The African State – a central cause of instability

Civil war was perceived as an African phenomenon until the end of cold war and most often viewed as liberation struggles. In the aftermath of September 11, civil wars have been labelled according to interests in the global arena.

The above not withstanding, the African state remains a central problem to achieving sustainable peace in Africa. The model of the state in Africa is not a product of African initiative, it is a borrowed one. From the constitution apparatus to the political system, the colonial powers shaped the African state. In doing so they felt they were civilizing Africa and off course with a view of creating an always dependent community but with a flag.

It is without doubt that the state created at independence was a foreign state coloured with African so-called nationalism which in actual sense was imperialism in the new form.

From its on set, the African state was weak and this condition was always known by the colonial masters and they preferred it that way. This would ensure an eternal dependence and as a result, the west would enjoy a continued supply of raw materials as well as a good market for arms and many other products. This follows that most of what we see as civil wars are in actual sense commercial wars. Either the western powers are extracting mineral resources or are changing the heads of their enterprise (artificial state and nation).

The African state is weak majorly because it is artificial. It is not a creation of society; it is a balkanisation of peoples who share very little in common and have not been allowed to build consensus. For example Uganda was created out of many nations who had been marginalised into tribes and in 1962 a Lancaster created constitution was bestowed upon an overwhelmed bunch of kings and chiefs and there was a republic standing with a confused form of government. There was an uneasiy arrangement between the prime minister who held executive power and the president (though was a king of a large kindom(Buganda)) was more of symbolic importance.But whose importance; Buganda or the new created community of nations comprising among others the Banyoro, the Basonga and the Acholi? This was unfortunate and the results of such arrangement is the many years of war turmoil in Uganda.


As usual every where the process of national building started after the independence. The libelators were now building the nation.They were building a nation by coercion. The building blocks were the fleeting sands such as renamed roads, national flag, national dress and national anthem and what not. But this seemingly good effort ignored the fact that nations are not built on such weak links.


One can see that the African leaders who immerged in the struggle for independence, stepped in the same shoes of the colonialists by maintaining a colonial state by the same means the colonial maintained them- force.

It did not take long after the flag independence to get into civil war, and this time it was a war to conquer the Africans by Africans. Had African people been allowed to have states evolve naturally, they would have definitely arranged themselves on ethnic basis which would have been alright. A glimpse in the African history we see empires arranged on ethnic base and small groups absorbed by larger ones. This did not happen for nations that immerged from colonialism. Nations before and after independence were dubbed tribes and maintained thus by force.

The African experience from 1950s to the present shows that the people’s aspirations were never realised and thus the continuous conflicts that are not likely to end any where in the foreseeable future. Yet, we continue to misdirect false efforts in the wrong direction for securing of a misunderstood future. Our countries continue to be characterised by foreign domination, foreign ownership of viable businesses, external financial control, institutionalised corruption, external military dependence to intimidate citizens, less indigenous involvement in political decision-making, etc, thus failed state systems.

The African state no matter what form of government it adopts, it remains the hindrance to peace. Coupled with the geo-political interests of the new colonial masters, it does not matter whether civil war or human rights abuses are curried out with impunity. In fact, these days genuine civil uprising can easily be labelled terrorism. The days for liberation seem to be fading away.

In the light of our current situations, it is imperative that peace building efforts should start from the grassroots level and should be honest in handling serious structural conditions that nourishes intractable conflicts. It is important politicians engage in building sustainable institutions that can settle once and for all marginalised issues of nations such as the Luo of Kenya , Baganda of Uganda , the Masai etc. You cannot build a nation by marginalising groups of people; rather you do so by involving every one on equal terms. Tribalising and personalising the state will keep Africa in wars forever. Whoever does this is an enemy of peace.

Kayumba David

Student of peace


Brussels