Political conferences of the oppressed invariably attract a
variety of responses - varying from cynical conviction that they are an utter
waste of time to naïve optimism that they will change the face of the world. In
actuality, popular struggle continues from day to day at many different and
more profound levels; and its intensity at any given time primarily determines
the relevance and utility of the conference as a technique of co-ordination.
The Sixth Pan-African Congress scheduled for Dar es Salaam in June, 1974
consciously aims at being heir to a tradition of conferences which grew out of
the response of Africans to their oppression in the first half of this century.
Therefore, its rationale must be sought though a careful determination of the
co-ordinates of the contemporary endeavours of the African people everywhere.
Since the Fifth Pan-African Congress held in Manchester in
1945, the political geography of Africa has been transformed by the rise of
some forty constitutionally independent political units presided over by
Africans. This is to state the obvious. Yet, following in the wake of the great
pageant of the regaining of political independence, there has come the
recognition on the part of many that the struggle of the African people has
intensified rather than abated, and that it is being expressed not merely as a
contradiction between African producers and European capitalists but also as a
conflict between the majority of the black masses and a small African possessing
class. This, admittedly, is to state the contentious; but the Sixth Pan-African
Congress will surely have to walk the tightrope of this point of contention.
Any 'Pan' concept is an exercise in self-definition by a
people, aimed at establishing a broader redefinition of themselves than that
which had so far been permitted by those in power. Invariably, however, the
exercise is undertaken by a specific social group or class which speaks on
behalf of the population as a whole. This is always the case with respect to
national movements. Consequently, certain questions must be placed on the
agenda: notably, the following:
- Which class leads the national movement?
- How capable is this class of carrying out the historical
tasks of national liberation?
- Which are the silent classes on whose behalf 'national'
claims are being articulated?
The significance of the above questions emerges clearly in
the classic case of Pan-Slavic nationalism. The Pan-Slavic ideology of the late
nineteenth century and the turn of this century offered the Slav peoples of
Eastern Europe a unified vision of themselves, aiming to transcend the
fragmentation which was a consequence of the powerful waves of imperial
expansion which has [had] struck the shores of the Adriatic and the Black Sea.
The Slav intelligentsia who advocated Pan-Slavism were spokesmen of emergent
bourgeois forces in the clash against feudalism, and their position also
reflected some sympathy for the oppressed peasantry since it was in the
interests of capitalism that serfdom be removed. But their hopes were
frustrated because they failed to unseat indigenous and external feudal
oppressors, including their Slav 'Brothers' who formed the ruling class in
Tsarist Russia. Subsequently, the local Balkan bourgeoisie were unable or
unwilling to confront capitalist/imperialist partition; and the region gave
rise to the term 'Balkanization', as the supreme expression of failure to carry
out the task of national liberation and unification. It was left to the Balkan
masses under working class leadership albeit under conditions of war to tackle
effectively the problem of nationalism and of broader eastern European unity in
the period after the second world war. Significantly enough, they did so within
the context of socialist reconstruction, a task which was beyond groups
benefiting from capitalist exploitation.
Pan-Africanism in the post-independence era is
internationalist in so far as it seeks the unity of peoples living in a large
number of juridically independent states. But it is simultaneously a brand of
nationalism; and one must therefore penetrate its nationalist form to
appreciate its class content. This exercise is made easier by the fact the
nationalist movements in Africa which led to the regaining of independence in
more than three dozen states constitute a phenomenon which has already received
considerable attention. These movements were essentially political fronts or
class alliance in which the grievances of all social groups were expressed as
'national' grievances against the colonizers. However, while the workers and
peasants formed the over-whelming numerical majority, the leadership was almost
exclusively petty bourgeois. Understandably, this leadership placed to the fore
those 'national' aims which contributed most directly to the promotion of their
own class interests; but they voiced sentiments which were historically
progressive, partly because of their own confrontation with the colonialists
and partly because of pressure from the masses. Pan-Africanism was one of these
progressive sentiments, which served as a platform for that sector of the
African or black petty bourgeois leadership which was most uncompromising in
its struggle against colonialism at any given time during the colonial period.
Virtually all leaders of African independence movements paid
at least lip service to the idea that regional freedom was only a step towards
the freedom and unity of the whole continent; and the most advanced
nationalists were usually the most explicit on the issue of Pan-African
solidarity. Nkrumah and Kenyatta were both at Manchester; while Nyerere, Kaunda
and Mboya were the driving forces behind the Pan-African Movement for East and
Central Africa (PAMECA). Within the Francophone sphere, several leaders took Pan-Africanist
positions in one form or another. The radical Union des Populations de Cameroun
refused to accept colonial boundaries in Africa; Senghor espoused a culturally
oriented doctrine of black internationalism, comparable to Pan-Africanism; and
even Houphouet-Boigny was initially associated with a political party which was
Pan-Africanist in thrust: namely, the Rassemblement Democratique Africaine,
which addressed itself to the whole of French West Africa. Pan-African
solidarity also manifested itself with regard to the war of independence in
Algeria, an episode of which united not merely North Africa but also helped
force alliances between progressive nationalists on both sides of the Sahara.
Similarly, the rise of national liberation movements dedicated to achieving
freedom by any means necessary served to underscore the reality of
Pan-Africanism. All African leaders had to concede that freedom in Southern
Africa was vital to guarantee the freedom of any given part of Africa, and the
test of practice showed that commitment was greatest in the case of the most
forward-looking of the petty bourgeois regimes - Ghana (under Nkrumah), Egypt
(under Nasser), Tanzania, Zambia and Guinea.
It would be unhistorical to deny the progressive character
of the African petty bourgeoisie at a particular moment in time. Owing to the
low level of development of the productive forces in colonized Africa, it fell
to the lot of the small privileged educated group to give expression to a mass
of grievances against racial discrimination, low wages, low prices for cash
crops, colonial bureaucratic commandism, and the indignity of alien rule as
such. But the petty bourgeoisie were reformers and not revolutionaries. Their
class limitations were stamped upon the character of the independence which
they negotiated with the colonial masters.[1] In the very process of demanding
constitutional independence, they reneged on the cardinal principle of
Pan-Africanism: namely, the unity and indivisibility of the African continent.
The first Pan-Africanists to engage in the political
mobilization of the African masses on African soil had a continental outlook.
The African National Congress which was formed in the Union of South Africa in
1912, aimed at being 'African' and not merely 'South African' and it was
renamed in 1923 to emphasize this fact. Significantly, organizations of the
same name extended into what is now Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia and Tanzania. It
is also significant that dynamic African spokesmen of the 1930s like Nnamdi
Azikiwe and Wallace Johnson were African rather than Nigerian or Sierra
Leonean. But the lawyers and place-seekers who eventually took the independence
movement in hand were incapable of transcending the territorial boundaries of
the colonial administrations. Imperialism defined the context in which
constitutional power was to be handed over, so as to guard against the transfer
of economic power or genuine political power. The African petty bourgeoisie
accepted this, with only a small amount of dissent and disquiet being
manifested by the progressive elements such as Nkrumah, Nyerere and Sekou
Toure.[2] Areas of West and Central Africa which experienced French colonial
rule witnessed the shameless dismantling of those colonial politics which had a
large territorial base. Whereas the French had maintained unity for
exploitation, the African petty bourgeoisie lacked the capacity to demand both
unity and freedom. So they accepted the Balkanization which led to fragments
called Ivory Coast, Upper Volta, Niger, Chad, Central African Republic and so
on. Since independence, little or no progress has been registered with respect
to reversing this Balkanization.
It is a striking historical fact that the bourgeoisie proper
have been the spearheads of national unity in which capitalism was first
engendered. They sought political unity to guarantee the integration of
production and distribution, giving rise to what were then relatively large
nation states in Britain, France and Germany as compared to the numerous feudal
fiefs which previously existed. The North American continent provides the most
formidable example of the identification of bourgeois interests with federal
unity and with the building of an infrastructure which rolled across a whole
continent without regard to the cost in blood especially since the blood spilt
was principally African and Native American (Indian).
The petty bourgeoisie of Asia, Africa and Latin America are
a different breed. They cannot be described as 'entrepreneurs', 'pioneers',
'captains of industry', 'robber barons' or in any of the other swashbuckling
terms coined to glorify the primary accumulation of capital. Franz Fanon flays
them unmercifully but truthfully when he points to the shoddy, imitative,
lack-lustre character of the African petty bourgeoisie. Their role in the
international capitalist system has always been that of compradors. Their
capital outlay might often be greater than that of a factory owner during the
industrial revolution in England during the early nineteenth century, but in
the present era of monopoly capitalism it suffices mainly for chicken-farms. In
any event, most of the African petty bourgeoisie is not directly involved in
economic enterprises - their real sphere being the professions, the
administration and the military/police hierarchy. They lack both the vision and
the objective base to essay the leap towards continental unity.
A close scrutiny further reveals that the failure of the
African ruling class to effect meaningful unity is not merely due to weakness.
Recalling once more the dismantling process which took place in Francophone
Africa at the time of negotiated independence, it can be seen that the
pusillanimity of the African petty bourgeoisie in the face of the deliberate
creation of non-viable dependent mini-states by France attests not merely to
the strength of the colonizers but also to fear on the part of the presumptive
African rulers that larger territorial units might have negated their narrow
class welfare. Throughout the continent, none of the successful independence
movements denied the basic validity of the boundaries created a few decades ago
by imperialism. To have done so would have been to issue a challenge so
profound as to rule out the preservation of the petty bourgeois interests in a
compromise 'independence' worked out in conjunction with international capital.
If the weakness of the present petty bourgeois leadership of
Africa were the only problem, then they could be dismissed as passive
bystanders, who cannot make operational the potential of Pan-Africanism as an
ideology of liberation. However, they maintain themselves as a class by
fomenting internal divisions and by dependence on external capitalist powers.
These policies are antithetical to Pan-Africanism. The record since independence
confirms that the interests of the African petty bourgeoisie are as
irreconcilable with genuine Pan-Africanism as Pan-Africanism is irreconcilable
with the interests of international capitalism.
Most African mini-states are engaged in consolidating their
territorial frontiers, in preserving the social relations prevailing inside
these frontiers, and in protecting imperialism in the form of the monopolies
and their respective states. The capitalist super-powers, directly and
indirectly, individually and collectively, guarantee the existence of the
African petty bourgeoisie as a ruling class and use them to penetrate and
manipulate African society. This has been done so crudely and openly that one
does not have to be especially informed or especially aware in order to
perceive what has been going down. Ex-ambassadors of the U.S. have a way of
reminiscing on how they cynically manoeuvred the Reds and Blacks; local
representatives of American, British and French security forces are so
entrenched that they dispense with all cover; and the African petty bourgeoisie
itself is so gauche that it rushes openly to the defence of an international
monopoly such as LONRHO, when even the metropolitan political rulers are too
embarrassed to do so.[3]
All the activities of international capital aim at
perpetuating the division of the continent which they initiated at the time of
the Partition. The petty bourgeoisie is also showing that it seeks to maintain
division of the African masses, since the anti-colonial alliance with all other
classes has gained its objective of formal independence. The only alliance
which the African ruling class now vigorously defends is that with imperialism
against the African people. Most decidedly, this power structure does not want
to allow the masses either the consciousness or the reality of unity.
Pan-Africanism has been so flouted by the present African
regimes that the concept of 'Africa' is dead for all practical purposes such as
travel and employment. The 'Africanisation' that was aimed against the European
colonial administrator soon gave way to restrictive employment and immigration
practices by Ivory Coast, Ghana (under Busia), Zaire, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia,
and others - aimed against Dahomeans, Nigerians, Burundi nationals, Malawians,
Kenyans and all Africans who were guilty of believing that Africa was for the
Africans. Of course, it was said that unemployment among citizens of any given
country forced the government to take extreme steps. This is a pitiable excuse,
which tries to hide the fact that unemployment is the responsibility of the
neo-colonial regimes, which can no nothing better than preside over dependent
economies with little growth and no development.[4] In many respects, one
African has been further shut off from another during the present neo-colonial
phase than was the case during raw colonialism. Even within the context of the
existing African nation states, the African ruling class has seldom sought to
build anything other than tribal power bases, which means that they seek
division and not unity at all levels of political activity, be it national,
continental, or international.
The dominant mode of thinking in Africa today is inherited
from the colonial masters and is given currency by the state apparatus. Not
surprisingly, therefore, the very concept of class is ignored or mystified. The
petty bourgeoisie get very upset at being called "petty bourgeois",
and strenuously deny that there are any class differences between themselves on
the one hand and the workers and peasants on the other. It is not surprising
that Socialism has been enemy number one for so many African states. African
leaders fight the bogey of Communist threat rather than the reality of
capitalist/imperialist oppression. Even the more progressive of this ruling
class harbour and protect local reactionaries while neutralizing or eliminating
Marxist and other left-wing elements. In ten, twelve or fifteen years of
constitutional independence, the various parts of Africa have scored no
victories in ending exploitation and inequality. On the contrary, social
differences have increased rapidly and the same applies to the amount of
surplus extracted by foreign monopoly capital. In the spheres of production and
technology, the so-called "development decade" of the sixties offers
the spectacle of decreasing agricultural production, a declining share of world
trade, and the proliferation of dependency structures because of the further
penetration of multi-national corporations. All of these matters are highly
relevant to a discussion of Pan-Africanism.
The transformation of the African environment, the
transformation of social and productive relations, the break with imperialism,
and the forging of African political and economic unity are all dialectically
interrelated. This complex of historical tasks can be carried out only under
the banner of Socialism and through the leadership of the working classes. The
African petty bourgeoisie as a ruling class use their state power against
Socialist ideology, against the material interests of the working class, and
against the political unity of the African masses.
Of course, the rhetoric of the African ruling class is
something else. Only a Banda has the temerity to openly abuse the concept of
African unity, and only a few others would openly espouse capitalism and
imperialism as decent, and just. Otherwise, the petty bourgeoisie prefers the
technique of paying lip-service to progressive ideas, seeking the defeat of
these ideas through a process of trivialization and vulgarization. Both
Socialism and Pan-Africanism are of the utmost importance with respect to this
technique. In once sense, the unwillingness of the petty bourgeoisie to
manifest overt hostility to Socialism and Pan-Africanism is a testimony to the
development of mass consciousness and to the level of confrontation between
progressive and reactionary forces on the world stage. But it is also very
insidious in so far as pseudo-revolutionary positions tend to pre-empt
genuinely revolutionary positions. For instance, the existing African regimes
have helped create the illusion that the OAU represents the concretization of
Pan-African unity. The OAU is the principal instrument which legitimizes the
forty-odd mini-states visited upon us by colonialism.
It is a tribute to the momentum of Pan-Africanism that the
OAU had to be formed. The idea of Pan-African political unity had take deep
roots, and it had to be given expression if only in the form of a consultative
international assembly. This indicates a higher level of continental political
co-ordination than was to be found in Latin America during the period when the
old colonial regimes there were being demolished. It is also true that no
imperialist power is a voting member of the organization, in the way that the
United States of America is entrenched within the Organization of American
States. Nevertheless, the O.A.U. does far more to frustrate than to realize the
concept of African Unity. The degree of its penetration by imperialist powers
has been evidenced on numerous occasions, the most striking being those which
have arisen around the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the white
minority in Zimbabwe, around the issue of 'Dialogue' with the white racist
South African regime, and over the persistence of the French in selling arms to
the Republic of South Africa.
At best, the OAU regulates a few internal conflicts between
the petty bourgeoisie from different parts of the continent. Beyond this, it is
committed to maintain the separation of African peoples implicit in the present
territorial boundaries, so as to buttress the exploitative social systems which
prevail on the continent in this neo-colonial epoch.
When Lumumba was waging his heroic battle against
imperialism in the Congo, it seemed for a brief while that there would be an
alignment of progressive versus reactionary African forces. The masses of
Africa were only too anxious to join their Congolese brothers in the fight
against white and black mercenaries. Indeed, the lines were drawn so clearly
that international revolutionary solidarity was forthcoming from many parts of
the world. However, the continent suffered a setback in the Congo. Affairs in
the Congo were 'normalized' to the point of changing the country's name to
Zaire. Meanwhile, one of the most important principles accepted by African
governments in the wake of the defeat of the Congolese was that no popular
dissident movement in an independent African country can be supported by any
group or government in another independent African country. In constitutional
terms, this is expressed in the fine-sounding phrase "non-interference in
the internal affairs of a member state". In practical terms, this is how
the most reactionary elements of the petty bourgeoisie tie the hands of the
masses of Africa.
One of the cardinal principles of Pan-Africanism is that the
people of one part of Africa are responsible for the freedom of their brothers
in other parts of African; and, indeed, black people everywhere were to accept
the same responsibility. The OAU denies this, apart from areas still under
formal colonial rule. By so doing, they are implying that the objective
conditions which impelled the Africans masses to fight the colonialists have
since been transformed, which is a blatant falsehood. Any exploitative,
oppressive and autocratic African state is cordoned off against fellow African
intervention or criticism, even when the most elementary civil and human rights
are trampled upon. Meanwhile, the more progressive states are not really
protected against intrigues and various forms of aggression arranged by
imperialism though the agency of the adjacent neo-colonial African states; and,
in any event, Socialism cannot be built in any one African country, so that the
few initiatives towards Socialist transformation on the continent are bound to
be stifled by the continued division of Africa into artificial states.
The question posed at the outset of this analysis in
relation to the class content of nationalism suggested that one identifies the
leading class, assesses its revolutionary capacity and evaluates the manner in
which the subordinate classes are handled. Our conclusions at this point are
that the African petty bourgeois leadership since independence has been an
obstacle to the further development of the African revolution. A final
illustration to this effect is the way in which the very vanguard of the Pan-Africanist
movement (as it emerged from the Fifth Congress) lost its direction and
wallowed in bourgeois theory and practice. Like other African leaders, they too
propagated the false antithesis between Pan-Africanism and Communism - an
intellectual activity spearheaded by no less a person than George Padmore.
Understandably, his practical politics suffered a corresponding decline; and in
spite of once having stood in the ranks of the international working class
movement, Padmore found himself intervening in Guyana in the mid-1950s on the
side of that section of the local leadership which was supported by the British
and American governments, by local and foreign capitalists and by the
CIA-infiltrated trade union, the AFL-CIO.[5] At the same time, Nkrumah was
engaging in ideological mystification under new facades such as 'consciencism',
while doing little to break the control of the international bourgeoisie or the
Ghanaian petty bourgeoisie over the state. He had already eliminated the
genuine working class leadership from the CPP during the first years of power,
and it was only after his overthrow by a reactionary petty bourgeois coup
d'etat that Nkrumah became convinced that there was a class struggle in Africa
and that the national and Pan-African movements required leadership loyal to
its mass base of workers and peasants.[6]
Obfuscation of the notion of class in post-independence
Africa has made Pan-Africanism a toothless slogan as far as imperialism is
concerned, and it has actually been adopted by African chauvinists and
reactionaries, marking a distinct departure from the earlier years of this
century when the proponents of Pan-Africanism stood on the left flank of their
respective national movements on both sides of the Atlantic. The recapture of
the revolutionary initiative should clearly be one of the foremost tasks of the
Sixth Pan-African Congress.
Although New World black representation predominated at all
Pan-African Congresses and Conferences in the past, the agendas were usually
devoted almost exclusively to the affairs of the African continent. It can be
assumed that the Sixth Pan-African Congress will not be substantially
different, but the creation of independent Caribbean nation states does
introduce a new dimension with regard to the participation of this part of the
black world. Having sketched the main outlines of the petty bourgeois position
in Africa, it is unnecessary to elaborate on the Caribbean scene, because of
the numerous and basic similarities. It is to be noted, however, that that
which appears as a tragedy against the vast backcloth of Africa re-appears as
comedy in the Caribbean. Early this year, the people of the then colony of
Grenada took to the streets to express in uncompromising terms their opposition
to the exploitative and oppressive system of Anglo-American colonialism, which
is manned locally by a certain petty bourgeois clique. At the same time, the
British government carried on regardless in its plans to grant independence to
the said petty bourgeois clique, expressing reservations only on the point of
whether or not it was safe to send a member of the Royal Family to preside over
the independence ceremony. As it was, militant striking workers deprived the
independence celebrations of telephone services, port services and electricity,
but the petty bourgeoisie regime managed to add some fireworks to mark the
auspicious occasion. What term other than 'comedy' can describe such a
situation?
The ruling class in each given British Caribbean territory
usually takes pains to create a 'national' identity, which amounts to little
more than glorifying the fact that some Africans were sent to slave plantations
in Jamaica or Trinidad rather than Barbados or Antigua, as the case may be. On
the basis of this 'nationalism', the petty bourgeoisie can continue the former
British colonial policy of preventing trade unionists and progressives from
moving freely amongst the people of the Caribbean. Another antic which is
common on the part of the West Indian regimes is that they operate against
(unarmed) national liberation movements inside the Caribbean while fully
proclaiming support of African liberation movements in Southern Africa. This
latter posture, along with other pro-African rhetoric, was forced on several
West Indian leaders because of popular sympathy for the African cause at the
mass level. The posturing and rhetoric are extremely useful on jaunts to Africa
in their quest for class alliances with the African petty bourgeoisie itself.
Yet, the realities of state power have predetermined that
when the Sixth Pan-African Congress meets in Dar-es-Salaam in June 1974 it will
be attended mainly by spokesmen of African and Caribbean states which in so
many ways represent the negation of Pan-Africanism. One immediate consequence
of the rise of constitutionally independent African and West Indian states is
that for the first time such a gathering will be held on African soil and will
be sponsored, directed and attended mainly by black governments rather than by
black intellectuals as such or by small black protest organizations, as was the
case up to the Fifth Congress in Manchester. Already it is clear that states
will be represented as states and that the OAU will play some role.
When a few individuals began to contemplate this Congress
some years ago, it was felt that it should be a coming together of black
political movements, as distinct from governments. One school of thought
envisaged that it would be a select conference of the most progressive elements
in the black world. To a large extent, this was the significance of the All
African People's Conference held in Accra in 1958. However, plans for a similar
meeting in the 1970s would be hopelessly idealist. The African radicals of 1958
are by and large the incumbents in office today. The radicals of today lead at
best an uncomfortable existence within African states, while some languish in
prison or in exile. The present petty bourgeois regimes would look with
disfavour at any organized programme which purported to be Pan-African without
their sanction and participation.
None of the progressive African regimes, which are already
isolated and exposed to internal and external reaction, would dare to host a
Congress which brought together only those who aggressively urge a unity of the
African working masses and the building of a Socialist society. Such a Congress
would have to be held in a metropolitan centre, and would thus condemn itself
to serve primarily as a forum for alienated intellectuals.
In the light of the above considerations, any African
committed to freedom, Socialism and development would need to look long and
hard at the political implications of participation in the Sixth Pan-African
Congress. The purists might be tempted to eschew any association whatsoever;
but revolutionary praxis demands that one should contend against class enemies
in theory and in practice, by seizing every opportunity to utilize all of the
contradictions within imperialism as a global system - in this instance,
contradictions born of economic exploitation and racist oppression.
Without falling into the trap of imagining that the present
states of Africa and the Caribbean will liberate the African masses from the
tyranny of man and nature, it still remains an open political question as to
how far they can be pressured to take steps which lessen the immediate impact
of imperialist exploitation and which perhaps grant respite to the producers
and progressive forces. Southern Africa provides excellent illustrations to
this effect. Our brothers in the South are striking blows which include attacks
on enemy bases in Angola, the destruction of rail links in Mozambique, the
disruption of production through strikes in Namibia and South Africa, and the
intensification of politico-military offensives in Zimbabwe. The leadership
even in the most reactionary African states have found it difficult to avoid
responding in some positive manner to these activities; just as liberal
organizations and governments of the capitalist world are now finding it
prudent to join Socialists and radicals in giving international support to
African liberation movements. It would be naïve to abstain from participation
in forums where the above processes are taking place, because a committed presence
is essential both to accelerate as well as to control contributions which could
otherwise cease to be merely opportunist and become actively
counter-revolutionary.
Turning to the economic policy of African regimes, one also
perceives that the dilemma of increasing underdevelopment places the petty
bourgeoisie on the defensive. Whether within the OAU or in a wider Non-Aligned
context, they can be propelled to consider new marketing arrangements, new
forms of African and Third World cooperation and some devices to moderately
restrain foreign exploitation. The agreement between oil producers has been the
most striking in recent times. African governments have been understandably
ambivalent in their attitude towards the manoeuvres of North African oil states
and other producers in the middle East, but the fact that so many members of
the OAU broke diplomatic relations with Israel was no insignificant achievement
in the face of Zionist imperialist propaganda and penetration in Africa.
Clearly, the system of neo-colonialism is not closed to elementary progressive
steps by the present leadership. Strictly speaking, such steps derive from the
perceived class interests of the petty bourgeoisie. For this reason, it is
crucial that within a Pan-African forum a principled and analytical position
should be advanced for the adoption of increasingly revolutionary strategies
for African economic and political liberation. The petty bourgeoisie must
either be pushed forward or further exposed.
As stated at the outset, popular struggle is carried on in
many ways and at many different levels. The struggle to participate is the
opening round of the series of inter-connected battles likely to emerge out of
the proposed Sixth Pan-African Congress.
Queries have been raised with the Temporary Secretariat of
the Congress concerning fears that anti-government organizations in the
Caribbean would be excluded from participation, owning to the involvement of at
least two (English-speaking) Caribbean governments in financing and in offering
venues for preparatory meetings. In a open letter to the Secretary of the
Temporary Secretariat, Owusu Saudaki drew attention to the following points:
1) The involvement of Heads of State, who use their
relationship to the Sixth Pan-African Congress as a sign of being progressive
while in fact they pursue domestic and foreign policies which maintain the
neo-colonial status quo within their own countries.
2) The possibility that because of financial problems and
other problems the only people representing Caribbean countries will be
official government delegations and not those people who represent community,
workers and other progressive groups in those areas.
It is useful to quote at some length from the reply by the
Secretary, Courtland Cox. He note that, "the Tanganyika African National
Union (TANU), which is host for the Sixth Pan-African Congress, strongly
recommended that all African and Caribbean heads of state, without exception,
be invited to the Congress .... This formal procedure should not be construed
as a blanket endorsement by the Congress of domestic and foreign policies of
all heads of state, nor should it be taken that the Congress will be dominated
by the policies of any one, or groups of these heads of state .... The truth is
that those who advocate the most militant steps for African liberation ...
frequently don't even have money to get together to talk .... President Nyerere
used the occasion of an interview with the Congress earlier this year to ask
how can the colonially-created existing black states be used by our people to
gain liberation? These states are there. Their policies, institutions and
services have some considerable impact on the lives of millions of Africans
.... Our criteria for delegations to the Sixth Pan-African Congress may be
stated generally as: (1) Africans with demonstrated commitment to progressive
political principles, (2) Africans with capabilities (or access to these)
necessary to meet our people's basic needs, especially those with technical
skills, and (3) Africans with mass political bases; as embodied in political
organizations and institutions with recognized community constituencies .... No
delegates, whether from the Caribbean or anywhere else, will be prevented from
participating in the Congress due to lack of funds. This is one of the special
charges of the International Secretariat and the International Steering
Committee".[7]
In spite of the above re-assurances, it will undoubtedly
require vigilance, mobilization and perhaps confrontation within the Caribbean
on the part of Left movements to confirm their right to attend - albeit
alongside of representatives of governments and pro-government organizations.
The apparent restriction of delegations to the English-speaking Caribbean is
another negative feature. The seemingly superficial difference of language has
always sharply divided the international black movement into an Anglophone
sector and a Latin culture zone. French-speaking (and Spanish-speaking) blacks
joined their brothers in French-ruled Africa in elaborating the initially
anti-colonialist and anti-racist doctrine of Negritude. But, like
Pan-Africanism, Negritude in the hands of petty bourgeois black states became a
sterile formulation of black chauvinism, incapable of challenging capitalism
and imperialism. Negritude in Senegal buttresses neo-colonialism, while in
Haiti it is used to gloss over an even more desperate situation of exploitation
and suppression of the black masses.
It is important to break through the language barrier and it
is crucial to recognize the existence of opposed tendencies within the
international black world. The Congress organizers must be asked to take steps
to reach the known nationalist and Socialist opponents of French colonial rule
in places like Martinique and French Guiana; and they cannot be allowed to
side-step the existence of a large black population in Cuba who have already
accumulated rich experience in the liquidation of racism though Socialist
transformation. But of course these are not tasks to be left solely to the
Secretariat and the host country of Tanzania. Any Pan-Africanists committed to
Socialist revolution will first strive to ensure that the Congress and the
future of Pan-Africanism are not left to the tender mercies of the black petty
bourgeoisie.
It is still not clear which governments will or will not
participate in the proposed Sixth Pan-African Congress. No release from the
Temporary Secretariat has borne on this point, although information did become
public via the Tanzanian press suggesting that the invitations were
all-embracing and that a proposal to exclude Banda was defeated. The more
conservative African governments may well view the whole idea with scepticism
if not hostility. For them the OAU is quite enough for the realization of
Pan-Africanism.
Eloquent testimony to the doubts on the part of segments of
the petty bourgeoisie was provided by an editorial comment in Kenya's Sunday
Nation of March 17, 1974. It suggested that many people would query the very
calling of another Pan-African Congress on the grounds that "most of the
aims of the Pan-African movement were achieved after the 1945 Manchester
meeting". Besides, the proposed Sixth Pan-African Congress has certain
areas of focus such as health, agriculture, technological research, liberation
support and political cooperation; and according to the commentary in question,
it might be better to leave the governments and the OAU to organize such
programmes. Even granting the need for another Congress, the Sunday Nation
(representative of local and foreign capitalist interests in Kenya) finds that
"the whole political tenor of the (proposed) congress is leftist, and the
choice of Dar-es-Salaam as the venue for the meeting is no accident". The
commentary is in no doubt that the most critical question is that of whom to
invite; and it reacts strongly and specifically to the mere whisper that Cuba
might be invited, asking rhetorically, "how can the government of Cuba be
invited as a participating government?" One must certainly thank this
right-wing African journal for corroborating an analysis made from a different
perspective. The one point on which class enemies can agree is that there is a
battle to be fought.
Given the balance of class forces in the African continent
today at the level of state power, it must be assumed that, apart from the
Liberation movements, the majority of African delegates will seek to retain
Pan-Africanism within its present parameters of inter-state co-operation, based
on the persistence of the territorial units and of petty bourgeoisie control.
However, a progressive presence of one dimension or another would at least
ensure that certain issues would be open to debate. The issues most likely to
evoke contention can particularly be foreseen by scrutinizing the official
document referred to as "the Call", both in terms of what it says and
(perhaps more indicative) what it does not say.[8]
The Callaccords high priority to the question of liberation
in the still colonized parts of Africa. This is as it should be, not merely
because one wants the South to be 'independent' like the rest of Africa, but
more so because the nature of the confrontation in South Africa offers the real
possibility of African freedom there being qualitatively different from that
which was obtained by the constitutional road. Since southern Africa is the
cockpit of international monopoly capital, and since Portugal and the white
minority regimes are all clearly supported by NATO and multinational
corporations, the struggle for national liberation is a rather clearer learning
experience than the nationalist episode of the 1950s. People are fighting and
dying for more than the trappings of independence. In each theatre of
operations, both the leadership and the mass are maturing, so that members of
the petty bourgeois stratum which exists there as everywhere else have either
failed to last the tough course or they have been transformed in the process.
There will be no doubt be more instances of opportunism and defections, and
there will no doubt be a much longer period of the practice of tribalist
mobilization in certain quarters; but the prospects of greater ideological
clarity, or increasing politicization and of a stronger attachment to
equalitarian and democratic structures arise directly out of the concrete
situation, being pre-conditions for the success of the armed struggle.
At the very least, the Congress would be expected to record
the firmest statement of support for the Liberation movements, taking as a
point of departure the accord reached recently by the OAU at Accra which has
been the most resolute statement by African leaders to date. Documentary
support for the Liberation Movements is by no means a decisive factor in their
existence or success, but when a conference has to pronounce on this matter,
then those statements must be sharp enough to constitute political and
diplomatic weapons for the use in the rear of those fighting on the front
liens. Because the Lusaka Manifesto (1970) was a mild document which could be
interpreted as having some reservations about armed struggle, it was seized
upon in this sense by many reactionaries, and it was still being quoted as an
official position of progressive African leaders long after they had
unequivocally declared their backing for the armed struggle of the Mogadishu
Declaration (1971).
However, generally speaking, no delegate at any conference
today has to make the case for the Liberation Movements. For one thing, they
are already making the most effective case for themselves though sacrifice and
achievements; and for another thing, the real danger in the support of the
movement on the African continent itself is that rhetoric may take the place of
practical assistance. The record to date exposes the gap between resolution and
practice on the part of OAU members as far as monetary support to the OAU
Liberation Committee is concerned. Recently, the rhetoric has become seemingly
more fiery and reveals a tendency to obfuscate issues concerning the
interpretation of the struggle. Take, for instance, the demagogic appeal that
African governments should send armies to the combat zone. Such a suggestion is
completely out of touch with the concept of people's war and out of sympathy
with the process though which a people prepare themselves for self-liberation.
One African Generalissimo has just called for the scrapping of people's
guerrilla activities in Southern Africa, and proposes instead to lead his own
(mercenary) army to conquer the white regimes!
Even the slightly more palatable call for individual
volunteers casts doubts on the capacity of Africans in the South to effect
their own liberation. Significantly enough, these statements do not originate
with any of the Liberation Movements. None of the Liberation Movements has
called for anything other than material, diplomatic and moral support. They
have the fighters - that is not a problem. A serious problem does arise when
offers of assistance to the struggle are used to camouflage attempts to
penetrate and control on the part of imperialism and its lackeys. When
"Our Man in Kinshasa" appears in the role of supervisor, umpire and
builder of the Angolan people's movement, it hardly requires a great deal of
political acumen to sense the pricking of one's thumbs.*
The Congress must be asked to adopt the position that
Liberation Movements should at all times be allowed to speak for themselves.
The demand should be that, both inside and outside Africa, Liberation Movements
should have unshakeable credentials, instead of being excluded when their
interests are being discussed or instead of having to fight anew on each
occasion to determine whether they should have the status of observers or
second-class participants. It is for the movements to indicate their own
priorities and necessities at the Congress, and in response other delegates
would contemplate the practical support which can be mobilized. It should also
be made clear that the most positive support is the advancement of popular
anti-imperialist power everywhere on the continent and in the Pan-African
world.
Vying with liberation in importance in the estimation of the
authors of The Call is the question of science and technology. The Call asserts
rightly that "If we do not control the means of survival and protection in
the context of the twentieth century we will continue to be colonized."
(Emphasis in the original). Consequently, it proposes the establishment of a
Pan-African Centre of Science and Technology geared towards such priorities as
the development of a viable self-supporting agricultural system in Africa.
On the issue to technology, one is again faced with the fact
that superficially universal agreement can be obtained. No one would deny the
necessity for mobilizing maximum resources in science and technology to fight
the war against ignorance, disease and poverty. No one can remain indifferent
to the chronic malnutrition or to the acute suffering brought on by widespread
drought and famine. The danger is that a discussion of technology tends to
become 'technocratic' in the worst sense of the word. Drought and famine, for
instance, are not merely 'natural phenomena' arising out of the failure of
precipitation from on high. The incapacity to prevent or deal with drought and
famine and the fantastic hardship which ensues are all related to the
socio-economic structures of neo-colonial Africa and to the way that our
economies are located within the international imperialist system. It requires
certain political decisions to change these structures and the system. Whether
or not Africa will make scientific progress, whether or not the technology will
be relevant and adequate, whether or not the mass of the people will benefit
from scientific/technological innovations are all questions which can be
resolved only within specific socio-economic contexts and questions which are
therefore ultimately political and ideological.[9]
It is precisely in the politico-ideological sphere that The
Call is most deficient. It confines itself to the broad distinction between
colonized blacks and European colonizers. It say nothing about the existence of
capitalist and Socialist systems or of struggle within the
capitalist/imperialist world. It comes out against the fact that Africans allow
finance capital to dominate and direct their economic and social life; but this
leaves room for the national bourgeois interpretation that this domination can
be remedied while still remaining within the capitalist fold. Indeed, most
African governments are at the moment scrambling to become more deeply involved
in the European Common Market. With regard to indigenous exploitation, the
authors of The Call are prepared to "stand with those who are avowed and
open enemies of the elite who wish to lead a life of privilege among our
people" -- which is fine, but hardly sufficiently analytical and explicit.
In defence of the bland nature of The Call, the organizers
of the Congress would no doubt argue that it is not their function to pre-empt
discussion, but that their role is to bring together a wide spectrum of views
held by concerned Africans and black people everywhere. (In line with Cox to
Saudaki as cited above.) But the tenor of this discussion so far has been to
illustrate that neutrality and unity of nationalism is illusory and that in
practice particular classes or strata capture nationalist movements and chart
their ideological and political direction. Pan-Africanism today has to
recognize such situations, if it is to be a brand of revolutionary nationalism
and if it is to be a progressive internationalist force.
Coincidentally, a "Conference of Asians" is
scheduled to be held in Tokyo next June at about the same time as the Sixth
Pan-African Congress. Their Preparatory Committee has also circulated a
preliminary call which suggests that "We have been left behind and they
are ahead of us". However, in this instance, 'we' and 'they' are not
simplistically Asian and European, respectively. On the contrary, the Asian
Preparatory Committee explains as follows: "'We' are the people, the
masses of the people. 'They' are those who have power and money. 'They' create
their own network of power and money to exploit and suppress us, the people.
'We' the people, are left behind; 'we' are divided and ruled."[10]
The inference to be drawn from the above Asian analogy is
that the goal of African people's unity is by no means inconsistent with a
policy a drawing a line of steel against African enemies of the people and with
seeking the closest working relations with non-African peoples, to the extent
that the latter are engaged in the fight against exploitation. It should not be
imagined that previous Congresses were occasions for all-black camaraderie.
Oftentimes, the Left and the Right were represented, and a line had to be
hammered out through struggle, as was the case when DuBois and Blaise Diagne
confronted each other. For that matter, the reactionary trend was occasionally
successful; notably, when the French colonialists managed to promote their own
spokesman, Blaise Diagne.
Whatever may emerge from the Sixth Pan-African Congress, it
is necessary that some participants should be identified with a platform which
recognizes the following elements:
1) That the principal enemies of the African people are the
capitalist class in the U.S.A., Western Europe and Japan.
2) That African liberation and unity will be realized only
through struggle against the African allies of international capital.
3) That African freedom and development requires
disengagement from international monopoly capital.
4) That exploitation of Africans can be terminated only
through the construction of a Socialist society, and technology must be related
to this goal.
5) That contemporary African state boundaries must be
removed to make way for genuine politico-economic unity of the continent.
6) That the Liberation Movements of Southern Africa are
revolutionary and anti-imperialist and must therefore be defended against petty
bourgeois state hegemony.
7) That the unity of Africa requires the unity of
progressive groups, organizations and institutions rather than merely being the
preserve of states.
8) That Pan-Africanism must be an internationalist,
anti-imperialist and Socialist weapon.
Walter Rodney[11]
Dar-es-Salaam
April 1974
[1] Strictly speaking, the African petty bourgeoisie during
this early stage of the independence struggle constituted a stratum or fraction
within the international bourgeoisie. One of the most interesting features of
post-independence politics is the manner in which the petty bourgeoisie has
increased its dimensions, its economic base and its autonomy by use of the
state machinery.
[2] Some of the evidence attesting to this point can be
listed as follows: a) Sekou Toure attempted to move immediately into political
units broader than Guinea - comprising at various times Senegal, Mali and
Ghana. b) Nkrumah secured the insertion of Pan-Africanist clauses in the
Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1960, which was framed "in the
confident expectation of an early surrender of sovereignty to a union of
African states and territories". c) Nyerere was prepared to postpone the
independence of Tanganyika and subordinate this objective to that of an
independent East African Federation, "rather than take the risk of
perpetuating the balkanization of East Africa" -- See Freedom and Unity
(1966), p. 90.
[3] The allusions are firstly to William Attwood, The Reds
and the Blacks (London 1967) and secondly to several international news
highlights of 1973/74. Specifically on the Lonrho issue, what is worth noting
is that the embarrassment was caused to British Prime Minister, Edward Heath,
because of the revelations of the blatant way in which Lonrho directors flouted
profit controls at a time when the Conservative government was trying to
convince the working class to accept wage freezes.
[4] See, e.g. Samir Amin, Neo-Colonialism in West Africa
(Penguin, 1973).
[5] For a discussion on this point, see Philip Reno, The
Ordeal of British Guiana (Monthly Review, 1964).
[6] See Kwame Nkrumah, Class Struggle in Africa (Panaf,
1970) and Revolutionary Path (Panaf, 1973).
[7] Owusu Saudaki to Courtland Cox, 16. Oct. 1973 and
Courtland Cox to Owusu Saudaki, 18 Oct. 1973.
[8] The Call was originally issued by the Temporary
Secretariat in Washington and is now available from P.O. Box 9351
Dar-es-Salaam.
* Macbeth: "By the pricking of my thumbs/Something
wicked this way comes"
[9] Black progressives are becoming increasingly aware of
the political and ideological dimensions of the question of utilizing
technology for human well-being. See, e.g. S.E. Anderson, "Science,
Technology and Black Liberation", The Black Scholar, March 1974.
[10] Information on the "Congress of Asians" can
be obtained from: Dai San Kikaku; 4th floor, Omotemachi Building; 4-8-19,
Akasaka; Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
[11] The author has been associated with the Congress
preparations in the capacity of 'sponsor' - a vaguely-defined term which
includes persons of many differing political persuasions.
