An Inquiry:Part 2

Louis Mbua Egbe

A visit to Africa by President Obama was an expectation; what he says or said was hoped for. Now, let’s examine the reality in practical terms. It is not possible to have genealogical origins embedded in a land; and then decide to look the other way. If one were to do such a thing, the entire world would question that person’s sense of judgement as to be injudiciously conceived because it is only natural that a man reflects on his origins, roots and position all in simultaneous synchrony. Thus, if a man has been put in a position of trust, power and privilege, he would but easily remember his own historical being: this, the writer believes was the inspiration behind Dreams of My Father by President Barack Obama.  Now, suppose we agree that that man’s first pre-occupation is to guarantee the well-being and safety of his own nation, America, in this instance, and therefore himself and his family: then we may easily reach the logical conclusion as to why Obama acts the way he does and how he is to proceed to attain a successful political and Presidential career. However, being successful in America is but just one side of the story. How the Africans and African Americans, Europeans perceive him is another part of the matter. Furthermore, and more fascinating, how White America views his approach and opinions on issues relating to Africa is yet another slice of the pie in this conundrum.

The following is that when Obama last visited Ghana, Africa, in July 2009, hopes were high, expectations heightened, in relation to promises of a new era for Africa now that their man now holds the most powerful position in the free world. Ghana, having a strong democratic tradition of recent was the best option in a continent occupied by tyrants and demagogues of every conceivable kind who run their fiefdoms as though they were mediaeval kings in 15^th century Europe, and where serfdom was so prevalent that Kings declared themselves appointed by God. Obama did not disappoint. He castigated dictators, attacked Africa’s human rights abysmal record and earnestly promised to help Africans rid themselves of this terrible megalomaniacs that have held Africa on its neck, squeezing the delicate part, without the remotest conscience, so as to kill the continent. But he also gave a condition: well, Africans have to do it themselves. This was all very well. On the other hand, what then was the point of his mission; and why are Africans jubilant about his Presidency? That is the real issue.

If we follow the logical conclusion, then Obama has lived true to his words—you are on your own. He did little or nothing to put pressure on these tyrants to leave. If Africans view him as the most powerful man in the free world, it is only natural for them to expect some reasonable or limitedly visible kind of support. It seems this support did not arrive; and that given his domestic problems at home, the support was not actually expected to arrive. This may have to wait for his second term of office which is bound to arrive in two week’s time. Yet, Africans must first show the initiative in changing their own nations.

The despond Africans may now be disappointed. It should be noted that the success of Africa in relation to Obama’s Presidency is also closely followed by Obama’s African-America compatriots – as well as a significant population of White Americans who may have links with Africa or African Americans. While the actual numbers of White American and other Americans who may be in support of the resurgence of Africa may not be known, one may aver that this number is significant. Consequently their influence in sustaining the Obama Presidency is crucial. Since Obama appears not to have lived up to his expectations in Africa, it is logical to conclude that this may have resulted into a backlash against the Obama Presidency and hence the Democratic party in America in  November 2010 mid-term elections. The democratic losses may partly be accounted on this foundation. For Obama to retake the centre ground, he has to take a bold step towards the reinstatement of Africa to the Commonwealth of Nations that respect human rights and the rule of law. How he goes about this is not clear. Given that the UN charter does not provide for interference into the territorial integrity of nation states, the writer may suggest alternatives to this twist of diplomatic matters.

It is important to support well-organised, mandated and accountable civil and human rights groups that profess to challenge tyranny and totalitarianism, corruption in despotic African states. Financial inducements, moral backing and endorsements of these groups would put the present tyrants in the hot seat. As President of America; Obama’s speeches should mention some of these groups to provide them with some legitimacy. While it is true that they have to fight their way into their various countries -- leaving them on their own makes them vulnerable to the vultures of death who detest any form of opposition. In Cameroon, recently, journalists and human rights activists have died in prison and not a word was uttered by the Obama administration to attack this outrage. We saw Obama in full swing when it concerned the BP Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, attacking the hapless BP Chief Executive and extracting up to £20 Billion for compensation of those affected; to clean up the polluted Gulf Coast and the stopping of the damaged Oil well head. The writer is not against oil exploitation or exploration or oil production, but in support of social justice.

It is of special consideration to point out that because of Obama’s tough stance, the American (and European) crisis was overcome within three years. While the writer is not suggesting that Obama should take the same line of action against foreign African nations, it is of essence to see that the impact of his influence on world opposition groups in Africa is great; and that other influential Africans should make the effort to approach Obama, putting forward their human rights ideals, their strategic plans of action; and underlining their need for his financial and moral support within the bounds of international and America law. Therefore, the exercise is a two way master plan – Obama as a powerful leader on one side, and the committed human and civil rights activists as a power block at the other end. This is one of the diverse ways that may be applied to shape the destiny of the world because if Africa advances in social, economic and technological terms, then so too will America and the world.  As Africa recovers from the presumed death throes of its sorry state of predicament and fundamental want – without supply – so too will the economy of America resurges from her own present dire straits. It is a classic mistake to believe that one must fully concentrate to overcome a huge domestic and political hurdle so as to achieve greatness or success or both as a leader.

The world today is far different from the superpower obsession of the 20^th century when the cold war brought to bear a kind of parochialism, division, paranoia and isolationism of the West and the East. During that confrontational period, clashes existed between the socio-politico paradigms of the East and that of Western Europe, ideologies of Communism versus the now discredited capitalism as it was and is recently practised.  At that time, all nations had to either fall to the Eastern Bloc or stay “safely” on the Western sphere. It mattered very little if one were located south or north, geographically. States had to choose sides in order to survive the ideological battles and the nuclear arms race. The consequences were that global prosperity were stifled; and that Western Europe was living in a fool’s paradise, the Eastern Bloc lived in a fool’s outer darkness. Progress was stunted. The collapse of nations’ economies the world over in 2008 and the on-going credit crunch, from America to the Arctic fringes means that every leader who is in a pole position to shape human destiny has to re-assess their options in terms of foreign and domestic policies.

Obama and the African and Middle East Revolution

It should be recalled that Obama came to power at the most difficult of times in the American Presidential history – Two international  wars – in Iraq and Afghanistan -- as well as an American economic and financial melt-down. In fact, one may claim, arguably, that America was running on the borders of imminent and ignominious bankruptcy and cataclysmic social ruin. So, it is wise to arrive at the reasonable conclusion that his first priorities were to undertake the tasks he was elected to do by his own people --  and as a patriotic American. Many Africans fail to see this fundamental obligation. The writer notes that in Africa: those who are elected by the people quickly forget why they were elected in the first place; and where the power lies. In a society where tribalism, paternalism, croynism and corruption are the main moral standard of the day, it is easy to see why the African intellectual class are obtaining these sub-conscious ideas. The writer would not attribute such wrong-headedness to culture.

When a people have been enmeshed and subjugated for a long time, they start taking the characteristics of the oppressor. The society as a whole becomes part of the corrupt system and as a consequence, the entire thinking and ideology of the society alters intolerably, bent towards materialism. As materialistic instincts of man takes hold, and overshadow the intellectual nature of that particular society, human beings no longer apply the depth of thought: for surface values are those that merely satisfy the eyes, ears, tongue and skin. Thinking about what one sees, savouring as to what one eats, and listening only to what one wants to hear beclouds the mind. The mind of a man must act in line with the physical world for that mind to exact any meaningful impact on society. If, by some kind of social and moral disturbance, this balance of mind and material world becomes lost, there are two scenarios that may ensue in relation to inhabitants of such a doomed society: those who subscribe to materialism will obviously come form the majority as the society steers towards the survival of the fittest, and as a result, assumes the mantle of moral bankruptcy gearing towards animalism. Those who wear the cloak of the mind will form a minority whose voices of reason will be drowned until such a time when those with spiritual inclinations begin to come around to connect mind and the world. Such has been the unfortunate case of the African peoples, the World; and why it becomes difficult for a significant number of Africans and world peoples to understand the wisdom of challenging evil and tyrants. They may have been in tyranny for far too long to understand the moral obligation, and the courage it takes in attacking a despot who has vowed to destroy his own people.

Fear itself becomes part of the psychology of the tyrant-- to put his people under the strange spell of his own invincibility. This cultism is broken if the tyrant is delivered a fatally punishing blow to his authority. The Western world knows this dictum. Africans do not know and unfortunately or they might have known; but abandoned or forgotten their mantra as a result of 500 years of subjugation by outsiders bringing with them other values. This, therefore, may explain the opposition from certain institutions in Africa, and the hostility of opinion against the well-meaning military help the United Nations provided for Libya.

The second stanza about Obama and the destiny of Africa is more problematic.  Obama cannot help Africa with hardened dictators and self-proclaimed life-presidents ensconced precariously forever in an unbalanced treacherous power – stability in instability. Some came to power through bloody Coup d’états, others have altered their respective constitutions to remain in power eternally -- an with fake elections thrown in.  

An Inquiry on Architects of Destiny Part 1: Obama

Louis Egbe Mbua

It entered into my mind that certain individuals are heavily marked by destiny – good or bad; and that the rise and fall of these remarkable people may have a bearing as to their very existence and actions. The rise and fall (or fall and rise) of a man is as old as the beginning of the times. What initiates this event has always been an origination of animated debates, gossips and other explanations since the art of conversation was invented when nobody was anybody.

The trick of the matter, one should suppose, is to exemplify the case with those living at the time, the contemporaries of the era. Others employ an historical rear view to explain human destiny, dipping and diving -- into the past to conjure up the future, to bring up light in areas of grey and darkness. However, it is only when one is living the times of the day that one may be in a pole position of undisputed strength and knowledge to investigate current events, and the fast currents that drag the human race to their ultimate destination. Whether that destination will be heaven or hell is dependent upon the point of definitive departure, the manner and the force of personality of that individual in the driving seat and, above all, the prime condition of the vehicle through which that road is being circuitously navigated.

The way may be rough, rugged and uninviting but if the man is destined to reach safely, then we may agree that that individual is destined for a greater good – or bad. On the other hand, if that person reaches a road block and is obstructed, do we concede that he is doomed? And would one say that the entire vehicle is destined for destruction? Let the reader follow the train of thought.

When Obama won the American Presidency in November 2008, it was widely hailed as the event of the century -- if not the millennium -- because it broke down the colour bar that has benighted this world for half a millennium; the end of racism was here; and that substance and talent have prevailed over superficiality and mediocrity. The entire planet was a light, brimming with optimism. Pessimism had been irrevocably destroyed, presumably. Or is it? However, recent events appear to have dampened the euphoria of the prospecting world of Utopia. There are myriad of reasons that may be put forward in relation to these strange occurrences. President Obama’s background and his charting the landscape of the American society to reach the pinnacle of power are well documented so one will not belabour the reader on this known matter. The point of contention is whether his path is running true to his chosen aim.

As a person, who lived in the Federated West & East Cameroon States days, and is now living in the UK, my experiences dictate that Obama’s health care reforms are one of the greatest events in American history.  Any group of people who have signed up to be called a nation have the moral responsibility to ensure that all are equally exposed to the benefits of that nation. It is true that some are more gifted than others, and that others are stronger in various spheres than others. However, it is futile to believe that those who are less fortunate do not contribute to society. Contribution to society is not only material as some may suppose. Consequently, that a person may not possess material wealth does not mean that person does not bring his own gift to the table. The simple act of exercising one’s right to vote for the right leader in a free, credible, and fair election is on its own a great contribution; that people bring forth human beings into the world may be considered more important than having a million pounds and deliberately spending the entire lot or loot! On their own! The rational for a national health care is to ensure that even those who may not contribute materially may also have the opportunity to play their part as destiny assigns.

At the same time, societies differ in their philosophical outlook; and that each nation has a beginning that defines their destination. But if we agree that there are aspects that are universal in shaping our destiny then we may judge that, the philosophy of a nation may not be always right as long as it violates these universal norms. If America believes in individualism, survival of the fittest in entrepreneurial skill, talent, and energy, that is fine only to a certain limit because even if one is talented, it is clear that we may not reach our destiny on our own without an added push from other individuals and the nation. Therefore, if we accept that we achieve as a result of nationhood then it is clear that those who one may consider as the low of the lows contributed in their own ways. Thus, it is unwise to oppose a universal health system. It seems, thus, to the writer that those who oppose the universal health care law by the Obama regime have a sinister political agenda because the idea that only individuals may achieve and as a result, can afford health care is false. On this count, I believe Obama won. Although he may have paid a heavy price, he will win in the long term for himself and the American people. With this achievement, he has shaped his destiny and those of his people for a long time to come; and that their future well-being is assured.

The troubling aspect in the American scenario can be placed as a sign on the doors of a kind of modern misunderstanding. There are those who have resigned as to refuse the acceptance of a man of African origin occupying the White House. It takes about five generations to come to term within a deeply institutionalised vice; another five to realise the large moral fault that it creates; five more to rectify and bridge the gaping obstacle. It is of importance that those destined to lead a nation in these circumstances have a thorough understanding in this sphere. That one may be voted President of a multiracial society does not remove this hindrance or cancel out past and traumatic events.  The evil of racism does not affect only the oppressed in a negative way but has the intrinsic danger of warping the minds of those who never felt the pangs of discrimination. A man who knows not discrimination may be falsely led to believe that he has the birth right to persecute those who had had the sad experience of exclusion.

This effect may not be conscious or in-born but that one is shaped by what they have been brought up to believe, and what they know from the past.  So, the natural instinct or intuition is that he challenges and opposes a policy not on its merits but that the new order is presumed to be inferior to his own thinking – a totally false assumption. Those who adhere to this view cut across all sections of society, from the commoner to the King, from workers to their leaders. At the top of the echelon, the exponents of this kind of thought are hard to identify because they would want to protect their power. As a result, they may not reveal their hand in an open manner but may use other subtle means to undermine a noble undertaking of their imagined inferiority of others. A man who turns up at a rally with a gun, pretending to fight for his freedom against another man who says and practises freedom may actually be the carrier of the views of those at the top and within the structures of power. It follows that to shape one’s destiny; a speedy intuitive stock has to be taken as to who is actually for freedom – irrespective of race – and who pretends to be for freedom and the well-being of their nation.  To chart the difficult path to one’s destiny is not purely political as some might be led to believe-- seemingly. It is a sum total of where you started, who you met on the way, which road one takes, who they are and what you think of them when you reach your final destination on a personal note.

There are two kinds of destinations in this argument:  One destination that is borne out of personal ambition and the other resting on the aspirations of a people. The former, if one attains it, is temporal, the latter eternal. The following is that attaining the personal without achieving the universal amounts to failure. Again, if one were to attain the universal without attaining the personal, it poses a problem because how is one to attain the universal without individual success? And which of the said aspirations comes first? The answer is that one cannot extricate himself from both because one cannot attain universality if one does not survive. The point is that to chart a destiny, one must do both all at once, to keep a close look at your chosen destination; and that of those you wish to lead; and that what good you wish for yourself should be that same gains you should wish for the entire people. Since the entire nation is on your radar screen, one should not be unscrupulous as to who serves, or to reject who can play a part. Therefore, those who arrive safely at their destination are individuals who may be able to know, by intuition, logic or otherwise, as to what policies and principles are right; and to choose those who know that what they do and where they are going is the right way.