BY Oscar Okwaro Plato
At the height of the Cold War, a clear binary emerged among writers in Africa regarding the stances they took or needed to take. There have been numerous other battles of ideology over which writers have been compelled to take sides, including colonialism, apartheid in South Africa and postcolonial dictatorship, among others. These issues have either united African writers or divided them. Those that have united African writers included colonialism and apartheid – African creative workers and writers were unanimous in their rejection of colonialism and its assumptions. Most writings just before and soon after independence were explicit in their denunciation of colonialism. These writings complemented the works of most freedom fighters. In fact a number of works by freedom fighters made it into the premier African Writers Series meant for African creative work. Kenneth Kaunda’s Zambia shall be Free, for instance, sits in the same catalogue of African Writers’ Series as Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s The River Between.
Apartheid in South Africa was another issue that united African writers, who wholly – understandably so – rejected the system. In fact the system spawned a whole literary genre, with most writers taking sides against the system. In the country itself, the resistance to the system spawned a whole generation of writers and creative workers, some of whom have not been able to redefine themselves after the system finally crumbled. One can also point to the rejection of postcolonial tyranny as a battle that united African creative minds. There was for instance a universal denunciation of the Idi Amins, Bokassas, et al who emerged soon after independence to prowl upon Africans.
It needs to be emphasised that the unity of African writers against dictatorship was not as solid as had been witnessed against colonialism and apartheid. For instance, some African writers were soft on some other African dictators. Marxist writers were soft on dictators in their camps such as Ethiopia’s Mengistu and Ghana’s Nkrumah, while they were viscerally opposed to similar dictators in the capitalist camp. Ngugi was, for instance, particularly blind to Nkrumah’s excesses while he pointed out the most minor of Moi’s infractions.
The debate as to whether writers/authors ought to take sides in ideological conflicts is not a new one. But it speaks strongly to developments because, in Kenya today, there are numerous sides to which individuals, among them writers, are pulled. For instance, in the political arena, horses have been said to have emerged, which will determine who decides the direction the state and individuals take in the next five years. And since writers command influence in their own right, what role should they play? Regarding the ICC quagmire, for instance, should writers take sides at all? And what side should that be?
The most prominent battle that has divided African writers is the discourse between capitalism and socialism. There have, however, not been many explicit capitalists as there have been socialists. Among prominent socialists is Kenya’s Ngugi wa Thiong’o. His Devil on the Cross is a creative rendering of the radical political economy found in Walter Rodney’s How Europe Underdeveloped Africa; it compares well with the way Eric Blair aka George Orwell rendered in his Animal Farm and Karl Marx’s radical treatises on political economy.
Capitalist African writers on the other hand have not come out to declare themselves as such. There was suspicion, especially given ground by Bolekaja critics that Nigeria’s Wole Soyinka was an agent of capitalist CIA. Soyinka himself, however, hinted at his non-commitment to any ideological side with his concept of “voidance” in his premier novel The Interpreters. In his Nobel Prize speech, Soyinka actually shows sympathy for socialism for its vision of an end to human misery. It is not clear on which ideological side another Nigerian, Christopher Okigbo, died but he took a forceful stance and sided with the losing side in the 1960s Nigerian Biafra conflict. Some other prominent writers have trodden the middle ground. Among these is Nigerian novelist Chinua Achebe. Until his death, Achebe remained non-committal in ideological battles, only contenting himself with reporting on African reaction to the world that had been hurled at her by forces of modernity.
Consider Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe: what side then should a writer take today? His land repossession/take-over ideology on the basis that it will right certain historical wrongs has been roundly criticised, and is responsible for crippling sanctions on the country. Is one supposed to take sides with forces of democratisation and economic development and gloss over historical injustices?
Within African scholarly circles, a debate is brewing over the future of African scholarship. On the one hand are Cameroon’s Achille Mbembe and other African scholars in the diaspora who are pushing the post modern debate on Africa, urging African scholars to move from traditional political economy of the likes of Walter Rodney that mourns African poverty but does little in condemning African contribution to its own misery. Their argument is that Africans should stop viewing themselves as victims and begin questioning excesses of power that they have engaged in or allowed their leaders engage in.
The other side of the argument led by Malawian scholar Tiyambe Zeleza, who rejects this postulation and insists that Africa should continue in the mode of lamentation initiated by Rodney since its conditions are such that it cannot view its problems in isolation but rather globally.
If a writer takes sides, what happens if her/his side loses? Will s/he still be relevant? Better yet, if her/his side wins, does that end her/his duty?
The right thing to do would seem to take the side that is eternal and universal. Humanity and the challenges and evils against it are eternal and universal. A writer should take the side of humanity and battle evils arrayed against it. In that manner, an artist’s work gains immortality. The most enduring artists have been those who have eschewed taking indiscreet, obvious sides, those who kept to reporting and implicitly taking the side of humanity; their work has remained immortal. Shakespeare will be read for millennia to come because of this quality and tenor of his works.
(First published at www.mwakilishi.com)
— The writer is an analyst with Gravio Consulting. The views expressed here are his own.