African Aristocrats
The history of Europe is a history of control by the landed aristocracy, control by all means available. The tools of control ranged from financial, to military and religious. Aristocrats measured their power by the size of their territories, the size of their armies and the size of their treasuries. Layered on top of this was some form of religion. The purveyors of religion served at the pleasure of the aristocracy and understood that were they to remain viable they had to pledge allegiance to the throne.
In newly independent Africa the new leaders had no wealth to speak of. Any existing forms of leadership or aristocracy had been essentially erased over the two or three centuries of varied European control and rule. Existing and identified leaders in the period leading up to and through the wars amounted to administrative lackeys, salarymen who if they owned any land, counted their acres in the single digits. None of them owned estates, none of them raised armies, none of them had tax authority, none of them controlled any religious power center and none of them was in a position to force the Europeans to enter into peace treaties. All of them owed their power and pledged their allegiance to the crown. Their job was basically to be a mouthpiece of the colonial administration and keep the peace so that the colonial administration could go about its business of sending the bounty back home.
In the newly minted nations, this total lack of any real power ensured that the new leaders would be fully dependent on their European "partners." These new leaders were made to understand the importance of keeping things in the family. They now had access to the keys of the treasury and with that access went about creating a new aristocracy that would rule through the control of resources, would use their newfound wealth to acquire the land that would make them true aristocrats, a true ruling class. They chose to copy the European power structure down to the letter without consideration for what the long term effects would be.
They came from peasant backgrounds and all of a sudden they were riding around in chauffeured limousines, surrounded by bodyguards and treated with great deference by the population over which they had been installed.
While they were able to buy land, while they were able to accumulate financial wealth and while they were public personas with the office and all the accoutrements of power they really had no power. Yes, they collected taxes from commercial activity and used that revenue to pursue their idealistic goals of development but they had no control over the commercial activity that produced that taxable revenue. The colonial powers ensured they did not give that part up and therefore were in a position to ensure sympathizers were always in the political majority. Anyone speaking up about the lack of economic power was told to shut up and if they did not heed the call to do so were removed from any access to power in very short order.
African political leaders were encouraged to espouse all sorts of 'isms from capital to social and commune even a special brand of African Socialism. They tugged at the emotional hearts of their countrymen and got them out there beating drums in support of the 'ism of the day. This pretty much amounted to empty rhetoric as population grew and economies stagnated.
Political unrest was kept in check by the emergence of one party states and political dictators. Political dictators because all they had was the power of speech and the respect that was given to the offices they held. Those with the true wealth protected their own best self interest. They shared some of their wealth with the few that were installed and made them wealthy, very wealthy.
Governments are limited by the size of their treasuries. In the event that they aim to spend above the levels the tax base allows they have to borrow that money from somewhere. In wealthy nations governments sell bonds which individuals and businesses use as investment vehicles. In Africa where the population had no wealth to speak of the people could not finance deficit spending by their governments. So the governments either had to stick to the painfully slow path to development that their small tax base allowed or find external sources of funds.
Former colonial rulers gladly came to the rescue knowing full well that controlling the money means controlling the leaders which means controlling the countries. They provided the needed financial support but used their power to determine what not only the money they gave was spent on but also the full revenues of the governments. It is like a small business borrowing from a bank, they sign over the power to approve all expenditures and they remain at the mercy of the bank until they pay off the loan.
This inbound money was funneled through the central banks and out into the community via companies owned or friendly to the political rulers. This was their way of accumulating wealth, of moving themselves up from peasants to aristocrats. Their wealth was and is very tightly woven into a leash held by the countries that lend money. If they do anything counter to the wishes of the holders of the leash they will loose power, money, status and will be returned to the village as paupers. It is in their own best self interest to protect the interests of the European and other powers providing the money. They are not truly wealthy because they do not control the means of production, they simply feed off it.
In that position, they certainly do not have time to bother with the people beyond spewing rhetoric and using the divide and rule tactics that served their masters so well. They are hollow aristocrats, puppets.
In newly independent Africa the new leaders had no wealth to speak of. Any existing forms of leadership or aristocracy had been essentially erased over the two or three centuries of varied European control and rule. Existing and identified leaders in the period leading up to and through the wars amounted to administrative lackeys, salarymen who if they owned any land, counted their acres in the single digits. None of them owned estates, none of them raised armies, none of them had tax authority, none of them controlled any religious power center and none of them was in a position to force the Europeans to enter into peace treaties. All of them owed their power and pledged their allegiance to the crown. Their job was basically to be a mouthpiece of the colonial administration and keep the peace so that the colonial administration could go about its business of sending the bounty back home.
In the newly minted nations, this total lack of any real power ensured that the new leaders would be fully dependent on their European "partners." These new leaders were made to understand the importance of keeping things in the family. They now had access to the keys of the treasury and with that access went about creating a new aristocracy that would rule through the control of resources, would use their newfound wealth to acquire the land that would make them true aristocrats, a true ruling class. They chose to copy the European power structure down to the letter without consideration for what the long term effects would be.
They came from peasant backgrounds and all of a sudden they were riding around in chauffeured limousines, surrounded by bodyguards and treated with great deference by the population over which they had been installed.
While they were able to buy land, while they were able to accumulate financial wealth and while they were public personas with the office and all the accoutrements of power they really had no power. Yes, they collected taxes from commercial activity and used that revenue to pursue their idealistic goals of development but they had no control over the commercial activity that produced that taxable revenue. The colonial powers ensured they did not give that part up and therefore were in a position to ensure sympathizers were always in the political majority. Anyone speaking up about the lack of economic power was told to shut up and if they did not heed the call to do so were removed from any access to power in very short order.
African political leaders were encouraged to espouse all sorts of 'isms from capital to social and commune even a special brand of African Socialism. They tugged at the emotional hearts of their countrymen and got them out there beating drums in support of the 'ism of the day. This pretty much amounted to empty rhetoric as population grew and economies stagnated.
Political unrest was kept in check by the emergence of one party states and political dictators. Political dictators because all they had was the power of speech and the respect that was given to the offices they held. Those with the true wealth protected their own best self interest. They shared some of their wealth with the few that were installed and made them wealthy, very wealthy.
Governments are limited by the size of their treasuries. In the event that they aim to spend above the levels the tax base allows they have to borrow that money from somewhere. In wealthy nations governments sell bonds which individuals and businesses use as investment vehicles. In Africa where the population had no wealth to speak of the people could not finance deficit spending by their governments. So the governments either had to stick to the painfully slow path to development that their small tax base allowed or find external sources of funds.
Former colonial rulers gladly came to the rescue knowing full well that controlling the money means controlling the leaders which means controlling the countries. They provided the needed financial support but used their power to determine what not only the money they gave was spent on but also the full revenues of the governments. It is like a small business borrowing from a bank, they sign over the power to approve all expenditures and they remain at the mercy of the bank until they pay off the loan.
This inbound money was funneled through the central banks and out into the community via companies owned or friendly to the political rulers. This was their way of accumulating wealth, of moving themselves up from peasants to aristocrats. Their wealth was and is very tightly woven into a leash held by the countries that lend money. If they do anything counter to the wishes of the holders of the leash they will loose power, money, status and will be returned to the village as paupers. It is in their own best self interest to protect the interests of the European and other powers providing the money. They are not truly wealthy because they do not control the means of production, they simply feed off it.
In that position, they certainly do not have time to bother with the people beyond spewing rhetoric and using the divide and rule tactics that served their masters so well. They are hollow aristocrats, puppets.
posted by Bongo at 10:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home