The African state and African crisis: The intellectualism of Peter Ekeh, By Ahmed Aminu-Ramatu Yusuf

The day, 17 November marks four years since Professor Peter Palmer Ekeh peacefully transited in Buffalo, New York, United States of America.

The beaming-face, soft-voiced, justice-loving, and highly-patient Ekeh, in life was, and in death remains, a world acclaimed intellectual, renowned scholar, quintessential academic, teacher of teachers, and globally recognised scholar in the fields of political science, social anthropology, sociology, history and African Studies.

A Nigerian of Urhobo extraction, Ekeh born on 17 November, 1937, published many ground-breaking, authoritative, and critical works. Some of them are accessible on the internet.

His ideas are best understood and appreciated when studied holistically, for they are organically connected and dialectically related. All virtually aim at understanding and tackling the African crisis.

But Ekeh’s most celebrated, cited and discussed works are: “Colonialism and the Two Publics in Africa: A Theoretical Statement” (1975); “Social Exchange Theory: The Two Traditions” (1993); and “Social Anthropology and the Two Contrasting Uses of Tribalism in Africa” (1990).

One of Ekeh’s finest works, though unpublished, is “The African State and the African Crisis.” He presented it at the first symposium of the Special Committee on Africa of the United Nations University, held in Nairobi, Kenya, from 4-7 March, 1985.

In it, he argued that: “the African crisis centres around the African state… the African crisis is a crisis of the state. It is the newness and ill-formations of the African state that has produced the various problems that constitute the African crisis.”

Ekeh posited that the European state: “has its historic origin in feudal society” and “it is anchored in the continuity of its own history, even stretching to its Greek and Roman antiquity through feudal and absolutist systems of rule, unto the present form of post-capitalist formation of nation-state.” Not so the African state, which: “was a power imposed directly by the forces of European imperialism which flowed from the needs of European industrial capitalism.”

The creation of the African State, Ekeh asserted: “involved the dissolution of pristine African states (and non-state political entities) and its subsequent incorporation into a widened colonial territory”. It was created: “through threats, deceits and violence, including the humiliation of kings and chiefs, the plundering and looting of treasuries and properties, the desecrations of holy places and symbols, and, in some cases, the wiping out of villages and the sacking of cities.” All these, for him, have serious and disastrous implications.

First, unlike the pre-colonial African state or the metropolitan European state, which germinated from the contradictions and struggles in their societies, the current African state did not arise from the contradictions and struggles in African societies. Hence, it is not rooted in African history, traditions, values and culture.

Secondly, unlike the pre-colonial African state or metropolitan state which is an organ for the promotion of the interests of the internal ruling classes, the current African state is primarily and basically a machine for the promotion of the interests of European forces and their African allies, not really the interests of African people.

Thirdly, unlike the pre-colonial or metropolitan state, the African state has no organic linkage with the African people. The African state, he said, does not: “enjoy the benefits and advantages of inherited traditions of governance”. It lacks legitimacy and authority, and relies primarily on intimidation, threats and violence in virtually all its undertakings.

On the basis of these, the following can be inferred. First, imperialism, chiefly through the African state, expelled Africans from independently making their own history in their own ways. In Amilcar Cabral’s words, it led to the negation of ‘the historical process of the dominated people by means of violent usurpation of the freedom of the process of the development of the productive forces.”

Also, the attitudinal dispositions of most Africans towards the state lies in its history and culture. Most Africans do not fundamentally believe they own the state. They consider the state as an independent force that is opposed to society; as an alien organisation which exist for itself; and a force to be, as much as possible, avoided, and positively related to if benefits can be derived.

This was not the case in the pre-colonial African societies. In those, citizens believed they owned the state and their ownership is manifest. Whereas in the colonial period, the forces of imperialism came to Africa on the supposition that the African state belonged to their rulers and the masses were inconsequential. In the post-colonial era, most African leaders and their allies see the state, its resources and wealth as their personal properties.

Further, constitutional forms of government exist chiefly for those who control the state. This was unlike in the pre-colonial African societies, where constitutional forms of governments existed and were taken for granted. For instance, as Claude Ake noted: “Chiefs were answerable not only for their actions but for natural catastrophes such as famine, epidemics, floods, and drought” and “could be required to go into exile or “ask to die” [to commit suicide].

In today’s African societies, leaders, whether elected or appointed, military or civilian, see themselves as being above society. People and their welfare are considered secondary, if not irrelevant to the functioning of the state. People’s participation in politics and in the administration of the state is disdained, suppressed, and, in some cases, abolished.

Thus, the crises of democracy and development lies deeply rooted in the history and nature of the African state. It largely explains why governance is not taken seriously; why service to the people is replaced by service from the people; and why leadership by example is replaced by leadership by whatever means necessary!

It equally accounts for why popular participation in politics is suppressed in favour of politics of state control; why people’s freedom, human rights, and control over their governments is undermined; and why the politics of development is replaced by the politics of primitive accumulation and monopolistic acquisition!

Ekeh was not a glorifier of pre-colonial African societies. He recognized that there were African societies which “belonged to kings.” One was the Fulani Empire, where the founder, Usmanu Dan Fodio, wrote that: “The government of a country is the government of its king without question. If the king is a Muslim, his land is Muslim; if he is an Unbeliever, his land is a land of Unbelievers”. Fodio further argued: “[The King] is the Shade of God … on the Earth, for verily if he has done righteously, he has the Reward and grateful remembrance, but if he does evil, the Bondage awaits him and his people suffer.”

The fact, however, was that in most African societies, the people, their ancestors, the gods, and ALMIGHTY GOD were believed to own the state. Kings were just leaders, and first amongst equals. But they were, most importantly, accountable and answerable to the owners of the state.

If Africa is to progress, the nation built, democracy attained, and development achieved, its concrete policies, plans and programmes should flow from Ekeh’s writings.

Ahmed Aminu-Ramatu Yusuf worked as deputy director, Cabinet Affairs Office, The Presidency, and retired as General Manager (Administration), Nigerian Meteorological Agency, (NiMet). Email: aaramatuyusuf@yahoo.com