site-wide search

SomaliNet Forums: Archives

This section is online for reference only. No new content will be added. no deletion either...

Go to Current Forums ...with millions of posts

A Reply To The Economist

SomaliNet Forum (Archive): General Discusions: Archive (May 2000 - August 2000): A Reply To The Economist
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

PaPa

Unrecorded Date
This article is a Rebuttal to the Economist's Racist article on Africa.

The essay “The Hopeless Continent” is not in itself of any interest. It is worded in tired clichés, and the kind of impoverished thinking that takes one example to be the rule, not just for a country, but for an entire continent. What is perhaps more worthwhile is to ask: Why does someone feel the need to write such an article, and why does a reputable magazine like The Economist publish it?

There has been a trend in contemporary British journalism which has grown stronger in the past 15 years since Margaret Thatcher succeeded so well in dividing and fragmenting British society. It is characterised by mean-spiritedness and arrogance. It looks to find scapegoats elsewhere in the world for feelings of disappointment and frustration which stem from collapse of social climate in Britain.

However much the West trumpets its own values and ideals, it cannot hide its own failures. A recent report published by the British Office of National Statistics reveals that in April 1998 about 3 million children were living below the poverty line in families with incomes of less than 60 per cent of the medium income.

During the 1980s income inequality grew alarmingly. The top 10 per cent saw their incomes grow by 38 per cent over the decade, while the bottom 10 per cent only saw incomes rise by five per cent. Nor is this trend confined to Britain. All over the Western world, the gap between the rich and the poor mimics that between “First” and “Third” World countries.

The writer of “The Hopeless Continent” makes too many unqualified assumptions. He assumes, for instance, that the models of growth and democracy that exist in the West are the only valid ones. But in the last US presidential elections, less than 50 per cent of eligible voters bothered to turn up to vote. In the recent much-heralded campaign for a new mayor of London, only one in three voters showed up. Voter apathy is widespread, because large swathes of the electorate have concluded that politicians the world over obey their own agendas and not those of the people.

In the USA, only big money talks. Thus Mrs Elizabeth Dole, a Republican member of Congress with many years of experience, was forced to withdraw for lack of funds, making it even more unlikely that the US will ever elect a woman as president. The battle has now narrowed to Gore and Bush, the latter a real danger to the world, a man whose intellectual calibre is so low as to make Reagan appear scintillating by comparison. A man who cannot tell you the name of Pakistan’s prime minister, and who has pledged to put big business well ahead of any environmental concern. And this is what the greatest democracy on earth spawns.

In many parts of the world, centralised systems of government - however democratically elected - are found to be more and more out of touch with the people’s needs, and “single-issue” groups are gaining ground.

Organisations like Greenpeace or Amnesty International, which offer a world view based on respect for the environment and for human rights rather than the old-fashioned divisions between “left” or “right”, or even Tony Blair’s amorphous “third way”, hold sway.

The fracas seen at Seattle last year and in Washington earlier this year, when activists protested against World Trade Organisation policies of globalisation, which are universally damaging to the poor, is proof that there is serious dissatisfaction with the way things are going.

This is more prevalent in the rich West where young people are disgusted with McDonalds and Sainsburys taking over the world.

All over the rich West, levels of mental illness - depression particularly - are growing at astronomical rates. In the USA, more than half the population is obese, a sign, if one were needed, that there is a deep - seated malaise, even in the most powerful country on earth. Those politicians who respond to calls to halt immigration fail to notice that the exit rate is larger than those wanting to enter the country - in Britain at least. Unprecedented numbers of skilled professionals are opting to leave their homes and work somewhere - anywhere - in the Third World because they no longer feel able to make a contribution where they are. The most alienated of all are not aware of their condition, but live desperate, spiritless, mechanised lives.

What the Economist writer totally leaves out of account is the craven, self-serving behaviour of the colonialists. The continent they found, he claims, was “already exhausted by predatory bands and wars”. The Europeans found it easy to conquer. But everywhere the white man went, death and devastation followed. South America, Canada, Africa, Australia. The native peoples living in those continents were tricked, fooled or battered into submission because they had never encountered people with no code of conduct other than to destroy and exploit.

They had no arms against moral depravity. The Economist mentions such rulers as Mobutu Sese Seko who plundered the resources of his country, but he could not have succeeded so well without Western support, and he had an excellent model to follow in the shape of the Belgian King Leopold II. To me it often seems as if Africa is a woman who has been beaten over the head, raped and kicked. Now that her attacker thinks it is high time she came to her senses, he tells her to pull up her socks. He does not realise that he has broken her spirit.

He blames Africa for continuing to look to Europe and America even 40 years after independence for aid, goods, services and guidance. But it has been the dictates of these powers that have insisted on Africa growing cash crops for the benefit of her ex-colonial masters. And it is the combined wisdom of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund that has imposed austerity measures on African countries, so that lazy idle peasants finally pay for the basic education and health services they use. Needless to say, they cannot fork out the necessary fees, and so everywhere the quality of life is deteriorating, and young people in particular are wasting away from boredom and neglect.

I taught in a large rural secondary school in Zambia for two years and witnessed for myself the efforts people made to get children to school, and to help family and friends when they were in trouble. I have heard far more complaints from wealthy, spoilt Europeans than from my African colleagues who simply got on with it, working night and day to supplement their meagre salaries as teachers, baking bread or running taxis.

The writer complains of Africa’s “poor crop of leaders”, of those in positions of power “satisfying the family first”. He fails to understand that the much-criticised “tribalism” of Africa can be a galvanising factor as well as a destructive one. It continues to give people a sense of identity, history and culture, though it has been greatly reduced in its influence. Young people in Zambia and Kenya speak their own languages with pride, and still know traditional songs and dances as well as the American stuff that gets fed to them through the media. And all over Africa, the churches are full of people - young and old - whose faith keeps them going in difficult times, and whose social structures still encourage generosity and selflessness. And what of the insidious “old boy network” that exists in both England and the USA and which ensures that Oxbridge continues to rule?

I bet my bottom dollar that the Economist writer is himself a product of the privileged Eton-Harrow-Oxbridge gravvy train.

The writer has no interest in alternative models of government. I suspect that the article was written out of the kind of desire to merely provoke what characterises the worst aspects of the British Press.

A recent piece in Le Monde Diplomatique cited the forgotten country of Somalia where, although warlords reign in terror around parts of Mogadishu, other areas have “re-invented themselves”.

Since the elders of Borama clan elected a president in 1993, they have had a new national assembly, a constitution, a state with a minimal administration which works, and a free Press.

Africa can re-invent itself. It is not the hopeless continent that an imported magazine article would have the world believe.

,

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Xaali

Unrecorded Date
Superb PaPa!!
Tell them like it is, but also tell us how we failed to be accountable.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

PaPa

Unrecorded Date
Xaali: that article was sent to me by a colleague, It was one of the hundreds of article that flooded the Economist in Response to the piece they did on Africa last Month.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Thursday, June 15, 2000 - 10:41 am
PaPa
Excellent write up. I would disagree with only one point - that on globalization. Globalization is inevitable. The worlds economy has in fact been going global for centuries and is simply becmoing more so. It's natures way. Countries that isolate themselves from it are doomed. That's why it's a farce to blame the world bank or the IMF for loan policies. If political leaders couldn't get loans from the IMF they would turn to private banks. Of course, after sufficient defualts perhaps private banks would shut off the tap which is really what is needed. A friend of mine in Kenya once said that if they could simply not take any more loans, it would hurt at first, but ultimately the country would benefit - and I believe he's right.

I have followed Somalias development with keen interest. There has been some excellent examples of economic growth in areas where there is some stability, but security must always come from somewhere. Lack of acountable government (and you are right, the Somalis need to develop their own style - not copy someone elses) could be a real problem that hinders growth. At its root, corrupt government can not be tolerated in a place that needs all of its capital to move through the economy and not get spirited out to some private bank account.

Your musings on the culpability of the west to Africas dilemas have a grain of truth, but I think you overstate the case. Many Asian countries had similar histories and overcame them. So there has to be more to the problem than simply legacies to a colonial past. Still, I look forward to reading more of your writings. They are good food for thought. If you want to see a movie with an unconventional line that I think you would find amusing I recomend Bulworth.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

JOHN WOO

Monday, June 19, 2000 - 12:42 pm
"Tribalism of africa can also be galvanising factor as well as destructive.It continues to give a sense of identity, history and culture, although it has been greatly reduced in its influence"....u bet your life it has Tribalism has continued to destruct africa and corrupt the nations of africa.These attributes u say that is is brought by tribalism.everyone has a culture.The western have their culture yet they are not inexplicably driven to civil war.Tribalism has done more than merely "reduce the influence".Papa with all due respect: i have not read this article you so adernmently oppose but from your quotations :assuming it was extracted from a potion of the article seem to be nothing short of truth.Infact the only source of your outrage is merely your resentment towards an outsider writing an article about africa which i am sure you think is entirely not warranted.But let me remind you that we are in a nation where freedom of press confined and restircted.Give the guy a slake eh PAPA!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

JOHN WOO

Monday, July 03, 2000 - 11:23 am
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS IS NOT CONFINED AND RESTRICTED!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Duran.

Tuesday, July 04, 2000 - 10:14 am
john woo.

I think you need to get a life and save us from your stupid white race nonsense.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Tuesday, July 25, 2000 - 04:46 am
Duran
I could be wrong here, but John Woo sounds Asian to me - not white. And he has a point about Freedom of Speech. Alas, what to do about that annoying First Amendment.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Durgal

Sunday, August 06, 2000 - 02:50 pm
Good job Papa!

I used to subscribe The economist and I told them directly my reasons for discontinuing it years ago. No question about Darwinian legacy of Lady Thatcher, and the neoclassical influence that is fueling globalization narratives which the article in discussion seems to fit. However, as Xaali posed "How do we fail to be acountable?" I would argue the economist is right in their conclusion that the present rulers in Sub-Saharan Africa are simply worthless. There are a great many examples that would lead one to start self reflection. What the •••• is wrong with SSA? Tell me, forget about every day idealogy creation of The Economist.In Addition your anology of low voter turn-out in the West is simply misguided. The situation is not as bad as it is in SSA. There is a philosophical question that needs answering if Africa wants to turn history around. What makes man self-reliant, being responsible not only for himself but his community, and what would lead someone to be unaware of things around him, including his future? Simple, but very deceptive question. I would suggest two practical sources for the latter part of the question. Colonization and Decolonization in the context of social science not everyday usage of the terms.

For Woo.

The last thing that causes Africa's problems is tribalism, ask any intellegent social scientist if you have doubts. In addition, Clanism,tribalism,class,religion are not inherently conflictual.They have been sujected to extensive exploitation since any one could remember and will continue to be that way until Anti-Christ appears in Somalia.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Durgal

Sunday, August 06, 2000 - 03:56 pm
Mad Mac

I do not believe that globalization is unvoidable. Certainly its narratives have succeeded in creating psychological global villige. However, it is wise to look things more critically and see if neoclassical gimmicks has truth to it. The success of globalization will depend on two factors, its compatibility with social gains,and the type of environment in which it interacts with. For the latter a number fators will be critical, local diferences in terms power structure, economic organizations, the relationship between particular state and various domestic actors including religous groups. What many people don't understand is that when neoclassical economics takes over a country it first changes the basic structure of the economy,and then it creates an environment in which crucial economic decision are insulated from the masses. Great example is Latin which completed Structural Adjustment programs. This is what awaits most of SSA, especailly those who are participating SAPs. If you mean in this sense that globalization is inevitable you may be right. But about countries who rejected IMF/World Bank loans who are trying to survive and have succeeded so? Another problem for golabization is that it basically undermines Islamic religion and when people see the destructive implications of globalization they would immeadaitely reject. In other words globalization is challenging the most powerful ideology on the earth, Islam, whose power rests on its simple tenents. It is no Accident that Islam not only survived from centuries of colonization where Asia,Latin America, India were either brought to their knees or submitted to West, but it contributed more to mankind's walfare than any other civilization including the one we have now where social reality has become the Reality.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Sunday, August 06, 2000 - 10:27 pm
Durgal
Good write up. Can you please clarify for me some ebbreviations I'm not familiar with. What is SSA (Sub-Saharan Africa?) and SAPs? Also, I would never postulate that globilization is tied to the IMF or World Bank. I think any country is part of the globalization of economics if they participate in global trading.Thus North Korea is out, China has one foot in a closed economy and one in the global, most other countries are in it all the way.
I can see how some people would postulate that globalization (in an information, not economic sense) undermines Islam because it allows unfettered access to information - including information Islam says is sinful. On the other hand, it also allows Islamic voices to be heard where they might otherwise not be. And if the message is as powerful as you claim, then un-Islamic information will be ignored by believers.
I would disagree with your interpretation of colonialism and Islam. Many Islamic countries also exhibited their own forms of colonialism (notice that the official language of Morocco is Arabic and not Berber). Who colonized Saudi Arabia for eons? The Turks. Furthermore, The Brits and French did succeed in colonizing large swaths of Islamic territory. That they did not seriously attempt to convert the populace speaks of good common sense and self-interest. Nothing like getting a local uprising going than to piss off the local population on a subject like religion - which is totally unimportant compared to economic enterprise.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Xoogsade

Sunday, August 06, 2000 - 10:28 pm
Clanism isn't and never was the problem. The problem was alien political and law-making concepts that were imposed on the African people. When you look at Somalia today, you see the futility of trying to establish an old-style Western-ish regime to the detriment and exclusion of the grassroots political movements and organizations informed by our religion and native cultural institutions. The people won't have it because for too long the people did not see themselves in their political institutions.

Whatever system comes out in Somalia would be one that reflects the reality of Somali life, not the conception of some elitist in some western university and refugees who fled to the safety of distant shores. These are the people who decry our traditional Somali political structures in favour wretched foreign concepts that have no relevance for Somalia and Somalis. The conceit and arrogance of these people is overwhelming with their easy assumption that the tried and true system that worked for Somalis and indeed sustained them all these centuries can be so easily dismembered and a new system inherited from scheming imperialists imposed in its stead.

The motives of the imperialists is easily divined but are we to make of the rest of these dupes who champion and used to champion democracy, bolshevism etc while they were busy sybolically "burying" tribalism?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

durgal

Monday, August 07, 2000 - 02:33 pm
Mad Mac

Yes it is Sub-Saharan Africa and Structural Adjustment Programs. Globalization narrative which pretty much took over most of the media is not a big threat to the Islamic faith, or any other indigenous system unless it has other dimensions such as economic and political realities. The current globalization has it is beginning in the International Financial Institution,IMF and World Bank. It is simple, International trade requires finance which in return requires order and suitable environment. How this is achieved? simply through preferred set of economic prescriptions, most noticeable SAPs It entails deregulation, changing local economic organization, and much more integrated "world economy". Two things will follow this: change in political organizations where capitalist elites will discover their "enlightened self interest" and therefore defend it from any local discontent.Second these countries will never be able to develop for their own since they are dependent on the wisdom of international economy. My concern here is the creation of these economic and political organizations and what they mean to the faith. The two can never coexist, it is impossible.
For the discussion islam and colonialism. I was emphasizing the formers unshakable ground. In addition, your example Morocco is misguided. Morocco simply reflected Western concept of nationalism not a Islamic organization. Look the world we have today is not a collection of unique countries, rather we have collective identity. In this sense colonialism is revolutionary, especially it is ability in hijacking the imagination of colonized people as well as creating social realities.
Finally about converting others, you are right it is was not wise to push conversion. However, there was this guy, a European missionary who used to wonder around in Somali in the hope of converting Somalis. After years of hard work he came up empty and left Somalia but not before he got the nick name of "Miskiin" or Harmless. So if someone cannot convert Somali nomad how does he convert others. Furthermore Christianity as a religion has some serious authenticity problems.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Durgal

Monday, August 07, 2000 - 03:34 pm
Papa

I have some facts for you. For the past six years Somaliland have been depicted as a good example for the rest of Somalia. You seem to enforce that perception in your article. I may agree with you as the best way to go about the creation of new Somalia. However,the Somaliland admistration will eventually collapse unless it embraces Islamic law and its political system. Some would argue is it feasible? I would argue you have no other choice and the sooner the better. Two other practical alternatives.First, Look at shirka Jabuuti it is clear attepmt to return somalia to the age of clan reasoning which will poison young independent Somalis and therefore we will not be able to break that cycle. Second, even if we managed to have secular state it will be retarded one, just like the rest of Africa, no innovations, and most of all you will be dependendent on Westeren wisdom which pretty much has one word for you "Consumption". Those Muslims who have been advocating secular state have never asked themselves, Does the Islamic community have priorities or expectations that are similar to that of none-believer? The answer to this question should be the point of departure from any discussion whether is wise to have a retarded African tribal organization or imitate western Democracy.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Tuesday, August 08, 2000 - 12:04 am
Durgal
My point on Morocco was that it was occupied by force by Arabs and then colonized. It's inhabitants were converted - maybe not by force, maybe by persuasion, but they were conversted. The official language imposed was Arabic, not Berber which was the native language. In fact, Morocco is a classic case of Arabization of a non-Arab land.
And the Turks colonized large swaths of Arab territory for centuries as well as large swaths of Christian territory. Again there were conversions (forced or otherwise). While the Europeans may have been the best at the colonization game, they certainly aren't histories only players.
As for Globalization, this is a trend that's been going on for thousands of years (The caravan and the ship got the ball rolling). It's simply becoming more widespread now. To connect the IMF and World Bank as a precondition to "Globalization" is to take a narrow view of the definition. I do believe that African countries in particular should cease to take loans in any form from th IMF and World Bank principally because countries that tke the loans then use the money irresponsibly and receive no return on their investments (because there's too much graft). Then they're just left with debt. Most of the restructuring required by the IMF are good ideas however. Any reasonable observer has to concede that African political leadership shares much of the blame for Africas economic woes because they have bred an environment that makes serious investment and economic growth very difficult. In the event, today to remove oneself from world trade, as North Korea has done, is to condemn oneself to poverty in the extreme. So like it or not, globalization is inevitable, both in an information sense and in an economic sense.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

Dont Hate Me Dispise Me

Tuesday, August 08, 2000 - 09:38 am
I fail to see the relevance of these deiscussions,what are you people? the new age intellectuals wanna be's?It is one thing to offer views and opinions and another to express expertise on the sprit of 'somali name'!I think i am disgusted,and quite bored at the display of bold outburst.Nevertheless,i'm backkkkkkkkk!! LOL!Say.....can someone recommend me a nice Saloon?LOL!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  

MAD MAC

Tuesday, August 08, 2000 - 11:03 pm
MAD MAC
DHMDM - Well, I'd have to know what city you are in. And since I don't - I can't recommend a nice saloon. But I know this cool place in Hamer that has belly dancers and everything. It's down by Lido beach.

Feel like posting? Pleaase click here for the list of current forums.