THE POLITICAL MODERNIZATION OF AFRICA IN THE 21ST CENTURY

A HISTORIOGRAPHICAL REVIEW
 2
Most modernization theorists have claimed that colonialism inaugurated the

process of modernization in Africa. Therefore, inauguration of modernization begins

with colonialism and the European assumption of native African backwardness and the

general inadequacy of Africans to be independent, equal and fit. This assumed

inadequacy was brought to bear by the marginalization of African intellectuals and the

denial of African participation in the early process of modernization.1

European racism combined with the colonial subjugation of Africa marginalized

African intellectuals. The persistence of the marginalization continues to present African

intellectuals with a dilemma as they continue to seek to define their own version of

modernity. Even though Africans have participated more in decision-making processes,

the dichotomy between tradition and modernization remains academically and

institutionally established. Nevertheless, Africans have increasingly challenged the state

of affairs. In addition to demanding that Africans be more represented in policy making

forums, African scholars have increasingly challenged western percepts. These demands

have opened the door for Africans to finally begin defining their own path to modernity,

but it still remains to be seen whether an adequate ideology can evolve.

Before discussing that ideology, it is necessary to first analyze the evolution of

modernization theory itself. Modernization theory is also complex and multifaceted. The

following analysis primarily addresses a discussion of political modernization. Such a

discussion will incorporate social and economic elements, but the literature being

reviewed essentially involves the works of political modernization which had raised a

note of high optimism and generated appeal and enthusiasm in African and in the west.

1
The classification of nations in the process of modernization and political development has a long
standing tradition going back to social Darwinism and its racist origins. This theory was expounded by
Ali Mazrui in a paper delivered to a plenary session of the Second International Congress of Africanists
held in Dakar on December 11-21 1967. See Ali A. Mazrui, "From Social Darwinism to Current
theories of Modernization," World Politics 21(1967): 69-89.
 3
Early Modernization Theory

The systematic study of political modernization in Africa can be correlated to the

demise of colonialism after the second world war. Non-African events such as the

United Nations charter statement on the issue of self-determination, combined with the

agitation of indigenous Africans, forced the colonial powers into begrudgingly accepting

the demands for independence.2 As a result, both African leaders and western policy-

makers needed models for the newly independent governments. Political modernization

came forward to fill this need.

Initially, a majority of the modernization literature was embroiled with the

multiple issues of the cold war. There was grave concern that the new African states

would adopt communism and become a part of the Eastern bloc. Therefore, western

scholars focused on creating institutions that would be compatible with western ideas

than with indigenous systems and structures.

The net result was that modernization theory involved transplanting idealized

theories into Africa, emphasizing democracy and introducing non-traditional values.

These scholars assumed that African values would fall to the wayside in the face of

superior European values. The result in this was that these scholars completely ignored

indigenous complexities. Indeed on the few occasions that it was discussed, they viewed

the indigenous element as an impediment and refused to incorporate traditional systems

into their models. Such a failure not only perpetuated colonial racism, but it also

foreshadowed the continued perception that Africans lacked originality. The western

assumptions also suggested that Africans best displayed an imitative genius and could

therefore assimilate what the west would bequeath to them.

2
See United Nations, Purpose and Principles, Chapter I, Article I, 2, San Francisco, California, June 26,
1945.
 4
The Nationalism and Independence Era

The acquisition of independence by a vast majority of African nations in the

1960’s did not end these assumptions. Even though African leaders seized control of

their own states and began developing their own ideologies sympathetic to African

traditions, western scholars persisted in viewing political modernization in Africa as a

process of westernization. The accepted belief that Africans were culturally inferior

suggested that African values and systems of belief were not intellectually viable.

The intellectual west continued to furnish Africa with western models and non-

African schemes of political modernization. Most of the models emulating European

standards were subject to certain key elements.3 The first involved the population as a

whole. It was believed that the African population had to change from widespread

subject status to the status of participatory citizenship. Participatory citizenship involved

a spread of mass participation, increased greater sensitivity to the principles of equality,

and wider acceptance of universalistic laws. Secondly, with respect to governmental and

general functionalist performance, Africans had to create political organs that would

have the capacity to manage public affairs, control controversy, and cope with popular

demands. Thirdly, with respect to the African polity, political modernization implied the

greater structural integration of all the participating institutions and organizations.4

3
Clearly within the confines of these key elements was one of the early views toward political
modernization put forward by Fred Riggs. Riggs determined that political development or
modernization, was comprised mostly of a growth in governmental capacity and participant equality,
with the differentiation of governmental structures and specialization of functions. The two variables
offered by Riggs are capacity and equality. The more modern and complex the society, the greater are
the demands for both governmental capacity and participant equality. The model for political
modernization presented by Fred Riggs was compatible with the earlier work of Samuel P. Huntington.
Huntington drew an analogy between political modernization and political development. Political
modernization, he claimed, was not necessarily associated with a modernizing people. On the other
hand political development, as a concept, had to apply equally to non-modern as to modern situations.
He viewed modernization as involving three variables 1) rationalization of authority 2) differentiation
and specialization of political functions and 3) political participation. See Fred Riggs, ed., The Theory
of Political Development: Contemporary Political Analysis (New York: The Free Press, 1967) and
Samuel Huntington, Political Development and Political Decay (New Jersey: Princeton University
Press, 1965).
4
Lucien Pye and Sydney Verba, eds., Political Culture and Political Development (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1965), p.11.
 5
The zeal and enthusiasm of applying western models into African ones soon

waned with the realization of its ineffectiveness. By the late 1960's and into the early

1970's, the western school of modernization went through a radical change in how it

presented these theories and models of political modernization. Academics now began to

include other critical components to their theorizations. These components were

specifically the behavioral and social aspects that culture embodies. By borrowing

heavily from the behavioral school, modernization theorists began to study the cultural

phenomenon.

Pioneering Political Modernization Authors

Modernity involving a cultural phenomenon is a complex notion. This

complexity is reflected in the modernization schools changing definition of

modernization as being westernization. The modernization schools’ adoption of

behavioral and social aspects reflected this trend. It presupposed that Africans would

have to participate significantly in the cultivation and promotion of their culture.

David Apter, Cyril Black and Karl Deutsch provided the necessary insight into

how the newly independent states might transform themselves. Deutsch, in 1961, had

pointed out that there was a distinct shift to what was being said about the role of social

and economic forces in political modernization. He stated that the nature and pace of

social and economic change, rationalization, integration and democratization must

appear in the definitions of political modernization.5

In his 1965 landmark presentation on political modernization, Apter identified

modernization as a non-economic process that originated when culture embodies an

attitude of inquiry and questioning about how men make choices: ethic moral

5
See Karl Deutsch, “Social Mobilization and Political Development,” American Political Science
Review LV (September 1961).
 6
6
(normative), social (structural), or personal (behavioral). Here the political system is a

system of choice for a particular collectivity with government as the mechanism for

regulating choice. For Apter, one of the characteristics of the modernization process was

that it involved both aspects of choice, the improvement of the conditions of choice and

the selection of the most satisfactory mechanisms of choice.7 By introducing the social

phenomenon in modernization, Apter had broken the ranks and brought the political

modernization inquiry into a social specific format.

Cyril E. Black had also supported the premise that all social phenomenon are

interrelated and integral to the development thesis. He concentrated on certain social and

economic categories which are measurable. Black stressed that all modernizing societies

must face the five challenges of modernity. These challenges were: first, the initial

confrontation of a society within its traditional framework of knowledge with modern

ideas and institutions; second, the consolidation of modernization leadership and the

transfer of power from traditional to modernizing leadership; third, the economic and

social transformation; fourth, the integration of society and a fundamental reorganization

of the social and economic structure of society and, fifth, the presence or absence of

colonial rule.8

Statehood

The African state stemmed from the imposition of colonial rule. While the

works of Apter, Black and Deutsch resonated with the dynamic issues of social and

economic forces within a nation-state the significance and application of these theories

to African society remained questionable. The African society did not evolve under

6
See David E. Apter, The Politics of Modernization (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press,
1965).
7
Ibid.
8
See Cyril R. Black, The Dynamics of Modernization (New York: Harper and Row, 1966).
 7
colonialism, but remained dissonant to colonial modernization. As a cultural

phenomenon African society remained resilient under change.

One other characteristic of political modernization that was being frequently

emphasized was mobilization or participation.9 This aspect of democratization was also

seen as an attempt to lure African nations away from communist based doctrines. It is

no surprise that African nations identified with the appeal of these communist and

Marxist-based ideologies. African nations could correlate the wisdom of these ideologies

with their suffering under imperialism and colonialism. However, the appeal of

communism still misinterprets the socialist economic order with the socio-ethical idea of

individual and communitarian features.

With the ensuing instability under alien systems of governance, Samuel

Huntington, a leading political modernization revisionist, attempted to capture the reality

of African instability. In 1965, he maintained that rapid modernization leads to the

weakening of political institutions and that the latter could not sustain the heavy

demands placed on them by mass mobilized and increasingly literate electorates in the

post independence era. The solution advanced was to strengthen key political institutions

and the instruments of control by slowing down popular mobilization, reducing

communications in society, and minimizing competition among segments of the elite by,

for example, adopting the one-party system of government.10

Single-party supremacy attracted African leaders in the newly independent

9
Modernization, according to Karl Deutsch, emphasized social mobilization or participation. This
complex process of social change according to Deutsch is significantly correlated to major changes in
politics. This early effort at empirical analysis by Karl Deutsch is presented with an outline of seven
variables that indicate how individuals break away from long-standing social, economic, and
psychological commitments. Social mobilization involves the erosion of traditional sources of authority,
which may be followed by the inculcation of loyalty to the national political system. According to
Deutsch, in states that have different ethnic and linguistic groups, social mobilization may increase
fragmentation. See Karl Deutsch, “Social Mobilization and Political Development,” American Political
Science Review LV (September 1961).
10
See Samuel Huntington, Political Development and Political Decay (New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1965).
 8
states. The lack of unity seemed to justify centralization of political power. The two

likely paths for single party dominance were seen as “a fusion of the party and

government in a party-state in which neither party nor state could wither away, or a no

party state, induced by a decline of the party as the center of power and decision making

- whether by the dominance of bureaucracy or by military seizure of control.”11

Broadly speaking, it was emphasized that government signified the regulation of

social relations by means of authority. Social mobilization and social integration in the

context of political modernization was considered an inevitable outcome of popular

demands for government policies and political and administrative reform. In African

states, which are diverse in their language and culture, social mobilization and

integration were now examined in light of the exacerbating problems encountered in

creating national unity.12 In this respect, a gap between theory and reality existed in

many aspects of political modernization. These concepts were usually one-way

concepts, and little or no provision was made for their acceptability.

Political Culture and Cultural Relevance

Contemporary development theory is traceable to the acceptance of cultural

relativism. By the 1970's, the phenomenon of culture and the classification and

comparison of political systems had become increasingly more relevant to the

understanding of political modernization and change. Concepts and equally sensitive

approaches were presented from the perspective of the richness of separate traditions.

Questions about the limits of variety and the consequences of differences on the attitudes

and sentiments that shape politics could be answered only by an approach which

11
James S. Coleman and Carl G. Rosberg, eds., Political Parties and National Integration in Tropical
Africa (Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1964), p.89.
12
Aristide Zolberg, "Patterns of National Integration," Journal of Modern African Studies 5 (1967):
449-467.
 9
combined individual psychology and collective sociology. In understanding political

modernization and change, the argument was that there had to be an understanding of

political culture.13 The fact that Africans also identified with traditional systems implied

continued association with traditional authority. These associations with traditional

authority showed how integral ethnicity was to the process of modernization. Critical

attention was also given to the resilience of African institutions.

It must be also pointed out that the definition and understanding of African

tradition and governance has remained remarkably nebulous. One such example is the

refutation of the notion that a nation can survive only if there is consensus. In its

complexity, "many communities in contemporary Africa manage dissension without

formulating a consensus".14 On the notion of “invented tradition”, Eric Hobsbawn and

Terence Ranger collected historical essays in which authors argue that some of the

modern cultural symbols, supposed to belong to ancient national traditions, are not

ancient at all. In the introduction of the volume, Hobsbawn says: “Traditions which

appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in origin and sometimes invented.”15 The

term “invented traditions”, he explains, ”includes both ‘traditions’ actually invented,

constructed and formally instituted and those emerging in a less easily traceable manner

within a brief and dateable period – a matter of a few years perhaps-and establishing

13
Political Culture, according to Lucian Pye, assumes that " the attitudes, sentiments, and cognition that
inform and govern political behavior in any society are not just random congeries but represent coherent
patterns which fit together and are mutually reinforcing ... [giving] meaning, predictability and form to
the political process… Furthermore, the political culture of a society is limited but gives firm structure
through factors basic to dynamic psychology. Each generation receiving its politics from the previous
one, each reacting to the process in finding its own politics and the total process following the laws that
govern the development of the individual personality and the general culture of a society… every
political system is embedded in a particular pattern of orientation to political actions … The tradition of
a society, the spirit of its public institutions, the passions and the collective reasoning of its citizenry,
and the style and operating codes of its leaders are not just random products of historical experience,
but fit together as a part of a meaningful whole and constitute an intelligible web of relations.’’ See
Lucien Pye, and Sydney Verba, eds., Political Culture and Political Development (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1965), pp.6-7.
14
See Richard L. Sklar and C.S. Whitaker, African Politics and Problems in Development (London:
Lynne Reinner Publishers, 1991).
15
Eric Hobsbawn and Terence Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1983), p.1.
 10
16
themselves with great rapidity. In Ranger’s view “the most far-reaching invention of

tradition in colonial Africa took place when the Europeans believed themselves to be

respecting age-old African custom. What were called customary law, customary land-

rights, customary political structure and so on, were in fact all invented by colonial

codification.”17

Political culture as a theory was aimed at bridging a growing gap in the

understanding of Africa and the development process. The social psychology of cultural

pluralism constituted what was thought of as a major step by western scholars in

understanding more about Africans through the behavioral approach. It was soon

accepted that the difficulties inherent in any political analysis are compounded by the

complexity of the socio-cultural make-up.18 Early political modernization theorists, who

were dealing with relatively more stable societies, in striving for the goal of stability and

progress could not unravel the vast complexities found in African societies. The

violence and instability of the 1970’s further confounded this effort.

African Socialism and Afro-Marxism

In an attempt to unravel these complexities, African authors also addressed the

issues of political modernization, stability and progress. The search for the construction

of a new African society was pursed with a particular zeal by authors such as Namdi

Azikiwe and Obafemi Awolowo. These authors advocated ideas on nationalism and a

new political order.19 Obafemi Awolowo stated that indigenous institutions could serve a

purpose, but that they “should be scrapped as soon as they … served their purpose …

and well-tested institution[s] [are] to be superimposed on the native foundation, as soon

16
Ibid., p.1.
17
Ibid., p.250.
18
See Crawford Young, The Politics of Cultural Pluralism (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,
1976).
19
See Obafemi Awolowo, Path to Nigerian Freedom (London: Faber and Faber, 1947).
 11
20
as such foundation…[are] already well-laid.” These African positions, although

significantly closer to the ideal of a culture based framework for modernity, were still

flawed. African scholarship in the broadest sense was at best marginal, and at worst non-

existent in the total arena of western intellectual endeavor. The Dakar Conferences,

hosted by the Senegalese Government in December 1962 had served as a platform for

the espousal of African traditional ideals within nation-building. However, the

leadership’s openness to Marxist based principles served to further ensure

marginalization them from the western intellectual community.

At the 1962 conference, African leaders looked to various ideologies that would

not only ensure further legitimacy, authority and acceptance, but more importantly

assure the mobilization of the masses and promote the movement towards development

and self-sufficiency. What is clear from the onset is that irrespective of any ideological

differences, "all African Political Scientists [were] united in their rejection of the

modernization paradigm, which was perceived as blatantly ethnocentric”.21 In this search

for the right ideology, a number of African leaders and political scientists declared a

variant of socialism that was more akin to the traditional African society as the

appropriate ideology for nation building and rapid economic development in Africa.

This new ideology took form in African Socialism.22,23

20
Ibid., pp.61-62.
21
James S. Coleman and C.R.D Halisi, "American Political Science and Tropical Africa: Universalism
vs. Relativism," African Studies Review 26, nos.3/4 (September/December 1983), p.52.
22
At the Dakar conference hosted by the Senegalese government in December 1962, despite a lack of
precision in definition, a consensus arose calling for nationalism and Pan-Africanism woven together to
create an overall African ideology of modernization; African Socialism.
23
In general terms, African Socialism has been described as "the firm and deliberate will on the part of
African nations which have effectively rid themselves of all forms of colonial conditioning, to create a
new society of free but socially responsible citizens where traditional African values of human solidarity,
national unity, social equality, and economic democracy will be immobilized …and to the revival, under
modern conditions, of the traditional African socio-economic system in which literally every worker was
also a proprietor, and ownership of productive property was not a monopoly of the central political
authority, nor of a few individuals, but was the pride of every citizen. African Socialism [therefore]
becomes a socio-cultural philosophy, a civilization and a way of life, based on traditional humanism".
See Father Bede Onuaha, The Elements of African Socialism (London: Andre Deutsch Ltd., 1965), p.31.
 12
African leaders sought to find a political formula that was unique to Africa

and that would resolve the issue of compatibility. In this effort Julius Nyerere, the first

president of Tanzania, assumed a pioneering role. He looked to the small and kinship-

based societies of the pre-colonial past to formulate a contemporary African version of

equality, democracy and socialism. Nyerere found, through African Socialism,

traditional consistencies that in his eyes could be adapted to serve the collective needs of

the present African predicament. The Tanzanian experiment in democratic-socialism

advocated a democratic one-party system of government. This called for a political

emphasis of popular participation and through it self-reliant socio-economic and

political integration.24

Julius Nyerere implemented the village resettlement program for rural

transformation and improvement. By 1966, the program was discontinued for lack of

enthusiasm on the part of the people. For Nyerere, the basis of African Socialism was

very clear. In an address by Julius Nyerere at a conference on African Socialism held in

Kivukoni College in Dar es Salaam, he elaborated on his theme of Ujamma: the Basis of

African Socialism. Nyerere refers to socialism as being like democracy in that it is as

attitude of mind. For Nyerere Socialism was essentially distributive and not

accumulative. He notes that apart from the antisocial effects of the accumulation of

personal wealth, the very desire to accumulate it is to be interpreted as a vote of no

confidence in the social system. He further stated that in the traditional African

Society, everyone was a worker. In this sense, there was a work ethic. Nyerere, further

asserted that by rejecting the capitalist state of mind which colonialism brought into

Africa, Africans must also reject the capitalist means and methods that accompany it.

One of these being the individual ownership of land. Although it is seen as inherently

24
See Julius Nyerere, Ujamaa-The Basis of African Socialism (Dar es Salaam: Tanganika Standard,
1962).
 13
untraditional, Nyerere rightfully stresses that the traditional African right to land was

the right to use it and not own it. However, the strongest expression of Nyerere’s

African Socialism is found in Ujamaa:The Basis of African Socialism. Here Nyerere

states in his conclusion that the foundation, origins and objectives of African Socialism

are in the extended family. On this foundation lies one of the major philosophies of

African Socialism.

On February 5th 1967, President Julius Nyerere announced the Arusha

Declaration. The Arusha Declaration mentions that a socialist state has four important

characteristics: i) that there is an absence of exploitation, where every able bodied

person works; ii) that the basic means of production, distribution and exchange are

owned and controlled by the people; iii) that true socialism can not exist without a

democracy; and iv) that socialism is an ideology and a way of life.

Each nation in Africa had its own interpretation of African Socialism. However,

all averred that socialism is deeply rooted in traditional African socioeconomic thought

and practice. Leopold Senghor observed that “Negro-African society is collectivist or,

more exactly communal, because it is rather a communion of souls than an aggregate of

individuals … we had achieved socialism before the coming of the Europeans.”25

Nyerere stated that it is “rooted in our past”26 and Kwame Nkrumah believed that “if one

seeks the socio-political ancestor of socialism, one must go to communalism … In

socialism, the principles underlying communalism are given expression in modern

circumstances.”27 In the opinion of these African political leaders of the postcolonial era,

the traditional communitarian practice easily translates into modern socialism (see figure

25
Leopold S. Senghor, On African Socialism (New York: Praeger, 1964), p.49.
26
Julius K. Nyerere, Ujamaa: Essays on Socialism (Dar es Salaam: Oxford University Press, 1968),
p.12.
27
Kwame Nkrumah, Consiencism: Philosophy and Ideology for Decolonization and Development
with

Particular Reference to the African Revolution (London: Heineman, 1964), p.73.

 14
3). However, the basic premise of western socialism is economic. What essentially

distinguishes socialism from the free enterprise market system are their modes of

economic production and the position of property ownership. The traditional

conception of communitarian ownership is socioethical. Africans did not espouse

ownership of land, but advocated a trusteeship on the use of land based on the ability to

till it. The communitarian doctrine relates to social relations, moral attitudes and the sort

of relationships one has within the community and lineage at large.

 15
Charles Njonjo, a Kenyan politician, gave a perspective on the issue of

African Socialism and its relationship to tradition by declaring “I am a capitalist. I

believe in African Socialism … I have got a three piece suit ! Does it not explain what I

am ?”28 The impilict point in Njonjo’s statement is that the acquisition of wealth was not

alien to Kikuyu culture. The African desire for wealth and profit exists alongside a

tradition of humanistic ethics.

While African socialism proclaimed itself to be an indigenous ideology, it is also

important to remember that in this era of Cold War politics the dominant alternative

ideology and methodology was Marxism. European communists took a stand against

the particular brand of Socialism advocated by Africans. Idris Cox, a socialist writer

remarked, “ To speak and write of African Socialism makes no better sense than

dividing the sciences into geographical compartments, for example, African

Mathematics, African Chemistry … There is only one socialism – scientific socialism …

it is a universal concept applicable everywhere in the world.”29

Afro-Marxist literature got most of its support from the early underdevelopment

theorists.30 An examination of Africa from the perspective of the dominant mode of

production and class categories became the fundamental tools of analysis for Afro-

Marxists. Displaying a valiant anti-colonialist stance in Africa, Afro-Marxists gained

the quick allegiance from a sizeable portion of the African leadership in Ghana,

Ethiopia, Angola, Somalia, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique. For the African leaders, the

28
Charles Njonjo in a speech in Kenya’s parliament on May 15 1981 See The Weekly Review, May
15, 1981, p.11.
29
Andrew Schonfeld, Socialism for Africa (Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, 1965),
p.13.
30
Walter Rodney presents the argument that prior to colonialism, Africa and all other countries in the so
called "third world" were never underdeveloped, but rather undeveloped. With the colonial process, the
violent exploitation by the colonial powers and their disruption of native institutions and patterns of
existence, brought about primarily through the colonizers advanced technology of violence, these
former colonies have become economic satellites of the colonizing powers and have remained
underdeveloped since. This underdevelopment process served to fuel the development of the imperial
colonial governments. See Walter Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (Washington D.C.:
Howard University Press, 1981).
 16
scandal of human beings exploited under capitalism was an appealing anti-western

posture. African leaders exhibited great interest in economic structure, labor activity, as

well as the pressing issues of western imperialism. The formation of Labor Unions had

augmented the Afro-Marxist initiative and labor insurgency further intensified Afro-

Marxist thinking. The mood in the post-colonial 1960's was distinctly anti-imperialist.

African political leaders and thinkers, in their advocacy of the socialist ideology as a

basis for development, set aside the individualist elements of African socio-ethical

thought and practice, the acquisitive and material nature of the African and the

propensity for material wealth.

Afro-Marxist doctrine presented solutions to the neo-colonial predicament and to

the disparaging effects of colonialism. Leaders such as Nyerere, Sekou Toure, Nkrumah

and Kaunda began to go beyond the idealistic framework to a conscious comprehension

of "Africanism". They wrote about and implemented policies that reflected the espousal

of their versions of socialism. Authors such as William Tardoff have in more recent

years examined the progressive decline of the party as the center of power and decision

making and the corresponding rise in bureaucracy, the rise of military regimes, the rural-

urban gap and the determination of African nations to pursue an independent foreign

policy.31 Other authors such as Crawford Young have observed some criteria used to

evaluate the performance of Afro-Marxist states: growth, equality of distribution,

autonomy and self reliance, human dignity, participation, and the expansion of state

capacity (by which is meant the capacity of the institutions of state to fulfill the

development goals that are set).32 Ultimately, African Socialism, form the economic

point of view, was a disaster. Indeed, it was abandoned by Nyerere’s successor and by

Sekou Toure in his final years.

31
See William Tordoff, Government and Politics in Africa (Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1993).
32
See Crawford Young, The Politics of Cultural Pluralism (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,
1976).
 17

Instability, Coup D’ États and Democracy

In 1987, nearly two decades following The Politics of Modernization, David

Apter pointed out the limits of classical modernization and dependency models. His

thesis was on the predisposition of violence as an inevitable result of innovation and

industrialization.33

In further formulating theories on the instability associated with modernization,

certain issues were addressed. The premise to these theories was that modernization is

itself a destabilizing process. Substantively, the issues are: first, to consider the effect of

modernization on political stability; second, to study the influence of social contagion

and the history of political instability on the likelihood that a coup d'état will occur in a

given country; and third, to study how the likelihood of a coup d'état depends on time.

The results indicate that instability will result in countries that experience

increased levels of political participation but have political institutions which are

incapable or have an inadequate capacity to deal with that participation. Political conflict

in Africa was clearly generated from the destabilization of the traditional social order by

domestic processes involving modernization. To development theorists, it seemed

evident that conflict was reduced by the benefits of industrial and economic

development. In addition the increase of living standards, lessened inequality, and the

attainment of political democracy, all reduced this likelihood of conflict. This heralds

the shift that gradually occurred in developmental discourse.

World Systems Theory and Current Discourse

In the 25 years of American political science study of Africa, there has been a

33
David E. Apter, Rethinking Development. Modernization Dependency and Postmodern Politics.
(California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1987).
 18
significant shift by Africanist political scientists in their focus from how power is

attained to how power is maintained as well as from conventional studies of elections

and constitutions to a concern for class, political economy, democracy and development.

Invariably, some of the key elements associated with political modernization in the

1960's have surfaced within the context of democratization, the calls for political

pluralism, and human rights. Mass participation and a wider acceptance of universalistic

laws have been put in the forefront of issues in the 1990's.

David Apter states that the key substantive arguments of modernization theory

are most simply outdated and that the discourse and praxis of development does not

need to be built on the ruins of conventional models.34 Similarly, other authors such as

Ali Mazrui have blown the whistle on the inherently biased nature of modernization

theory.35 The critique does not end here. According to Apter, "Comparative analytical

schemes so solemnly worked out by the modernization theorists are also failures. Those

that were analytically the best proved to be too clumsy for empirical use. [Of]those

easier to use, most were little more than plundered versions of those combinatorial

binaries used by an earlier generation of historical sociologists....so sweeping is the

attack that dependency theorist have declared Modernization theory dead.”36

As an alternative to the modernization model, world system theory asserts that

international trade specialization and the transfer of resources from less developed

countries to "core" countries inhibit national development in the less developed

countries by increasing their dependence on the developed "core" countries and by

promoting their "peripheralization" within the international division of labor. In

34
David E. Apter, Rethinking Development. Modernization Dependency and Postmodern Politics
(California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1987).
35
Ali A. Mazrui, “From Social Darwinism to Current theories of Modernization,” World Politics 21
(October1967): 69-89.
36
Immanuel Wallerstein, “Modernization: Requiescat in Pace," in The Uses of Controversy in
Sociology, ed., Lewis A Cosser and Otto N. Larsen (New York: Free Press, 1976), pp.131-35.
 19
delineating the faults, Wallerstein states that what was primarily wrong with all the

concepts linked to the paradigm of modernization, was that they were ahistorical.

Wallerstein states that modernization theory has deflected the true agenda of study, that

would have properly addressed the problems of development. The five major areas of

research that Wallerstein states need to be addressed are: first, the internal functioning of

the world economy as a system; second, re-opening the question of how the capitalist

world economy was created; third, how the non-capitalist social systems functioned

alongside the capitalist-world economy, how it related and became incorporated; fourth,

a comparative study of the various historical forms of social systems and the alternative

modes of production; and fifth, based on a socialist mode of production, future world

government and the relationship of revolutionary movements in the various system to

each other.

Therefore, while Modernization theory hypothesizes that mass political conflict

is a temporary and necessary result of modernization, world system states that regardless

of levels of development, conflict is increased among dependent, peripherized countries

through the external effects of the world economy.

The study of political science is Africa has begun to evolve in an intellectually

interdependent environment in which African political phenomena can be adequately

analyzed by western and African intellectuals alike. While Wallerstein’s studies

stimulate the intellectual environment by determining to explain the entire fabric of

continuity and discontinuity in the world economy, his visions of the growth of an all

embracing world economy are alone unable to directly address the issues pertinent to the

problems confronting the African people as they enter or create modernity according to

their own understanding.

In conclusion, it can be clearly stated that political modernization in the 21st

 20
Century has not restored the destabilized effect it inflicted on the social and

political environment in African society. Domestic processes involving

modernization have not only dislocated ethnic societal order and disenfranchised the

traditional belief systems but have subsequently abandoned it in practice. The

question that arises is how can the balance be restored? How can developmentalists

build on indigenous strengths rather than destroy its foundations? Development

policy initiatives and considerable decision-making capability has still been arrogated

by the western structure of power. In a real sense the economic and political leverage

that the world-economic system exerts on Africa perpetuates the dilemma into the 21st

Century.