Critically examine whether it was true that after a century of dependency on Europeans, Africans were ill prepared for the task of nation-building.

Answer:

It is often argued that colonial rule left Africans ill-prepared for the task of nation-building after independence, and there is considerable truth in this, for colonialism bequeathed arbitrary borders, weak institutions and few trained leaders, though both African agency and the exploitation of colonialism must be carefully weighed in any fair judgement.

The colonial handicap

• Colonial powers drew arbitrary boundaries that cut across ethnic, linguistic and cultural lines.
• They developed few political institutions and left little experience of genuine self-government.
• Education and administrative training for Africans were deliberately kept limited.
• Economies were shaped to serve the metropole rather than balanced national development.

A critical qualification

• The 'ill-prepared' argument can be used to excuse the very colonial exploitation that created these handicaps.
• Africans in fact showed real capacity for leadership and state-building against heavy odds.
• Post-independence difficulties also owed much to Cold War interference and continued economic dependence.

The record after independence

• Ghana under Nkrumah and Tanzania under Nyerere attempted ambitious national projects.
• Ethnic conflict, as in the Congo and Nigeria, often followed the arbitrary borders.
• Military coups and one-party rule spread as fragile institutions gave way.
• Neo-colonial economic ties kept many states dependent on their former rulers.
• Walter Rodney argued that Europe had actively underdeveloped Africa.

It is thus partly true that the colonial legacy left Africans poorly prepared for nation-building. But, as historians insist, this was the direct result of deliberate colonial policy rather than of any African incapacity, and the challenges of independence stemmed from the very structures that a century of European dependency had imposed.