Africa in transition: facing the challenges of globalization.

On March 6, 1957 Ghana became the first sub-Saharan country to achieve independence from European colonial rule. Over the next 23 years, most of the other sub-Saharan colonies followed suit. Expectations on the continent and around the world were high, as leaders hoped that sub-Saharan African states would "take off" both politically and economically to become viable, independent actors in the world community. However, most independent African states struggled almost immediately under the weight of protracted political and economic crises.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Africa's "first wave" of democratization quickly morphed into a wave of autocracy as African militaries seized power in the mid-1960s, and multiparty systems gave way to authoritarian, one-party regimes. Economic stagnation had set in by the early 1980s, and African states became increasingly dependent on international development assistance, thereby incurring enormous debts. Then, after the end of the Cold War, Western powers began to make their aid to Africa conditional on the pursuit of good governance and democratization. In the early 1990s, Africa entered a "second wave" of democratization as autocratic regimes gave way to new, more democratic constitutions and multiparty systems.

Given Africa's crisis-prone transition from colonialism to independence and the many challenges its states have faced, it seems reasonable to ask what Africa has achieved in the 50 years since the start of the independence movement. Have African states moved from the margins of the international community to the center? Do they now have a stronger voice in the discourse on democracy and globalization, or are they as marginal as they were at the time of independence? Africa undoubtedly faces many challenges today, and it must continue to struggle not to lose ground in this age of globalization. Certainly Africa is not yet in a position to completely overcome these challenges--at least in the short run. However, if Africa's leaders want to move the continent forward and create a new position within the global community, they must make a concerted effort to begin addressing these challenges now.

The Legacy of Colonialism

Even though the period of colonial rule was a relatively brief one in Africa, the European powers profoundly reordered African political space, modes of economic production, and social hierarchies and cleavages. The modality of colonial rule varied from one colonial power to the next, but the end result was always domination, exploitation, and organized repression. Despite this, World War II coincided with the emergence of African demands for political independence.

With the onset of the independence era, colonial regimes in Africa were replaced by independent, African-led regimes that were more or less carbon copies of their colonizers' political systems. At a fundamental level, the post-colonial African state looked like a top-heavy administrative state. African leaders hoped that this model would lead to self-sustained economic development--a hope that unfortunately was never realized. European powers relinquished political control on their former African possessions, but not their economic interests and influence. The formal trappings of colonialism were replaced by a situation of neo-colonialism, in which Africa remained heavily dependent on foreign private investment and bilateral and multilateral development assistance. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund set the development agenda for Africa starting in the 1960s, rather than allowing African countries to decide individually or collectively how to develop their own economies and societies. Bilateral donors such as Britain and France benefited from their relationships with former colonies and Africa's continued dependence on European monetary assistance and capital investment. For example, the former colonial powers, as well as the rest of the Western world, encouraged the export of primary products from Africa so they could be processed in European factories. Such economic relationships, rather than encouraging economic self-sufficiency and development, generated situations of one-sided economic dependence and an over reliance on Western support.

Drift Toward Autocracy

Most African countries were at least nominally democratic at independence, but by 1990, 60 percent of Africa's sovereign states had experienced military rule. Among the remaining civilian regimes, only seven countries had competitive party systems: Botswana, Gambia, Mauritius, Senegal, Swaziland, Namibia, and Zimbabwe. Dictatorships generally came in two forms: military rule and one-party rule. African autocrats claimed that instead of democracy, African states needed these development dictatorships in order to promote economic growth.

In addition to authoritarianism, various ideologies came to be seen as panaceas that could help states realize their development objectives. Some African states took on conservative ideological positions and practiced a form of African capitalism that promoted free markets with a major economic leadership role for the state. In most cases, this strategy failed and economies stagnated. On the other hand, some states, including Tanzania and Zambia, adopted what came to be known as African populism or African socialism, while still others adopted various forms of Afro-Marxism. African socialism and Afro-Marxism were alike in that they were radical, anti-imperialist ideologies, but they differed in that populist socialism was highly nationalistic. In contrast, Afro-Marxism embraced the Marxian methodology and was international, not nationalistic, in its orientation. Like Afro-capitalism, these two approaches advocated various forms of state planning to achieve economic growth. Ideology and planning came to be seen as magical potions that would lead to self-sustained development. But ideology also tended to mask very serious economic weaknesses and enabled leaders to pursue ill-conceived development strategies without much accountability to the general population or even to the providers of development assistance.

The post-independence period in Africa also coincided with the beginning of the Cold War, in which the United States and the Soviet Union both sought to acquire supportive clients in Africa by providing military and economic assistance in exchange for international political support. These clients adopted different approaches to development based on their own perceptions of the benefits of close association with one superpower or the other. In a few cases, patron states could exert some leverage over the political decisions of their clients because they provided them with development and military assistance.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

For example, upon displacing the United States as Ethiopia's superpower patron, the Soviets wanted Ethiopia's Marxist-Leninist leaders to create a vanguard party to lead the revolution. But this occurred only gradually, and no sooner had the Worker's Party of Ethiopia been concretely established, it was quickly dissolved. In addition, although countries like Kenya and Zambia strongly identified with Western patrons, they often played these patron countries off of one another when it came to pursuing development assistance. Thus, whether the form was direct dictatorship or autocracy veiled in attractive slogans of ideology, the continent witnessed a consistent shift toward authoritarianism in the 40 years following independence.

The Development of Underdevelopment

Instead of championing development, African autocratic states tended to preside over the development of underdevelopment. These countries were constrained in several ways. First, worldwide economic crisis forced donors to reconsider the levels of aid they were providing to African countries and how it was being used. Second, the hardship that African countries underwent during this economic crisis led to popular discontent in one country after another. Instead of responding positively to this unrest, African states tended to isolate themselves from any meaningful channels of popular expression. This later gave rise to the resurgence of civil society, which led to the onset of a second wave of democratization beginning in the early 1990s. The trend at the time seemed to be away from authoritarian rule and toward free market capitalism and liberal democracy.

Yet this trend must be placed in a proper context. By the late 1980s, the ideological competition between the United States and the Soviet Union was coming to an end. The Soviets drastically reduced their economic assistance to African clients and totally eliminated their military aid. At the same time, the United States and its Western allies ended their military support of African parties, which had often been accompanied by a blind eye toward corruption and economic mismanagement. Western donors now emphasized "good governance," free-market capitalism, democratization, and economic assistance to African states, and aid became linked to demonstrated progress in these three areas.