Digesting the Pan-African Failure and the Role of African Psychology – Aisha Mohamed

HistoryDigesting the Pan-African Failure and the Role of African Psychology - Aisha Mohamed
- Advertisement -

Fanonian understanding of the Pan-African failure in establishing
oneness and ending disunity/xenophobia in South Africa. Digesting the Pan-African Failure and the Role of African Psychology – Aisha Mohamed

International Relations
Dept. of Global Political Studies Bachelor programme – IR103L
15 credits thesis
Thesis submitted: Spring 2021
Supervisor: John Åberg
Submission date: 17/05/2021

Abstract The study insists on understanding the miscarriage of “Pan-Africanism” and the role of “African” mentality with the help of Fanon’s psychoanalysis “Black Skin, White Mask,” exemplifying the immense colonial, slavery, and apartheid psychological damages experienced by Black individuals resulting Blacks/Africans self-hate and a desire to be “white” throughout the domain of Western culture, ideology, and language. To provide accurate analysis of the “Pan-African” failure to solve increasing blacks-hate-against-blacks/xenophobia in South Africa, concepts othering, mimicry, subaltern from the critical theory (postcolonialism) were applied. Thereupon, Qualitative Content Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis relying on the theoretical concepts were conducted, which underlined how the mimicry process makes Africa’s interaction an elite-driven one, oppressing African/subaltern citizens. The findings showed a need for “Black-Consciousness” and Nkrumah’s “Pan-African” vision (African unification) to end colonial-mentality generating collective subordination of Subaltern/Africans. Generally, the use of Fanon’s psycho-social analysis has shown that the generational oppression, trauma, and cultural stereotypes continue to robotize and dictate African leaders and the African Union’s favoritism of Western “neo-liberal” policies. It is summarized that the “Pan-African” failure is a failure of gradual unconscious “PanAfricanists” who pledge allegiance to “Western” policies rather than rededicating themselves to durable Radical “Pan-Africanism” which is an antidote to Africa’s self-hate/xenophobia, neo-colonialism, and the robotization of unconscious Africans. Key words: Gradual Pan-Africanism, Radical Pan-Africanism, Neurosis of Blackness, Phobogenic object, Collective-unconsciousness, Abandonment-neurotic, Negrophobia, BlackConsciousness, Political unity, Neo-colonialism, Otherness, Mimicry, Subaltern. Word count: 13, 997 words LIST OF ABBRIVIATION AFCFTA African Continental Free Trade Agreement ANC African National Congress AU African Union BEE Black Economic Empowerment BSA Black South African CDA Critical Discourse Analysis EEC European Economic Community OAU Organization of African Unity QCA Qualitative/Quantitative Content Analysis SA South Africa SSA Sub-Saharan Africa UNIA Universal Negro Improvement Association UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights UNGA United Nations General Assembly USA United States of Africa Table of Contents 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 2. literature Review …………………………………………………………………………………………………….3 2.1 Pan-African conceptualization …………………………………………………………………………………….. 4 2.2 Xenophobia and elitism in Africa…………………………………………………………………………………. 6 2.3 Re-conceptualizing Pan-Africanism……………………………………………………………………………… 9 2.4 Postcolonial approaches: Otherness, Mimicry, and Subaltern …………………………………….. 12 2.4.1 Otherness, Mimicry, and subaltern ………………………………………………………………………………………..13 3. Methodology …………………………………………………………………………………………………………16 3.1 Critical discourse analysis………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16 3.1.1 Data selection…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………18 3.2 Qualitative content analysis (QCA) ……………………………………………………………………………. 19 3.2.1 Material/AU protocols …………………………………………………………………………………………………………20 3.3 Theoretically motivated Coding System……………………………………………………………………… 21 4. Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….23 4.1 Xenophobia and Africa’s self-hate……………………………………………………………………………… 23 4.1.1 First dimension – Discourse as text ……………………………………………………………………………………….23 3.1.2 Second dimension – Discourse as practice ……………………………………………………………………………..24 3.1.3. Third dimension – Discourse as socio-cultural practice …………………………………………………………..24 Mimicry of colonial othering ……………………………………………………………………………………………..25 4.2 Disunity and attachment to sovereignty ……………………………………………………………………… 27 4.2.1 African Unions gradual Pan-Africanism…………………………………………………………………………………29 4.3 Essentiality of Black-Consciousness……………………………………………………………………………. 31 4.3.1 Nkrumah reversal of colonial othering …………………………………………………………………………………..31 4.3.2 Solutions to neo-colonialism ……………………………………………………………………………………………33 4.4 Discussion: disparities within the Pan-African discourse…………………………………………….. 35 4.4.1 Miscarriage of Pan-Africanism – An approach towards development? ………………………………………36 5. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………..39 6. Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..40 Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….45 1 1. Introduction Centuries of mistreatment of Africa and its inhabitants by imperialists have produced a “PanAfrican” ideology willing to emancipate and eliminate stereotypes constructing discourses about the continent. Generally conceived, “Pan-Africanism” is a “movement/ideology” meant to tell African’s to either unite and protect themselves inside a “unification nation” under radical philosophy or remain fragmented and accept economic/political exploitation, crimination/subjugation, and foreign domination. Consequently, “Pan-Africanism” contains three aspects (cultural/tradition, political/institutional, and economic), making it appropriate in the field of International Relations (IR). Politically/institutionally, the “movement” is related to “African nationalist” fight for freedom. Economically, it aims to theoretically/politically and pragmatically liberate/unite Africans and combat “colonialism/neo-colonialism” – that is, “Western” tactics of “divide and rule” instigated colonial micro-states. Culturally, it intends at reclaiming Africa’s history and dignity (Martin, 2012:57). Therefore, “Pan-Africanism” is not just a “movement” restricted to one nation rather an “ideology” that impacts Africa’s “transnational” political practices (encourages amplified “regional-level” of integration to “solidify” African nations “inter-state ties,” manage continental immigration, thus impacts foreign policies). In this regard, “Pan-Africanism” is linked to IR, in a sense that it aims to resolve “cross-border issues” to enhance African states interdependence/unity in terms of “security/economic/political” – consequently justifies Africa’s “regional integration schemes” (Adetula, 2020:6 & Lamont, 2015:12). Specifically, Pan-Africanism proposes different ways to build “regional governance” as it encompasses a debate between functional/inter-governmental/gradual and neofunctional/federal/radical standpoints to reduce the continent’s inner and transnational challenges, either “through political or economic integration” (ibid). Nonetheless, despite the existence of “Pan-Africanism” to create oneness, the continent continues to exist in a deeply contested conceptual and intellectual terrain resulted from its endless dependency/division/self-loathing. This raises the puzzle; “what makes issues, such as disunity/xenophobia and elitism persist in Africa, despite having a regional organization and African governments that claim to pledge allegiance to the Pan-African ideology?” Numerous scholars (Adetula et al. 2020, Forge 2003, Martin 2012) evaluate the tenacity of African issues while taking a “radical” perspective arguing that economic unity must be combined by “political unity” as they are inseparable. While others (Sangmpam 2018, Hodzi 2015), following the functional theory of integration, highlight that African nations should stop 2 aiming “supra-national” unity instead, they should mainly seek economic integration to secure development. The debate approves that the “Pan-African” objectives to emancipate and reclaim African’s lost “human dignity” by developing “Black-Consciousness” seem to be stuck on the path, and solidarity stays out of reach; meanwhile, problems (xenophobia/tribalism/disunity) keep escalating as “neo-colonialism” and its undefeated weapon “balkanization” endure unabated (Forge, 2003:55). Reconsidering the miscarriage of “Pan-Africanism” and the incapacity of African leaders to promote oneness raises the research question; “How can we apprehend the failure of Pan-Africanism to establish oneness and solve issues, such as disunity/xenophobia in South Africa?” Analyzing the presented dilemma, the thesis allies itself with radical Pan-Africanism, accentuating the need for “Black-Consciousness” and radical/federal/neo-functional PanAfrican state that does not function “as an instrument” where the interest of African “elites” and former colonial powers are verbalized (Martin 2012:120). The study argues that the miscarriage of “Pan-Africanism” is related to gradualist’s support/internalization of colonial scripted images of Africa. Gradualists usually highlight the presence of different “language/culture” making the construction of the “United States of Africa” (USA) unfeasible; however, they fail to consider that both “sovereignty” and “regionalism” did not serve the demand of Africans; therefore, “radical solutions” must be contemplated so that Africa is allowed the possibility of implementing “policies” that reflect its history by emboldening African leaders to apply “African solutions,” unorthodox to “imperial” principles. The different subsections of the thesis include a literature review of “Pan-African” discourses/xenophobia, followed by an interpretation of postcolonial concepts. The section that follows introduces methodological discussions. In the analysis section, three types of African psychology where two constitute the failure of “Pan-Africanism” are presented; firstly, Africans invalidating their history due to lack of “Black-consciousness” shown in South Africa (SA) case; secondly, Africans calming to pledge aligned to “Pan-Africanism” while upholding colonial imposed-rules that indirectly govern Africa’s political institution; thirdly, Africans that developed “Black-Consciousness” and escaped from “collective unconsciousness.” Lastly, the thesis relates the “Pan-African” failure to the failure of current/gradual “Pan-Africanism” that pelage allegiant to neo-liberal policies instead of an Afro-centric “Pan-African” ideology that negate colonial-mentality and the negative connotations assigned to Africans. 3 2. literature Review Initially, this section analytically engages with current literature in African, IR, and political studies that examine the failure of African elites to improve the life of Africans by using diverse IR theories. The literature is governed by various scholars that aim to grasp why African nations are following the path of economic disorder, suspension of human rights, political unrest, and a breakdown of order that leads towards widespread “anomie/instability.” For instance, the collected literature is separated into three segments; firstly, literature that targets to allocate a “correct meaning” to the conception of “Pan-Africanism”; secondly, literature that highlights the necessity of overcoming Africans continued desire for asking “white” men to lead their policies thus replacing it with radical “Pan-African federal/supranational” nation that debunks “Western” agenda and outperforms the imprudent inherited micro-states; thirdly, literature that re-conceptualizes the contemporary “Pan-Africanism” and proposes solutions to disunity/inferiorization/self-hate within African communities. These sub-sections in the literature reflect the primary debate in the discourse of “Pan-Africanism” between radical and gradual “Pan-Africanists” and the quarrels over how the continents’ “inter-state integration” should be mediated (Harshe, 1988:374). To recall, the emergence of “Pan-Africanism” by most scholars is related to the African American intellectuals (W.E.B. Dubios and Marcus Garvey) who played a dominant role in a series of “Pan-African” congresses in Europe and the United States between 1900-1945 which unites all Africans. Namely, Garvey’s primary intention was to promote/advocate for “African Nationalism” and “self-governance” with the motto “Africa for Africans” as he established the “Universal Negro Improvement Association” (UNIA). However, in the Manchester Congress in October 1945, a new-style of “Pan-Africanism” labeled radical “Pan-Africanism” developed to unite Africans against the “oppressors,” with the “new liberation movement throughout colonial Africa” (Adogamhe, 2008:9-11). The philosophy of Continental “Pan-Africanism” is attributed to the African “nationalist” Kwame Nkrumah – hence with his support the ideology shifted from being “romanticism” and “idealism” to one that involves pragmatic politics. However, After Nkrumah’s version the movement splintered into two crucial ideological blocs, and the “inter-state politics” in Africa during the establishment of the Organization of African Union (OAU) was portrayed by growing contention between Monrovia/gradual and Casablanca/radical group of states (Harshe, 1988:374). Notably, the Casablanca progressives were led by Nkrumah (Ghana) and backed by Algeria/Guinea/Mali/Congo/Tanzania/Morocco/Ethiopia – as they vehemently resisted racism/colonialism/neo-colonialism thus regarded African nations relation with the European 4 Economic Community (EEC) as a “neo-colonial” setup to impoverish under-developed nations thus sustain colonial privileges/mentality in Africa. Therefore, Casablanca’s radical “PanAfricanism” favored political unity/integration, leading to economic development, thus solving African issues. In contrast, the Monrovia conservatives were led by Nigeria and supported by most of the francophone states and South Africa, Mauretania, Liberia, and stood for the protection of the colonial inherited state, thus defended the idea of non-interference by expressing the need for “Western” cooperation in the process of promoting development. Consequently, they took a gradual/functional approach arguing that Africa’s integration should be recognized through economic cooperation, and this was recapitulated in the speech of the Nigerian prime minister at the African summit conference of the OAU in Addis Ababa (ibid & Asuelime et.al 2015:77). After a prolonged disagreement between the two groups, the radicals suffered a defeat by the graduals. Despite the defeat, Nkrumah’s radical idea endured and later on been carried by AlQadhafi, who has “called for an immediate creation” of a formal federation labeled a “United States of Africa” as the only option to fight ignorance/xenophobia/disunity/poverty confronting the continent. Again, this was rejected by gradual states that favored a “European Union’s model” (Adogamhe, 2008:18). Despite the multiple defeats faced by radicals, the idea of “political unity” is still relevant and are discussed by various scholars willing to comprehend African issues. Within the extensive Pan-African debate, the thesis associates itself with radical “PanAfricanism,” employing concepts of “otherness, mimicry, and subaltern.” The upcoming sections highlights the selection of methodological and theoretical notions, which will be introduced steadily when underlining the constraint and shortcomings of current literature, allowing the thesis an opportunity to include what has been overlooked by previous researches. 2.1 Pan-African conceptualization The “Pan-African” ideology/movement/philosophy embodies a history of African resistance, hence finds resonance in “Africans’” encounter with foreign/European aggression (Adepoju et al., 2018, Adetula et al., 2020, Nantambu 1998, Murithi 2007). Namely, the authors specified above are quick to underline African intellectuals’ failure to “institutionalize Pan-Africanism” and the requirement for a “distinctive” political model that can reverse imperialism’s inconsistencies, along these lines, rebuild inherited state structure. Adetula et al. (2020:6-7) intend to ascribe standard meaning to “Pan-Africanism” by employing “comparative historical research” and “quantitative data” gathered from the “World 5 Bank” to approve that “Africa’s Continental Free Trade Agreement” (AFCFTA) would not help Africa gain ownership of its economy – as the economic integration would only be beneficial for nations with advanced transport infrastructure while it negatively affects poor nations (Zimbabwe/Botswana). According to the scholars, “Pan-Africanism” is a rallying point for civil society activists and African leaders during the struggle for independence. By implicitly using postcolonial theory, the authors take a radical standpoint emphasizing that “Pan-Africanism” is a geopolitical project and ideology/movement for liberating/uniting the African people around the globe, meanwhile only “through unity can be forged an independent and strengthened economic, social, and political African destiny.” That being so, “African unity” is relevant economically and epistemologically; hence, the AFCFTA cannot be actualized if inequalities/disunity within the African community are not eradicated through “political unity.” In line with Adetula et al. (2020), Adepoju et.al. (2018), argues that “Pan-Africanism” is an “emotionally colored” concept that occurred as a result of “partiality,” thus hard to assign a correct meaning to it. Adepoju et.al. (2018) utilizes “historical, descriptive, and analytical methods,” focusing on “inter-state analysis” to examine the role of the African Union (AU) and the current place of “radical Pan-Africanism” by employing regional theories “neofunctionalism and functionalism.” For Adepoju, “Pan-Africanism” epitomizes the entirety of the historical/political/spiritual and cultural of “Africans worldwide” to neglect/defeat “neocolonialism,” thus secure Africa from dismemberment. Despite the above-mentioned authors historical and theoretical definition of “Pan-Africanism,” Adepoju (2018) offers in-depth analysis by relating the debate of “Pan-African” intellectuals between supporters of “supranationally” (radicals) and advocators of “inter-governmentality” (graduals) to the regional theorists Ernst Hass that favors “federal/neo-functional” approach and David Mitrany that takes an “inter-regional/functional” stance (Adepoju et.al, 2018:108,117). The author concludes that Nkrumah and Hass’s “supra-national” collective work implies a process whereby all national political leaders are supported and expected to shift their “national loyalties,” political interests to a shared “supranational state” capable of solving common problems while demanding “jurisdiction over the pre-existing nation-state.” Murithi (2007:4), contrary to others, “process traces” the history of Africa and the formation of AU, hence, agrees with above-mentioned scholars that “Pan-Africanism” occurred “as an act to respond” to African’s struggle/oppression/exploitation and continues to be relevant since the contemporary exploitation/neo-colonialism takes a new advanced form (paternalism) were former “colonizers” display as a “helpful hand” with a divine intention. 6 In contrast to the scholars above-cited, Nantambu (1998:565) employs a historical research method and postcolonialism to investigate the origins of “Pan-Africanism” and falsifies the aforementioned authors’ definition of the concept. As stated by Nantambu, defining “Pan-Africanism” as a movement born outside Africa by Afro-American intellectuals or a “radical consciousness” ideology born inside Africa by Nkrumah during Africa’s independence is a dysfunctional, ahistorical, and “Eurocentric” understanding of “Pan-Africanism.” Therefore, it is crucial to analyze Africans’ struggle from a proper unifying, holistic, and historical “afro-centric” approach that focuses on “Pan-African” nationalism rather than “PanAfricanism” to reject the Eurocentric analysis that relates the start point of the movement to Henry Sylvester Williams, Garveyism, racism/slavery/capitalism. Essentially, “PanAfricanism” is indeed Africans struggle against external/foreign oppression/domination/occupation/exploitation; meaning that Africans’ struggle did not start during slavery and colonialism; instead, African individuals rejected various diverse foreign invaders, both Europeans and non-Europeans thousands of years ago. For example, Egypt resisted “Shepred Kings” in 1783 B.C. and Syrians in 666 B.C. That being said, it is illogical to define “Pan-Africanism” as a “racial” concept whose history began after Africa’s confrontation with imperialists. Despite some scholar’s lack of in-depth historical analysis (Murithi 2007, Adepoju 2018, Adetula et al. 2020), most authors above involve “AU’s role in regional integration” procedure and the challenges related to AFCFTA neo-liberal economic integration to apprehend the correct definition and the left spirit of “Pan-Africanism” thus view Nkrumah’s neofunctional/federal/radical approach as the rational ideology which overthrows nationalism/patriotism in favor of continentalism and people-centered approach. 2.2 Xenophobia and elitism in Africa In comparison to the scholars named earlier, others (Neocosmos 2008, Kosaka & Solomon 2013, Hodiz 2015, Forger 2003, Croucher 2010, Ukwandu 2017, Chandoke 1984) outline the formation of elitism and nepotism in post-colonial Africa and the failure of African elite/leaders to abandon gradual inflammatory rhetoric thus recognize the “interests” of their citizens. To start with Kosaka & Solomon (2013), Croucher (2010), Ukwandu (2017), and Neocosmos (2008) that mainly focus on the cumulative “xenophobic” attacks in SA, highlight that the attacks are a result of African National Congress (ANC) minority Black/white ruling elites’ failure to transport “the freedom gained in 1994 from the Apartheid” into economic and social emancipation. However, despite the end of colonialism, political/economic “Apartheid,” 7 endures, as most black SA’s experience disillusionment; hence, their frustrations are directly projected onto “African foreigners” who are scapegoated and inaccurately accused of exploiting jobs/resources which ought to benefit dis-advantaged BSA citizens. Kosaka & Solomon (2013), with the use of Frustration-Aggression Theory, they relate xenophobia to intensified unemployment/poverty/globalization/migration. By carrying a field observation/interviewing and integrating with both local and African migrants, the scholars conclude that different political parties use “anti-migration discourse” to attract voters, thus establish a discourse of “otherness” as black SA’s start viewing “migrants/Africans” as a source of their deprivation. A similar argument is brought up by Croucher (2010:645), as he relates xenophobia to the increase of illegal migrants, hence identifies South Africa as a nation full of ethnic, linguistic, racial, religious, and cultural segregation constructing (self and other). In regard, the country needs to work towards building a civic nation where membership and entitlement are based on “loyalty” to the state rather than ethnic/religious groups. Notwithstanding, when using indicators (poverty, increase of migration, unemployment) as the causal mechanisms of “xenophobia,” many questions are left unanswered and puzzling. This is because those indicators can only account for the perpetrators’ frustration, desperation, and powerlessness but cannot explain perpetrators’ specific target group; “Why only black/African foreigners are the target group if xenophobia entails hatred against migrants?” Although the scholars above predominantly interpret xenophobia through economic and globalization challenges, they overlook historical factors making BSA citizens target Black/Africans/foreigners despite the presence of other foreigners/migrants. Other scholars Ukwandu (2017) and Neocosmos (2008:591) focus on political ideologies rather than economic indicators and relate the failure of the ANC party to the miscarriage of current “PanAfricanism.” Hence, argue that the gradual ideas and the racial/national/political stereotypes adopted from colonizers/apartheid have been a complete failure to actualize the majority inhabitants’/BSA dreams. In fact, “Pan-African nationalism” aiming to solve echoing disunity issues (Nkrumah) was rejected as soon as the neo-liberal Western policies entered the continent, and neither the idea of “Ubuntu, I am because you are” nor the “African Renaissance” has been taking beyond the condition of being slogan. Similar argument is further reaffirmed by Ukwandu (2017:52), “process tracing” the history of South Africa while engaging with “postcolonial theory” emphasizing the ANC failure and the danger of single party syndrome/despotism in postcolonial Africa, which become an instrument of power, coercion, and privilege in the hands of the national elites/bourgeoisie. Therefore, xenophobia is related 8 to the ANC’s inability to overcome historical issues due to a lack of reflection and imitation of apartheid policies. Again, Hodiz (2015) confirms the failure of “African elites” using a quantitative survey from the “Economic Intelligence Unit (2016) index” and claims that both South Africa and Zimbabwe have similar ruling elites that disregard the well-being of their populations. Moreover, the ANC party created a “Black Economic Empowerment” (BEE) policy with the help of minority whites in increasing available opportunities for majority blacks. However, the BEE simply enabled a small black elite while most blacks remain suffering poverty/inequalities (ibid:200 & Ukwandu, 2017:45). Likewise, African leaders (Mugabe) that regarded corporations with the West as “neo-colonialism” approached a “Look East Policy” and mimicked “China’s development approach” to protect sovereignty and leadership position. For instance, the “money gathered by the finance ministers” is not used to improve the conditions of least-privileged populations as elites “use aid and the financing from China to fund projects that prop up their political support rather than for development” (ibid:200). Notably, Forger (2003), unlike others, utilizes “a multidisciplinary analytical and discussional approach” to address “why things have gone wrong for postcolonial Africa” and what escalates disunity/marginalization issues. With the use of concepts (self-determination, African-consciousness), the scholar declares that the failure of “Pan-Africanism” resulted from the failure of “Pan-African” forefathers to solve the disagreement between radical and gradualist African intellectuals centered on economic transformation and nation-building, which jeopardized continental unity. Nevertheless, African problems and the miscarriage of “Pan-Africanism” should be recognized as an “outcome of colonialism and neo-colonialism,” as well as a “failure of leadership among African elites” (Forger, 2003:62). Subsequently, African gradual leaders’ refusal of a “politically united continent” while supporting “Western neo-liberal ideology” has contributed to the configuration of voiceless/inactive African civilians in political decision-making. This is due to the “black-elite burden” that mimics “Whiteman’s burden” through “neo-colonialism,” which amplifies the benefits of the “West” while ignoring the rights/interests of Africans. In respect, the scholar argues that Africans took a gradual path prioritizing nation-statism governed on European Model, which for them seemed like a “real” liberation. However, in practice, it was not a real liberation as it did not reflect Africa’s history hence placed the continent in a new period of indirect subjugation to the history of Europe; therefore, it is logical arguing that liberation instituted its denial as Africans find themselves in a wave of self-hate and animosity. Consequently, Africans need to revisit their past as it will motivate, inspire, and 9 reawaken “African consciousness” – and a new aspiration of “Pan-Africanism” in intellectuals and elites’ minds to respond to the innumerable concerns engendering disunity in Africa (ibid). To do that, African’s must reach a common understanding of what “Pan-Africanism” ought to be, and civilians should be included to reach a specific doctrine with clearly defined objectives and goals. Chandoke (1984) traces the history of the state in Africa and offers an original and insightful analysis of “the nature of dominant elite in Africa” to show how African nations are dominated by a robust, dominant sector and overpowering bureaucracy, which is a throwback to the early colonial state. Hence, African nations are based on domination policies that create hegemony/control over the “subject” populace, together with its crucial “militarized character” and the system of “irreplaceable” single-party “power” and force coupled with it. Consequently, the formation of the ruling elite in Africa is related to former colonial powers’ pact with African/gradual/elites to accept imposed colonial states and indirectly control pos-colonial states with development projects directed outside in line with Western interests (ibid:167-176). Thus, there is a visible “contradiction” between interests located and arranged in the “core nations and their local elite allies” on the one hand and the majority of the “African population” on the other hand. Chandoke concludes that colonial inheritance took the form of a “highly paid bureaucratic class” that established new African/elites who govern, emphasize nepotism, and control resources; suitably, transferring colonial political power was handled systematically. To recap, literatures in this section demonstrate the failure of gradual “Pan-Africanism” to abandon the colonial logic of domination as well as predatory and exploitive politics that are inimical to the development of “African/political Consciousness” and unity – as African elites have a duty to respect and stop “trading-off” the demands of the African people. 2.3 Re-conceptualizing Pan-Africanism Very limited radical/realist and gradual literature pay attention in understeering the ability of “Pan-African” idea undertaking by AU/African states to sustain continental development or if there is a need for an alternative “Pan-African” policy and a reconfiguration of African states (Okhonmina 2008, Momoh (2003), Sangmpam 2018, Martin 2012, Kasongo 2003). Momoh (2003) process traces the “Pan-African” philosophy with the use of postcolonialism and argues that “Pan-Africanism” has come to occupy a “statist platform” undertaking by African elites, thereby became a perverted and nebulous ideology that expresses neo-liberal policies, which is an outcome of failure. For Momoh, there is a need to move away from the current “Pan-Africanism,” the unpatriotic “territorial nationalism” of comprador 10 modernizers, and the “political hostility” that insists on blocking people’s creativity, complicates identity, thus belittles the echo chamber of African issues (ibid:54). In other words, Africans must deviate away from “Western” policies; hence, seek political unity (federal united Africa) that favors a bottom-down approach to the integration process and prioritizes promoting development and unity. Similarly, Okhomina’s (2008) traces the origins of “Pan-Africanism,” but unlike Momoh (2003), he takes an afro-pessimistic position while applying the “power transition theory.” He argues that establishing a “United Government of Africa,” will not eradicate inequality as the existence of “regional powers” are inevitable like current gradualist “regional powers” (Egypt/Nigeria/South Africa) that favor a top-down approach (economic integration) rather than political unity and people-centered procedures. Hence, radical “Pan-Africanism” is fixated in the past due to its focus on “racial similarities,” which prevents Africans from taking advantage of the globalizing world’s benefits (ibid:95). Eventually, “Pan-Africanism” must be revisited; meanwhile, its demand of unity/impartiality is not in tune with the “realist hierarchical power structure in the international system.” According to Okhomina, three factors are accounted for the failure/unattainability of African unity: 1) Lack of consensus and clear shared ideological structure/definition regarding the notion of “Pan-Africanism. 2) Lack of “trust” and poor integration between African communities as they are reluctant transferring their “loyalty to a supranational” institution. 3) Marginalization and exclusion of the voice of subaltern populations in decisionmaking. A similar standpoint has been undertaking by Sangmpam (2018), using “quantitative content analysis” re-emphasizing the impracticality of actualizing radical “Pan-Africanism” due to North and Sub-Saharan Africa’s (SSA) language/climate/culture/geopolitical differences and North Africa being far more developed than Sub-Saharan Africa. The scholar remarks that AU cannot eliminate African issues by aping EU policies, and “Pan-Africanism” based on political unity cannot be attained due to cultural/political differences. Therefore, SSA needs to create unique organization, dubbed “SSA-centered Unifederation,” with its exceptional “sovereignty” qualified to address SSA’s complex issues; thus, AU and the “Pan-African” call for “continental unification” should be “buried” beside Al-Gaddafi. Where we disagree with the authors of afro-pessimistic stance, however, is when they fail to account for other alternatives (Afro-centric) policies, else then imitating the “West,” which can make Africa develop. Hence, Kasongo (2003:60), “guided by historical analysis,” 11 provides an alternative approach while associating himself with a radical “realist Pan-African state” which has a solid defensive military eligible to protect its inhabitants hence contributes to the political/economic improvement of (United States of Africa). For Kasongo, the failure/collapse of “Pan-Africanism” is connected to the “African mentality” (Africans regarding themselves “inferior” in relation to the “white/colonizers”), thus internalizing the idea of “dark continent invented by imperial” powers. By opposing afro-pessimistic scholars Kasongo (2003) and Martin (2012:134) express that splitting Africa into Sub-Saharan and Trans-Saharan Africa is a microanalysis of “Pan-Africanism” which perpetuates the European divide/balkanization of Africa and denies the vital “revolutionary” variable (struggle) within the notion of “Pan-Africanism.” Namely, limiting the “Pan-African struggle” to cultural and geographical differences equates playing “into the hand of the colonizers,” hence enhancing colonizer’s constant indirect exploitation and control. Martin (2012) asserts that Africans must redraw the “African map” to construct a united Africa instead of the 55 nonviable states. Hence, this can be done by either creating subregional states or a “United African Nation.” Martin observes that “political restructuring of the continent is important and priority that needs to be addressed before economic reformation can bring about the desired result.” Put merely, the key to eliminating African predicaments does not lie in economic growth/integration but political unification (ibid:63,103,139). Further, Martin agrees with Kasongo (2003:92): that the “greatest obstacle to Africa’s development and democracy lies in the artificiality” of the colonial imposed borders that divide people sharing a common history/traditions/culture, and experience. Therefore, the “balkanization of Africa” is the leading cause of Africa’s predicaments. The solution, says scholars, resides in forming a “Pan-African federal state” based on “Pan-African” nationalism/identity/society which allows African citizens to attain “Black-Consciousness” and become aware of their full “civic obligation” and “rights.” The authors conclude the analysis by proposing five procedures capable of forming a “Realist United State of Africa:” 1) Stop aping “European experience and their unilateral development” as Pancontinental unity would not “ontologically” make progress out of “Western” institutions/history/culture. 2) Revisiting the past and developing “social consciousness” to abandon colonial mentality to reunite African’s that are currently divided by colonial borders. 3) The need for a past revisitation to re-form Africa’s policies in relation to its history/culture to promote self-consciousness. 12 4) Understanding that African development is not about “economic growth” rather political unity. 5) Decentralizing the power of despotism to establish a new “Pan-African” ideology relying on participatory and people-centered democratic approaches. As shown in this section, Africa’s history of resistance is prevailing as the “Pan-African” quest is yet to be fulfilled due to gradualists advocation for the state-based elite, which upkeeps colonial powers in Africa without the colonizers need to be physically present in the continent; thus, Africa is being kept in the prison of endless history of oppression. As demonstrated earlier, (United Africa) can be constituted from various alternate federal arrangements by either restructuring the map or forming one Africa by diminishing colonial imposed borders. However, most of the literature above relates the downfall of “Pan-Africanism” to Africa’s balkanization and the inconveniencies of free-market capitalism while relating elitism and xenophobia to immigration policies/globalization, and the increase of socio-economic ills. This entails that the literature overlooks the correlation between the ideology’s failure and the increase of “xenophobia/elitism” – as they fail to have historical backdrops. Secondly, the literature rushes to characterize the attacks against “African foreigners” in SA as “xenophobia” by utilizing economic indicators, thus disregard the history of “colonial” group relation; therefore, the thesis contributes what has been ignored by looking into the psychology of Africans gained from colonialism/apartheid with the help of a theoretical approach draws on Fanonian and Spivak. To produce in-depth analysis and demonstrate that “xenophobia” and current “Pan-Africanism” contain characteristics of “hatred” and features of “Afro-phobic” and self-contempt, Fanon and Spivak’s theorization are needed to analyze the discourse present in African leaders’ speeches thus produce a comprehensive answer. 2.4 Postcolonial approaches: Otherness, Mimicry, and Subaltern Postcolonial theory is a reflective theory that provides critical thinking towards the ongoing rejection of “colonialism” and its repercussion. The theory is chosen as it explains the continuation of colonialism labeled as “neo-colonialism,” allowing for an alternative to traditional IR theories’ “Eurocentric” interpretation of “Third World” predicaments. Although the theory contains diverse thinkers (Homi Bhabha, Gayatri Spivak, Edward Said), it faced criticism for lacking a well-balanced/reliable “African” contribution into the “paradigm” (Mondal, 2014:2965). Therefore, Spivak’s utilization of “Subaltern” and “Othering” will be supported by Frantz Fanon’s “Mimicry/othering” and Kwame Nkrumah’s (speech) to provide an “African” postcolonial/Pan-African input thus examine “African issues” from an “afro- 13 centric” perspective. For instance, concepts “Otherness,” “Mimicry,” employed by Fanon in “Black skin, white masks” (1952) and supported by Spivak’s theorization of “subaltern/othering” in her book “Can the subaltern speak” (1988) are found to be valid. The following section will present the relevant postcolonial concepts. 2.4.1 Otherness, Mimicry, and Subaltern In fanon’s conceptualization, “Otherness” is constructed by the “colonizers” as it produces the “uniqueness” of the “West.” Henceforth, the West/colonizers’ sense of self, more precisely, is a construction made through colonizers’ sense of differences from “Others” (Blacks/colonized). Furthermore, being white/Western reflects beauty/civilized/prosperous/rational/intelligent while being black equates ugly/savage/uncivilized/unintelligent (Fanon 1986: 47,52). In “Black skin, white masks,” Fanon bitterly deals with the mechanics of “colonialism” by examining its psychological impacts; thus, argues that since white people as colonizers assigned “undesirable” derogatory terms to blacks’ rites, habits, and customs as uncivilized/barbaric, the categorization still makes “Whites” superior and normal humans. Simultaneously, the “Negro” remains the abnormal “Other” that need to be made “normal” by the slightest interaction with the whites; thus, justifies dehumanization/slavery/colonialism. For instance, Blacks/Africans internalization of their inferiority established a traumatic belief, torment, and “phobogenic object” (whites finding blacks as threatening and revolting concurrently), which made black people strive to escape the negative traits ascribed to them by “mimicking” the language/habits/customs, and behaviors of Whites/Western– to be seen as normal humans. Fanon stresses that some blacks mimic the colonizers/West to the extent of negating the whole of their heritage/culture/race. Therefore, “Negros” develops “Neurosis of blackness” (blacks hating their Blackness), believing that the only way out from the “inferior position” is mimicking, attracting, and seeking the approval of the white men in everything. In chapter five, “The fact of blackness,” Fanon proclaims that “the white world, the only honorable one, barred me from all participation. A man was expected to behave like a man, I was expected to behave like a […] Nigger” (ibid:50,57,114). He expresses that black people have no chance to determine what they are by themselves; meanwhile, the “ontology” of black people is made unattainable by the “whites” – as they decide the existence of black people and what blacks are. Fanon’s analysis of the generational trauma and psychological damages experienced by colonized individuals, particularly blacks, is relevant here, as it will help tackle what has been 14 overlooked by previous literature (the unmanaged colonial mentality carried by blacks). In line with Fanon, black people “internalized” colonial discourses by identifying themselves as “inferior” when encountering “whites.” This is shown in the thesis when reflecting on how first, “Pan-African” ancestors (graduals), due to lack of “Black-Consciousness” distrusted their intellect and “Blackness” by mimicking colonizers’ neo-liberal ideology hence inherited colonial state despite the availability of other alternatives (radical Pan-Africanism). In respect, mimicry interprets African’s inability to seek psychological and cultural liberation by employing an “inward-looking ideology” aiming at “decolonizing the mind” (Martin 2012:73). Put differently, the lack of “Black-Consciousness” means that African’s experience “falsedecolonization” (thinking that they are free and independent while they undergo “neocolonialism” and mental-enslavement). As stated earlier, SA can be seen as a country that experienced “colonialism/apartheid” hence internalized the colonial discourse of “Othering” by imposing ill-treatment to other Africans – and we-image established by colonizers shifted to we-they, where “we” signify South Africa and “they” implies other/Africans/subaltern/inferiors (Matsinhe 2011:299). As emphasized by Fanon, black people experience “abandonment-neurotic” since whites abandoned them as their humanity/ontology was questioned; hence, it created the need to mimic “Whites” and fear their “Blackness” due to the inability of finding a way to determine their “ontology” (Fanon 1986:72). In the case of SA, the thesis argues that black South Africans (BSA) experienced “Negrophobia” developed by Whites/colonizers. However, to escape from their inferior position, small black elites started seeking recognition from colonizers by mimicking colonizers’ behavior; this generated the formation of minority black “elites” given special recognition and ruling the country, which left the majority of BSA’s remain carrying the heavyweight of inferiority. In regard, most BSA’s experience “abandonment-neurotic” as they got used to being abandoned by minority whites and black elites who were granted a better position (Matsinhe 2011:296). Due to the internalization of Black inferiority, black SA’s designed self-loathing emerging from “Neurosis of blackness” (dream to become white) which often displays itself in “self-destructive” behavior, involving “contempt” and annihilation of those who resemble them the most. Hence, blacks’ hate against blacks can take different forms, but in the thesis, it is shown in two ways: gradualist “Pan-Africanists” denying the existence of a uniquely African way of development distinct from the West. Secondly, black SA’s incompetence of viewing minority whites/black elites as the underlying cause of their disenfranchisement. 15 Spivak’s concept of subaltern (lower class) shows how superior class/colonizers’ produce its “subject” (other/blacks) and “internalizes” blacks’ inferiority, which puts blacks in a powerless/subaltern/voiceless condition; hence, it makes colonial subjects imitate whatever the colonizer does as the colonizers’ ideologies are regarded to be the norm. Therefore, for Spivak and Fanon, the colonizers’ “self-identity” is inseparable from the colonized identity as it only comes into existence in relation to the latter. However, Spivak uses “subaltern/other” in her book to describe how former colonizers and national elites in India subjugate Indian women; nevertheless, its relevant in the case of SA – as the majority of blacks have historical been silenced by “colonizers/imperialists” and are still oppressed by multiple oppressors’ core nations, and local white/black elites in SA (Spivak, 1988:78). Following Fanon’s search for “self-consciousness” and cure for colonial mentality, Africans/blacks must not be confronted by the dilemma, “turn white or disappear” while upholding the inferior/subaltern position; instead, Africans should develop “BlackConsciousness” to be able to cognizance possible ways to determine their ontology/existence (Fanon, 1986:100 & Martin, 2012:121). The chosen postcolonial concepts have not yet been applied in the combined context of “Pan-Africanism” and the raising “xenophobia” in SA; however, Kasongo (2003) and Nantambu (1998) pointed out the need for “self-awareness” to resolve disunity in Africa. By employing postcolonial concepts, the thesis contributes to the ongoing debate of the miscarriage/failure of “Pan-Africanism” to resolve African issues by focusing on “xenophobia” in SA and the undealt colonial psychological damages of Africans. The above-named theoretical notions are also relevant in analyzing “African” leaders’ speeches, especially as language plays a central role in constructing “Otherness,” we-they images, and “collective identity.” The following section discusses the relevant methods and shows how the “self “and “other” are constructed in positive ways where “African unity” is encouraged to confront colonizers/others (Nkrumah/AU protocols) and in negative ways where Africans divide themselves (Cyril Ramaphosa, Mugabe, and Motsoaledi). 16 3. Methodology The methodology part focuses on producing a reliable answer to the research question, “How can we apprehend the failure of Pan-Africanism to establish oneness and solve disunity/xenophobia issues in South Africa?” For instance, the Post-colonial concepts stated earlier have motivated the study’s choice of critical discourse analysis (CDA) and qualitative content analysis (QCA) as a method. Additionally, in the next section, data quality will be outlined regarding the preferred four speeches of African elite leaders and three AU protocols. Furthermore, theoretically-driven coding systems and the material’s defect and strengths while being self-reflective will be presented as a foundation for the upcoming analysis. 3.1 Critical discourse analysis Critical discourse analysis (CDA) critically aims to uncover the correlation between “text, ideology/power/language” and social reality. The role of CDA involves examining the construction of discourse (Pan-Africanism) while resisting “dominant discourse/power” (West/colonizers) through the “linguistic” system (Halpern & Heath 2017:336-9). The difference between CDA and other discourse analyses is that CDA functions as method and theory; however, in this study it will be used as a method. It views language as the basis of investigating “social phenomena” and revealing power imbalances. Discourse analysis as a whole is an “interpretive study” that explores how “social phenomena” (in this case, African unity/Pan-African discourse) are discursively constructed, hence intends at discovering the cause of specific behavioral outcomes by investigating political actors’ motivations (what motivates African leaders’) speeches. Accordingly, since the study investigates the miscarriage of “Pan-Africanism,” it requires an interpretive understanding of African leaders/AU behavior/ideas/believes to provide reasons for acting in a certain way. CDA, as an interpretive study, views realities and “social phenomena” as something that is constructed/unfixed; therefore, ontologically, it takes a “constructivist” standpoint recognizing that the world we experience/practice is “subjectively” constructed; hence, individuals’ behavior is best recognizable by interpreting the meanings that encourage them to take or prefer certain behavior/action (ibid:41). Furthermore, CDA is a valid method capable of showing how a group of people/individuals in a particular society use language to accomplish specific goals (to unite people or disunite). Although there are different versions of CDA, the study employs Fairclough’s “social-discoursal” approach, which has been predominant in CDA in the last decades (Fairclough 2003:16). Fairclough suggests a “threedimensional” approach to support analysts to realize the “interconnectedness” between 17 social/language and political. These include “discourse-as-text, discourse-as-discursivepractice, and discourse-as-socio-cultural practice.” Besides, the first-dimension entails studying “linguistic” features of text, speaker’s selection of grammatical words/metaphors, describing whether a sentence is declarative or if the spokesperson asks questions to attract the audience. This is because words and sentences selected/formulated by the speaker tells the speaker’s attitude. Hence, this study looks more into; grammatical words (pronouns/adjectives/verb) used by the spokesperson to describe the enemy/other/subaltern and construction of We/them image. The thesis draws on postcolonial concepts defined above as it will assist the process of identifying specific expressions that indicate exclusion/othering of certain groups. The second dimension, “discourse as-practice” means the existence of different discourses and identifying whether other discourse (previous speech/events) have inspired the spokesperson, and it includes analysis of the processes of interpretation, production, consumption, and distribution. The third dimension, “discourse-associo-cultural-practice,” is concerned about the power that is constructed/supported/accepted or rejected – it also involves explorations of how discourse operates in numerous domains of society (Gowhary et.al, 2013:135). As Fairclough reasons, to comprehend how discourse works one must consider whether the speech/text rejects “unequal power relation” in community by introducing new way of social relation (ibid:22). By using CDA and postcolonialism which are critical theories, the thesis is qualified to do a critical textual analysis, revealing the “hidden agenda” of African/Pan-African leaders’ speeches by looking into how the “intended audience” (Africans) are described in relation to 18 the “dominant discourse” (West), thus see the correlation between the speech, the society and the motives of the spokesperson/leaders. Fairclough emphasized that researchers must pay close attention to pronouns/metaphors/rhetorical devices (anaphora and repetition) when analyzing texts (ibid:125). Nonetheless, in this study, specific attention is paid to repetition, and pronouns accounted for constructing “collective identity” while forming “otherness” discourse. 3.1.1 Data selection Meanwhile selecting relevant data to produce reliable/valid and transparent research, the thesis considers possible ways avoiding/minimizing selection bias. The research attempts to understand the failure of the “Pan-African” ideology and how “collective identity” is formed through speeches by African leaders to truly understand the type of “Pan-Africanism” preferred by Africans which then tells whether Fanon’s search for “self/Black-consciousness” has been attained by African leaders/elites and the AU organization. This includes the “Pan-African” Father Nkrumah, South African president and health minister, as well as Mugabe. These selections are made to minimize selection bias also to make the finding generalizable to certain extent. Here, generalization does not denote developing a “law-like generalization;” instead, the aim is that the findings apply to more than certain African groups (SA) (Halpern & Heath 2017:175). Therefore, African leaders from different countries were selected to make the finding applicable to most Africans and African mentality, thus make the study both internally and externally valid. For the purpose of the thesis, the speeches were selected due to their relevance to the study regarding their focus on either “Pan-Africanism” or xenophobia. In the context of “PanAfricanism,” Nkrumah was selected as a fundamental “Pan-African” intellectual in Africa as his speeches (1963) deeply motivate and accentuate “Pan-Africanism” and the need for “BlackConsciousness” thus, the study gives main focus to the spokesperson’s “grammatical selection” of words and how it constructs “collective identity” aiming at unifying Africans. Within the same context, Mugabe’s speech is selected to view whether he attained “Black-Consciousness” which according to Fanon free Africans from physical/mental/political/economical oppression. Furthermore, Ramaphosa and Motsoaledi are chosen to understand the way leaders with (colonial psychology) disregard the interest of their citizens by politicizing migration to scapegoat Black/African immigrants in order to distract citizens from their “failure” to root out the nation’s disparities. This will help us understand the types of “Pan-Africanism” prioritized by African leaders/AU (Unification or protecting colonial-created borders and remain 19 disunited) which then explains African mentality that constitutes the unattainability of “BlackConsciousness.” In regard, a total of four speeches were chosen, both old and contemporary speeches’, which are encapsulated below. Date Title Spokesperson Target audience 05.24.1963 A call for oneness to the newly Independent African States President Kwame Nkrumah Africans 26-09-2007 President of the 62nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) President Robert Mugabe Western nations 25-03-2019 Address on the issues related to increased African migrants President Cyril Ramaphosa Subaltern Black South Africans 15-11-2018 Addresses African migrants’ illegal hospital attendance Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi Subaltern Black South Africans 3.2 Qualitative content analysis (QCA) Considering the need to establish accurate analysis, QCA will be combined with CDA to capture the miscarriage of “Pan-Africanism” not only by focusing on leaders’ speeches but also analyzing protocols of AU to interpret what type of “Pan-Africanism” prioritized by AU and whether it is in line with “African unity.” QCA was chosen due to its closeness to CDA as it is a form of textual analysis that concentrates on “latent content.” Unlike quantitative CA that pay attention to “manifest content,” qualitative CA analysis focuses on what has been overlooked by Quantitative CA (qualities of entities) meanings/processes that are not experimentally examined (Halpern and Heath 2017:346). Florian (2006:7) argues that qualitative CA emerged from “phenomenological” and “interpretive” paradigms just like discourse analysis, with its emphases relying on “constructivist approaches” which has a significant implication on what is viewed as the “nature of knowledge,” as it opposes the existence of “clear-cut reality” hence acknowledges that meaning arises through interaction (ibid). As further expressed by Forger (2006), qualitative CA does not impose limits on the researches collection of data – as it is less lead by specific “hypotheses and categorial” framework thus helps the emergence of new themes during coding. Therefore, the thesis favors Qualitative CA as it is frequently applied when the “field of research” has not yet been assessed; hence, it aims to generate or test “new hypotheses” and “theories” to understand the theme in focus. To re-emphasize, the study aims to gain a more profound knowledge of the increase of “xenophobia” in the presence of “PanAfricanism” and the role of African psychology, which has not yet been investigated. 20 Moreover, the “Pan-African” ideology undertaking by AU shall be tested in terms of the plausibleness of identifying emphasis regarding “African/political unity” in AU protocols (ibid). 3.2.1 Material/AU protocols While using qualitative CA, the thesis uses AU’s authentic online site; which is perceived as a valuable supply, and their protocols are effortlessly available; thus, no problems had been faced while assembling the data. The study selects three protocols: firstly, Article 3 in the “Protocol to the Constitutive Act of the African Union relating to the Pan-African Parliament” in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea , 27 Jun 2014; secondly, Article 10 and 14 in the “Protocol to the Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community Relating to Free Movement of Persons, Right of Residence and Right of Establishment” held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on 29 January 2018; lastly, Article 14 in the “Agreement Establishing the African Continental Free Trade Area” signed in Kigali, Rwanda on 21 March 2018. These were chosen to apprehend how “PanAfricanism” failed to “unite Africans” as the protocols are perceived to have “Pan-African” insights (https://au.int/en/treaties). Meanwhile, the “protocols” are essential material taken from AU’s “original” site; the data’s shortcoming is that (Arabic/English/French/Portuguese) are AU’s desired “languages” which the protocols are written. Consequently, AU favors “French” language, in this regard, the large part of the material is obtainable in French. Put merely, the English/Arabic/Portuguese documents are shorter and might not include much information which might limit the amount of info assembled. Though, the conventions accessibility in four languages could be seen as site’s transparency, strength, and reliability thus mirroring the continent’s multiculturality; nevertheless, it is essential to note that none of the languages are an African language which is found peculiar and surprising. Overall, analyzing documents/speeches “is an unobtrusive method” of data gathering and is viewed to have less bias than other “obtrusive” methods of data collection (interviews/focus groups/ethnography) that cannot reduce bias as the researcher cannot avoid connection with informants which makes “Heisenberg Effect” unavoidable (Halper & Health, 2017:2012). As aforementioned, the limited focus of the understanding of “Pan-African” failure in case of “xenophobia” in South Africa generates a limited “external validity” and a danger of “false uniqueness,” but again, this weakness has been considered by selecting different African leaders’ speeches from different nations during different time period to view African mentality and the favored “Pan-African” type (ibid). Hence, both CDA and Qualitative CA are chosen as they both are capable of analyzing text and show how the meaning of the text mirrors “reality.” Namely, in the section below, the study shows transparency and the coding process’s decisions. 21 3.3 Theoretically motivated Coding System Ensuring the “validity” and “reliability” of the result, the analysis of the “Pan-African” failure to solve contemporary African issues will be built on “coding systems” that are theoretically regulated and are in line with the RQ. Two questions were used as a guideline to structure the coding; the first relates to how (Nkrumah) established “Black-Consciousness” by emulating and reversing colonial “Otherness” to create “African Unity” – the second aims to simplify how other Africans (Mugabe/Ramaphosa/Motsoaledi) mimicked and accepted colonial rules; hence, their “attachment to sovereignty” intensified the division of Africans which developed “otherness” within the African community which will be shown in the case of “xenophobia,” where “others/subalterns” are Black/African/foreigners. Simply put, the earlier inquires classifies the construction of “communally and collective identity” with the use of personal objective/possessive/reflective pronouns (I, me, my, myself), that add to the subjectivity of the speeches thus offer speakers “personal voice which shows commitment,” to gain trust and support from the audience/Africans (Fairclough, 2003:148). These selections of words/sentences/questions and personal morality produce collective identity, Pan-African discourse, “Black-consciousness,” reassurance, which calls for political unity – thus regards it as the only solution of African issues. The latter inquiry examines protocols/speeches view of “Pan-Africanism,” and this is understood by repetitive words/sentences that show signs of gradual “Pan-Africanism,” (disunity, prioritization of economic growth, trust of neo-liberal policies, and attachment to sovereignty) that are viewed as mimicry/acceptance of colonial power and a sign of lack of “Black-Consciousness,” which shapes continents disunity. Despite the inquiries guiding coding procedure, the themes were directly extracted from the documents/protocols/speeches while considering the theory and the “Pan-African” literature. Several themes have sub-themes due to the emergence of new other themes (harsh words, reassurance). In terms of coding units, the study focuses more on “sentences/words and phrases” related to the themes laid out in the table underneath. This shows the research’s transparency, reproducibility and “reliability,” but one problem might be the “inevitability” of “researchers’” involvement during coding, which does not reduce/decrease “subjectivity” due to “impressionistic” interpretations (Halpern & Heath, 2017:350). The coding was done successfully/less stressful with the use of NVivo20, a “qualitative data analysis” software with themes/codes which is qualified for analyzing text-based sources (speeches/documents/interviews) (qsrinternational 2021). Hence, the established themes for both speeches analyzed as CDA and protocols as QCA are shown below as a table. 22 Theme name How many times it was mentioned (across all speeches and protocols) How many spokesperson and protocols mentioned it (4 speeches 3 AU protocols) Accountability of Western states 6 1 Communality and collective identity – Enemy/others • Harsh/hateful words – Imperative sentence – Objective pronoun – Personal pronoun – Possessive adjectives – Reflexive pronoun 11 22 7 9 24 58 60 3 5 4 2 2 1 3 3 1 Declarative sentence 22 1 Descriptive questions 4 1 Disunity, discourse of acceptance – Prioritization of economic growth – Trust of neo-liberal community • Appreciating South Africa • Attachment to sovereignty 21 9 5 1 8 3 1 1 1 2 Expressing gratitude and obligation 2 2 Interrogative questions 4 1 Pan-African discourse of resistance – Black Consciousness – Political unity 7 9 39 4 4 3 Personal morality – Reassurance 8 2 1 1 Self-reflection questions – Raising awareness 12 11 1 1 Solutions to neo-colonialism – Science and technology – African intellectuals 36 4 1 4 1 1 Ultimatum demand 3 1 Othering/ Subaltern Mimicry Reversal of Othering 23 4. Analysis Based on the methodological and theoretical reflections made previously, the miscarriage/failure of “Pan-Africanism” to solidify African solidarity, thus reconstructing a sense of shared destiny to achieve the ideology’s objectives, will deeply be studied in answering the research questions; “How can we apprehend the failure of Pan-Africanism to establish oneness and solve issues, such as disunity/xenophobia in South Africa?” Hence, the data collected (speeches, AU protocols) and the theoretical concepts will be applied to develop reliable analysis. However, this part is compartmentalized into four sections examining three types of African psychology; Firstly, xenophobia and Africa’s self-hate will be investigated by looking into the construction of “enmity” and “otherness” within the African community (SA); Secondly, “attachment to sovereignty” favored by Mugabe and AU’s gradual “Pan-African” ideology; Thirdly, the need for “Black-Consciousness” by Nkrumah; and lastly, the thesis discusses how the “Pan-African” failure can be set into the context of African mentality and favoritism of “gradual/colonial” ideologies, which are inimical to the well-being and emancipation of African’s. The thesis has chosen these sub-sections to reflect the three dimensions of CDA and the dominant themes in the discourse established during coding. 4.1 Xenophobia and Africa’s self-hate 4.1.1 First dimension – Discourse as text During South Africa’s presidential election in March 2019, current president Ramaphosa held a speech competing with other South African elites to become the president. By directing the speech to the Black South African (BSA) audience, who are the least-advantaged/subaltern group, to show his support for them and his intention to end their struggle by establishing beneficial policies. He employs grammatical words, personal pronouns “we,” objective pronouns “us,” and imperative words “must” relate to the themes “communality and collective identity,” which constitutes the construction of “enmity” and “otherness.” Ramaphosa carefully identifies what causes the disparities/poverty experienced by the majority BSA and stresses that: “Everyone just arrives in our townships and rural areas and sets up businesses without licenses and permits. We are going to bring this to an end. And those who are operating illegally, wherever they come from, must now know” (Chigumadzi, 2019). This statement shows how Ramaphosa explicitly relates (poverty/unavailability of opportunities/jobs for BSA’s) to the increase of “illegal immigrants” who, according to him, “steal” jobs by “set[ting] up businesses” illicitly. In attempt to increase audience’s support/trust, he attempts to bring “commonality” and shared intimacy emphasizing how he 24 and his party will bring this to end with the help of citizens, thus a “moral value” is embedded in the genre/discourse. He also encompasses a seemingly “nationalist” expression and “attachment to sovereignty” which approves his concerns for the safety of South African’s by stating that: “If they are undocumented when crime happens, you can’t even get these people… [This is about] the safety of the country. It is not being opportunistic” (ibid). For instance, Ramaphosa choice of sentences/words constructs we-they “otherning” image. In this case, “we/our” means (SA community), and “they/those” are other/Subaltern/African foreigners, which the ANC party will fight to “secure” the populations’ interest. 3.1.2 Second dimension – Discourse as practice Considering Fairclough’s second dimension, language can change behavior and how people view things (Gowhary et.al, 2013:135). Political and economic discourse are present as Ramaphosa politicized “migration” by accusing “African foreigners” for increasing poverty/unemployment. Hence, formed his language to deliver a “hatred” massage to attract voters and hold the desired political spot; thus, “discourse-as-a-practice” displays how SA citizens changed their perception of African/foreigners. Hereafter, Ramaphosa draws on other discourses, such as the health minister Aaron Motsoaledi who, in 2018, held a speech criticizing illegal migrants whom he described as the ones that increase diseases. In an attempt, Motsoaledi visualizes the emergence of diseases and the incapability of BSA citizens to attend hospitals as “African migrants’” fault – as he at the same time expresses the need for the country to re-examine its “immigration” policies, calming: “Our hospitals are full, we can’t control them…. [migrants] cause overcrowding, infection control starts failing.” Another similar discourse shaped Ramaphosa’s speech is Zulu King Goodwill, which in 2015 made statements that African/savage/horrified foreigners are changing the “nature” of SA society with their businesses by enjoying the wealth that locals should exploit (Sahistory.org, 2018). This shows how migration is “politicized” and used by “African elites” to scapegoat African/foreigners/expatriates to justify the colonial/apartheid inherited system. 3.1.3. Third dimension – Discourse as socio-cultural practice The third dimension shows the correlation between “text/speech” and “reality” and the rejection or the acceptance of dominant discourse. Initially, due to the visibility of acceptance of dominant colonial discourses in SA leaders’ speeches, “xenophobic” sentiments have been adopted by BSA citizens and hate against “migrants” has spanned the “political spectrum” – thus established a heightened distrust between Black Africans (Steenkamp, 2009: 439-442). 25 After each politician/elite holds a speech blaming “African migrants” and contributing a discourse of fear/discrimination, xenophobic attack occurs, killing mainly “African foreigners” whether they stay permissible or unlawfully. In accordance with Spivak, “othering” is a process of demarcation by which a line is drawn by minority or majority elite groups to distinguish powerful/superior and less-powerful/inferior groups in the community, thus enable dehumanization of the weaker/subaltern group (Jensen, 2011:62). Conversely, in SA the procedure of “othering” has been constituted by the “white” ruling elites and later mimicked by “African elite” leaders who represent the voices of “subaltern” BSA, thus make them view “African foreigners” as their enemies. Hence, speeches held by Ramaphosa/Motsoaledi, and King Zulu motivated the BSA population to loot/destroy businesses owned by “African foreigners.” Consequently, hundreds of black/Africans were killed, 35,000 became displaced, while thousands were forced to return to their birth nation. In this regard, Black/African migrants have experienced “systematic xenophobia” from state authorities (elite/leaders) and citizens and are continuously labeled “amakwerekwere” meaning “unintelligent” people with “unintelligible” language, dirty, and spread diseases (HIV) across the country (Steenkamp, 2009:443) In this regard, it is evident that superiority/inferiority colonial rules/discourse have been accepted and are present in the African society. Mimicry of colonial othering Employing Fanon’s “otherness and mimicry,” it is evident that SA did not recover from historical trauma as citizens’ action towards “Africans/foreigners” remains mirroring biological and race attributes established by imperialists. Due to that, foreigners in the country receive different “treatments” depending on their race. For example, European/white illegal “immigrants” who have overstayed their “entry permits” are not ill-treated like African/foreigners. This can be related to the systems/discourses created by “White/Europeans” during slavery/colonialism/apartheid and words (evil/savages/dirty/animals/unintelligent/wretchedness/death/war/famine/immorality) were used to describe blacks –subjecting them into legalized ill-treatment. For Fanon, this harmed Blacks’ psychology as they accepted the roles that have been given to them, which equates and computes to anything terrible. This made Blacks “phobogenic object” stimulus to “anxiety” hence face “neurotic conditions,” which makes them understand that “one is not black without a problem,” therefore BSA’s seek to be white (ibid, Fanon, 1986:153,192,214). As-a-result, the colonial “we” and “they” image is today “mimicked” by the BSA’s viewing themselves superior in relation to other “Blacks/Africans.” As Fanon stressed, Black peoples’ unreflected 26 experience of oppression established “collective-unconsciousness” were blacks view themselves as an “object” and carry what has been described as the “burden of original sins of their skin;” hence, when they encounter with “white men” they try to flee from their “Blackness” mimicking colonial “Afrophobic” acts by acting superior in relation to other “Blacks.” This explains the intensified disunity among the African community/SA in which Black/foreigner is labeled “amakwerekwere” and “white” foreigners are put on a pedestal and receive more respect because they are according to “BSA” the creators of wealth (Matsinhe, 2011:296). Therefore, colonial established-outsider relations, and SA/blacks continual interaction with “whites,” makes SA/blacks perceive themselves as civilized/lighter/superior and more intelligent than other Black African/subalterns. Thus, a situation where “white/SA citizens” target/exploit “BSA” and BSA’s in return seek to escape from their Blackness/inferiority by targeting/exploiting other Black/Africans are constituted. Due to the historical silencing and “social/collective unconsciousness” experienced by majority BSA’s, whiteness becomes “identical” with BSA, which makes the “colonized” BSA’s idealize themselves in the “image” of the colonizer, thus produce the ideology of SA “exceptionalism,” which is created in the “bizarre” idea, that SA/blacks have interacted with whites, have lighter skin and are civilized than the rest of Africans. Put merely, SA/Blacks recognize themselves as whites that are trapped in a black body (Neocosmos 2008:591). Consequently, Identification with the oppressor is inseparable from “self-destruction” as they both are the features of the “colonized self.” Fanon explains how “Collective-unconsciousness” and blacks distrusting their Blackness is inevitable, writing that, “I am a white man. For unconsciously I distrust what is blade in me, that is, the whole of my being. I am a Negrobut of course I do not know it, simply because I am one” (ibi:191). This shows how colonizers smashed the “ontology” of blacks and how colonial “mimicry” is unavoidable since past and current indirect persecution incapacitates the mind of the oppressed, hence invites self-loathing, instituting asymmetrical power making one aim at damaging others/subalterns who “resemble” oneself. From this outlook, African “Black/foreigners” are dreaded/distrusted/disliked/killed not because they are entirely different from BSA slightly because they “resemble” the oppressed/subaltern BSA’s (ibid & Matsinhe, 2011:296-302). Furthermore, when applying Spivak’s concept “subaltern,” the same narrative is epitomized that the post-apartheid government (ANC) did not improve the living standard of all Blacks rather represent the voice of BSA subalterns by making them unconscious thus feeding them with “anti-African” sentiments to silence them thus cover inequalities within the nation. In consonance with Spivak, the historiography of SA has always been dominated by 27 colonialist/Apartheid/elitism, which made bourgeoise-nationalist African/elites mimic colonial “othering” and stabilize a “neo-colonial” hierarchical community. Consequently, the SA community has “macrostructural” dominant groups making (blacks-hate-against-blacks) reasonable. 1. Superior “foreign” groups (West/former colonizers). 2. Superior “indigenous groups” on the “regional” and all-SA level (white/SA elites). 3. Superior “indigenous groups” at “local” levels (black/SA elites). 4. The “indigenous” subaltern group (majorly BSA). 5. Subaltern “foreigners” (Black/African migrants). It is important to note that each group subjugates the group below; hence, the first group never experiences oppression but has the absolute capacity to oppress all other groups – and the group which is inferiorized/abused by all is the last one (Spivak, 1988:71,79,92). According to Spivak, subaltern consciousness is essential, and BSA’s are the subaltern group that experience “collective-unconsciousness” and support elite SA policies that work in favor of former colonizers/West and white/black/SA elites. For Fanon, this cycle of subjugation/exploitation cannot end as long as the “Negro” is a victim of “white” civilization; therefore, Blacks/South Africans must develop “self/Black-Consciousness” which can be gained by reflecting on past experiences to end “collective-unconsciousness” which appears from mimicry and identification with the oppressor (Fanon, 1986:221). Overall, there is a need for “psychological liberation” due to the dominant discourse of colonialism/apartheid regime policies, which succeeded in instilling endless dependency and deference towards whites, identity-confusion, “Negrophobia,” and a resigned apathy about the future in the African/Black man’s psyche. Hence, to end these requires an “Afro-centric” solution and “inward-looking” policies. 4.2 Disunity and attachment to sovereignty Another outstanding argument explaining the miscarriage/failure of “Pan-Africanism” is African political elites’ “attachment to sovereignty” and their failure to imagine an alternative conception of “statehood” independent from the “European model” (Martin, 2012:137). Mugabe identifies Western communities’ bad intension and hindrance of Africa’s development but fails to develop full “self/Black-Consciousness.” In the speech of the 62nd Session of the UNGA, Mugabe expresses gratitude/obligation to the president Mr. Ban Ki-Moon and shows appreciation to the former president. However, trust for the neo-liberal policy is present in the speech and is expressed through a mixture of “disunity,” “appreciating South Africa,” and “attachment to sovereignty” themes. Mugabe states that “Zimbabwe will continue to support 28 the West in dealing with” international issues. He continues claiming that Zimbabwe is a “sovereign” state capable of “dealing with” its own issues, which approves his support for upkeeping colonial inherited states (Mugabe, 2012). This is identified clearer when saying, “Zimbabwe stands ready to play its part” by advocating for social development, economic, and human rights programs designed by the “West” to achieve development. Furthermore, “BlackConsciousness” and the danger of “neo-colonialism” is expressed by mentioning indirect “western” control in African policies, such as the idea that the “West” interest and deliberations for “economic/racial/Eurocentric” ideas appear to be stronger than “their adherence to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UDHR) (ibid). Mugabe establishes “Othering” discourse and seems to develop some consciousness by “holding the West accountable” stating that, “The West still negates our sovereignties by way of control of our resources” (ibid). However, what has been contradictory in Mugabe’s attainment of “Black-Consciousness” is that he says that Africa “thought the West [colonizers]” about “democracy” thus refuses to learn human rights principles from “Mr. Bush” and other “Western” leaders who colonized and still kill inhumanly – as they have “much to atone for and very little to lecture [Africa] on” the UDHR. Although Mugabe demonized the “West” and reiterated that he “will never allow a regime change authored by outsiders,” he still “trusts the neo-liberal policies” and is “attached to sovereignty” while distrusting the capability of his “Blackness” and relying on “Afro-centric” policies (ibid). Nonetheless, it appears that he did not fully develop “Blacks/self-consciousness” as he insists on aping “Western” policies. Findings: Building on Fanon’s argument, Africa still retains the fundamental features that characterized the “colonial states” and African leaders (Mugabe) tend to support/uphold these, absolutism, arbitrariness, social marginalization, political domination, economic exploitation, and cultural dependency which is only beneficial for African elites/West (Martin, 2012:109,137). For Fanon, one cannot neglect the oppressor while upholding the oppressor’s policies, which is why Mugabe, just like SA leaders, exists in “collective-unconsciousness” due to his support for single-party rule and neo-liberal policies/sovereignty, which neglects citizens’ demand. Hence, the failure of “Pan-Africanism” is related to the failure of African leaders to reject “colonial rules” thus generate economic/political independence through a process of self-centered/autonomous, and self-reliant “afro-centric” development, which could only be achieved when mental liberation, “Black-Consciousness” that comes from “inwardlooking” and “people-centered” policies rather than despotism is fully attained. 29 4.2.1 African Unions gradual Pan-Africanism Likewise, AU’s interpretation of “Pan-Africanism” as a “utopic” community that can never be reached can also be accounted for the miscarriage of the ideology. This reasoning is eminent in AU protocols that confirm the double-moral standard of AU policies which is peculiar – as AU “theoretically” favors radical “Pan-Africanism” while it pragmatically employs gradual “Pan-Africanism” that deny the need for “African Unity.” Such reasoning is apparent in AU “protocols” where radical “Pan-African” statements are made to establish “commonality” and “collective identity” in the African community. For example, in Article 3 “protocols of Constitutive Act,” AU objectives of “Pan-African” parliament are outlined: “Streng[then] continental solidarity […] and build[ing] a sense of common destiny” which is a “radical” viewpoint that calls for “unity” of all Africans as they share “destiny” (AU, 2014). It is also delineated that AU’s “Pan-African parliament is informed by a vision to provide a common platform for African people” so that they are more involved “in decision-making” to understand continental matters (ibid). A similar narrative linked to the themes of “commonality/collective identity” and “political unity” is found in the protocol of “free movement of people” identifying the continents need for adopting “African passport,” which all African citizens should have as it will be based on continental and international policies. In article 14, it is mentioned that citizens of the continent “shall have the right to seek and accept employment without” experiencing “discrimination” in other parts of the continent. For instance, the protocols focus on Africa’s shared destiny, and the essentiality for “African Passport” to eliminate colonials divide and conquer tactics approves the existence of radical “Pan-African” discourse in AU policies that views “political independence” as a prerequisite for “economic independence” (AU, 2018). The protocol of “free trade agreement” utilizes a discourse of resistance pinpointing the necessity to “create a single market for goods, service, facilitated by movements of person […] in accordance with the ‘Pan African’ vision of an integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa enshrined in Agenda 2063” (AU, 2018). While the radical “Pan-African” discourse plays a vital role in developing solid African policies, the danger of gradual “Pan-Africanism” remains unchallenged pragmatically. In the protocols of Constitutive Act (article 3) solution to colonialism/neo-colonialism are identified which includes “giv[ing] voice to African people and diaspora,” disseminate awareness of “Pan-African” objectives to promote stability/peace/security (AU, 2014). However, when analyzing the instance of “xenophobia” in SA, it is evident that there is a lack of intercultural communication and the fear that institutes “xenophobia” derives from the “mimicry” of colonial rules generating ignorance and lack of 30 information and integration of African communities (Mogekwu, 2005:11). The xenophobic incidents elucidate that Radical “Pan-Africanism” mainly holds a theoretical relevance as, in reality, African’s do not recognize themselves as people that share culture and destiny. Furthermore, “xenophobia” in SA impacted SA’s relation with the wilder African community. The “xenophobic attack” in 2019 put the relation between the two regional powers (SA/Nigeria) in jeopardy; hence, other African nations imposed the idea to sanction SA due to the repeated “xenophobic attacks.” Consequently, Nigeria and Zambia closed the “SA embassy” and all SA-owned businesses; additionally, Nigerian top musician the African giant (Bruna Boy) announced to boycott SA rejecting to visit the country. The Madagascar “football federation” refused sending any “football team” to play in SA, and Tanzania “suspended” all flights to SA (BBC, 2019). However, it is equally evident that Radical “Pan-Africanism” is restricted to its rhetorical use; meanwhile, African people are incapable of recognizing the “oneness” of Africa as their “attachment” to colonially imposed borders have become “verifications” of African identities. This clarifies AU’s association with the gradual school of thought and its “mimicry” of the EU model; thus, it fails in solving “xenophobic issues” due to its support of “state sovereignty,” inviolability of borders, and non-interference in the internal affairs of states which makes it unable to intervene SA policies and abide by radical protocols (Martin, 2012:61). In agreement with Fanon/Nkrumah, African states, including AU, prioritize “sovereignty” when Africa’s “political unity” is mentioned; however, when dealing with “Western” states and today’s China, their so-called “sovereignty” is practically ribbed (Kah, 2016:157). Such an interpretation attests that African’s experience different freedom than they desired; thus, the “Pan-African” movement lost its actual definition. As Fanon maintains, any liberational movement must have an explicit doctrine with clearly “defined” objectives, “blueprints” and “explicitly” explained to the people in order for people to know what their objectives are and how they should reach there. However, considering African leaders/AU/xenophobia, it is evident that current “Pan-Africanism” does not have clear objectives and African people are unaware of what their governments are up to and where they are heading. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that the greatest danger that endangers Africa is the absence of clear “ideology” in Africans’ minds; hence, alignment with gradual “PanAfricanism” will not establish developed/independent Africa. Subsequently, AU, African leaders, and SA citizens experience “collective-unconsciousness” thus need to rededicate themselves to the radical “Pan-African” agenda to develop durable solutions to their unconsciousness and the prison of history. 31 4.3 Essentiality of Black-Consciousness Since the previous subsections have analyzed that Being black is not mainly a matter of pigmentation rather a reflection of mental attitude. The African mind suffers from constant repression, making it view proximity to “whiteness” as civilization/superiority and insist on appreciating the oppressors’ ideologies while disregarding own ability to understand own issues, thus replicate the oppressor’s behavior by oppressing subalterns in the community resembling them. In the upcoming subsections, the need for “Black-Conciseness” will be identified by Nkrumah and Fanon. In this regard, how Nkrumah represents himself, the people of Africa, and his perceived enemies (West), which reverses the colonial rules by “othering” the “West” and constructing African “collective identity,” will be identified. 4.3.1 Nkrumah reversal of colonial othering Discourse as-text Nkrumah, in his speech, identifies how Africa’s “decolonization” became a “false decolonization” as Africa traversed the road of conflict and fragmentation while obeying the command of colonizers. Nkrumah begins with the use of “personal pronouns”: “I am happy to be here” and very carefully puts himself in a rebellious/warrior place by taking advantage of his leadership position; he adds; “I bring with me hopes and fraternal greetings […] our objectives is African Union now. There is no time to waste. We must unite or perish” (consciencism, 2016). By employing “personal pronouns” and “possessive adjective” I/We/Our, aiming at instituting communality, Nkrumah depicts himself as a leader who respects the continent and has Africa’s “absolute interest” at heart to attain a broader audience (African’s). Again, the “imperative” term “must,” which regurgitated throughout the speech, shows that Africa has only one option (ultimatum demand), which is to “unite,” and if not, it will “perish” by experiencing misery. Discourse as-discursive practice (political discourse) Initially, Nkrumah held the speech during Africa’s decolonization; therefore, the notion of “unity” based on principles of traditional “Afro-centric” policies represents Nkrumah’s ”ontological” foundation and the political discourse present in the speech is a way to find solution to African problems. As Nkrumah stated: “African unity is, above all, a political kingdom which can only be gained by political means.” This means that Africa’s economic/social development can only be reached within ”political kingdom” attained through 32 radical “Pan-Africanism.” Reflecting on Fanon’s ideology, Nkrumah eloquently calls for original “African political thought,” which should be established “outside” of “Europeans beaten tracks” (Martin 2012:107 & consciencism, 2016). Discourse as-socio-cultural practice Re-considering Fairclough’s third dimension, “discourse-as-a-sociocultural practice,” it is noticeable that Nkrumah employs a “resistance discourse” to dismantle a “dominant” discourse (Western), rejecting imbalance of power, paternalism, and invites the audience (Africans) to replace “Western” interpretation with an “Afro-centric” one. To unite African’s Nkrumah portrays himself as a “hero,” highlighting that Africa’s delusional independence does not end the struggle of “neo-colonialism.” In line with Nkrumah/Fanon, Africa’s decolonization introduces a new face of colonial struggle (neo-colonialism). Hence, to develop the African “society” in terms of shared history/struggle/culture unhindered, Africans need to “crush/humiliate” neo-colonialist “controls” and “interference” – as it has “grown” and continue growing “stronger, ruthless and dangerous.” Therefore, Africa’s economic development “demands” eradication of the “neo-colonial” legislative system (consciencism, 2016). By describing colonialism/neo-colonialism with “harsh” terms (interference/control/ruthless/dangerous) and commanding Africans to “humiliate” and “crush,” it can be said that Nkrumah systematically utilizes “enmity,” “war” and “conflict” metaphors by reversing the colonial system of “othering” where in this context Nkrumah constitutes “collective identity” (Africans) by “othering” the “West.” In the process of promoting “commonality,” Nkrumah puts “Africans” against what he deems to be diabolical (colonialism/neo-colonialism) thus declare “war” against it. Therefore, “othering” (we-they image) in Nkrumah context entails Africans/superior/heroes against the “other” subaltern/forces of bad (colonizers). Nkrumah’s usage of “war/enmity” symbol is a way to outlook “imperialism” as detrimental to the continents; meanwhile, imperialists are “desperadoes” that should be defeated with achievement of “political unity” as the emancipating “weapon.” Consequently, the usage of “pronouns” can be analyzed as a way which helps forming a sense of loyalty, to increase Africans self-esteem – and recall patriotic feeling (oneness) by imposing a “duty” on African’s to defeat the immoral forces (neo-colonialists). It is also noticeable that the verb “demand” and modal verb “must” are used as an “intensification” tactic to extremely demonize “imperialists” by offering them a “negative” image, thus encourage the people of Africa to free themselves from endless despotism (ibid). Nkrumah, following Fanon, views de facto 33 “independent” African states’ economic/political system as de jure guided from outside by the “West” (Boogaard, 2016:50). Furthermore, Nkrumah repeats that “African unity” is not mainly about “economic integration” rather “political kingdom.” To get the attention and the sympathy of all Africans, Nkrumah uses reflective pronouns; “we ourselves have failed to make use of our [resources]” and declarative sentence reassuring that; “Nothing will be of avail, except the united act of a united Africa.” He even asks audience descriptive question; “What are we looking for in Africa?” (ibid, Martin 2012:64), which typifies that he intended to “Unite” African’s by ascribing negative personification to (West/colonizers) to infuse African minds with dignity and pride; hence, remind African’s that they must not allow being misused by former colonizers in their presence of “false decolonization” as shown in the case of SA leaders/citizens. Findings: It is reasonable to state that Nkrumah makes “West” the others/subaltern to reclaim “African dignity.” According to Fanon (1986:218), Nkrumah escaped from “collectiveunconsciousness” as he understood the necessity of an “African nation” defined by BlackConsciousness-identity based on Africa’s history and culture of resistance against dehumanizing beliefs. 4.3.2 Solutions to neo-colonialism Apart from resisting the danger of foreign domination in African affairs, Nkrumah (like Fanon) proposes a solution to Africa’s disunity. The rational way of responding to African problems involves “political unity” through radical “Pan-Africanism” to secure the “stability and tranquility” of Africa to promote material well-being and social justice (consciencism, 2016). Furthermore, he reassures Africans ability to design their destiny/policies by taking advantage of continents’ resources without mimicry behavior. Moreover, with the utilization of personal morality, Nkrumah calls out African leaders who cheated African citizens that supported them during the fight for independence/apartheid, thinking that “they could cure the ills of the past,” which for him cannot be cured “under colonial rule.” Nkrumah asks self-reflective questions: “How […] can related communities and families trade with and support one another successfully if they find themselves divided by national boundaries and currency restrictions?” to awaken Africans from “collective-unconsciousness.” Overall, Nkrumah repetitively exemplifies that Africa can only “arrest the danger” of “neo-colonialism” through “BlackConsciousness” and “mutual understanding” of the fundamental issues to “render existing boundaries obsolete and superfluous” (ibid). Meaning that xenophobia/tribalism, which increases the level of African unconsciousness can be healed through “political unification” as 34 it is believed to solve the “festering sore of boundary disputes between … various states.” For Nkrumah, five things will lead to the attainment of supra-national “united Africa functioning under a union government; “science/technology, free trade, common citizenship, currency, and an African central bank.” The objectives of “continental union” are to establish unified military/air/land/sea, standard foreign policy, and defense strategy making Africa transform its economic structure from “poverty” to “wealth” and from dependency to the “satisfaction of popular needs” (ibid & Dodoo 2012:87). This again entails that the objectives of “African governments/people” and “neo-colonialists” are immediately adverse, for whereas the development/strength of Africans lies in their cohesion, the “strength” of “neo-colonialists” lies in Africa’s disunity; hence, through the continued African nations hyper-individualism, African states will not accomplish adequate development. Such an understanding level of African issues indicates that Africa needs more than delusional independency. As clarified in the previous sections, African’s mimic and accept everything the “West” do to them, but when it comes to “African Unity” and brotherhood, the only thing they recall is protection of “sovereignty.” Consequently, Nkrumah is considered as an African leader who emancipated himself from the twin-danger of “collective-unconsciousness” that institute “Negrophobia” and selfhate by developing “Black-Consciousness” which for Fanon involves rebuilding and reconditioning the mind of the oppressed in a way that forcefully makes them demand their right and reclaim what belonged to them to redefine their “ontology” (Fanon 1986: 211,212). In line with Fanon, Spivak (1985:71) states that, it is essential that “oppressed subjects speak, act,” and gain awareness – as it leads to utopian community. Fanon attests, “Blacks/Negros” are comparisons as they are constantly “preoccupied” with “self-evaluation” comparing themselves with one another, looking for proximity to “whiteness,” asking which one of them is “less-intelligent, blacker, and less-respectable.” Due to constant comparison, some inferior/blacks develop “superiority complex” thinking that they are intelligent close to “whiteness” thus acquired worth/superiority giving them the right to behave like “whites/masters” and oppress their inferior/subaltern fellow Blacks by manipulating and representing their voices (ibid). This reflects on how African leaders/AU distrust their intelligence and rely on “Western” policies, which are inimical to their subaltern/African citizens’ interest. Therefore, the thesis associates itself with Fanon/Nkrumah, who can be categorized as “radical pan-Africanists,” that understood how colonial/slavery psychology intensifies African disunity. Hence, Africans/Blacks need to recognize that “the most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed” to make the oppressed 35 unconscious about the subjugation which he/she experience (ibid & Martin, 2012:121). Therefore, it is argued that gradualists AU/African leaders’ isolationist way of approaching African issues need to be reconsidered. 4.4 Discussion: disparities within the Pan-African discourse Having analyzed relevant discourses and themes, which have provided an understanding of the “Pan-African” failure by relating it to the African psychology, the clear argument in the findings is that the failure of “Pan-Africanism” is a failure of gradualist/neo-liberalist to resist the dominant “Western” discourse and institute a “united identity” against a common form of oppression. The format figures below justify the reasoning behind the findings. Although it is reasonable to argue that SA citizens saw how slavery justified dehumanization of blacks also experienced colonialism/apartheid, which increased one’s fear of those resembling him as he reached the stage of “Negrophobia” mimicry and negation of Blackness. However, it cannot be said that nations with experience of colonialism/apartheid develop extreme colonialmentality and inflict ill-treatment to anyone resembling them, for Mugabe also experienced colonialism/apartheid but developed a mild colonial-mentality. Meaning that he understood the danger of “neo-colonialism” to the extent that he wanted to fight it with colonial imposed ideologies; hence, his phobogenic-object was limited to distrusting black intellect and seeing goodness within the imperialist imposed rules. Namely, due to historical factors that chain Blacks with an unbearable insularity, Blacks feel insignificance/small and suffer from inadequacy; therefore, some formulate extreme discourse of acceptance of colonial/authoritarian/legacy to gain the acceptance of whites, which contributes to xenophobia, others (AU/Mugabe) developed some consciousness but still have mild/colonial-mentality – as their “sprit” abide to radical “Pan-Africanism,” but the controlled mind rejects practical implementation (Fanon, 1986:216). This approves that the debate between gradual/functional and radical/federal/neo-functional “Pan-Africanism” is still relevant. Hence, the current gradual “Pan-Africanism” has generated various antinomies involving de-personalization, de-identification of Africans and despotism system that marginalizes and alienates Africans. As emphasized by Nkrumah, only with radical “PanAfricanism,” which promotes Africanization, integration, and unification of “balkanized” African communities through the formation of “supranational-state” that surpasses extroverted micro-nations, an independent/conscious Africa can be attained. Otherwise, Africans’ would not handle continental migration or develop continental integration – as gradual states with 36 extreme mentality, SA/Nigeria distrust/fear black intellect/integration and are the end in line to sign and ratify AFCFTA (tralac.org, 2021). 4.4.1 Miscarriage of Pan-Africanism – An approach towards development? When reflecting on Fanonian arguments found in the enmity discourse of xenophobia as a way of interpreting the failure of “Pan-Africanism,” various points have been outlined in response Abandonmentneurotic Phobogenic object Neuroses of blackness: distrusting black intellect Mimicry of Western ideologies Impact of slavery + colonialism + apartheid Mimicry of Negrophobia: fearing black individuals Neuroses of blackness: A dream to turn white and attain a level of humanity Phobogenic object: ones fear of himself/selfhate Abandonment-neurotic: Feeling of being abandoned by humans 37 to the RQ. Firstly, the failure of “Pan-Africanism” is interpreted as the failure of “gradual” African elites to make Africa design its future without mimicry process. Meanwhile, Nkrumah/Fanon called for a “political union” to abolish micro-colonial-states; in SA the ideology lost its pertinent as leaders who benefited from “Pan-African” solidarity during decolonization/apartheid are today promoting neo-liberal “Pan-African” ideology, while supporting xenophobia (Maqetuka, 2015). Both discourse of acceptance and resistance of “neocolonialism” is present in Mugabe/AU’s speech/protocols and is deemed contradictory as the accurate “Pan-African” philosophy rejects the entirety of “Western” ideologies/domination theoretical and pragmatically. However, being present in “collective-unconsciousness” hinders the African mind from imagining the ability of an “Afro-centric” radical/federal ideology making Africa gravitate from being devalued/dependent/under-developed continent. Likewise, African leaders (Mugabe) who express negative sentiments towards “neo-colonialism” are the same ones that perceive “Western” policies indispensable. Another point identified is related to AU’s failure to institutionalize “radical Pan-Africanism” and use diplomatic and normative tools to hold political elite/leaders’ instituting discourse of “fear/Negrophobia” accountable. AU’s incapability of holding SA accountable is related to SA being one of the regional powers; thus, holding a place of authority in AU. Additionally, radical “Pan-African” discourses are present in AU protocols and hold optimistic promises theoretically but stipulate practical implementation; otherwise, the AFCFTA and the free movement of people will not be actualized as Europeans destruct African “regional economic ties” by distracting and starting individual bilateral deals with individual African nations to block the institutionalization of AFCFTA (Okoloise, 2018:354 & Muchie, 2004:142). Put merely, the elite/state-driven process adopted by the OAU is persistent in AU – as “radical” people-centered movements are neglected. Another point is that graduals deny the relevance of “political unification” unless they are the leaders of supra-national Africa. Meaning that Gradual nations accept to be led by the “West” but not by other African nations, thus forget that functional economic integration is a step forward but not sufficient (Okolosie, 2018:247). As specified by Spivak, the old oppression continues but this time with multiple oppressors enabled by the colonial-imposed-mentality (Dodoo, 2012:87). As underlined by Fanon, “Black consciousness” has not yet been achieved by African leaders and those who tarried (Mugabe & AU) failed gaining true consciousness. Thereby, true “BlackConsciousness” is obtained using resistance discourse as done by Nkrumah; hence, without taking risks and challenging/fighting the dominant discourse, mental liberation cannot be reached. Put merely, true liberation is not obtained through easy mimicry processes; therefore, 38 “Negros” (Africans/Blacks) know nothing about “Pan-African” struggle and the cost of freedom, for they never fought for it or challenged colonial based-system (Fanon 1986:221). In regard, radical “Pan-Africanism” as a resistance ideology emerged to counter the statesystem imposed on Africa without any consideration of pre-existing tradition of “African” state rule. In closing, Fanon’s postcolonial interpretation has shown that the ultimate weapon of the capitalist-imperialists is the mind of the oppressed to prevent them from achieving Class/BlackConsciousness thus constructing ideologies and false “social imaginary” that does not reflect the reality of the oppressed. That being said, African governments/leaders/regional organization took the path of dystopia rather than utopia by abiding and pledging openly to ideals of gradualism/functionalism/pessimism/neo-liberalism thus are being disingenuous to their people as they are known for their begging mentality and gradual “Pan-African” inflammatory rhetoric which is not an approach towards development. 39 5. Conclusion In conclusion, the thesis has aimed to get a profound understanding of the “Pan-African” failure and the role of “African psychology” with the help of Postcolonial notions. Building on the finding, “Pan-African” failure is a failure ascribed to the gradualists who enabled African oppression with mimicry and hypoactive behavior. Additionally, the study investigated with the employment of CDA/QCA the necessity of psychological liberation. Hence, in response to the RQ: “How can we apprehend the failure of Pan-Africanism to establish oneness and solve issues, such as disunity/xenophobia in South Africa?” The study argues that “oneness” and United-Africa cannot be reached due to the current “pan-Africanism” taking a “statist platform” that institute the failure of the ideology. Extreme neo-liberal “Pan-African” sentiments are found in the instance of SA where African/leaders/citizens blindly mimic colonial-rules thus forget their origin; Secondly, mild gradual psychology is present in “Mugabe and AU” understanding of “Pan-Africanism” as they both acknowledge radical “PanAfricanism” but fail developing full “Black-Consciousness” due to their “attachment to sovereignty.” Meaning that the “spirit” of African/Black/subalterns acknowledges the “radical” vision, but the “mind” is not compliant due to unconsciousness. Analyzing the current “Pan-Africanism” and its place in the mind of Africans, it is fair to infer that due to the mimicry of “Western/neo-liberal” ideologies, the “Pan-African” radical “nationalism” struggle suffered various “complication” and abortions owing to “neocolonially” induced miscarriages inviting “Afro-phobia” and making emancipated Africa unattainable. The thesis contributes to regionalism/IR and African studies field by applying radical/gradual “Pan-African” and postcolonial frameworks, which exemplifies the impacts of colonial ruling-policies on how to “institute” African “regional governance” based on anticolonial policies. Some of the study’s methodological limitations have been related to challenges experienced in reducing confirmation bias and increasing external validity. Therefore, there is a need for another study that complements the current one hence examines African populations understanding of “Pan-Africanism” and the type of “Pan-Africanism” desired by African/citizens; hence, this can be done by interviewing citizens of regional powers (SA/Nigeria/Egypt) and other week African nations to see if the citizens of regional power states view themselves superior in relation to other/Africans. 40 6. Bibliography Adepoju et.al, (2018) “Radical Pan-Africanism and Africa’s Integration: A retrospective Exploration and Prospective Prognosis,” A Journal of African Studies, 41 (1), PP: 103-124. Adetula et al, (2020) “The legacy of Pan-Africanism in African integration today,” The Nordic Africa Institute, PP:1-8. Adogamhe, Paul G (2008), “Pan-Africanism Revisited: Vision and Reality of African Unity and Development,” Department of Political Science, Vol.2, No.2, PP: 1-34. Asuelime et.al, (2015) “Re-visiting Xenophobia in South Africa and its Impact on Africa’s Integration,” African Institute of South Africa, Vol.45, No.2, PP: 75-85. AU (2014), “Protocol to the Constitutive Act of the African Union relating to the Pan-African Parliament” Organization site: URL: https://au.int/en/treaties/protocol-constitutive-actafrican-union-relating-pan-african-parliament>. (Last accessed:09-05-2021). AU (2018), “Protocol to the Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community Relating to Free Movement of Persons, Right of Residence and Right of Establishment,” Organization site:URL:. (Last accessed: 09-05-2021). AU (2018), “Agreement Establishing the African Continental Free Trade Area,” Organization site: URL:< https://au.int/en/treaties/agreement-establishing-african-continental-free-tradearea>. (Last accessed: 09-05-2021). BBC, (05-09-2019), “South Africa closes embassy in Nigeria after xenophobic violence,” BBC. URL:< https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49593030>. (Last accessed:30-04-2021). Boogaard Vanessa van den, (2016), “Modern post-colonial approaches to citizenship: Kwame Nkrumah’s political thought on Pan- Africanism,” Department of political studies, university of Toronto, Canada, Vol.21, No.1, PP: 44-67. 41 Chandhoke, Neera (1984) “The Nature of Dominant Elite in Africa,” (published by: Sage publications), PP: 165-184. Chigumadzi, Panashe (2019) “Afrophobia is growing in South Africa. Why? Its leaders are feeding it,” Organization site: URL:< https://africanarguments.org/2019/10/afrophobia-isgrowing-in-south-africa-why-its-leaders-are-feeding-it/>. (Last accessed: 22-04-2021). Consciencism, (2016), “DR. KWAME NKRUMAH SPEAKS IN ADDIS ABABA IN 1963,” Online Source: URL:< https://consciencism.wordpress.com/history/dr-kwame-nkrumahspeaks-in-addis-ababa-in-1963/>. (Last accessed:22-04-2021). Crouher, Sheila (2010) “South Africa’s illegal aliens: constructing national boundaries in a post-apartheid state,” Journal of Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 21, No.4, PP: 639-660. Dodoo, Vincent (2012), “Kwame Nkrumah’s Mission and Vision for Africa and the World,” The Journal of Pan African Studies, Department of History and Political Studies Social Sciences Faculty, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology. Kumasi, Ghana, vol.4, no.10, PP: 78-92. Fairclough, Norman (2003), “Analyzing Discourse Textual-Analysis for social research,” (Published: British Library Cataloguing). Fanon, Frantz (1986), “Black Skin, White Mask,” (published by: Pluto Press). Forge, John W (2003) “Self-Determination, Nationalism, Development and Pan-Africanism Stuck on the Runway: Are Intellectuals to be Blamed?” African Journal of International Affairs, Vol.6, No.1, PP: 54-86. Gowhary et.al, (2013),” A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Electoral Talks of Iranian Presidential Candidates in 2013,” Journal of Political and Behavioral Science, PP:132-141. Halperin, Sandra & Oliver Heath, (2017). Political Research. Methods and Practical Skills, (Second edition) Oxford: Oxford University Press. 42 Harshe, Rajen (1988) “Reflections on Organization of African Unity,” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 23, No.8, PP:373-376. Hodzi, Obert (2018), “China and Africa: economic growth and non-transformative political elite,” Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 36:2, PP:191-206. Jensen, S.Q. (2011). “Othering, identity formation and agency,” Qualitative Studies, 2(2): 63- 78. Kasongo-Lumumba, Tukumbi (2003), “Can a ‘Realist Pan-Africanism’ Be a Relevant Tool Toward the Transformation of African and African Diaspora Politics? Imagining a Pan-African State,” Journal of African International Affairs, Vol.6, No.1-2, PP:87-121. Kah, Henry (2016), “Kwame Nkrumah and the panafrican vision: Between acceptance and rebuttal,” Journal of Strategy and international Relations, Vol.5, N.9, PP:141-164. Kosaka Hitomi & Solomon Hussien, “Xenophobia in South Africa: Reflection, Narratives, and Recommendation,” Journal of Peace and Security Studies, Vol.2, No.2, PP: 5-30. Lamont, Christopher (2015), Research Methods in International Relations (London: SAGE). Maqetuka, Khosi (29-01-2015), “Pan Africanism is the antidote to xenophobia,” Organization site, URL:< https://www.pambazuka.org/pan-africanism/pan-africanism-antidotexenophobia>. (Last accessed: 11-05-2021). Martin, Guy (2012) African political thought, (Published by Palgrave Macmillan: United Sates). Matsinhe, David Mario (2011), “Africa’s fear of itself: the ideology of Makwerekwere in South Africa,” Third World Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 2, PP: 295-313. 43 Mogekwu, Matt (2005), “African Union: Xenophobia as poor intercultural communication,” Department of Communication, University of North-West South Africa, Vol.26, No.1, PP: 5- 20. Momoh, Abubakar (2003) “Does Pan-Africanism Have a Future in Africa? In Search of the Ideational Basis of Afro-Pessimism,” African Journal of Political Science, PP:31-57. Mondal, Anindita (2014), “Postcolonial theory: Bhabha and Fanon,” International Journal of Science and Research, Volume 3, Issue 11, PP: 2965-2968. Muchie, Mammo (2004), “A theory of an Africa as Unification Nation: A Rethinking of the Structural Transformation of Africa,” Journal of Development Studies and Center of Civil Society, University of Natala Durban, South Africa, African Sociological Review, vol.8, No.2, PP:136-179. Mugabe, Robert (2012) “Statement by his Excellency the President of Republic of Zimbabwe, Comrade Robert Mugabe, during the General Debate of the 67th Session of the United Nations General Assembly” Organization site: URL:< https://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/67/ZW_en.pdf >. (Last accessed:13- 05- 2021). Murithi, Tim (2007) “Institutionalizing Pan-Africanism Transforming African Union values and principles into policy and practice,” PP: 1-16. Nantambu, Kwame (1998), “PAN-AFRICANISM VERSUS PAN-AFRICAN NATIONALISM An Afrocentric Analysis,” Journal of Black Studies, Vol.28, No.5, PP:561- 574. Neocosmos, Michael (2008), “The Politics of Fear and the Fear of Politics: Reflection on Xenophobia Violence in South Africa,” Journal of Asian and African Studies, Vol.46, No.6, PP: 586-594. Okhonmina Stephen, (2008) “The African Union: Pan-Africanist Aspirations and the challenge of African Unity,” Journal of Pan-African Studies, Vol.3, No.4, PP:85-100. 44 Okoloise, Chairman (2018), “Transnational democracy in Africa and the African Union’s Agenda 2063: Beyond Nkrumah’s Pan-Africanist pushbacks,” Journal of African studies, University of Pretoria, pp:325-354. Sahistory.org, (2018), “Xenophobic violence in democratic South Africa,” Organization site: URL:. (Last accessed: 2021-04-22). Sangmpam, S.N. (2018) “Why the African Union Should be Dismantled and Buried with Gaddafi” Journal of African Development, Volume XLIII, No. 3, PP: 53-81. Spivak, Gayatri (1985), “Can the Subaltern Speak” from C Nelson and L

- Advertisement -

Check out our other content

Check out other tags:

Must Read