Issa G. Shivji
7 May 2009
opinion
Outlining the essential differences between the respective approaches of Julius Nyerere and Kwame Nkrumah, Issa G. Shivji discusses the gradualist and radical positions of two pillars of the Pan-Africanist movement.
Underlining the notion of an independent African state as a 'national liberation movement in power' as being at the very core of the movement, Shivji stresses that genuine African nationalism can only ever be Pan-Africanism. As both a head of state and leading Pan-Africanist intellectual, Nyerere found himself supporting contradictory ideas around contesting the imposition of colonial borders while emphasising the centrality of states' sovereignty, Shivji notes. While admitting that he is without a complete answer to the question of what intellectuals' role will be in the development of a new Pan-Africanism for today, Shivji stresses that the challenge will be to push forward a ' new nationalist insurrection', one which perhaps ultimately recognises African unity as a dream rather than a vision.
In this 40th year of my association with the University of Dar es Salaam, I am humbled and honoured to be appointed to the Mwalimu Julius Nyerere chair in Pan-African Studies.[1] The inauguration of the Mwalimu Nyerere chair in Nkrumah Hall is neither accidental nor coincidental. It is historical. Julius Nyerere and Kwame Nkrumah were towering figures of Pan-Africanism. They arrived at Pan-Africanism through different intellectual and political routes. Nyerere found Pan-Africanism through Tanganyikan nationalism; Nkrumah found Ghanaian nationalism through Pan-Africanism. Mwalimu's intellectual formation was steeped in missionary influence. When in England he came into political contact with the Labour Party and the Fabian Colonial Bureau. His anti-colonialism was moderate, his approach to change gradualist. Nkrumah went to Lincoln University in the US. It was a black college. He had firsthand experience of racial discrimination, lived in Harlem during summer vacations and was mentored by great African-American Pan-Africanists like W. E. B. Du Bois, George Padmore and C. L. R. James. Nkrumah's anti-colonialism was grounded in his understanding of the political economy of imperialism; his approach to independence was radical. Nkrumah ended up writing a great treatise, Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. Mwalimu authored the Arusha Declaration: Socialism and Self-Reliance. If the Arusha Declaration had had a sub-title in the stagiest language of Nkrumah, it would have been something like - to borrow from the words of C. L. R. James - 'Socialism and Self-Reliance: The Highest Stage of African Resistance' (C. L. R. James once described the Arusha Declaration as 'the highest stage of resistance ever reached by revolting blacks').
Nkrumah did not survive. Imperialism overthrew him in a CIA-engineered coup only a year after the publication of Neo-Colonialism. Mwalimu survived, but the Arusha Declaration did not. Neoliberalism discredited and buried 'socialism and self-reliance' in a Reaganite counter-revolution against development and national self-determination.
In spite of these differences in the intellectual and political formation of the two men, they were both unreservedly great Pan-Africanists and fighters for African unity. They differed in their approach. Nkrumah wanted the United States of Africa 'now, now', whereas Nyerere counselled gradualism. Several decades later Mwalimu paid a wholesome tribute to Nkrumah for his single-minded crusade for African unity. In the process, he acknowledged their different intellectual backgrounds and, even, admitted that Nkrumah had a point. Some 40 years of 'state nationalism' has made African unity even harder to achieve just when Africa needs it most. On the 40th anniversary of Ghana's independence in March 1997, Mwalimu said:
'Africa must unite! That was the title of one of Kwame Nkrumah's books. That call is more urgent today than ever before. Together we the peoples of Africa will be incomparably stronger internationally than we are now with our multiplicity of unviable states. The needs of our separate countries can be, and are being, ignored by the rich and powerful. The result is that Africa is marginalised when international decisions affecting our vital interests are made.
'Unity will not make us rich, but it can make it difficult for Africa and the African peoples to be disregarded and humiliated.'
A year later, in his reflections with Ikaweba Bunting, Mwalimu recalled his encounter with Nkrumah and their different perspectives on Pan-Africanism. Mwalimu described Nkrumah's perspective as the 'aggressive Pan-Africanism of W. E. B. Du Bois and Marcus Garvey. The colonialists were against this and frightened of it.' Mwalimu continued:
'Kwame and I met in 1963 and discussed African Unity. We differed on how to achieve a United States of Africa. But we both agreed on a United States of Africa as necessary. Kwame went to Lincoln University, a black college in the US. He perceived things from the perspective of US history, where 13 colonies that revolted against the British formed a union. That is what he thought the OAU should do.
'I tried to get East Africa to unite before independence. When we failed in this I was wary about Kwame's continental approach. We corresponded profusely on this. Kwame said my idea of 'regionalisation' was only balkanisation on a larger scale. Later African historians will have to study our correspondence on this issue of uniting Africa.'
We are the later day African historians who need to study this because Pan-Africanism is not only historical. It is the present. Only Pan-Africanism can be true African nationalism under globalisation. However, it is not my intention to discuss the comparative perspective of these two paragons of Pan-Africanism, fascinating as it is. My purpose is to engage critically with Pan-Africanism in Mwalimu's Thought. That is the task of an intellectual.
I propose to isolate two strands in Mwalimu's thought. One relates to the rationale or justification for the unity of Africa, the other to the agency that would bring it about. Mwalimu deployed three interrelated elements in his argument for unity. For a lack of better words, I sum them up as identity, non-viability, and sovereignty.
IDENTITY
There is constant assertion and argument in Mwalimu's speeches and writings on the African-ness of the African people. Unlike other people, Mwalimu said, our identity is African, not Tanzanian, Ghananian or Gabonese. Not only is our own perception of ourselves African, even outsiders recognise us as Africans. In his Ghana speech, he summed up this position in his usual simple but graphic fashion:
'When I travel outside Africa the description of me as former President of Tanzania is a fleeting affair. It does not stick. Apart from the ignorant who sometimes asked me whether Tanzania was Johannesburg, even to those who knew better, what stuck in the minds of my hosts was the fact of my African-ness. So I had to answer questions about the atrocities of the Amins and the Bokassas of Africa.
'Mrs. Gandhi did not have to answer questions about the atrocities of the Marcosses of Asia. Nor does Fidel Castro have to answer questions about the atrocities of the Samozas of Latin America. But when I travel or meet foreigners, I have to answer questions about Somalia, Liberia, Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire, as in the past I used to answer questions about Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia or South Africa.'
Although I have used the post-modernist phrase 'identity', it is clear that Mwalimu's argument was political rather than post-modernist. The commonness of Africans lay in their common experience as Africans, rather than their common identity. As he put it:
'For centuries, we had been oppressed and humiliated as Africans. We were hunted and enslaved as Africans, and we were colonised as Africans... Since we were humiliated as Africans, we had to be liberated as Africans.'
Undoubtedly, Mwalimu is talking about common interests, but his notion of 'interest' is individual, personal and embedded in political theories of enlightened individualism. Unlike Nkrumah's, Mwalimu's characterisation of interest is not social or class, grounded in political economy. This is one of the interesting and significant differences in the philosophical formation and outlook of the two men, which informed their political prognosis. If I were to use the language of Marxist classics, I would say Mwalimu understood Leninist politics better than Marx's political economy. Nkrumah's politics was not particularly astute but he had a better understanding of political economy.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
