A few days before Easter, people in Ghana, a heavily Christian country, were shocked by violence between members of the Dagomb, an Islamic tribe. Members of one extended family within the Dagomb organized the murder of the tribe's own chief. The killing caused Ghana's government to declare a national emergency, and triggered an outcry over the curse of tribalism.
Africa has long suffered under the belief that passionate tribal attachments are inefficient, irresponsible and inhumane. Ever since they colonized Africa, Europeans have railed against tribalism, whilst simultaneously pitting one tribe against another whenever this suited their purposes. In drawing Africa's internal borders, imperialists ignored tribal differences, leaving some densely populated countries, such as Nigeria, without a dominant tribe or splitting famously cohesive tribes, such as the Ewe, between two countries (Ghana and Togo).
By ignoring tribal affinities, Europeans hoped to create an Africa whose allegiance was to nation first and tribe second (or not at all). Africa's independence leaders of the late 1950s and early 1960s essentially opposed tribal power. They sought to limit the authority of tribal chiefs and to use their powers over schools, land and jobs to weaken, if not altogether eradicate, tribal consciousness.
Ghana's Dagomb conflict illustrates why governments should tread carefully with tribal loyalties. The beheaded chief was appointed by Ghana's previous government in clear violation of traditional power structures. With a new government in power, the chief's enemies seized the opportunity to redress the wrong, providing a reminder of the perils of prior efforts to de-tribalize Africa.
De-tribalization was always a doomed project. During my 20 years of working in aid and development in Africa, I have lived in and examined five countries: Ghana, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Egypt. All of their borders are works of European fiction, attempts to impose a monolithic image on areas honeycombed with diversity.
In Ghana one does not find Ghanaians; one finds Asante, Ewe, Ga and Dagomb. In Ethiopia, rather than Ethiopians, you meet Amhars, Oromos and Tigrinians. So it goes across the continent. Despite the best efforts of nationalists and pan-Africanists, nation-state identities have not taken root. African hearts beat to a tribal rhythm.
People are more open about this than they once were, but a legacy of disapproval towards those who espouse tribal loyalties lingers. Yet these loyalties are deepening. Sub-Saharan Africa may be stuck with its political boundaries, but national identities remain less important than tribal ones. Colonialists and African independence leaders erred when they ignored tribal preferences, rather than celebrating them and making them the cornerstone of a healthy democracy.
Tribes have their dark side, of course. Tribal claims by Hutus against Tutsis (a rivalry long manipulated by Rwanda's colonial rulers) incited genocide and still scar neighboring Burundi. In Nigeria, the Ibo -- who fought Africa's first post-independence war of secession in the name of tribalism -- remain an uneasy, defiant minority. Tribal affiliations powerfully influence political, social, and economic life in many other African countries as well.
When decisions are made about who gets what aid in times of hardship, it is no surprise that ruling tribes get more than those out of power. Viewed through the rosy spectacles of nation-statehood, this may look like corruption.
But from an ethnic point of view, those in power owe no allegiance to a nation-state identity. They have strong ties to their own peoples and it is their duty to ensure that they prosper before other tribes. Of the tribes who lack access to power, many are poorer today than at independence, despite the billions of dollars spent in their name.
So foreigners ignore tribal loyalties at their peril. In Africa, the revival of ethnicity, which is the more civilized term that Westerners use to describe their own tribal allegiances, is at the core of social change today. In this regard, Africans are in step with the rest of the ethnocentric world.
Failure to transcend tribalism suggests that Africans must learn to use their tribal loyalties for the good of their countries. Signs exist that this is happening. Many African nations are experimenting with ways of sharing power with tribal associations that often dominate local government. Africans living outside their home countries, especially those in the US or Europe, find that they often can effectively invest in their homelands by drawing on tribal ties.
Consider the Ghanaian member of the FraFra tribe who returned from a period abroad intent on helping his group, which is a tiny minority in the country. The FraFra live a day's drive from Accra, Ghana's capital, and tend to be overlooked by the national government. The returnee has built schools and health clinics. He also insists that the local schools teach the FraFra language.
Paradoxically, accepting the reality of tribal, or ethnic, power lays the foundation for national unity by letting each group first sort out its own priorities. Only then can members of different tribes interact with each other in a common space -- and from a position of strength and respect.
Cordelia Salter-Nour has been an aid worker in Africa, specializing in technology and development, since 1982. Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS