University of Venda Discourses on Difference and Oppression

Introduction

 In most African countries, the changes following independence were predicated on the incandescently obvious idea that peace and stability were inevitable. Many Africans thought that oppression belonged to the colonial past. However, following independence, the larger part of the continent was plagued by tensions which rendered the emerging states vulnerable to problems of ethnicity. Most African leaders expressed great confidence in nationalism as a strong foundation for a genuine national identity. For them ethnically inclined politics would give way to a new political culture in which ethnic allegiancies would be eroded as a determining factor in all spheres of life in Africa. To them, ethnic elements were destined to disappear in the face of the social, economic, and political changes that were everywhere at work. Greater access to education, improved communication, and the shifting of people from the slumbering "traditional" rural sector of the economy to the vibrant "modern" industrial sector by the beneficent forces of economic growth guaranteed that ethnic loyalties would fade away.(Vail,1989,1)Unfortunately that happened not to be the case as ethnicity characterised the post independence African states for almost three decades. Ethnic particularism has consequently continued to bedevil efforts to build nations to the specifications of the ruling party for quite a long time.(Vail,1989,2)

Therefore, this chapter endeavours to peer through the cracks of the debilitated African nation with the aim of clearly indicating that the problem of ethnicity is both an African colonial heritage, ethnic and political manipulation. In other words, this chapter seeks to demonstrate that ethnicity is a permanent legacy left by colonialism in Africa as well as a tool that is creatively used by unscrupulous politicians to hold on to power. It attempts to indicate that the role of the state is not only peace making and creating stability; it is both a contributor to, and a manager of ethnic ethnicity and ethnic conflict. This focus is important because various attempts have been made to interpret, analyse and even deny the impact of ethnicity in society. On the other hand, processes of democratisation and economic development in Africa have been obstructed by its persistence. It is a phenomenon that is polarising every sphere of existence as it continues to assume different forms. Hence a need to relook into its continuation becomes a relevant and necessary one as its impact on the socio-economic and political transformation in post-colonial states in Africa is hindered.

In dealing with this conundrum the chapter will first look at some of the features of the colonial states which spilled over into the post colonial states. Thereafter, it will look at the responses of those states in either curtailing or fostering ethnicity. In addressing the question it should be noted that the concept of ethnicity is a very controversial one. Its existence or non-existence is a bone of contention among African scholars and their international counterparts. Arguments around ethnicity range from its total denial as something that is imagined and therefore non existent.

 It is popularly conceived as something constructed, invented or created (Shivji,1978;Barth,1969;Anderson, 1983; Saul,1979;Cohen,1978) On the other hand, many argue that it exists in reality.(Claude,1993; Mare,1993;Mann(ed),1983). The imagination or existence of ethnicity is traced to the colonial era in almost every respect. While attributing its existence to the past remains genuine and relevant, it does not provide any explanation with regards to its persistence in the post-colonial states. Denouncing/or attributing its continuation to false consciousness has failed to provide an adequate explanation for its centrality in contemporary discourse. Hence, it is important to revisit the question.

Defining ethnicity and culture

This chapter does not deny the existence of ethnic groups which are generally known in anthropological literature as from which their current usages are derived to designate a population which (a) shares fundamental cultural values, realised in overt unity in cultural forms;(b) makes up a field of communication and interaction;(c) has a membership which identifies itself and is identified by others as constituting a category distinguishable from other categories of the same order (Barth,1981,200) It does not subscribe to the primodialist notion which defines ethnic groups as natural human communities based on intimate associations with one’s own kind- people shared the same origin and ancestry, adhered to the same body of beliefs and values, adhered to and played by the same set of rules that govern everyday interaction"(Thompson, 1987:50) Instead it views ethnicity as a socially constructed phenomenonas argued by Vail(1989,2-3). It actually defines ethnicity as a process in which cultural features which define ethnic groups are manipulated and politicised for political objectives.

The concept of culture has been used frequently as major determining factor in any process of forging identities. It has been used particularly by western scholars to emphasise uniqueness and wholeness as a distinguishing characteristic among groups of people especially when refering to peoples in Third World countries. What is quite clear is the fact that culture cannot exclusively belong to any particular individual or group of individuals. Culture is information which humans are not born with but which they need in order to interact with each other in social life.(Thornton,1983,24) On the other hand, Stevens(1988) conceptualised it as the collective symbolic and learned aspects of society, including language , customs, conventions, belief systems, value systems and ideologies. Culture is extremely dynamic and the origin of significant, but constantly shifting, permutations of social diversity, frequently referred to (and discursively, ossified) as ‘cultural difference’ (Thorton, 1988)

Various texts on culture (e.g. Alexander,1987; Brah,1992; Donald&Rattansi, 1992,Thornton,1988) show that the permutations of cultural differences inscribed in social life, are harnessed by people to fulfil a variety of functions.(See Duncan’s chapter in this volume) It is the same information that was used in Africa to sow the seed of animosity and division for political reasons. It is especially visible in Africa where culture was used as a basis for stratification with emphasis on the maintenance of the uniqueness of different ethnic groups. That paved the way for the exploitation of cultural differences for political gains. The question of culture cannot be dealt with in detail in this chapter as its major focus is on ethnicity. However, as already indicated culture forms part of the process of the politicisation of ethnicity.

The apartheid system in South Africa stressed cultural differences as basis for its own separate development policies. It infused politics into cultural differences in order to emphasise the need to keep the different cultural groups apart. Thus buttressing the fact of the politicisation of the phenomenon. Hence Weber’s observation that, ‘It is primarily the political community no matter how artificially organised, that inspired belief in common ethnicity.(Barth1969:383) For ethnic conflict by definition involves ‘a dimension of politics resting at least in part on such traditional bases for political association as culture, language,and territory.

Studying colonial Africa

 The study of post independence sub-Saharan African politics shows that there is nothing new about politicised ethnicity. It is during the post -independence Africa that politicised ethnicity was responsible for undoing the neat model of the 1950s era modernisation theory which predicted the death of something called ‘tradition’ at the hands of the protagonist ‘modernity’. Shortly after decolonisation what was then called ‘tribalism’ appeared to rise from the grave, and as many authors in the 1960s and 70s noted, tradition began to subvert ‘modernity’ rather than vice versa. It is the view of this essay that the colonial period forms the basis for the creation of the post colonial problems. It is therefore proper for it to be scritinised and examined as this could shed light on the persistence of ethnicity long after the colonial rule. Hence Ghai etal.(1992,81)suggestion that there is a dynamic quality to ethnic relations which suggests that more attention should be paid to history than is customary in the study of ethnic relations.

During the colonial period a host of social and political reasons for the growing importance of ethnicity in young African states’political life existed. Those reasons included the more intricate geo-political structures that were developed in those states. Many people were scattered all over areas that they never intended to go and stay. Some were made to police areas they had no sentimental attachment to, in this way creating tensions between the different African groups.

The colonial states made provision for the manifestation of what is today known as tribalism. This term is understood to mean that Africans have a basic loyalty to tribe rather than nation and that each tribe still retains a fundamental hostility towards neighbouring tribes. The impression is that their tribal connection would make them unite naturally in order to propagate and defend their interests. Therefore, the colonial powers tried to make nations out of various peoples, but kept them divided through ethnic treatment as a natural phenomenon. However, it was clear that in many instances the colonial authorities helped to create the things called "tribes", in the sense of political communities. This process concided with and was helped by the anthropologists’ preoccupation with "tribes". In turn that provided the material as well as the ideological base of what is now "tribalism".(Mafeje,1971,254) At a practical level the tribal identity among Africans was deepened by the colonial impact as different groups were competing for scarce resources. The competition itself occured within the new states that were created by the colonialists. (Mazrui,1995, 66-67) The concept of tribalism should be explicitly and consistently confined to the dustbin of useless terms. For quite some time it has been used by the white and western scholars to refer to black people in Africa and native Indians in America and Canada. Because of its racial undertones it is a term that is used to justify colonialism and exploitation of Africa. Hence, the talk in colonial literature of primitive, barbaric, uncivilised, pagans who needed intervention from the civilised.

According to Rodney (1974)colonialism blocked the further evolution of national solidarity, because it destroyed the particular African states which were the principal agents for achieving the liquidation of fragmented loyalties. The colonial powers sometimes saw the value of stimulating internal tribal jealousies so as to keep the colonised from dealing with the principal overlords-eg divide and rule.

South Africa

 The former South African government created its own system which consciously fostered and applied divide and rule principles as it worked out a plan to create the oppressed African population as Zulu, Xhosa, Tswana , Sotho, Venda etc. so as to hinder unity against the oppressive apartheid system. This was done through the creation of states such as Bophuthatswana, KwaZulu, Venda and other territories which were the designated homelands of speakers of the Tswana, Zulu, Venda and other languages. An interesting example in this regard was that of the Ciskei homeland where its government under Lennox Sebe tried to legitimize itself through the creation of a wholly artificial Ciskeian ethnicity. The government of Ciskei attempted to create a Ciskeian ethnic group because there was no distinctive Ciskeian language and Ciskeian identity.(Vail, 1989, 395)

On the other hand the nature of the colonial rule was a contributing factor to ethnicity. Such a rule was sustained by the utilisation of the already existing traditional institutions. Divisions were sown among African chiefs by colonial powers to further their colonial interests. Many chiefs collaborated with the colonial administration as they became the beneficiaries of the system. Colonialism did not simply state the existence of tribes; it also reinforced it and separated them. (Fanon, 1982,94) The colonial administrations sought to exploit this vague neo-traditionalism by maintaining localised, subdivided ethnic chiefdoms and by encouraging rivalries, bestowing gifts and granting rebates on taxes. That technique was known as "native policy" and its purpose was to find subservient chiefs who could be used to change their people’s way of thinking. As a result of that many resistant traditional leaders were dethrown and exiled whilst at the same time new conformist one were promoted. Hence Fanon’s point that the colonial system encouraged chieftaincies and kept alive the Marabout confraternities. (Fanon, 1982,94)

The African claim to ethnic particularity, which is especially strong in countries such as Burundi , Rwanda,Kenya etc. is thus readily explicable by local colonial history. It was during that time that the ethnic groups, were to a greater extent fabricated to facilitate political and administrative control. Most of the wars in Africa today clearly reflect ethnic particularity as some ethnic groups are fighting for political autonomy. It is ethnicity, as heritage from colonial period that has left the larger part of the continent vulnerable to the divisive socio-political movements which have sometimes spilled over into full scale civil wars as evidenced in Rwanda. Substantial evidence clearly show that ethnic boundaries are not sustained, more over, because of traditional cultural differences, but because of political differences.(Sharp,1988,80) This actually connects both the colonial and postcolonial states in Africa as the pattern remains relatively stable. Hence it quite difficult and more complicated to distinguish between the remnants of colonialism and the deliberate ethnic problems that characterise the present African states. The state institutions that were inherited from the colonial authority were skewed, biased and distorted the nature of African societies. Hence, the question becomes whether there is ethnic manipulation in the present or whether African states are still hanted by the colonial legacy.

The chapter does not deny the enormously serious problems that could be attributed to colonialism. However, it will be shortsighted not to look at those typifing the continent as a result of the political systems to a larger extent. It is the political framework in post colonial Africa which was carried over from the colonial period that presently serves as breeding ground for continuation of hate driven ethnicity.

The political systems in most of the states on the continent have posed many serious problems which are economic, social,and even political in nature. Such problems could also be traced especially to the latter periods of colonialism. Most African resistance and liberation struggles unified various African groups in their fights against colonialism. In the latter years of these struggles ethnic tensions, invariably came to the fore. That occurred because of the political system of the colonial states where people of certain cultural groups were promoted by their colonial masters to certain privileged position and were provided with education and know how at the expense of others. That created artificial divisions among the African people which resulted in hostility and sometimes in very destructive civil wars. In Rwanda for example the Belgians promoted the Tutsi ethnic group at the expense of the majority Hutus. At the same time the lack of readiness, will and skills on the part of some African leaders drove a wedge among the African people.

Postcolonial ethnic cracks

 The failure of nationalist governments to address the problems created by colonialism where divisions were rife in African societies paved the way for the exploitation of ethnicity by many political leaders throughout the continent. Therefore, with the process of decolonisation taking place those problems which began to manifest themselves became more politicised. The transmition of ethnicity from the colonial to the post colonial states in Africa is a process which has rendered the newly formed states aggressive and sometimes non responsive to the genuine needs and aspirations of the masses. A lack of a genuine process of institutional transformation could be seen as one of the contributing factors for the radicalisation of the ethnic phenomenon. The usage of the already existing colonial institutions with superficial changes proved to be extremely expensive to the cause of building and enhancing a true national identity. That in turn could also be attributed to the fact that the nationalists movements themselves were typified by ethnic tensions in different subtle forms.

When the nationalist movements reached the last mile towards liberation, ethnic tensions took root. Political ethnicity occurred as the nationalist movements which were united by common grievances and common enemies started to disintergrate on the verge of independence as leaders manoeuvred to inherit power. Those leaders who came from larger "ethnic" groups resorted to the usage of ethnic ideology to consolidate their political bases. They gave credence to the notion that ethnicity is the pursuit of political goals -the acquisition or maintenance of power, the mobilisation of a following -through the idiom of cultural commonness and difference. (Sharp, 1988,80) It is of great importance to briefly consider events throughout the continent to actually indicate instances where Sharp’s contention is given credence to.

 Nigeria

 In Nigeria the system of indirect rule by Britain led to the formation of admistratrative and political units which were made to coincide with the locations of three major groups. Regional governments were established under the leadership of three nationalist leaders, Alhaji Ahmada Bello in the north, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe in the east and chief Obafemi Awolowo in the west. All these leaders opted for power in the regions instead of remaining in the central government. Instead they consolidated their power base in their regions which led to Nigeria being dominated by three regional ethnic parties.(Claude Ake, 1993)

 In fact, Nigeria’s political parties were regionalistic and nationalistic in character. For example, the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons(NCNC),mainly for the Ibo and the Eastern Region; the Action Group(AG),mainly for the Western Region and the Yoruba; the Nothern People’s Congress(NPC) mainly for the Hausa-Fulani and the Nothern Region. It was this inter-party rivalry that delayed her independence and left a legacy of regional and ethnic animosities that have drastically and tragically affected the progress of independent Nigeria.(Boahen,1970)

Zambia

 Zambia, at her independence, could not escape the influence of ethnicity either. Only four years after independence (i.e. 1968), the country was faced with a power struggle based on ethnicity. The then Vice President, Reuben Kamanga(an Easterner) wanted to seek re-election. Simon Kapwepwe (a Northener) was contesting. The vote at party level was based on tribal affiliation. Kenneth Kaunda threathened to resign as President because he did not like "tribal"politics but stayed after being persuaded. Later, under Kaunda’s leadership, the ruling party formulated a policy of "tribal balancing"- a system through which cabinet and central committee positions were distributed among the nine provinces of Zambia. Kaunda’s critics later claimed that this policy was retrogressive for it made unreliable people occupy positions only because they were the only ones available from a given province. Ironically it was "tribalism" that helped Kaunda to remain for a long time for some people considered him "neutral" in the sense that his parents having been of Malawian Tonga origin. Therefore, he was seen not to belong to any group or tribe in Zambia. However, having been born and brought up among the Bemba (the largest ethnic group in Zambia) he became president partly because he was associated with the majority ethnic group. His downfall coincided with the period when some influential members of this ethnic group disowned him. (Miti, 1999)

Zimbabwe

 Zimbabwe is another country characterised by ethnic tensions which the nationalist government has failed to deal with. A bitter hostility between the two main ethnic groups exist. Again this could be traced back to the history of the liberation struggle and the nature of the nationalist movement. The infighting in the Zimbabwe African National Union led to the murder of its chairperson, Herbert Chitepo in 1975. According to Ranger(1989) Chitepo’s death was the climax of a struggle for power between the Manyika and Karanga.

The tensions that existed between ZANU under the leadership of Mugabe, and ZAPU led by Nkomo were seen to be of an essentially ethnic nature. People who spoke Ndebele supported Nkomo on the basis of him being a member of the Kalanga, a group that came under Ndebele domination in the 19th century, and on the other side people from the Shona ethnic group supported Mugabe. Such tensions still exist today in Zimbabwe where the groups look at each other with suspicion. Adding fuel to the fire was the manner in which the Mugabe government dealt with the people of Matabeleland making use of the army from other cultural groups. Thousands of people were maimed after troops dominated by the Shonas were sent to quell what was thought to be a rebellion by the Ndebeles in 1983.

Rwanda and Burundi

Of all the factors that the factors that influence the social and political systems in both Rwanda and Burundi ethnicity is the most powerful one. The very future of the two states as united sovereign states is in doubt due to ethnic conflicts. Political order is difficult to establish and social and economic developments are bedevilled by ethnic differences. Ethnic minorities such as Tutsi in Rwanda and Hutus in Burundi suffer have been suffering discrimination and living in fear of the majority.

 Ethnic conflicts in both states always spill over across each others boundaries and that has resulted in an ever present of threat in the Great Lakes region. The situation in Rwanda presents a contradictory character. In terms of the general understanding features of ethnic problems become more visible in instances were the minority is oppressed by the majority. The Rwanda situation contradicts this logic as the majority Hutu were subjected to the minority Tutsi for over many decades. That could be attributed to the Belgian colonialism which fostered both identitities.

The recruitment of the military during the colonial period created a series of ethnic problems as seen in Burundi and Rwanda. Most of the colonial powers believed that certain groups of people were making better soldiers than others. That led to certain groups being dominant in the military which resulted in it siding with the group that was dominant in its hierarchy. Hence, today most armies are ethnic in character and politically active in every respect.

What also helped the consolidation of regional ethnic parties in Africa is the nature of colonial boundaries which the independent states endorsed through the Organistion of African Unity. The colonial borders were drawn in Europe by Europeans who showed no interest on the impact of this process on the social arrangements in Africa. The borders confined peoples who had no common history, culture, traditions and ancestery together in one area, thus creating enormous tensions. Therefore, one of the main problems currently facing leaders of most African states is how to forge loyalty and a nation-state consciousness among their people.

Political Manipulation

 It is the contention of this chapter that ethnicity in Africa was manipulated by the colonial powers in order to sustain their authority over, and exploitation of African people and their resources. At the same time it emphasises that it was inherited as well as perpetrated by some of the nationalist leaders for their gain and hold to power. As such when nationalist leaders failed to address problems at all levels in their states, they used ethnicity to divide and rule their people. State power and institutions began to be used for this particular purpose. The introduction of one party state systems created a conducive climate for the perpecuation of ethnic tensions and conflicts. Ethnic and regional movements rooted in the colonial era were brought to life and came to be seen as attractive alternatives to the dominant political parties with their demands for uncomplaining obedience from the governed. In effect, the revitalization of "tribalism" was structured into the one party system by the very fact of that system’s existence.(Vail, 1988, 2)

What is being observed today is its complete politicisation where different ethnic groups have tendentiously become political formations whose struggles with each other and competing interests have become exclusively conflictual. That is the case because of the fact that some leaders deem it fit to manipulate people.

The recent masacre of millions of people in Rwanda indicates the extent to which political leaders use the ethnic ticket to achieve their objectives. Initially, in Rwanda people grew up together over the years and there was no major conflict between the Tutsis and Hutus. The crisis facing Rwanda is an example of how political leaders have time and again sought to exploit ethnic and linguistic diversity for their own selfish political gains.

 Again in Kenya, President Moi has been and is favouring the Kelenjin ethnic group. That has led to it being hated by other groups. Hence the increase in ethnic clashes among Kenyans. Moi is doing that deliberately so as to frustrate the process of change in his country. The argument he was always making against democracy,namely, that it was going to elicit ethnic clashes appears to be a proof of his quest to cling to power.(Cohen,1988) His government’s intervention in the court case concerning the S.M. Otieno burial was a clear indication of its part in harnessing ethnicity for political gains.

In South Africa just before the 1994 general elections Chief Buthelezi of the Inkatha Freedom Party tried to gain political mileage against the African National Congress by exploiting the so-called Xhosa/Zulu factor. He talked about the development of culture. He even went to the extent of politicising the Zulu culture and the Royal House. Unfortunately for him the Zulu king divorced himself from Buthelezi after elections and opted for a more accommodative approach.

What is being emphasised here is that some politicians who are power, position and privilege seekers are often behind those who stoke the flames of ethnic wars. The principal lesson of ethnic conflicts engulfing the entire African continent is that they are not a historical inevitability but rather a deliberate political artificat. In many instances the African states helped to "verify" the notion of ethnicity in Africa in the sense of political communities. That in turn has provided an ideological base for what is now called "African Syndrome."It is therefore suprising that the very same African leaders who are perpetuating ethnicity argue that it is a product of colonialism and do not say anything about their involvement in the spread of it to their own advantages.

Gabriel Mpozagara, a Tutsi who was formerly Economics and Finance Minister in Burundi wrote in Newsweek magazine "....the poison of ethnic differences cynically nourished by unscrupulous politicians and outside powers -can crush democratic principles, justice and peace." This shows that the problem with ethnicity in Africa involves not only ordinary people but well organised and orchestrated move by governments or some government officials to make sure that they continue clinging firmly to power.(John Edlin,July 1994)

Conclusion

 As already indicated many scholars have viewed ethnicity in Africa as a colonial invention. Quite correctly they pointed out and traced its development through the period of colonial rule. However, other scholars have emphasised the role played by nationalist leaders in making sure that this colonial heritage stays within Africa. This time it does not only serve the interest of outside powers or colonialists but some of the indigenous people and leaders of Africa. The impact of colonialism notwithstanding, it is a fact that some national leaders in Africa with the help from external forces have actually kept ethnicity as their weapon to fight effectively any genuine attempt to take power away from them.

What is also noted here is the fact that ethnicity is something that is learned and can be "unlearned" depending on the motivations of politicians. By the late 1970s, most scholars writing on African politics were in agreement that ethnic identities were socially constructed and consciously mobilised in the service of political projects. Joseph concluded in his work on Nigerian politics after independence that ethnicity did not rush to politics as much as politics rushed to ethnicity.( Joseph,1987) The way in which the African problem has been seen as that which is characterised by ethnicity has added some sense of truth in it. As a result of that ethnic problems are seen as real in Africa. Political divisions and differences have now fallen along ethnic and regional lines and that poses a threat to the process of democratisation in the continent. That in turn makes one conscious of the fact that ethnicity is existing and that it has to be dealt with cautiously. The problem of ethnicity which involves the manner in which it has been mobilised for conflictual politics can not be solved through denial of the phenomenon. Instead, as a social identity it needs to be separated from political mobilisation, manipulation and fanning of ethnic sentiments.

A more accommodative approach to African problems at the moment appears to be of major importance. Such an approach can be realised first and foremost by African politicians themselves. That they can do by not manipulating and focus more on the fragile process of nation building. This can be achieved by the creation of a democratic climate which ensures all the freedoms espoused by liberalism. Those include freedom of association, freedom of expression etc. At the same time the creation of institutions that can consolidate democracy such, Human and Peoples’ Rights Commissions, Constitutional Courts, National Assemblies as well as genuine and independent judicial systems can go a long way into inhibiting the deliberate ethnic politicisation and abuse of cultural and traditional diversities.

Hence Vail’s argument that ignoring ethnicity as embarrassing ephenomenon that should have long disappeared will do no good. Condemning ethnic identities as "reactionary" or divisive will accomplish very little. Instead, granted that it is virtually certain that the nation states in southern Africa are going to continue as institutionalised governing states in tension with those they govern,it will be necessary for the region‘s politicians and scholars alike to work towards accommodating ethnicity within these nation states. And that accepting that ethnicity exists as a potent force, Africans will have to produce political solutions derived from African experience to solve African problems.(Vail,1989,2-3 ) Such an experience will help African nations to confront their own problems instead of being a caricature among other nations of the world. For it is upon recognition and identification of problems where an effective and efficient solution can be found.

It is a fact that Africans and their states have much in common. They share a continental identity and its ecological problems,they share a relations of dependency to the world economy, the problem of racism in the way the industrialised world thinks of them, they share the possibilities of the development of regional markets and local circuits of production and their intellectuals participate through the shared contigencies of their various histories.(Achebe,1988) It is in the light of such a rich history of interdependence that this chapter argues for effective action at present. For talking about or dismissing ethnicity as a colonial legacy alone serves to exonerate and underestimate its usage by unscrupulous politicians in Africa to amass resources and stay in power forever. Therefore, both phases (colonial and postcolonial) clearly indicate each usage and exploitation for the sake of power and subjugation of the African people. Ethnicity as a phenomenon straddles the colonial and post colonial periods and states. A need for an effective and appropriate intervention will go a long way into dealing with such a phenomenon. An action that is pro-active in terms of the identification of flash points where ethnic differences can spill over into carnage and genocide, like in Rwanda.

To continue blaming colonialism for ethnicity in Africa is to deprive Africans of a opportunity to find a cure for this deadly disease. Politicised ethnicity in Africa is a reality. To resolve conflict where ethnicity motivates immmediate behaviour, it will have to be sensitively and self consciously depoliticised and severed from the arena of competition for resources, privilege power and rights in future transformation(Mare,1988) Linguistic, cultural differences, etc are neither permanent nor necessarily divisive if they are restructerd and redirected for the purposes of national liberation and thus in order to form the nation. (Alexander,1987,53)

The onus is with Africa’s politicians to stop abusing ethnicity for political gains. The crisis in Rwanda was simply a tip of the iceberg of what has currently become a worldwide and growing problem, as uscrupulous political leaders have time to exploit ancient ethnic and linguistic diversity for their own selfish political gains. Ethnic groups should not be constitutionally rewarded for their group identity. Hence Mare’s point that it is quite possible that ethnicity as a social identity to be separated from political mobilisation, manipulation and fanning of ethnic sentiments. (Mare,1988)

At the same time ethnicity can not just be dealt with at a political level. The major factor which can actually address it is economics. Economic upliftment and addressing poverty and imbalances of the past can pave the way for such a solution. Where there is poverty there is competition over scarce resources which can easily result in tensions which can ultimately assume an ethnic character. Frantz Fanon puts it correctly when stating that during the colonial period people were called upon to fight against oppression. After the national liberation, they are called upon to fight against poverty, illiteracy and underdevelopment. (Fanon, 1982, 182) More especially with the colonial legacy where certain ethnic groups were deliberately elevated through education and provision of skills by the colonial masters. Maybe, one of the weaknesses or mistakes committed by the national movements was that of seeing the taking of political power as prerequisite to and guarantee of winning the economy.

For them the political/ ideological project of nation-building became paramount and supplanted-or at least overshadowed- the socio-economic features of the crisis. That proved to be extremely difficult and expensive given the impact of colonialism in the continent. Therefore, political economy needs to be taken quite seriously in the process of trying to reverse the colonial damage. As already indicated above politicised ethnicity arises in large part out of frustrated economic and political goals. The next step in depoliticising ethnicity therefore involves alteration of those economic relations which currently give ethnic mobilisation its politicising spark.

In dealing with economic problems, it should be borne in mind that economic intervention should not only involve African states, as there is a strong evidence of the former colonial powers involvement in exploiting resources in their former colonies. States like Nigeria and Angola are rich in material resources. But such riches remain alien to the people in those countries as a result of foreign powers. Ethnic destabilisation has been a tool to protect foreign interest in most of the African states. Therefore, for an effective economic strategies, the will to do that also lies on their doorsteps.

 Perhaps some sort of opportunity enhancement (affirmative action)could have been employed by the nationalist governments so as to bring all the different groups on an equal footing. Effective programmes for such an action would need to be based on a detailed analysis of the specific disadvantages faced by groups at lower levels as well as equally specific and distinct strategies for overcoming them. In other words affirmative action should be seen as a relatively short-term process designed to redress past imbalances and ameliorate the conditions of groups who were disadvantaged on the grounds of ethnicity.

Therefore, a solution to the problem of ethnicity has to be an all encompassing one. It should take place at all levels of the social fabric, that means socially, politically, economically, culturally religiously and educationally. Such a solution has to be own not only by Africans and their leaders. They should drive the process that should involve the international community as an intervening variable as there is enough evidence to that effect.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achebe C. Anthills of the Savanna, United Kingdom, Heinemann Ltd., 1987

Anyang’Nyongo’ P. Popular Struggles for Democracy in Africa, London, Zed Books, 1987

Alexander N. Sow The Wind, Johannesburg, Skotaville Publishers, 1987

Barth F. (ed) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. London,George Allen and Unwin, 1969

Biko S. I write what I like, ed A. Stubbs, London, Penguin, 1987(1978)

Boahen A.A. The Colonial Era: Conquest to Independece, in The History and Politics of Colonialism, 1914-1960, L.H. Gann and Duignan, (eds)

Boonzaier E. & Sharp J, South African Keywords, The Uses &Abuses of Political Concepts, Cape Town, David Philip, 1988

Cohen D.W.& Atieno Odhiambo E.S. Burying S.M, London, Heinemann,1988

Cohen R. Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology,7, 1978

Cohen R. & Middleton, J.(eds) From Tribe to Nation in Africa: Studies of Incorparation Processes. Scanton: Chadler Publishing, 1971

Crowder M. Whose dream was it Anyway? African Affairs 86, no342(1987)

Dubow.S. Ethnic Euphimisms and Racial Echoes, Journal of SouthernAfrican Studies, Vol20 no3,1994

Edlin J. Ethnic Conflict or Ethnic Manipulation? Sapem, July 1994

Fanon F. The Wretched of the Earth, New York, Grove Press, 1982

Geertz C. On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding, American Scientist, 1975, 63,47-53.

Hall S. New Identities. In J. Donald & A. Ratansi(eds) Race, Culture and Difference, London Sage, 1992

 Haller P.M. Historical Narratives as Political Discourses of Identity, Journal of Southern African Studies, vol 20 no 3, 1994

Hobsbawm,E. and Ranger T. (eds) The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983

Illiffe, J. A modern history of Tanganyoka. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979

Jackson, A.D. The ethnic composition of the Ciskei and Transkei, Department of Bantu Administration and Development: Ethnological Publications no.53.Pretoria: Government Printer, 1975

Joseph R.A. Democracy and Prebendal Politics in Nigeria, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987

Lemarchand R. Burundi: Ethnic Conflict and Genocide. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994

Mitchell J.C. Tribalism and the Plural Society, Oxford, Oxford University Press,1960

Mafeje A. The Ideology of Tribalism. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 9,2(1971)

Mamdani M. Ciizen and Subject:Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism, Princeton, Princeton University Press,1996

Mare, Gerhard, Ethnicity and Politics in South Africa, London: Zed Books, 1993

Miti L, Intreviewed by the author at the University of Venda, 20April 1999

Mzala, Gatsha Buthelezi-Chief with a double Agenda, London: Zed Books 1988

Nnoli O. "Ethnicity," Oxford Companion to Politics of the World. New York:Oxford University Press,1993

Ntalaja G.N.&Lee M.(ed) The State and Democracy in Africa, Eritrea,Africa World Press,Inc,1998

 Ranger T. Legitimacy and the State in the Twentieth- Century Africa, Oxford, St Antony’s College, 1993

Ranger T. Missionaries, Migrants and the Manyika: The Invention of Ethnicity in Zimbabwe, in Vail’s "The Creation of Tribalism in Southern Africa", London, James Currey Ltd, 1989

Rodney W. "Colonialism as a system for underdeveloping Africa" in How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Washington D.C. Havard University Press,1974

Sharp J. Can we study Ethnicity: A critique of fields of study in South African anthropology. Social Dynamics, 6(1)

Shils E. Tradition, London, Faber and Faber, 1981

Southall, A. The Illusion of Tribe. In P. Gutkind (ed) The passing of tribal man in Africa. Leiden:Brill,1970

Therborn , G. The Ideology of power and the power of ideology. London. Verso, 1980

Thornton, R. Culture: A Contemporary Definition, in Sharp and Boonzaier’s South African Keywords, Claremont,1988

Vail L. The Creation of Tribalism in Southern Africa, London, James Currey Ltd,1989