Ideology and Development: Lessons from Post-Independence Africa

The 1960s started as a decade of great promise for the African continent. From Algiers to Gaborone, Dakar to Mogadishu, independence songs were sung. Africans prepared themselves for social and economic reforms that would spur prosperity for all peoples. The freedom fighters were celebrated, and monuments were built to honour the fallen fighters who did not live to see independence dawn. Self-rule, a core prerequisite for autonomy, was now seemingly in the hands of the Africans.

However, Uhuru's promise was short-lived. On January 13, 1963, Togo went up in flames when President Sylvanus Olympio was assassinated. That same year, Colonel Christophe Soglo overthrew President Hubert Maga of Benin in October 1963. In June 1965, just three years after Algeria managed to gain independence from France, following a brutal eight-year war, Colonel Houari Boumediene overthrew President Ahmed Ben Bella in a coup. Perhaps the flame that was kindled by the song of Uhuru was never destined to burn in the first place.

Underlying many conflicts was a difference in political ideologies that, if not reconciled, would always manifest through rebellions and uprisings. And this is no rash imputation, history bears witness. From the Peloponnesian wars to the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 to the Spanish Civil War, the salient feature of these wars have always been differences in political ideologies, especially the nature of governance.

In post-colonial Africa, the nature of political organisation is reducible to two main ideologies: collectivism and individualism, with some societies such as Botswana practicing a mix of both. These ideals manifested through two opposing systems: socialism, which emphasised state control and central planning as seen in Julius Nyerere's Tanzania and Kwame Nkrumah's Ghana, and capitalism that emphasized private ownership of property, limited state intervention and market-driven economies as practiced in Félix Houphouët-Boigny's Ivory Coast.

The chaos that ensued in post-independence Africa was complex and informed by different factors, each playing a small part to exacerbate the problem. The colonial legacies i.e., colonies versus protectorates, ethnic divisions, global market conditions, cold war interferences and resource endowments each played a part in the fate of post colonial Africa. This article looks at the ideological orientation of the states, which is one of the crucial factors that played a role in shaping events.

Two good examples of collectivism versus individualism shaping post-colonial states can be found in Tanzania which built its foundation using African socialism dubbed-Ujamaa-under Nyerere between 1961–1985, and capitalism under Houphouët-Boigny in Ivory Coast between 1960–1993.

Under Nyerere's socialist attempt at nationalization of major industries and banks, collective farming and villagization programs, industrial output stagnated with exports declining from 25% to about 6.8% in 1985. Inflation tripled which led to the onset of a currency and exchange rate crisis peaking at a premium of 700% in 1986.

By 1985, the poverty index had soared and the economy became heavily reliant on foreign aid. Nyerere's policy, while aimed at social equity, catalysed the decline of Tanzania's economy. Tanzania's economy took 20 years, until 2007 to recover from the damage caused by Ujamaa to exceed its pre-transition GDP per capita figures.

Now juxtapose this with Ivory Coast that embraced capitalism; the economy more than doubled in size by 1980. That led to a great improvement in the standard of living of the people, before the global economic struggles of the 1980s that led to a plunge in commodity prices led to the contraction of the economy. This goes to show that while ideology in itself is not the only factor, the importance of choosing the right ideologies cannot be ignored.

Broadly speaking, all economic institutions are manifestations of the economic and political systems in play. By institutions, I mean the rules that determine economic and political interactions with the state. Given that a country's economic outlook is always a result of the convergence of many different factors, the events in Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Ivory Coast, and many other African states cannot be understood without understanding the ideological lenses that influenced the policies at that time. The Economic Structural Adjustment Programmes that were later adopted by many states in the 1980s were efforts at correcting some of the effects of the stringent economic policies that were responsible for the collapse of the states in the first place, policies whose roots stem from the ideologies embraced by the rulers of the states.

Partly, the challenge of post colonial Africa stemmed from misunderstood economic and political models, aided by a nostalgia for a return to pre-colonialists societies. Many of the founding fathers of newly independent states tried to replicate the village model of governance in the nation-states, often with catastrophic results. The classic lesson from the failures of Mugabe, Nyerere and Nkrumah is that intentions do not matter, results do. The social equity achieved by Nyerere came at the cost of a failed and stagnant economy, with the result being that everybody was worse off.

The collectivist philosophy, wrongly understood – which I believe to be the case in many of the post-independence socialist states, can mean different things. The concrete steps of how to achieve the collectivist ideals are left to one's imagination, only the end goal is presented, and this lack of nuance perhaps explains the popularity of socialism in post-independence Africa. The messaging of the proponents of collectivism was not that socialism would reign in a new dawn of prosperity, but rather that it was a direct challenge to colonial imperialism. That, through socialism, which was also dubbed as 'Pan-Africanism' by some rulers, the community would be guarded against scoundrels who exploited it for a profit motive – a message still preached by those who hold on to the 'Pan African' ideal.

The ambiguity in how to achieve the socialist ideal always presented a challenge. The centralised use of force to direct labour and the means of production in socialist states always tended towards totalitarianism; just look down south at Ujamaa. In a free society, the common ends to which a society strives are means to serve nearly different ends of different individuals in the pursuit of shared goals. In other words, collectivism, through centralized planning in which planners choose the end goals for the community, is the subordination of individual ends to supposedly collective ends. Collectivism, taken to its rightful conclusion, is totalitarianism.

The opposite of collectivism is individualism, which found expression in free-market capitalism. It is the recognition of the individual's views and tastes as supreme in their sphere, however narrowly that might be circumscribed, and the belief that men should cultivate their own talents and inclinations. This, I believe, should be the core foundation of all our struggles for liberal democratic ideals. This should be the 'utopia' that we are striving for. This should be the core ideology informing our activism. And taken to its rightful conclusion, this means tolerance and respect for views that might be contradictory to those that are the end goals of our striving for a better country.

Free market capitalism, while not enough in itself as a sole spur of development provides the template on which trade and institutions are built to spur. Post-independence Cape Verde and Mauritius are a testament to this, with Mauritius' economy seeing its per capita income rise from $260 to $10,000. Free market capitalism, with the proper economic institutions and laws, means prosperity for the masses. Crony capitalism, riddled with corruption and weak institutions as seen in DRC under Mobutu Seseko and Nigeria post-independence, leads to economic stagnation.

It is also important to note that in the current times, technological developments have proceeded at an unprecedented rate. Single individuals have built and developed companies that have determined the fate of entire nations. It is not uncommon for a technology company to contribute more than a quarter of a country's total revenue. Beyond the teachings of Adam Smith, individualism must take root in our societies as it can hold the key to a country's future, especially in this age of the internet.

In conclusion, the lessons of the events of post-colonial Africa should form the foundation for our activism for tomorrow. In a country like Uganda where the struggle for better governance has been taking root, we must not repeat the mistakes of the past. The fundamental ideological choices that we make will inform the long-term future of the country long after the current regime has gone.