Contemporary African Social and Political Philosophy

Trends, Debates and Challenges

Albert Kasanda

• Verlag: Routledge
• Jahr: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351209908
• Auflage: 1
• Thema: Filosofía
• Thema: Filosofía política

This book explores what constitutes contemporary African social and political philosophy with regard to its meaning, aims, sources, and relevance for today's Africa. Kasanda denounces conventional approaches considering these either as a subcategory of general philosophyor as the ideological attempts of individual African leaders and professional philosophers, such as Nkrumah, Nyerere, Senghor, Fanon, Hountondji and Towa. On the contrary, Kasanda defines contemporary African social and political philosophy as an inclusive reflection of African communities with regard to power andequitable modes of social and political organization in order to promote human excellence for everyone. Thisperspective also includes the criticism of social and political concepts in use within African communities.

The author postulates that contemporary African social and political philosophy relies on the legacy of precolonial African societies, as well as on the contribution of the diaspora throughout the world. Contemporary African social and political philosophy is rooted in the daily lives of African people, and it expresses itself through multiple modalities including, for example, art, religion, literature, music and the policy of urbanization of African cities.

This book sheds new light on debates concerning topics such as ethnophilosophy, negritude, pan-Africanism, democracy, African civil society, African cultures, and globalization. It aims to ward off the lethargy that strikes African social and political philosophy, takinga renewed and critical approach.

1

Approaching Contemporary African Social and Political Philosophy

Introduction

Notwithstanding the increasing number of treaties and textbooks on African philosophy, it is distressing to note that most of these publications pay very little attention to contemporary African social and political philosophy.¹ At best, the few that deal with this issue enclose it in categories such as “ideological thought” (Smet 1980, 277–282; Lopes 2001, 13–16; Ngoma-Binda 2013), “nationalist-ideological philosophy” (Lajul 2013; Serequeberhan 1991), or “liberation philosophy” (English and Kibujjo 1996, 6). In addition, many people confine this philosophy to the thinking of individual leaders such as Nkrumah (1909–1972), Nyerere (1922–1999), Senghor (1906–2001), and Fanon (1925–1961). As a result, they limit this philosophy to the exclusive preoccupation of professional thinkers and politicians, regardless of the commitment of African people to searching for a better mode of social and political organization.

This chapter denounces the scarcity of publications in this area of study. It also rejects the propensity to reduce African social and political philosophy to the status of an ideology, a single theory or individual thought of an African leader or professional philosopher. To state this positively, this chapter addresses African social and political philosophy as a common and inclusive quest for better paradigms of social and political organization on behalf of African people, their scholars and leaders. It also perceives this philosophy as aiming at the clarification of concepts in use in the African social and political sphere.

This chapter is divided into three sections. The first deals with both the nature and duties of African social and political philosophy. It maintains that this philosophy is a rational search for better modes of social and political organization and governance on behalf of African people and their leaders and intellectuals. This search not only includes theoretical debates and the clarification of concepts, but also deals with African people’s daily challenges for a better life and creating a humanized community (faire société).

The second section analyzes the relationship between contemporary African social and political philosophy and ontology. For a range of African thinkers and Africanists, the search for African quintessence is essential to characterizing African philosophy. This section introduces some light and shade, showing that African social and political philosophy is not merely a subcategory of a general philosophy, nor is it exclusively concerned with metaphysical issues. On the contrary, this philosophy also deals with matters related to people’s daily lives, such as diseases, poverty, and social and political organization. Based on this observation, this volume postulates the lack of concordance between African social and political philosophy and ontology.

The last section concentrates on the relationship between contemporary African social and political philosophy and the concept of ideology. It denounces the opinion that these notions are synonymous with each other. Subsequently, this section argues that despite their theoretical proximity, these concepts cannot be used to stand in for one another as they both include a slight difference in meaning and practice.

1.1 The idea of contemporary African social and political philosophy

A range of African scholars and Africanists define contemporary African social and political philosophy in terms of national and ideological thought. Scholars such as Nkombe and Smet (1980), for example, think that this philosophy has developed as an antithesis of racist assumptions justifying the black slave trade and colonialism as well as the denial of human dignity to black people. For them, this philosophy developed into various trends including the African personality, pan-Africanism, negritude, African socialism, and African humanism, to mention those few. In addition, Nkombe and Smet (1980, 278) observe that

Nous sommes ici en présence d’une littérature de combat, qui n’est que rarement élaborée en philosophie systématique et explicite, dont l’objectif est la libération des Noirs. Cette libération est politique, économique et culturelle.

(Emphasis added)

(We are here in the presence of a literature of combat, which is rarely developed as a systematic and explicit philosophy, whose concern is the emancipation of black people. This emancipation refers to political, economic and cultural spheres.)

It is my feeling that this approach gives rise to a set of questions concerning, for example, the precise concept of political philosophy to which Nkombe and Smet refer. In other words, what do they mean by “systematic and explicit philosophy”? Are the known formulations of what they call national ideological philosophy not systematic and explicit enough to match their expectations? This questioning is central because it refers to a major debate concerning both the genesis and the development of African philosophy, as illustrated by thinkers such as Hountondji (1983, 33), Bodunrin (1991), Wiredu (1991), and many others. It is not the purpose of this section to excavate this debate. So let us leave it aside and concentrate instead on defining contemporary African social and political philosophy.

Lajul (2013) thinks that national ideological philosophy stands for contemporary African political philosophy. This philosophy is viewed as specific to some African states and statesmen. It is thought to have roots in the African precolonial legacy which was adapted to match contemporary African challenges. Concretely, according to him, this philosophy is “represented by the works of politicians like Nkrumah, Nyerere and Senghor. [It] involves an attempt to evolve a new and, if possible, unique political theory based on traditional African socialism and family-hood” (Lajul 2013, 48).

In the same way of thinking, Serequeberhan (1991, 20) considers that national ideological philosophy can be viewed as

embodied in the assorted manifestos, pamphlets and political works produced by the African liberation struggle. The writings of Nkrumah, Touré, Nyerere, Fanon, Senghor, Césaire, and Cabral, and the national liberation literature as a whole, harbor differing politico-philosophical conceptions that articulate the emancipatory possibilities opened up by the African anticolonial struggle.

In addition to that, Serequeberhan also thinks that there is a very thin difference between national ideological philosophy and other trends of African philosophy including philosophic sagacity and professional philosophy. In this respect, he notes that national ideological philosophy “might be seen as a special case of philosophic sagacity, in which not sages but ideologues are subjects. Alternatively, we might see it as a case of professional political philosophy” (quoted in Lajul 2013, 47).

These approaches identify contemporary African social and political philosophy with the anti-colonial struggle. They confine this philosophy to the status of single and individual theories set out by African thinkers and freedom fighters such as Nkrumah, Nyerere, Senghor, Cabral, and others. It is my feeling that anti-colonial thought is a legitimate part of the African intellectual legacy and an important contribution to African political thinking. But I can hardly imagine this legacy as embodying all of the African social and political issues of today. It is also my belief that the above-mentioned perceptions rest on the mistaken logic of taking a part to represent the whole. They reduce this philosophy to problems concerning African emancipation and safekeeping of African traditions. Such a reductionism is hardly sustainable nowadays. It is my feeling that in order to be relevant, every approach to the African social and political situation must take into consideration the dimensions of both time and space. In this respect, it can be observed that the definitions of African social and political philosophy discussed here pay very little attention to mutations occurring in African societies. They pass over or ignore new challenges faced by African people and their constant creativity in tackling them. On the contrary, these approaches concentrate on the restoration of pristine and precolonial forms of indigenous cultures as a solution to the challenges of contemporary Africa. They can be viewed as reductive of the horizons of African social and political philosophy.

It is also my feeling that the equivalence established by Serequeberhan between national ideological philosophy, philosophic sagacity and professional philosophy needs a bit of clarification and criticism. The idea of philosophic sagacity was introduced by Odera in his attempt to identify African philosophy’s trends. He thinks that

philosophic sagacity is a reflection of a person who is a sage and a thinker. … As sages, they are versed in the belief and wisdoms of their people. But as thinkers, they are rationally critical and they opt for or recommend only those aspects of the beliefs and wisdoms which satisfy their rational scrutiny.

(Odera 1991, 51, emphasis added)

From this definition, it can be outlined that philosophic sagacity is a philosophy of individual African wise men. In this view, the most important thing is the “philosophical wisdom”, regardless of the topic at stake. This makes it different from social and political philosophy, whose concern is defined in terms of critical analysis of political concepts, the search for people’s well-being, and reflection on the management of power and better organization of the city. In other words, the former can be viewed as a general approach to the problems of daily life, while the latter can be considered a specific and specialized view on any social and political issue.

Professional African philosophy stresses the universality of philosophy through its technical dimension. It relies on professionally trained philosophers (Odera 1991, 48). This philosophy can be considered as a meta-philosophy, because it addresses various claims as to whether some given thoughts qualify or don’t qualify as philosophy. This approach is so general that it evokes a feeling of standing far from the nature and central preoccupations of contemporary African social and political philosophy. Resting on these observations, I believe that contemporary African social and political philosophy cannot be assimilated into this approach, because it has its own characteristics and duties including the clarification of concepts and providing a justifiable rationale for institutions in charge of organizing the polis and the promotion of people’s excellence.

The duty to clarify political concepts aims at ensuring common understanding of shared concepts and their normative implications. A common understanding of political concepts is important because those concepts are contestable and their meaning often depends on the contexts in which they are formulated. For instance, the concept of democracy has a variety of meanings; thus it is imperative to clarify, each time it is applied, from which perspective and for which purpose it is being used so that the accurate meaning can be pointed out. The use of this word by the ancient Greeks differs from its use by communist and liberal thinkers, for example. From this perspective, it can be argued that clarification of concepts helps to avoid anachronism and amalgam in the presentation of political ideas and related principles. It can be also observed that the notion of democracy, for example, describes a form of organization of the polis but refers also to an ideal and set of values structuring the polis, such as freedom, plurality, and people’s participation. Democracy, as many other political concepts, is not a single idea to be used without any epistemological precaution. It includes a multitude of meanings whose philosophical backgrounds rely on both the history and context of their production.²

The idea of providing a justified rationale for ruling institutions refers to the fact that contemporary African social and political philosophy deals with both the setting up and the management of the common world. It is its duty to scrutinize people’s everyday experiences of alliances and collective actions (Matthieu 2004; Fillieule and Pechu 1993; Jordan 2003) to establish rational frameworks and sustainable policy. It is my belief that the reference to the common world constitutes the nourishing sap, the lifeblood, and the compass of contemporary African social and political philosophy. I owe the idea of common world to two theoretical backgrounds. First, I rely on Arendt’s analysis of the human condition, in which common world refers to the political sphere where people reveal themselves to each other as equal as well as mutually commiting to create a political community together. This sphere is characterized by the propensity of human beings to act (actio) together (Arendt 1994).

Second, I refer to the African notion of Ubuntu. Tutu (1999, 34–35) thinks that the concept of Ubuntu includes more than a mere description of African traditions, as it refers to the normative requirements for a good life. Such a life is characterized by strong humanistic feeling and balanced relationships between individuals and community as well as with nature. In sum, this concept highlights the requirement for equity and better life for everyone. It is my feeling that the planting of contemporary African social and political philosophy in such a soil accounts for the way by which this philosophy has been able to specify its objective and forge its own identity.

The search for excellence and well-being of citizens is a permanent concern of any social and political philosophy. From ancient times up to now, nobody has ignored this topic, even if every thinker assigns to it a specific content and sketches differently its modalities of achievement. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, Rawls, and many others have explored this issue in different ways and according to their respective context. On this basis, it is my belief that African thinkers also must deal with the range of challenges facing the continent, including poverty, human rights, gender, democracy and equity (Appiah 1992; Gyekye 1997; Odera 1997).

The issue of power is also fundamental for contemporary African social and political philosophy. The first generation of African leaders considered the conquest of political power as a duty and founding principle of their political commitment. Nkrumah’s aphorism is illustrative of this aspiration: “seek ye first the political kingdom, and all else shall be added onto you”. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that in postcolonial Africa, power is still a burning debate. Political leaders, activists, and scholars hardly agree concerning its nature, justification, and management. For all of them, questions regarding who governs the polis and by which principles does he/she perform such a duty, for how long and according to what modalities does he/she have to rule, constitute a major point of protest. This debate is illustrated through theoretical analysis but also by upheavals that have shook African countries in recent decades (Appiah 1992; Wiredu 1997; Gyekye 1997). Recall, for example, the events following the presidential election in Ivory Coast with candidates Gbabo, going for another term as president, and Ouattara, the opposing candidate, when results were contested by Gbabo (2010–2011); the fall of Compaoré in Burkina Faso (2014); as well as current social and political upheavals in Burundi (2015) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (2016). This context illustrates the need for a deeper and more critical reflection aiming at improving both the civic and political cultures of the African people and their leaders.

1.2 Contemporary African social and political philosophy and ontology

Consideration of the relationship between contemporary African social and political philosophy and ontology raises the question about the relevance of ontological assertions in the sphere of political thought and vice versa. On the one hand, a range of African thinkers view the search for African quintessence as an unavoidable background to the analysis of issues of the polis; on the other hand, some of them consider the political sphere as a space of empirical attitudes and pragmatism. This makes the issue complex, since it involves two opposing perceptions of philosophy: the idea of philosophy as theoria and the perception of philosophy as praxis (Kasereka 2015, 312–321). Beyond this antagonism, questions about the identity and the role of African philosopher can be detected (Kasanda 2003, 16–17).

The debate around Tempels’s work Bantu Philosophy (1947) contributed to denouncing the Western epistemological and cultural imperialism denying the existence of any specific philosophy outside of that inherited from the Greek tradition. This debate also highlighted the difficulty for African thinkers themselves in providing a consensual definition of African philosophy (Bell 2002, 21–22; Hountondji 1983, 33–46). However, it is agreed – at the expense of the concept of philosophy itself – that African philosophy exists and it is even anterior to Tempels’s work and its subsequent debates (Bidima 1995, 9). This statement can also be considered as valid concerning African social and political philosophy, because the search for better management of power and social matters has always been the concern for African societies, even before colonization. Theories of African humanism and African socialism, for example, rest on this legacy. For many scholars and political leaders, the Bantu’s ontology as described by Tempels constitutes an invaluable vade mecum. The idea of Senghor on African peculiarity and the theoretical postulates of Nyerere about Ujamaa can be viewed as relying on the same background, which means the search for African quintessence (Bidima 1995, 13).

This ascendancy of ontology in African social and political thought raises suspicion concerning two stumbling blocks of political philosophy, formerly denounced by Strauss in his famous lecture, Qu’est-ce que la philosophie politique? (Strauss 1992). First, there is a temptation to consider political philosophy as an application, a case study or a subcategory of general philosophy, by transposing problems and concepts of the latter into the sphere of politics. The search for African quintessence characterizing the political reflection of various African thinkers made this tempta...