The democratic country which had been envisaged by Lumumba did Essay

The democratic country which had been envisaged by Lumumba did not come to afflusion. The United States gave him well over a billion dollars in civilian and military aid during the three decades of his rule; European powers- especially France-contributed more (Hochschild 303)/ Mobutu did little to improve the quality of life of his citizens, and instead exploited his own citizens for his material and economic gain. It estimated that at the end of his reign, he was of the world’s wealthiest men; “his personal peak was estimated at billion.

” (Hochschild 303) And very little of his fortune went to the people of the Congo.

One will therefore be short sighted not to blame Mobutu for the conflicted Congo. He did his best to disorganize and disintegrate the country’s internal economic and political structures and systems that laid ground for what was termed as the “Africa’s World War”. His puppetism to western countries only resurrected and reminded the Congolese of the harsh, brutal and inhuman rule of Leopold and the Belgians which escalated the anger among the citizens.

Mobutu can further be solely held responsible for the greed and mismanagement of natural resources for selfish needs among the Congolese today, he set a bad example.

It would be an oversight not to make mention that colonialism played a significant role in bring about conflict in Africa, it also left a lasting impression on Africa one of resistance and conflict.

Furthermore modern society is the society of explicit instruction and standardised methodical procedures which are always being reflected upon and improved. Rationalisation transformed communal traditional society into an individualistic capitalist society one that was mainly focused with economic success. In the modern world the state rules through legal rational legitimacy and the rules which are set up are to be followed .Now when you are existing in a society whereby they are rules to be followed someone needs to make the rules .This gives birth to charismatic legitimacy. Society then follows the command of the charismatic leader because of the extraordinary characteristics of that person. People who run to be put off the bureaucracy do so through the aid of political parties. Political parties are an example of Social stratification that is the way in which society is divided according to the power they hold.

According to Karl Marx a certain group affiliated to each other because they had common interests however Weber was of the view that a group did not have a unifying interest but was driven by what one thought as an individual.

After globalisation which was marked by technological advancement, political changes cultural and identity changes and economic changes. The society became unstable, fragmented and media saturated. In the post modern set up anything can be acceptable all views have an equally chance or prepodenderance of domination because it is a view and everyone is open to think whatever it is they want to think. Today with the advent of technology we no longer work face to face that close linkage of communication no longer exists. We have become impersonal meaning that customs and traditions are slowly being fizzled out. We have become harmful to self in a bid to free ourselves to gain more to avoid being vulnerable. An evaluation of post modernism is a set up whereby regard for the next being is nonexistent individualism is the order of the day this means there is we are free to reshape our lives without worrying about what effects that might have on other individuals especially the poor that is why the rich are becoming richer and the richer are becoming richer. Characteristics of post modernism according to Baarman are Diversity as opposed to uniformity; Chaos as opposed to order and particularity as opposed to universality.IN post modernism nothing is objective we criticise that which we believe in as real basic social beliefs for example gender power class and social constraints.

The other factor relates to resources and economics. At the simplest level, the struggle to survive can spawn or deepen ethnic problem. The more limited the resources the greater the danger of ethnic problem. For a range of reasons not necessarily bad or intentionally divisive, ethnic groups are also often positioned differently in an economy. Again, change can accentuate differences, triggering hostility or drastic action. The legacy of Colonialism did not do any better. The problems of most colonial nations of Africa are direct products of their colonial experience. The problems had been created by colonialism in different ways, especially by the indiscriminate merger of various ethnic groups to become monolithic entities, and at the same time treated the units as separate entities and allowed each to develop in whatever direction it chose in isolation from others (Nnoli, 1980. Dare 1986 and Young, 1998). This was the trend in virtually all the Anglophone countries of the sub-Saharan Africa and some Francophone countries too.

Colonialism also created structural imbalances within the colonies in terms of socioeconomic projects, social development and establishment of administrative centers. This imbalance deepened antipathies between ethnic groups. In Nigeria, the South achieved a higher level of social development than the North. Similarly, the Baganda advanced farther than the other Uganda ethnic groups, the Chagga and Haya were ahead of the other Tanzanian groups, the Kikuyu, Ashanti and Bemba made more rapid “progress” than the other Kenyan, Ghanaian and Zambian ethnic groups respectively. In fact, inter-ethnic relations in Kenya have been characterized by the hostility of all the other groups to the Kikuyu.

Today, many nations of the sub-Saharan Africa are in turmoil, violence or civil disorder of one kind or the other largely originating from the ethnic problem. Such countries include Burundi, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Angola, Chad and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

It is important to note at this point the South Africa also has many different ethnic groups within its borders but they are not in conflict however they chose to fight foreigners with the numerous scourges of xenophobic attacks.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The belief that Africans are fighting today because they have always been fighting should be done away with. There is a need for the equal distribution of resources to ameliorate the need to fight against each other .The resources in Africa are not scarce we have enough to sustain Africa and to go even as far as aiding other continents but the problem with Africans in the words of Rwandan President Paul Kagame the mindsets of Africans. Africans needs to change this colonialist way of thinking whereby the leadership instead of improving the lives of the populous they embark on a self engrandisiment journey so as to make a profit whilst they are still in power should stop.

CONCLUSION

It is the author’s view that conflict theories do revolve around the question of scarcity of resources to a greater extent .However there are many other contributory factors which fuel conflict chief amongst them being the way in which people think, that is to say how they perceive the status quo. The presence of different classes who exhibit common interests also adds to the list of enzymes that catalyse conflict within Africa Sometimes conflicts result where there is nothing to do with resources. Furthermore it is the writer’s view that to speak of scarcity of resources in the African context is but an exaggeration .Africa has a lot of resources however it is because of the presence of unique different classes, that is, the leaders and those who vote them into power who want to make believe resources are scarce to protect their interests. Resources in Africa are not scarce they are concentrated in a few individuals who have this modernistic way of thinking whereby the ones with the money have it all including the authority and the prestige.