By NZAU MUSAU
COMMITTEE of Experts chairman Nzamba Kitonga told of a very enthralling but analogous story of an aerial man’s view of human beings on the day he launched the first harmonized draft last year.
The story goes that this man from Mars had been watching the men on earth below (human beings) for some time and he noticed they moved from their house in the morning, entered another house (car), moved with it and entered into yet another one (office).
In the evening the same cycle would repeat with the men moving from their houses (offices) into other houses (cars) and back to other houses (home). This went on day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year.
The man from Mars began to wonder; if the idea of human beings is to be in a house, why do they move from one house to another? After much soul-searching, he concluded that human beings are either confused, chaotic or both.
This story told by the Senior Counsel on the day he launched the proposed draft constitution best captures the Kenyan plight in as far as the struggle for a new constitution is concerned.
A person watching from outside would notice the elements of confusion littered throughout our struggle which has spanned decades and made world history.
Ours is a story of both promise and betrayal, bravery and cowardice, hope and despair among other such abysses which have afflicted us in our quest for a new constitution.
If the idea of Kenyans has been to clinch a new constitution, one might wonder, why haven’t they been unable all those years?
Why do they miss all the moments; from the “No reforms No election” calls of 1997, down through the IPPG debacle, Bomas One, 2002 Narc triumphal entry into power, Bomas Two and 2005 referendum?
If the idea of a new constitution is a genuine one- because that is where we must start, what then explains all the change of color in those who once led the original cause? In this case, one would be at a loss to explain Kiraitu Murungi’s virulent opposition to Bomas Draft in 2004.
Better still, what would explain President Kibaki’s behavior in 2004 contrasted to his days as the opposition leader when he presented his views at County Hall to Prof. Yash Pal Ghai’s team and cited imperial presidency as overriding cause of conflict in Kenya.
Again if it were a genuine one, one would have to explain why both sides of the divide in 2005- Kibaki’s side and Raila’s decided to play poker with the cause and why Kenyans played along.
Interestingly, I have seen in the past politicians admitting that they deliberately misled Kenyans in 2005 for their own interests.
If the idea of new constitution is a sincere one, wouldn’t Kenyans first demand public apologies from these charlatans who are now positioning themselves as knights in shining armors this time round?
Talking of the 2005 debacle which Kitonga says produced nor winners or losers, where did the desire for a new constitution go after Kivuitu declared the Wako draft as defeated? Again, if the desire was genuine, would not have the struggle picked on from November 22nd?
Would have the so called “Orange luminaries” accompanied by one of the biggest crowds I will ever witness in this country gone to Uhuru Park to cut a victory cake or to mourn the loss of yet another opportunity?
Going by the above premised questions and their apparent answers, one could logically conclude that this struggle has not been a genuine one in as far as all the Kenyan people and their various characteristics and divisions are concerned.
I submit here and without fear of contradiction that the quest for a new constitution has not been a genuine one especially for the masses. The political class has shown some measure of divided genuineness which unfortunately is laced with confusion, chaos and self interests.
The masses have definitely expressed the need for a new constitution as exemplified by the thousands of views given to the Ghai review team but they have not concretized that need with genuine commitment to its attainment.
And yet more than anybody else, a new constitutional order would benefit the masses most because it is they who have suffered the brunt of a skewed constitutional order.
It is not too late; the masses can transform their need into a genuine desire by taking the lead this time and keep away from the deceitful guidance of the political class.
The country now boasts of substantial majority of enlightened masses who should now appreciate the vanity of an endless struggle, vote in this document mindlessly and put in place mechanisms to address its shortfalls at a later time.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
African thought: Did the Greek’s plagiarize our philosophy?
By Nzau wa Musau
Holding Africa and Egypt in particular as the legitimate origin of Western thought, the theory of stolen legacy has excited intense debate key among its proponents George G James, Henry Olela, Cheick Anta Diop and Martin Bernal just to mention but a few. The question however remains whether their claims are credible enough to prove existence of philosophy in Africa and the subsequent plagiarism by the Greeks.
By and large, the evidence they adduce point to existence of philosophy though not properly documented in Africa and particularly in ancient Egypt and its surroundings. The glory of ancient Egypt for instance, was founded on African ideas long before conquest of North Africa by the Arabs between AD 639 and AD 708.
Egypt was a product of afro-ancestral thought and all its pyramids were works of continental Africans such as pharaoh Djoser who commissioned Imhotep his grand vizier and architect of great standing into building the funerary complex at Saqqara. Obviously, Egypt’s systems, beliefs, architecture, religion, social order and political organization demanded some great measure of philosophical backing.
The famed of the Greek philosophers themselves attest to their schooling in Egypt as their source of philosophical prowess. Thales of Miletus who is considered father of Western philosophy traveled to Kemet and in fact advised his students to go to Africa to study. Deodorise Siculus, the Greek writer came and stayed at Anu in Egypt. He admitted that many who “are celebrated among the Greeks for intelligence and learning” studied in Egypt. Homer, the first Greek writer of the Iliad spent 7 years in Africa studying law, philosophy, religion, astronomy and physics. Pythagoras spent over 20 years in Africa. Interestingly, he would later be credited for mathematical theories which for a thousand years before him had been used in Egypt to calculate areas of rectangles, circles, isosceles and trapeziums.
And writing in “Bucyrus”, Socrates himself admits: “I studied philosophy and medicine in Egypt.” So famed was Egypt a centre of high learning and philosophical thought that St. Clement of Alexandria, himself a Greek would write: “If you were to write a book of 1000 pages, you could not put down names of all Greeks who went to Nile Valley in ancient Egypt to study and even those who did not go claim they did because it was prestigious.”
Besides existence of philosophy in abstract sense, Africans in Egypt practiced philosophy in their day to day life and the evidence of this is scattered in technological, scientific, craft and religious inventions evident in Egypt in pre-Socratic times. Egyptians wrote long before Europeans could. In fact, the earliest known medical books such as the Hearst Papyrus (7th dynasty, 2000BC), the Kahun Papyrus (12th & 13th dynasty, 2133-1766BC) and Ebers Papyrus (18th dynasty, 1500BC) show evidence of the practice of medicine which in itself implies scientific philosophy. They practiced medicine in birth (Caesarian Section surgical mode of delivery is attributed to Egyptians), in life (treatment of various ills and surgery) and in death (mummification of the dead). Yet 1000 years after the recorded practice of medicine in Egypt, Hippocrates would be considered as the father of medicine.
The treatment of Greek philosophers upon return from Egypt clearly indicates that the philosophy they sought to practice was alien and unpalatable to Greek tastes. Their government’s policy is proof of the ‘African-ness’ of their philosophy. Plato fled to Megara, Socrates was executed and Anaxagoras fled to Ionia. The lack of their biographical data notwithstanding, their works smacked of plagiarism and possibly from Africa where they spend considerable time. Plato’s philosophy is eclectic and point to Egypt. His conception of four virtues and even the kind of educational system he vouched for reveals, as F. Ochieng’ Odhiambo says “some compatibility with the ancient Egyptian educational system.”
In fact and according to Akinyi Princess of K’orinda-Yimbo, “Phaedros” is what he learned from the fable of Thoth, the Egyptian god of wisdom and sacred texts when he (Plato) lived in Anu (Heliopolis) under an Egyptian philosopher priest called Sechnuphis. In her work; Dark Europe and Africa’s Past- A Critical Observation of Neighboring Continents, Akinyi Princes says that while Socrates awaited his condemnation, he admitted to his students that he plagiarized work of an African philosopher Aesop, the Ethiopian (560 BC): “I availed myself some of Aesop’s fables which were ready to hand and familiar to me and I versified the first one of them which suggested itself.” His host at Megara when he fled persecution in Greece; Euclid was an African, a greatest mathematician never mind that Thomas Jefferson (who would later became US 3rd president) would many years write that “no negro could comprehend the investigations of Euclid,” that in imagination blacks are “dull, tasteless and anomalous.”
Aristotle, the most influential of the Greek philosophers to modern Europe is largely a product of the loot of great libraries of Egyptian cities and especially the great library of Alexandria which he converted into a research centre and university for education of fellow Greeks. “Aristotle, together with his students Theophratus and Eudemus took full advantage and did research at the Alexandrian library, but must have helped themselves to some texts”, says F. Ochieng’ Odhiambo.
In conclusion, Greek philosophy points to Egypt as the pedestal of intellectualism and philosophy long before Europe’s. Egypt on the other hand is a product, as Cheick Anta Diop in Negro Nations and Culture: From Negro-Egyptian Antiquity to Cultural Problems of Black Africa Today says, of heartland Africa including Ethiopia.
As I observed severally above, the stolen legacy theory merely points to existence of philosophy in Africa and in reality does not pin-point it or crystallize this pointer. It is not enough to attribute Greek philosophy to Africa without giving concrete evidence to back this up. In my own considered opinion, the stolen legacy theory succeeds in merely inferring existence of philosophy in Africa and not in essentially proving it. Much more work needs to be done to prove the practice of philosophy in antiquity Africa and before the alleged Greek theft or plagiarism.
For it to be credible, Africa will have to trace and indeed produce the works of its famed philosophers whose works, ideas are claimed to have been looted or lost. These include Imhotep (2700 BC), the first recorded physician, architect, counselor to a King; Ptahhotep (2414 BC), the first ethical philosopher who believed in harmony with nature; Kagemni (2300 BC), teacher of right action for the sake of goodness and who came 1800 years before Buddha showed up and revolutionized the Orient; Merikare (1990 BC), classical teacher of good speech; Sehotep-Ibra (1991 BC), the nationalist philosopher. Others include Amen-emhat (1991 BC), the world’s alleged first cynic, Amenhotep son of Hepu (1400 BC), the most revered of ancient Kemetic philosophers and Duauf (1340 BC), master of protocols.
If the philosophical works of these men could be found and their biographies ascertained, the stolen legacy theory would be credible in proving existence of philosophy in Africa. If philosophy is to be proven in Africa, it is not to be sought in Europe but through undivided philosophical examination of African ways, systems, beliefs, history, cultures and reasoning. Stolen or not stolen, the evidence of practice of philosophy in Africa should be very apparent even in the present if indeed it was there. If its not, a lot of questions arise.
Ends…../.
Holding Africa and Egypt in particular as the legitimate origin of Western thought, the theory of stolen legacy has excited intense debate key among its proponents George G James, Henry Olela, Cheick Anta Diop and Martin Bernal just to mention but a few. The question however remains whether their claims are credible enough to prove existence of philosophy in Africa and the subsequent plagiarism by the Greeks.
By and large, the evidence they adduce point to existence of philosophy though not properly documented in Africa and particularly in ancient Egypt and its surroundings. The glory of ancient Egypt for instance, was founded on African ideas long before conquest of North Africa by the Arabs between AD 639 and AD 708.
Egypt was a product of afro-ancestral thought and all its pyramids were works of continental Africans such as pharaoh Djoser who commissioned Imhotep his grand vizier and architect of great standing into building the funerary complex at Saqqara. Obviously, Egypt’s systems, beliefs, architecture, religion, social order and political organization demanded some great measure of philosophical backing.
The famed of the Greek philosophers themselves attest to their schooling in Egypt as their source of philosophical prowess. Thales of Miletus who is considered father of Western philosophy traveled to Kemet and in fact advised his students to go to Africa to study. Deodorise Siculus, the Greek writer came and stayed at Anu in Egypt. He admitted that many who “are celebrated among the Greeks for intelligence and learning” studied in Egypt. Homer, the first Greek writer of the Iliad spent 7 years in Africa studying law, philosophy, religion, astronomy and physics. Pythagoras spent over 20 years in Africa. Interestingly, he would later be credited for mathematical theories which for a thousand years before him had been used in Egypt to calculate areas of rectangles, circles, isosceles and trapeziums.
And writing in “Bucyrus”, Socrates himself admits: “I studied philosophy and medicine in Egypt.” So famed was Egypt a centre of high learning and philosophical thought that St. Clement of Alexandria, himself a Greek would write: “If you were to write a book of 1000 pages, you could not put down names of all Greeks who went to Nile Valley in ancient Egypt to study and even those who did not go claim they did because it was prestigious.”
Besides existence of philosophy in abstract sense, Africans in Egypt practiced philosophy in their day to day life and the evidence of this is scattered in technological, scientific, craft and religious inventions evident in Egypt in pre-Socratic times. Egyptians wrote long before Europeans could. In fact, the earliest known medical books such as the Hearst Papyrus (7th dynasty, 2000BC), the Kahun Papyrus (12th & 13th dynasty, 2133-1766BC) and Ebers Papyrus (18th dynasty, 1500BC) show evidence of the practice of medicine which in itself implies scientific philosophy. They practiced medicine in birth (Caesarian Section surgical mode of delivery is attributed to Egyptians), in life (treatment of various ills and surgery) and in death (mummification of the dead). Yet 1000 years after the recorded practice of medicine in Egypt, Hippocrates would be considered as the father of medicine.
The treatment of Greek philosophers upon return from Egypt clearly indicates that the philosophy they sought to practice was alien and unpalatable to Greek tastes. Their government’s policy is proof of the ‘African-ness’ of their philosophy. Plato fled to Megara, Socrates was executed and Anaxagoras fled to Ionia. The lack of their biographical data notwithstanding, their works smacked of plagiarism and possibly from Africa where they spend considerable time. Plato’s philosophy is eclectic and point to Egypt. His conception of four virtues and even the kind of educational system he vouched for reveals, as F. Ochieng’ Odhiambo says “some compatibility with the ancient Egyptian educational system.”
In fact and according to Akinyi Princess of K’orinda-Yimbo, “Phaedros” is what he learned from the fable of Thoth, the Egyptian god of wisdom and sacred texts when he (Plato) lived in Anu (Heliopolis) under an Egyptian philosopher priest called Sechnuphis. In her work; Dark Europe and Africa’s Past- A Critical Observation of Neighboring Continents, Akinyi Princes says that while Socrates awaited his condemnation, he admitted to his students that he plagiarized work of an African philosopher Aesop, the Ethiopian (560 BC): “I availed myself some of Aesop’s fables which were ready to hand and familiar to me and I versified the first one of them which suggested itself.” His host at Megara when he fled persecution in Greece; Euclid was an African, a greatest mathematician never mind that Thomas Jefferson (who would later became US 3rd president) would many years write that “no negro could comprehend the investigations of Euclid,” that in imagination blacks are “dull, tasteless and anomalous.”
Aristotle, the most influential of the Greek philosophers to modern Europe is largely a product of the loot of great libraries of Egyptian cities and especially the great library of Alexandria which he converted into a research centre and university for education of fellow Greeks. “Aristotle, together with his students Theophratus and Eudemus took full advantage and did research at the Alexandrian library, but must have helped themselves to some texts”, says F. Ochieng’ Odhiambo.
In conclusion, Greek philosophy points to Egypt as the pedestal of intellectualism and philosophy long before Europe’s. Egypt on the other hand is a product, as Cheick Anta Diop in Negro Nations and Culture: From Negro-Egyptian Antiquity to Cultural Problems of Black Africa Today says, of heartland Africa including Ethiopia.
As I observed severally above, the stolen legacy theory merely points to existence of philosophy in Africa and in reality does not pin-point it or crystallize this pointer. It is not enough to attribute Greek philosophy to Africa without giving concrete evidence to back this up. In my own considered opinion, the stolen legacy theory succeeds in merely inferring existence of philosophy in Africa and not in essentially proving it. Much more work needs to be done to prove the practice of philosophy in antiquity Africa and before the alleged Greek theft or plagiarism.
For it to be credible, Africa will have to trace and indeed produce the works of its famed philosophers whose works, ideas are claimed to have been looted or lost. These include Imhotep (2700 BC), the first recorded physician, architect, counselor to a King; Ptahhotep (2414 BC), the first ethical philosopher who believed in harmony with nature; Kagemni (2300 BC), teacher of right action for the sake of goodness and who came 1800 years before Buddha showed up and revolutionized the Orient; Merikare (1990 BC), classical teacher of good speech; Sehotep-Ibra (1991 BC), the nationalist philosopher. Others include Amen-emhat (1991 BC), the world’s alleged first cynic, Amenhotep son of Hepu (1400 BC), the most revered of ancient Kemetic philosophers and Duauf (1340 BC), master of protocols.
If the philosophical works of these men could be found and their biographies ascertained, the stolen legacy theory would be credible in proving existence of philosophy in Africa. If philosophy is to be proven in Africa, it is not to be sought in Europe but through undivided philosophical examination of African ways, systems, beliefs, history, cultures and reasoning. Stolen or not stolen, the evidence of practice of philosophy in Africa should be very apparent even in the present if indeed it was there. If its not, a lot of questions arise.
Ends…../.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
With or Without dependency; Can the 3rd World survive?
In discussing depedency, Brazilian scholar Theotonio Dos Santos claimed that 3rd world countries cannot do without dependency nor can they do with it. In this paper, Nzau Musau discusses the claim and its basis.
In making this statement, Dos Santos is saying that the third world is inextricably and perpetually condemned to necessary dependency which guarantees survival but at the expense of stagnation. This statement is informed by a number of reasons which I will attempt to discuss below.
According to Dos Santos, third world countries cannot do without dependency because it provides the much needed capital which is very much wanting in those countries. This is caused by limited capital stocks and marginal incomes in the face of growing needs. Capital flight is also occasioned by heavy domestic borrowing leading to expensive capital within the borders. It therefore becomes inevitable that third world countries will be depended on the West for capital to develop their industries.
Third world countries must necessarily depend on the West for the expensive technologies which propel the western economies. Due to lack of capital, third world countries cannot afford to develop own technologies to propel their economies.
They cannot also afford to procure the Western technology either and therefore dependency is, again, inevitable if the countries are to develop. Technology in third world is very necessary when employed wisely. For instance, production of genetically modified foods in Africa can stave off the perennial food insecurity in the continent. Since the continent lacks enough capital to fund expansive GMO projects and spread the technology, it must necessarily depend on the West to do that. The West has accumulated surplus capital which would be idle anyway if it was not employed for this purpose.
The third world need depend on the west to turn over the bad legacy of mere providers of raw materials set by the colonialists. These countries must be able to process their raw materials into industrial products and add value to them to enable them compete in international market. And since such a venture is expensive, they need to depend on those countries which have the means and ways to enable this undertaking. Dependency seen in this light of creating a break from the cycle of dependency is positive and should actually be encouraged.
Dos Santos also bases his statement on necessity of dependency for third world on the fact that on the capitalistic reality of the world order at the moment. This implies that rich countries will continue to get richer and richer as they enjoy capital surplus while the poor will continue to get poor and poorer. Added to this is the hard fact that the international trading system largely suits the west.
If you were take the example of Europe and Africa, it will be noticed that individual African countries are disadvantaged in international trade where they individually bargain in the world market bilaterally while European countries approach the market through the EU bloc. Third world countries which are fragmented and economically non-viable must therefore depend on the developed economies for assistance.
The adverse effect’s of the colonial legacies of most of these developing countries is another factor that Dos Santos bases his argument on necessity of dependency. The nation-states bequeathed to new leaders of these countries by colonialists enjoyed very limited economic resource base, so little that self sufficiency is impracticable.
Their markets were also perpetually designed to be outside themselves. They did not have the capacity- and still do not, of fixing own prices for their goods. Moreover, labour is cheap, underpaid and domestic production discouraged. They must therefore look to the west for help and liberation from this sad state of affairs.
But as Dos Santos argues, third world countries cannot also survive with dependency. Like the analogy of bleeding a leech to fatten a heifer, third world countries in depending on the west design their own downfall or perpetual stagnation. They cannot survive with dependency because it condemns them to a perpetual begging position which is not sustainable.
Tolerance for this perpetual begging posture is expensive to the extent that developing countries are required to put in place economically hostile measures as conditions for obtaining capital. In this way, labour becomes cheap as machines take over, staff is laid off and multinational from the west are granted monopolies just to mention but a few.
They cannot do where they are condemned by the begging position to retain unfair trade agreements with the west just to keep in good books. Most developing countries as observed earlier on lack internal market and are locked in unfair trade arrangements of no benefit to them. They are required to open up their market for competition with products from larger economies in order to receive aid. Their unfinished products fetch little prices on the world market leading to lack of capital.
Largely because of limited capital stocks, developing countries are forced to accumulate loan after loan thus lacking any money or surplus for investment. This not only limits opportunities of growth but also diminishes existing ones where interest rates are pushed up the wall as domestic capital becomes more and more expensive. In such a case, capital is not only lost to the state but also to citizens. The net effect of lack of capital for citizens means that they cannot improve their lives by setting up businesses, investing in industry, education, agriculture and other essentials of human development.
According to Dos Santos, they cannot also do because some of the measures demanded of developing countries by the west like mechanization of labor lead to unemployment and end up undermining the very development they are seeking. Expertise to manage this mechanization or technology as it were is equally imported from the same west hence the leech-heifer analogy.
The economic pressures placed by dependency create a ripple effect in the socio-political state of third world countries. Political reforms demanded by the west lock the country in perpetual state of conflict between the ruling elite and the opposition. In this state of affairs, the country barely survives. The case of Zimbabwe is a classic one. Although there is a semblance of democracy as demanded by the west after the fall of the Berlin Wall in early 1989, the country is barely surviving.
The opposition has been stuck in endless power squabbles with the government and neither side seems to let up even as the economic fortunes of that country tumbles from bad to worse. In the mean time, Zimbabwe continues to receive foreign aid to fund its programmes even as inflation sky-rockets to unimaginable proportions.
The happenings in Zimbabwe although quite outstanding, represents the plight of many a third world country.
And so in conclusion, the import of Dos Santo’s statement is that although this dependency is a necessity, developing countries cannot also prosper with it. It fixes them to a situation where they cannot improve their lot but also which is unsustainable in the sense that it will not be long before they break up.
In making this statement, Dos Santos is saying that the third world is inextricably and perpetually condemned to necessary dependency which guarantees survival but at the expense of stagnation. This statement is informed by a number of reasons which I will attempt to discuss below.
According to Dos Santos, third world countries cannot do without dependency because it provides the much needed capital which is very much wanting in those countries. This is caused by limited capital stocks and marginal incomes in the face of growing needs. Capital flight is also occasioned by heavy domestic borrowing leading to expensive capital within the borders. It therefore becomes inevitable that third world countries will be depended on the West for capital to develop their industries.
Third world countries must necessarily depend on the West for the expensive technologies which propel the western economies. Due to lack of capital, third world countries cannot afford to develop own technologies to propel their economies.
They cannot also afford to procure the Western technology either and therefore dependency is, again, inevitable if the countries are to develop. Technology in third world is very necessary when employed wisely. For instance, production of genetically modified foods in Africa can stave off the perennial food insecurity in the continent. Since the continent lacks enough capital to fund expansive GMO projects and spread the technology, it must necessarily depend on the West to do that. The West has accumulated surplus capital which would be idle anyway if it was not employed for this purpose.
The third world need depend on the west to turn over the bad legacy of mere providers of raw materials set by the colonialists. These countries must be able to process their raw materials into industrial products and add value to them to enable them compete in international market. And since such a venture is expensive, they need to depend on those countries which have the means and ways to enable this undertaking. Dependency seen in this light of creating a break from the cycle of dependency is positive and should actually be encouraged.
Dos Santos also bases his statement on necessity of dependency for third world on the fact that on the capitalistic reality of the world order at the moment. This implies that rich countries will continue to get richer and richer as they enjoy capital surplus while the poor will continue to get poor and poorer. Added to this is the hard fact that the international trading system largely suits the west.
If you were take the example of Europe and Africa, it will be noticed that individual African countries are disadvantaged in international trade where they individually bargain in the world market bilaterally while European countries approach the market through the EU bloc. Third world countries which are fragmented and economically non-viable must therefore depend on the developed economies for assistance.
The adverse effect’s of the colonial legacies of most of these developing countries is another factor that Dos Santos bases his argument on necessity of dependency. The nation-states bequeathed to new leaders of these countries by colonialists enjoyed very limited economic resource base, so little that self sufficiency is impracticable.
Their markets were also perpetually designed to be outside themselves. They did not have the capacity- and still do not, of fixing own prices for their goods. Moreover, labour is cheap, underpaid and domestic production discouraged. They must therefore look to the west for help and liberation from this sad state of affairs.
But as Dos Santos argues, third world countries cannot also survive with dependency. Like the analogy of bleeding a leech to fatten a heifer, third world countries in depending on the west design their own downfall or perpetual stagnation. They cannot survive with dependency because it condemns them to a perpetual begging position which is not sustainable.
Tolerance for this perpetual begging posture is expensive to the extent that developing countries are required to put in place economically hostile measures as conditions for obtaining capital. In this way, labour becomes cheap as machines take over, staff is laid off and multinational from the west are granted monopolies just to mention but a few.
They cannot do where they are condemned by the begging position to retain unfair trade agreements with the west just to keep in good books. Most developing countries as observed earlier on lack internal market and are locked in unfair trade arrangements of no benefit to them. They are required to open up their market for competition with products from larger economies in order to receive aid. Their unfinished products fetch little prices on the world market leading to lack of capital.
Largely because of limited capital stocks, developing countries are forced to accumulate loan after loan thus lacking any money or surplus for investment. This not only limits opportunities of growth but also diminishes existing ones where interest rates are pushed up the wall as domestic capital becomes more and more expensive. In such a case, capital is not only lost to the state but also to citizens. The net effect of lack of capital for citizens means that they cannot improve their lives by setting up businesses, investing in industry, education, agriculture and other essentials of human development.
According to Dos Santos, they cannot also do because some of the measures demanded of developing countries by the west like mechanization of labor lead to unemployment and end up undermining the very development they are seeking. Expertise to manage this mechanization or technology as it were is equally imported from the same west hence the leech-heifer analogy.
The economic pressures placed by dependency create a ripple effect in the socio-political state of third world countries. Political reforms demanded by the west lock the country in perpetual state of conflict between the ruling elite and the opposition. In this state of affairs, the country barely survives. The case of Zimbabwe is a classic one. Although there is a semblance of democracy as demanded by the west after the fall of the Berlin Wall in early 1989, the country is barely surviving.
The opposition has been stuck in endless power squabbles with the government and neither side seems to let up even as the economic fortunes of that country tumbles from bad to worse. In the mean time, Zimbabwe continues to receive foreign aid to fund its programmes even as inflation sky-rockets to unimaginable proportions.
The happenings in Zimbabwe although quite outstanding, represents the plight of many a third world country.
And so in conclusion, the import of Dos Santo’s statement is that although this dependency is a necessity, developing countries cannot also prosper with it. It fixes them to a situation where they cannot improve their lot but also which is unsustainable in the sense that it will not be long before they break up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)