In looking at the sheer scale of
the abundant availability of natural resources in Sub-Saharan Africa, one could
logically conclude that many of these nations located in this region of Africa
should be numbered amongst the wealthiest. The reality however, is that
material resources have not necessarily equated to economic growth and
development in this region. How is it possible that on this continent: the
cradle of humanity, the birthplace of great civilizations of antiquity; and
that these people; the same people which gave birth empires such as Mali, or
Ancient Ghana or Great Zimbabwe are seemingly unable to form long lasting
stable economies and modern democratic nation states? Though there are several
possible responses to the above quandary, regardless to the conclusion to which
one arrives in order to understand the total picture one must understand
colonialism, what is it, what its impact was and is and whether or not the
effect of it can still be felt in the areas formerly controlled by it. The
truth is that if were not for a few courageous freedom fighters the majority of
the world’s people of color would be living in a country under direct control
by foreign nations.
Ironically, when the topic of
freedom fighters comes into conversation rarely is the name Patrice Lumumba
mentioned amongst the greats. Though his term in office was brief there are but
a few that have left the same indelible impression on the world scene as he
did. Defiant in his stance for African self determination and unity, humble in
character, powerful and graceful in presence; His Excellency Patrice Lumumba
stands head and shoulders above the common perception of an African politician.
Lumumba the first Prime Minister of the newly independent Republic of Congo
found himself caught up in the midst of the machinations of the greater
struggle between the two competing world powers. This greater struggle which would
eventually cost him his life.
The film “Lumumba” is a very
accurate portrayal of the greater struggle that Lumumba and others like him
faced in seeking independence from colonial powers. This is a movie about
transition and change. In it Patrice Lumumba transitions from being merely a
member of the “civilized citizens class” accepted by colonial society to a political
prisoner who was as a threat to the established societal structure and finally
to controversial Prime Minister. The Congo transitions from being a colony to an
allegedly independent republic. Though this idea of independence meant totally
different things to the colonizers and the colonized, in fact there was a scene
in which the Belgians are speaking and in their estimation “independence” was
simply a word. At the same time the in the next room the Congolese were hopeful
in their expectation of bright future for their nation to have a chance on the
world scene as independent and prosperous.
These differing ideas are articulated in the
film most accurately in the scene that portrayed the independence ceremony. Whereas
King Baudouin gave a speech that presented colonialism as a good thing and
necessary for the civilizing of Africa which alluded to the implicit racism of
the exploitive form of colonialism employed in the Congo, it almost seems as if
the idea of independence he pictured was going to be the exact same system just
ran by African “minions” of the Belgians choosing. Lumumba on the other hand spoke
of the brutal nature colonialism recognizing that independence as a result of
the sacrifice of the Congolese and presented his vision for true independence and
self-determination.
How is it possible that such
antithetical viewpoints could arise from viewing the same set of circumstances?
The Belgian perspective is rooted in racism, when they arrived they found a
complex culture with seemingly simple technology, surrounded in a land
overflowing with natural resources. Originally a private possession of King
Leopold I and eventually a colony of Belgium, The Congo soon proved to be a
wise investment to the credit of King Léopold. The wealth gained by the
Belgians, was however gained at the expense of the native Congolese. The native
Congolese were seemingly perceived as another commodity to be exploited.
Therefore their conflicting ideas of what independence would mean is in
actuality based on their understanding of the effects and execution of
colonialism.
Colonialism being defined as
political rule by another power other than the majority. It has a cultural aspect
as the colonizers cultural mores and standards are imposed and viewed as
superior whereas native cultural mores and standards are seen as sub-standard.
There is also and economic component whereas the colonizers have created a
captive market in which raw materials are exported and processed then sold back
thus creating a perpetual cycle of dependence and seemingly subservience.
In fact it was a fear that the
absence of Belgian authority would prompt a resurgence of native alleged
“primitive” culture which would put Belgian interests at risk. While they may
have intended to put an African face on their Belgian agenda they were not
looking to lose any of their economic dominance. The Belgians set it up that
the all the infrastructure was controlled by Belgians therefore there could
never be a true expelling of a Belgian presence, Lumumba’s dreams would later
be obscured by this deficiency which would work to set the stage for later
events. The fear of what Lumumba meant to Belgian interests prompted his removal
and eventual execution, the removing of a democratically elected official and
the eventual installation of a Western backed dictator speak loud and clear to
the long lasting effects of colonialism.
The eclipsing of Lumumba’s star was
surpassed only by the rising of the star of Joseph Mobutu. Mobutu who in turn
led the nation 32 years with an iron fist with the consent of the west. Though
he was a strong proponent of the elevation of African cultural expression he
was also infamous for his cult of personality, extravagant lifestyle and
nepotism. Some say that he is the archetypical African “Big Man” or dictator
for life.
These “Big Men” and their
“kleptocracy” are vestiges of colonial rule by and large sponsored by the west,
absolute in power and corrupt to the core. In the case of Mobutu one of the key
things that helped propel him to prominence was his anti-communist stance which
stood in stark contrast to Lumumba’s non-alignment allegedly socialist leaning.
As this occurred at the height of the Cold War tensions this led to Lumumba’s
death and Congo eventual used as a weapon against communism in Africa. In the
eyes of the west this was more important than the plight of the people or their
aspirations for independence. The absence of democracy for such an extended
period has not only hampered the political development of Congo, but it has
also conditioned the people to view government as something that exist to
exploit the populace but also that change cannot come through dialogue but
rather through the barrel of a gun and force.
Another long lasting effect of
colonialism would stifled economic growth. While under the colonial system
resources were shipped out a converted into goods to be sold back at a profit
which worked to keep colony dependent on the Metropole. Under the dictatorial
government that arose after the deposing of Lumumba, there was no true economic
empowerment for the people of Congo. Mobutu though he nationalized industries
placed relatives in control and funds were used as personal revenue, not only
did this only serve a few individuals this also ended up resulting in hyperinflation
which in turn increased corruption which ends up making it undesirable
destination for business. All of which perpetuates a cycle of debt and
dependence on the west leaving the dreams of Lumumba, and other pan-africanist
leaders, deferred at best lost to the winds of time at worse.
Another lasting legacy of
colonialism would be the boundaries and borders of the former colonies. At the
times that colonial boundaries were draw they were draw without the input of
people being colonized. This is especially significant in Africa where there is
such a diversity in terms of tribal or ethnic groups, many of which have not
enjoyed friendly or cordial relationships. This can work to the advantage of an
outsider trying to control any area because it will the colonized will perhaps
keep infighting which would allow the colonizers to come along as an alleged
problem solver and peacemaker, also it is in this tense situation that a strong
authoritarian leader can be used to keep order and again alludes. You see this
exemplified in the various provinces of Congo that broke off (with the
assistance of the former colonial powers) and declared independence. This
alludes to the imposed national boundaries which alludes again to the far
reaching legacy of colonialism. After having reviewed the facts it is evident
that (at least) in the situation of Congo the legacy left by colonialism is a
bitter sweet one. Prior to colonialism Congo was not a nation at all it was
merely a geographic region inhabited by several different ethnic groups and
though there may have been a local tribal kingdom this could not compare to the
global stage as a semi-modern nation/state that Belgians brought into being.
However there is not the only aspect of the colonial legacy left behind, as enumerated
earlier many of the various issues that Congo experienced were resultant from
the interference of the former colonialist in the early stage of independence
(the Lumumba Assassination, Mobutu dictatorship, economic collapse, political
repression). These event set the Congo back in terms of its growth and
development in its path to self determination.
