| PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO THE AFRICAN VISION MAGAZINE | 
|
|
News
by e-mail. |
|
TRIBALISM: A TROUBLED ASSUMPTION Posted Thursday, February 7, 2002 by JL MusaProf. Kamarah's troubled assumption of tribalism, reminds one of a recent debate on the BBC on Monday 12 November 2001. The BBC mooted the question: The Tribe: Good or Bad? A respondent, C. Nahimana, Canada cleared the fog which troubles Prof. Kamarah: " The existence of tribes does not divide African countries because with proper leadership, a multi-ethnic/tribal society could serve as a backbone for the development of the continent in bringing together a diversity of traditions and skills. African people will live together in harmony only when they identify the cause of their problems, then they will be united and stand together to fight puppets and greedy leaderships." On the contrary, when one reads Prof. Kamarah recent screeds about Tegloma, she sees the rising of beast of tribalism similar to the coming of the specter of the creature in the second stanza of W.B. Yeats' 1912 poem, The Second Coming: "Surely some revelation is at hand; Surely the Second Coming is at hand. The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert A shape with lion body and the head of a man, A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds. The darkness drops again; but now I know That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?" Clearly, there is not yet a beast of that nature lurking in Tegloma or another such organization slouching to the Republic of Sierra Leone to be born against the national harmony reckoned by the professor. But the thing about tribalism which Prof. Kamarah has failed to show about his grave allegation against Tegloma is distinct in Hutcheon's essay: "The key feature of tribalism is this instinctive tendency to recognize, judge and reward people according to their group identity, rather than their characteristics as individuals. We are all familiar with it. The group in question can be based on any number of things, the most familiar, however, being ethnicity; that is, a supposed common ancestry." See Part V: TEGLOMA AS A CONSORT OF THE SLPP WHAT IS TRIBALISM? Posted Wednesday, February 6, 2002 by JL MusaWhat is the correct or accepted definition of tribalism which would prove the fears of Prof. Kamarah? Prof. Kamarah flirts with that Pied Piper notion of tribalism which could be vague or misleading. Chinua Achebe, writing in a valuable chapter on tribalism in his book, The Trouble with Nigeria has said "intelligent and useful discussion of tribalism is very often thwarted by vagueness." There is of course a danger in tangling with personal definitions as many scholars are so apprehensive. After reviewing a similar notion of tribalism in the Nigerian Constitution similar to Section 35 in the Sierra Leonean one cited above, Achebe makes the point which has eluded Prof. Kamarah in his fandango with Tegloma: "But to prevent a citizen... from participating in the social, political, economic life of the community in which he chooses to live is another matter altogether." Pat Duffy Hutcheon writing in Humanist in Canada (Spring 2001), in the article, "‘Can Humanism Stem the Rising Tide of Tribalism?"draws our attention to a popular definition of tribalism: "Tribalism is simply the deeply ingrained human habit of identifying oneself in terms of the group; of viewing one's own in-group as somehow ‘‘special'' and superior to others; and of discouraging social intercourse (or any other type of intercourse) with members of the ‘‘out-group''." Hutcheone elaborates: "In many ways we are all prone to tribalism. It is deeply rooted in our evolutionary history and biological heritage. It stems from the ‘‘kin selection'' that evolved in response to the ever-present dangers to self and family in primitive times: a process resulting in the encouragement of adult members of the clan to sacrifice themselves, if necessary, for the survival of their own offspring and those of their siblings. Because of the way evolution works, this pattern of behaviour had the consequence of preserving the genes of those individuals who behaved in a tribalistic way, while eliminating the others. Accompanying this propensity to kin selection——and being transmitted along with it––––was an evolutionarily effective ‘‘us-them'' response to surrounding clans. The Other (or Stranger) was recognized as dangerous and threatening——to be either avoided or destroyed——and one''s own clan had to be ever-ready to attack and repel any such strangers in their territory." There are no extant works of history, anthropology or politics, associated with the views of tribalism held by Prof. Kamarah to dwell on while examining his posited views on the subject. We can only reach him through the media of his current and past arguments against tribalism in this forum, to ferret the lacunae of his views on that subject. We shall examine his views within the context of social anthropology to appreciate the serious but vague charges he has interposed against Tegloma. Is Tegloma a tribal organization? We answer yes with dispatch. Does Tegloma suffer from want of character consistent with national harmony? No! Has Tegloma elected to only recruit and cleave members towards the iniquitous goal of ethnic purity? No!! Is Tegloma a peccable organization within the manner Prof. Kamarah has seen fit to arraign as ethnocentric, tribalistic and antithetical to bridging the seeming chasm of tribal units? That appears to be the brutum fulmen of the professor's accusation which I now answer with the force of reason. When we answer the question which lights this paragraph, we illuminate the charge Prof. Kamarah has made as false. To answer the question we must turn to a reliable source and commentator of African matters from the colonial period to modern times. The late Howard University professor, Dr. Walter Rodney, a man of parts on the question of tribalism is a trustworthy surrogate on the subject. To get a better perspective of the notion of tribalism we must cite in extenso a passage in his book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. There, Rodney writes with reason, "One of the most important manifestations of historical arrest and stagnation in colonial Africa is that which commonly goes under the title of "tribalism." That term, in its common journalistic setting, is understood to mean that Africans have basic loyalty to tribe rather than nation and that each tribe still retains a fundamental hostility towards its neighboring tribes. The examples favored by the capitalist press and bourgeois scholarship are those of Congo and Nigeria. Their accounts suggest that Europeans tried to make a nation out of the Congolese and Nigerian peoples, but they failed because the various tribes had their age-long hatreds, and, as soon as the colonial power went, the natives returned to killing each other. To this phenomenon, Europeans often attach the word "atavism", to carry the notion that Africans were returning to their primitive savagery. Even a cursory survey of the African past shows that such assertions are the exact opposite of the truth." A man of reflection and insight in the history of the African Peoples, in the book we are now relying on to make a point against Prof. Kamarah's broad sweep of tribalism, Rodney, throws more light on the subject: "It is necessary to discuss briefly what comprises a tribe - a term that has been avoided in this analysis, partly because it usually carries derogatory connotations and partly because of its vagueness and the loose ways in which it is employed in the literature on Africa. Following the principles of family living, Africans were organized in groups that had common ancestors. Theoretically, the tribe was the largest group of people claiming descent from a common ancestor at some time in the remote past. Generally, such a group could therefore be said to be of the same ethnic stock and their language would have a great deal in common. Beyond that, members of a tribe were seldom all members of the same political unit and very seldom indeed did they all share common social purpose in terms of activities such as trade and warfare. Instead, African states were sometimes based entirely on part of the members of a given ethnic group or (more usually) on an amalgamation of members of different ethnic communities." "All of the large states of nineteenth century Africa were multi-ethnic and their expansions was continually making anything like "tribal" loyalty a thing of the past, by substituting in its place national and class ties. However, in all parts of the world, that substitution of national and class ties for purely ethnic ones is a lengthy historical process, and, invariably there remains for long periods certain regional pockets of individuals who have their own narrow, regional loyalties, springing from ties to kinship, language, and culture. In Asia, the feudal states of Vietnam and Burma both achieved a considerable degree of national homogeneity over the centuries before colonial rule. But there were pockets of "tribes" or "minorities" who remained outside the effective sphere of nation-state and their national economy and culture. Instead of blaming the result of colonialism for fomenting tribalism, Prof. Kamarah blames the victims for their misfortune. On this measure, Rodney illuminates the question for us once more: "In the first place, Colonialism blocked the further evolution of national solidarity, because it destroyed the particular Asian or African stated which were the principal agents for achieving the liquidation of fragmented loyalties. In the second place, because ethnic and regional loyalties which go under the name "tribalism" could not be effectively resolved by the colonial state, they tended to fester and grow in unhealthy terms." Please see Part III: ROOTS OF TRIBALISM TRIBALISM OR CHAUVINISM? Posted Monday, February 4, 2002 by JL MusaFor more than a fortnight now, Prof. Sheik Umarr Kamarah, smitten with a noble cause against tribalism, but with the wrong object of that ire in mind (Tegloma), has tangled with abstract principles to sally forth a fine thought. He has arraigned the Tegloma organization with generalities in a welter of accusations without touching on the acceptable definition of the term he so much relies on to fashion an argument in his quest for national harmony in politics. Let us look first at Tegloma's right to form a Mende organization as a human or constitutional right in Sierra Leone or anywhere. Then, let us focus on the professor's accusation against Tegloma as a political consort of the SLPP. In both charges, I intend to prove that the accusations are exaggerated, and unwarranted. The bases of the confutation are that Tegloma has a right to exist and inhere to its members what aspirations they have undertaken in the charter of their organization without offending other Sierra Leoneans in their own enjoyment of civil and political rights. I shall take on the charges and dispel his fears about this seeming chauvinism passing as tribalism. Prof. Kamarah is not quite Nicholas Chauvin, a French soldier of the First Republic who gained a gauche reputation for vainglorious patriotism and devotion to Napoleon. But Prof. Kamarah seems impelled in his accusations of tribalism in the excessive manner which inspired French playwrights, especially Hipppolyte Taine, to make a character of Chauvin synonymous with "one who commits to a cause beyond what is justified by reason." To be sure, Prof. Kamarah, misanthropic of Tegloma, sounds shrill in this noble exertion against tribalism and the tenor is as loud as chauvinism. With his consideration of this subject we affirm the thought, that were any tribalism looming among Sierra Leoneans actuated by Tegloma or any of the members of our national family, our asperity in condemnation will rent decorum in this place. But that is not the case as we shall prove later. SYMBIOSIS IN TRIBAL KINSHIP Prof. Kamarah arraigns Tegloma for merely being a tribal organization and raises a hue and cry, against not only that organization's human and constitutional right to assemble for tribal kinship, but for acting corporately to influence the machinery of government for its own purposes. It is quite settled as Attorney M. Sadu Bah has already stated, that since 1975, Tegloma like other tribal organizations has fostered the objects and reasons inspired by its members to succeed as a group even where individual success is marked. The amity in tribal organizations is akin to phenomenon of symbiosis so common in nature. It is too common to need argument, that most of the tribal organizations were formed to approach human problems with success the way a pair of species of organisms such as algae and fungi for example live symbiotically as lichens by stimulating each other's development. Hence there is advantage in group effort. Besides the intra-group amity in these organizations, they have invariably encouraged inter-group comity with other tribal groups for solidarity to triumph in national matters and in woe. That has been the harmony that reigns in the circumjacent Sierra Leonean communities. But if Tegloma, the bane of Prof. Kamarah's criticism has flourished outside its corporate charter as an organization reeking with the stench of tribalism, the evidence we have none. We must now proceed to make that argument. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION Prof. Kamarah should have reason to know that our Constitution permits Tegloma members to choose whom they shall associate with. When kindred spirits of a people come together, to promote a tribal culture in any fashion which does not wound others, there is no basis tocall that association as tribalism, as we have heard the shrill cries of the learned professor. To wit, Section 26, makes clear what our rights are to form or organize groups such as Tegloma or Mandingo: "Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of assembly and association, that is to say, his right to assemble freely and associate with other persons and in particular to form or belong to any political party, trade unions or other economic, social or professional associations, national or international, for the protection of his interests." The wellspring of many of the tribal groups akin to Tegloma are within the meaning of Section 26 and no more. To disparage the congregation of Mendes or Temnes for whatever reason which does not aim at purposeful and material segmentation against national interests is unwarranted criticism. Tegloma, collectively, to my knowledge has never practised tribalism. We have no evidence that certain of its members harbor ethnocentric views in antithetical to Sierra Leonean national harmony. If there is let the learned professor adduce it preponderantly. Leaving aside Prof. Kamarah's grave apprehension of Tegloma's alleged tribalism, he wraps the putative national blanket of harmony round his torso as evidence against harmful tribal cleavages. That aim like those provided in our Constitution and those of other nations are unhelpful against the natural pronation of tribes to seek comfort in their own milieu. Take for example the Sierra Leonean constitutional prohibition of tribalism or ethnic domination of politics in Section 35 below. It appears visionary but it is impractical. To wit, Section 35 (5) prohibits tribal domination of politics although that is an unreasonable reality: "No association, by whatever name called, shall be registered or be allowed to operate or to function as a political party if the Political Parties Registration Commission is satisfied that — 1. membership or leadership of the party is restricted to members of any particular tribal or ethnic group or religious faith; or 2. the name, symbol, colour or motto of the party has exclusive or particular significance or connotation to members of any particular tribal or ethnic group or religious faith; or 3. the party is formed for the sole purpose of security or advancing the interests and welfare of a particular tribal or ethnic group, community, geographical area or religious faith." No sensible politician will name his party "Southern Mende People's Party," or Temne People's Progressive Party". There are clues or hints to tribe or ethnic solidarity in many a motto of the parties, such as Thaimu Bangura called his PDP, "Sorbeh" and Songu-Mbriwa's Kono Progressive Movement. The reference in Songu-Mbriwa's pressure group of the 1950s had a double entendre because the Kono prefix could refer to the tribe or the district because it is the only district named after a tribe. Please see Part II on WHAT IS TRIBALISM? TEGLOMA AS CONSORT OF THE SLPP Posted Sunday, February 3, 2002 by JL MusaWhat is more about Prof. Kamarah's vague charge against Tegloma, is his companion notion of that group as a consort of the SLPP. The impression he leaves us with is that the SLPP is a Mende people's party and Tegloma is gravitating toward the kindred Mende feelings of ethnic affinity. The SLPP history when read with profit would reveal that it was in fact regionally founded as a Protectorate antagonist of the Colony's National Council of Sierra Leone. Its founders of native sons of the North and South had no opportunity to peer into the future to see one of their members Siaka Stevens fashioning a northern-based party, against then SLPP founded on the lofty proposition and vision of "One People, One Country." It is evident in history that when the Taqi brothers were framing their National Democratic Party before merging with John Karefa-Smart's United Democratic Party, the name Northern People's Party was mooted and abandoned. Accordingly, neither the S! LPP nor another party besides the APC's leadership northern strength has framed a political organization on tribal grounds. In the present SLPP administration, it would be hard to find Mende domination in cabinet or elsewhere. Mr. Kabbah has created a shadow of a one-party state with all opposition parties in his subscription of power-sharing and a facsimile of nationally based-government. If any Sierra Leonean group including Tegloma is moving towards tribalism as stated above by Hutcheon, we shall join Prof. Kamarah in uniformly condemning that group. Prof. Kamarah is not the only citizen concerned with disharmony in society, but when you approach the subject, we must be objective. Let us now turn to the next issue which informs Prof. Kamarah's charge of tribalism. Prof. Kamarah inspires none when he holds that political parties ought to be free of tribal affiliation. While Sierra Leonean parties tend to strive for national affinity in principle, there is an inherent ethnic character to them. This ethnic tendency is reflected in the voter preferences of the major tribal groups as it is axiomatic for Mendes to vote for the SLPP or Temnes or Limbas to vote for the APC, the UNPP or PDP. The similar disposition is to be found in other societies with ethnic divisions. For example, Maxwell Owusu tells us about an elderly Ashanti man in Swedru, Ghana who emphatically stated his reason for not voting for a party led by an Ewe tribesman, K.A. Gbendemah in the 1969 general elections: "Have you ever heard of an Ewe chief ruling over Ashanti? No, Busia is our man." (Quoted by Maxwell Owusu, "Politics in Swedru," Dennis Austin and Robin Luckham, eds., Politicians and Soldiers in Ghana, 1966-1972 (London: Frank Cass, 1975! ), p. 255. It should be noted that Busia's ethnicity derived from the Ashanti). Let us consider the following well-known men of reflection on the subject at hand. Antonio Gramsci has said in his (Selections from Prison Notebooks, Quintin Hoare and Geofrey Novell Smith eds., 1971, p. 148), that "every party is the expression of a social group". It is axiomatic from the development of Sierra Leonean political parties that they derive the expression of the social groups Gramsci talks about. The framers of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone assumed without reason that if you prohibit by grant in the constitution the organization of political parties, the people will obey. The people of Sierra Leone have invariably ignored this wishful thinking of separating the tribes or ethnic alignment from political organization because the axiom of social group expression is markedly seen in the regional, tribal or ethnic membership of the parties. As Max Weber too points out, "parties represent interests determined `class' or `status sit! uation' and they may recruit their following respectively from one or the other." (See H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills eds., From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Oxford University Press, 1946, pp.194-195. Kay Lawson, writing in "Political Parties and Party Competition," published in The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World 1993, p.723, underscores the point: "Although parties normally seek to differentiate themselves from each other in broadly philosophical terms, the principles each espouses are almost always consistent with the interests of class, ethnic group, language group, and/or religious affiliation of those whose support they seek." The tendency to align with or identify with one's social or religious group is a natural proclivity. In Israel, Ireland, the United States or in the Balkans, religious commingling with political activity is quite common. Thus, we often hear of Orthodox Jews having their own political party in Israel, the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland identifying with a particular party. In recent times in the United States, there emerged a "Christian coalition" which votes with the Republican Party. Southerners in t! he United Stated States oftentimes vote with the Republican party as northern industrial states and Labour unions vote with the Democratic party. No political party has called itself a Christian or Muslim party, but a sensible candidate who desires to win votes from Muslims will sooner identify with them by joining them at the Friday Prayer or singing hymns loudly in church on Sunday morning with the Christians. This parsimonious correlation of ethnic identity with support for a leader is a clear predictor of voting preferences which cannot be ignored even if the Constitution proscribes it. The evidence is abundant to overcome Prof. Kamarah's presumption that national harmony ensues politics without tribes. If that were true, Aladdin's lamp would be near all of us to conjure up our wishful thinking in politics among diverse groups. FINAL DELIBERATIONS This is the end of the case: Tegloma like any other such organization enjoys a constitutional right to exist for the benefit of its members so long as they do not trouble national harmony with their congregation as a tribe. What is more, any group is free to associate with any political party. It is the business of national leaders of political parties to ensure that the number of their supporters or electors from any distinct geographical area is not license to turn over the keys of government to them for the magnitude of their support. That is all. |
|
