States without Nation-States

In his The Next Decade, George Friedman (2011), in characteristic thematic stance of many western commentators, derides Africa as of little importance to the US vital interests in the next ten years. The spread of terrorism via East African countries can be easily contained. Oil interests and other minor economic interests can be taken care of by the operating companies themselves. What the US can do is only to lend support to humanitarian activities to the tune of the niggardly twenty billion dollars in aid—enough to assuage the Africans and upkeep the contrived image of the generous Uncle Sam. The Chinese overture in Africa does not pose such a threat as compared to the imperialistic Soviet Union of the 60s. Moreover, the Chinese, despite perceptions, have vast challenges and will be preoccupied with uplifting the standard of living of millions of agrarian rural population. Besides, they will not carry the African mines to Beijing. The bottom line: “Africa: Leave it alone.”

Friedman’s opinion is hardly new. If one watches talking heads on television discussing world affairs, Africa is always rarely mentioned. The indelible image of Africa is that of hunger, dirty children enamored by the white man’s camera, and badly managed countries with fierce dictators lording it over the population. Perception is reality here. Why is that?

Friedman brings up the notion that “… there may be African states… [but]…few nation-states.” For example, Nigeria “…is a state without a nation,”—meaning it is a state “…presiding over multiple hostile nations.” African states have not grown organically out of nations—they are patchwork creations of Europeans and Arabs. There in lies the genesis of the perpetual problems of governance in Africa.

So, then, what is the way out? Maybe Museveni is showing the way because “…the only way out of chaos is power. Nations are built out of blood…Community is built on war.” By this calculation Museveni worships on the Machiavelli’s altar “…that good comes out of ruthless pursuit of power, not out of trying to do good.” He seems to adroitly balance the “…conflict between the limits of good intentions and the necessity of power” that characterizes the practice of politics.

In Uganda we have various nations that often have different and competing world-views. If Internet ranting are any indication, we actually talk pass one another like ships in the night. Often those of us with a modicum of national and liberal outlook come out depressed from such chat-rooms, or just stay away. Thus unsettled issues fester on and, at times, become gangrenous.

Will Museveni’s unreserved use of power finally build one nation? Winning elections in Buganda in spite of the frosty relationship with the Kingdom of Buganda is a telling sign. Election success in the Acoli sub-region, considering recent brutal abuse, speaks of short memory and a willingness to bend to the wishes of credible power. The Uganda population did not see power in the splintered opposition. Whether by design or unconscious sloppiness, the various opposition groups were about energizing the moribund self-lives of their respective political parties and ended up at the throats of one another, thereby weakening their collective power. It was an amazing sight to see. Rather than waste their votes on confusion, the voters decided to go with the devil they knew: a he-man who is not shy to crack some ribs. And, as it is, it seems Museveni and his clique’s hold on power is unlikely to be broken in the next ten years by conventional means. Hopefully, by breaking some necks along the way, a nation will be built, and being a Ugandan can begin to carry valence in meaning and emotion.