COLONIALISM
…a failed system of government that continued
Colonialism was its own undoing. The colonizers set up systems and structures to keep the natives under control. The system failed under pressure from (informal) leadership in Africa. Formal systems were outclassed by informal organization. Why did leadership in Africa take up a failed system? Unfortunately Colonialism set the target and the limit for leadership in Africa. The immediate problem was to take over the system. It was a regime. A limited regime. Not the best regime. Leadership in Africa set out to take over the regime. A failed regime. It would take many years before leadership would realize that the regime needed to be changed. It was not meant to support local growth and prosperity. Its structures were in place to support foreign investors it was a vehicle of domination. The passion, pain, power and privilege of the colonial period were not shared out equally among the people of the land.
Perpetuating the regime would continue to support the dominion. Africa and Leadership in Africa needed a new beginning away from the colonial context. Many constitutions in Africa were not the work of leadership in Africa. We speak from a position of humility because we have the privilege of hindsight. The effects of colonialism, so ably fought by leadership in Africa, were to last much longer than was envisaged.
Transformation does not come about by “re-staffing”. It takes more than this to create and successfully manage organization change. Colonialism together with its colonial structures and paradigms needs to be consigned to the museum of leadership.
Much as the departure of colonialism was heralded it did serve to introduce a new system of governance to Africa- Bureaucracy.
DECOLONIALIZATION
The effects of colonization are still with us today. Many African nations still hold on to the apron strings of their colonial masters. This seems more engineered than is necessary. Did Leadership in Africa “decolonialize” or did the colonialists hand over? This is an interesting question because at the outset of rebuilding one would assume that all the (oppressive) colonial structures and systems that were put in place by the oppressor would have been removed to facilitate the establishment of a new order. As history shows this did not happen in entirety and in many cases the colonial structures and systems remained intact. They were simply handed over to Leadership in Africa. Including constitutions.
The rationale for retaining these structures was perhaps that since systems had already been setup there was no need to re- invent the wheel? But this was failed technology. The choice to continue with the system had immediate ramifications; the incoming leadership was immediately in need of assistance from the process manufacturers for operational manuals and systems maintenance instructions. The expertise was not immediately available. The foreigners were retained to ‘teach, train and transfer power” to the locals at a fee. Through this avenue leadership in Africa surrendered the initiative and the former power was allowed to stay on. Which they did. The foreign office still ran local affairs. Leadership was to pay dearly for this in days to come.
The fact that leadership was not willing to build its own meant that they would adopt from the benefactor all the existing “state ware” as they were (during colonization). Not to interfere with these institutions meant that they had to be continually funded. To maintain these systems they needed to cooperate with the benefactor to obtain funding, assistance and aid with which to keep the systems going and keep the semblance of the state alive.
What would have happened if Leadership in Africa had developed and implemented a leadership model suited only to Africa? Would there have been a problem. What if leadership in Africa stated that the very philosophy on which the nation was founded needed to be reviewed in line with spirit of self- determination of the African people? What if …that, unfortunately, is water under the bridge.
Suffice to say that leadership Africa did not de-colonialize by retaining the services of colonial mechanisms through to independence. Leadership attempted to build nations on the premise that the colonialists had put in place what the people wanted. If colonialism remained after decolonization, so did the leadership theories of that period. If those theories remained sacrosanct then leadership in Africa did not develop during the post colonization period otherwise they would have challenged the suitability of the colonial paradigm.
On the basis of Leadership Form discussed during the Interval, after the colonialists left, Africa faced an enormous governance vacuum. Leadership was liberation minded and Liberator in form. When independence came governance was instituted. Africa had no experience here. There was no option - the liberators had to stay on. The liberators sought new leadership models to fill in the governance void. Even then governance was more of an ambush because it was not what was immediately needed. What was needed was decolonialization and reformation before building and governance.
Many of those taking power were confused by the turn of events. They searched frantically for a model to meet their leadership needs. In the ensuing confusion some turned to culture, some to maintaining current systems, many fell prey to unsustainable (foreign) ideology, even dictatorships and military regimes became an option. Meanwhile the Big-Man made an entry with clinical precision.