April 16, 2003

DECADES WASTED (via Brian Boys):

After Empire (Theodore Dalrymple, Spring 2003, City Journal)
The explanations usually given for Africa's post-colonial travails seemed to me facile. It was often said, for example, that African states were artificial, created by a stroke of a European's pen that took no notice of social realities; that boundaries were either drawn with a ruler in straight lines or at a natural feature such as a river, despite the fact that people of the same ethnic group lived on both sides.

This notion overlooks two salient facts: that the countries in Africa that do actually correspond to social, historical, and ethnic realities-for example Burundi, Rwanda, and Somalia-have not fared noticeably better than those that do not. Moreover in Africa, social realities are so complex that no system of boundaries could correspond to them. For example, there are said to be up to 300 ethnic groups in Nigeria alone, often deeply intermixed geographically: only extreme balkanization followed by profound ethnic cleansing could have resulted in the kind of boundaries that would have avoided this particular criticism of the European mapmakers. On the other hand, pan-Africanism was not feasible: for the kind of integration that could not be achieved on a small national scale could hardly be achieved on a vastly bigger international one.

In fact, it was the imposition of the European model of the nation-state upon Africa, for which it was peculiarly unsuited, that caused so many disasters. With no loyalty to the nation, but only to the tribe or family, those who control the state can see it only as an object and instrument of exploitation. Gaining political power is the only way ambitious people see to achieving the immeasurably higher standard of living that the colonialists dangled in front of their faces for so long. Given the natural wickedness of human beings, the lengths to which they are prepared to go to achieve power-along with their followers, who expect to share in the spoils-are limitless. The winner-take-all aspect of
Africa's political life is what makes it more than usually vicious.

But it is important to understand why another explanation commonly touted for Africa's post-colonial turmoil is mistaken-the view that the dearth of trained people in Africa at the time of independence is to blame. No history of the modern Congo catastrophe is complete without reference to the paucity of college graduates at the time of the Belgian withdrawal, as if things would have been better had there been more of them. And therefore the solution was obvious: train more people. Education in Africa
became a secular shibboleth that it was impious to question.

The expansion of education in Tanzania, where I lived for three years, was indeed impressive. The literacy rate had improved dramatically, so that it was better than that of the former colonizing power, and it was inspiring to see the sacrifices villagers were willing to make to enable at least one of their children to continue his schooling. School fees took precedence over every other expenditure. If anyone doubted the capacity of the poor to make investments in their own future, the conduct of the Tanzanians should have been sufficient to persuade him otherwise. (I used to lend money to villagers to pay the fees, and-poor as they were-they never failed to repay me.)

Unfortunately, there was a less laudable, indeed positively harmful, side to this effort. The aim of education was, in almost every case, that at least one family member should escape what Marx contemptuously called the idiocy of rural life and get into government service, from which he would be in a position to extort from the only productive people in the country-namely, the peasants from whom he had sprung. The son in government service was social security, old-age pension, and secure income rolled into one. Farming, the country's indispensable economic base, was viewed as the occupation of dullards and failures, and so it was hardly surprising that the education of an ever larger number of government servants went hand in hand with an ever contracting economy. It also explains why there is no correlation between a country's number of college graduates at independence and its subsequent economic success.

The naive supposition on which the argument for education rests is that training counteracts and overpowers a cultural worldview. A trained man is but a clone of his trainer, on this theory, sharing his every attitude and worldview. But in fact what results is a curious hybrid, whose fundamental beliefs may be impervious to the education he has received.


One is struck by how much Mr. Dalrymple's analysis echoes the prediction of Chinua Achebe in No Longer At Ease, a depressing 43 years ago. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 16, 2003 8:20 PM
Comments

"Unfortunately, there was a less laudable, indeed positively harmful, side to this effort. The aim of education was, in almost every case, that at least one family member should escape what Marx contemptuously called the idiocy of rural life and get into government service, from which he would be in a position to extort from the only productive people in the country-namely, the peasants from whom he had sprung."



Thus explaining the curious rise of Kofi Annan

Posted by: H.D. Miller at April 16, 2003 8:43 PM

What if the failure of Africa is that it is populated by, well, Africans?

Posted by: Paul A'Barge at April 16, 2003 10:35 PM

If it's race then the emerging success stories, like Uganda, and the thriving black middle class in America are impossible to explain.

Posted by: oj at April 17, 2003 7:54 AM

Beautifully written. Read it all.



I usually take a position on some kind of solution to a problem. This is beyond my grasp.

Posted by: Genecis at April 17, 2003 11:52 AM

Genecis:



Which is the depressing thing about Africa. There seems to be some limited hope for an odd assortment of places: Morocco, Uganda, Eritrea--but none for much of the rest of the continent. That's unacceptable, but what are we to do?

Posted by: oj at April 17, 2003 4:14 PM
« HOW DO TEENAGE BOYS EVEN REACH ADULTHOOD ALIVE?: | Main | WHAT ABOUT BACK HAIR?: »