV, Standard Bank,
First Rand, Imperial, Johncom, Massmart, Nampak, and Sun
International, Tsogo, Broll, etc.) than to stand on the side of
social justice with the Nigerian people and the international
community that widely condemned the elections and called for
electoral reforms
Shifting from the Africans’ conception and utilization of the
slogan of ‘African solutions for African problems’ to that of
the extra-African world, Albert poses the argument that it is
nothing but the “act of the developed world empowering Africans
to track down the enemies of the developed world. Using the case
of the Global War on Terrorism, this is because, “it is a truism
that the likes of Al-Qaeda have nothing to do with Africans
except the western interests in Africa”.
Albert is an emergent professor of African
History and Peace Studies. In fact, it could be said that he
single handedly brought Peace and Conflict Studies to the University of Ibadan if we follow his story of that
effort as told in the Inaugural Lecture under reference. This
means he is a product of the Ibadan School of History and its
most famous debate as to whether colonialism is an epoch or an
episode in African life. This background means that he is not
only equipped to make tough, controversial statements, he also
has the capacity to supply the evidence if challenged. This is
what an Inaugural Lecture giver is substantially expected to do
– accounting for one’s professorial journey in a way that
enables potential professors to find more angles of research to
do to become professors. On that note, Professor Albert’s has
been a major outing, even if only for putting the topic of the
Inaugural lecture on the table of the African debate. That is if
we all permit the possibility of a non-professor saying so about
a professor, even though there is no such feudalism in academia.
|