DEVELOPING countries, mainly in Africa, have spent the last seven decades moaning over how colonisation has impeded their progress. Discussions have dwelt on several issues such as how colonisation caused exploitation, human rights violations and created dependency, among others.

While there is acknowledgement of how the colonial season linked with several other cultural aspects, there is very little attention to the intention of the colonial project. Colonisation is a process of establishing control over other territories or peoples for the purpose of exploitation and possibly settlement, setting up coloniality and often colonies, commonly pursued and maintained by colonialism.

The separation between the intention of the colonial project from other aspects of life by Third World politicians and their academics remains a huge gap that has kept most countries underdeveloped. This is because, for a country to economically develop, there are only two choices: either to comply or to protest in a global political and economic space that is heavily centralised, hegemonised and homogenised.

The invasion of African nations by the West in the late 1880s must not be seen as a single event, but a process of the installation of a new cultural system whose intention was/is to perpetually serve the interests of colonisers. It sought to serve no other interests than for those who installed it.

The fallacy that took place called independence had two key objectives. The first was to manage the expectations of the in-country colonial administrations that were becoming too comfortable to the extent of threatening to cut ties with colonising countries. 

These threats could be seen in projects such as the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1965 when Rhodesia announced self rule as it regarded itself an independent sovereign State. Similar events were witnessed in South Africa.  This signalled intentions to cut ties with Britain and was not part of the original script, so a plethora of sanctions ensued.

Keep Reading

The second objective of independence was to hand over a governance system loaded with all manner of colonial configurations to African leadership. This is why independence is seen as limited to political power without control over the economic system. Colonisation was largely about economic control and not so much to do with politics.

This also meant that post-independence governments inherited political structures that were vulnerable to the whims of the Western colonial system. The sanctions regime and other machinations are tools used to weaken countries when they threaten economic interests of the West.

It is partly for these reasons that most developing countries have found it hard to grow their economies. They lack the power to do so without the permission of the former colonial powers. This leaves developing countries with two choices if they want to grow their economies.

The first choice is to comply with and preserve the interests of the colonial masters.  Countries that have assumed independence and left the colonial economies untouched have remained vibrant and can access international financial support easily. In the 1980s and late 1990s, Zimbabwe remained a solid economy because the post-independence leadership took over political seats and did not touch the economy.

For that Zimbabwe remained among the top five largest economies in Africa. Once the chaotic land reform began, all hell broke loose, and the colonial system pulled the rug under the leadership’s feet. Until today, economic recovery and stabily have remained elusive.

The remnants of colonialism on developing countries’ economies are like a virus — they are incurable until political conditions change or conform. The South African economy has remained intact until today because it has retained the colonial architecture and ensured colonial interests are not touched.

The day they decide, if at all they are allowed, to touch the economy — again, all hell will likely break loose. However, from the political optics, it does appear the colonial system has tamed the local political system under a tight leash.

The second choice which is the hard, if not impossible one, is the protest route. This route entails a complete detachment from the international economic system and the re-establishment of a new locally driven and based system. It is driven by an oppressive political system that seeks to convert its citizens into some form of free or cheap labour and gives little or no room for human rights and freedoms until a new sustainable economic structure is established.

That newly-established economic structure becomes the basis for engagement with the outside world.

While the long-term goals and intentions are good, the process tends to be harsh, brutal and sometimes leaves countries isolated for human rights abuse and non-compliance to global norms and the world's political system. China, Russia and many other Asian countries pursued this route to achieve their current economic status.

But again, this is why they are among the most-sanctioned countries in the world. Human rights violations and non-compliance with global norms tends to be used as an excuse for imposing sanctions. However, the real reason is that they chose to be economically independent and establish their own economic base which is seen as a threat to Western global dominance.

The Western system knows the strength of a locally-driven economic systems. They have seen how China has “stolen” their industries to become the world’s manufacturing centre and the world’s second largest economy. They have also seen Russia grow its economy to become a global giant that can single-handedly sustain a war against more than 50 Western countries. And they are not ready to see that happen in Africa.

  • Tapiwa Gomo is a development consultant based in Pretoria, South Africa. He writes here in his personal capacity.
Previous article
How Billy Markus invented Dogecoin
Next article
Mark Zuckerberg approved project pushing pro-Facebook stories into users’ news feeds, report