Zeelie 1
Lighting Up the Dark Continent
Andy Zeelie
ENG 4U1
Mr. Nicholson
May 24, 2005
Africa has long been referred to as the “Dark Continent”. However negative the label may be, it is undeniably fitting. Africa has suffered, and survived, a rather tumultuous past. Since the beginning of civilization, Africa has been in a state of conflict. These conflicts have ranged from tribal warfare to intrastate battles, from slavery to colonization, and from Apartheid to genocide. Unfortunately, it is Africa’s inability to escape from that history which is its biggest problem. Africa can no longer use its dark history as a scapegoat for its current state, and its failure to realize its potential. African leaders need to step up and take responsibility for their actions as Africa is a continent of limitless potential. Africa has long held a fascination for people around the world because of its mystery, its fabled riches, and its troubled history When one thinks of Africa, the obvious stereotypes come to mind: hungry sponsor children, desert safaris, and uncivilized savages. But Africa is so much more than that. Africa is a region like no other. Geographically, Africa is in a prime position, and is also composed of a variety of terrain. Not only does Africa offer tourists deserts and safaris, but also beautiful topography such as majestic mountains, long coastlines, warm water, as well as an array of flora and fauna. In addition, Africa is home to a large number of minerals and natural resources, such as gold and diamond deposits. Africa has the makings of a successful continent. Most importantly, Africa should be thriving, not struggling. Can world aid alone solve Africa’s problems? Nelson Mandela, quite possibly the most influential man in Africa, once said: “I dream of the realization of the unity of Africa, whereby its leaders combine in their efforts to solve the problems of this continent.[1]” World aid will not solve Africa’s problems as long as its leaders fail to address the root causes of Africa’s problems, which are corruption, lack of democracy, and rejection of enlightenment.
Africa is in a state of disrepair because of the ravages of colonization. Colonialism came about between 1885 and 1906, which was the most concentrated period of European conquest. Over many centuries before this, however, parts of Africa were conquered and re-conquered under force of arms.[2] During colonization, the conquering countries subjugated Africans and their culture, and the native Africans experienced a total loss of freedom.
The scramble for Africa, initiated at the 1885 Congress of Berlin, had a devastating effect on Africa. European leaders saw the almost limitless potential of Africa, and took part in the partition of Africa. Not only was Africa in a strategic location for military purposes and trade, it also boasted an abundance of natural resources. European nations divided up Africa, and redefined the boundaries of African nations. Britain, who “owned” 30% of Africa between 1885 and 1914, had hoped to build a railroad extending from Cape Town to Cairo, in order to increase their ability to trade. France also had a large share of Africa, and owned roughly half of what Britain owned. Germany also exercised authority over a large swathe of the continent.[3] Yet the biggest problem caused by colonialism was the creation of national and international boundaries from which new, often artificial, African states emerged.
The Europeans drew borders without considering culture, history, or the various ethnic groups which inhabited particular regions. The artificiality of these boundaries have created zones for many guerilla groups harassing legitimate African governments, because their kin live across the border. These colonially created boundaries have also made it impossible for a common sense of identity to be generated among African nations, and therefore there is often a lack of internal unity.[4] Colonizers may not have intended colonization to have this result, but there were, and still are, numerous intrastate wars in Africa. These wars are tearing apart Africa, and hindering its ability to unite and strengthen the continent.
One such example would be the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. A minor border conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea deteriorated to the point where it became a full-fledged war, where over 100,000 people died.[5] The relationship among neighbouring nations weakened in 1997, when Eritrea introduced its own currency. The relations continued to worsen over time, due to differences between approaches to ethnicity and economic progress. What started out as a minor border dispute erupted into total war in May 1998. The focus was the Eritrean port of Assab, which, until the dispute, had been Ethiopia’s main access to the Red Sea. Ethiopia was forced to ship and trade goods through Djibouti, a less effeicent route. Due to international intervention, and various peace talks, the fighting ceased in June 2000. Not only was there a large loss of human life, the war also displaced one third of Eritrea's population, froze foreign aid and investment, triggered a bilateral arms race and military spending spree, and reduced the two countries' real growth rates to zero.[6] Had these two countries had properly designed borders, such conflict would not have arisen.
Thus Europe saw a unique opportunity to exploit the riches of Africa, notwithstanding the fact that their success would come at the expense of a plundered continent.
Africa was not economically wealthy before colonization; therefore it is not reasonable to blame colonization for Africa’s current state of poverty. Some of the poorest African countries, including many that have seen horrific atrocities and tragedy, are those which were not affected by colonialism. Rwanda and Burundi rank amongst the poorest African nations, and the most conflict ridden in the world. Both countries suffered conflict and mass genocide. Rwanda’s population, roughly six million people, was largely composed of the Hutu and Tutsi tribes. The Hutus were the majority, composing about 85%[7]. The Tutsis were an obvious minority. During the time of Belgian colonization, Tutsis were the favoured tribe. In 1962, when Rwanda finally gained its independence, a Hutu dictatorship came to power. The Tutsis became somewhat resentful, and claimed the Hutus were the cause of all Rwanda’s problems. Despite their minor differences, the relationship between the two tribes, although somewhat cold, was quite peaceful. However, this all changed in April of 1994, when the Hutu President Habyarimana died in a plane crash. Many claimed it was an assassination by the jealous Tutsis. The Hutus then began the ethnic cleansing of the Tutsis. In less than three months, one million people were brutally murdered.[8] Burundi and Rwanda have the same borders now that they had before colonization.[9] Although both areas were occupied by Belgium for a number of years, the territory remained unchanged. Colonization had little impact on the disasters that both Rwanda and Burundi have suffered. The maps below show Rwanda and Burundi both before and after colonization.
Colonialism actually introduced technological advancement to Africa. One of the benefits of colonialism was the establishment of infrastructure. European powers built roads and railroads, established hospitals and schools, and installed electricity and phone lines. In many countries, such as Angola, colonists developed the economy through agriculture by setting up coffee and cotton plantations. Not only did this boost the economy, but creating a multitude of jobs for the African people[10].
Rather than blame colonialism, one should search for the root causes closer to home. At the 2000 UN Millennium Summit, British Prime Minister Tony Blair stated:
Nowhere [but in Africa] are more people dying needlessly from starvation, from disease, from conflict. Deaths caused not by acts of fate but by acts of man. By bad governance, factional rivalry, state-sponsored theft and corruption[11].
Not only has the international community noted that Africa’s problems are internal, but so has Africa itself. Wole Soyinka, a notable Nigerian playwright, poet and novelist, has made the same observation, “I took one look at our first set of legislators and I realized that the first enemy was within.[12]” Corruption is an enormous problem in Africa today. Corruption is estimated to cost Africa a staggering US $150 billion a year[13].
On a list of the world’s five most corrupt leaders, two positions belonged to former African leaders. Mobutu Sese Seko, former president of Zaire, embezzled roughly US $5 billion during his three-decade reign. Sani Abacha, who was president of Nigeria for half a decade, embezzled approximately US$ 4 billion. Africa is in a great state of disarray, and every last stolen dollar, rand, kwatcha, leone and dinar would help to eradicate the problems which plague it.
Canadian singer Sarah McLachlan recently released her music video, “World on Fire”, as a charity awareness effort. The video states that the average music video costs roughly CAN $150,000. McLachlan shows how that money could rather be put towards worthier causes such as humanitarian aid for third world countries. CAN $22,500 could purchase a twelve-room clinic, including land deeds, in Kenya.[14] For CAN $7500, 5000 people in Nairobi could receive medicine for six months.[15] Over 200 Ethiopian orphans could receive education for just CAN $400.[16] The full operating costs of an orphanage in South Africa are CAN $16,500 per year.[17] Seventy former child soldiers in Sierra Leone could receive schooling and psychological support for CAN $3,500.[18] For CAN $1,500, seven students can receive job training in Sierra Leone.[19] A village in Sudan could implement irrigation for only CAN $1,025.[20] For CAN $500, orphans in Ethiopia could be fed, clothed and sheltered.[21] This is only a microscopic fraction of the billions of dollars African leaders are squandering away. These leaders are selfish, and have no apparent regard for their own people.
A prime example of a self-serving leader is the King of Swaziland. King Mswati III bought each of his ten wives a US $90,000 new model BMW as a Valentine’s Day present. A week later, he purchased a Maybach 62, the world's most expensive automobile for himself. The Maybach 62 retails for estimated US $500,000. The King of Swaziland also recently added eight new Mercedes cars to his fleet of limousines and luxury vehicles. Each Mercedes has a gold-plated license plate. According to a South African car dealer, the King had to have his fleet of cars immediately, saying “He could not wait for them to be shipped in the normal way so they were air-freighted directly from the factory in Germany." Swaziland is an impoverished nation, with over 70% of the population living below the poverty line. 65% of the population lives on less than a dollar a day, and approximately 200 000 people depend on food aid[22]. The King will not even be able to use his multiple cars often, as there are very few roads in Swaziland. Perhaps he can park his fleet of cars in one of ten luxurious palaces he is arranging to build for his wives. The projected cost of the multiple palaces is US $14 million. Only a selfish and corrupt leader would fund such expensive endeavors when the majority of the population cannot even afford to feed themselves. King Mswati III does not serve his people; he serves himself.
These corrupt leaders are stealing more than billions of dollars. They are also robbing their countries’ people of sustenance, by hindering their access to food aid and medicine. In the early 1990’s, during the Battle of the Black Sea, the Siad Barre regime prevented the people of Somalia from receiving desperately needed food aid. Mohamed Farrah Aidid, a Somali politician and the leader of the Habr Gidr clan, worked under the Said Barre regime to impede international famine relief efforts. The regime also opposed and challenged the presence of United Nations peacekeepers as well as United States troops. The result was roughly 5000 injured civillians and miltia; and the deaths of over 1000 Somalians and nineteen US soldiers.
Africa’s leaders are largely corrupt and self-serving, and refuse to help their struggling nations. These leaders are driving their once thriving countries into the ground. Many of these corrupt and cruel leaders have murdered, maimed and terrorized their citizens. These corrupt leaders have rigged or eliminated “free” elections. These corrupt leaders have methodically looted their countries of their treasures, in order to live in extravagance and splendour. These corrupt leaders squander billions of their countries’ meager funds to buy sophisticated weapons to keep themselves in power. These corrupt leaders are directly responsible for the wars, famine, poverty, and corruption that seems all too common in many African nations. Africa is Africa because of its leaders. Because these leaders view their countries’ treasury as their personal bank account, they are understandably reluctant to give up power and all of it’s trappings; as a result, democracy is usually not a concept which they embrace.
It may be argued that democracy is not right for all countries, especially developing third world countries. The great orator, and former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill once said, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter[23]”. This somewhat cynical quotation reveals a kernel of truth that is widely recognized: people do not always elect the best possible government. People are often swayed by past loyalties to heroes of some liberation struggle, instead of considering the cold, hard reality that governments need the ability and the will to deliver concrete results. In the same vein, unsophisticated voters are sometimes influenced by tribal loyalties, or considerations of short-term gain. Such loyalties are behind the anomaly of free people electing a totalitarian government, in the case of Mozambique after independence.
The people of Mozambique used their free will to elect Frelimo, a Marxist party, with disastrous results. Together with economic ruin, it was also the beginning of a one party state, which has endured for decades without any credible challenge from an opposition party.[24]
A similar situation offered in Kenya in 1991. Kenyan civilians protested their lack of political freedom, but their peaceful demonstrations were violently met with teargas and police batons. In response, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund suspended monetary aid to Kenya, until Kenya agreed to hold free and fair democratic elections. Daniel Arap Moi, the then president of Kenya, entrenched the one party system that had become the scourge of so-called multiparty democratic elections. Although 63% of the population voted against him, Moi landed another five-year term in office. He achieved this through violence and widespread intimidation that included abolishing secret ballots, in favour of people lining up according to party affiliation, with predictable results.[25]
A perfect example of a failing democracy is Zimbabwe. Zimbabwean elections are anything but free and fair. In a country where 70% of the population lives below the poverty line, the Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe, uses food in exchange for votes.[26] A Famine Early Warning System Network, based in South Africa, estimated that 5.8 million Zimbabweans, roughly half the population, desperately need food aid or they may starve to death[27]. The choice for starving Zimbabweans is easy: vote for Mugabe and eat, or go hungry. President Mugabe is responsible for state sponsored terrorism, using Zimbabwe’s army as his personal thugs to intimidate and murder the political opposition. In the widely condemned election of 2005, Mugabe insisted that Zimbabweans had no need of food aid, as the country was prospering. Within months of the election, he secretly appealed to Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, to resume food aid in order to avoid widespread starvation among his people.[28] Zimbabwe is not the only example of a failing African democracy.
It seems that almost every African democracy has suffered some predicament where the government was the root of the problem. There is overwhelming evidence against democracy in almost every African country. The aforementioned Battle of the Black Sea was due to a corrupt democratic leader. South Africa, supposedly the ‘powerhouse’ of Africa, refused rights for black people for over half a century. A nominally democratic country allowed the Apartheid to be implemented following an upset victory by a radical party which did not enjoy a popular majority, but gained power through poorly designed riding boundaries. It resulted in voters setting the country on a path to misery, from which it would not recover for many decades.[29]