The Post-Colonial State and the Search for Economic Self-Sufficiency

Why did many Africans adopt a socialist path after independence? This is an intriguing question which begs another: Did many Africans adopt a socialist path after independence? And what did they mean by “socialism”? “Socialism” suggests a connection with the European socialist thinkers of the 19^th century, particularly Marx. And while someone living in the cosmopolitan atmosphere of the mid-20^th century might be expected to understand this association, yet the word “socialism” might be used to mean something other than what Marx used it to mean.

Nkrumah, in Ghana, was strongly influenced by European revolutionary ideas, notably those of Marx, yet the way he developed Marxist ideas paralleled the ways of Lenin and Mao, both of whom realized that socialism must have some degree of national character, even while moving ultimately toward a world communistic order. Nkrumah, however, saw socialism in Africa as being specifically the antithesis of colonialism, and from his perspective so long as colonialism was retained in any part of Africa, all of Africa was in peril. Therefore, Nkrumah advocated Pan-Africanism. He also favored industrialization and “modernization”, with the means of production in the control of the government.

Nyerere, in Tanzania, is harder to categorize. He viewed socialism as a means by which to achieve virtue, which he identified with communalism and rural agrarianism or pastoralism. He summarized this view as Ujamaa, a Swahili word implying community cooperation. Nyerere believed that the value people would derive from life in an Ujamaa village would lead them naturally to embrace a socialist ethic which would eventually determine their consideration of any problem. In the transition from the immediate post-colonial independence situation to full socialism, however, Nyerere was a reformer rather than a revolutionary, permitting capitalism to remain so long as it supported the development of Tanzania.

Nyerere's writings are reminiscent of those of John Locke, William Penn, or Thomas Jefferson: intellectuals who found themselves in the right place at the right time to propose their liberal aesthetic as a practical program. Like them, Nyerere is not necessarily a “good” historian, but he is eager to use history, in the sense of a story about the past (Metz says “myth”, but that is perhaps a bit too extreme, though it makes Metz's point well), to propose a moral truth. Like them, Nyerere selects carefully what he wishes to present about the past to support an affective experience in his reader. In my case, it worked: I literally wept when I read Nyerere for the first time, as he seems so sincere, so patient, so good. He is certainly an effective rhetorician, especially to a person primed by years of reading pro-agrarian thinkers.

Uganda's Milton Obote offers a third version of African socialism. He proposed state control of trade, oil, mines, banks, and insurance, and emphasized national mobilization. However, despite his theoretical interest in the common person (his fundamental position paper is called “The Common Man's Charter”), Obote seems to have been out of touch with public opinion, or rather, willing to superimpose his own ideas as against popular opinion. In some cases, such as the Trade Licensing Act, Obote's political position was righteous, if unpopular: in this Act, Obote defended Asian-descent Ugandans despite strong opposition. Obote was concerned to eliminate pre-colonial sub-national power structures, such as that of the Bakala of the Buganda, and his scheme to break this power, through an electoral system which required regional candidates to campaign nationally, is original. Obote's motivation was to create a sense of national identity, but this in itself is not socialistic. Obote's “Move to the Left” might well have steered Uganda to a more orthodox socialism, but Obote's removal in 1971 left the question moot.