Some African states have earned their popularity by regularly appearing on front pages of newspapers, not for scientific or industrial advancement, but for beeing human butchers for the massacres of innocent citizens, famine and the general under-development. Is warfare endemic to Africa? Some African leaders have shown that African lives are not worth defending. They clung tenaciously to power with regard to human lives.

The likes of Liberia, Uganda, Burundi and Sudan have once again attracted the attention of the world, because tens of thousands are dying daily. Varied causes have been advanced by scholars and some social commentators, to account for the instability on the continent.

Ethnicity has played a major role in some of these African conflicts. Some claim they are of a superior ethnic group, and should therefore play a leading role in all sectors of the economy. Those ethnic groups considered to be at the bottom of the ladder are more often excluded from participating in the political processes of the states concerned.

History has it that, there once flourished great kingdoms and empires on the African continent long before the advent of the Europeans on the African soil. During this period in questions, Africans lived happily under various leaders.

Kings and Queens ruled Africans and various ethnic groups co-existed under one ruler. They considered themselves as one people, perhaps with a common destiny. For instance, various ethnic groups came under the Asante Empire. The fact that most of these ethnic groups were conquered did not rule out peace in this once great empire. It can be said about the Mandika, Dahomey, Oyo, Congo and Luba empires among others.

The struggle for ‘a place in the sun’ between 1880-1900 resulted in the carving out of Africa among Europeans at the Berlin conference. The resultant effect being English, French, Portuguese or Spanish speaking states on the continent.

The partition of Africa brought in its wake, different perceptions about people who once lived happily under one ruler. This arbitrary partition of Africa has brought the division of ethnic groups. The numerous arbitrary lines drawn on the continent by the British French, Portuguese or Spanish compelled people to see each others as different people, even though most speak the same language.

Some African leaders have exploited this historical mistake to the chagrin of all. Ordinary citizens who are perceived as threats to their stay in power are sometimes disqualified on the basis that, such individuals are ‘foreigners’- the cases of Ouattara of Ivory Coast and Dr. Kaunda of Z ambia.

The word ‘foreigner’ was employed in Ghana some time past. For instance during the election campaigns of 1979 and 1992, it was alleged that the late Dr. Hilla Limann and former president Flt-Lt. Jerry John Rawlings were ‘foreigners’ and did not fit to rule Ghana.

The late Dr. Hilla Limann who represented the People’s National Party (PNP), an offshoot of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah’ s Convention People’s Party (CPP), was alleged to be a ‘foreigner’ from Burkina Faso.

Incidentally, this allegation of one being a ‘foreigner’ has been made against most Ghanaian leaders including Dr. Nkrumah, Dr. Busia and General l. K Acheampong. Some claimed that Acheampong was a Nigerian and Rawlings is a Scotsman. Indeed the Supreme Court ruled that Rawlings was a Ghanaian.

Cote d’Ivoire, once presented as the pride of Africa, is constantly making headline news. Cote d’Iovire has lost its immunity against military coups. The country is divided along ethnic and religious lines.

Former president Henri Konan Bedie, who unable to lead his country, decided to exploit the concept of ‘Ivoirite’ to eliminate his main challenger, Alassane Dramane Quattara. ‘Ivoirite’ or ‘Ivorian-ness’ is a concept under which politicians have encouraged indigenous Ivorians to feel superior to, or at the very least distinct from, Ivorians of mixed parentage, and especially ‘foreigner’.

Bedie’s ‘Ivoirite’ concept failed and plunge this once peaceful country into military coup. Alassane Quattara, opposition leader of the Republicans’ Rally (RDR) was ruled ineligible to run for the highest constitutional position of the country. For the fact that he once worked and studied under the nationality of Upper Volta (Burkina Faso). His nationality has become a subject of debate. His critics say Cote D’Ivoire, should be for Ivorians not for ‘adventurers’.

Those who reject Ouattara are mainly Christians from the Southern part of the country. They say he is not a true Ivorian but a Burkinable and many southern Christians are hostile to the idea of a Northern Muslim president. And after it was announced that Ouattara was constitutionally disqualified, one church had to celebrate “victory” service and they used biblical readings to buttress the “victory” celebration, which said, “Strangers should not be made kings in Israel”. Of course, it is obvious who this stranger is in Cote d’lvoire.

It is disheartening that for selfish reasons, these leaders are combining their efforts to rule Cote d’lvoire on ethnic and religious lines. The Dioula and Muslim ‘north’ is perceived as the fiefdom of Ouattara, the Bete ‘West’ for Gbagbo and ousted president Bedie hangs to the Baoule ‘centre’.

It is on record that the founding father of the country, the late president Felix Houphouet Boigny encouraged several millions of Africans, 50,000 Lebanese and 20,000 French nationals to settle in Cote d’ Ivoire.

The contributions of these Africans in the cocoa plantations and industry, made Cote d’lvoire the pride of Africa. The current breeds of Ivorian politicians are practicising xenophobia, hitherto unknown to this state. One ethnic group feels very superior over the others and therefore wants a blank cheque to rule the country till thy kingdom come!

Another typical case in point involving nationality was that of former president of Zambia, Dr Kenneth David Kaunda. Dr. Kaunda ruled Zambia for 27 years. In 1997 he attempted to make a comeback. His nationality was the theme for debate.

The politicians then claimed that, the man who ruled them for 27 years was not Zambian, but a national of the state across the European drawn line, Malawi. Eventually he was arrested on manipulated charges of attempting a military take-over. Today, Dr. Kaunda, a freed man is one of the most respected elderly statesmen on the continent. And of course the Zambians are proud of him as the founder of the nation.

From the above examples of Rawlings, Ouattara and Dr. Kaunda, I am tempted to prose this question. In this African context, who is a ‘foreigner’? The whole argument of nationality is intertwined with African politics.

African politicians, who most often than not know that they are very inefficient and will be voted out of office, play on the ignorance of the electorate by making reference to certain ethnic sentiment. Ethnicity and nationality should not be issues of political campaigns. African politicians should address the real issues on the ground; endemic poverty and under-development.

In my opinion ethnicity is not a problem, it is only made a problem by the manipulation of the politicians for their selfish ends. And any ethnic group, which feels left out of the political process, will resist and make the state ungovernable for whoever is at the helm of affairs. Cote d’lvoire is a clear example, the rebels controlled more than half of the country before the Marcoussis Accord was implemented.

All the countries on the continent were built up by the union of various peoples who should be proud of their heritage. Each ethnic community has its language, customs, beliefs and habits, which cannot be easily erased from their members. Africans must recognize the existence of, and seek accommodation with, diverse cultural groups, and ethnic loyalties within the various states.

Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, one of the greatest Pan Africanist leaders that ever lived, have less regard for colonial boundaries. In 1962 Nkrumah and Yameogo of Burkina Faso symbolically knocked down some boundary pillars put there by the colonialists.

The concept of Nation-State is fast fading away in Europe where it was created, come next year, the European Union will boast of a membership of 25 states, 15 new addition. Other regions of the world are committed more than ever to achieving their integration. However. it is still fashionable in Africa to refer to a neighbour as a ‘foreigner’ based on boundary lines.

According to the Jamaican scholar, Horace Campbell, “the reality that all over Africa there are leaders who fight to defend the boundaries that were carved out at the Berlin Conference, demonstrate the extent to which these leaders are divorced from the lessons of the Pan African contributions of the decolonisation period” this observation becomes pertinent in the context of the bloody and senseless border war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Again, as the late Walter Rodney argued “Pan-Africanism has been so flouted by the present African regimes that the concept is dead for all practical purposes”.

African solutions should be found for conflicts in Northern Uganda, Liberia, Burundi and Sudan. Divisions based on racial, ethnic or religions difference have been detrimental to the development of the African continent. Africa stands today as the continent of the future. Africa did achieved goals of such magnitude in previous centuries, including slavery, the end of colonization and Apartheid. Efforts should not be spared to conquer the numerous wars and the HI V/AIDS pandemic raging the continent.

I conclude with the lyrics to a song entitled ‘African’ by the late Jamaican musician Peter Tosh. “Don’t care where you come from as long as you are a Blackman you are an African.

Don’t mind your nationality, you have got the identity as an African”

By George Bob-Milliar -(A National Service Person) obbmilliar@yahoo.co.uk

Volume 11, No. 156 - Thursday, August 28, 2003