Presidential elections are scheduled to begin on 11 March, but whether a fairer electoral process will make Mauritania a fairer society, is still far from clear. Certainly the racial make up of the political elite remains unchanged. The list of candidates is skewed in favour of light-skin Moors in a country where the majority of people are black.

The election campaign in Mauritania is heating up, with less than a week left before citizens go to the polls to choose their new president. As Maghrebia reports, the country's NGOs have deployed 800 observers to monitor campaigns by 19 candidates in various parts of the country.

People have good reason to fear the democratic process. The last - and only - time any multi party elections were held was in September 1992, and they proved disastrous. Lara Pawson reports on a tired people haunted by conflict and finding the rewards of democracy elusive.

In the history of people and nations there are decisive dates that have far-reaching, momentous effects. For the west African country of Ghana that date is 6 March 1957. As Godwin Nnanna reports for OpenDemocracy, it was the day that the country pioneered a revolution in Africa by becoming the first country in sub-Saharan Africa to gain political independence.

The collapse of the Somali state in 1991 and the subsequent crash of the domestic currency, the shilling, meant the crippled economy was starved of liquidity to facilitate an economic recovery and of any means to replace ageing banknotes. Without a viable central bank or any other financial authority able to provide such an essential service many people decided to take it upon themselves to do so.

Angola's opposition party and former rebel group Unita has accused the government of trying to assassinate its leader Isaias Samakuva. Police in Kwanza Norte province opened fire at the place where he was staying, nearly killing him, Unita claims.

Newly arrived African Union (AU) peacekeepers have come under attack in the Somali capital Mogadishu for the second day running. Around 400 Ugandans arrived on Tuesday, and the same again the next day. They have not yet gone on patrol but have come under fire at their airport base.

Nigeria's ruling party presidential contender, Umaru Yar'Adua, 55, says he is well enough to run in April's polls. Speaking to the BBC from Germany, where he was flown for a medical check-up, he scotched speculation that he was unfit to continue in the contest.

For Merline Momo Azeufac, a teacher at Balefock village in western Cameroon, the days of fearing nightfall while correcting pupils' work are over. She is no longer hostage to the poor light provided by kerosene lamps. As IPS reports, the advent of solar power has made the village part of a trend towards alternative energy use in Cameroon that has gained momentum amidst difficulties with giving all homes access to the national electricity grid.

Owing to the volume of articles being submitted to Pambazuka News, and the need to highlight two key events - the 50th Anniversary of Ghana and International Women's Day - we decided to send out this week's newsletter in three parts. On 7 March 2007, we published articles relating to these events together with the second part of two important articles published last week.

On 8 March, we are publishing the second part of Pambazuka News, featuring Mahmood Mamdani's article on Darfur entitled 'The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency'. On 9 March we will publish our usual Links and Resources.

FEATURED THIS WEEK
- Mahmood Mamdani looks critically at the Save Darfur campaign and asks why those calling for the end of US intervention in Iraq are calling for intervention in Darfur
- Kwame Zulu Shabazz asks what freedom means in an African context and whether a country be free when 75% of its budget is provided by donors
- The spirit of Nkrumah and pan-Africanism still lives on in Ghana today, argues Doreen Lwanga
- Nii Ardey Otoo defends Nkrumah's declaration of a one-party state in Ghana
- The generation and distribution of power (electricity) is political and economically driven; Tristen Taylor explains why and how
- Bro. K. Bangarah argues that it was military, economic and political forces, along with the actions of a group of Afrikan activists in Britain that led to the abolition of slavery, and not William Wilberforce
- Pus Joseph Yav on International Women's Day and the brutality of men at war
BLOGS ROUND-UP
- Sokari Ekine rounds up African blogs on International Women's Day
CULTURE AND ARTS
- Latifa, a victim of hate crime, presents a poem on a day in an Aids hospital
PODCASTS
- Fikele Vilakaz talks to Pambazuka News in the first broadcast in our special series on sexuality and social justice

PAN AFRICAN POSTCARD: Tajudeen reports on the conference on sustaining Africa's democratic movement
WOMEN AND GENDER: Women’s Rights – How far to go? Joshua Ogada reviews the scene
CONFLICT AND EMERGENCIES: AU troops ambushed in Somalia
HUMAN RIGHTS: Urgent action needed on human trafficking
REFUGEES AND FORCED MIGRATION: Militia in Darfur surround camp
ELECTIONS AND GOVERNANCE: Mauritania’s elections haunted by racial imbalance
DEVELOPMENT: Somalia’s money for nothing
CORRUPTION: Burundians urged to fight graft
HEALTH AND HIV/AIDS: Outrage in Burundi over national ARV shortages
EDUCATION: Maintaining the right to youth and education
ENVIRONMENT: Fighting to preserve Central African Republic’s forests
LGBTI: Court orders release of Burundian jailed for sodomy
RACISM AND XENOPHOBIA: Somalis are easy prey
MEDIA AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: Kenyan tabloid editor jailed
INTERNET AND TECHNOLOGY: The challenge of establishing ICTs in Africa
PLUS: e-Newsletters and Mailings Lists; Fundraising and Useful Resources; Courses, Seminars and Workshops

* Pambazuka News now has a Del.icio.us page, where you can view the various websites that we visit to keep our fingers on the pulse of Africa! Visit

I fully agree with your article on the mis-representation of Africa. Here in Canada this has been helped by General R. Dalaire's book I Shook hands with the Devil and Gilles Courtemanche's bestseller A Sunday in Kigali in which an enlightened Canadian witnesses the 'horror' of dark Africa. But there is Robin Philpott's excellent 'It didn't happen like that in Kigali' (only in French but somewhere on the web in English) . It goes way back, of course. Thanks for you good article.

The generation and distribution of power (electricity) is political and economically driven. It is also surrounded by deception and falsehoods. Tristen Taylor explains why and how.

To illustrate that the energy cycle is centralised in a manner which reinforces the political domination of the few over the many, primarily through economic instruments, we now turn to South Africa and the generation and distribution of electricity.

95 per cent of electricity in South Africa is generated (and distributed) by one organisation, Eskom. The South African government owns 100 per cent of Eskom, with the Minister of Public Enterprises being the representative shareholder. In effect, this means that the South African government has total control over the conversion of energy into electricity and its subsequent distribution. Eskom generates this electricity overwhelmingly through the use of ten coal-fired power stations, producing 90 per cent of all electricity. The additional 5 per cent comes from nuclear (Koeberg) and hydro resources. This represents centralisation of energy conversion almost unheard of in human history. If we accept that the government is just one actor within our society, then it appears strange that it holds full control over one of society’s basic goods.

The South African government decides howEskom’s 208,314GWh of electricity is distributed. These are the proportions by sector: agriculture three per cent, commerce ten per cent, the transport sector two per cent. Industry is allocated a whopping 68 per cent. Residential users represent 17 per cent.

To recap - Agriculture and the business sector combined get a whopping 83 per cent of all electricity, while the citizenry must scavenge for the remaining 17 per cent. Approximately, 30 per cent of households are without electricity. And the pro-business, anti-poor bias is further illustrated in Eskom’s pricing policy. As Bryan Ashe notes:

'Soweto residents are charged 28 cents per kilowatt/hour while Sandton … residents pay 16 cents and big business pays seven cents. In rural areas, consumers are charged 48 cents per kilowatt/hour.'

How is such a distribution model justified? Mostly according to the dominant economic policy of our time, GEAR and its offspring. All of which are minor variations on the policies of the IMF and the World Bank, often termed neo-liberal economics or the Washington Consensus. The South African government gives more electricity to the business sector because, rightly or wrongly, it believes that business interests are greater than those of individual citizens, especially in a situation where demand has outstripped capacity. Given a choice between providing cheap electricity to industry and cheap electricity to the people, the Government has routinely chosen the former, as witnessed by the Alcan-Coega deal.

One may ask, if this is in the common good, this current distribution of electricity, why have so many conflicts occurred between government authorities and communities seeking access to electricity? Why do some South Africans have to make do with candles and paraffin while big business gets all the power it wants, at the price it wants?

Primarily because of the macro-economic policies adopted by our government. Incidentally, these macro-economic policies create what is currently considered a favourable investment climate for foreign capital, which is free to move anywhere it wishes (unlike people). If the government refused to create this climate, capital would not be invested and growth would not be possible, or so the argument goes. If the economic and social data are anything to go by, this macro-economic policy of the last ten years has produced an unrelenting assault upon the poor whilst facilitating fantastic levels of growth within the financial services sector. Of course, the poor and the working classes do not own shares or unit trusts. As Dale McKinley states:

'Research conducted by the Development Bank of South Africa in 2005 revealed that the number of South Africans in poverty (with the national poverty line for 2002 being benchmarked at a miserable R354 per adult per month) in all population groups increased dramatically, from 17,000,000 in 1996 to 21,000,000 in 2003…indeed, the state’s own figures for 2002 show that the poorest half of all South Africans earn just 9,7% of national income (down from 11,4% in 1995), while the richest 20% take 65% of all income.'

According to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into a Comprehensive System of Social Security for South Africa in 2002, 55 per cent of South Africans live in poverty and 60 per cent of the poor receive no social security transfers and/or grants. Making matters even worse, the Report of the South African Cities Network (2004) revealed there was a 180 per cent increase between 1996-2001 in the number of urban households with no measurable income at all.

Further, in determining its energy position, the Government did it without seeking meaningful citizen-participation. Why should it? Why does any centralised authority have to consult with what are, after all, the end consumers of an energy chain? What can citizens do? Boycott electricity?

Access to electricity is a determining factor in one’s position within society, and the withholding of access to electricity, either through refusing to provide access or through tariffs, is an act of controlling individual access. In the power relationship between the citizenry and Eskom/the South African government, those who control the generation and distribution of electricity hold all the cards. There is very little citizens can do if the price of electricity is increased (for the poor with access, a rise in price means that their access becomes further restricted) or if supply is diverted to industry.

Put another way, the individual citizen is dependent entirely upon the government to provide him/her with a basic condition of modern life. This gives the government undue power over the circumstances of the fortunes of citizens, communities, organisations, and businesses, resulting in an insidious form of patronage. Furthermore, the total centralisation of energy conversion has enabled the government to use electricity as part of its macro-economic policy; witness the pre-paid meter wars in Soweto, the staggering numbers of disconnections (10,000,000 by 2002), preferential pricing for domestic and foreign corporations, an attempt at privatising Eskom, and a continued reliance on coal. Using only coal to generate electricity provides an effective market-subsidy to the coal mining and export companies (such as Anglo Coal and TOTAL).

For example, Anglo Coal produced 56.900,000 tons of coal in 2005 in South Africa, of which Eskom bought 34.300,000 tons. Furthermore, Anglo Coal is currently seeking new deals with Eskom for additional long-term purchasing arrangements to the tune of an additional 25,000,000 tons of coal per annum.

From global profits in excess of US$1 billion for Anglo Coal, US$439,000,000 came from South Africa. With such a huge amount of money at stake, it is in Anglo Coal’s own interest that Eskom continues its love affair with coal and, by necessity, that South Africa’s electricity generation remains centralised. TOTAL is the ninth largest oil and gas company in the world and the fourth largest coal exporter in South Africa, representing a major consolidation of local and global energy resources in private hands.

Perhaps one of the greatest and most tragic ironies of the current Eskom policy of pro-business generation and distribution of electricity is that the technology used was paid for by the citizenry as a whole, mostly through foreign and odious debt incurred during apartheid. Eskom was one of the prime beneficiaries of foreign loans during the apartheid era. For example, in 1974 Barclays participated in a US$15,000,000 Eskom Eurobond issue; in 1976 (after the Soweto uprising) Citibank, along with three other US banks and Barclays, provided credit of US$200,000,000 for Eskom. In 1980 Credit Suisse was the managing bank in loans worth CHF,000,000 million to Eskom. And so on. 16 per cent of all foreign debt in 1990 was the result of loans to Eskom. These loans became the obligation, post-1994, of the victims of apartheid to pay back via taxes. It is these same victims that are being discriminated against in Eskom’s current energy policy.

The feudal lords with their watermills were thinking small

But what does this social and economic problem have to do with the environment? In one sense, all social and economic issues are environmental. Human beings and all their artefacts are part of the global ecology. True that may be, but it sidesteps the real concern. Addressing the situation described above – that the centralised energy conversion system of South Africa is anti-poor – does not mean having to revert to traditional environmental issues such as dirty coal, global warming, renewable energy, cute and fuzzy bunnies. The answer would be to change the distribution policy of Eskom and the government, reduce cut-offs, lower residential tariffs, increase 'lifeboat' allowances, and build more transmission lines and bigger power stations.

This approach is fundamentally flawed in that it ignores two key factors. First, it ignores the fact that electricity generation (like all energy conversion systems) underscores a political power relationship. Within a centralised and tightly controlled system as South Africa’s, the citizenry already gets as much electricity as it needs, according to the system. Because the South African energy cycle is controlled entirely by an elite class, electricity is granted to non-elites in accordance with their ability to serve the elite class. By way of example, middle class individuals receive a fair amount of electricity because: 1) They provide a means of subsidisation for industry through the payment of tariffs, and a form of revenue for Eskom; 2) They need a fair amount of electricity to fulfil their roles as the technicians of the modern economy. One cannot be an effective engineer or doctor if one does not have electricity. The poor receive a more limited amount (or none at all) precisely because the system does not require them to be electricity-rich. In fact, the value of the poor for the system, besides the role of consumers, is to depress wages.

The current lack of capacity within Eskom to generate additional electricity is being addressed only because the dominant interest group (business) is demanding more and cheaper electricity. This demand is virtually unlimited, and additional increases in generating capacity (more power stations) will be absorbed and used by industry. To radically alter this equation to truly favour the poor would require a complete change of the economic and social paradigm of the economy itself. This would require a transition to a democratic socialist regime and a degree of central planning to the economy. Only after this has happened, after the power of capital has been broken, can the policy of Eskom be changed.

Any move towards a democratic socialist South Africa will not happen overnight, for such a move will be strongly (if not violently) resisted by current elite groups and capital in general, and could take generations to achieve. There is no time to wait for such a transition, both in terms of human suffering and external factors. Nor is it evident that the populace as a whole wants a socialist South Africa.

Further, even a socialist South Africa will not remove the underlying power dynamic between the citizenry and centralised energy conversion. As long as the generation and distribution of electricity remains in the hands of a single entity or the few, the entire citizenry will remain at the mercy of the few. Electricity and other forms of energy, petrol, for example, are not luxury items. An individual requires constant access to them in order simply to survive in the modern world.

The second factor, which renders much of the previous factor mute, is that external factors will force a change in the current energy cycle. Coal is not an unlimited resource, and South Africa’s coal reserves will run out. Current reserves are at about 34 billion metric tons, and by 2040 South Africa could have only 7 billion metric tons. 8 Yet these statistics are not the whole story. The demand for coal is growing on a global scale and will continue to do so, despite diminishing reserves. Simple economics means that the price of coal will keep on increasing, making coal-generated electricity increasingly expensive. There are already signs of this happening. For example, China is concerned that it does not have enough coal to fuel its industrial expansion:

'This year, China's domestic demand for coal is expected to reach 1.78 billion tons. Taken together, the four major industrial sectors of power generation, metallurgy, building materials manufacture and fertilizers will consume 1.58 billion tons, up 12.9 percent on the previous year. Meanwhile exports will exceed the 80 million ton mark. Energy expert, Han Xiaoping, says, ‘The fundamental reason for China to slash its coke export quota lies in China's deepening energy crisis. China's current coal reserves and rates of exploitation are just not sufficient to continue to sustain the rapid development of the Chinese economy.'

Shortages in coal supply will be further exacerbated by declining petroleum reserves and rising petroleum prices. As the price of oil per barrel increases, the viability of transforming coal into oil increases. This is what SASOL does, and it is a technology in which China has heavily invested in. This makes coal an even more useful resource thereby increasing demand, price and rate of extraction. This will mean greater pressure on the poor and working classes for, as energy prices increase, more and more people will be unable to afford access to energy, leading to negative social implications such as the further entrenchment of poverty, poor/minimal education, disease, and social conflict.

Recent moves in the biofuels sector (ethanol and biodiesel are now economically viable alternatives and additives to petrol and diesel) are showing a similar trajectory. The production and distribution of biofuels is rapidly becoming consolidated in a nexus of agribusiness and traditional oil companies, often with generous state subsidies. Once again, the only role for the individual in this system is as the consumer. Further, as ethanol and biodiesel become the cash crops of the 21st century, good land will be used for them, contributing to the increasing driving out of small-scale farmers to ever more marginal soil.

Simply speaking, the odds are that the coal and petroleum global economy will be abandoned or it will collapse before it can be shifted to a pro-poor approach. There is an ecological limit on our current growth trajectory and method, and this is applied to capitalist, communist, and socialist economies alike.

The other external factor that will force a change in the global energy conversion cycle is climate change. The overwhelming body of scientific evidence states that the current use of petroleum and coal is the primary reason why the climate is warming. As the climate warms, weather and oceanic patterns will change, causing massive disruption to ecologies. We can expect longer droughts, rising sea levels, increasing extinctions, reduced food supplies (especially marine food sources), and unhealthy weather. Most likely, you will be cursed to live long enough to see this happen.

Climate change is not only an environmental issue. It is a social issue, and will have profound social implications. Those with access to resources (capital) will be better equipped to deal with the negative effects of climate change; those without access to capital will suffer the most. Hurricane Katrina has been an abject lesson on how social, economic and political relationships will be played out as climate changes increase.

Just before Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in August 2005, the rich and middle classes deserted the city - they simply drove or flew away. They had the access to capital required to move themselves out of harm’s way. The poor (and black) were left behind to face the storm. The white guys left town and watched the show on CNN, the black folks drowned. Welcome to the future.

In the coming decades the world will either make the transition away from a fossil fuel economy or it will suffer the negative consequences of climate change. And, because this change is imminent (assuming we don’t 'choose' to drown instead), there is a great danger that the transition towards an alternative energy system will ignore the social and economic relationships that exist in energy conversion, especially within the minerals-energy complex.

If the negative affects of global warming and air pollution are temporarily excluded from the equation, it makes no difference in terms of societal power relationships if the system for producing electricity comes from a centralised coal-based system or a centralised renewable energy (or nuclear) system. Both systems will produce the same kind of socio-economic relationships that currently exist. And the environmental movement seems to have forgotten, ignored, or is unaware of this fact. Replacing one system that bolsters domination with another that also bolsters domination does not advance the cause of human justice one bit.

The only long-term solution that will address both the environmental and human justice concerns is one that addresses the political economy of power. Moreover, addressing the political economy of power is a necessary step towards a better, brighter world for all of us.

I’ll keep my remarks on how to address the political economy of power to the generation of electricity; no alternatives for petroleum, unfortunately. To begin, we must remember that there is no shortage of energy. The only limit that exists is our ability to tap into that energy, and this is a technological problem.

Fortunately, there do exist alternative technologies - such as solar, wind, biogas - and there are also methods of using energy with greater efficiency, that have the potential to change the political economy of power. Some of these technologies will require state subsidy, others need further research and development, but neither of these two factors are prohibitive. Technologically speaking, we are close to the point of having a carbon-based paint that can be applied to a wall and generate electricity using solar radiation.

What needs to be done is to decentralise the generation of electricity to the level of municipalities, towns, villages, and, most importantly, individual households. The goal is that each household should be able to generate enough electricity for its own use, as well as generate excess electricity that can be fed back into the national grid. This goal is not impossible to achieve. The laws of physics do not prevent it, and it is not beyond current engineering capacity. This can be achieved. It is not science fiction. The technology will have to be renewable and use materials available at a local level. Wind and solar provide two potential sources for such a system, and, because they are free to all, cannot be controlled by the few.

The basis of the electricity conversion system needs to be at the grassroots level. Individual citizens and communities must have the ability not only to set their own electricity requirements but also to meet their own needs. If this can be achieved, it will provide adequate electricity and will also alter the political economy of power. No longer would communities have to beg from the State for an extra couple of kilowatts a month; the State would not be able to use electricity as a means of control and oppression, and as a vehicle for implanting its own desires. To use a slightly different terminology, the means of the production of electricity would be in the hands of the users themselves.

The social and economic implications of such a system are clear – in at least one important sector of modern life, the people would have direct and clear ownership of the electricity sector. The corrosive and dominating relationship with regard to electricity would be dissolved and replaced with a situation of community and individual level self-sufficiency, providing a basis for advances in other areas such as economics, liberty, human rights, and real education.

Quite often in the struggle for human and environmental justice, we see ourselves fighting a rearguard action while hoping to survive until some future date when things will, miraculously, be better. Salvation is at a distant point, for the conditions for change are not yet right. Current struggles often seek to enable the foundations for change, not the change itself.

Breaking the political economy of power and decentralising electricity generation needs not wait for some far off event. The time for change is now. The current system has systemically failed both the poor and the environment, and has just about reached its ecological limits. Coal and oil are running out. The continued use of fossil fuels is producing an ecological response (climate change) that is already having widespread and negative effects. A change must happen, the historical moment of change has arrived. Just as Europe and China shifted to coal as wood supplies dwindled, so Africa will shift from fossil fuels to alternative sources of energy.

For the past 250 years we have had the feudal lords and their watermills. Time for some windmills and freedom.

* Part 1 was published in Pambazuka News 293
* Tristen Taylor is the energy policy officer at Earthlife Africa Jhb. The views expressed in this work are not necessarily those of Earthlife Africa Jhb.

* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

1 David A. McDonald, “The Bell Tolls For Thee: Cost Recovery, Cutoffs, and the Affordability of Municipal Services in South Africa”, Municipal Services Project, March 2002, pg. 5
2 Bryan Ashe, “South Africa's Mammoth Electric Company Leads the Way in Utility Privatisation while Touting Sustainable Development”, 16 August 2002, http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=3528 Bold added
3 Dale T. McKinley, “The Making of a Myth: South Africa’s Neo-Liberal Journey”, 22 March 2006
4 David A. McDonald, “The Bell Tolls For Thee: Cost Recovery, Cutoffs, and the Affordability of Municipal Services in South Africa”, Municipal Services Project, March 2002, pg. 3
5 Currently on hold, but which would result in a centralising of energy conversion in the hands of business, a far smaller and less accountable group than Government.
6 Brendan Ryan, “Anglo Coal pitches for Eskom”, MiningMX, 21 December 2005, http://www.miningmx.com/energy/531028.htm
7 For more on the role played by multinational banks in propping up Apartheid, see Tristen Taylor, “Funding Repression”, 2005.
8 Note estimates vary widely. Source used: http://www.mbendi.co.za/indy/ming/coal/af/sa/p0005.htm
9 Tang Fuchun, “Call for Coal Reserve in Energy Security Strategy”, China.org.cn, 17 June 2004.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/294/slavery.jpg
Bro. K. Bangarah, in this second part of his essay, argues that it was military, economic and political forces along with the actions of a group of Afrikan activists in Britain that led to the abolition of slavery, and not William Wilberforce. He was merely an unofficial government appointee who negotiated and claimed leadership of the movement and his name in history.

Wilberforce: Government agent and bogus anti-slavery ‘leader’?

The recruitment of Wilberforce by the Prime Minister is an important clue suggesting that he may have been appointed to perform a subversive role designed to hold up the abolition process. Pitt was determined that Wilberforce, a backbencher, should be the official spokesman for the abolition society and in that role, present the abolition bill in Parliament. This is very surprising since the bill would have stood a much greater chance of success if the Prime Minister had taken it on as part of government business, headed and presented by a cabinet Minister. If he had really wanted to abolish the ‘slave trade’ he could have used the full power of his office to make it happen. The truth is that the Prime Minister’s situation was delicate as he wanted to appear to be in favour of abolition, whilst in reality being doggedly opposed to it.

Pitt was forced into giving the false impression that he favoured abolition because of the growing awareness about: (i)the barbarity, wickedness and general evil of slavery, and (ii)the large number of deaths of British seamen, soldiers and other personnel overseas. The resulting and ever growing outcry from the British public for the abolition of the ‘slave trade’ increased the pressure on him and his government to act. This then created serious problems for a government that relied heavily on the income that it received in the form of taxes from enslavers and others who profited from the human misery of enslaved Afrikan people. Pitt’s tactical response was to send in his close and trusted friend Wilberforce; so close that at one time they even lived in the same house (Howarth, 1973). Wilberforce’s role was to function as the society’s mouthpiece with the latent agenda of containing, stifling, thwarting, delaying and otherwise redirecting the pressure on government so as to stave off the abolition of slavery.

There are signs that initially Wilberforce was not quite up to the task of infiltrating and undermining the organised structures and processes developed to achieve the abolition of slavery. It evidently became necessary to coerce him into stepping more fully into the bogus leadership role ascribed to him because in 1787 Pitt found it necessary to warn Wilberforce that: ‘… if he did not bring the motion in [to the House of Commons], somebody else would …’ (James, 1963). The thought of somebody else stealing his limelight seems to have helped him overcome his reluctance.

Some readers might find it strange to think in terms of Wilberforce having operated as an under cover government spy working to subvert the abolitionist movement. However, we know that Pitt was really against the abolition of slavery because of his response to the Haitian revolution. When the world saw the Afrikan people in Haiti rise up and abolish slavery, Pitt failed to offer them either his government’s support or even its official recognition. Instead he sent 60,000 British soldiers, mostly to die, in an unsuccessful attempt to crush the Afrikan people there in order to return them back into slavery (James, 1963). Pitt’s actions must have been designed to maintain slavery, because he did not send his troops into nearby France to assist attempts to crush the revolutionary Jacobins who were fighting a similar cause.

Instead of correcting his close friend the Prime Minister and championing the cause of the Afrikan people fighting for their freedom in Haiti, Wilberforce publicly supported Pitt’s decision to send British forces into Haiti in order to fully re-instate slavery on the island. There can be little doubt that this action was specifically against the enslaved Afrikan people who were fighting for freedom. We know this because in 1792 he used the Haitian revolution as a pretext for abandoning the bill to abolish the ‘slave trade’ that had already successfully passed through the House of Commons (Hart, 1997). It was agreed that this bill would bring the slave trade’ to an end on 1 January 1796. That they should be prepared to go to such lengths is proof conclusive that both Wilberforce and Pitt were unequivocally and fundamentally opposed to the abolition of slavery. Any other utterances that they made were just anti-slavery rhetoric designed to camouflage their real agenda. It is just not possible for an honest and objective observer to consider these facts and reasonably draw any other conclusion.

In addition, there is documented evidence confirming that governments of that period in British history actively used their own under cover agents as spies against groups that they did not approve of. Afrikan anti-slavery and anti-imperialist heroes such as William Davison (Fryer, 1984) and William Cuffay (Fryer, 1984) were executed or otherwise persecuted as a direct result of the subversive activities of government sponsored undercover agent provocateurs. The Briton Arthur Thistlewood suffered a similar fate (Foot, 2002).

As will be seen, Wilberforce consistently behaved in ways that ran counter to the objective of abolishing slavery. It is his consistent pattern of blatant anti-abolitionist, blatant racist and blatant sexist behaviours that lay him open to the accusation of being a subversive government agent. It is also interesting to note that all the time William Pitt, the man who appointed him, was Prime Minister all bills to abolish the kidnapping and deportation of Afrikan people failed to make their way through Parliament. It was only after the death of Pitt in 1806 that the abolition of the slave trade bill finally made it onto the statue book.

Racist Wilberforce opposed the abolition of slavery

Another of the methods used by imperialism to propagate its lies is to create or control organisations that pretend to champion particular just causes whilst, at the same time, adopting the hidden agenda of derailing or containing that just cause. The actions of the so called ‘Abolition Society’ were consistent with that pattern in that despite its progressive sounding name, it openly boasted that it did not seek the abolition of the enslavement of Afrikan people. For instance, on 12 August 1788 just months after Wilberforce started operating as its ‘unofficial’ Parliamentary spokesman, the ‘Abolition Society’ issued its first public statement: ‘… proclaiming that the abolition of slavery was not their objective’ (Hart, 2006). The following year 1789, a Privy Council report concluded that free waged labourers were three times more productive than enslaved people (Ferguson, 1998). There was an increasing realisation that enslaved people had no purchasing power and that this was as an obvious impediment to the development of the capitalist market system of distribution and exchange (Hart, 1998).

The society appears to have been completely unmoved by the mounting sources of information and pressure supportive of the abolition of slavery. They still stubbornly refused to advocate for the abolition of slavery and on 31 January 1792 Wilberforce’s friends in the ‘Abolition Society’ issued their second public statement: ‘… proclaiming that the abolition of slavery was not their objective’ (Hart, 2006). If these actions were not enough to demonstrate the desire of Wilberforce and his friends to hold back progress towards gaining the ‘freedom’ of enslaved Afrikan people then, on 29 March 1797 the case was sealed; three years after Wilberforce officially joined, the disingenuous nature of the ‘Abolition Society’ was confirmed when it issued its third public statement: ‘… proclaiming that the abolition of slavery was not their objective’ (Hart, 2006). From the point of view of Afrikan people, this is an aspect of Wilberforce’s ‘help’ that we could have done without.

The success of the Haitian revolution and the Haitian declaration of independence in 1804 forced all of the imperialist nations to reconsider their approach to the enslavement of Afrikan people (James, 1963). All of Pitt’s and Wilberforce’s attempts to support the maintenance of slavery on that island had ended in unmitigated disaster. The experience forced them and other imperialists to accept that they could be militarily defeated by enslaved Afrikan people. It also forced them to accept that if they continued to kidnap and deport Afrikan people to the Americas that they would be adding to the military might of the already powerful enslaved Afrikan people resisting their enslavers. This in turn would lead to the inevitable demise of their European kith and kin living in and colonising those lands.

Denmark wasted no time and abolished the ‘slave trade’ in 1802 (Greenwood, 1980). Britain’s response was slower: Since the 1790s the British Parliament had developed the habit of thwarting all attempts to abolish the kidnapping and deportation of Afrikan people into enslavement. Despite their military defeats at the hands of Afrikan people in Haiti. Some sections of the British establishment refused to accept the need to abolish. Over a period they began to accept reality, Britain changed stance and a bill for the abolition of the ‘slave trade’ was, though not for the first time, approved by the House of Commons in 1804. It was however, held up by the intransigence of House of Lords (Hart, 1998).

When in 1807 the House of Lords finally capitulated under the overwhelming pressure to abolish the practice of kidnapping and deporting Afrikan people, Wilberforce attempted to put the breaks on the Afrikan liberation process by publicly denouncing the idea of emancipating enslaved Afrikan people (Williams, 1944). Following that, Wilberforce was to go on to prove just how reactionary he actually was when he and his friends delayed advocating the ‘gradual emancipation’ of enslaved Afrikan people until 1923 – 16 years (Hart, 2006). It is clear that he did not feel it necessary to consult with enslaved Afrikan people since he expressed the opinion that we were not yet: ‘… fit … to bear emancipation …’ (Martin, 1999). Wilberforce’s actions are clearly consistent with those of a person who was completely opposed to the idea of Afrikan people being freed from imperialist oppression.

Racist Wilberforce delayed the abolition of slavery

After the abolition of the ‘slave trade’ in 1807, the next logical step for those in favour of Afrikan emancipation was the immediate abolition of the institution of slavery itself. However, Wilberforce found curious ways of showing his ‘support’ for the cause of immediate abolition. In addition to openly opposing immediate abolition, he practiced behaviours which did not fall far short of those carried out by the racist fascists who controlled the abhorrent anti-human Apartheid system in South Afrika. For instance in 1816, when he claimed to be advocating for ‘equality’ and the ‘emancipation’ of Afrikan and other oppressed people, Wilberforce chaired a dinner of the friends of Afrikans and Asians Society and: ‘… the token Afrikans and Asians invited to the gathering were separated from the other guests by a screen set across the end of the room.’ (Fryer, 1984).

Wilberforce was not shy in demonstrating his apparent ‘compassion’ for enslaved Afrikan people in other ways. For instance, he advocated the idea that Afrikan people should only be whipped at night – presumable so as not to adversely affect production, which took place mainly in the day (Hochschild, 2005). Furthermore, our ‘great hero and saviour’ recommended that Afrikan people be bred like animals as a substitute to boosting our population in the Americas through the kidnapping and compulsory deportation of our people – otherwise referred to as the ‘slave trade’.

Following the rebellion of enslaved Afrikan people in Demerara in 1823, calls for the immediate abolition of slavery once again grew amongst the British public. Wilberforce and his friends had successfully held back the aspirations of those people genuinely desiring the immediate abolition of slavery until that year, but the pressure was now becoming too great. The mounting public pressure compelled Wilberforce and his friends to launch the Society for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery (SGAS) (Hart, 2006). They launched the society as a last ditch tactic to further delay the prospect of ending the institution of slavery. Since it was becoming clearer that they could not stop the progress towards abolition, they would drag it out and delay it for as long as possible. The SGAS advocated ideas and policies that would help slavery to survive for a further 100 years. Its members openly boasted that they wanted slavery to gradually: ‘… die away and to be forgotten …’ (Williams, 1944).

Wilberforce’s anti-abolition position was completely out of touch with the will of the British people and diametrically opposed to the majority of the membership of his own organisation. In May 1830 the SGAS passed a resolution for the immediate abolition of slavery against the wishes of its ‘leadership’ i.e. Wilberforce and his new side kick Buxton (Hart, 2006). This was an important catalyst in the history of the abolition movement. Wilberforce and his friends had successfully delayed, suppressed and contained the demand for the immediate freedom of enslaved Afrikan people for over 40 years. Wilberforce was clearly an enemy of Afrikan people, not a friend.

Sexist Wilberforce opposed women’s groups advocating the abolition of slavery

In Britain, women were, after the Afrikan community itself, the most radical advocates for the abolition of slavery (Martin, 1999). Whilst Wilberforce was openly advocating against the abolition of slavery, women’s groups were actively campaigning to achieve immediate abolition. One example comes via Elizabeth Heyricke who wrote a pamphlet entitled, Immediate Not Gradual Emancipation (Martin, 1999). Women were also prolific in the amassing of millions of signatures for anti-slavery petitions. More importantly, they led the mass boycott campaigns that damaged the economic interests of the plantation enslavers and their allies. Peckham Ladies Anti-Slavery Association is an example of a women’s group that contributed to the organisation of the campaign to boycott West Indian sugar (Williams, 1944).

Wilberforce actively opposed female anti-slavery associations and their role in organising boycott campaigns (Williams, 1944, p. 182). Wilberforce refused to accept women’s signatures on anti-slavery petitions (Martin, 1999). He tried to discourage and silence the political activities of women’s groups working for the anti-slavery cause. If he was genuinely in favour of the abolition of slavery, he would have thanked and encouraged the women’s groups for the sterling work that they were doing to advance the cause that he claimed to stand for. In failing to do so he was demonstrating his overt sexism and simultaneously harming the prospects of Afrikan people being freed from the bondage of imperialism. His undermining behaviour was clearly inconsistent with that of person sincerely working to achieve the abolition of slavery.

Whilst he vociferously denounced the idea of women being involved in open political activity aimed at abolishing slavery, he made no such condemnation of the public exploitation of women as prostitutes in brothels. During that period innocent Afrikan women were kidnapped, transported from their homes and held captive as sex slaves in British brothels. If he was genuinely against the enslavement of Afrikan people, he would have used his position in Parliament to help outlaw this most despicable of human abuses. However, instead of condemning this outrageous practice as a crime against the humanity of Afrikan women, he joined the exploitation process. He personally participated in systematically organised episodes of rape perpetrated against these defenceless Afrikan women, whose misfortune it was to be imprisoned in British imperialism’s brothels.

This aspect of his behaviour was brought to the attention of the public by cartoonists in the national press (Howarth, 1973). Wilberforce does not appear to have denied these public accusations, nor did he take legal action to protect his ‘good name’. He would have had some difficulty defending himself given that his secret mistress Agnes Bonte described as a ‘prostitute’ actually set up and ran a ‘top people’s’ brothel in London. She is said to have developed her liking for bondage after going on private boat trips with Wilberforce where he demonstrated the way in which Afrikan people were held in chains on the human trafficking ships of the time (Agnes Bronte 1813-1892).

Perhaps one reason why he was so openly against the abolition of slavery is that it could have led to a personal ‘loss of privileges’ on his part, by denying him his unrestricted access to the group of disempowered Afrikan women whom he used as sex toys. Wilberforce’s perverted, misogynistic and racist behaviour falls significantly short of that which should be expected of anybody posing as an ‘Afrikan liberator, hero and saviour’.

* Part 1 was published in Pambazuka News 293
* Bro. K. Bangarah is a member of the Global Afrikan Congress, based in the UK,
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org

References
1. Ferguson. James, (1998), The Story of the Caribbean People, Ian Randle Publishers, Kingston, Jamaica
2. Foot. M.R.D., (2002), Secret Lives: Lifting the Lid on the Worlds of Secret Intelligence, Oxford University Press
3. Fryer. Peter, (1984), Staying Power: The History of Black People in Britain, Pluto Press
4. Greenwood. R., & Hamber. S., (1980), Emancipation to Emigration, Macmillan Caribbean
5. Hart. Richard, (1998), From Occupation to Independence: A Short History of the Peoples of the English Speaking Caribbean Region, Pluto Press
6. Hart. Richard, (2006), A talk on the subject of: The Slaves Who Abolished Slavery, Centerprise Bookshop, Dalston, London, 11th October 2006
7. Hochschild. Adam, (2005), Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire's Slaves, Mariner Books
8. Howarth. David, (1973), The British Empire; Volume 2, BBCTV Time Life Books
9. James. C.L.R., (1963), The Black Jacobins, Vintage Books
10. Martin. Steve, (1999), Britain’s Slave Trade, Channel 4 Books
11. Schama. Simon, (2006), Rough Crossings: Britain, the Slaves and the
12. Walwin. James, (1993), Black Ivory: A History of British Slavery, Fontana Press
13. Williams. Eric, (1944), Capitalism and Slavery, Andre Deutsch

Internet References
1. A Web of English History, http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/c-eight/people/wilberf.htm
2. Agnes Bronte 1813 - 1892, http://freespace.virgin.net/pr.og/agnes.html
3. Ligali, (Monday 6th November 2006), Set All Free Deny Wilberforce Film Endorsement, http://www.ligali.org/article.php?id=563
4. The Amazing Change, http://www.theamazingchange.com/timeline.html
William Wilberforce 1759-1833, Biography, http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce.htm

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/294/ghana_stamp.jpg
What does freedom mean in an African context? Can a country be free when 75% of its budget is provided by donors? Not necessarily, but this does not mean that the achievement of Ghana’s independence in 1957 is not worth celebrating. It does mean however that there is still much work to be done.

On 6 March 2007, Ghana will celebrate its 'Golden Jubilee', frequently referred to as 'Ghana at 50'— fifty years' independence from their colonial oppressors, Britain. The ancestors have blessed me with the opportunity to bear witness to this momentous event. Although I am an African (or black) American, like many North American and Caribbean blacks, I consider the African continent to be my spiritual home. I have travelled to seven West African countries. I am a pan-African in terms of sentiment, by which I mean that I advocate the operational unity of black/African people all over the world in our individual and collective interests.

In my country of birth, the United States, black people as a group are still, in my assessment, second-class citizens. Far too many of us continue to be victimised by police brutality, a racist criminal (in)justice system, sub-standard schools, inadequate health care and housing. It is for this reason that I do not celebrate American Independence Day on 4 July 1776. I do not salute the American flag, nor do I sing the American national anthem. I protest not because I am anti-American or unpatriotic but, rather, because I am principled. The black American freedom fighter Frederick Douglass asked over a century ago, 'What to the slave is your Fourth of July?' Due, primarily, to the prodigious struggles of our ancestors, black Americans are no longer enslaved. But we are still unfree. It is from the standpoint of an unfree, so-called, African American who has travelled back-and-fourth to Ghana since 1997 that I offer my personal perspective on the significance of Ghana’s Independence Day celebrations.

Fifty years ago, Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah, in his Declaration of Independence speech, exclaimed that, 'Ghana, your beloved country, is free forever!' 'Freedom', however, can be fleeting thing. Is Ghana free today? What precisely do we mean by 'freedom in Ghana? Perhaps what is, I think, most instructive and ironic and about the Ghana at 50 celebrations is that the Ghanaian government is forced to rely on western donors, most notably Britain, to fund them. It makes one wonder in what ways exactly Ghana, and by extension Africa, is truly free? And, for that matter, what can freedom mean for Ghanaians when more than 70 per cent of the central government’s budget is provided by Euro-western donors? Well for starters, and this is perhaps the most disturbing irony of all, some (but not all) Ghanaian scholars and politicians are forced to uncritically accept British interpretations of the transatlantic slave trade, colonialism, and its consequences. True independence would mean that Africans had the freedom to interpret their past from the perspective of Africans rather than Euro-westerners (white people).

Here in Ghana it has become something of a fashion for Ghanaian analysts to compare Ghana’s progress as a nation with that of Malaysia, which also gained independence in 1957. In every instance that the comparison is raised, the Ghanaian commentator reaches the inevitable conclusion that by the Malaysian yard stick, Ghana comes up short in every major indicator of human and economic development (infant mortality, life expectancy, GDP). I have always been somewhat sceptical of the usefulness of these sorts of comparisons. After all, the post-colonial social, political, and economic challenges of Ghana and Malaysia respectively would have been very different.

If, however, one were bent on comparisons, another instructive juxtaposition would be with the first sub-Saharan nation to break free from colonialism: Sudan. That’s right Sudan. It is frequently reported that Ghana was the first sub-Saharan country to gain independence, but Sudan, having gained independence on 1 January 1956, had roughly a 14 month head start on Ghana. I suspect that this historical slight might have something do with the fact that Sudan is dominated by Afro-Arabs—or, to put it bluntly, due to its political and cultural ties with the Arab world, some folks tend not to count Sudan in the club of 'black African' nations. This perception raises all sorts of important questions about the politics of African identity. What is important to note for this purpose is that the Khartoum regime and the southern Sudanese rebels have only in the last few years negotiated a (very shaky) resolution ending what was one of the longest and most neglected conflicts on the African continent. More recently, the Darfurian region of western Sudan is in the throes of a humanitarian disaster, which some international observers are calling genocide. Consequently, the lives of ordinary Darfurians are extremely precarious as they continue to be squeezed by rebel groups on one side and nomadic militias (so-called 'Janjaweed'), allegedly backed by Khartoum, on the other.

Ghana for its part has experienced four military coups (at least one of which featured US and British intelligence agencies as co-conspirators), sporadic instances of state-sponsored violence, and a severe recession in the early 1980s. But, unlike Sudan, Ghanaians have never known the ravages and devastation of civil war. Ghana is today, despite the historical volatility of its central government and deep political divisions between the two major political parties, the National Democratic Convention (NDC) and the New Patriotic Party (NPP), a relatively stable nation. While it could be proven empirically, I am of the opinion at this stability has something to do with Kwame Nkrumah’s tireless efforts to propagate pan-African nationalism.

What is incontrovertible, however, is that Ghana’s independence was an achievement of Ghanaian elites, the likes of Kwame Nkrumah and J.B. Danquah, Afro-westerners such as W.E.B. Du Bois and Marcus and Amy Jacques Garvey, and thousands of well known and lesser known black diasporan radicals who identified with the African anti-colonial struggle. Most importantly, Ghana’s independence was accomplished by ordinary Gold Coasters (Ghanaians) who refused to abandon their dignity even when faced with the most overwhelming odds. In other words, Ghanaian independence was a pan-African accomplishment of great significance. This history, I suspect, is well known to many of the readers of this article.

What is less known is that the currents of revolutionary inspiration that fuelled the struggle against racial subordination did not flow in one direction across the Atlantic. Ghanaian independence specifically, and the African independence struggle generally, had concrete implications for the US black freedom movement. First and foremost, the example of Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah heading up an African nation and encouraging blacks of the diaspora to 'return' to the African continent invigorated the black American anti-racist struggle. Why, for example, are so few of us taught in school about Martin Luther King’s visit to Ghana in 1957 for Ghana’s independence ceremonies? Why are we never taught about the tremendous impact this experience had on King’s thinking? Why do we know so little about Malcolm X’s two visits to Ghana? Most importantly of all, why are we never taught that the US government viewed African American and continental African cooperation as a threat to 'national interests' (i.e. a threat to the interests of white elites and their non-elite and/or non-white collaborators), and took concrete steps to undermine this perceived threat?

I raise these questions because they are crucial if we are ever to be truly free and independent. Although we have made huge strides, we Africans are not yet in control of our destiny. Freedom and independence must be consistently demanded, tenaciously fought for, jealously guarded, and vigorously defended. I am not an Afro-pessimist. There is rarely a day that passes here in Ghana when I am not inspired by the graciousness, optimism, creativity, and resilience of Ghanaians. Indeed, my experiences have convinced me that, as John Kufuor, has affirmed, all is not 'doom and gloom' in Africa. Ghana and, as Kwame Nkrumah would have it, Africans generally, have much to celebrate. But there is still a massive amount of work to do. What will your contribution be?

* Brother Kwame Zulu Shabazz can be reached at: [email][email protected]

* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at pambazuka.org

The Socialist Party (PS), which has supported the candidature of its leader Ousmane Tanor Dieng, in the recent presidential election in Senegal, has rejected the results proclaimed by the registration and voters Commission. According to Maitre Aissata Tall Sall, campaign manager of the candidate, there was a lot of fraud and irregularities during the scrutiny.

NGOs in Swaziland are shifting the emphasis of their operations from handouts of donated foodstuffs to training households and communities to set up projects that produce food and generate income, to find a lasting solution to perennial food shortages.

Two former top executives of the state-owned Kenya Reinsurance Corporation (Kenya Re) who were sacked recently to allow investigations into allegations of financial irregularities in the company may be forced to refund Ksh8.5 million ($121,400) to the corporation.

The Liberian government has completed a short-term national poverty reduction plan to tackle the country's massive unemployment. The plan outlines four key areas of poverty alleviation, but principally centres on job creation.

FEATURES:
-In the 200th year since the end of slavery, Bro. K. Bangarah asks who really led the movement for abolition
COMMENT AND ANALYSIS:
- Tristen Taylor sheds some light on the politics of electricity supply in South Africa
- The faces are different, but the Nigerian elections are the same old story, says Nnimmo Bassey
- It is 50 years since Ghana's independence. Peluola Adewale appraises Nkrumahism
- John Bellamy Foster issues a warning on US militarism in Africa
LETTERS:
- Nunu Kidane: Somalia and the US peace movement
- Responses to mis-representation in Africa
PAN-AFRICAN POSTCARD: Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem reflects on Ghana at 50
BLOGGING AFRICA: Hotels for single women in Kenya, visas for Africans, and drying frozen fish in Nigeria
BOOKS & ARTS: Lindiwe Nkutha on Palestine and de-colonising the mind with Ngugi
AFRICAN UNION MONITOR: News on a human rights book fair

CONFLICT AND EMERGENCIES: Peace-keepers arrive in Somalia
HUMAN RIGHTS: New report on abuse of undocumented migrants in South Africa
WOMEN AND GENDER: Zimbabwean women still far from liberation
REFUGEES AND FORCED MIGRATION: 25,000 refugees have returned to DRC
ELECTIONS AND GOVERNANCE: Senegal opposition rejects poll results
AFRICA AND CHINA: China selling off Kenyan oil rights it got for free
DEVELOPMENT: Call to arms over Western governments’ farm subsidies
CORRUPTION: Liberian Ex-President charged with corruption
HEALTH AND HIV/AIDS: Male circumcision and HIV: a broader analysis is required
EDUCATION: Soaring tuition fees deprive Zimbabwean youth of education
ENVIRONMENT: Niger river in intensive-care
LGBTI: Out of the closet in Nigeria
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS: The unfinished business of land reform in South Africa
MEDIA AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: AU chief supports press freedom
NEWS FROM THE DIASPORA: Fleeing Haitian gangs set up rural bases
INTERNET AND TECHNOLOGY: South Africa’s government goes Open-Source
PLUS: e-Newsletters and Mailings Lists; Courses, Seminars and Workshops and Jobs

* Pambazuka News now has a Del.icio.us page, where you can view the various websites that we visit to keep our fingers on the pulse of Africa! Visit

A delegation of concerned press freedom fighters flew to the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to meet the continental body's Chairperson, Alpha Oumar Konaré. Mr Konaré assured the delegation of his office's support for press freedom in the continent.