Maneno
RSS
l
Join Maneno     login
Email:

Password:


Konngol Afirik

Une voix africaine dans le Net mondial

Why is Francophone Africa less dynamic than Anglophone Africa?

Available in: Français, English
03 11 2009
Translated by: oumar
Countries:
AFRICA

I would add my two cents into this discussion (response by Subsaharska here). The economic backwardness of a large number of countries of the so called Francophone Africa can be in my humble opinion hardly explained by the Protestant ethic that some sociologists like the German Max Weber put forward to justify the development of capitalism in the generally Protestant anglo-saxon world. The period of colonization was too short (less than a century generally) to leave such a profound impact. When comparing African countries, whether English or French speaking, what catches the eye is the impact of good governance. Where it is observed, the countries get off better. For example, English speaking Ghana experienced a long period of instability after the fall of Nkrumah (1966) with a state held hostage by incompetent, corrupt and predatory officers. This country was therefore much less developed than for example its French speaking neighbour Côte d'Ivoire. Thanks to the actions of Jerry Rawlings who put out of harm the military cliques, Ghana has found the path of democracy and good governance and is developing better than the neighbour Côte d’Ivoire who fell into civil war due to the incapcity of the successors of the late Felix Houphouet Boigny. Note that the English-speaking countries ruled by absolute despots such as Mugabe of Zimbabwe and the Gambia of Yayah Jammeh are on the decline in development. I use the term absolute despot because Africa has also known enlightened despots like the already mentioned Houphouet Boigny and Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia whose results were rather positive. If we compare the francophone countries among themselves, we note that those which are better managed like Mali, Burkina Faso are getting off better than those which are poorly managed like Guinea even if the latter enjoy a natural environment more favorable: Guinea has more mineral resources than Mali, a more fertile land where almost everything grows and a greater pluviometry but is less advanced than that sister country. So the problem of good management, good governance remains pervasive.

There are other flaws in French-speaking countries which are in my opinion a legacy of colonization:

1) The excessive centralization of power and administration: it is inappropriate to our pluralistic societies because it comes from a society like that of France where the nation-state has managed to erase much of the ethnic and regional identities; there is therefore the need to reflect on an administrative and constitutional reshaping that takes more account of the sociological realities.

2) France has introduced in its colonies the system of direct rule while the British, out of pragmatism, preferred indirect rule. That system has erased all the traditional structures and hierarchies and thus facilitated the emergence of despotic and predatory power.

3) The umbilical cord between the former motherland and its colonies was not cut: generally, France exerts a too great political, economic and cultural influence which paralyzes her former colonies. The Heads of State of these formally independent countries are linked to France by defense agreements that keep French troops on their territories, they place willingly their stash in France, accumulating there villas and luxury coaches and so on and French companies control large sectors of the economy. The French troops backup in return the power. Thus, Mobutu would have been ousted from power by the Katangan rebels in 1978 had not been the support of France who had overtaken from the Belgian masters. Similarly, the Togolese people rose up in 2005 against the corrupt Eyadema dynasty which is ruling the country for over 40 years but suffered a bloody repression by the Togolese army which is trained and armed by France. This does not exonerate of course the Heads of State and the local elites who could have chosen another way but we must recognize that the colonial heritage did not make things easy.

Before closing, I wish to call on Africans to define themselves less in terms of "Francophone" or "Anglophone" and remember that there are also millions of Africans lingalophones, haussaphones, fulophones, mandinguophones, swahiliphones etc.

Comments:

03 11 2009 miquel

Could it also simply be that Francophone countries simply aren't privy to the kind of development funding that Anglophone speakers receive due to a lot of the funding coming from those who speak English such as the UK, US, an Canada?

03 11 2009 oumar

That is a noteworthy remark Miquel. I hope that the scholars will research more from that angle.

04 11 2009 bwaje

Regardez l'exemple du Rwanda : à la fois francophone, anglophone ce petit pays est le plus dynamique d'Afrique de l'Est !

04 11 2009 Marieme Jamme

Difference of Mentality, Anglophone's will go for it, try and try again. Francophone will think and think again, by the time they are thinking, Anglophones have made it. :-)

04 11 2009 Hannes

I fully agree with your comment. This is not a problem of ethics or some sort of intrinsic values. Rather the institutional setting that was imposed by the colonial powers and then left behind, evolved into an environment which is not development-enhancing (see for example 'Citizen and Subject' by Mamdani). The difficult task then for the African people and their 'political representatives' has been and still is to alter these institutions in a way that is beneficial to them. This is off course a very difficult process and solutions are not found in the short-term (that's why trendy success stories like that of Rwanda are to be taken with caution). Clearly, France (and later Françafrique) has made it a lot easier for traditional African elites to hold onto power without having popular support. But still, some former French colonies have managed to do that and some British haven't. In fact, there are a quadrillion large-N studies that find the colonial heritage dummy to be insignificant. Blaming today's economic record on yesterday's colonial heritage is therefore, in my opinion, counterproductive. The real question is why some governments today don't act in the best interest of their people and how that can be changed.

04 11 2009 elia

Bwaje, le Rwanda est dinamique justement parce qu'il a passé d'être sous l'influence francophone à l'anglophone, et a reçu des millions et millions de la Grande Bretagne et les États Unis (étant juste un tout petit pays comme tu dis)

04 11 2009 Hannes

elia, je ne crois pas qu'on peut expliquer le 'succès' récent de Rwanda par l'aide au développement le pays a reçu. a mon avis c'est plutôt la situation politique stabilisé et le post-génocide consensus national. Ce qui rend Rwanda spécial est l'aptitude d'attirer l'investissement privé.

07 11 2009 Boukary

Un article très interessant!

Merci Oumar.

08 11 2009 democrateafricain

miquel a parlé du fait que plus de pays anglophones de l'Ouest participent à l'investissement dans les pays africain anglophones (UK, US, an Canada). Oumar a aussi mentioné l'Indirect Rule qui a permis une meilleure prise en charge des peuples africains aujourdhui anglophones. Ces facteurs expliquent bien la situation actuelle.

Le facteur le plus important est, selon moi, le controle des pouvoirs locaux par l'ancien colonisateur. Controle hérité du controle direct exercé durant la colonisation et pérénnisé par des accord de défenses post-coloniaux divers.

Ainsi comme mentionné plus haut la possibilité de diriger sans le soutien du peuple va encourager l'emergence de dictature en Afrique francophone. La légitimité des dirigeants de l'afrique francophone venait surtout de Paris et leur mandat était de proteger les intérets de l'ancienne métropole.

09 11 2009 democrateafricain

Peut etre que cet article avancera la discussion:

http://kouamouo.ivoire-blog.com/archive/2009/11/07/des-etats-maconniques-en-afrique.html

http://hebdo.nouvelobs.com/hebdo/parution/p2347/articles/a411860-.html?xtmc=bongomaconnerie&xtcr=4

09 11 2009 oumar

c'est une bonne piste democrateafricain, les successions dynastiques à la tête de l'État sont aussi une particularité de l'Afrique Francophone et du monde arabe.

10 11 2009 Neo

Bonjour,

je suis content de constater que le débat que j'ai lancé sur mon blog se poursuit.

Omar, les tares héritées de la colonisation que tu énumère ne sont-elles pas elles aussi liées à la thèse de Marx Weber?

On semble être tous d'accord que la bonne gouvernance est un facteur clé du développement. Or nos systèmes de gouvernance actuels sont issus directement de ceux de nos colons respectifs, qui eux même se sont bâtis selon des paramètres socio-culturels de leurs pays. D'où la relation entre les thèses de Marx Weber et nous.