Africa: The Myth of Faith Clash - It's the Resources Stupid!
Interview with Ali Mazrui
By Mustapha Ajbaili -Islam online
America and Europe claim to set the style of religious tolerance for the rest of the world to follow. Africa in some parts of it challenges that assumption and the wave of negative images the Western media have constructed of a continent believed by many scientists to be the origin of mankind. Below is an interview Muslim Affairs conducted with Dr. Ali A. Mazrui on issues of religion, conflict, and democracy in the African continent.
Dr. Ali A. Mazrui is a distinguished Kenyan scholar. He is now Albert Schweitzer Professor in the Humanities and Director of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies at Binghamton University, State University of New York. He is also Albert Luthuli Professor-at-Large at the University of Jos in Nigeria. He is Andrew D. White Professor-at-Large Emeritus and Senior Scholar in Africana Studies at Cornell University. Dr. Mazrui has also been appointed Chancellor of the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology in Kenya — an appointment made by Kenya’s Head of State.
IOL: Certain conflicts in Africa, particularly in Sudan and Somalia, would be described as religiously motivated, therefore, qualifying to be called manifestations of an ongoing clash between Islam and the West, according to some observers. What do you think about this assumption?
Mazrui: With regards to Sudan, religious factors are found in the north-south conflict, but almost there is no religious factor with regard to Darfur; that is the conflict where all sides are Muslims, so they are not quarrelling about religion. They are quarrelling about other matters. But the older conflict which is hopefully coming to an end between North and South in Sudan maybe includes a religious dimension among several other issues.
In Somalia, the country is overwhelmingly Muslim, and they are trying to experiment with an Islamic system before Ethiopians intervened. So again there is a religious issue there, and again it is one issue because Somalis also fight among each others when they are all Muslims. So the conflicts are very often clan conflicts rather than conflicts between religion and secularity.
In the case of Ethiopia, it is not overwhelmingly Christian; It is about half and half, and only because Christians are in political control, to some extent, that there is tension between Muslims and Christians.
IOL: If we look at the history of the relationship between Islam and Christianity in Africa, is there anything that can explain the current conflicts in Somalia and Sudan?
Mazrui: The relations between Islam and Christianity are relatively cordial in Africa as compared with the relations between them in other regions. So, Africa is the only continent where you can have a country with 90 percent Muslims and yet can elect a Christian president as in Senegal, or a country that can have half Muslims and half Christians and people share the presidency. Tanzania had a Christian president for two terms followed by a Muslim president, then a Christian president and now a Muslim president. They are not fighting over religion; they are sharing power. So, In general, in Africa the two religions are very often cordial unless they are complicated by other differences.
In Nigeria, almost all Hausa, in terms of ethnic groups, are Muslims and almost all Ibos are Christians. Islam enforces Hausa identity, and Christianity enforces Ibo identity. Yoruba, which is a third group, splits half and half, Muslims and Christians. So, in that situation where u have ethnicity and tribalism being an additional divide, religion then becomes a complicating factor. But where there is no ethnic or tribal tension, relation between Muslims and Christians in Africa are likely better than in most part of the world.
Mazrui: In some countries yes, but not so much in others like Senegal, where a Christian president (Léopold Sédar Senghor) was elected president for 20 years (1960-1980) by the overwhelming Muslim population. So that sort of thing will never happen in any other region of the world. Different African countries, however, have different demographic balances with Christians and Muslims and these can get along quite well. But when there is tribalism which enforces religious divisions, there is the problem.
IOL: But isn't there a difference between how religion affects politics in Africa and how it does so in the United States and Europe?Mazrui:Yes definitely, As I said in politics, in Africa it is possible for people to elect members of deferent faiths to be heads of states. The United States has never had a Jew for president and only one president was a Roman Catholic and all other presidents had been protestants. In Africa, there are countries with overwhelmingly one religion and have a president from another religion. There is an entirely different orientation with regard to the relationship between religion and state progress; you can not imagine a Muslim being elected as president in the United States.
IOL: Do you think some big powers, such as the United States, China, and Europe, exploit religious and ethnic differences in some parts of Africa to advance their political and economic interests?
Mazrui:Certainly with regard to China vs. the West, there is a new form of rivalry. The old cold war was primarily ideological, this one is resource rivalry. Chinese on one side and Westerners on the other are concerned about comparative advantage with regard to access to Africa's resources, including Sudanese oil. China is for some reason regarded as responsible for not restraining Sudan and that is often unjust charge against China. So, some of the local problems, like the problem of Darfur, become internationalized because they are used as part of the international rivalry between big powers.
The United States decided to regard the conflict in Darfur as a case of genocide and it is only the United States that has taken that position; It is not a United Nations position and it is not a majority position in the world. To describe it as a genocide, you have a good deal of special type of emotions and you aggravate the tensions between those who want to protect the people of Darfur and those who want to protect the sovereignty of Sudan. So, in those situations the local and the global intermingle.
IOL: How can you explain the current Media disregard of the crisis in Somalia as opposed to that in Darfur?
Mazrui:Darfur has been dramatized by describing it as a genocide and having a situation where there is a particular government that can be held accountable, whereas in Somalia there hasn't been much with a government that has been struggling to have an ensemble of institutions on and off.
Second, Westerners argue that Somalia is pretty close to being Africa's Afghanistan and therefore sufficiently anarchic and chaotic to be hospitable for al-Qaeda, because they are watching very carefully in case it comes to what they regard as breeding terrorists. But politics is a matter of perception rather than a matter of fact.
IOL:Can the international disregard of Somalia be attributed to the assumption the United States and other big powers have less interests in Somalia than they have in Darfur.
Mazrui: Somalia is very strategic and it is well located near the Middle East, but it is a very poor country and the United States does not want it to fall into the wrong hands.
IOL: Now I would like to ask about the issue of democracy in Africa. Some parts of Africa, like Kenya and Zimbabwe, have had relatively free and competitive elections, yet those defeated would not step down. What is wrong with the democratic process in Africa?
Mazrui:
In Kenya parliamentary elections, one powerful Kenyan after another was defeated and lost their seats including vice president of Kenya at the time. So it looked as if the elections were transparent and open until you go to the presidency and then trouble begins. In Zimbabwe, there is a similar type of situation. Mugabe has lost the majority in parliament and then you have all this stalemate waiting to see how the vote went with regard to the presidency.Unfortunately, although we have made progress in Africa by having competitive elections of the presidency the progress is not great enough to lead to a full acceptance of defeat at least in some countries. There had been countries where elections defeated incumbents as in Zambia and then somebody else succeeds. Similar thing happened in Malawi in the past; incumbent was defeated and somebody else succeeded. So it has happened before, but usually those who are in power are a bit reluctant to let go and it is very sad.
I still think there is progress because African presidents before would not even allow rivals in competitive elections and so the presidency was never competed for. For quite awhile in Kenya President Jomo Kenyatta never really had a rival when he was alive, and then for nearly two decades there has never been challenge from election to election. Now it is challenging, but there has not being learned how to accept defeat.
IOL: Some observers would say that the violence following the Kenyan elections sent shock waves to other African regimes to beware the consequences of any attempts to hold into power against the will of their people. Now the regime in Zimbabwe does not seem to care about the Kenyan experience. Do you think other regimes would follow Zimbabwe in that step?
Mazrui: Well, never these countries have experienced a situation where someone who is in the presidency was defeated and goes out. It has happened in other parts of Africa like Senegal, where Abdou Diouf was defeated and he stepped down but it has never happened in Eastern Africa.
We are struggling within uncharted territory, and in southern Africa it did happen. In Zambia the president was defeated and stepped out of power, so Mugabe should have followed that example.
There are plenty of resources to go around, contrary to the lie. The leaders, whatever colours they claim, are nothing but sick and envious mass murderers.
So easy to get caught up in the crap, isn't it?