Undoing Colonialism
I have engaged in numerous debates with many people on the issue of African development and undoing the effects of colonialism. My opinion, which I have held for a little while now (see here), is that it will take most countries, on the African continent, that are currently classified as “developing” (previously “third world”) another 50 if not 100 – or more – years to catch up to countries currently classified as “developed” or “first world”.
In a world of instant gratification and consumerism, this is not a popular statement. However, setting real and manageable expectations is critical in order to begin to make progressive strides by taking (maybe) controversial steps. While “vote for us” and your children’s children will be better” is not a winning campaign slogan, it would be refreshing to hear the truth spoken for a change. Sadly, no politicians are brave enough to speak the truth and placate people with empty promises (and T-shirts, Millimeal and bread) at campaign time.
Introduction
It is common knowledge that many countries on the African continent remain decades behind “first world” countries. This is despite their wealth in natural and human resources. Whether we agree or disagree on the CRITERIA a country needs to meet in order to qualify as “first world” in the first place (we will get to this later), we can agree that Africa has a large collection of countries that showcase some deplorable living conditions. We can further agree that many African countries lag behind most North American, European and many Asian countries when it comes to basic infrastructure, telecommunications, the banking and financial sector.
Apparently, the deficiency in these sectors (among others) makes it difficult for these countries to compete for foreign direct investment. Foreign direct investment, as we have been told, boosts the economy by, for example, creating jobs, encouraging local production or manufacturing in order to garner more value from exports, etc.
Now to why I believe that we are at least 50 years away from undoing colonialism and redressing the mark it has left on our continent – 2 main reasons:
The problem of definition
Imagine taking a trip with someone and he/she says that it’s “not far”. This might not be a problem if the person tells you the EXACT destination. However if the person tells you: “You will have arrived when I say you have arrived”, this may be a bit more dubious. This may be a silly example which probably does not illustrate the following point very well: Most of the factors that define a “First World Country” are not of African origin. Why is this a problem you may ask? Well it’s like trying to win a lipsink battle using a song you have heard for the first time versus winning a lipsink battle using a song you wrote.
Many African countries have been playing to the [ex]colonizers’ tunes for many decades (some even centuries) while simultaneously undoing the effects of colonialism at the same time (or trying to). They now find themselves operating in systems that are not their own. This affects everything from things as seemingly unimportant such as dress to things as defining as the measurement of economic indicators. Everything is defined outside Africa. So for instance, the very definition of “First World” does Africa no favors.
Origin of the “3 Worlds”
Alfred Sauvy, a French demographer, anthropologist and historian first coined the term. He used the term Third World (“Tiers Monde”) in reference to countries that were unaligned with either the Communist Soviet bloc or the Capitalist NATO bloc during the Cold War. The United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Western European nations and their allies represented the First World, while the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and their allies represented the Second World. All other countries were classified “Third World”. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the term has been used less and less in favor of terms such as “developing countries”, “least developed countries” or even “Global South”. The problem here is that the very distinction was political rather than economic or humanitarian in the first place and, in my view, continues to be so.
Flawed inputs
Being that as it may, we now live in a world with these distinctions: Developed and developing. The most common definition of a developed country is as follows: A sovereign state that has a developed economy and advanced technological infrastructure relative to other less industrialized nations. The criteria for evaluating the degree of economic development are gross domestic product (GDP), gross national product (GNP), the per capita income, level of industrialization, amount of widespread infrastructure and general standard of living. GDP in turn is the monetary value of all finished goods and services made within a country during a specific period.
We calculate this value in three ways: i) by adding up all the money spent each year; ii) by adding up all the money earned each year; or iii) by adding up all the value-added each year. (See here for more). Naturally, no matter which method you adopt, this will never be 100% accurate. In the African context it largely excludes a huge portion of the economy commonly referred to as the “informal sector”. Furthermore a very large percentage of the African continent remains “unbanked”. How trustworthy, therefore, are the statistics commonly bandied about of $1 a day or less than $1 a day?
In summary therefore, the definitions of “Developed world” and “developing world” and all the inputs that feed into these definitions originate in the “West” and are not inclusive of Africa from the get-go.
A rigged game
The other major impediment to undoing colonialism and hastening the progress of the African continent is the very nature of “the game”. As we saw from the previous section, among the other problems facing the continent, the “success metrics” – the decision whether we are succeeding in BECOMING “first world” or not – are not defined by us. In addition to the DEFINITIONS (the finish-line) being determined off-continent, the rules on how the race ought to be run are set elsewhere too.
For example, when western countries were going through their industrialization phases, the environment was not a priority. Now that many African countries are seeking to mechanize, create factories beneficiate goods locally, etc. They have to take factors into account (like the environment, labour-practices, human rights and many others) which were deemed or treated as “non-issues” when the “west” was going through this process. As cold as this may sound, it is true that Europe and North America developed at a faster rate than any African country ever will because much of their work-force was not paid at all (*coughs*: Slaves).
Conclusion
In other words, the rules as to HOW we may “develop” in Africa are neither made nor enforced by us. Being classified is currently the accepted metric for determining that the “undoing colonialism” process has run its course. To be classified as a developed country one of the requirements set by the “West” is a democratic system of Government. Is this what they had when they were developing? This is just one example to illustrate the point. Our growth, rightly or wrongly, cannot come at the expense of certain factors. As a result it will arguably take much longer than the current “Developed” countries’ own growth and development took.
Awesome post! Keep up the great work! 🙂