The Fulfilment of Kwame Nkrumah’s ‘Prophecy’: Africa’s Neocolonialism in Theory and Practice

The Fulfilment of Kwame Nkrumah’s ‘Prophecy’: Africa’s Neocolonialism in Theory and Practice

James H Mundende

Department of Education, Independent Researcher, Zimbabwe

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0260

Received: 02 May 2025; Accepted: 08 May 2025; Published: 07 June 2025

ABSTRACT

Dr Osagiyefo Kwame Nkrumah, the first Ghanaian President was born on the 21^st of September in 1909 in Nkroful, a rural village in the Western region of the then British Gold Coast (Ghana) and he rose into prominence when he took upon the great and intricate risk to liberate the continent of Africa starting with his own native country (Langan, 2018; Biney, 2012; Nkrumah, 1963). He died of cancer on the 27^th of April in 1972, 6 years after he was torpedoed from power by what some historians call, ‘a wave of West African coup de etats’. Ghana’s coup came as the third after Togo and Zaire had gone through similar intricate imbroglios early in the 1960s. The coup in Ghana was staged in 1966 courtesy of the external contrivances aimed at thwarting African nationalism which was on its ascendancy shouldered by Kwame Nkrumah (Biney, 2012). His disposal came when he was on his way to Hanoi, Vietnam. He unparallelly contributed to the total liberation of the continent at large and it is argued of him that he was envisioning an African Federation with one army, one currency and one leader (Lumumba 2017; Mutambara 2024). As a face of African liberation and champion of Pan-Africanism, Kwame Nkrumah (1965) had no illusion in his mind as he proffered warnings to his fellow colleagues whom he later lost faith in them as they shot down and dwarfed his sense of urgency and well-intentioned radicalism. Also, Nkrumah’s vision had soon became the victim of World’s Bipolarity and confrontational politics; that was an ideological standoff between the Capitalist West and the Communist East. Unfortunately, African nations are still ranked backwards despites them assuming political independence from the former colonizers. However, Nkrumah had a pessimistic premonition and yet an accurate ‘prophecy’ that Neocolonialism would be rolled out to remodel and replace the defunct colonial rule. And Africa is still struggling to achieve proper development to sustain its over 1.4+ billion people as Neocolonialism is in both theory and practice throughout the continent. The sole aim of this paper is to unpack the accuracy of Kwame Nkrumah’s predictions which he saw in 1965 as he argues in his book that Neocolonialism is a last stage of imperialism and it would be more insidious and subtler. As long as that ghost of Neocolonialism is not structurally exorcised, Africa will remain in the words of Mhango (2018) that Africa, a weakened community. It is likened to a problem child who refuses to grow despite 60 years of the so-called self-determination (Langan, 2018). And this makes Nkrumah’s views on Neocolonialism in Africa straightforwardly applicable to the comprehension of Africa’s political economy.

Key terms:  Prophecy, Neocolonialism, Practice, Smart Power Projection, Kwame Nkrumah

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

African states are still resembling full characterization of colonialism in all forms, even though there are some striking resemblances of decolonized and free people (Mlambo 2008). Various spectra of human development such as education, economic policies, media, religions and so on are skewed in favor of the Western systems. Marizane (2017) demonstrates in his doctoral thesis on the religiosity of the African cultures that there were European values that entered the native ones and they refused to be shrugged-off on the eve of the attainment of independence by the continent. Therefore, they are among the irreducible colonial continuities. This paper therefore is of the argument that, the coloniality of culture, religion, education, economics, judiciary among other facets came in the late 19^th century officially and effectively after the Berlin Colonial Conference of November 1884-1885, but there was no systematic decoloniality process of all the aforementioned facets notwithstanding the efforts made by Africans through picketing, rout armed struggles and negotiations from 1960s through to 1990s. Ghana successfully regained its independence in 1957 courtesy of Kwame Nkrumah’s coordinated and unparalleled leadership and its freedom had become an example of liberation possibility to other European colonies that were under the seemingly unbreakable weight of imperialism. There is an acceptable recognition by a handful of historians and scholars notably Nkrumah (1973); Wolpe (1972); Mhango (2018) that West Africa did not undergo bloody wars if comparison is to be made with what transpired in countries such as Tanzania, Kenya, Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa. The point in the foregoing is that the former French colonies predominantly in West Africa besides Djibouti, Madagascar and Comoros, regained independence through a combination of demonstrations, negotiations and referenda as the Gaullist regime in Paris contrived a plan to grand what this paper calls ‘surface freedom’ to its former colonies.  Charles de Gaulle, a brilliant military General was in 1958 tasked to lead France since the regime in Paris was subjected to political upheavals and socio-economic problems left by the Second World War back in 1945. General Gaulle presided over France, 13 years after the end of Second World War in 1945 and he had received some applause for conceding to Africa quest for self-rule (Mhango, 2018; Bhebe, 2004; Chan, 2003). His 10-year regime in Paris made France lose direct rule over West Africa (Overy, 2014). According to this paper, his long-awaited contributions to African nationalism of the 1960s has to be understood with a serious discretion of interpretation because whatever the regime in Paris did, was with hidden contrivances which manifested themselves in the region after the attainment of independence. The frequency of coups and mutinies in the former French colonies in West Africa are a clear testament to the fact that there was/is a continuance of the pernicious presence of external powers in West Africa. It was until very recent when Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso deviated from French’s neocolonial agenda.

Kwame Nkrumah’s Ghana was once a British colony and it is historically recorded that there was no much of bloody wars as compared to Southern Rhodesia under Ian Smith regime, Portuguese Angola and Mozambique, Apartheid South Africa and Namibia among others (Mhango, 2018; Langan, 2018). Such variations in terms of approaches to decoloniality, African states attained freedom differently in terms of dates, agreements and policies among other aspects of governance. However, an earlier attainment of political freedom by Ghana gave Kwame Nkrumah an advantage to assist other nations in terms of guidance. He played an integral role in the formation of Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1963 now called African Union (AU) since July 2002 (Langan, 2018; Biney, 2012; Lee, 2015; Mutambara, 2020). However, in his decolonization works both in speeches and through writings, Nkrumah predicted a negative and premonitory trajectory of the continent of Africa as early as in 1963 or even before given the thinking that an individual says something of substance not impromptu, meaning that the prediction came to his mind some years before 1963. His prediction was on the insidious nature and subtleness of Neocolonialism, which in his own words is a last stage of imperialism. In the words of Biney (2012: 19) in appreciation of the philosophical doctrines of Ghana’s first president he boldly claims that, ‘he (Kwame Nkrumah) has left a legacy of intellectualism comprising of analytical framework which we can use to comprehend our reality’.

In substance of what he envisioned though in pessimism, African nations are still victims of the ghost of colonialism which is now hidden in the sophistries of modernization as I argue and demonstrate in the paper entitled, Slave Trade and Slavery Never Came to an End but Morphed into the Sophistries of Modernity: A Hindsight Examination of Ancient Europe-Africa Relations. Every independent African state across the breadth of the continent is inseparable from its former colonial master in all of its facets (Nhemachena, 2024; Mudenge, 1998; Langan, 2018; Bhebe, 2004). The seemingly unbreakable umbilical chord between Europe and Africa in the 21^st century is a fulfilment of Kwame Nkrumah’s envisioned continent he had published in the 1960s. What is transpiring in Africa in terms of the continent’s underdevelopment, disunity, governance mediocrity among others is exactly what Kwame Nkrumah predicted. So, in the words of Kenyan scholar, perhaps the most eloquent Pan-Africanist of the 21^st, Professor Lumumba, Kwame Nkrumah was a prophet but without the gift of prophecy because what is happening in Africa now is exactly what Nkrumah said would happen. Lumumba (2017) reiterates that Kwame Nkrumah is still ranked among Africa’s top leaders who wanted to see the continent growing, but he became the victim of what he had seen coming, Neocolonialism. The current leaders in Africa have no interest in uniting the continent as they are easily entrapped into the trappings of power as the issues of sovereignty compromise all possibilities for continental unity. Sovereignty is good but if it is weaponized as a line of bifurcation among the African countries, then it ceases to be favorable for development. African countries are now divided along the issues of sovereignty as it was brought by the Berlin Colonial Conference of 1884-1885.

Theoretical Framework, Smart Projection Concept of the Relations of Countries

Neocolonialism can be understood and seen in the lenses of Joseph Nye (2004) who describes it in conceptualizing USA foreign policy of the twilight stages of Cold War era, as a combination of hard and soft power projections. Nye (2004) elucidates that hard power refers to force or coercion in which the American economist drew much on Gramscian Theory of Hegemonizing which is now an old element of Realism. He describes that soft power projection is the easiest way that big powers can use to attain hegemonic influence over others because coercion entails force, wars, sanctions and threats and all these are unpopular as well as undesirous. Also, these aforementioned power retention tools are very expensive and are a plain display of countervailing maneuvers which may have a toll on the country’s image seemingly imbedded in democracy. Their public images as paragons of democracy must be preserved at all costs in order to continue hoodwinking smaller economies (Weiss, 2007; Carr, 1958). To appear democratic is easier than to be democratic, appearance of it can be attained through feigning using methods of soft power projections. Nye and Armitage (2004) argued that cultural relations, diplomacy, international cooperation in pandemics, globalization and international trade are tools that can lure poor countries into the trap of being under the wings of dominating powers. In truth there is no equality in international affairs because each nation prioritizes that which is in the best interest of itself. This is why Hobbesian Theory of Neo-realism argues that the relations of countries ought to be described as anarchical that have numerous nuclei of power of varying sizes and influence. And in practice, power is always slippery and binary vacillating between two big sets with their full characterization being composed of brinkmanship kind of political relations and countervailing interactions.

Taking note of these concepts of international relations which draw much of their influence from Hans Morgenthau (1961)’s Theory of Realism with its underpinnings rooted in Machiavellian politics, Neocolonialism is nothing short of it being regarded as a tool for soft power projection by the former colonial powers to achieve their interests at the expense of the citizens in Less Economically Developed Countries (LEDCs) contextually in Africa. As Kwame Nkrumah (1965) blankly points, ‘Neocolonialism is the last stage of imperialism’, and the latter entails hegemonic domination. This pellucidity shows that Neocolonialism is hidden in soft power projection which is a way of seeking dominance through acceptable sophistries. Some of them include cooperation in pandemics (Rwodzi, 2024), policy advisory and persuasions, aids and NGOs activities among other means. Analysis of Nye and Armitage (2004)’s Smart Power Projection demonstrated clearly that Kwame Nkrumah had what it takes to be qualified a ‘prophet’ even we have not been told of him receiving a prophetic call the same way the Judaist prophets did. For example, the Biblical Moses, the liberator of the Hebrews, Elijah the Tishibite, Isaiah of Jerusalem, Hosea, Jeremiah, Amos of Tekoa among others, all these were prophets according to various scholars in the field of Theology because they were called into the prophetic office.

 What Africa is encountering is what he (Nkrumah) exactly said would happen, therefore this researcher was prompted to undertake an in-depth study of the journey that the continent of Africa took after the end of Second World War, 1939 to 1945 up to date. The continent is still in poverty, armed conflicts, struggling to uphold sound leadership, depopulation by emigration and crude mortality, low life expectancy, loss of indigenous culture among others. All these are glaring examples of Neocolonialism, an ideology that has herein been argued to be a tool of Global North’s soft power projection which is a hidden coercion guising in attractive sophistries such as mutual bilateral relations, open trade, promotion of human rights and democracy narratives. The economy remained in the hands of foreign powers and the continent is treated as a good source of raw materials, cheap labor and a market for cheap goods from the same countries, the local culture has been forced into disappearance due to change of contexts in terms of food, dressing, language, music, film industries among others. This suggests that there was no revolutionary movement in Africa in 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s but it was an evolutionary process of perfecting the same system into an acceptable form but with the same negative effect on the society. The simple observation which can be given attention to for the purposes of this argument is that of juxtaposing the nature of resource-exploitation and its management during colonial rule and that of post-independence. The colonialist regimes exploited minerals, timber, oil and human capital because that was their mission and the same is still happening as many African countries are exporting unbeneficiated raw materials to Europe, USA, Russia, France, Australia and of late China and UAE. In one of my articles, I demonstrated that colonialism and slavery did not end but they were perfected into another form of exploitation. A careful gradual morphism of the elements of colonial system was not a destruction of it. The continent of Africa suffered slavery and colonialism due to White minority regimes’ insatiable appetite for hegemonic dominance (Mutambara, 2024). Africa is still suffering under the threat of Neocolonialism in the hands of Africans who have no interest in developing the continent as they are structurally vexed by calculated deceptions and countervailing brinkmanship kind of foreign policy by the Western powers. Nkrumah (1965) describes such leadership as that of colonial stooges who aid Westernization drive guising under the cloud of peace promotion and democracy.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Africa is still struggling to develop meaningfully despite massive claims by politicians, historians, economists among others that the continent has huge mineral wealth. It is a glaring truth that the continent of Africa is susceptible to external interference from Europe, USA, China directly and indirectly through proxy wars and policy influence or Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) operations. Various forms of the political economy in Africa are still under colonization; governance, economic policies, education, sports, music and income distribution are all reflecting foreign interference. The majority of the citizens is peripherally gridlocked away from the important decision making in their own societies and it is a full indication of coloniality that has always been putting Africanism under its armpit. Surprisingly and interestingly at once, is the fact that Kwame Nkrumah was able to see all these in more than half a century ago yet the current generation is grappling with such a question that is why Africa is where it was in 1963?  Was Kwame Nkrumah a prophet? If one takes Bernard Anderson (1957)’s definition of a prophet that a prophet is someone who utters that which comes to pass immediately or in the long-run, Kwame Nkrumah was a true prophet as what he warned is now turning out to be the order of the day in the contemporary Africa. The advanced economies largely from Europe and America are still engaging Africa in the condescending manner that they used to do which is more of coloniality, perturbations and the locals are not just victims of Neocolonialism but they are aiding it by their gullible response to these manipulative motives. The locals have no option but to only participate or facilitate their demise under what Chomsky (2009) terms, ‘There Is No Alternative fallacy’. If there is no option it means there is no choice but to fall into the trap. This article sheds more light on the accuracy of Nkrumah’s prediction on Neocolonialism and some recommendations are proffered here below to liberate Africa from the shackles of the rebound of modern colonization in form of Neocolonialism.

What Is Neocolonialism in The Lenses of Kwame Nkrumah?

Ghana’s first President and Africa’s face of Liberation Struggle, Kwame Nkrumah (1909-1972) rose into limelight when he joined the mainstream politics of the decoloniality which was an order of his day post-world wars. Nationally, his Ghana was among British colonial zones of control, regionally, over 75% was under French influence and continentally, it was variedly owned and governed by a combination of European nationals; Belgians, Portuguese, Spanish, Italians and Germans. Of course, the leading powers were United Kingdom, France and Portugal in terms of bigger foothold and influence.  As scholars such as Mhango (2018); Mamoh (2003); Rodney (1972); Mawere et al (2022) demonstrate, African states were governed separately but jointly and accumulatively built Europe prior and during colonial era. Upon attainment of the so-called freedom from Europe, Nkrumah had upon his shoulders the task to assist other Africans regain their freedom too and he successfully did so. At some point, he broke down the Ghana-British diplomatic relations in 1965 when Ian Smith unilaterally instituted his own party, Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) in the then Southern Rhodesia and British’s Herold Wilson’s government chose to pursue a silent diplomacy on that matter of which the regime in London had by compulsion of being the principal colonizer expected to intervene. The other issue that had put British government into a fix was the Atlantic Charter of 14 August 1941 which was a joint resolution between USA’s Franklin Roosevelt and Britain’s Winston Churchill.  On that issue of Smith’s UDI, the circumstances were that, Ian Smith found himself in between rigid and yet a seemingly conciliatory British government and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) nationalists who pressured the international community for freedom. And these were the realities that surrounded the formation and institutionalization of Smith’s UDI in November 1965. Nkrumah did not hesitate to intervene as he on the eve of Ghana’s independence celebrations in March 1957 reassured that, the independence of Ghana meant nothing if the rest of Africa was not free. Already he noticed the hypocrisy of the Western Powers and their intention to allow colonial rule in other models hiddenly. Apart from the Rhodesian crisis, Nkrumah gave enough assistance to nationalists who were grappling with challenges of independence but had a good observatory eye on the global politics as he started reminding leaders of the worry of the resurfacing of colonization in another ugly form; such leaders included Sekou Toure of Guinea, David Dacko of Central Africa Republic, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya among others. His warning came from the reality that the colonialists had left Africa not willingly but it was a circumstantial compulsion of the new world order that had been brought by the Second World War, 1939-1945. Europe’s political economy was set on the firm foundation of Europe being the core center of resource accumulation from Africa therefore the maintenance of such status-quo needed continuity of the horse-rider engagement. This became quite obvious that Europe was going to remodel another methodology to exploit African resources that suits the contemporary social contexts. Neocolonialism in the lenses of Nkrumah is just a remodeled form of colonization (Nkrumah, 1965), under the guises of modernization such as globalization, human rights and democracy, international migration, education among others. Nkrumah’s view holds some relevance in the sense that Africa is still underdeveloped despite its natural resources. Poor leadership and deficiency in the resource management is part of the Westernization project to keep Africa impoverished and exposed to manipulative as well as external contrivances.

Complexities of Neocolonialism; The Fulfilment of Kwame Nkrumah’s Prophecy

Neocolonialism is the continuity of coloniality of Africa’s political economy in an acceptable form which is different from the open oppression of the 19^th century for example that of Portugal’s most diabolical rule in Mozambique, Sao Tome, Guinea Bissau and Angola, French’s Assimilation Policy in Senegal, Ivory Coast, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia among others. Nkrumah (1965), in his book published in 1965, argues that Neocolonialism is the last stage of imperialism and is the most dangerous than colonization itself. There is merit and objectivity in his assessment. The dangerous part of Neocolonialism is that of its subtle and insidious nature which in many ways the victims of it are the accomplices not by their own propensity but it is through ignorance. Neocolonialism is framed within the confines that can be better understood in the lenses of Gramscian Theory of Hegemony as given in the section of theoretical framework here above. Hegemony according to Italy’s Antonio Gramsci (1937) is the dominance that which individuals and nations always seek ahead of other interests. Dominance can be sought and eventually assumed contextually through consensual participation of the targeted victim meaning that the debunking of such vice is next to impossible since the victim is factored in as a promotive determinant. Neocolonialism thrives in falsehoods and intangibles which give an impression that everything is beneficial to humanity for example the politics of sovereignty of nations which is in truth is politics of subsidiarity. The former colonies of European countries are subsidiaries, they are extensions of European metropoles; in education Africa is following the dictates of the western methodologies. This gives prominence and relevance to the proposition by Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2017) that there are many universities in Africa but there are no African universities. All these institutions of learning are teaching using Western models and methodologies meaning that they are incubators of neo-colonized minds. At universities, our students are by circumstantial compulsion, encouraged to cite scholars and European theorists notwithstanding the fact that there are marginal and seldom citations of local scholars. The thinking among many young men and women is that there are no meaningful and intellectual thoughts from within African literature but proper scholarship is in Western institutions such as Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford among others. From this, one can notice the reason why Kwame Nkrumah (1965) puts Neocolonialism as a last stage of imperialism and the most dangerous because it permeates all human spectra. Africa’s intellectuals are not very African in their thought processes but in outlook they remain Africans as geography and race defy Neocolonialism or colonialism. Therefore, this paper has hypothesized that there are no African critical thoughts endogenously but there are numerous thoughts in Africa and for Africa.

Economic policies that are being used across Africa are derivatives of Europe and USA which are used as seemingly central policy cardinal points. Economic Structural Adjustment Programs (ESAP) of 1980-90s were a testament to the fact that Africa is still susceptible to manipulations from its former colonizers but under an acceptable guise of persuasions and advisory. Pro-liberal policies are not suitable for countries which are deeply rooted in extractive stage of production without beneficiated goods and services (Gono, 2008; Muzondidya, 2008; Mazarire, 2008; Bond &Manyanya, 2002); Ntsebeza & Hall, 2007). Such economies are exposed to competition which is uneven resulting in them yielding marginal export revenues as opposed to the ever-ballooning import bills. Marginality and contractionary in the export revenues of the African governments have always been causing what this paper calls ‘high drainage of natural resources and human capital,’ while expansionary import bills entails huge accumulation of resources in the Global North countries, Europe and USA as well as other countries which are not geographically western for example China, Australia, Japan among others. This has no difference to what was transpiring during the colonial rule as resources were spirited away from the continent to build Europe as Rwodzi (2023); Ortiz, 1995; Hall et al (2007); Nhemachena (2024); Rodney (1972); demonstrated in their various publications. African countries that adopted ESAPs had plunged themselves into a fix as they struggled to balance two forces; the Welfarism which was a set of illiberal measures and Neo-liberalization. African countries plunged into a fix through ESAPs because the former entailed that the citizens must have free access to education and health from public institutions while the latter had an emphasis on the cutting down of government expenditure by adjusting the economy. Adjusting the economy meant wiping away Welfarist policies characterized by the provision of the ‘frees’ which has ballooned the government expenditure through high transfer payments at the expense of capital spending; the latter would have impacted on country’s productivity positively but at the expense of immediate human needs (Muzondidya 2008; Bracking, 2009; Todaro, 2004). African states were to abandon policies which were pro-poor in order for them to attain creditworthy status so that they would look good in the eyes of Western Powers. In essence, ESAP was a tool that sought to make African countries satellites or client states of European capitals; London, Washington DC, Brussels, Paris, Berlin, Lisbon among others. Seldomly, the Africans were compelled to participate in their demise since such tools came as policy advice and persuasions from Bretton Woods institutions.

Neocolonialism is also manifesting in Africa’s land question which is still fresh and controversial in some African countries; Zimbabwe, Namibia, South Africa among others. The hidden shenanigans of the Western powers are still resurfacing on the land issues and there is an ongoing debate among scholars that independence without land is meaningless (Sunday Mail 2022; Mawere, 2011; Mhanda, 2011; Chiwenga, 2014), while other circles of thought argue that land can be profitable if it is left in the hands of the White farmers who have enough capital and expertise (Mkandawire, 2001). Giving land to Black Africans is far beyond political whims of populism but it is a realistic element of the political economy. In Zimbabwe, the former commercial farmers are set to get compensation from government in the tune of $3.5 billion (USD) after they lost their properties to chaotic Land Reform of 2000-2003 (The Herald, 2024). This paper reasons that there is no need for compensation given the rout nature in which that same land was acquired forcefully in Matabeleland from the indigenous families in 1894 after Anglo-Ndebele war and later on with some pieces of legislations from 1930 to 1960s. Mazarire (2008); Hall et al (2007); Marizane (2017) demonstrate that land ownership in colonial Zimbabwe was surrounded by brutality, force and legislature with the natives being the losers and colonizers being the winners. Cited examples of legislations which are said to have altered the land in Zimbabwe by the aforementioned scholars include Land Apportionment Act (LAA) of 1930, Land Husbandry Act of 1951, Maize Control Act of 1935, Land Tenure Act of 1969. A notable argument on the land issue in Zimbabwe is that, when the natives lost land to the Whites there was no compensation paid and also in 1979 when the Lancaster House Negotiations were concluded, the land issue was treated delicately without being given a rigorous approach it deserved as the nationalists were clouded by the euphoria of attaining independence which was reasonably long overdue. To their lack of credit, the nationalists failed to present and deal with the land issue decisively at that Lancaster House Conference (Rwodzi, 2023; Muzondidya, 2008). However, there some difficulties that surround the Land compensatory narratives in Zimbabwe because the pace towards success is very sluggish since 2020 as only 378 farms which is 9.45% of the targeted 4000 farms received part payments for the farm infrastructures they had put in place during the colonial era.

Apart from Zimbabwe, in South Africa, the land issue is an emotive one as the pro-Black Empowerment section of Julius Malema and others are pushing for a radical shift of the ownership of that resource.  Rwodzi (2023) reasons that, although there are now three decades after the end of Apartheid regime, large population of native communities are living under poor conditions as they have no access to land.  Even in the Transkei region, Qunu villages, the home of Nelson Mandela, people are still congested in their traditional boundaries without prime land for cropping and livestock keeping. Ideally, the government of South Africa had a plan to redistribute land upon assuming power in 1994 but the pace after ANC got into power was too sluggish. Ntsebeza & Hall (2007) argues that the ANC regime had a target in 1994 to redistribute land of about 30% but by the end of 1998, 5 years into self-rule, only 1% of the 30% target was transferred from White commercial farmers into the native ownership. They were constraints that are said to have surrounded the land question in South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Angola (Sachikonye, 2006). World Bank in 1994 had a report that South Africa was supposed to transfer land to 600 000 small-holder farmers with a cost of R21 billion which was by then criticized and subsequently rejected on the basis of it being a neocolonial project formulated by the Bretton woods institution. The net effect is that, the land issue in South Africa has not been handled properly until today as the 1994’s 30% target has not been met because after first 10 years of the majority rule the regime in Pretoria had managed to acquire a meagre 3.1% (Hall et al, 2007). Arguing from such a reality, this paper holds the view that, during apartheid regime, the natives had some restrictions on land and resource ownership due to draconian legislations enacted such as the Native Land Act of 1913 which took control of 90% of the land surface in the country (Wolpe, 1972). And still in the post-colonial era, the natives are subjected to the colonial conditions, suggesting that there was no discontinuity of the colonialism but there was morphism to suit post-colonial social contexts. Neocolonialism is in manifestation in various facets of human progress.

Lastly, in the field of political governance, democracy was prescriptively designed effectively after World War Two in 1945 with the thinking that, it would be a solution to international crises and wars (Morris, 2013; Okupu etal, 2018). But contrary to Morris (2014)’s view, this paper argues that democracy was modelled by Global North polities with one goal; manipulating the Global South, the formerly colonized segment of the world. Democracy entails multiparty system which in Africa is unattainable given the fragilities of ethno-cultural categorizations that characterizing a typical African state. Lumumba (2022) has candidly demonstrated that in Africa, holding elections is nothing short of an ethnic census to determine which ethnic group has more people than the other. Multiparty system in Africa was welcomed and entrenched into the governance systems but in a divisive way that turned out to categorize people along ethnographic fragments not according to ideology and reason. People are voting not in response to ideological approaches presented by politicians but they do so in order to create an ethnic hegemony in a country with the aim to sideline other social groups. Multiparty system in politics is a figment not only in Africa but in the world because in USA and in the UK, the chief protagonists of democracy have a lesser extent degree of multipartyism; in terms of influence, size and political impact, the former has only two parties, the Republicans and Democrats and the latter has predominantly three, Labour Party, Liberal Party and Conservative Party. But if one cares to look at African countries he/she can see that political parties are so numerous and that issue of multiplicity has gone beyond political governance necessity. In 2018 in Zimbabwe, the presidential candidates were 22 and in 2023 the number got reduced by 50% as they were 11 presidential aspirants. In terms of their blueprints and intentions, these leaders and their political Parties have no difference but it is an issue of ethnicity at play as the electoral demographics are gridlocked into ethnic patterns. In South Africa, the same is in full glare as the May 30 elections of 2024 indicated that a total of 10 Parties participated in that elections with former President Zuma’s uMkonto weSizwe (MK Party) came  to contest against the seasoned African National Congress (ANC), Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), White minority dominated outfit Democratic Alliance (DA), Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), Build One South Africa(BOSA), Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAFCA), United Democratic Movement (UDM) among others. The same is in Malawi, The Gambia, Mali, Kenya, Mozambique among others. The salient point to note is that, multi-party system is a neocolonial agenda of divisionism because in many African countries, multipartyism is an ideology that imbeds well in negative ethnographic variations as the political parties are formed not on ideology but on the basis of ethnicity with the purposes of asserting or seeking hegemonic dominance over others. With the gravity of former President Zuma’s corruption scandals, he came back to win significant seats in the Parliament and that tells us something about the power that ethnicity carries; it defies notional logic of things. Lumumba (2021) in one of his public lectures argues that negative ethnicity is bifurcating Africa to an extent that people follow ethnic clusters so much that they ignore the logical reasoning when conducting their affairs.  In Africa, people vote not for democracy or any other logical purpose but they do it ceremonially and ethnically (Way et al, 2011). This suggests that, Nkrumah’s one-party system was not wrong but it was coming from such realities that Western democracy has some unsurmountable difficulties for local political systems (Nkrumah, 1965).

On the same note of divisionism as a radiant of multiparty system, separatist politics set in throughout Africa; Cameroon’s Ambazonian crisis, Zimbabwe’s Mthwakazi quest to divide the country into two, Sudan’s Neurer-Dinker’s standoff, Ethiopia’s Oromo-Tigrinya infights, M23 separatist and Armed Groups in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria’s Boko Haram insurgency among others. All these are examples of groups of people with the thinking of having micro-regionalist community or intra-state formations at the expense of macro-nationalism.

Furthermore, the view that democracy is a determinant of development is misguiding and a misconstruing of logical sequence of things. Understanding democracy within the spectrum of developmental logic in Africa, democracy-development interplay has remained a theory with bankruptcy of tangible gains throughout the continent ever since 1960s. This paper has isolated two issues which dispute such view despite it being a Western ideology and widely perceived as a panacea to challenges of underdevelopment. Western democracy is not for African development as it intensifies ethnic fractures within nations which is an underlying cause of regionalism and economic inequality in many nations. Elections in many African nations are characterized by conflicts as the Ruling parties in most cases are accused of election rigging while the Opposition parties are also obscured from taking power as many of them are labelled Western projects formed and sponsored to unseat revolutionary parties and also accused of fore-running for imperialism. Under such mist of confusion like that, there is no chance for real development and this is why Africa remains poor. Trying to be accustomed to Western values is what makes nations in Africa lose its resources without tangible results. If it is not the case, why in over 60 years, there are still challenges in trying to democratize our institutions? This paper argues that Africa is said to be democratizing and it has some growing economies which in practical is in contrary to that, because how is that possible for a country to have a higher GDP yet the Gini’s coefficient of the same country points another direction? Income variability is so common in African countries despite the so-called growing economies with positive index figures. Politicians have mastered the art of hoodwinking the world by mimicking Western democracy through holding elections periodically, writing constitutions which they renege wantonly among others.  Having 22 presidential aspirants in an election in the case of Zimbabwe in 2018 as once cited herein, is a good and praiseworthy case to note in the circles of Western democracy since multiparty system was in its full manifestation in that regard but if that election is fraudulently carried out as the Opposition leaders usually claim, then that same democracy is reduced to a mythology or what this paper coined as ‘democracy which is not democratic’ to mean democracy in name without the qualities for which it is formed for. The point this paper maintains is that, politics of opposition is good for democracy and not good for development, because there is no development when people are divided politically and ethnically. Communist Party of China (CPC) is the only governing party in China and yet China is the second largest economy in the world despite its ballooning demography (Moyo, 2010). And USA is the largest economy in the world but it has two political parties almost similar to China.

It suggests that development can be attained even through dictatorship because Europe amassed its wealth through undemocratic means; colonization, slavery and now Neocolonialism of Africa. Much more recent than ancient slavery, France under Napoleon Bonaparte (1800-1815) developed significantly, Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini developed their countries even they were known dictators. Even Southern Rhodesia under Ian Smith (1965-1979) had some notable developments but Smith’s UDI regime was unconstitutionally elected. So, it is among the Post- Second World War and Cold War arrangements that the world must be democratic for it to develop and there are even calls from other scholars that democracy is no longer democratic given that USA witnessed violence post-2020 elections and also the coming back of Donald Trump to contest for presidency had a full characterization of countervailing through weaponizing of the laws by the Biden’s administration. This means that even the chief protagonist of democracy is struggling to maintain it. If that is the case in such a country, what would then happen in other nations that have known democracy by imposition? Kwame Nkrumah was very accurate in his premonitory prediction that Neocolonialism is the last stage of imperialism because the continent is free but very poor, conflict ridden, debt ridden, facing human capital loss among others. Independence is yet to give people of the once colonized lands some economic dividends as expected because it is independence in the color of flags and national anthems but coloniality of the systems and structures is still alive in a subtle form.

CONCLUSION

In summary, it has been demonstrated that Neocolonialism is real and visible in Africa’s political economy as exact as what Nkrumah predicted back in 1960s.  This paper has built a good argument premised on Nkrumah’s pessimistic and accurate prediction on recolonized continent as it argues that Africa gravitated from plain exploitative colonialism into another form of manipulation which is hidden in the modern sophistries. As Mhango (2018) lucubrates, Africa is likened to a child who is refusing to grow. The reason for that which is deemed Africa’s stunted growth is found in neocolonialistic nature of its varied political economies from Cape to Cairo and from Djibouti to Dakar-Senegal. The paper also outlines that, in practice, African education, culture, economic policies and political governance have some glaring similarities with the defunct coloniality of the 20^th century. It is so because there was no revolution during the liberation struggle but what transpired by then was an evolutionary process of the status-quo; the morphism of coloniality into a remodeled form of exploitation which is more appealing to the contemporary social contexts. The narratives of Western democracy, politics of sovereignty, international trade, cooperation in pandemics among others are key constitutes of the soft power projection model used by the Global North powers as democratic-image preservation tools but the lurking agenda is that of pursuing, attaining and protecting hegemonic dominance over weaker and smaller nations particularly of the Global south. Kwame Nkrumah (1965) had seen and published all these way-back in the 1960s. Had other leaders of his day listened to him, Africa would have taken another route and African narrative would have been differently presented.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE FUTURE OF AFRICA

According to this paper, the future of Africa is either bright or bleak depending on the willingness of the current generations to take responsible action to correct all historical injustices and errors which are compromising the possible growth and development in their respective nations. This paper argues that there is need for African nations to seek better ways of decolonizing the minds of the people through adoption of education system which is African in terms of objectives, methods and methodologies. Continentally and regionally, people of Africa must move away from the idea of learning only to have a certificate for employment, but the process of learning must be that of knowledge acquisition so that one thinks differently, independently, innovatively and inventively upon attainment of education. Education system which is among the remnants of colonialism according to (Mhango, 2018; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2020), is more of theorization which is lacking pragmatic relevance to the pressing issues of the locals. If the so-called educated nations fail to feed themselves, one can unapologetically and reasonably question that kind of education in terms of its credibility, clarity of thought and fundamental relevance. The trio; African learning systems, research and innovation and governance must have a practical rapprochement, a working integration so that they complement one another. Because in many countries particularly in Zimbabwe, there is a zone of discontinuity between policy formulation and education systems, research included. What is being learnt and acquired by young people in schools and tertiary colleges has proven to be in contrary to the praxis of the political economy. This explains why there is an educated population in a country that lives below Poverty Datum Line. It is so because people are conditioned to think and accept the status-quo. It is imperative, therefore, to understand the role of education and research in the modern scheme of doing things, establish some areas of convergence with the political governance and then seek methods that can aid that much-needed symbiotic coordination for the benefit of the majority.

In terms of governance, Africa needs to redefine its own democracy (Lumumba, 2022), which is a leadership style that responds to the unique problems of the people in their different socio-ethnographies.  Many scholars including Kwame Nkrumah (1965) himself in whom this paper is predicated upon, emphasize the issue of continental unity that could have been used as a foundation for continental development. Currently, there is a yawning void in that regard.  As of now, Africa is disunited; inter-country and intra-country disputes and this was the state of the situation on the eve of independence in 1960s and 80s, meaning that there was no improvement on that particular regard. More efforts have to be made beyond creating regional blocs so that unity would be achieved and development would be attained. Efforts to have a single currency must be given enough emphasis from all sectors including the mass media, academia, research and the political narratives. All these bodies must speak in one voice towards single currency for it enhances socio-economic integration of the people of Africa. All these aforementioned propositions have been stated in many policies and blueprints of various governments but this paper argues that, politicians, media, education and the common men and women seem to lack seriousness and real understanding of what is required in terms of bridging theory and practice. It appears as if they claim something they do not know, because if they have knowledge about it, development would have been realized given that the continent has numerous resources and has over 60 years of self-rule. So, beyond hollow political rhetoric by the African leaders, theoretical analysis by the academia, self-serving media narrations and oscillatory complains by common men and women, there is need for a paradigm transformation of thoughts and willingness into consequentialist actions, result-oriented praxis.

REFERENCES

1. Anderson, B (1957). The Living World of the Old Testament. Chicago. Prentice-Hall
2. Bhebe, N. (2004). Simon Vengayi Muzenda and the Struggle for and the Liberation of Zimbabwe. Gweru. Mambo Press
3. Biney, A. (2012). The intellectual and Political Legacies of Kwame Nkrumah. The Journal of Pan African Studies.
4. Bracking, S. (2009). Money and Power: Great Predators in the Political Economy. Leeds. Pluto Press
5. Carr, E. H., (1958) The Bolshevik Revolution. New York, University of New York Press.
6. Chan, S. (2003). Robert Mugabe: A Life of Power and Violence. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
7. Chiwenga, C. G. D. (2014). The Predominance of an Ethic of Double Standards in the United Nations
8. Security Council Humanitarian Intervention Missions: A Critical Study based on the Ethical Concepts of Mutual Aid and Equal Recognition. (Published doctoral thesis). University of Kwazulu-Natal
9. Gramsci, A. (1937). Selections from Prison Writings. International Publishers Company.
10. Henderson, J. (1999). Uneven crises: Institutional foundations of East Asian Economic Turmoil. Economy and Society.
11. A, S. (2016). Religious Change in the Trans-Frontier Nyungwe-Speaking Region of the Middle Zambezi, c.1890-c.1970. London city. University of London Press
12. Mawere, M. (2016) Development Perspectives from the South: Troubling the Metrics of development in Africa. Langaa RPCIG.
13. Mazarire. G, C. (2009) Reflections on Pre-Colonial Zimbabwe, c. 850–1880s. In A. S. Mlambo. and B. Raftoplous. (eds.). Becoming Zimbabwe. Harare, Weaver Press, pp.115- 140.
14. Mhanda, W.A. (2011) The Role of War Veterans in Zimbabwe’s Political and Economic Processes. Harare, SAPES Trust Policy Dialogue Forum.
15. Mhango. N.N. (2018). How Africa Developed Europe: Deconstructing His-Story of Africa, Excavating Untold Truth and What Ought to Be Done and Known. North West Cameroon. Langaa Research and Publishing Common Initiative Group Mhango, N, N. (2015). Soul on Sale. Langaa Research Publishing Common Initiative Group.
16. Mkandawire. T. (2001) “Thinking about Developmental States in Africa,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 25, no. 3
17. Mlambo, A, S., (2014) A History of Zimbabwe. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
18. Mlambo, A, S. and Raftoplous, B. (2009). Becoming Zimbabwe. Harare, Weaver Press.
19. Momoh, A. (2003). “Does Pan-Africanism Have a Future in Africa? In Search of the Ideational Basis of Afro-Pessimism.” African Journal of Political Science 8(1): 31-57.
20. Morgenthau, H. J. and Thompson, K. (1985). Politics among Nations. (6th Eds), New York: New York Series.
21. Morris, I. (2013). The Measure of Civilization. Princeton University Press Morris, I. (2014). War! What Is It Good For? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
22. Moyo, D. (2010). Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is A Better Way for Africa. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
23. Mudenge, S.I.G. (1998). A Political History of Munhumutapa, 1400-1902. Zimbabwe Publishing House
24. Muzondidya, J., (2008) From Buoyancy to Crisis, 1980–1997. In A. S. Mlambo. and B. Raftoplous. (eds.). Becoming Zimbabwe. Harare, Weaver Press, pp.167-200.
25. Ndlovu- Gatsheni, S., (2020) The Zimbabwean National Question: Key Components and Unfinished Business. In A. S. Mlambo. and P. Ruhanya. (eds.). The History and Political Transition of Zimbabwe From Mugabe to Mnangagwa. London, Palgrave Press, pp.51-84.
26. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. (2017). The Emergence and Trajectories of Struggles for an ‘African University’: The Case of Unfinished Business of African Epistemic Decolonization. Kronos 43: 51–77. [Google Scholar]
27. Nhemachena, A. Rwodzi and M, Mawere (eds). The Russia-Ukraine War from an African Perspective: Special Operations in the Age of Technoscientific Futurism. Langaa Research and Publishing Common Initiative Group. North-west Cameroon.
28. Nhemachena, A., (2023b) Kukumirwa Semombe Dzamavhu: When Voices Begin to Erupt from Bottoms, African Anthropology Becomes Colonial. [Online].Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12111-022-09601-6
29. Nhemachena, A., (2013a) Chisi Chako Masimba Mashoma/Kunzi Pakata Sandi Kunzi Ridza: Anthropological Musings on the Coloniality of Dispossession in Africa. Journal of Black Studies, 1-24.
30. Nkrumah, K. (1963). Africa must unite. London: Heineman.
31. Nkrumah, K. (1965) Neo-colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism. London. Thomas Nelson & Sons, Ltd
32. Nkrumah, K., (1973) The Rhodesian File. London, Panaf Books.
33. Ntsebeza, L, Hall, R (2007). The Land Question in South Africa: The Challenge of Transformation and Redistribution. Cape Town. HSRC Press
34. Okupu. D & E, Sandberg (2018). Challenges to African entrepreneurship in 21st Century. South Africa. Penguin Books.
35. Ortiz, F. (1995). Cuban Counterpart: Tobacco and Sugar. Durham. NC. Duke University Press
36. Overy, R. J. (2014). The Origins of the Second World War. Routledge Books
37. Patterson, T. (1998). Rethinking the Past, Reshaping the Future: Four Traditions of Geography. London City. Oxford Press
38. Langan, M. (2018). Neocolonialism and the Poverty of Development in Africa. Newcastle University. Palgrave Macmillan
39. Levitsky, S. and Way, L. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
40. Lumumba, P, L. O., (2017) Thoughts on the Role of African Professionalism the Quest for Development. [Online]. Available from: https://www.coursehero.com/file/12728 3791/Patrick-Lumumba-Role-ofAfrican- Professionals-in-the-Quest-for-Developmentpdf/
41. Lumumba, P, L. O., (2016) Fighting Corruption in Africa: The Case for an African Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities. [Online]. Available from: https://www.igg.go.ug/static/files/publications/Presentation
42. Raftoplous, B. and Mlambo, A. (2008). Becoming Zimbabwe, A History from the Pre-colonial Period to 2008, African Books Collective
43. Rodney, W. (1982). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa? Washington DC: Howard University Press.
44. Smith, A. (2005). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Wealth of the Nations. Pennsylvania State University Press.
45. Todaro, M. P, (2004), Economics for a Developing World. New York, Longman
46. Wallerstein, I. (1974) The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. San Francisco: University of California Press.
47. Weiss, T. (2007). The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform: Chicago: Harvard University Press
48. H. (1972) Capitalism and Cheap Labour Power in South Africa: From Segregation to Apartheid, Economy and Society. Cape Town. HSRC Press
49. Wright, G. (2012). NGOs and Western hegemony: Causes for concern and ideas for change. Development in Practice