Former liberation movements and governance failure

Highlighting shortcomings of the former liberation movements is patriotism not a hostile act. Fighting and defeating colonialism is an achievement for which black liberation movements must be credited. However, there needs to be a reality check, if the independence gains are to translate into freedom and liberties. African society must be objective about independence as experienced by ordinary citizens.

Sanewashing postcolonial behaviours of former liberation movements damages their credibility; while these movements were fundamental in the continent’s political self-determination, they have become equally important in turning that independence into a mockery. There is very little to celebrate for the average black person in the independent Africa.

The betrayal of the basis of independence by the former liberation movements once they assumed government control is the foundation of the immorality of governance institutions of the contemporary Africa. These institutions depict a lack of compassion and empathy for the ordinary citizen by the political elite.

Former liberation movements turned government have failed spectacularly in that transition as they have transformed into a confrontational ‘we-they’ mindset that sees the elites cannibalising movements for personal gain and shielding themselves away from public scrutiny.

The result is that expected freedoms and liberties have turned into an illusion never to be achieved. Instead of the movements using the newly gained power to empower and protect the poor from the effects of poverty, the elite within the movements have opted to commodify power for personal gain. Thus, while the rich and connected are getting richer, the poor conditions among the ordinary people have worsened under the governance structures of former liberation movements.

At independence, all the positive public expectation of independence evaporated immediately; what the public witnessed was the former liberation movements evolving and degenerating into kleptocracies based on an authoritarian mindset. Leaders turned into cult of personality and politics reduced to slogans of hatred towards dissenting voices and those who held views we disagree with.

The resulting contemporary African state is not primed to meet the needs of diverse populations but is strictly designed to concentrate power along partisan lines and within certain constituencies – tribes, religion, ideological location, etc., loyalty has replaced merit.

Rather alarming is the fact that the liberation movement linked political parties have equated themselves with the state and developed a culture of entitlement. In the framework, the political party ideology and policy is projected onto state institutions leaving little to no space for ideological difference.

It is tempting to assume that when former liberation movements spoke about independence, their focus was only political self-determination as in freedom from white rulers and not freedom and protection from abuses of power by black rulers. Their scope of tolerance to being opposed is thin.

One-party state remains a secret dream for many former liberation movements; the ruling elites originating from these liberation movements demonstrate a palpable disdain for democracy in their pursuit for self-interest and retention of power. Independent Africa is awash with examples of former liberators willingly sacrificing the constitutionalism they fought hard for just to stay in power.

Make no mistake, colonial rule was bad, but independent Africa under the former liberation movement leadership is not less so. Given a choice between a white oppressor and a black oppressor, black people would choose none; black people did not object to colonial rule because of who was at the helm of the system but because of what the system stood for; they hated the inherent injustices represented by the system and its institutions – the dehumanisation of the people, withdrawal of rights and non-consensual governance.

Independence without a firm basis for democracy, human rights and wellbeing (including material security) does not represent liberation in its truest sense. Instead of freedom and liberty, a culture of fear, worse than during the colonial period, has been cultivated into the state. The executive is too powerful for the health of the nation; the State mistreats, intimidates and harasses the public as though to constantly remind them that the government expects from them obedience and discipline.

Real independence in Africa will not be achieved by lowering expectations and standards to make everyone comfortable but by providing the exceptional tools that empower individuals and communities to raise their standards and expectations. Recognition of the importance of individuals and organisations in shaping the political space is important.

It is not the public’s expectation that the former liberation movements will be perfect but that these organisations take public independence expectations of freedom seriously. The public wants the leadership to actively illustrate through tangible steps that they are willing to protect citizens from abuses of power and include all citizens in how they are ruled. Institutions must be seen to be promoting equal opportunities to access to power, prioritising merit over loyalty and removing all conceivable barriers to political participation.