by Bill Fletcher, Pambazuka
It has been more than 30 years since I last read Frantz Fanon’s ‘The
Pitfalls of National Consciousness,’ (hereafter referred to as
‘Pitfalls’) contained in ‘The Wretched of the Earth’. It had been so
long, in fact, that when I opened my paperback copy of ‘The Wretched of
the Earth’, the pages started to come out. That said, the essay read as
if from just yesterday with warnings that it turned out were very
prescient, including and ironically, with regard to his beloved Algeria.
Fanon’s ‘Pitfalls’ is an intense, biting and analytical critique of the
national bourgeoisie (and segments of the pro-nationalist petty
bourgeoisie) in oppressed nations. It warns of the role of this class in
the post-independence environment and specifically that it is bound to
betray the national project, not to mention the Pan-African project, in
the interests of its own class ambitions. The essay then turns to
recommendations as to the approach that revolutionary forces in the
oppressed nations and formerly oppressed nations should take with regard
to moving a process of fundamental social transformation. In this
regard he upholds positive lessons that he saw unfolding in the Algerian
Revolution (a national liberations struggle which would result in
Algeria’s independence from France in the year following Fanon’s
premature death).
There are many important observations one can make concerning Fanon’s
essay, including noting his recognition of the dangers of tribalism,
regionalism and religious conflict, all of which have emerged in
post-independence societies. Yet for purposes of this commentary what
was enlightening were Fanon’s observations of the national bourgeoisie’s
betrayal and abandonment of the national project all the while they
were holding high the banner of the national liberation. Using the
rhetoric of the national liberation struggle, the national bourgeoisie
and its political representatives have de-mobilised the populace and
created structures that repress rather than liberate. Fanon describes
how, given this scenario, so much ends up revolving around the ‘great
leader’ rather than around the masses that carried out the national
liberation process. Regardless of rhetoric, then, these national
bourgeois forces suppress domestic social movements while making the
best deals that they can with imperialism. Unfortunately, and contrary
to Fanon’s hopes and expectations, the great Algerian Revolution fell
prey to such a course despite the uniqueness of the organisation and
struggle carried out by Algerian national liberation fighters.
Most national liberation and independence movements contained within
them a flaw, which was not necessarily apparent to outside observers,
and to some extent remains hidden or ignored by many today. In the face
of an obvious social contradiction between the people of the oppressed
nations on the one hand and the forces of imperialism and colonialism on
the other, a series of internal contradictions within the oppressed
nations have often been subordinated, all in the name of national unity.
Such internal contradictions have ranged from ethnicity to region to
gender to class. In each case, in the name of national liberation these
contradictions or challenges were either ignored or placed on the ‘back
burner’ to be resolved at some later moment. This phenomenon was not
reserved for national liberation struggles in Africa or the global
South. In the African American freedom struggle this played itself out
as well, often with similar negative consequences.
The downplaying of so-called secondary contradictions (secondary only in
the sense that at a particular moment the principal contradiction was
between the people of the oppressed nation and the imperial/colonial
opponent, e.g. Algeria vs. France pre-1962) has often been attributed to
matters of will or, in some cases, to a bad political line. In the case
of Algeria, for instance, the argument might be raised by some that the
Front de Liberation National (FLN, the leading force in the struggle
against France and subsequently the ruling political party) erred in not
addressing the struggles of the workers or of women, etc. While this
may be objectively true, what such an approach misses is the class
content behind certain decisions. In other words, yes, there was an
‘error’ committed, but only from the standpoint of the oppressed. From
the standpoint of the national bourgeoisie, however, there was a course
of action being followed in order to help it consolidate its hold on the
national movement and the post-colonial state.
Fanon’s ‘Pitfalls’ helps to provide a framework, even 50 years after his
death, for understanding this challenge. By grappling with the class
forces that are engaged in shaping the process of a national project,
one can come to understand precisely why appeals for an alternative
direction so often fall on deaf ears. This was the case with Algeria and
I would argue has also been the case of Zimbabwe under the increasingly
repressive President Robert Mugabe. Dazzled as many foreign and
domestic observers have been with various national liberation processes
and the rhetoric associated with them, there has often been an
assumption that the leading forces in these project are operating on
revolutionary principles. We have to recognise, standing with Fanon,
that this may simply not be the case. That, in fact, they may be
operating in the interest of a non-revolutionary class or class fraction
in order to advance their own personal and/or class interests.
With this in mind it then becomes all the more important that
independent social movements exist, are recognised and permitted to
operate freely in the course of any transformative project. With regard
to working people, there has been a routine in too many national
liberation processes by which workers are encouraged to form labour
unions (or other worker organisations) that are then subordinated to the
national liberation front or party, or post-independence ruling
authority. Subordination does not mean simply playing a lesser role in
the overall political hierarchy, but also means that workers’
organisations are controlled, directly or indirectly, by the ruling
political party. Such an existence objectively aims at stifling, if not
ignoring, the existence of class struggle. It is as if the new ruling
elite believe that by subordinating the unions that class struggle
ceases and the workers are kept in place. Instead what comes into
existence is a different sort of class state; in this case one
representing the aspiration of a rising national bourgeoisie (or in some
cases petty bourgeoisie) that seeks to shape the national
freedom/liberation project in a manner that advances said aspirations.
In either case, the class struggle has not disappeared, only changed
form.
Fanon emphasises, in ‘Pitfalls’, the necessity for a genuine
revolutionary party linked with the masses as the antidote to this
process of national corruption that unfolds when the national
bourgeoisie is hegemonic. While it would be difficult to disagree with
such a suggestion, it is, with all due respect, insufficient, a point
which should be apparent in reviewing the history of revolutionary
struggles over the last century. This is the case for at least two
reasons.
First, parties cannot substitute for all social forces. Workers, for
instance, need their own organisations. Such organisations must be broad
and democratic. They must be a means of fighting for social and
economic justice, inside and outside the context of a national
democratic context. And that fight must involve a struggle to guarantee
that workers are centrally involved in leading the national
democratic/revolutionary process. In other words, that there are
institutions that are created that advance worker control, not only over
their immediate work process but also in society as a whole.
Second, it is often within genuinely revolutionary parties that the
seeds of regression may be found. Particularly in societies that have
had a single, leading party, class struggle and other struggles will
take place within that leading party, as well as in the broader society.
Irrespective of whether there is a single-party state, the outcome of
internal struggles within a revolutionary party is not predetermined.
Thus, the best political line and the best leaders are not enough to
guarantee that the movement will stay the course. A democratic reality
to the process of social transformation plus the existence of viable,
progressive social movements is every bit as important.
Fanon’s observations are compelling and frightening in their accuracy
regarding the challenges that have faced countless national democratic
and freedom movements. In that sense, this essay should remain required
reading for all freedom fighters not simply to understand how national
populist and national democratic processes have so often disintegrated,
but in order to serve as a jumping off point for a 21st century radical
transformative project rooted among workers and other oppressed sectors.
Or, to borrow from Fanon’s own words: ‘The colonized man [or woman—BF]
who writes for his people ought to use the past with the intention of
opening the future, as an invitation to action and a basis for hope.’[1]
* Bill Fletcher, Jr is a
long-time racial justice, labour and international activist and writer.
He is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, Visiting
Scholar with the City University of New York Graduate Center, editorial
board member of BlackCommentator.com, and the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum. He is the co-author of Solidarity Divided.
