The Problem of African Luminaries: the Populism of regurgitated Thinking

Ipemndoh dan Iyan

The Strength of Reception of an Idea or an Opinion or a Perspective - the Notion - in most Cases, relies on Consensual Validation not in the Cogency of the Notion itself. The Consensual Validation does not confirm that the Notion is relevant to the Reality on the Ground. It states simply that many or the majority are in Agreement with the Notion whether false or true© Ipemndoh dan Iyan  

Preamble: On being relevant  

It is so easy to be famous in Today’s World, and be well-received and celebrated. All One needs to do is (i) understand the popular Mood on a chosen Discussion, (ii) get familiar with the Preferences indicated as acceptable by the popular Mood, and (iii) marshal these Preferences against some historical Instances, package these non-original, but seemingly-novel Preferences and deliver them to the same Audiences from where these Preferences originated, but which those Audiences had heretofore been unable to articulate, as One has. Voilà, One is now riding the Crest of Stardom, even Sainthood. One is now the Messiah. One is the Visionary, the Authority that all must listen to, if not believed in Entirety. 

The Relevance of Professor P.L.O. Lumumba

Quite frankly, I had not previously paid much Attention to Professor Patrick Loch Otieno Lumumba. When I had read him once or twice before, I had encountered his Work by Accident. It is also per chance that I came across the Speech he delivered here in https://youtu.be/pmXSi6_vFAI Around the Tail of this Speech, Lumumba asked himself the Question of “Am I being naive or simplistic?” His following Comment was really an Answer in the negative to the Question. Professor Lumumba did not believe himself "naive or simplistic." I wonder why? Is it because (a) his Narrative of the History of Africa during Colonialism and post it, is no different to what we all know or (b) he regurgitated Professor China Achebe in the Belief that "the problem of Africa is leadership" or (c) he is unable to distinguish between the Characteristics of the United States of America (USA), Switzerland, and his regorged Advocacy for a somewhat United States of Africa?1 These are not the only Difficulties with his Speech. Another one is his Lack of Understanding of what a "Nation" is. He has uncritically accepted the Idiocy that a Country is the same as a Nation or that a Territorial-State2 is necessarily a Nation. If Lumumba faintly grasps the Elements of Nationhood, he would know that multiple Nations cannot be molded into a single Nation. There are Countries in Europe which demonstrate this. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK, for short) is one of them. The Nation is Group Identity founded on common cultural History, and shared Genealogy. This Nation, as Identity, is not confined to Geography necessarily, but is identifiable as having emerged originally from geographical Habitation. So, you see, the Nation is not a Piece of Clay that you can shape as you wish. Colonialism tried it in Africa, and when the Indigenes regained Power we can all observe how inappropriate Lumumba's Proposals in this Speech are. Simply unlearned notwithstanding his Reliance on PanAfricanism. Professor Lumumba is competent in rehashing the colonial and postcolonial Histories of Africa, but is evidently inadequate in analyzing these Histories. 

What is PanAfricanism?

I, as an uneducated African - with my West African School Certificate (WASC), and my not-fit-for-Purpose 1 Year Correspondence Diploma in Journalism - recognized PanAfricanism3 as Realization of personal Pride in being of 'recent African Origin' (RAO)4, and this Pride as Basis for the Harmonization of Relations among all who claim this recent Ancestry or Origin to the Continent of Africa. I had read and/or learnt about Fellas like Kwame Nkrumah, Sekou Toure, Kenneth Kaunda, Julius Nyerere, Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) and Others like them by then. It was clear to me at the time from an intimate Understanding of reading the Arguments pushed by these Persons that  PanAfricanism was never perceived as representative of a national Identity either in the true Sense of ‘Nation’ or in the ridiculous Presentation of ‘Nation’ as Country. It was always a continental Identification. 

On my Arrival in the UK, and before I got my BA (Hons) in the Social Sciences, I had become quite acquainted with Marcus Garvey, W.E.B DuBois, Cheikh Anta Diop. As an educated African - with my MPhil – below the DPhil, but above the Master's - and having further read and/or gotten acquainted with Thinkers like Prince Bandele Omoniyi, George Padmore - before my MPhil by the way - I still see PanAfricanism in much the same Way, as my uneducated Self. Again, as equally previously, I can articulate why PanAfricanism is personal Pride in the Belongingness to a Community which has suffered much from own doing; active Participation in facilitating the Degradation of the RAO Person in Racial-Slavery, and unforgivable Servitude in Submission to the Subjection of the African Continent to Racial-Colonization. PanAfricanism is Reconciliation in 'Collective Identity'. The obvious Objectives of this Reconciliation were to (a) reclaim the African as a Human Being, and (b) repossess African Lands for the regained African Humanity. When examined closely, these two Objectives were (and are) really an Apology to the African Peoples by African Peoples for subjecting themselves to Racial-Slavery, and Racial-Colonization. Of course, the early Exponents of PanAfricanism did not articulate the Concept, as I have here, and they could not have. They did not recognize the Complicity of the Africàn in the Abuse of the African, and in the Terrorization of the African Continent. This Denial continues till today to afflict the Majority of RAO Persons such that they are unable to recognize the Logic of PanAfricanism, inter alia. 

Professor Lumumba's PanAfricanism

PanAfricanism is fundamentally the Logic of all African Peoples coming together for shared Causes with no Mind for different Languages or the territorial Boundaries carved by colonial Masters. This Formulation of PanAfricanism makes Sense, but we encounter Difficulties with some who are misrepresenting this Logic in Practice. They are outwitted by the Intricacies of the Logic yet are too self-celebratory and externally-glorified to recognize their Limitations. Professor Lumumba's PanAfricanism, which is more Garveyism than anything else, and his Iteration of an anachronistic Strategy only fuels the false Expectations of African diasporic Populism. It is noteworthy that Lumumba did not actually define PanAfricanism in this Speech. Who delivers a big supposedly Awareness-raising Speech about an existential Concept - Democracy, PanAfricanism, State of Nature, et cetera - without defining it? No; I do not have to consult any other of Professor Lumumba's Speeches or Texts to locate his Understanding of PanAfricanism. Any single Work of his or mine should be independent of our other Works.

For those who take Marcus Garvey's Outlook on PanAfricanism literally, PanAfricanism is a national Conception (not Concept). However, Africa is not a Nation. It is a Continent of many diverse Nations which are bound together by the Oppression of (i) Racial-Slavery and (ii) the Victimization of Racial-Colonization, and their mutually-inclusive (iii) African Participation in the Racial-Slavery of own Kind and (iv) African Facilitation of the Racial-Colonization of own Continent. These four Attributes formed and still comprise the Basis of PanAfricanism. Although Garvey is lauded as the Originator of PanAfricanism, he was not, in fact. These Plaudits, for my part, belong to little known or unknown Judaeo-Christian religious Leader Mangena Maake Mokone who established the Ethiopian Church in South Africa in 1892. This Church was the Foundation of the 'Ethiopian Movement' also known as 'Ethiopianism' eventually leading to the Religion of 'Rastafari'. 'Ethiopianism' was, and is, the Origin of PanAfricanism. Yeah, I concede; Religion can have some Usefulness at times. Western Writers have not given much Substance to 'Ethiopianism' as (i) Inspiration for the African Awareness of the African Self, (ii) Realization for Africa's Self-Determination and (iii) Pursuit of the African's Celebration of the Self as a Person, a Human Being, so have their copycat pseudo-intellectual Africans. Look to 'Ethiopianism' to appreciate the Spirit of PanAfricanism. Even Marcus Garvey recognized the founding Legacy of Ethiopianism. Importantly, little known or perhaps not known at all, is that "Ethiopia," at one Point used to be the Grecian (Greece's) Identification of the Continent later to be called ‘Africa’ in perpetuity, and “Ethiopian” was the Identification of the ‘African’ before s/he began to be described as “African.” This same 'Africa' was also previously referred to as ‘Libya’ and its Peoples, as ‘Libyans’. 

It is clear that Lumumba's PanAfricanism is situated in the Garvey Conception of PanAfricanism. This makes it evident that he fails to understand the Logic of the Concept of PanAfricanism. PanAfricanism was born out of the Chaos of the Dispersion of African Peoples all over the World by Racial-Slavery, and the Humiliation of African Peoples on the African Continent by Colonialism/Colonization. For both Fightback, and Apology, there was Need for a reclaimed African Identity as universal Identity, and united Voice for that universal Identity. PanAfricanism broken down in simple Terms is (1) universal Identity for the African, (2) united Voice for the universal Identity, and (3) Repossession of African Lands, not the collapsing of the African Continent into a Country, for goodness Sake. 

Professor Lumumba's Populist Perpetuation and Propagation

Professor Lumumba seeks all present Day African Countries to  merge to become like the United States of America, but discard the Office of President or Prime Minister. He also mentioned Switzerland as another Framework. Again here, Lumumba demonstrates abject Dearth of Understanding of the political Governance in either Location or its Human Geography. These two Places are Countries. The USA has the Office of an Executive President. Switzerland has an Executive Federal Council (with nominal Presidency). At any rate, is the Proposition of doing away with the Office of President or PM his Originality or borrowed to the macro Scale from my Suggestion in http://ipemndohdaniyan.blogspot.com/2020/12/address-by-ipemndoh-dan-iyan-to.html - https://twitter.com/IP_dan_Iyan/status/1337961475672076290?s=19 writing on Nigeria? Nigeria is a Country. Africa is a Continent comprising many Countries. It is irrelevant that these African Countries were demarcated by European Colonization. Before Colonization, Africa had different Formations. Some were mega-Empires equal in Size to many Countries on the Continent today. Some were Empires the Size of some present-day large Countries. Some still were not so big Empires. Within these Empires sat different Territories i.e., Kingdoms, some comparable to modern Countries/Territorial-States. Still, there were Kingdoms which stood outside the Domination of Empires. See also my https://ipemndohdaniyan.blogspot.com/2021/07/nnamdi-kanu-sunday-adeyemo-igboho.html?m=1 Significantly too, Professor Lumumba does not tell us whether his centralised African Government would have executive Powers, and in what Form, and in which Areas of Governance. 

Further, while the USA is a very huge Country, nevertheless a Country on the American Continent, Switzerland is an incredibly small Geography on the Continent of Europe. Switzerland is incomparably much smaller in size to, say, Egypt, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauretania, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa. Even Eritrea, one of the smallest Territories in Africa is almost three times the Size of Switzerland. In terms of Nationality Make-ups - if you accept my Definition of 'Nation' above - the Compositions in both the USA and Switzerland pale beside those in some African Countries, for Instance, like Nigeria. Lumumba has simply misrepresented common pedestrian thinking as intellectual Reflection and is being applauded for it, but by who? Preachers of the same Message. The Applause is nothing but the Rewards of Consensual Validation. 

No; African Countries cannot come together into one Nation because it is simply impossible to expect different Nations to collapse into a single Nation or transform a Continent into a Country. Neither Proposition is cognitively sound. See my http://ipemndohdaniyan.blogspot.com/2021/04/country-is-not-necessarily-nation-talk.html For Instance, Professor Lumumba throws it out casually that the Continent of Africa must have a single Military because the Country of the USA has a single Military. Ask this Man whether the Continent of Europe has a single Military. Let him tell us if the Continent of Asia or even its Sub-Continent has a unitary Armed Forces. 

Professor Lumumba referred to Professor Chinua Achebe’s “The Problem of Africa is Leadership." He did not expatiate, but has not been challenged to. So, if "the Problem of Africa is Leadership," as he follows Achebe in asserting, how is the Issue resolved by confederating the Countries of Africa into a centralized Government? Professor Lumumba does not tell us how planting the geopolitical Framework of the USA or that of Switzerland on the whole of the Continent of Africa is Panacea for "the Problem of Africa is Leadership," and no one in his Audience is asking him, but are all applauding. See, what I mean about the glorification of the Commentator once s/he simply echoes the Mindsets of the Audience? Lumumba's Failure here is indicative of when Commentators cut and paste Notions from other Sources, and present them, or perhaps only suggest them, as of own Originality. In fact, there is nothing new about Professor Lumumba's Proposals. These are the same Things my Friends and I deliberated upon before I was 20 Years of Age, perhaps because we met them ‘on the ground’. Now, I am past my 64th. You can just imagine how old the Idea must be yet it remains inchoate because it is the Product of 'impulsive-PanAfricanism'©. 

What is this Thing about "Leadership," anyway? Achebe deployed the Notion of "Leadership" as a key Reference. What does Professor Lumumba believe Professor Achebe intended with the Value; “Leadership?” Leadership in what Sense?  Is ‘Leadership’ with given Meaning that we all grasp it as a Matter of Course? We know that the Phenomenon of ‘Leadership’ is widely contested even at the practical Level, i.e., ‘is a Leader One who manages Resources – Human and Material – by Example, and as an exemplary Role Model with Integrity’ or ‘is a Leader One who controls Resources – Human and Material – any which Way’? For me, the former is a ‘Leader’. The latter is only ‘the Person in Charge’, and most likely a Bully. I knew one; unimaginably abusive and disrespectful to her Staff, especially one male Staff. She believes herself of such high Birth that if you are in her Hallucination beneath this Birth, you are not worthy. Forgive me, I digressed. I will assist Lumumba here though about Leadership in assuming that he desires the former, and bemoans the latter. He wishes for African Leaders who will deliver the 'Common Good’. If I get him right, he is being dishonest with himself and his Audience, and abjectly at odds with certain Realities. 

The Governments of African Countries have shifted between Civilian and Military Regimes since each was granted Independence by its colonial Master. During Military Juntas in Africa, the Sentiment of "the Problem of Africa is Leadership" might find Sympathy, after all, Military Regimes are self-imposed Governments. In electoral Politics, which Africans have joined Hands with the West to deceptively describe as "Democracy," the Proposition of "the Problem of Africa is Leadership" makes no Sense. It is absurd. Those ‘in charge' in the so-called Democracies are not self-imposed, but chosen by 'the People'. In other Words, 'the People' identify who they want to steer their everyday Lives for periodic Cycles; 4 Years, 5 Years, 8 Years or for how many Years by voting them into Office. So, Professor Lumumba, the Problem of Africa in ‘democratic’ Polity is not the "Problem of Leadership," but the ‘Inability of ‘the People' to identify Leaders’. ‘The People‘ are culpable for their Choices of whom to elect to govern them. The Problem, ergo, is not one of "Leadership," but of ‘the People[s]' of Africa’s 'Democracy' who are undiscerning in, and uneducated about electing into Power those they decide are fit to govern them, and the Willingness and Readiness of the Militaries - Armed Forces – and other Security Agencies of 'the People' to sustain in Office those woeful Persons ‘the People’ had voted for to be in charge of them when these Persons in Charge become devilishly corrupt and/or dictatorial. It is ‘the People[s]' who continually make bad Choice[s] in appointing, through the Vote, those who rule them. 

Lumumba is looking straight at the USA as Template for a unified Africa whereas African Heads of States themselves have set the viable Conduit first in the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), and later in the African Union (AU). I actually believe that the Change of Name is theatrical with the latter Name only copycatting the European Union (EU). Lately, the Africans are taking this Unity Concept further in the Practicality of the Continentalism of an African Passport. To accommodate Professor Lumumba's reasoning of a centralised African Government would be Combination of a replicated EU Parliament and a revised North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Formula, but he cannot even see that. He is simply rehashing what every common thinking RAO Person is bandying about. I am not going to discuss here how a revised NATO Formula and the EU Template could satisfy Lumumba's Proposals. This is how far I will go in my Originality to assist him. I do not buy into the Logic of the Proposition he is regurgitating. The real Problem with the African Situation is what I have discussed above. The Problem of Africa today, in a supposedly democratic Era, are 'the People' themselves who are solely responsible for choosing who they want to be their Persons in Charge. If ‘the People’ desire “Leadership,” they would elect Leaders to political Offices. Leaders are born, and there are always Leaders among 'the People'. If 'the People' opt not to elect 'Leaders', how is that a "Problem of Leadership" rather than the ‘Inability of ‘the People' to identify Leaders'? 

Conducive PanAfricanism: the Pathway

Professor Lumumba postulates his PanAfricanism to downplay the different "ethnic" Compositions of African Populations, in situ and abroad. Again, as with his apparent absent Appreciation of the Geopolitics of both the USA, and Switzerland, Lumumba demonstrates his Disorientation with the cultural Maps of the African Continent albeit he is an RAO Person himself like me, and I assume, lives permanently in Africa. I do not live in Africa, at all. In deploying the Term "ethnic" he has simply borrowed the prevailing, but most erroneous Western-led Identification of Africa’s Ethnographies, and his Argument is no more than retelling the same uneducated Story. Whatever "ethnic" means in Professor Lumumba's Comprehension, he and his Acolytes believe this is the Encumberment to the Unity of African Territorial-States. For Lumumba, the Unity of African Countries must collapse the Continent of Africa into a single Country to emulate either the USA in configuring African Countries into States or Switzerland where African Territorial-States would become Cantons. He calls it “Confederation” without actually realizing its Practicality. He appears to have no Clue that he is really asking all African Sovereign States to merge into a Sole Territorial-State. I am not sure if Professor Lumumba mentioned the Suisse Canton. Quite frankly, I cannot be bothered to listen again to the Speech. Does Lumumba know of the Reality of the Canton vis-à-vis the African Society? Although the Canton is actually a State; autonomous, it is quite a small administrative Unit compared to, say, the average Nigerian Local Government Area. 

How exactly is Lumumba's Africa as a Country going to work? He called it “Confederation,” I know, but it is in effect an extremely gigantum Country. If the early Exponents of Africa the Continent becoming a Country did not realize the Foolhardiness of their Quest, we have Lessons in recent modern History to recognise this. What does Professor Lumumba and Company think the ‘Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was? How did that End? Yet, the Lumumba Group is seeking to regress Africa from ‘entitled Differentiations’© to ‘undesirable Singularity’© en route ‘manufactured Discord'©, and eventual Fragmentation. The USSR a.k.a. ‘Soviet Union’ was not a Continent while straddling two Continents. However, it is the only proximate Illustration of Professor Lumumba’s PanAfricanism in Terms of Nationality Compositions, and central Government. It is not surprising that Lumumba does not grasp that the Soviet Union was also a Confederation, after all, Western political Science Literature has never explained it, or even described it, that Way (as far I know, but I might be incorrect). This Inability to recognise the USSR as a Confederation naturally results in Failure to learn Lessons from its History and appreciate the Idiocy of espousing the Encasement of all African Territorial-States in a single African State. The Incapability to identify Similarities in different Phenomena demonstrates certain Lack of Originality, which could be temporary or normally the Case. I once went for an Interview for DPhil/PhD Study in International Relations/Politics. This was before my MPhil/PhM.  It was really more like exploring the academic Research Environment, and getting acquainted with possible Supervisors. My prospective Supervisor informed me that he was beginning a Book on Bosnia, (in disintegrating Yugoslavia, yeah, another one for Professor Lumumba to learn from) and would be looking at the “Serbs, Croatians, and Muslims” Relationship. I looked directly at him, and advised him his Approach was “journalese.” He asked me what I meant. I replied that “Serb is ethnicity, and so is Croatian. Muslim is religion. There are Serbian Muslims, as are Croatian Muslims. You should be looking at something else about what is actually going on in Bosnia. Religious Conflict, perhaps?” He responded with “you are right. The Difference between us is your Degree is in the Social Sciences. My first Degree is in Politics. My Master’s is in Politics, and my PhD is in Politics. I will supervise you, but we will need another Department too.” 

Of course, he knew Political Studies are part of the Social Sciences. The Point he was making at the Time was that my Exposure to the Social Sciences was more emphasized than his. He was wrong though. Even before I had a Degree, my Mind has always been expansive, and my thinking comprehensive. I was always assumed to possess a Degree when I did not have one that I was constantly correcting the Misapprehension. Yep, he kept his Word. I was made an Offer. In fact, I had two direct PhD Offers from two UK Universities, and one normal course PhD Offer from one of the oldest Universities in Australia. I missed out on Funding for my UK Offers because I was holding onto Nigeria's Passport not realising it as an unfortunate Citizenship for me in view of my academic Ambition. That Country’s Managers – Civilian and Military, and their Officials – are without Conscience to the Point of Inhumanity. They have always been busy impoverishing Nigeria by siphoning Public Money into their private Pockets refusing to release these Monies for the ‘Common Good' in its varied Forms. Yet, these same Persons incessantly claim to “love Nigeria.” Why would they not love Nigeria when they continue to deplete the Country’s Wealth by never-ending Theft? Tell me how many Nigerians are assisted on Merit by Nigeria’s Money to further their Education, in situ or abroad. Why are Nigerians always scrambling for foreign funding to escape Nigeria for further Studies? With “international” Funders, I was carrying the Passport of a Country in which I was not “ordinarily resident.” Eventually, I got sensible, applied for a British Passport – that an Aunt, her Soul rest in Peace, had been begging me almost, for years to do – and finally discarded the Nigerian Passport. I do not subscribe to the Illogicality of dual Citizenship. 

Professor Lumumba urged centralization of the Military Apparatus – he referred to it as “Defence” – and Foreign Policy in his confederated Africa, but no one is asking him for Blueprints. Why would they? They know he does not have any. Is he not just singing their Song? They have no Blueprints, so why would he? The Call for a single Military for Africa, and coalesced External Relations (Foreign Policy) is not even an Idea. Ideas have Prospect. Better still, they demonstrate Feasibility. Lumumba's repeated grand Proposal of the Confederation of Africa’s 54 Countries – more are advocating or agitating Emergence – into one Country isolated the Armed Forces, and External Relations as the only Areas requiring centralized Action. Are Defence, and Foreign Policy the only Areas collapsible in a Confederation? Defence, and Foreign Policy belong in the Sphere of Governance, and they require two Aspects of Governance; i) Common Chambers/People’s Assembly, and ii) Executive. There are three Aspects of Governance though. In Terms of the Assembly, what Powers would it have; a) general legislative Authority or (b) Responsibility for approving regional Interests in Policy and Material or (c) any other form? Whatever the Nature of the Assembly, how would Members be chosen, by Election or by any other Process? Actually, I would prefer the archaic ‘Lot’ Process of Election instead of the extant open Form of voting. It is the only Way to frustrate Politicians buying the Votes of Electors – ‘the People’. Would Members' Incumbency be (i) renewable (cyclical) and lifetime or (ii) renewable, but term-restricted or (iii) single Term? What would be the Duration of any of these Incumbencies? I am assuming that when Lumumba said there would be no President or Prime Minister (PM), he was referring to the Executive Roles, not the nominal (ceremonial Versions). I can understand his Frustration if he is concerned about the not only indirect, but also anachronistic Method in the USA of electing an Executive President or the unrepresentative ‘minority-population approved’© UK System where only the Political Party elects the PM. I sympathize with him. However, he has not come up with the Alternative to the Functions of the Executive Role. Putting it another Way, Professor Lumumba has never proposed what will replace the Executive Function of Government. If, and when he does, that will be new thinking. Surely, Lumumba cannot expect African Countries, severally sovereign presently, with no Interest whatsoever in pushing Africa back to primordial Hordes to come up with the Ideas to facilitate his Desire for the African Continent to become just a Country. He, ergo, must devise his Implementation Plans. By the way, neither the USA nor Switzerland is a Federation. Both are Confederations.  If you are looking for an Example of a Federation, look to Nigeria. All those falsifying Nigeria as non-federal are simply parading their absent Grasp of political Philosophy, and/or Political Theory. They have absolutely no Inkling of what Federalism is, but why should they worry? Their intellectual Masters who were also their Colonial Masters have indoctrinated them that the Polity of the USA is Federalism. Hey, grab a Copy of the 'The Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation' and you will learn a Thing or two if you are the heuristic Type. The Name of the Constitution itself tells you something. 

There was PanAfricanism of Sorts in Africa before the Racial-Slavery of Africans in the Atlantic Slave Trade. It was deliberate Policy and Practice, but never Advocacy. This ancient PanAfricanism did not de-emphasis the cultural Geographies of neighbouring Territories or Vassal-Territories.  It left each cultural Geography intact within the wider African Geography. Each was distinct yet Part of the functioning Whole. This was in the Days of Empires. I do not profess to know much of European History unless it engaged or intersected with African History, and it is quite possible that those familiar with European History would find Parallels here. You would now have reasoned that my "cultural-Geography" is what I have earlier defined as "Nation." 'Ethnicity' is Group Differentiations within national Identities. African Territorial-States Today should be genuine Nation-States. What do I mean by this? Africa has congruous Nations along Boundary Lines which were disrupted by the Colonization of Europeans carving them into 'Interest Enclaves'©. This is where Professor Lumumba, and Others like him have got it wrong; so incalculably wrong. The Encumbrance to Africa's Harmony – not Unity – is the Conversion – not Transformation – of European colonial Enclaves - Interest Enclaves - into Territorial-States by Africans, and the unwavering Loyalty to these Enclaves, as Countries to die for, and kill for. Pity. When I think about the umbilical Attachment of Nigerians to 'Nigeria'; Identification and Enclosenent of them which were 'contemptibly-colonial'© and are self-induced 'residual-Colonialism'© and their continuing Pursuit of claiming any well-known African-American as Nigerian, I get very angry and frustrated with such Idiots. Nigeria did not exist when the Forebears of those African-Americans were uprooted from Africa. They belonged to Nations in Nigeria which these stupid Nigerians believe are situated only in Nigeria whereas their Part of the Nation might not even had been within the Boundaries of British 'colonial-Enclave'© of Nigeria. Thus, an African-American tracing ancestral Origin to Fulani or Hausa or Igbo or Yoruba is not "Nigerian" but Fulani or Hausa or Igbo or Yoruba, pseudo-educated Fools. The Fulani, Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba are indigenous also to other Territorial-States in Africa Today. The same can be said of other Nations of Africa and their Dispersal and Distribution to different European Interest Enclaves (colonial Enclaves). 

The necessary first Step for Harmony among the African Peoples is to discard the colonial-Enclaves - territorial Boundaries - partitioned by Colonialism, and realign Boundaries around Nationalities. Alternatively, these colonial-Enclaves masquerading for African Countries could be reconstructed as Nationality Groups (grouping). Look around you. This Realignment and/or Reconstruction are/is already happening, but rather than consolidating, it is dividing further the African Continent. Yep. What do you think all those Wars for “Self-Determination” were and are about? ‘White’ so-called Experts call these Wars “ethnic conflicts” and their equally feeble-brain(ed) African Imitators simply parrot them. Where processed properly; with Agreement, Cooperation, Coordination, and most importantly Patience, this ReAlignment would be contiguous with 'cultural-Geographies'©. The reclaimed cultural-Geographies can then become the new Territorial-States of Africa. These re-identified African Territorial-States can now really be called 'Nation-States'. 

The first, and principal Benefit from such ReAlignment is the Elimination of Conflicts and/or Disharmony between different cultural-Geographies. Different African Nations would no longer be grudgingly accommodating themselves within the colonial-Enclaves they willingly inherited from their colonial Masters.  Nigeria is an Example of the Paradox. The variegated Nations in it are cohabiting in Distrust of and Hate for one another yet they had agreed to make their colonial-Enclave their Country of Independence. They even fought a bloody Civil War to keep this Aberration of a Country indivisible. Will my new African Nation-State Proposal do away with 'ethnic' Disagreements within Nations, you ask? Yoruba History – ancient and modern – does not assure me it will. We might have Histories of other Nations which could reinforce conflict within Family Groups as a Characteristic of Human Nature, manifested (or left latent). Please, note that when I talk of the Yoruba, I talk of them as a Nation not as belonging to a particular Country, especially as present-day African Countries were demarcated European colonial-economic Interests (colonial-Enclaves). These colonial-economic Boundaries are not historical African national Boundaries. For Instance, the Yoruba are indigenous to five colonial-Enclaves in Africa that I know of; the Republics of 1) Benin, 2) Ghana, 3) Nigeria, 4) The Gambia, and 5) Togo. I am not Yoruba myself. I refer to this Nation readily because it is the only Nation of Africa with which I am confidently familiar. 

The Disruption to the Congruities of Africa’s Nations by Colonization is such that Persons of the same Nationality see themselves first in terms of the Boundary marked-off for them by Colonialism. This Disruption was intentional just as the Separation of same Language Communities, and Family Members on Plantations in the Americas. I was talking to a Ghanaian Pharmacist some Years ago in England. Note the Profession; ‘Pharmacist’. This suggests that this Person has University Level Education. I referred to him as ‘Yoruba’ and he was so angered, denouncing the Yoruba, and everything about Nigeria. I reminded him that he had told me before that he is ‘Ga’. He confirmed again that he is ‘Ga’. So, I asked if the Ga do not trace Origin to ‘Oduduwa’. Then he became quiet. See the Damage to the African Psyche? Yet everyday, Ghanaians and Visitors to Ghana are reminded of that Country’s Connection to the Yoruba. The welcoming Greeting at their Airport, and in their Hotels is “akwaba.” How is this not a variation of Nigeria’s Yoruba “ekwuabo”?

The second Step to African Harmony would follow naturally from the Realignment. It is continuous Cooperation between these new African 'Nation-States'. Each would still have its System of Government, and all the Apparatuses of Government, but would agree Areas of mutual, and compulsory Cooperation. The key Word is 'compulsory' in as much as it is mutual among the Majority of States. This Cooperation would be underpinned by the Logic of nationalist-quid pro quo. It would be the most compelling Incentive for Faithfulness among these new Nation-States.

Endnote

1He calls such Arrangement "Co-Federation" or did he say "Confederation?" It does not matter, as both are the same in Practice. 

2The Territorial-State is both bounded Territory, and population of human beings with political rights and cultural practices owing Allegiance to that Territory.

3PanAfricanism loosely posited is 'the Unity of African Peoples based on common Concerns'© 

4The Human Species is descended from the Continent of Africa, so I distinguish those of us easily recognized as African with the Descriptor 'recent African Origin’©

Ipemndoh dan Iyan PhM©

AsimauGlobalMedia© 

All Rights 2021

10 December