IS DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA A MYTH OR A REALITY?

The na?ve aspiration of the coming or occurrence of development in Africa in particular and most parts of the world in general shows both the loss of memory and our analysis on the historical significance of development.

The current “globalization” of the world shows us what development has truly been and that which we have continuously denied to see. She is the supreme stage of development which truly exists and at the same time shows the negative connotation of its mythical conception. Henry Kissinger describes Globalization as “the newly install name of the American political hegemony”[1]. This supposes that she had other names in the past. She firstly appeared with the name of “economic development” launched by Harry Truman in 1949, which served as a means for the United States to take control of former European empires and ensure that newly independent states don’t fall into the soviet orbit. The oldest name of the westernization of the world was simply colonization and old imperialism. There is always a need for slogans and ideologies aimed at legitimizing the hegemonic enterprise of the west. If development, in fact, has only been the continuation of colonization by other means, the new globalization, in turn, is only the continuation of development with other means[2]. It is therefore necessary to distinguish development as a: myth of development or as a historical reality.

Development is hence defined as the realization of the desires and aspirations of everyone outside historical, economic, social and cultural context. Under the name of real development, the 1990 south commission report illustrates this mythical conception of development fairly well. Indeed, it is defined as “a process that allows human beings to develop their personality, gain self-confidence and lead a dignified and fulfilled existence”[3]. This illusionary definition of development is found nowhere on the African continent, which till yet, is plagued by coups, Neo-colonialism, imperialistic tendencies, corruption and worse still absurd poverty. So what has become of the over 70 years of foreign aid in Africa? The numerous policies and structural adjustments put in place to ensure that Africa attains economic growth and social cohesion? These observations puts us in a vicious cycle of dilemma, which leaves us thinking if development isn’t a myth, or an African problem seen its current position in terms of development in the world, based on the current definition of the term.

We shall examine to what extend development is a myth in Africa on the first-hand, and how much of it is a reality, on the economic, political, socio-cultural and ideological level. In a third attempt, we shall make a synthesis to see on which side of the balance the African continent is placed.

It is so evident that some definitions of development are just an assembly of words which have actually never happened anywhere. Paul VI goes further to say that “development is not reduced to simple economic growth. To be authentic, it must be integral, that is, to promote every man and all men”[4]. Looking at the situation in Africa, one questions himself if we experience that authenticity of development, that of, its integral nature. We can even go further, in the manner of the ethnologist Jean Malaurie; who affirms that “to develop is to go in the direction of the history and genius of a people”[5] or in the African manner where good development is proclaimed as “to value what parents were doing, to have roots”. In both cases, we experience the definition of the term by its opposite. Development has been, is and will first be an uprooting system. Everywhere it has been, it has led to an increase in heteronomy to the detriment of the autonomy of local societies. This is the myth of development. What does that mean? In Africa for example, the concept of development has contributed to promote the heteronomy and hegemony of the west on the continent. Billions of dollars since the 1950s has been transferred to Africa in the form of concessional, non-concessional loans and grants to help with developmental projects. Through public aid, structural adjustment programs have been put in place to shape the pattern of development which Africa must follow. There lies the heteronomy of the west; the financial control which she exercises on the African continent doesn’t permit her to have the power of decision which she should. Worst still Africa cannot decide what pattern of development she wishes to follow. Thus, Africa is placed in a continuous vicious cycle, which first, pushes her towards an extraversion of her economy, that is produce what she doesn’t consume and consume what she doesn’t produce. Secondly, she places Africa in a continuous dependency, not only financial dependency, but also cultural and ideological dependency. Africa is hence tempted to follow the “American way of life” to the detriment of her own values and culture. She is also forced to embrace foreign ideologies and ethics such as the LGBTQ movement in other to benefit from financial assistance. This shows how mythical development is in Africa. It is only a man-oeuvre by the west to ensure that their ideologies, beliefs and way of life are accepted everywhere on earth; capitalism, LGBTQ, liberalism just to name a few.

Moreover, if we analyse in more detail this historic result on development, we must admit that during practically an entire half-century only two small nation-states; South Korea and Taiwan and two city-states; Singapore and Hong Kong (China) have been able to develop into modern capitalist countries. In total the four represent a mere 2 per cent of the population of the misnamed ‘developing world’[6]. These are the only states that could be said to have undergone a process similar to that experienced 150 years ago by the present day capitalist industrialized powers. That is, they have achieved a productive technological transformation and a sizable conversion of the poor into middle-class citizens. Nevertheless, these newly industrialized countries (NICs) still do not enjoy the high incomes or the scientific and cultural development, much less the democratic institutions and civil society, characteristic of Europe or the United States. Fast forward, after over 60 years of independence in most African nations, about forty states on the continent have experienced coups and political instability. Still after 1990, a year which marked the entrance of multiparty in Africa, the continent has still been plagued with socio-political crisis and post electoral disorder. But why is this still happening in Africa considering the fact that she inherited western constitutions which are almost viewed as perfect? The political development of the continent has been the slowest in the world. This myth of political development via democratization, freedom of speech and liberty is nothing to write home about. Despite all efforts, programs and plans put in place, Africa still houses the highest number of fragile states among the top ten in the world, compared to any other continent. She houses as well, the least developed nations in terms of human development index. Can we still speak of development as a reality in this case? Ideologically and culturally, Africa is supposed to be the mother of humanity and the birth place of all civilizations. But today, she is the most marginalized continent in terms of cultural appropriation. Her culture is fast in extinction and the values which characterize the tradition of most nations on the continent are the least considered in the globe. Africans are even sometimes considered as animists. All these only show to what extend the contemporary definitions of development is just a myth in Africa.

 Besides, it is highly unlikely that the countries of Africa will receive a tidal wave of foreign capital for investment in productive export activities. Very little capital is available for productive, job-creating investment and technological progress. Most of the investments made in Africa are placed into the production or exploitation of primary products such as: Bananas, cocoa, tea, rubber, diamond, uranium or gold. Little is invested into large manufacturing industries or conglomerates which could provide proper health solutions or create long term employment. Africa in some sorts becomes the raw material producing continent of the world for the west. As if that is not enough, these multinationals after investment, flee their capital to their original el dorados. What does that mean? Africans do the working, and what is supposed to be left in other to create double riches for them and the future generations is taken away. As consequences, there is little capital left for the reinvestment in new start-ups. Fewer jobs are created, wide spread unemployment, poor economic parity and a possibility of mass emigration (brain drain) becomes monnaie courante. That is the actual situation in Africa right now. She is given or lives in a state of illusionary development, and thinks she is actually developing like western nations. No, we actually are in a vicious cycle, which has as objective to create a continuous flow of raw material for western enterprises. Same is done politically, via the waves of democratization which has nothing to do with the African continent. Socio-culturally, we tend to know and focus more on what is happening there than here.

Nonetheless, development in Africa as a myth has been much discussed above. What if it was seen under the prism of a reality? Firstly, the concept of development will have to be redefined and adapted to the realities of every given societies. Development as defined by all the many authors around, most at times explains the situation in Europe post industrial revolution. But what definition actually matches the realities and factors in Africa?

If we consider development as how we can “mobilize resources, acquire the capacity to utilize them, and allocating these resources appropriately” (Gatune 104), then Africa is developed. The current tools used to identify a developed country such as economic aggregates, access to electricity, quality education etc, are actually perceived in other forms in Africa. But numerous questions still blocks our stand, that of, who decides on this aggregates and why? What is actually quality education? Does freedom of speech and democracy actually guarantee any form of economic prowess? At the end of the day, one is left with questionings, which actually leaves us doubt the essence of development itself. The human development index put in place to determine how much a citizen is happy or well taken care of as a means to determine a developed nation is also problematic. Is considered poor anyone who is unable to live on 1.25$ a day. But what becomes of the grandfather in the village with hectares of farmed land, cattle and who has the means to produce his own palm oil and palm wine from palm kernels and palm trees respectively. Such a person will barely need 25 cent to get some salt for his meal or maybe 50 cent for spices if he doesn’t fear his health. However, such individual is considered poor according to the standards of the UN human development index. What concrete proof could be established that someone living with or above a dollar is better off that that grandfather? The concept of development needs to be redefined. This shows that Africa is in reality is developed according to qualitative standards, but underdeveloped to the west under quantitative and financial classifications.

Moreover, is identified as rich country, one which is; technologically advanced, has little unemployment rate, advanced health systems are sufficient, infrastructural development is well developed, has a stable currency, and can, in one way or the other provide for the majority of its citizens. In fact, what are used to achieve such health systems, infrastructures and stable currencies? They all boil down to available natural and mineral resources. Africa houses over 30% of arable land in the world and has the world’s largest diamond and gold deposits. It also has large amounts of strategic minerals such as uranium for energy, copper and iron ore. Gold reserves are usually used to preserve and determine the stability of a currency. With all these resources which actually determine the classification of nations, Africa is therefore a developed continent in potentiality, with regards to western definition of the term. But how could she still be considered underdeveloped with such riches? Contrarily, Africa is and should be the most developed continent of the globe, considering the fact that, she only needs to mobilize these resources to attain the linear form of development as prescribed by the west. Therefore, the development of Africa is not a myth, but a reality which has existed since the dawn of time, from ancient Egypt as the birth place of civilizations to its today potentiality.

One could reach the bridge of concluding by saying that, the myth or reality of the African continent will all depend on the context in which we decide to base our analysis and on what side of the bridge we’re on. As earlier portrayed above, the development of Africa could be seen as a myth if we limit our understanding of development based on foreign conceptions of the term, or the na?ve embracement that development is linear and general. And could be considered a reality if we further our understanding of the term, while taking into consideration the realities and environmental factors of every given society. Hitherto, development is proper and could mean one and a million thing to one person, and mean the complete opposite for another. Thus, the idea of development being a myth or reality in Africa would depend on who is talking, the need of those persons and his/her believes.

[1] Serge latouche: survivre au développement ; de la decolonisation de l’imaginaire économique a la construction d’une société alternative, les petits libres No 55, 2004

[2] “Development presents itself as a remarkable tool of neo-colonialism which supposes aid and assistance” (Bernard Hours, op cit, page 66)

[3] Défis au sud, Rapport de la commission sud, présidée par Julius Nyerere, Paris, Economica, 1990, p.10.

[4] Encyclique populorum progressio. One can read in the same encyclique that “development is the new name for peace” After the Iraqi oil crisis in the 1980s, one if forced to question himself if development is not the new name for war?

[5] Jean Malaurie, “lettre a Rene Dumont” cite dans Pour L’Afrique , j’accuse, Paris , plon, 1986, pp.401-402

[6] Oswaldo Rivero in “The myth of development, non-viable economies and the crisis of civilization, second edition