DIGESTING THE PAN-AFRICAN FAILURE AND THE ROLE OF AFRICAN PSYCHOLOGY - DIVA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Digesting the Pan-African Failure and the
Role of African Psychology
Fanonian understanding of the Pan-African failure in establishing
oneness and ending disunity/xenophobia in South Africa
Aisha Mohamed
International Relations
Dept. of Global Political Studies Bachelor programme – IR103L
15 credits thesis
Thesis submitted: Spring 2021
Supervisor: John Åberg
Submission date: 17/05/2021
Abstract The study insists on understanding the miscarriage of “Pan-Africanism” and the role of “African” mentality with the help of Fanon’s psychoanalysis “Black Skin, White Mask,” exemplifying the immense colonial, slavery, and apartheid psychological damages experienced by Black individuals resulting Blacks/Africans self-hate and a desire to be “white” throughout the domain of Western culture, ideology, and language. To provide accurate analysis of the “Pan-African” failure to solve increasing blacks-hate-against-blacks/xenophobia in South Africa, concepts othering, mimicry, subaltern from the critical theory (postcolonialism) were applied. Thereupon, Qualitative Content Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis relying on the theoretical concepts were conducted, which underlined how the mimicry process makes Africa's interaction an elite-driven one, oppressing African/subaltern citizens. The findings showed a need for "Black-Consciousness" and Nkrumah's “Pan-African” vision (African unification) to end colonial-mentality generating collective subordination of Subaltern/Africans. Generally, the use of Fanon’s psycho-social analysis has shown that the generational oppression, trauma, and cultural stereotypes continue to robotize and dictate African leaders and the African Union's favoritism of Western “neo-liberal” policies. It is summarized that the “Pan-African” failure is a failure of gradual unconscious “Pan- Africanists” who pledge allegiance to “Western” policies rather than rededicating themselves to durable Radical “Pan-Africanism” which is an antidote to Africa’s self-hate/xenophobia, neo-colonialism, and the robotization of unconscious Africans. Key words: Gradual Pan-Africanism, Radical Pan-Africanism, Neurosis of Blackness, Phobogenic object, Collective-unconsciousness, Abandonment-neurotic, Negrophobia, Black- Consciousness, Political unity, Neo-colonialism, Otherness, Mimicry, Subaltern. Word count: 13, 997 words
LIST OF ABBRIVIATION AFCFTA African Continental Free Trade Agreement ANC African National Congress AU African Union BEE Black Economic Empowerment BSA Black South African CDA Critical Discourse Analysis EEC European Economic Community OAU Organization of African Unity QCA Qualitative/Quantitative Content Analysis SA South Africa SSA Sub-Saharan Africa UNIA Universal Negro Improvement Association UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights UNGA United Nations General Assembly USA United States of Africa
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
2. literature Review ................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Pan-African conceptualization .................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Xenophobia and elitism in Africa.............................................................................................. 6
2.3 Re-conceptualizing Pan-Africanism.......................................................................................... 9
2.4 Postcolonial approaches: Otherness, Mimicry, and Subaltern ............................................ 12
2.4.1 Otherness, Mimicry, and subaltern ..................................................................................................... 13
3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 16
3.1 Critical discourse analysis........................................................................................................ 16
3.1.1 Data selection................................................................................................................................. 18
3.2 Qualitative content analysis (QCA) ........................................................................................ 19
3.2.1 Material/AU protocols ........................................................................................................................ 20
3.3 Theoretically motivated Coding System ................................................................................. 21
4. Analysis............................................................................................................................ 23
4.1 Xenophobia and Africa’s self-hate .......................................................................................... 23
4.1.1 First dimension – Discourse as text .................................................................................................... 23
3.1.2 Second dimension – Discourse as practice ......................................................................................... 24
3.1.3. Third dimension – Discourse as socio-cultural practice .................................................................... 24
3.1.3.1 Mimicry of colonial othering ........................................................................................................... 25
4.2 Disunity and attachment to sovereignty ................................................................................. 27
4.2.1 African Unions gradual Pan-Africanism ............................................................................................. 29
4.3 Essentiality of Black-Consciousness........................................................................................ 31
4.3.1 Nkrumah reversal of colonial othering ............................................................................................... 31
4.3.2 Solutions to neo-colonialism ......................................................................................................... 33
4.4 Discussion: disparities within the Pan-African discourse ..................................................... 35
4.4.1 Miscarriage of Pan-Africanism – An approach towards development? ............................................. 36
5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 39
6. Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 40
Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 45
1. Introduction
Centuries of mistreatment of Africa and its inhabitants by imperialists have produced a "Pan-
African" ideology willing to emancipate and eliminate stereotypes constructing discourses
about the continent. Generally conceived, "Pan-Africanism" is a "movement/ideology" meant
to tell African's to either unite and protect themselves inside a "unification nation" under radical
philosophy or remain fragmented and accept economic/political exploitation,
crimination/subjugation, and foreign domination. Consequently, "Pan-Africanism" contains
three aspects (cultural/tradition, political/institutional, and economic), making it appropriate in
the field of International Relations (IR). Politically/institutionally, the "movement" is related
to "African nationalist” fight for freedom. Economically, it aims to theoretically/politically and
pragmatically liberate/unite Africans and combat “colonialism/neo-colonialism” – that is,
“Western” tactics of "divide and rule" instigated colonial micro-states. Culturally, it intends at
reclaiming Africa's history and dignity (Martin, 2012:57). Therefore, "Pan-Africanism" is not
just a "movement" restricted to one nation rather an "ideology" that impacts Africa's
"transnational” political practices (encourages amplified "regional-level" of integration to
“solidify” African nations “inter-state ties,” manage continental immigration, thus impacts
foreign policies). In this regard, "Pan-Africanism" is linked to IR, in a sense that it aims to
resolve "cross-border issues" to enhance African states interdependence/unity in terms of
"security/economic/political" – consequently justifies Africa's "regional integration schemes"
(Adetula, 2020:6 & Lamont, 2015:12).
Specifically, Pan-Africanism proposes different ways to build "regional governance" as it
encompasses a debate between functional/inter-governmental/gradual and neo-
functional/federal/radical standpoints to reduce the continent's inner and transnational
challenges, either "through political or economic integration" (ibid). Nonetheless, despite the
existence of "Pan-Africanism" to create oneness, the continent continues to exist in a deeply
contested conceptual and intellectual terrain resulted from its endless
dependency/division/self-loathing. This raises the puzzle; "what makes issues, such as
disunity/xenophobia and elitism persist in Africa, despite having a regional organization and
African governments that claim to pledge allegiance to the Pan-African ideology?”
Numerous scholars (Adetula et al. 2020, Forge 2003, Martin 2012) evaluate the tenacity
of African issues while taking a “radical” perspective arguing that economic unity must be
combined by “political unity” as they are inseparable. While others (Sangmpam 2018, Hodzi
2015), following the functional theory of integration, highlight that African nations should stop
1aiming “supra-national” unity instead, they should mainly seek economic integration to secure
development. The debate approves that the "Pan-African" objectives to emancipate and reclaim
African's lost "human dignity" by developing "Black-Consciousness" seem to be stuck on the
path, and solidarity stays out of reach; meanwhile, problems (xenophobia/tribalism/disunity)
keep escalating as "neo-colonialism" and its undefeated weapon "balkanization" endure
unabated (Forge, 2003:55). Reconsidering the miscarriage of “Pan-Africanism" and the
incapacity of African leaders to promote oneness raises the research question; "How can we
apprehend the failure of Pan-Africanism to establish oneness and solve issues, such as
disunity/xenophobia in South Africa?"
Analyzing the presented dilemma, the thesis allies itself with radical Pan-Africanism,
accentuating the need for "Black-Consciousness" and radical/federal/neo-functional Pan-
African state that does not function "as an instrument" where the interest of African "elites"
and former colonial powers are verbalized (Martin 2012:120). The study argues that the
miscarriage of "Pan-Africanism" is related to gradualist's support/internalization of colonial
scripted images of Africa. Gradualists usually highlight the presence of different
“language/culture” making the construction of the "United States of Africa" (USA) unfeasible;
however, they fail to consider that both "sovereignty" and "regionalism" did not serve the
demand of Africans; therefore, "radical solutions" must be contemplated so that Africa is
allowed the possibility of implementing "policies" that reflect its history by emboldening
African leaders to apply “African solutions,” unorthodox to "imperial" principles.
The different subsections of the thesis include a literature review of “Pan-African”
discourses/xenophobia, followed by an interpretation of postcolonial concepts. The section that
follows introduces methodological discussions. In the analysis section, three types of African
psychology where two constitute the failure of “Pan-Africanism” are presented; firstly,
Africans invalidating their history due to lack of “Black-consciousness” shown in South Africa
(SA) case; secondly, Africans calming to pledge aligned to “Pan-Africanism” while upholding
colonial imposed-rules that indirectly govern Africa’s political institution; thirdly, Africans
that developed “Black-Consciousness” and escaped from “collective unconsciousness.” Lastly,
the thesis relates the “Pan-African” failure to the failure of current/gradual “Pan-Africanism”
that pelage allegiant to neo-liberal policies instead of an Afro-centric “Pan-African” ideology
that negate colonial-mentality and the negative connotations assigned to Africans.
22. literature Review
Initially, this section analytically engages with current literature in African, IR, and political
studies that examine the failure of African elites to improve the life of Africans by using diverse
IR theories. The literature is governed by various scholars that aim to grasp why African nations
are following the path of economic disorder, suspension of human rights, political unrest, and
a breakdown of order that leads towards widespread “anomie/instability.” For instance, the
collected literature is separated into three segments; firstly, literature that targets to allocate a
“correct meaning” to the conception of "Pan-Africanism"; secondly, literature that highlights
the necessity of overcoming Africans continued desire for asking "white" men to lead their
policies thus replacing it with radical "Pan-African federal/supranational" nation that debunks
“Western” agenda and outperforms the imprudent inherited micro-states; thirdly, literature that
re-conceptualizes the contemporary "Pan-Africanism" and proposes solutions to
disunity/inferiorization/self-hate within African communities. These sub-sections in the
literature reflect the primary debate in the discourse of "Pan-Africanism" between radical and
gradual "Pan-Africanists" and the quarrels over how the continents' "inter-state integration"
should be mediated (Harshe, 1988:374).
To recall, the emergence of "Pan-Africanism" by most scholars is related to the African
American intellectuals (W.E.B. Dubios and Marcus Garvey) who played a dominant role in a
series of "Pan-African" congresses in Europe and the United States between 1900-1945 which
unites all Africans. Namely, Garvey's primary intention was to promote/advocate for “African
Nationalism” and “self-governance” with the motto "Africa for Africans" as he established the
“Universal Negro Improvement Association” (UNIA). However, in the Manchester Congress
in October 1945, a new-style of “Pan-Africanism” labeled radical “Pan-Africanism” developed
to unite Africans against the "oppressors," with the "new liberation movement throughout
colonial Africa" (Adogamhe, 2008:9-11).
The philosophy of Continental "Pan-Africanism" is attributed to the African “nationalist”
Kwame Nkrumah – hence with his support the ideology shifted from being "romanticism" and
"idealism" to one that involves pragmatic politics. However, After Nkrumah's version the
movement splintered into two crucial ideological blocs, and the "inter-state politics" in Africa
during the establishment of the Organization of African Union (OAU) was portrayed by
growing contention between Monrovia/gradual and Casablanca/radical group of states (Harshe,
1988:374). Notably, the Casablanca progressives were led by Nkrumah (Ghana) and backed
by Algeria/Guinea/Mali/Congo/Tanzania/Morocco/Ethiopia – as they vehemently resisted
racism/colonialism/neo-colonialism thus regarded African nations relation with the European
3Economic Community (EEC) as a "neo-colonial" setup to impoverish under-developed nations
thus sustain colonial privileges/mentality in Africa. Therefore, Casablanca's radical "Pan-
Africanism" favored political unity/integration, leading to economic development, thus solving
African issues.
In contrast, the Monrovia conservatives were led by Nigeria and supported by most of
the francophone states and South Africa, Mauretania, Liberia, and stood for the protection of
the colonial inherited state, thus defended the idea of non-interference by expressing the need
for “Western” cooperation in the process of promoting development. Consequently, they took
a gradual/functional approach arguing that Africa's integration should be recognized through
economic cooperation, and this was recapitulated in the speech of the Nigerian prime minister
at the African summit conference of the OAU in Addis Ababa (ibid & Asuelime et.al 2015:77).
After a prolonged disagreement between the two groups, the radicals suffered a defeat by the
graduals. Despite the defeat, Nkrumah's radical idea endured and later on been carried by Al-
Qadhafi, who has "called for an immediate creation" of a formal federation labeled a "United
States of Africa" as the only option to fight ignorance/xenophobia/disunity/poverty confronting
the continent. Again, this was rejected by gradual states that favored a “European Union's
model” (Adogamhe, 2008:18). Despite the multiple defeats faced by radicals, the idea of
"political unity" is still relevant and are discussed by various scholars willing to comprehend
African issues.
Within the extensive Pan-African debate, the thesis associates itself with radical "Pan-
Africanism," employing concepts of "otherness, mimicry, and subaltern." The upcoming
sections highlights the selection of methodological and theoretical notions, which will be
introduced steadily when underlining the constraint and shortcomings of current literature,
allowing the thesis an opportunity to include what has been overlooked by previous researches.
2.1 Pan-African conceptualization
The "Pan-African" ideology/movement/philosophy embodies a history of African resistance,
hence finds resonance in “Africans'” encounter with foreign/European aggression (Adepoju et
al., 2018, Adetula et al., 2020, Nantambu 1998, Murithi 2007). Namely, the authors specified
above are quick to underline African intellectuals' failure to "institutionalize Pan-Africanism"
and the requirement for a “distinctive” political model that can reverse imperialism's
inconsistencies, along these lines, rebuild inherited state structure.
Adetula et al. (2020:6-7) intend to ascribe standard meaning to "Pan-Africanism" by
employing "comparative historical research" and "quantitative data" gathered from the “World
4Bank” to approve that "Africa's Continental Free Trade Agreement" (AFCFTA) would not help
Africa gain ownership of its economy – as the economic integration would only be beneficial
for nations with advanced transport infrastructure while it negatively affects poor nations
(Zimbabwe/Botswana). According to the scholars, "Pan-Africanism" is a rallying point for civil
society activists and African leaders during the struggle for independence. By implicitly using
postcolonial theory, the authors take a radical standpoint emphasizing that "Pan-Africanism"
is a geopolitical project and ideology/movement for liberating/uniting the African people
around the globe, meanwhile only "through unity can be forged an independent and
strengthened economic, social, and political African destiny." That being so, "African unity"
is relevant economically and epistemologically; hence, the AFCFTA cannot be actualized if
inequalities/disunity within the African community are not eradicated through “political unity.”
In line with Adetula et al. (2020), Adepoju et.al. (2018), argues that “Pan-Africanism” is
an “emotionally colored” concept that occurred as a result of “partiality," thus hard to assign a
correct meaning to it. Adepoju et.al. (2018) utilizes "historical, descriptive, and analytical
methods," focusing on “inter-state analysis” to examine the role of the African Union (AU)
and the current place of “radical Pan-Africanism" by employing regional theories “neo-
functionalism and functionalism.” For Adepoju, "Pan-Africanism" epitomizes the entirety of
the historical/political/spiritual and cultural of "Africans worldwide" to neglect/defeat "neo-
colonialism," thus secure Africa from dismemberment. Despite the above-mentioned authors
historical and theoretical definition of "Pan-Africanism," Adepoju (2018) offers in-depth
analysis by relating the debate of "Pan-African" intellectuals between supporters of
"supranationally" (radicals) and advocators of "inter-governmentality" (graduals) to the
regional theorists Ernst Hass that favors "federal/neo-functional" approach and David Mitrany
that takes an "inter-regional/functional" stance (Adepoju et.al, 2018:108,117). The author
concludes that Nkrumah and Hass's “supra-national” collective work implies a process
whereby all national political leaders are supported and expected to shift their "national
loyalties," political interests to a shared “supranational state” capable of solving common
problems while demanding "jurisdiction over the pre-existing nation-state."
Murithi (2007:4), contrary to others, “process traces” the history of Africa and the
formation of AU, hence, agrees with above-mentioned scholars that "Pan-Africanism" occurred
“as an act to respond” to African's struggle/oppression/exploitation and continues to be relevant
since the contemporary exploitation/neo-colonialism takes a new advanced form (paternalism)
were former “colonizers” display as a "helpful hand" with a divine intention.
5In contrast to the scholars above-cited, Nantambu (1998:565) employs a historical
research method and postcolonialism to investigate the origins of "Pan-Africanism" and
falsifies the aforementioned authors' definition of the concept. As stated by Nantambu, defining
"Pan-Africanism" as a movement born outside Africa by Afro-American intellectuals or a
“radical consciousness” ideology born inside Africa by Nkrumah during Africa's independence
is a dysfunctional, ahistorical, and “Eurocentric” understanding of "Pan-Africanism."
Therefore, it is crucial to analyze Africans' struggle from a proper unifying, holistic, and
historical “afro-centric” approach that focuses on "Pan-African" nationalism rather than "Pan-
Africanism" to reject the Eurocentric analysis that relates the start point of the movement to
Henry Sylvester Williams, Garveyism, racism/slavery/capitalism. Essentially, "Pan-
Africanism" is indeed Africans struggle against external/foreign
oppression/domination/occupation/exploitation; meaning that Africans' struggle did not start
during slavery and colonialism; instead, African individuals rejected various diverse foreign
invaders, both Europeans and non-Europeans thousands of years ago. For example, Egypt
resisted "Shepred Kings" in 1783 B.C. and Syrians in 666 B.C. That being said, it is illogical to
define "Pan-Africanism" as a “racial” concept whose history began after Africa's confrontation
with imperialists.
Despite some scholar’s lack of in-depth historical analysis (Murithi 2007, Adepoju 2018,
Adetula et al. 2020), most authors above involve “AU’s role in regional integration” procedure
and the challenges related to AFCFTA neo-liberal economic integration to apprehend the
correct definition and the left spirit of “Pan-Africanism” thus view Nkrumah’s neo-
functional/federal/radical approach as the rational ideology which overthrows
nationalism/patriotism in favor of continentalism and people-centered approach.
2.2 Xenophobia and elitism in Africa
In comparison to the scholars named earlier, others (Neocosmos 2008, Kosaka & Solomon
2013, Hodiz 2015, Forger 2003, Croucher 2010, Ukwandu 2017, Chandoke 1984) outline the
formation of elitism and nepotism in post-colonial Africa and the failure of African elite/leaders
to abandon gradual inflammatory rhetoric thus recognize the “interests” of their citizens.
To start with Kosaka & Solomon (2013), Croucher (2010), Ukwandu (2017), and
Neocosmos (2008) that mainly focus on the cumulative “xenophobic” attacks in SA, highlight
that the attacks are a result of African National Congress (ANC) minority Black/white ruling
elites’ failure to transport “the freedom gained in 1994 from the Apartheid” into economic and
social emancipation. However, despite the end of colonialism, political/economic “Apartheid,”
6endures, as most black SA’s experience disillusionment; hence, their frustrations are directly
projected onto “African foreigners” who are scapegoated and inaccurately accused of
exploiting jobs/resources which ought to benefit dis-advantaged BSA citizens.
Kosaka & Solomon (2013), with the use of Frustration-Aggression Theory, they relate
xenophobia to intensified unemployment/poverty/globalization/migration. By carrying a field
observation/interviewing and integrating with both local and African migrants, the scholars
conclude that different political parties use “anti-migration discourse” to attract voters, thus
establish a discourse of “otherness” as black SA’s start viewing “migrants/Africans” as a source
of their deprivation. A similar argument is brought up by Croucher (2010:645), as he relates
xenophobia to the increase of illegal migrants, hence identifies South Africa as a nation full of
ethnic, linguistic, racial, religious, and cultural segregation constructing (self and other). In
regard, the country needs to work towards building a civic nation where membership and
entitlement are based on “loyalty” to the state rather than ethnic/religious groups.
Notwithstanding, when using indicators (poverty, increase of migration, unemployment)
as the causal mechanisms of "xenophobia," many questions are left unanswered and puzzling.
This is because those indicators can only account for the perpetrators' frustration, desperation,
and powerlessness but cannot explain perpetrators' specific target group; "Why only
black/African foreigners are the target group if xenophobia entails hatred against migrants?"
Although the scholars above predominantly interpret xenophobia through economic and
globalization challenges, they overlook historical factors making BSA citizens target
Black/Africans/foreigners despite the presence of other foreigners/migrants. Other scholars
Ukwandu (2017) and Neocosmos (2008:591) focus on political ideologies rather than economic
indicators and relate the failure of the ANC party to the miscarriage of current "Pan-
Africanism." Hence, argue that the gradual ideas and the racial/national/political stereotypes
adopted from colonizers/apartheid have been a complete failure to actualize the majority
inhabitants'/BSA dreams. In fact, "Pan-African nationalism" aiming to solve echoing disunity
issues (Nkrumah) was rejected as soon as the neo-liberal Western policies entered the continent,
and neither the idea of "Ubuntu, I am because you are” nor the "African Renaissance" has been
taking beyond the condition of being slogan. Similar argument is further reaffirmed by
Ukwandu (2017:52), “process tracing” the history of South Africa while engaging with
“postcolonial theory” emphasizing the ANC failure and the danger of single party
syndrome/despotism in postcolonial Africa, which become an instrument of power, coercion,
and privilege in the hands of the national elites/bourgeoisie. Therefore, xenophobia is related
7to the ANC's inability to overcome historical issues due to a lack of reflection and imitation of
apartheid policies.
Again, Hodiz (2015) confirms the failure of "African elites" using a quantitative survey
from the "Economic Intelligence Unit (2016) index" and claims that both South Africa and
Zimbabwe have similar ruling elites that disregard the well-being of their populations.
Moreover, the ANC party created a "Black Economic Empowerment" (BEE) policy with the
help of minority whites in increasing available opportunities for majority blacks. However, the
BEE simply enabled a small black elite while most blacks remain suffering poverty/inequalities
(ibid:200 & Ukwandu, 2017:45). Likewise, African leaders (Mugabe) that regarded
corporations with the West as "neo-colonialism" approached a "Look East Policy" and
mimicked "China's development approach" to protect sovereignty and leadership position. For
instance, the "money gathered by the finance ministers" is not used to improve the conditions
of least-privileged populations as elites "use aid and the financing from China to fund projects
that prop up their political support rather than for development" (ibid:200).
Notably, Forger (2003), unlike others, utilizes "a multidisciplinary analytical and
discussional approach" to address "why things have gone wrong for postcolonial Africa" and
what escalates disunity/marginalization issues. With the use of concepts (self-determination,
African-consciousness), the scholar declares that the failure of "Pan-Africanism" resulted from
the failure of "Pan-African" forefathers to solve the disagreement between radical and
gradualist African intellectuals centered on economic transformation and nation-building,
which jeopardized continental unity. Nevertheless, African problems and the miscarriage of
"Pan-Africanism" should be recognized as an "outcome of colonialism and neo-colonialism,"
as well as a "failure of leadership among African elites" (Forger, 2003:62). Subsequently,
African gradual leaders' refusal of a "politically united continent" while supporting "Western
neo-liberal ideology" has contributed to the configuration of voiceless/inactive African civilians
in political decision-making. This is due to the "black-elite burden" that mimics "Whiteman's
burden" through "neo-colonialism," which amplifies the benefits of the "West" while ignoring
the rights/interests of Africans.
In respect, the scholar argues that Africans took a gradual path prioritizing nation-statism
governed on European Model, which for them seemed like a "real" liberation. However, in
practice, it was not a real liberation as it did not reflect Africa's history hence placed the
continent in a new period of indirect subjugation to the history of Europe; therefore, it is logical
arguing that liberation instituted its denial as Africans find themselves in a wave of self-hate
and animosity. Consequently, Africans need to revisit their past as it will motivate, inspire, and
8reawaken “African consciousness” – and a new aspiration of "Pan-Africanism" in intellectuals
and elites' minds to respond to the innumerable concerns engendering disunity in Africa (ibid).
To do that, African’s must reach a common understanding of what “Pan-Africanism” ought to
be, and civilians should be included to reach a specific doctrine with clearly defined objectives
and goals.
Chandoke (1984) traces the history of the state in Africa and offers an original and
insightful analysis of "the nature of dominant elite in Africa" to show how African nations are
dominated by a robust, dominant sector and overpowering bureaucracy, which is a throwback
to the early colonial state. Hence, African nations are based on domination policies that create
hegemony/control over the "subject" populace, together with its crucial "militarized character"
and the system of "irreplaceable" single-party "power" and force coupled with it. Consequently,
the formation of the ruling elite in Africa is related to former colonial powers' pact with
African/gradual/elites to accept imposed colonial states and indirectly control pos-colonial
states with development projects directed outside in line with Western interests (ibid:167-176).
Thus, there is a visible "contradiction" between interests located and arranged in the "core
nations and their local elite allies" on the one hand and the majority of the "African population"
on the other hand. Chandoke concludes that colonial inheritance took the form of a "highly paid
bureaucratic class" that established new African/elites who govern, emphasize nepotism, and
control resources; suitably, transferring colonial political power was handled systematically.
To recap, literatures in this section demonstrate the failure of gradual "Pan-Africanism"
to abandon the colonial logic of domination as well as predatory and exploitive politics that are
inimical to the development of “African/political Consciousness” and unity – as African elites
have a duty to respect and stop “trading-off” the demands of the African people.
2.3 Re-conceptualizing Pan-Africanism
Very limited radical/realist and gradual literature pay attention in understeering the ability of
"Pan-African" idea undertaking by AU/African states to sustain continental development or if
there is a need for an alternative "Pan-African" policy and a reconfiguration of African states
(Okhonmina 2008, Momoh (2003), Sangmpam 2018, Martin 2012, Kasongo 2003).
Momoh (2003) process traces the "Pan-African" philosophy with the use of
postcolonialism and argues that "Pan-Africanism" has come to occupy a "statist platform"
undertaking by African elites, thereby became a perverted and nebulous ideology that expresses
neo-liberal policies, which is an outcome of failure. For Momoh, there is a need to move away
from the current "Pan-Africanism," the unpatriotic "territorial nationalism" of comprador
9modernizers, and the “political hostility” that insists on blocking people's creativity,
complicates identity, thus belittles the echo chamber of African issues (ibid:54). In other words,
Africans must deviate away from “Western” policies; hence, seek political unity (federal united
Africa) that favors a bottom-down approach to the integration process and prioritizes
promoting development and unity.
Similarly, Okhomina's (2008) traces the origins of "Pan-Africanism," but unlike Momoh
(2003), he takes an afro-pessimistic position while applying the “power transition theory.” He
argues that establishing a "United Government of Africa," will not eradicate inequality as the
existence of "regional powers" are inevitable like current gradualist “regional powers”
(Egypt/Nigeria/South Africa) that favor a top-down approach (economic integration) rather
than political unity and people-centered procedures. Hence, radical “Pan-Africanism” is fixated
in the past due to its focus on "racial similarities," which prevents Africans from taking
advantage of the globalizing world's benefits (ibid:95). Eventually, "Pan-Africanism" must be
revisited; meanwhile, its demand of unity/impartiality is not in tune with the "realist
hierarchical power structure in the international system.” According to Okhomina, three factors
are accounted for the failure/unattainability of African unity:
1) Lack of consensus and clear shared ideological structure/definition regarding the
notion of "Pan-Africanism.
2) Lack of “trust” and poor integration between African communities as they are
reluctant transferring their “loyalty to a supranational" institution.
3) Marginalization and exclusion of the voice of subaltern populations in decision-
making.
A similar standpoint has been undertaking by Sangmpam (2018), using “quantitative content
analysis” re-emphasizing the impracticality of actualizing radical “Pan-Africanism” due to
North and Sub-Saharan Africa's (SSA) language/climate/culture/geopolitical differences and
North Africa being far more developed than Sub-Saharan Africa. The scholar remarks that AU
cannot eliminate African issues by aping EU policies, and "Pan-Africanism" based on political
unity cannot be attained due to cultural/political differences. Therefore, SSA needs to create
unique organization, dubbed "SSA-centered Unifederation," with its exceptional “sovereignty”
qualified to address SSA's complex issues; thus, AU and the "Pan-African" call for “continental
unification” should be “buried” beside Al-Gaddafi.
Where we disagree with the authors of afro-pessimistic stance, however, is when they
fail to account for other alternatives (Afro-centric) policies, else then imitating the “West,”
which can make Africa develop. Hence, Kasongo (2003:60), “guided by historical analysis,”
10provides an alternative approach while associating himself with a radical “realist Pan-African
state” which has a solid defensive military eligible to protect its inhabitants hence contributes
to the political/economic improvement of (United States of Africa). For Kasongo, the
failure/collapse of “Pan-Africanism” is connected to the “African mentality” (Africans
regarding themselves “inferior” in relation to the “white/colonizers”), thus internalizing the
idea of “dark continent invented by imperial” powers. By opposing afro-pessimistic scholars
Kasongo (2003) and Martin (2012:134) express that splitting Africa into Sub-Saharan and
Trans-Saharan Africa is a microanalysis of “Pan-Africanism” which perpetuates the European
divide/balkanization of Africa and denies the vital “revolutionary” variable (struggle) within
the notion of “Pan-Africanism.” Namely, limiting the “Pan-African struggle” to cultural and
geographical differences equates playing “into the hand of the colonizers,” hence enhancing
colonizer’s constant indirect exploitation and control.
Martin (2012) asserts that Africans must redraw the “African map” to construct a united
Africa instead of the 55 nonviable states. Hence, this can be done by either creating sub-
regional states or a "United African Nation." Martin observes that "political restructuring of
the continent is important and priority that needs to be addressed before economic reformation
can bring about the desired result." Put merely, the key to eliminating African predicaments
does not lie in economic growth/integration but political unification (ibid:63,103,139). Further,
Martin agrees with Kasongo (2003:92): that the "greatest obstacle to Africa's development and
democracy lies in the artificiality" of the colonial imposed borders that divide people sharing a
common history/traditions/culture, and experience. Therefore, the "balkanization of Africa" is
the leading cause of Africa's predicaments. The solution, says scholars, resides in forming a
"Pan-African federal state" based on "Pan-African" nationalism/identity/society which allows
African citizens to attain “Black-Consciousness” and become aware of their full “civic
obligation” and “rights.” The authors conclude the analysis by proposing five procedures
capable of forming a "Realist United State of Africa:"
1) Stop aping "European experience and their unilateral development" as Pan-
continental unity would not "ontologically" make progress out of "Western"
institutions/history/culture.
2) Revisiting the past and developing "social consciousness" to abandon colonial
mentality to reunite African's that are currently divided by colonial borders.
3) The need for a past revisitation to re-form Africa's policies in relation to its
history/culture to promote self-consciousness.
114) Understanding that African development is not about “economic growth” rather
political unity.
5) Decentralizing the power of despotism to establish a new "Pan-African" ideology
relying on participatory and people-centered democratic approaches.
As shown in this section, Africa’s history of resistance is prevailing as the “Pan-African” quest
is yet to be fulfilled due to gradualists advocation for the state-based elite, which upkeeps
colonial powers in Africa without the colonizers need to be physically present in the continent;
thus, Africa is being kept in the prison of endless history of oppression. As demonstrated
earlier, (United Africa) can be constituted from various alternate federal arrangements by either
restructuring the map or forming one Africa by diminishing colonial imposed borders.
However, most of the literature above relates the downfall of "Pan-Africanism" to Africa's
balkanization and the inconveniencies of free-market capitalism while relating elitism and
xenophobia to immigration policies/globalization, and the increase of socio-economic ills.
This entails that the literature overlooks the correlation between the ideology's failure and
the increase of "xenophobia/elitism" – as they fail to have historical backdrops. Secondly, the
literature rushes to characterize the attacks against "African foreigners" in SA as “xenophobia”
by utilizing economic indicators, thus disregard the history of "colonial" group relation;
therefore, the thesis contributes what has been ignored by looking into the psychology of
Africans gained from colonialism/apartheid with the help of a theoretical approach draws on
Fanonian and Spivak. To produce in-depth analysis and demonstrate that "xenophobia" and
current "Pan-Africanism" contain characteristics of "hatred" and features of "Afro-phobic" and
self-contempt, Fanon and Spivak's theorization are needed to analyze the discourse present in
African leaders' speeches thus produce a comprehensive answer.
2.4 Postcolonial approaches: Otherness, Mimicry, and Subaltern
Postcolonial theory is a reflective theory that provides critical thinking towards the ongoing
rejection of "colonialism" and its repercussion. The theory is chosen as it explains the
continuation of colonialism labeled as "neo-colonialism," allowing for an alternative to
traditional IR theories' "Eurocentric" interpretation of “Third World” predicaments. Although
the theory contains diverse thinkers (Homi Bhabha, Gayatri Spivak, Edward Said), it faced
criticism for lacking a well-balanced/reliable “African” contribution into the “paradigm”
(Mondal, 2014:2965). Therefore, Spivak's utilization of “Subaltern" and “Othering” will be
supported by Frantz Fanon’s "Mimicry/othering" and Kwame Nkrumah’s (speech) to provide
an “African” postcolonial/Pan-African input thus examine "African issues" from an "afro-
12centric" perspective. For instance, concepts "Otherness," "Mimicry," employed by Fanon in
"Black skin, white masks" (1952) and supported by Spivak’s theorization of
“subaltern/othering” in her book "Can the subaltern speak" (1988) are found to be valid. The
following section will present the relevant postcolonial concepts.
2.4.1 Otherness, Mimicry, and Subaltern
In fanon’s conceptualization, "Otherness" is constructed by the "colonizers" as it produces the
"uniqueness" of the “West.” Henceforth, the West/colonizers' sense of self, more precisely, is
a construction made through colonizers' sense of differences from "Others" (Blacks/colonized).
Furthermore, being white/Western reflects beauty/civilized/prosperous/rational/intelligent
while being black equates ugly/savage/uncivilized/unintelligent (Fanon 1986: 47,52). In "Black
skin, white masks," Fanon bitterly deals with the mechanics of "colonialism" by examining its
psychological impacts; thus, argues that since white people as colonizers assigned
"undesirable" derogatory terms to blacks' rites, habits, and customs as uncivilized/barbaric, the
categorization still makes "Whites" superior and normal humans. Simultaneously, the "Negro”
remains the abnormal "Other" that need to be made “normal” by the slightest interaction with
the whites; thus, justifies dehumanization/slavery/colonialism. For instance, Blacks/Africans
internalization of their inferiority established a traumatic belief, torment, and "phobogenic
object" (whites finding blacks as threatening and revolting concurrently), which made black
people strive to escape the negative traits ascribed to them by “mimicking” the
language/habits/customs, and behaviors of Whites/Western– to be seen as normal humans.
Fanon stresses that some blacks mimic the colonizers/West to the extent of negating the whole
of their heritage/culture/race. Therefore, "Negros” develops “Neurosis of blackness” (blacks
hating their Blackness), believing that the only way out from the "inferior position" is
mimicking, attracting, and seeking the approval of the white men in everything. In chapter five,
"The fact of blackness," Fanon proclaims that "the white world, the only honorable one, barred
me from all participation. A man was expected to behave like a man, I was expected to behave
like a […] Nigger” (ibid:50,57,114). He expresses that black people have no chance to
determine what they are by themselves; meanwhile, the "ontology" of black people is made
unattainable by the "whites" – as they decide the existence of black people and what blacks
are.
Fanon's analysis of the generational trauma and psychological damages experienced by
colonized individuals, particularly blacks, is relevant here, as it will help tackle what has been
13overlooked by previous literature (the unmanaged colonial mentality carried by blacks). In line
with Fanon, black people “internalized” colonial discourses by identifying themselves as
"inferior" when encountering “whites.” This is shown in the thesis when reflecting on how
first, "Pan-African" ancestors (graduals), due to lack of "Black-Consciousness" distrusted their
intellect and "Blackness" by mimicking colonizers' neo-liberal ideology hence inherited
colonial state despite the availability of other alternatives (radical Pan-Africanism). In respect,
mimicry interprets African's inability to seek psychological and cultural liberation by
employing an "inward-looking ideology" aiming at "decolonizing the mind" (Martin 2012:73).
Put differently, the lack of "Black-Consciousness" means that African's experience "false-
decolonization" (thinking that they are free and independent while they undergo "neo-
colonialism" and mental-enslavement).
As stated earlier, SA can be seen as a country that experienced “colonialism/apartheid”
hence internalized the colonial discourse of "Othering" by imposing ill-treatment to other
Africans – and we-image established by colonizers shifted to we-they, where "we" signify
South Africa and "they" implies other/Africans/subaltern/inferiors (Matsinhe 2011:299). As
emphasized by Fanon, black people experience "abandonment-neurotic" since whites
abandoned them as their humanity/ontology was questioned; hence, it created the need to
mimic "Whites" and fear their "Blackness" due to the inability of finding a way to determine
their "ontology" (Fanon 1986:72). In the case of SA, the thesis argues that black South Africans
(BSA) experienced "Negrophobia" developed by Whites/colonizers. However, to escape from
their inferior position, small black elites started seeking recognition from colonizers by
mimicking colonizers' behavior; this generated the formation of minority black "elites" given
special recognition and ruling the country, which left the majority of BSA's remain carrying
the heavyweight of inferiority. In regard, most BSA's experience "abandonment-neurotic" as
they got used to being abandoned by minority whites and black elites who were granted a better
position (Matsinhe 2011:296). Due to the internalization of Black inferiority, black SA's
designed self-loathing emerging from “Neurosis of blackness” (dream to become white) which
often displays itself in "self-destructive" behavior, involving "contempt" and annihilation of
those who resemble them the most. Hence, blacks' hate against blacks can take different forms,
but in the thesis, it is shown in two ways: gradualist “Pan-Africanists” denying the existence
of a uniquely African way of development distinct from the West. Secondly, black SA’s
incompetence of viewing minority whites/black elites as the underlying cause of their
disenfranchisement.
14Spivak's concept of subaltern (lower class) shows how superior class/colonizers' produce
its "subject" (other/blacks) and "internalizes" blacks' inferiority, which puts blacks in a
powerless/subaltern/voiceless condition; hence, it makes colonial subjects imitate whatever the
colonizer does as the colonizers' ideologies are regarded to be the norm. Therefore, for Spivak
and Fanon, the colonizers' "self-identity" is inseparable from the colonized identity as it only
comes into existence in relation to the latter. However, Spivak uses "subaltern/other" in her
book to describe how former colonizers and national elites in India subjugate Indian women;
nevertheless, its relevant in the case of SA – as the majority of blacks have historical been
silenced by “colonizers/imperialists” and are still oppressed by multiple oppressors’ core
nations, and local white/black elites in SA (Spivak, 1988:78).
Following Fanon's search for "self-consciousness" and cure for colonial mentality,
Africans/blacks must not be confronted by the dilemma, "turn white or disappear" while
upholding the inferior/subaltern position; instead, Africans should develop "Black-
Consciousness" to be able to cognizance possible ways to determine their ontology/existence
(Fanon, 1986:100 & Martin, 2012:121). The chosen postcolonial concepts have not yet been
applied in the combined context of "Pan-Africanism" and the raising “xenophobia” in SA;
however, Kasongo (2003) and Nantambu (1998) pointed out the need for “self-awareness” to
resolve disunity in Africa. By employing postcolonial concepts, the thesis contributes to the
ongoing debate of the miscarriage/failure of "Pan-Africanism" to resolve African issues by
focusing on “xenophobia” in SA and the undealt colonial psychological damages of Africans.
The above-named theoretical notions are also relevant in analyzing "African" leaders' speeches,
especially as language plays a central role in constructing "Otherness," we-they images, and
"collective identity." The following section discusses the relevant methods and shows how the
"self "and "other" are constructed in positive ways where "African unity" is encouraged to
confront colonizers/others (Nkrumah/AU protocols) and in negative ways where Africans
divide themselves (Cyril Ramaphosa, Mugabe, and Motsoaledi).
153. Methodology
The methodology part focuses on producing a reliable answer to the research question, "How
can we apprehend the failure of Pan-Africanism to establish oneness and solve
disunity/xenophobia issues in South Africa?" For instance, the Post-colonial concepts stated
earlier have motivated the study's choice of critical discourse analysis (CDA) and qualitative
content analysis (QCA) as a method. Additionally, in the next section, data quality will be
outlined regarding the preferred four speeches of African elite leaders and three AU protocols.
Furthermore, theoretically-driven coding systems and the material's defect and strengths while
being self-reflective will be presented as a foundation for the upcoming analysis.
3.1 Critical discourse analysis
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) critically aims to uncover the correlation between "text,
ideology/power/language” and social reality. The role of CDA involves examining the
construction of discourse (Pan-Africanism) while resisting “dominant discourse/power”
(West/colonizers) through the "linguistic" system (Halpern & Heath 2017:336-9). The
difference between CDA and other discourse analyses is that CDA functions as method and
theory; however, in this study it will be used as a method. It views language as the basis of
investigating “social phenomena” and revealing power imbalances. Discourse analysis as a
whole is an “interpretive study” that explores how “social phenomena” (in this case, African
unity/Pan-African discourse) are discursively constructed, hence intends at discovering the
cause of specific behavioral outcomes by investigating political actors' motivations (what
motivates African leaders’) speeches. Accordingly, since the study investigates the miscarriage
of "Pan-Africanism," it requires an interpretive understanding of African leaders/AU
behavior/ideas/believes to provide reasons for acting in a certain way.
CDA, as an interpretive study, views realities and "social phenomena" as something that
is constructed/unfixed; therefore, ontologically, it takes a "constructivist" standpoint
recognizing that the world we experience/practice is "subjectively" constructed; hence,
individuals’ behavior is best recognizable by interpreting the meanings that encourage them to
take or prefer certain behavior/action (ibid:41). Furthermore, CDA is a valid method capable
of showing how a group of people/individuals in a particular society use language to
accomplish specific goals (to unite people or disunite). Although there are different versions of
CDA, the study employs Fairclough's "social-discoursal" approach, which has been
predominant in CDA in the last decades (Fairclough 2003:16). Fairclough suggests a "three-
dimensional" approach to support analysts to realize the “interconnectedness” between
16You can also read
