Digesting the Pan-African Failure and the Role of African Psychology

Fanonian understanding of the Pan-African failure in establishing oneness and ending disunity/xenophobia in South Africa

Aisha Mohamed

International Relations Dept. of Global Political Studies Bachelor programme – IR103L 15 credits thesis Thesis submitted: Spring 2021 Supervisor: John Åberg Submission date: 17/05/2021

Abstract

The study insists on understanding the miscarriage of “Pan-Africanism” and the role of “African” mentality with the help of Fanon’s psychoanalysis “Black Skin, White Mask,” exemplifying the immense colonial, slavery, and apartheid psychological damages experienced by Black individuals resulting Blacks/Africans self-hate and a desire to be “white” throughout the domain of Western culture, ideology, and language. To provide accurate analysis of the “Pan-African” failure to solve increasing blacks-hate-against-blacks/xenophobia in South Africa, concepts othering, mimicry, subaltern from the critical theory (postcolonialism) were applied. Thereupon, Qualitative Content Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis relying on the theoretical concepts were conducted, which underlined how the mimicry process makes Africa's interaction an elite-driven one, oppressing African/subaltern citizens. The findings showed a need for "Black-Consciousness" and Nkrumah's “Pan-African” vision (African unification) to end colonial-mentality generating collective subordination of Subaltern/Africans. Generally, the use of Fanon’s psycho-social analysis has shown that the generational oppression, trauma, and cultural stereotypes continue to robotize and dictate African leaders and the African Union's favoritism of Western “neo-liberal” policies. It is summarized that the “Pan-African” failure is a failure of gradual unconscious “Pan-Africanists” who pledge allegiance to “Western” policies rather than rededicating themselves to durable Radical “Pan-Africanism” which is an antidote to Africa’s self-hate/xenophobia, neo-colonialism, and the robotization of unconscious Africans. Key words: Gradual Pan-Africanism, Radical Pan-Africanism, Neurosis of Blackness, Phobogenic object, Collective-unconsciousness, Abandonment-neurotic, Negrophobia, Black-Consciousness, Political unity, Neo-colonialism, Otherness, Mimicry, Subaltern. Word count: 13, 997 words

LIST OF ABBRIVIATION AFCFTA African Continental Free Trade Agreement

ANC African National Congress

AU African Union

BEE Black Economic Empowerment

BSA Black South African

CDA Critical Discourse Analysis

EEC European Economic Community

OAU Organization of African Unity

QCA Qualitative/Quantitative Content Analysis

SA South Africa

SSA Sub-Saharan Africa

UNIA Universal Negro Improvement Association

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UNGA United Nations General Assembly

USA United States of Africa

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1

2. literature Review ................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Pan-African conceptualization .................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Xenophobia and elitism in Africa .............................................................................................. 6

2.3 Re-conceptualizing Pan-Africanism .......................................................................................... 9

2.4 Postcolonial approaches: Otherness, Mimicry, and Subaltern ............................................ 12 2.4.1 Otherness, Mimicry, and subaltern ..................................................................................................... 13

3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 16

3.1 Critical discourse analysis ........................................................................................................ 16 3.1.1 Data selection ................................................................................................................................. 18

3.2 Qualitative content analysis (QCA) ........................................................................................ 19 3.2.1 Material/AU protocols ........................................................................................................................ 20

3.3 Theoretically motivated Coding System ................................................................................. 21

4. Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 23

4.1 Xenophobia and Africa’s self-hate .......................................................................................... 23 4.1.1 First dimension – Discourse as text .................................................................................................... 23 3.1.2 Second dimension – Discourse as practice ......................................................................................... 24 3.1.3. Third dimension – Discourse as socio-cultural practice .................................................................... 24 3.1.3.1 Mimicry of colonial othering ........................................................................................................... 25

4.2 Disunity and attachment to sovereignty ................................................................................. 27 4.2.1 African Unions gradual Pan-Africanism ............................................................................................. 29

4.3 Essentiality of Black-Consciousness ........................................................................................ 31 4.3.1 Nkrumah reversal of colonial othering ............................................................................................... 31 4.3.2 Solutions to neo-colonialism ......................................................................................................... 33

4.4 Discussion: disparities within the Pan-African discourse ..................................................... 35 4.4.1 Miscarriage of Pan-Africanism – An approach towards development? ............................................. 36

5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 39

6. Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 40

Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 45

1

1. Introduction Centuries of mistreatment of Africa and its inhabitants by imperialists have produced a "Pan-

African" ideology willing to emancipate and eliminate stereotypes constructing discourses

about the continent. Generally conceived, "Pan-Africanism" is a "movement/ideology" meant

to tell African's to either unite and protect themselves inside a "unification nation" under radical

philosophy or remain fragmented and accept economic/political exploitation,

crimination/subjugation, and foreign domination. Consequently, "Pan-Africanism" contains

three aspects (cultural/tradition, political/institutional, and economic), making it appropriate in

the field of International Relations (IR). Politically/institutionally, the "movement" is related

to "African nationalist” fight for freedom. Economically, it aims to theoretically/politically and

pragmatically liberate/unite Africans and combat “colonialism/neo-colonialism” – that is,

“Western” tactics of "divide and rule" instigated colonial micro-states. Culturally, it intends at

reclaiming Africa's history and dignity (Martin, 2012:57). Therefore, "Pan-Africanism" is not

just a "movement" restricted to one nation rather an "ideology" that impacts Africa's

"transnational” political practices (encourages amplified "regional-level" of integration to

“solidify” African nations “inter-state ties,” manage continental immigration, thus impacts

foreign policies). In this regard, "Pan-Africanism" is linked to IR, in a sense that it aims to

resolve "cross-border issues" to enhance African states interdependence/unity in terms of

"security/economic/political" – consequently justifies Africa's "regional integration schemes"

(Adetula, 2020:6 & Lamont, 2015:12).

Specifically, Pan-Africanism proposes different ways to build "regional governance" as it

encompasses a debate between functional/inter-governmental/gradual and neo-

functional/federal/radical standpoints to reduce the continent's inner and transnational

challenges, either "through political or economic integration" (ibid). Nonetheless, despite the

existence of "Pan-Africanism" to create oneness, the continent continues to exist in a deeply

contested conceptual and intellectual terrain resulted from its endless

dependency/division/self-loathing. This raises the puzzle; "what makes issues, such as

disunity/xenophobia and elitism persist in Africa, despite having a regional organization and

African governments that claim to pledge allegiance to the Pan-African ideology?”

Numerous scholars (Adetula et al. 2020, Forge 2003, Martin 2012) evaluate the tenacity

of African issues while taking a “radical” perspective arguing that economic unity must be

combined by “political unity” as they are inseparable. While others (Sangmpam 2018, Hodzi

2015), following the functional theory of integration, highlight that African nations should stop

2

aiming “supra-national” unity instead, they should mainly seek economic integration to secure

development. The debate approves that the "Pan-African" objectives to emancipate and reclaim

African's lost "human dignity" by developing "Black-Consciousness" seem to be stuck on the

path, and solidarity stays out of reach; meanwhile, problems (xenophobia/tribalism/disunity)

keep escalating as "neo-colonialism" and its undefeated weapon "balkanization" endure

unabated (Forge, 2003:55). Reconsidering the miscarriage of “Pan-Africanism" and the

incapacity of African leaders to promote oneness raises the research question; "How can we

apprehend the failure of Pan-Africanism to establish oneness and solve issues, such as

disunity/xenophobia in South Africa?"

Analyzing the presented dilemma, the thesis allies itself with radical Pan-Africanism,

accentuating the need for "Black-Consciousness" and radical/federal/neo-functional Pan-

African state that does not function "as an instrument" where the interest of African "elites"

and former colonial powers are verbalized (Martin 2012:120). The study argues that the

miscarriage of "Pan-Africanism" is related to gradualist's support/internalization of colonial

scripted images of Africa. Gradualists usually highlight the presence of different

“language/culture” making the construction of the "United States of Africa" (USA) unfeasible;

however, they fail to consider that both "sovereignty" and "regionalism" did not serve the

demand of Africans; therefore, "radical solutions" must be contemplated so that Africa is

allowed the possibility of implementing "policies" that reflect its history by emboldening

African leaders to apply “African solutions,” unorthodox to "imperial" principles.

The different subsections of the thesis include a literature review of “Pan-African”

discourses/xenophobia, followed by an interpretation of postcolonial concepts. The section that

follows introduces methodological discussions. In the analysis section, three types of African

psychology where two constitute the failure of “Pan-Africanism” are presented; firstly,

Africans invalidating their history due to lack of “Black-consciousness” shown in South Africa

(SA) case; secondly, Africans calming to pledge aligned to “Pan-Africanism” while upholding

colonial imposed-rules that indirectly govern Africa’s political institution; thirdly, Africans

that developed “Black-Consciousness” and escaped from “collective unconsciousness.” Lastly,

the thesis relates the “Pan-African” failure to the failure of current/gradual “Pan-Africanism”

that pelage allegiant to neo-liberal policies instead of an Afro-centric “Pan-African” ideology

that negate colonial-mentality and the negative connotations assigned to Africans.

3

2. literature Review Initially, this section analytically engages with current literature in African, IR, and political

studies that examine the failure of African elites to improve the life of Africans by using diverse

IR theories. The literature is governed by various scholars that aim to grasp why African nations

are following the path of economic disorder, suspension of human rights, political unrest, and

a breakdown of order that leads towards widespread “anomie/instability.” For instance, the

collected literature is separated into three segments; firstly, literature that targets to allocate a

“correct meaning” to the conception of "Pan-Africanism"; secondly, literature that highlights

the necessity of overcoming Africans continued desire for asking "white" men to lead their

policies thus replacing it with radical "Pan-African federal/supranational" nation that debunks

“Western” agenda and outperforms the imprudent inherited micro-states; thirdly, literature that

re-conceptualizes the contemporary "Pan-Africanism" and proposes solutions to

disunity/inferiorization/self-hate within African communities. These sub-sections in the

literature reflect the primary debate in the discourse of "Pan-Africanism" between radical and

gradual "Pan-Africanists" and the quarrels over how the continents' "inter-state integration"

should be mediated (Harshe, 1988:374).

To recall, the emergence of "Pan-Africanism" by most scholars is related to the African

American intellectuals (W.E.B. Dubios and Marcus Garvey) who played a dominant role in a

series of "Pan-African" congresses in Europe and the United States between 1900-1945 which

unites all Africans. Namely, Garvey's primary intention was to promote/advocate for “African

Nationalism” and “self-governance” with the motto "Africa for Africans" as he established the

“Universal Negro Improvement Association” (UNIA). However, in the Manchester Congress

in October 1945, a new-style of “Pan-Africanism” labeled radical “Pan-Africanism” developed

to unite Africans against the "oppressors," with the "new liberation movement throughout

colonial Africa" (Adogamhe, 2008:9-11).

The philosophy of Continental "Pan-Africanism" is attributed to the African “nationalist”

Kwame Nkrumah – hence with his support the ideology shifted from being "romanticism" and

"idealism" to one that involves pragmatic politics. However, After Nkrumah's version the

movement splintered into two crucial ideological blocs, and the "inter-state politics" in Africa

during the establishment of the Organization of African Union (OAU) was portrayed by

growing contention between Monrovia/gradual and Casablanca/radical group of states (Harshe,

1988:374). Notably, the Casablanca progressives were led by Nkrumah (Ghana) and backed

by Algeria/Guinea/Mali/Congo/Tanzania/Morocco/Ethiopia – as they vehemently resisted

racism/colonialism/neo-colonialism thus regarded African nations relation with the European

4

Economic Community (EEC) as a "neo-colonial" setup to impoverish under-developed nations

thus sustain colonial privileges/mentality in Africa. Therefore, Casablanca's radical "Pan-

Africanism" favored political unity/integration, leading to economic development, thus solving

African issues.

In contrast, the Monrovia conservatives were led by Nigeria and supported by most of

the francophone states and South Africa, Mauretania, Liberia, and stood for the protection of

the colonial inherited state, thus defended the idea of non-interference by expressing the need

for “Western” cooperation in the process of promoting development. Consequently, they took

a gradual/functional approach arguing that Africa's integration should be recognized through

economic cooperation, and this was recapitulated in the speech of the Nigerian prime minister

at the African summit conference of the OAU in Addis Ababa (ibid & Asuelime et.al 2015:77).

After a prolonged disagreement between the two groups, the radicals suffered a defeat by the

graduals. Despite the defeat, Nkrumah's radical idea endured and later on been carried by Al-

Qadhafi, who has "called for an immediate creation" of a formal federation labeled a "United

States of Africa" as the only option to fight ignorance/xenophobia/disunity/poverty confronting

the continent. Again, this was rejected by gradual states that favored a “European Union's

model” (Adogamhe, 2008:18). Despite the multiple defeats faced by radicals, the idea of

"political unity" is still relevant and are discussed by various scholars willing to comprehend

African issues.

Within the extensive Pan-African debate, the thesis associates itself with radical "Pan-

Africanism," employing concepts of "otherness, mimicry, and subaltern." The upcoming

sections highlights the selection of methodological and theoretical notions, which will be

introduced steadily when underlining the constraint and shortcomings of current literature,

allowing the thesis an opportunity to include what has been overlooked by previous researches.

2.1 Pan-African conceptualization The "Pan-African" ideology/movement/philosophy embodies a history of African resistance,

hence finds resonance in “Africans'” encounter with foreign/European aggression (Adepoju et

al., 2018, Adetula et al., 2020, Nantambu 1998, Murithi 2007). Namely, the authors specified

above are quick to underline African intellectuals' failure to "institutionalize Pan-Africanism"

and the requirement for a “distinctive” political model that can reverse imperialism's

inconsistencies, along these lines, rebuild inherited state structure.

Adetula et al. (2020:6-7) intend to ascribe standard meaning to "Pan-Africanism" by

employing "comparative historical research" and "quantitative data" gathered from the “World

5

Bank” to approve that "Africa's Continental Free Trade Agreement" (AFCFTA) would not help

Africa gain ownership of its economy – as the economic integration would only be beneficial

for nations with advanced transport infrastructure while it negatively affects poor nations

(Zimbabwe/Botswana). According to the scholars, "Pan-Africanism" is a rallying point for civil

society activists and African leaders during the struggle for independence. By implicitly using

postcolonial theory, the authors take a radical standpoint emphasizing that "Pan-Africanism"

is a geopolitical project and ideology/movement for liberating/uniting the African people

around the globe, meanwhile only "through unity can be forged an independent and

strengthened economic, social, and political African destiny." That being so, "African unity"

is relevant economically and epistemologically; hence, the AFCFTA cannot be actualized if

inequalities/disunity within the African community are not eradicated through “political unity.”

In line with Adetula et al. (2020), Adepoju et.al. (2018), argues that “Pan-Africanism” is

an “emotionally colored” concept that occurred as a result of “partiality," thus hard to assign a

correct meaning to it. Adepoju et.al. (2018) utilizes "historical, descriptive, and analytical

methods," focusing on “inter-state analysis” to examine the role of the African Union (AU)

and the current place of “radical Pan-Africanism" by employing regional theories “neo-

functionalism and functionalism.” For Adepoju, "Pan-Africanism" epitomizes the entirety of

the historical/political/spiritual and cultural of "Africans worldwide" to neglect/defeat "neo-

colonialism," thus secure Africa from dismemberment. Despite the above-mentioned authors

historical and theoretical definition of "Pan-Africanism," Adepoju (2018) offers in-depth

analysis by relating the debate of "Pan-African" intellectuals between supporters of

"supranationally" (radicals) and advocators of "inter-governmentality" (graduals) to the

regional theorists Ernst Hass that favors "federal/neo-functional" approach and David Mitrany

that takes an "inter-regional/functional" stance (Adepoju et.al, 2018:108,117). The author

concludes that Nkrumah and Hass's “supra-national” collective work implies a process

whereby all national political leaders are supported and expected to shift their "national

loyalties," political interests to a shared “supranational state” capable of solving common

problems while demanding "jurisdiction over the pre-existing nation-state."

Murithi (2007:4), contrary to others, “process traces” the history of Africa and the

formation of AU, hence, agrees with above-mentioned scholars that "Pan-Africanism" occurred

“as an act to respond” to African's struggle/oppression/exploitation and continues to be relevant

since the contemporary exploitation/neo-colonialism takes a new advanced form (paternalism)

were former “colonizers” display as a "helpful hand" with a divine intention.

6

In contrast to the scholars above-cited, Nantambu (1998:565) employs a historical

research method and postcolonialism to investigate the origins of "Pan-Africanism" and

falsifies the aforementioned authors' definition of the concept. As stated by Nantambu, defining

"Pan-Africanism" as a movement born outside Africa by Afro-American intellectuals or a

“radical consciousness” ideology born inside Africa by Nkrumah during Africa's independence

is a dysfunctional, ahistorical, and “Eurocentric” understanding of "Pan-Africanism."

Therefore, it is crucial to analyze Africans' struggle from a proper unifying, holistic, and

historical “afro-centric” approach that focuses on "Pan-African" nationalism rather than "Pan-

Africanism" to reject the Eurocentric analysis that relates the start point of the movement to

Henry Sylvester Williams, Garveyism, racism/slavery/capitalism. Essentially, "Pan-

Africanism" is indeed Africans struggle against external/foreign

oppression/domination/occupation/exploitation; meaning that Africans' struggle did not start

during slavery and colonialism; instead, African individuals rejected various diverse foreign

invaders, both Europeans and non-Europeans thousands of years ago. For example, Egypt

resisted "Shepred Kings" in 1783 B.C. and Syrians in 666 B.C. That being said, it is illogical to

define "Pan-Africanism" as a “racial” concept whose history began after Africa's confrontation

with imperialists.

Despite some scholar’s lack of in-depth historical analysis (Murithi 2007, Adepoju 2018,

Adetula et al. 2020), most authors above involve “AU’s role in regional integration” procedure

and the challenges related to AFCFTA neo-liberal economic integration to apprehend the

correct definition and the left spirit of “Pan-Africanism” thus view Nkrumah’s neo-

functional/federal/radical approach as the rational ideology which overthrows

nationalism/patriotism in favor of continentalism and people-centered approach.

2.2 Xenophobia and elitism in Africa In comparison to the scholars named earlier, others (Neocosmos 2008, Kosaka & Solomon

2013, Hodiz 2015, Forger 2003, Croucher 2010, Ukwandu 2017, Chandoke 1984) outline the

formation of elitism and nepotism in post-colonial Africa and the failure of African elite/leaders

to abandon gradual inflammatory rhetoric thus recognize the “interests” of their citizens.

To start with Kosaka & Solomon (2013), Croucher (2010), Ukwandu (2017), and

Neocosmos (2008) that mainly focus on the cumulative “xenophobic” attacks in SA, highlight

that the attacks are a result of African National Congress (ANC) minority Black/white ruling

elites’ failure to transport “the freedom gained in 1994 from the Apartheid” into economic and

social emancipation. However, despite the end of colonialism, political/economic “Apartheid,”

7

endures, as most black SA’s experience disillusionment; hence, their frustrations are directly

projected onto “African foreigners” who are scapegoated and inaccurately accused of

exploiting jobs/resources which ought to benefit dis-advantaged BSA citizens.

Kosaka & Solomon (2013), with the use of Frustration-Aggression Theory, they relate

xenophobia to intensified unemployment/poverty/globalization/migration. By carrying a field

observation/interviewing and integrating with both local and African migrants, the scholars

conclude that different political parties use “anti-migration discourse” to attract voters, thus

establish a discourse of “otherness” as black SA’s start viewing “migrants/Africans” as a source

of their deprivation. A similar argument is brought up by Croucher (2010:645), as he relates

xenophobia to the increase of illegal migrants, hence identifies South Africa as a nation full of

ethnic, linguistic, racial, religious, and cultural segregation constructing (self and other). In

regard, the country needs to work towards building a civic nation where membership and

entitlement are based on “loyalty” to the state rather than ethnic/religious groups.

Notwithstanding, when using indicators (poverty, increase of migration, unemployment)

as the causal mechanisms of "xenophobia," many questions are left unanswered and puzzling.

This is because those indicators can only account for the perpetrators' frustration, desperation,

and powerlessness but cannot explain perpetrators' specific target group; "Why only

black/African foreigners are the target group if xenophobia entails hatred against migrants?"

Although the scholars above predominantly interpret xenophobia through economic and

globalization challenges, they overlook historical factors making BSA citizens target

Black/Africans/foreigners despite the presence of other foreigners/migrants. Other scholars

Ukwandu (2017) and Neocosmos (2008:591) focus on political ideologies rather than economic

indicators and relate the failure of the ANC party to the miscarriage of current "Pan-

Africanism." Hence, argue that the gradual ideas and the racial/national/political stereotypes

adopted from colonizers/apartheid have been a complete failure to actualize the majority

inhabitants'/BSA dreams. In fact, "Pan-African nationalism" aiming to solve echoing disunity

issues (Nkrumah) was rejected as soon as the neo-liberal Western policies entered the continent,

and neither the idea of "Ubuntu, I am because you are” nor the "African Renaissance" has been

taking beyond the condition of being slogan. Similar argument is further reaffirmed by

Ukwandu (2017:52), “process tracing” the history of South Africa while engaging with

“postcolonial theory” emphasizing the ANC failure and the danger of single party

syndrome/despotism in postcolonial Africa, which become an instrument of power, coercion,

and privilege in the hands of the national elites/bourgeoisie. Therefore, xenophobia is related

8

to the ANC's inability to overcome historical issues due to a lack of reflection and imitation of

apartheid policies.

Again, Hodiz (2015) confirms the failure of "African elites" using a quantitative survey

from the "Economic Intelligence Unit (2016) index" and claims that both South Africa and

Zimbabwe have similar ruling elites that disregard the well-being of their populations.

Moreover, the ANC party created a "Black Economic Empowerment" (BEE) policy with the

help of minority whites in increasing available opportunities for majority blacks. However, the

BEE simply enabled a small black elite while most blacks remain suffering poverty/inequalities

(ibid:200 & Ukwandu, 2017:45). Likewise, African leaders (Mugabe) that regarded

corporations with the West as "neo-colonialism" approached a "Look East Policy" and

mimicked "China's development approach" to protect sovereignty and leadership position. For

instance, the "money gathered by the finance ministers" is not used to improve the conditions

of least-privileged populations as elites "use aid and the financing from China to fund projects

that prop up their political support rather than for development" (ibid:200).

Notably, Forger (2003), unlike others, utilizes "a multidisciplinary analytical and

discussional approach" to address "why things have gone wrong for postcolonial Africa" and

what escalates disunity/marginalization issues. With the use of concepts (self-determination,

African-consciousness), the scholar declares that the failure of "Pan-Africanism" resulted from

the failure of "Pan-African" forefathers to solve the disagreement between radical and

gradualist African intellectuals centered on economic transformation and nation-building,

which jeopardized continental unity. Nevertheless, African problems and the miscarriage of

"Pan-Africanism" should be recognized as an "outcome of colonialism and neo-colonialism,"

as well as a "failure of leadership among African elites" (Forger, 2003:62). Subsequently,

African gradual leaders' refusal of a "politically united continent" while supporting "Western

neo-liberal ideology" has contributed to the configuration of voiceless/inactive African civilians

in political decision-making. This is due to the "black-elite burden" that mimics "Whiteman's

burden" through "neo-colonialism," which amplifies the benefits of the "West" while ignoring

the rights/interests of Africans.

In respect, the scholar argues that Africans took a gradual path prioritizing nation-statism

governed on European Model, which for them seemed like a "real" liberation. However, in

practice, it was not a real liberation as it did not reflect Africa's history hence placed the

continent in a new period of indirect subjugation to the history of Europe; therefore, it is logical

arguing that liberation instituted its denial as Africans find themselves in a wave of self-hate

and animosity. Consequently, Africans need to revisit their past as it will motivate, inspire, and

9

reawaken “African consciousness” – and a new aspiration of "Pan-Africanism" in intellectuals

and elites' minds to respond to the innumerable concerns engendering disunity in Africa (ibid).

To do that, African’s must reach a common understanding of what “Pan-Africanism” ought to

be, and civilians should be included to reach a specific doctrine with clearly defined objectives

and goals.

Chandoke (1984) traces the history of the state in Africa and offers an original and

insightful analysis of "the nature of dominant elite in Africa" to show how African nations are

dominated by a robust, dominant sector and overpowering bureaucracy, which is a throwback

to the early colonial state. Hence, African nations are based on domination policies that create

hegemony/control over the "subject" populace, together with its crucial "militarized character"

and the system of "irreplaceable" single-party "power" and force coupled with it. Consequently,

the formation of the ruling elite in Africa is related to former colonial powers' pact with

African/gradual/elites to accept imposed colonial states and indirectly control pos-colonial

states with development projects directed outside in line with Western interests (ibid:167-176).

Thus, there is a visible "contradiction" between interests located and arranged in the "core

nations and their local elite allies" on the one hand and the majority of the "African population"

on the other hand. Chandoke concludes that colonial inheritance took the form of a "highly paid

bureaucratic class" that established new African/elites who govern, emphasize nepotism, and

control resources; suitably, transferring colonial political power was handled systematically.

To recap, literatures in this section demonstrate the failure of gradual "Pan-Africanism"

to abandon the colonial logic of domination as well as predatory and exploitive politics that are

inimical to the development of “African/political Consciousness” and unity – as African elites

have a duty to respect and stop “trading-off” the demands of the African people.

2.3 Re-conceptualizing Pan-Africanism Very limited radical/realist and gradual literature pay attention in understeering the ability of

"Pan-African" idea undertaking by AU/African states to sustain continental development or if

there is a need for an alternative "Pan-African" policy and a reconfiguration of African states

(Okhonmina 2008, Momoh (2003), Sangmpam 2018, Martin 2012, Kasongo 2003).

Momoh (2003) process traces the "Pan-African" philosophy with the use of

postcolonialism and argues that "Pan-Africanism" has come to occupy a "statist platform"

undertaking by African elites, thereby became a perverted and nebulous ideology that expresses

neo-liberal policies, which is an outcome of failure. For Momoh, there is a need to move away

from the current "Pan-Africanism," the unpatriotic "territorial nationalism" of comprador

10

modernizers, and the “political hostility” that insists on blocking people's creativity,

complicates identity, thus belittles the echo chamber of African issues (ibid:54). In other words,

Africans must deviate away from “Western” policies; hence, seek political unity (federal united

Africa) that favors a bottom-down approach to the integration process and prioritizes

promoting development and unity.

Similarly, Okhomina's (2008) traces the origins of "Pan-Africanism," but unlike Momoh

(2003), he takes an afro-pessimistic position while applying the “power transition theory.” He

argues that establishing a "United Government of Africa," will not eradicate inequality as the

existence of "regional powers" are inevitable like current gradualist “regional powers”

(Egypt/Nigeria/South Africa) that favor a top-down approach (economic integration) rather

than political unity and people-centered procedures. Hence, radical “Pan-Africanism” is fixated

in the past due to its focus on "racial similarities," which prevents Africans from taking

advantage of the globalizing world's benefits (ibid:95). Eventually, "Pan-Africanism" must be

revisited; meanwhile, its demand of unity/impartiality is not in tune with the "realist

hierarchical power structure in the international system.” According to Okhomina, three factors

are accounted for the failure/unattainability of African unity:

1) Lack of consensus and clear shared ideological structure/definition regarding the

notion of "Pan-Africanism.

2) Lack of “trust” and poor integration between African communities as they are

reluctant transferring their “loyalty to a supranational" institution.

3) Marginalization and exclusion of the voice of subaltern populations in decision-

making.

A similar standpoint has been undertaking by Sangmpam (2018), using “quantitative content

analysis” re-emphasizing the impracticality of actualizing radical “Pan-Africanism” due to

North and Sub-Saharan Africa's (SSA) language/climate/culture/geopolitical differences and

North Africa being far more developed than Sub-Saharan Africa. The scholar remarks that AU

cannot eliminate African issues by aping EU policies, and "Pan-Africanism" based on political

unity cannot be attained due to cultural/political differences. Therefore, SSA needs to create

unique organization, dubbed "SSA-centered Unifederation," with its exceptional “sovereignty”

qualified to address SSA's complex issues; thus, AU and the "Pan-African" call for “continental

unification” should be “buried” beside Al-Gaddafi.

Where we disagree with the authors of afro-pessimistic stance, however, is when they

fail to account for other alternatives (Afro-centric) policies, else then imitating the “West,”

which can make Africa develop. Hence, Kasongo (2003:60), “guided by historical analysis,”

11

provides an alternative approach while associating himself with a radical “realist Pan-African

state” which has a solid defensive military eligible to protect its inhabitants hence contributes

to the political/economic improvement of (United States of Africa). For Kasongo, the

failure/collapse of “Pan-Africanism” is connected to the “African mentality” (Africans

regarding themselves “inferior” in relation to the “white/colonizers”), thus internalizing the

idea of “dark continent invented by imperial” powers. By opposing afro-pessimistic scholars

Kasongo (2003) and Martin (2012:134) express that splitting Africa into Sub-Saharan and

Trans-Saharan Africa is a microanalysis of “Pan-Africanism” which perpetuates the European

divide/balkanization of Africa and denies the vital “revolutionary” variable (struggle) within

the notion of “Pan-Africanism.” Namely, limiting the “Pan-African struggle” to cultural and

geographical differences equates playing “into the hand of the colonizers,” hence enhancing

colonizer’s constant indirect exploitation and control.

Martin (2012) asserts that Africans must redraw the “African map” to construct a united

Africa instead of the 55 nonviable states. Hence, this can be done by either creating sub-

regional states or a "United African Nation." Martin observes that "political restructuring of

the continent is important and priority that needs to be addressed before economic reformation

can bring about the desired result." Put merely, the key to eliminating African predicaments

does not lie in economic growth/integration but political unification (ibid:63,103,139). Further,

Martin agrees with Kasongo (2003:92): that the "greatest obstacle to Africa's development and

democracy lies in the artificiality" of the colonial imposed borders that divide people sharing a

common history/traditions/culture, and experience. Therefore, the "balkanization of Africa" is

the leading cause of Africa's predicaments. The solution, says scholars, resides in forming a

"Pan-African federal state" based on "Pan-African" nationalism/identity/society which allows

African citizens to attain “Black-Consciousness” and become aware of their full “civic

obligation” and “rights.” The authors conclude the analysis by proposing five procedures

capable of forming a "Realist United State of Africa:"

1) Stop aping "European experience and their unilateral development" as Pan-

continental unity would not "ontologically" make progress out of "Western"

institutions/history/culture.

2) Revisiting the past and developing "social consciousness" to abandon colonial

mentality to reunite African's that are currently divided by colonial borders.

3) The need for a past revisitation to re-form Africa's policies in relation to its

history/culture to promote self-consciousness.

12

4) Understanding that African development is not about “economic growth” rather

political unity.

5) Decentralizing the power of despotism to establish a new "Pan-African" ideology

relying on participatory and people-centered democratic approaches.

As shown in this section, Africa’s history of resistance is prevailing as the “Pan-African” quest

is yet to be fulfilled due to gradualists advocation for the state-based elite, which upkeeps

colonial powers in Africa without the colonizers need to be physically present in the continent;

thus, Africa is being kept in the prison of endless history of oppression. As demonstrated

earlier, (United Africa) can be constituted from various alternate federal arrangements by either

restructuring the map or forming one Africa by diminishing colonial imposed borders.

However, most of the literature above relates the downfall of "Pan-Africanism" to Africa's

balkanization and the inconveniencies of free-market capitalism while relating elitism and

xenophobia to immigration policies/globalization, and the increase of socio-economic ills.

This entails that the literature overlooks the correlation between the ideology's failure and

the increase of "xenophobia/elitism" – as they fail to have historical backdrops. Secondly, the

literature rushes to characterize the attacks against "African foreigners" in SA as “xenophobia”

by utilizing economic indicators, thus disregard the history of "colonial" group relation;

therefore, the thesis contributes what has been ignored by looking into the psychology of

Africans gained from colonialism/apartheid with the help of a theoretical approach draws on

Fanonian and Spivak. To produce in-depth analysis and demonstrate that "xenophobia" and

current "Pan-Africanism" contain characteristics of "hatred" and features of "Afro-phobic" and

self-contempt, Fanon and Spivak's theorization are needed to analyze the discourse present in

African leaders' speeches thus produce a comprehensive answer.

2.4 Postcolonial approaches: Otherness, Mimicry, and Subaltern Postcolonial theory is a reflective theory that provides critical thinking towards the ongoing

rejection of "colonialism" and its repercussion. The theory is chosen as it explains the

continuation of colonialism labeled as "neo-colonialism," allowing for an alternative to

traditional IR theories' "Eurocentric" interpretation of “Third World” predicaments. Although

the theory contains diverse thinkers (Homi Bhabha, Gayatri Spivak, Edward Said), it faced

criticism for lacking a well-balanced/reliable “African” contribution into the “paradigm”

(Mondal, 2014:2965). Therefore, Spivak's utilization of “Subaltern" and “Othering” will be

supported by Frantz Fanon’s "Mimicry/othering" and Kwame Nkrumah’s (speech) to provide

an “African” postcolonial/Pan-African input thus examine "African issues" from an "afro-

13

centric" perspective. For instance, concepts "Otherness," "Mimicry," employed by Fanon in

"Black skin, white masks" (1952) and supported by Spivak’s theorization of

“subaltern/othering” in her book "Can the subaltern speak" (1988) are found to be valid. The

following section will present the relevant postcolonial concepts.

2.4.1 Otherness, Mimicry, and Subaltern

In fanon’s conceptualization, "Otherness" is constructed by the "colonizers" as it produces the

"uniqueness" of the “West.” Henceforth, the West/colonizers' sense of self, more precisely, is

a construction made through colonizers' sense of differences from "Others" (Blacks/colonized).

Furthermore, being white/Western reflects beauty/civilized/prosperous/rational/intelligent

while being black equates ugly/savage/uncivilized/unintelligent (Fanon 1986: 47,52). In "Black

skin, white masks," Fanon bitterly deals with the mechanics of "colonialism" by examining its

psychological impacts; thus, argues that since white people as colonizers assigned

"undesirable" derogatory terms to blacks' rites, habits, and customs as uncivilized/barbaric, the

categorization still makes "Whites" superior and normal humans. Simultaneously, the "Negro”

remains the abnormal "Other" that need to be made “normal” by the slightest interaction with

the whites; thus, justifies dehumanization/slavery/colonialism. For instance, Blacks/Africans

internalization of their inferiority established a traumatic belief, torment, and "phobogenic

object" (whites finding blacks as threatening and revolting concurrently), which made black

people strive to escape the negative traits ascribed to them by “mimicking” the

language/habits/customs, and behaviors of Whites/Western– to be seen as normal humans.

Fanon stresses that some blacks mimic the colonizers/West to the extent of negating the whole

of their heritage/culture/race. Therefore, "Negros” develops “Neurosis of blackness” (blacks

hating their Blackness), believing that the only way out from the "inferior position" is

mimicking, attracting, and seeking the approval of the white men in everything. In chapter five,

"The fact of blackness," Fanon proclaims that "the white world, the only honorable one, barred

me from all participation. A man was expected to behave like a man, I was expected to behave

like a […] Nigger” (ibid:50,57,114). He expresses that black people have no chance to

determine what they are by themselves; meanwhile, the "ontology" of black people is made

unattainable by the "whites" – as they decide the existence of black people and what blacks

are.

Fanon's analysis of the generational trauma and psychological damages experienced by

colonized individuals, particularly blacks, is relevant here, as it will help tackle what has been

14

overlooked by previous literature (the unmanaged colonial mentality carried by blacks). In line

with Fanon, black people “internalized” colonial discourses by identifying themselves as

"inferior" when encountering “whites.” This is shown in the thesis when reflecting on how

first, "Pan-African" ancestors (graduals), due to lack of "Black-Consciousness" distrusted their

intellect and "Blackness" by mimicking colonizers' neo-liberal ideology hence inherited

colonial state despite the availability of other alternatives (radical Pan-Africanism). In respect,

mimicry interprets African's inability to seek psychological and cultural liberation by

employing an "inward-looking ideology" aiming at "decolonizing the mind" (Martin 2012:73).

Put differently, the lack of "Black-Consciousness" means that African's experience "false-

decolonization" (thinking that they are free and independent while they undergo "neo-

colonialism" and mental-enslavement).

As stated earlier, SA can be seen as a country that experienced “colonialism/apartheid”

hence internalized the colonial discourse of "Othering" by imposing ill-treatment to other

Africans – and we-image established by colonizers shifted to we-they, where "we" signify

South Africa and "they" implies other/Africans/subaltern/inferiors (Matsinhe 2011:299). As

emphasized by Fanon, black people experience "abandonment-neurotic" since whites

abandoned them as their humanity/ontology was questioned; hence, it created the need to

mimic "Whites" and fear their "Blackness" due to the inability of finding a way to determine

their "ontology" (Fanon 1986:72). In the case of SA, the thesis argues that black South Africans

(BSA) experienced "Negrophobia" developed by Whites/colonizers. However, to escape from

their inferior position, small black elites started seeking recognition from colonizers by

mimicking colonizers' behavior; this generated the formation of minority black "elites" given

special recognition and ruling the country, which left the majority of BSA's remain carrying

the heavyweight of inferiority. In regard, most BSA's experience "abandonment-neurotic" as

they got used to being abandoned by minority whites and black elites who were granted a better

position (Matsinhe 2011:296). Due to the internalization of Black inferiority, black SA's

designed self-loathing emerging from “Neurosis of blackness” (dream to become white) which

often displays itself in "self-destructive" behavior, involving "contempt" and annihilation of

those who resemble them the most. Hence, blacks' hate against blacks can take different forms,

but in the thesis, it is shown in two ways: gradualist “Pan-Africanists” denying the existence

of a uniquely African way of development distinct from the West. Secondly, black SA’s

incompetence of viewing minority whites/black elites as the underlying cause of their

disenfranchisement.

15

Spivak's concept of subaltern (lower class) shows how superior class/colonizers' produce

its "subject" (other/blacks) and "internalizes" blacks' inferiority, which puts blacks in a

powerless/subaltern/voiceless condition; hence, it makes colonial subjects imitate whatever the

colonizer does as the colonizers' ideologies are regarded to be the norm. Therefore, for Spivak

and Fanon, the colonizers' "self-identity" is inseparable from the colonized identity as it only

comes into existence in relation to the latter. However, Spivak uses "subaltern/other" in her

book to describe how former colonizers and national elites in India subjugate Indian women;

nevertheless, its relevant in the case of SA – as the majority of blacks have historical been

silenced by “colonizers/imperialists” and are still oppressed by multiple oppressors’ core

nations, and local white/black elites in SA (Spivak, 1988:78).

Following Fanon's search for "self-consciousness" and cure for colonial mentality,

Africans/blacks must not be confronted by the dilemma, "turn white or disappear" while

upholding the inferior/subaltern position; instead, Africans should develop "Black-

Consciousness" to be able to cognizance possible ways to determine their ontology/existence

(Fanon, 1986:100 & Martin, 2012:121). The chosen postcolonial concepts have not yet been

applied in the combined context of "Pan-Africanism" and the raising “xenophobia” in SA;

however, Kasongo (2003) and Nantambu (1998) pointed out the need for “self-awareness” to

resolve disunity in Africa. By employing postcolonial concepts, the thesis contributes to the

ongoing debate of the miscarriage/failure of "Pan-Africanism" to resolve African issues by

focusing on “xenophobia” in SA and the undealt colonial psychological damages of Africans.

The above-named theoretical notions are also relevant in analyzing "African" leaders' speeches,

especially as language plays a central role in constructing "Otherness," we-they images, and

"collective identity." The following section discusses the relevant methods and shows how the

"self "and "other" are constructed in positive ways where "African unity" is encouraged to

confront colonizers/others (Nkrumah/AU protocols) and in negative ways where Africans

divide themselves (Cyril Ramaphosa, Mugabe, and Motsoaledi).

16

3. Methodology The methodology part focuses on producing a reliable answer to the research question, "How

can we apprehend the failure of Pan-Africanism to establish oneness and solve

disunity/xenophobia issues in South Africa?" For instance, the Post-colonial concepts stated

earlier have motivated the study's choice of critical discourse analysis (CDA) and qualitative

content analysis (QCA) as a method. Additionally, in the next section, data quality will be

outlined regarding the preferred four speeches of African elite leaders and three AU protocols.

Furthermore, theoretically-driven coding systems and the material's defect and strengths while

being self-reflective will be presented as a foundation for the upcoming analysis.

3.1 Critical discourse analysis Critical discourse analysis (CDA) critically aims to uncover the correlation between "text,

ideology/power/language” and social reality. The role of CDA involves examining the

construction of discourse (Pan-Africanism) while resisting “dominant discourse/power”

(West/colonizers) through the "linguistic" system (Halpern & Heath 2017:336-9). The

difference between CDA and other discourse analyses is that CDA functions as method and

theory; however, in this study it will be used as a method. It views language as the basis of

investigating “social phenomena” and revealing power imbalances. Discourse analysis as a

whole is an “interpretive study” that explores how “social phenomena” (in this case, African

unity/Pan-African discourse) are discursively constructed, hence intends at discovering the

cause of specific behavioral outcomes by investigating political actors' motivations (what

motivates African leaders’) speeches. Accordingly, since the study investigates the miscarriage

of "Pan-Africanism," it requires an interpretive understanding of African leaders/AU

behavior/ideas/believes to provide reasons for acting in a certain way.

CDA, as an interpretive study, views realities and "social phenomena" as something that

is constructed/unfixed; therefore, ontologically, it takes a "constructivist" standpoint

recognizing that the world we experience/practice is "subjectively" constructed; hence,

individuals’ behavior is best recognizable by interpreting the meanings that encourage them to

take or prefer certain behavior/action (ibid:41). Furthermore, CDA is a valid method capable

of showing how a group of people/individuals in a particular society use language to

accomplish specific goals (to unite people or disunite). Although there are different versions of

CDA, the study employs Fairclough's "social-discoursal" approach, which has been

predominant in CDA in the last decades (Fairclough 2003:16). Fairclough suggests a "three-

dimensional" approach to support analysts to realize the “interconnectedness” between

17

social/language and political. These include “discourse-as-text, discourse-as-discursive-

practice, and discourse-as-socio-cultural practice.”

Besides, the first-dimension entails studying “linguistic” features of text, speaker’s selection

of grammatical words/metaphors, describing whether a sentence is declarative or if the

spokesperson asks questions to attract the audience. This is because words and sentences

selected/formulated by the speaker tells the speaker's attitude. Hence, this study looks more

into; grammatical words (pronouns/adjectives/verb) used by the spokesperson to describe the

enemy/other/subaltern and construction of We/them image. The thesis draws on postcolonial

concepts defined above as it will assist the process of identifying specific expressions that

indicate exclusion/othering of certain groups. The second dimension, "discourse as-practice"

means the existence of different discourses and identifying whether other discourse (previous

speech/events) have inspired the spokesperson, and it includes analysis of the processes of

interpretation, production, consumption, and distribution. The third dimension, "discourse-as-

socio-cultural-practice," is concerned about the power that is constructed/supported/accepted

or rejected - it also involves explorations of how discourse operates in numerous domains of

society (Gowhary et.al, 2013:135). As Fairclough reasons, to comprehend how discourse

works one must consider whether the speech/text rejects “unequal power relation” in

community by introducing new way of social relation (ibid:22).

By using CDA and postcolonialism which are critical theories, the thesis is qualified to

do a critical textual analysis, revealing the “hidden agenda” of African/Pan-African leaders'

speeches by looking into how the "intended audience" (Africans) are described in relation to

18

the "dominant discourse" (West), thus see the correlation between the speech, the society and

the motives of the spokesperson/leaders. Fairclough emphasized that researchers must pay

close attention to pronouns/metaphors/rhetorical devices (anaphora and repetition) when

analyzing texts (ibid:125). Nonetheless, in this study, specific attention is paid to repetition,

and pronouns accounted for constructing “collective identity” while forming "otherness"

discourse.

3.1.1 Data selection Meanwhile selecting relevant data to produce reliable/valid and transparent research, the thesis

considers possible ways avoiding/minimizing selection bias. The research attempts to

understand the failure of the "Pan-African" ideology and how “collective identity” is formed

through speeches by African leaders to truly understand the type of "Pan-Africanism" preferred

by Africans which then tells whether Fanon's search for "self/Black-consciousness" has been

attained by African leaders/elites and the AU organization. This includes the "Pan-African"

Father Nkrumah, South African president and health minister, as well as Mugabe. These

selections are made to minimize selection bias also to make the finding generalizable to certain

extent. Here, generalization does not denote developing a "law-like generalization;" instead,

the aim is that the findings apply to more than certain African groups (SA) (Halpern & Heath

2017:175). Therefore, African leaders from different countries were selected to make the

finding applicable to most Africans and African mentality, thus make the study both internally

and externally valid.

For the purpose of the thesis, the speeches were selected due to their relevance to the

study regarding their focus on either "Pan-Africanism" or xenophobia. In the context of "Pan-

Africanism," Nkrumah was selected as a fundamental "Pan-African" intellectual in Africa as

his speeches (1963) deeply motivate and accentuate "Pan-Africanism" and the need for "Black-

Consciousness" thus, the study gives main focus to the spokesperson's "grammatical selection"

of words and how it constructs "collective identity" aiming at unifying Africans. Within the

same context, Mugabe’s speech is selected to view whether he attained "Black-Consciousness"

which according to Fanon free Africans from physical/mental/political/economical oppression.

Furthermore, Ramaphosa and Motsoaledi are chosen to understand the way leaders with

(colonial psychology) disregard the interest of their citizens by politicizing migration to

scapegoat Black/African immigrants in order to distract citizens from their “failure” to root out

the nation's disparities. This will help us understand the types of "Pan-Africanism" prioritized

by African leaders/AU (Unification or protecting colonial-created borders and remain

19

disunited) which then explains African mentality that constitutes the unattainability of "Black-

Consciousness." In regard, a total of four speeches were chosen, both old and contemporary

speeches', which are encapsulated below.

Date Title Spokesperson Target audience

05.24.1963 A call for oneness to the newly

Independent African States

President Kwame

Nkrumah

Africans

26-09-2007 President of the 62nd Session

of the United Nations General

Assembly (UNGA)

President Robert

Mugabe

Western nations

25-03-2019 Address on the issues related

to increased African migrants

President Cyril

Ramaphosa

Subaltern Black

South Africans

15-11-2018 Addresses African migrants’

illegal hospital attendance

Health Minister Aaron

Motsoaledi

Subaltern Black

South Africans

3.2 Qualitative content analysis (QCA)

Considering the need to establish accurate analysis, QCA will be combined with CDA to

capture the miscarriage of "Pan-Africanism" not only by focusing on leaders’ speeches but also

analyzing protocols of AU to interpret what type of "Pan-Africanism" prioritized by AU and

whether it is in line with "African unity." QCA was chosen due to its closeness to CDA as it is

a form of textual analysis that concentrates on "latent content." Unlike quantitative CA that pay

attention to "manifest content," qualitative CA analysis focuses on what has been overlooked

by Quantitative CA (qualities of entities) meanings/processes that are not experimentally

examined (Halpern and Heath 2017:346). Florian (2006:7) argues that qualitative CA emerged

from “phenomenological” and “interpretive” paradigms just like discourse analysis, with its

emphases relying on "constructivist approaches" which has a significant implication on what

is viewed as the "nature of knowledge," as it opposes the existence of “clear-cut reality” hence

acknowledges that meaning arises through interaction (ibid). As further expressed by Forger

(2006), qualitative CA does not impose limits on the researches collection of data – as it is less

lead by specific “hypotheses and categorial” framework thus helps the emergence of new

themes during coding. Therefore, the thesis favors Qualitative CA as it is frequently applied

when the “field of research” has not yet been assessed; hence, it aims to generate or test “new

hypotheses” and “theories” to understand the theme in focus. To re-emphasize, the study aims

to gain a more profound knowledge of the increase of “xenophobia” in the presence of “Pan-

Africanism” and the role of African psychology, which has not yet been investigated.

20

Moreover, the “Pan-African” ideology undertaking by AU shall be tested in terms of the

plausibleness of identifying emphasis regarding “African/political unity” in AU protocols

(ibid).

3.2.1 Material/AU protocols While using qualitative CA, the thesis uses AU's authentic online site; which is perceived as a

valuable supply, and their protocols are effortlessly available; thus, no problems had been faced

while assembling the data. The study selects three protocols: firstly, Article 3 in the “Protocol

to the Constitutive Act of the African Union relating to the Pan-African Parliament” in Malabo,

Equatorial Guinea , 27 Jun 2014; secondly, Article 10 and 14 in the “Protocol to the Treaty

Establishing the African Economic Community Relating to Free Movement of Persons, Right

of Residence and Right of Establishment” held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on 29 January 2018;

lastly, Article 14 in the “Agreement Establishing the African Continental Free Trade Area”

signed in Kigali, Rwanda on 21 March 2018. These were chosen to apprehend how “Pan-

Africanism” failed to “unite Africans” as the protocols are perceived to have “Pan-African”

insights (https://au.int/en/treaties). Meanwhile, the “protocols” are essential material taken

from AU's "original" site; the data’s shortcoming is that (Arabic/English/French/Portuguese)

are AU's desired “languages” which the protocols are written. Consequently, AU favors

“French” language, in this regard, the large part of the material is obtainable in French. Put

merely, the English/Arabic/Portuguese documents are shorter and might not include much

information which might limit the amount of info assembled. Though, the conventions

accessibility in four languages could be seen as site’s transparency, strength, and reliability

thus mirroring the continent's multiculturality; nevertheless, it is essential to note that none of

the languages are an African language which is found peculiar and surprising.

Overall, analyzing documents/speeches "is an unobtrusive method" of data gathering and

is viewed to have less bias than other "obtrusive" methods of data collection (interviews/focus

groups/ethnography) that cannot reduce bias as the researcher cannot avoid connection with

informants which makes "Heisenberg Effect" unavoidable (Halper & Health, 2017:2012). As

aforementioned, the limited focus of the understanding of “Pan-African" failure in case of

“xenophobia” in South Africa generates a limited “external validity” and a danger of "false

uniqueness," but again, this weakness has been considered by selecting different African

leaders' speeches from different nations during different time period to view African mentality

and the favored "Pan-African" type (ibid). Hence, both CDA and Qualitative CA are chosen as

they both are capable of analyzing text and show how the meaning of the text mirrors "reality."

Namely, in the section below, the study shows transparency and the coding process's decisions.

21

3.3 Theoretically motivated Coding System Ensuring the "validity" and "reliability" of the result, the analysis of the "Pan-African" failure

to solve contemporary African issues will be built on "coding systems" that are theoretically

regulated and are in line with the RQ. Two questions were used as a guideline to structure the

coding; the first relates to how (Nkrumah) established "Black-Consciousness" by emulating

and reversing colonial "Otherness" to create “African Unity” – the second aims to simplify

how other Africans (Mugabe/Ramaphosa/Motsoaledi) mimicked and accepted colonial rules;

hence, their “attachment to sovereignty” intensified the division of Africans which developed

"otherness" within the African community which will be shown in the case of "xenophobia,"

where "others/subalterns" are Black/African/foreigners. Simply put, the earlier inquires

classifies the construction of “communally and collective identity” with the use of personal

objective/possessive/reflective pronouns (I, me, my, myself), that add to the subjectivity of the

speeches thus offer speakers "personal voice which shows commitment," to gain trust and

support from the audience/Africans (Fairclough, 2003:148). These selections of

words/sentences/questions and personal morality produce collective identity, Pan-African

discourse, “Black-consciousness," reassurance, which calls for political unity - thus regards it

as the only solution of African issues. The latter inquiry examines protocols/speeches view of

"Pan-Africanism," and this is understood by repetitive words/sentences that show signs of

gradual "Pan-Africanism," (disunity, prioritization of economic growth, trust of neo-liberal

policies, and attachment to sovereignty) that are viewed as mimicry/acceptance of colonial

power and a sign of lack of “Black-Consciousness,” which shapes continents disunity.

Despite the inquiries guiding coding procedure, the themes were directly extracted from

the documents/protocols/speeches while considering the theory and the "Pan-African"

literature. Several themes have sub-themes due to the emergence of new other themes (harsh

words, reassurance). In terms of coding units, the study focuses more on “sentences/words and

phrases” related to the themes laid out in the table underneath. This shows the research's

transparency, reproducibility and “reliability,” but one problem might be the “inevitability” of

“researchers'” involvement during coding, which does not reduce/decrease “subjectivity” due

to "impressionistic" interpretations (Halpern & Heath, 2017:350). The coding was done

successfully/less stressful with the use of NVivo20, a "qualitative data analysis" software with

themes/codes which is qualified for analyzing text-based sources

(speeches/documents/interviews) (qsrinternational 2021). Hence, the established themes for

both speeches analyzed as CDA and protocols as QCA are shown below as a table.

22

Theme name How many times it was

mentioned (across all

speeches and protocols)

How many spokesperson

and protocols mentioned it

(4 speeches 3 AU protocols)

Accountability of Western states 6 1

Communality and collective identity

- Enemy/others

• Harsh/hateful words

- Imperative sentence

- Objective pronoun

- Personal pronoun

- Possessive adjectives

- Reflexive pronoun

11

22

7

9

24

58

60

3

5

4

2

2

1

3

3

1

Declarative sentence 22 1

Descriptive questions 4 1

Disunity, discourse of acceptance

- Prioritization of economic growth

- Trust of neo-liberal community

• Appreciating South Africa

• Attachment to sovereignty

21

9

5

1

8

3

1

1

1

2

Expressing gratitude and obligation 2 2

Interrogative questions 4 1

Pan-African discourse of resistance

- Black Consciousness

- Political unity

7

9

39

4

4

3

Personal morality

- Reassurance

8

2

1

1

Self-reflection questions

- Raising awareness

12

11

1

1

Solutions to neo-colonialism

- Science and technology

- African intellectuals

36

4

1

4

1

1

Ultimatum demand 3 1

Othering/ Subaltern

Mimicry

Reversal of Othering

23

4. Analysis Based on the methodological and theoretical reflections made previously, the

miscarriage/failure of "Pan-Africanism" to solidify African solidarity, thus reconstructing a

sense of shared destiny to achieve the ideology's objectives, will deeply be studied in answering

the research questions; "How can we apprehend the failure of Pan-Africanism to establish

oneness and solve issues, such as disunity/xenophobia in South Africa?" Hence, the data

collected (speeches, AU protocols) and the theoretical concepts will be applied to develop

reliable analysis. However, this part is compartmentalized into four sections examining three

types of African psychology; Firstly, xenophobia and Africa's self-hate will be investigated by

looking into the construction of "enmity" and "otherness" within the African community (SA);

Secondly, “attachment to sovereignty” favored by Mugabe and AU's gradual "Pan-African"

ideology; Thirdly, the need for "Black-Consciousness" by Nkrumah; and lastly, the thesis

discusses how the "Pan-African" failure can be set into the context of African mentality and

favoritism of “gradual/colonial” ideologies, which are inimical to the well-being and

emancipation of African's. The thesis has chosen these sub-sections to reflect the three

dimensions of CDA and the dominant themes in the discourse established during coding.

4.1 Xenophobia and Africa’s self-hate

4.1.1 First dimension – Discourse as text During South Africa’s presidential election in March 2019, current president Ramaphosa held

a speech competing with other South African elites to become the president. By directing the

speech to the Black South African (BSA) audience, who are the least-advantaged/subaltern

group, to show his support for them and his intention to end their struggle by establishing

beneficial policies. He employs grammatical words, personal pronouns “we,” objective

pronouns “us,” and imperative words “must” relate to the themes “communality and collective

identity,” which constitutes the construction of “enmity” and “otherness.” Ramaphosa carefully

identifies what causes the disparities/poverty experienced by the majority BSA and stresses

that: “Everyone just arrives in our townships and rural areas and sets up businesses without

licenses and permits. We are going to bring this to an end. And those who are operating

illegally, wherever they come from, must now know” (Chigumadzi, 2019).

This statement shows how Ramaphosa explicitly relates (poverty/unavailability of

opportunities/jobs for BSA’s) to the increase of “illegal immigrants” who, according to him,

“steal” jobs by “set[ting] up businesses” illicitly. In attempt to increase audience’s

support/trust, he attempts to bring “commonality” and shared intimacy emphasizing how he

24

and his party will bring this to end with the help of citizens, thus a “moral value" is embedded

in the genre/discourse. He also encompasses a seemingly “nationalist” expression and

“attachment to sovereignty” which approves his concerns for the safety of South African’s by

stating that: “If they are undocumented when crime happens, you can’t even get these people…

[This is about] the safety of the country. It is not being opportunistic” (ibid). For instance,

Ramaphosa choice of sentences/words constructs we-they "otherning" image. In this case,

"we/our" means (SA community), and "they/those" are other/Subaltern/African foreigners,

which the ANC party will fight to “secure” the populations' interest.

3.1.2 Second dimension – Discourse as practice Considering Fairclough's second dimension, language can change behavior and how people

view things (Gowhary et.al, 2013:135). Political and economic discourse are present as

Ramaphosa politicized “migration” by accusing “African foreigners” for increasing

poverty/unemployment. Hence, formed his language to deliver a “hatred” massage to attract

voters and hold the desired political spot; thus, "discourse-as-a-practice" displays how SA

citizens changed their perception of African/foreigners. Hereafter, Ramaphosa draws on other

discourses, such as the health minister Aaron Motsoaledi who, in 2018, held a speech criticizing

illegal migrants whom he described as the ones that increase diseases. In an attempt,

Motsoaledi visualizes the emergence of diseases and the incapability of BSA citizens to attend

hospitals as “African migrants'” fault – as he at the same time expresses the need for the country

to re-examine its “immigration” policies, calming: "Our hospitals are full, we can't control

them…. [migrants] cause overcrowding, infection control starts failing." Another similar

discourse shaped Ramaphosa's speech is Zulu King Goodwill, which in 2015 made statements

that African/savage/horrified foreigners are changing the "nature" of SA society with their

businesses by enjoying the wealth that locals should exploit (Sahistory.org, 2018). This shows

how migration is “politicized” and used by “African elites” to scapegoat

African/foreigners/expatriates to justify the colonial/apartheid inherited system.

3.1.3. Third dimension – Discourse as socio-cultural practice The third dimension shows the correlation between “text/speech” and “reality” and the

rejection or the acceptance of dominant discourse. Initially, due to the visibility of acceptance

of dominant colonial discourses in SA leaders’ speeches, “xenophobic” sentiments have been

adopted by BSA citizens and hate against “migrants” has spanned the “political spectrum” –

thus established a heightened distrust between Black Africans (Steenkamp, 2009: 439-442).

25

After each politician/elite holds a speech blaming “African migrants” and contributing a

discourse of fear/discrimination, xenophobic attack occurs, killing mainly “African foreigners”

whether they stay permissible or unlawfully. In accordance with Spivak, “othering” is a process

of demarcation by which a line is drawn by minority or majority elite groups to distinguish

powerful/superior and less-powerful/inferior groups in the community, thus enable

dehumanization of the weaker/subaltern group (Jensen, 2011:62). Conversely, in SA the

procedure of “othering” has been constituted by the “white” ruling elites and later mimicked

by “African elite” leaders who represent the voices of “subaltern” BSA, thus make them view

“African foreigners” as their enemies. Hence, speeches held by Ramaphosa/Motsoaledi, and

King Zulu motivated the BSA population to loot/destroy businesses owned by “African

foreigners.” Consequently, hundreds of black/Africans were killed, 35,000 became displaced,

while thousands were forced to return to their birth nation. In this regard, Black/African

migrants have experienced “systematic xenophobia” from state authorities (elite/leaders) and

citizens and are continuously labeled “amakwerekwere” meaning “unintelligent” people with

“unintelligible” language, dirty, and spread diseases (HIV) across the country (Steenkamp,

2009:443) In this regard, it is evident that superiority/inferiority colonial rules/discourse have

been accepted and are present in the African society.

3.1.3.1 Mimicry of colonial othering Employing Fanon's "otherness and mimicry," it is evident that SA did not recover from

historical trauma as citizens' action towards "Africans/foreigners" remains mirroring biological

and race attributes established by imperialists. Due to that, foreigners in the country receive

different “treatments” depending on their race. For example, European/white illegal

"immigrants" who have overstayed their “entry permits” are not ill-treated like

African/foreigners. This can be related to the systems/discourses created by "White/Europeans"

during slavery/colonialism/apartheid and words

(evil/savages/dirty/animals/unintelligent/wretchedness/death/war/famine/immorality) were

used to describe blacks –subjecting them into legalized ill-treatment. For Fanon, this harmed

Blacks' psychology as they accepted the roles that have been given to them, which equates and

computes to anything terrible. This made Blacks "phobogenic object" stimulus to “anxiety”

hence face "neurotic conditions," which makes them understand that "one is not black without

a problem," therefore BSA’s seek to be white (ibid, Fanon, 1986:153,192,214). As-a-result, the

colonial "we" and "they" image is today “mimicked” by the BSA’s viewing themselves

superior in relation to other "Blacks/Africans." As Fanon stressed, Black peoples' unreflected

26

experience of oppression established "collective-unconsciousness" were blacks view

themselves as an "object" and carry what has been described as the “burden of original sins of

their skin;” hence, when they encounter with "white men" they try to flee from their

"Blackness" mimicking colonial “Afrophobic” acts by acting superior in relation to other

“Blacks.” This explains the intensified disunity among the African community/SA in which

Black/foreigner is labeled "amakwerekwere" and "white" foreigners are put on a pedestal and

receive more respect because they are according to "BSA" the creators of wealth (Matsinhe,

2011:296). Therefore, colonial established-outsider relations, and SA/blacks continual

interaction with "whites," makes SA/blacks perceive themselves as civilized/lighter/superior

and more intelligent than other Black African/subalterns. Thus, a situation where "white/SA

citizens" target/exploit "BSA" and BSA's in return seek to escape from their

Blackness/inferiority by targeting/exploiting other Black/Africans are constituted.

Due to the historical silencing and "social/collective unconsciousness" experienced by

majority BSA’s, whiteness becomes "identical" with BSA, which makes the "colonized"

BSA’s idealize themselves in the "image" of the colonizer, thus produce the ideology of SA

"exceptionalism," which is created in the "bizarre" idea, that SA/blacks have interacted with

whites, have lighter skin and are civilized than the rest of Africans. Put merely, SA/Blacks

recognize themselves as whites that are trapped in a black body (Neocosmos 2008:591).

Consequently, Identification with the oppressor is inseparable from "self-destruction" as they

both are the features of the "colonized self." Fanon explains how "Collective-unconsciousness"

and blacks distrusting their Blackness is inevitable, writing that, "I am a white man.

For unconsciously I distrust what is blade in me, that is, the whole of my being. I am a Negro-

but of course I do not know it, simply because I am one" (ibi:191). This shows how colonizers

smashed the "ontology" of blacks and how colonial "mimicry" is unavoidable since past and

current indirect persecution incapacitates the mind of the oppressed, hence invites self-loathing,

instituting asymmetrical power making one aim at damaging others/subalterns who "resemble"

oneself. From this outlook, African "Black/foreigners" are dreaded/distrusted/disliked/killed

not because they are entirely different from BSA slightly because they “resemble” the

oppressed/subaltern BSA's (ibid & Matsinhe, 2011:296-302).

Furthermore, when applying Spivak’s concept “subaltern,” the same narrative is

epitomized that the post-apartheid government (ANC) did not improve the living standard of

all Blacks rather represent the voice of BSA subalterns by making them unconscious thus

feeding them with “anti-African” sentiments to silence them thus cover inequalities within the

nation. In consonance with Spivak, the historiography of SA has always been dominated by

27

colonialist/Apartheid/elitism, which made bourgeoise-nationalist African/elites mimic colonial

“othering” and stabilize a “neo-colonial” hierarchical community. Consequently, the SA

community has “macrostructural” dominant groups making (blacks-hate-against-blacks)

reasonable.

1. Superior “foreign” groups (West/former colonizers).

2. Superior “indigenous groups” on the “regional” and all-SA level (white/SA elites).

3. Superior “indigenous groups” at “local” levels (black/SA elites).

4. The “indigenous” subaltern group (majorly BSA).

5. Subaltern “foreigners” (Black/African migrants).

It is important to note that each group subjugates the group below; hence, the first group never

experiences oppression but has the absolute capacity to oppress all other groups – and the group

which is inferiorized/abused by all is the last one (Spivak, 1988:71,79,92). According to

Spivak, subaltern consciousness is essential, and BSA's are the subaltern group that experience

"collective-unconsciousness" and support elite SA policies that work in favor of former

colonizers/West and white/black/SA elites. For Fanon, this cycle of subjugation/exploitation

cannot end as long as the "Negro” is a victim of "white" civilization; therefore, Blacks/South

Africans must develop "self/Black-Consciousness" which can be gained by reflecting on past

experiences to end "collective-unconsciousness" which appears from mimicry and

identification with the oppressor (Fanon, 1986:221). Overall, there is a need for "psychological

liberation" due to the dominant discourse of colonialism/apartheid regime policies, which

succeeded in instilling endless dependency and deference towards whites, identity-confusion,

"Negrophobia," and a resigned apathy about the future in the African/Black man's psyche.

Hence, to end these requires an “Afro-centric” solution and "inward-looking" policies.

4.2 Disunity and attachment to sovereignty Another outstanding argument explaining the miscarriage/failure of “Pan-Africanism” is

African political elites’ “attachment to sovereignty” and their failure to imagine an alternative

conception of “statehood” independent from the “European model” (Martin, 2012:137).

Mugabe identifies Western communities’ bad intension and hindrance of Africa’s development

but fails to develop full “self/Black-Consciousness.” In the speech of the 62nd Session of the

UNGA, Mugabe expresses gratitude/obligation to the president Mr. Ban Ki-Moon and shows

appreciation to the former president. However, trust for the neo-liberal policy is present in the

speech and is expressed through a mixture of “disunity,” “appreciating South Africa,” and

“attachment to sovereignty” themes. Mugabe states that “Zimbabwe will continue to support

28

the West in dealing with” international issues. He continues claiming that Zimbabwe is a

“sovereign” state capable of “dealing with” its own issues, which approves his support for

upkeeping colonial inherited states (Mugabe, 2012). This is identified clearer when saying,

“Zimbabwe stands ready to play its part” by advocating for social development, economic, and

human rights programs designed by the “West” to achieve development. Furthermore, “Black-

Consciousness” and the danger of “neo-colonialism” is expressed by mentioning indirect

“western” control in African policies, such as the idea that the “West” interest and deliberations

for “economic/racial/Eurocentric” ideas appear to be stronger than “their adherence to the

principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UDHR) (ibid).

Mugabe establishes “Othering” discourse and seems to develop some consciousness by

“holding the West accountable” stating that, “The West still negates our sovereignties by way

of control of our resources” (ibid). However, what has been contradictory in Mugabe’s

attainment of “Black-Consciousness” is that he says that Africa “thought the West

[colonizers]” about “democracy” thus refuses to learn human rights principles from “Mr. Bush”

and other “Western” leaders who colonized and still kill inhumanly – as they have “much to

atone for and very little to lecture [Africa] on” the UDHR. Although Mugabe demonized the

“West” and reiterated that he “will never allow a regime change authored by outsiders,” he still

“trusts the neo-liberal policies” and is “attached to sovereignty” while distrusting the capability

of his “Blackness” and relying on “Afro-centric” policies (ibid). Nonetheless, it appears that

he did not fully develop “Blacks/self-consciousness” as he insists on aping “Western” policies.

Findings: Building on Fanon's argument, Africa still retains the fundamental features that

characterized the "colonial states" and African leaders (Mugabe) tend to support/uphold these,

absolutism, arbitrariness, social marginalization, political domination, economic exploitation,

and cultural dependency which is only beneficial for African elites/West (Martin,

2012:109,137). For Fanon, one cannot neglect the oppressor while upholding the oppressor's

policies, which is why Mugabe, just like SA leaders, exists in "collective-unconsciousness"

due to his support for single-party rule and neo-liberal policies/sovereignty, which neglects

citizens' demand. Hence, the failure of "Pan-Africanism" is related to the failure of African

leaders to reject “colonial rules” thus generate economic/political independence through a

process of self-centered/autonomous, and self-reliant “afro-centric” development, which could

only be achieved when mental liberation, “Black-Consciousness" that comes from "inward-

looking" and “people-centered” policies rather than despotism is fully attained.

29

4.2.1 African Unions gradual Pan-Africanism Likewise, AU’s interpretation of “Pan-Africanism” as a “utopic” community that can never be

reached can also be accounted for the miscarriage of the ideology. This reasoning is eminent

in AU protocols that confirm the double-moral standard of AU policies which is peculiar – as

AU “theoretically” favors radical “Pan-Africanism” while it pragmatically employs gradual

“Pan-Africanism” that deny the need for “African Unity.” Such reasoning is apparent in AU

“protocols” where radical “Pan-African” statements are made to establish “commonality” and

“collective identity” in the African community. For example, in Article 3 “protocols of

Constitutive Act,” AU objectives of “Pan-African” parliament are outlined: “Streng[then]

continental solidarity […] and build[ing] a sense of common destiny” which is a “radical”

viewpoint that calls for “unity” of all Africans as they share “destiny” (AU, 2014). It is also

delineated that AU’s “Pan-African parliament is informed by a vision to provide a common

platform for African people” so that they are more involved “in decision-making” to understand

continental matters (ibid). A similar narrative linked to the themes of “commonality/collective

identity” and “political unity” is found in the protocol of “free movement of people” identifying

the continents need for adopting “African passport,” which all African citizens should have as

it will be based on continental and international policies. In article 14, it is mentioned that

citizens of the continent “shall have the right to seek and accept employment without”

experiencing “discrimination” in other parts of the continent. For instance, the protocols focus

on Africa’s shared destiny, and the essentiality for “African Passport” to eliminate colonials

divide and conquer tactics approves the existence of radical “Pan-African” discourse in AU

policies that views “political independence” as a prerequisite for “economic independence”

(AU, 2018).

The protocol of “free trade agreement” utilizes a discourse of resistance pinpointing the

necessity to “create a single market for goods, service, facilitated by movements of person […]

in accordance with the 'Pan African' vision of an integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa

enshrined in Agenda 2063” (AU, 2018). While the radical “Pan-African” discourse plays a

vital role in developing solid African policies, the danger of gradual “Pan-Africanism” remains

unchallenged pragmatically. In the protocols of Constitutive Act (article 3) solution to

colonialism/neo-colonialism are identified which includes “giv[ing] voice to African people

and diaspora,” disseminate awareness of “Pan-African” objectives to promote

stability/peace/security (AU, 2014). However, when analyzing the instance of “xenophobia” in

SA, it is evident that there is a lack of intercultural communication and the fear that institutes

“xenophobia” derives from the “mimicry” of colonial rules generating ignorance and lack of

30

information and integration of African communities (Mogekwu, 2005:11). The xenophobic

incidents elucidate that Radical “Pan-Africanism” mainly holds a theoretical relevance as, in

reality, African’s do not recognize themselves as people that share culture and destiny.

Furthermore, "xenophobia" in SA impacted SA's relation with the wilder African

community. The “xenophobic attack” in 2019 put the relation between the two regional powers

(SA/Nigeria) in jeopardy; hence, other African nations imposed the idea to sanction SA due to

the repeated “xenophobic attacks.” Consequently, Nigeria and Zambia closed the “SA

embassy” and all SA-owned businesses; additionally, Nigerian top musician the African giant

(Bruna Boy) announced to boycott SA rejecting to visit the country. The Madagascar “football

federation” refused sending any "football team” to play in SA, and Tanzania “suspended” all

flights to SA (BBC, 2019). However, it is equally evident that Radical “Pan-Africanism” is

restricted to its rhetorical use; meanwhile, African people are incapable of recognizing the

“oneness” of Africa as their “attachment” to colonially imposed borders have become

“verifications” of African identities. This clarifies AU’s association with the gradual school of

thought and its “mimicry” of the EU model; thus, it fails in solving “xenophobic issues” due to

its support of “state sovereignty,” inviolability of borders, and non-interference in the internal

affairs of states which makes it unable to intervene SA policies and abide by radical protocols

(Martin, 2012:61). In agreement with Fanon/Nkrumah, African states, including AU, prioritize

"sovereignty" when Africa's “political unity” is mentioned; however, when dealing with

"Western" states and today's China, their so-called "sovereignty" is practically ribbed (Kah,

2016:157).

Such an interpretation attests that African’s experience different freedom than they

desired; thus, the “Pan-African” movement lost its actual definition. As Fanon maintains, any

liberational movement must have an explicit doctrine with clearly “defined” objectives,

“blueprints” and “explicitly” explained to the people in order for people to know what their

objectives are and how they should reach there. However, considering African

leaders/AU/xenophobia, it is evident that current “Pan-Africanism” does not have clear

objectives and African people are unaware of what their governments are up to and where they

are heading. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that the greatest danger that endangers Africa is

the absence of clear “ideology” in Africans' minds; hence, alignment with gradual "Pan-

Africanism" will not establish developed/independent Africa. Subsequently, AU, African

leaders, and SA citizens experience “collective-unconsciousness” thus need to rededicate

themselves to the radical “Pan-African” agenda to develop durable solutions to their

unconsciousness and the prison of history.

31

4.3 Essentiality of Black-Consciousness Since the previous subsections have analyzed that Being black is not mainly a matter of

pigmentation rather a reflection of mental attitude. The African mind suffers from constant

repression, making it view proximity to “whiteness” as civilization/superiority and insist on

appreciating the oppressors’ ideologies while disregarding own ability to understand own

issues, thus replicate the oppressor’s behavior by oppressing subalterns in the community

resembling them. In the upcoming subsections, the need for “Black-Conciseness” will be

identified by Nkrumah and Fanon. In this regard, how Nkrumah represents himself, the people

of Africa, and his perceived enemies (West), which reverses the colonial rules by “othering”

the “West” and constructing African “collective identity,” will be identified.

4.3.1 Nkrumah reversal of colonial othering 4.3.1.1 Discourse as-text Nkrumah, in his speech, identifies how Africa's "decolonization" became a "false

decolonization" as Africa traversed the road of conflict and fragmentation while obeying the

command of colonizers. Nkrumah begins with the use of “personal pronouns”: "I am happy to

be here" and very carefully puts himself in a rebellious/warrior place by taking advantage of

his leadership position; he adds; "I bring with me hopes and fraternal greetings […] our

objectives is African Union now. There is no time to waste. We must unite or perish"

(consciencism, 2016). By employing "personal pronouns" and "possessive adjective"

I/We/Our, aiming at instituting communality, Nkrumah depicts himself as a leader who

respects the continent and has Africa’s "absolute interest" at heart to attain a broader audience

(African's). Again, the "imperative" term "must," which regurgitated throughout the speech,

shows that Africa has only one option (ultimatum demand), which is to "unite," and if not, it

will "perish" by experiencing misery.

4.3.1.2 Discourse as-discursive practice (political discourse) Initially, Nkrumah held the speech during Africa's decolonization; therefore, the notion of

"unity" based on principles of traditional “Afro-centric” policies represents Nkrumah's

”ontological” foundation and the political discourse present in the speech is a way to find

solution to African problems. As Nkrumah stated: "African unity is, above all, a political

kingdom which can only be gained by political means." This means that Africa's

economic/social development can only be reached within ”political kingdom" attained through

32

radical "Pan-Africanism." Reflecting on Fanon’s ideology, Nkrumah eloquently calls for

original “African political thought,” which should be established “outside” of “Europeans

beaten tracks” (Martin 2012:107 & consciencism, 2016).

4.3.1.3 Discourse as-socio-cultural practice Re-considering Fairclough’s third dimension, “discourse-as-a-sociocultural practice,” it is

noticeable that Nkrumah employs a “resistance discourse” to dismantle a “dominant” discourse

(Western), rejecting imbalance of power, paternalism, and invites the audience (Africans) to

replace “Western” interpretation with an “Afro-centric” one. To unite African’s Nkrumah

portrays himself as a “hero,” highlighting that Africa’s delusional independence does not end

the struggle of “neo-colonialism.” In line with Nkrumah/Fanon, Africa’s decolonization

introduces a new face of colonial struggle (neo-colonialism). Hence, to develop the African

“society” in terms of shared history/struggle/culture unhindered, Africans need to

“crush/humiliate” neo-colonialist “controls” and “interference” – as it has “grown” and

continue growing “stronger, ruthless and dangerous.” Therefore, Africa’s economic

development “demands” eradication of the “neo-colonial” legislative system (consciencism,

2016). By describing colonialism/neo-colonialism with “harsh” terms

(interference/control/ruthless/dangerous) and commanding Africans to “humiliate” and

“crush,” it can be said that Nkrumah systematically utilizes “enmity,” “war” and “conflict”

metaphors by reversing the colonial system of “othering” where in this context Nkrumah

constitutes “collective identity” (Africans) by “othering” the “West.” In the process of

promoting “commonality,” Nkrumah puts “Africans” against what he deems to be diabolical

(colonialism/neo-colonialism) thus declare “war” against it. Therefore, “othering” (we-they

image) in Nkrumah context entails Africans/superior/heroes against the “other”

subaltern/forces of bad (colonizers).

Nkrumah's usage of "war/enmity" symbol is a way to outlook "imperialism" as

detrimental to the continents; meanwhile, imperialists are "desperadoes" that should be

defeated with achievement of "political unity" as the emancipating “weapon.” Consequently,

the usage of “pronouns” can be analyzed as a way which helps forming a sense of loyalty, to

increase Africans self-esteem – and recall patriotic feeling (oneness) by imposing a “duty” on

African's to defeat the immoral forces (neo-colonialists). It is also noticeable that the verb

"demand" and modal verb “must” are used as an “intensification” tactic to extremely demonize

“imperialists” by offering them a “negative” image, thus encourage the people of Africa to free

themselves from endless despotism (ibid). Nkrumah, following Fanon, views de facto

33

“independent” African states' economic/political system as de jure guided from outside by the

“West” (Boogaard, 2016:50).

Furthermore, Nkrumah repeats that “African unity” is not mainly about “economic

integration” rather “political kingdom.” To get the attention and the sympathy of all Africans,

Nkrumah uses reflective pronouns; “we ourselves have failed to make use of our [resources]”

and declarative sentence reassuring that; “Nothing will be of avail, except the united act of a

united Africa.” He even asks audience descriptive question; “What are we looking for in

Africa?” (ibid, Martin 2012:64), which typifies that he intended to “Unite” African’s by

ascribing negative personification to (West/colonizers) to infuse African minds with dignity

and pride; hence, remind African’s that they must not allow being misused by former colonizers

in their presence of “false decolonization” as shown in the case of SA leaders/citizens.

Findings: It is reasonable to state that Nkrumah makes “West” the others/subaltern to reclaim

“African dignity.” According to Fanon (1986:218), Nkrumah escaped from “collective-

unconsciousness” as he understood the necessity of an “African nation” defined by Black-

Consciousness-identity based on Africa’s history and culture of resistance against de-

humanizing beliefs.

4.3.2 Solutions to neo-colonialism Apart from resisting the danger of foreign domination in African affairs, Nkrumah (like Fanon)

proposes a solution to Africa’s disunity. The rational way of responding to African problems

involves “political unity” through radical “Pan-Africanism” to secure the “stability and

tranquility” of Africa to promote material well-being and social justice (consciencism, 2016).

Furthermore, he reassures Africans ability to design their destiny/policies by taking advantage

of continents' resources without mimicry behavior. Moreover, with the utilization of personal

morality, Nkrumah calls out African leaders who cheated African citizens that supported them

during the fight for independence/apartheid, thinking that "they could cure the ills of the past,"

which for him cannot be cured "under colonial rule." Nkrumah asks self-reflective questions:

"How […] can related communities and families trade with and support one another

successfully if they find themselves divided by national boundaries and currency restrictions?"

to awaken Africans from "collective-unconsciousness." Overall, Nkrumah repetitively

exemplifies that Africa can only “arrest the danger” of “neo-colonialism” through “Black-

Consciousness” and “mutual understanding” of the fundamental issues to “render existing

boundaries obsolete and superfluous” (ibid). Meaning that xenophobia/tribalism, which

increases the level of African unconsciousness can be healed through “political unification” as

34

it is believed to solve the “festering sore of boundary disputes between … various states.” For

Nkrumah, five things will lead to the attainment of supra-national "united Africa functioning

under a union government; “science/technology, free trade, common citizenship, currency, and

an African central bank." The objectives of "continental union" are to establish unified

military/air/land/sea, standard foreign policy, and defense strategy making Africa transform its

economic structure from "poverty" to "wealth" and from dependency to the "satisfaction of

popular needs" (ibid & Dodoo 2012:87). This again entails that the objectives of “African

governments/people” and “neo-colonialists” are immediately adverse, for whereas the

development/strength of Africans lies in their cohesion, the “strength” of “neo-colonialists”

lies in Africa’s disunity; hence, through the continued African nations hyper-individualism,

African states will not accomplish adequate development. Such an understanding level of

African issues indicates that Africa needs more than delusional independency. As clarified in

the previous sections, African's mimic and accept everything the "West" do to them, but when

it comes to "African Unity" and brotherhood, the only thing they recall is protection of

"sovereignty."

Consequently, Nkrumah is considered as an African leader who emancipated himself

from the twin-danger of “collective-unconsciousness” that institute “Negrophobia” and self-

hate by developing “Black-Consciousness” which for Fanon involves rebuilding and

reconditioning the mind of the oppressed in a way that forcefully makes them demand their

right and reclaim what belonged to them to redefine their “ontology” (Fanon 1986: 211,212).

In line with Fanon, Spivak (1985:71) states that, it is essential that “oppressed subjects speak,

act,” and gain awareness – as it leads to utopian community. Fanon attests, "Blacks/Negros”

are comparisons as they are constantly “preoccupied” with “self-evaluation” comparing

themselves with one another, looking for proximity to "whiteness," asking which one of them

is “less-intelligent, blacker, and less-respectable.” Due to constant comparison, some

inferior/blacks develop “superiority complex” thinking that they are intelligent close to

"whiteness" thus acquired worth/superiority giving them the right to behave like

"whites/masters" and oppress their inferior/subaltern fellow Blacks by manipulating and

representing their voices (ibid). This reflects on how African leaders/AU distrust their

intelligence and rely on "Western" policies, which are inimical to their subaltern/African

citizens' interest. Therefore, the thesis associates itself with Fanon/Nkrumah, who can be

categorized as “radical pan-Africanists,” that understood how colonial/slavery psychology

intensifies African disunity. Hence, Africans/Blacks need to recognize that “the most potent

weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed” to make the oppressed

35

unconscious about the subjugation which he/she experience (ibid & Martin, 2012:121).

Therefore, it is argued that gradualists AU/African leaders' isolationist way of approaching

African issues need to be reconsidered.

4.4 Discussion: disparities within the Pan-African discourse Having analyzed relevant discourses and themes, which have provided an understanding of the

“Pan-African” failure by relating it to the African psychology, the clear argument in the

findings is that the failure of “Pan-Africanism” is a failure of gradualist/neo-liberalist to resist

the dominant “Western” discourse and institute a “united identity” against a common form of

oppression. The format figures below justify the reasoning behind the findings. Although it is

reasonable to argue that SA citizens saw how slavery justified dehumanization of blacks also

experienced colonialism/apartheid, which increased one’s fear of those resembling him as he

reached the stage of “Negrophobia” mimicry and negation of Blackness. However, it cannot

be said that nations with experience of colonialism/apartheid develop extreme colonial-

mentality and inflict ill-treatment to anyone resembling them, for Mugabe also experienced

colonialism/apartheid but developed a mild colonial-mentality. Meaning that he understood the

danger of “neo-colonialism” to the extent that he wanted to fight it with colonial imposed

ideologies; hence, his phobogenic-object was limited to distrusting black intellect and seeing

goodness within the imperialist imposed rules.

Namely, due to historical factors that chain Blacks with an unbearable insularity, Blacks

feel insignificance/small and suffer from inadequacy; therefore, some formulate extreme

discourse of acceptance of colonial/authoritarian/legacy to gain the acceptance of whites,

which contributes to xenophobia, others (AU/Mugabe) developed some consciousness but still

have mild/colonial-mentality – as their “sprit” abide to radical “Pan-Africanism,” but the

controlled mind rejects practical implementation (Fanon, 1986:216). This approves that the

debate between gradual/functional and radical/federal/neo-functional “Pan-Africanism” is still

relevant. Hence, the current gradual “Pan-Africanism” has generated various antinomies

involving de-personalization, de-identification of Africans and despotism system that

marginalizes and alienates Africans. As emphasized by Nkrumah, only with radical “Pan-

Africanism,” which promotes Africanization, integration, and unification of “balkanized”

African communities through the formation of “supranational-state” that surpasses extroverted

micro-nations, an independent/conscious Africa can be attained. Otherwise, Africans’ would

not handle continental migration or develop continental integration – as gradual states with

36

extreme mentality, SA/Nigeria distrust/fear black intellect/integration and are the end in line to

sign and ratify AFCFTA (tralac.org, 2021).

4.4.1 Miscarriage of Pan-Africanism – An approach towards development? When reflecting on Fanonian arguments found in the enmity discourse of xenophobia as a way

of interpreting the failure of “Pan-Africanism,” various points have been outlined in response

Abandonment-neurotic

Phobogenic object

Neuroses of blackness:

distrusting black intellect

Mimicry of Western

ideologies

Impact of slavery + colonialism + apartheid

Mimicry of Negrophobia: fearing black individuals

Neuroses of blackness: A dream to turn white and

attain a level of humanity

Phobogenic object: ones fear of himself/self-

hate

Abandonment-neurotic: Feeling of being abandoned

by humans

37

to the RQ. Firstly, the failure of “Pan-Africanism” is interpreted as the failure of “gradual”

African elites to make Africa design its future without mimicry process. Meanwhile,

Nkrumah/Fanon called for a “political union” to abolish micro-colonial-states; in SA the

ideology lost its pertinent as leaders who benefited from “Pan-African” solidarity during

decolonization/apartheid are today promoting neo-liberal “Pan-African” ideology, while

supporting xenophobia (Maqetuka, 2015). Both discourse of acceptance and resistance of "neo-

colonialism" is present in Mugabe/AU’s speech/protocols and is deemed contradictory as the

accurate "Pan-African" philosophy rejects the entirety of "Western" ideologies/domination

theoretical and pragmatically. However, being present in "collective-unconsciousness" hinders

the African mind from imagining the ability of an “Afro-centric” radical/federal ideology

making Africa gravitate from being devalued/dependent/under-developed continent. Likewise,

African leaders (Mugabe) who express negative sentiments towards "neo-colonialism" are the

same ones that perceive "Western" policies indispensable. Another point identified is related

to AU's failure to institutionalize “radical Pan-Africanism" and use diplomatic and normative

tools to hold political elite/leaders' instituting discourse of "fear/Negrophobia" accountable.

AU's incapability of holding SA accountable is related to SA being one of the regional powers;

thus, holding a place of authority in AU. Additionally, radical “Pan-African” discourses are

present in AU protocols and hold optimistic promises theoretically but stipulate practical

implementation; otherwise, the AFCFTA and the free movement of people will not be

actualized as Europeans destruct African “regional economic ties” by distracting and starting

individual bilateral deals with individual African nations to block the institutionalization of

AFCFTA (Okoloise, 2018:354 & Muchie, 2004:142).

Put merely, the elite/state-driven process adopted by the OAU is persistent in AU – as

“radical” people-centered movements are neglected. Another point is that graduals deny the

relevance of “political unification” unless they are the leaders of supra-national Africa.

Meaning that Gradual nations accept to be led by the “West” but not by other African nations,

thus forget that functional economic integration is a step forward but not sufficient (Okolosie,

2018:247). As specified by Spivak, the old oppression continues but this time with multiple

oppressors enabled by the colonial-imposed-mentality (Dodoo, 2012:87). As underlined by

Fanon, “Black consciousness” has not yet been achieved by African leaders and those who

tarried (Mugabe & AU) failed gaining true consciousness. Thereby, true “Black-

Consciousness” is obtained using resistance discourse as done by Nkrumah; hence, without

taking risks and challenging/fighting the dominant discourse, mental liberation cannot be

reached. Put merely, true liberation is not obtained through easy mimicry processes; therefore,

38

“Negros” (Africans/Blacks) know nothing about “Pan-African” struggle and the cost of

freedom, for they never fought for it or challenged colonial based-system (Fanon 1986:221).

In regard, radical "Pan-Africanism" as a resistance ideology emerged to counter the state-

system imposed on Africa without any consideration of pre-existing tradition of "African" state

rule.

In closing, Fanon's postcolonial interpretation has shown that the ultimate weapon of the

capitalist-imperialists is the mind of the oppressed to prevent them from achieving Class/Black-

Consciousness thus constructing ideologies and false "social imaginary" that does not reflect

the reality of the oppressed. That being said, African governments/leaders/regional

organization took the path of dystopia rather than utopia by abiding and pledging openly to

ideals of gradualism/functionalism/pessimism/neo-liberalism thus are being disingenuous to

their people as they are known for their begging mentality and gradual "Pan-African"

inflammatory rhetoric which is not an approach towards development.

39

5. Conclusion In conclusion, the thesis has aimed to get a profound understanding of the "Pan-African" failure

and the role of "African psychology" with the help of Postcolonial notions. Building on the

finding, "Pan-African" failure is a failure ascribed to the gradualists who enabled African

oppression with mimicry and hypoactive behavior. Additionally, the study investigated with

the employment of CDA/QCA the necessity of psychological liberation. Hence, in response to

the RQ: "How can we apprehend the failure of Pan-Africanism to establish oneness and solve

issues, such as disunity/xenophobia in South Africa?" The study argues that “oneness” and

United-Africa cannot be reached due to the current “pan-Africanism” taking a “statist

platform” that institute the failure of the ideology. Extreme neo-liberal “Pan-African”

sentiments are found in the instance of SA where African/leaders/citizens blindly mimic

colonial-rules thus forget their origin; Secondly, mild gradual psychology is present in

“Mugabe and AU” understanding of “Pan-Africanism” as they both acknowledge radical “Pan-

Africanism” but fail developing full “Black-Consciousness” due to their “attachment to

sovereignty.” Meaning that the “spirit” of African/Black/subalterns acknowledges the “radical”

vision, but the “mind” is not compliant due to unconsciousness.

Analyzing the current "Pan-Africanism" and its place in the mind of Africans, it is fair to

infer that due to the mimicry of "Western/neo-liberal" ideologies, the "Pan-African" radical

“nationalism” struggle suffered various “complication” and abortions owing to "neo-

colonially" induced miscarriages inviting "Afro-phobia" and making emancipated Africa

unattainable. The thesis contributes to regionalism/IR and African studies field by applying

radical/gradual “Pan-African” and postcolonial frameworks, which exemplifies the impacts of

colonial ruling-policies on how to “institute” African “regional governance” based on anti-

colonial policies. Some of the study’s methodological limitations have been related to

challenges experienced in reducing confirmation bias and increasing external validity.

Therefore, there is a need for another study that complements the current one hence examines

African populations understanding of “Pan-Africanism” and the type of “Pan-Africanism”

desired by African/citizens; hence, this can be done by interviewing citizens of regional powers

(SA/Nigeria/Egypt) and other week African nations to see if the citizens of regional power

states view themselves superior in relation to other/Africans.

40

6. Bibliography Adepoju et.al, (2018) “Radical Pan-Africanism and Africa’s Integration: A retrospective

Exploration and Prospective Prognosis,” A Journal of African Studies, 41 (1), PP: 103-124.

Adetula et al, (2020) “The legacy of Pan-Africanism in African integration today,” The Nordic

Africa Institute, PP:1-8.

Adogamhe, Paul G (2008), “Pan-Africanism Revisited: Vision and Reality of African Unity

and Development,” Department of Political Science, Vol.2, No.2, PP: 1-34.

Asuelime et.al, (2015) “Re-visiting Xenophobia in South Africa and its Impact on Africa’s

Integration,” African Institute of South Africa, Vol.45, No.2, PP: 75-85.

AU (2014), “Protocol to the Constitutive Act of the African Union relating to the Pan-African

Parliament” Organization site: URL: https://au.int/en/treaties/protocol-constitutive-act-

african-union-relating-pan-african-parliament>. (Last accessed:09-05-2021).

AU (2018), “Protocol to the Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community Relating

to Free Movement of Persons, Right of Residence and Right of Establishment,” Organization

site:URL:<https://au.int/en/treaties/protocol-treaty-establishing-african-economic-

community-relating-free-movement-persons>. (Last accessed: 09-05-2021).

AU (2018), “Agreement Establishing the African Continental Free Trade Area,” Organization

site: URL:< https://au.int/en/treaties/agreement-establishing-african-continental-free-trade-

area>. (Last accessed: 09-05-2021).

BBC, (05-09-2019), “South Africa closes embassy in Nigeria after xenophobic violence,” BBC.

URL:< https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49593030>. (Last accessed:30-04-2021).

Boogaard Vanessa van den, (2016), “Modern post-colonial approaches to citizenship: Kwame

Nkrumah’s political thought on Pan- Africanism,” Department of political studies, university

of Toronto, Canada, Vol.21, No.1, PP: 44-67.

41

Chandhoke, Neera (1984) “The Nature of Dominant Elite in Africa,” (published by: Sage

publications), PP: 165-184.

Chigumadzi, Panashe (2019) “Afrophobia is growing in South Africa. Why? Its leaders are

feeding it,” Organization site: URL:< https://africanarguments.org/2019/10/afrophobia-is-

growing-in-south-africa-why-its-leaders-are-feeding-it/>. (Last accessed: 22-04-2021).

Consciencism, (2016), “DR. KWAME NKRUMAH SPEAKS IN ADDIS ABABA IN 1963,”

Online Source: URL:< https://consciencism.wordpress.com/history/dr-kwame-nkrumah-

speaks-in-addis-ababa-in-1963/>. (Last accessed:22-04-2021).

Crouher, Sheila (2010) “South Africa’s illegal aliens: constructing national boundaries in a

post-apartheid state,” Journal of Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 21, No.4, PP: 639-660.

Dodoo, Vincent (2012), “Kwame Nkrumah’s Mission and Vision for Africa and the World,”

The Journal of Pan African Studies, Department of History and Political Studies Social

Sciences Faculty, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology. Kumasi, Ghana,

vol.4, no.10, PP: 78-92.

Fairclough, Norman (2003), “Analyzing Discourse Textual-Analysis for social research,”

(Published: British Library Cataloguing).

Fanon, Frantz (1986), “Black Skin, White Mask,” (published by: Pluto Press).

Forge, John W (2003) “Self-Determination, Nationalism, Development and Pan-Africanism

Stuck on the Runway: Are Intellectuals to be Blamed?” African Journal of International

Affairs, Vol.6, No.1, PP: 54-86.

Gowhary et.al, (2013),” A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Electoral Talks of Iranian

Presidential Candidates in 2013,” Journal of Political and Behavioral Science, PP:132-141.

Halperin, Sandra & Oliver Heath, (2017). Political Research. Methods and Practical Skills,

(Second edition) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

42

Harshe, Rajen (1988) “Reflections on Organization of African Unity,” Economic and Political

Weekly, Vol. 23, No.8, PP:373-376.

Hodzi, Obert (2018), “China and Africa: economic growth and non-transformative political

elite,” Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 36:2, PP:191-206.

Jensen, S.Q. (2011). “Othering, identity formation and agency,” Qualitative Studies, 2(2): 63-

78.

Kasongo-Lumumba, Tukumbi (2003), “Can a ‘Realist Pan-Africanism’ Be a Relevant Tool

Toward the Transformation of African and African Diaspora Politics? Imagining a Pan-African

State,” Journal of African International Affairs, Vol.6, No.1-2, PP:87-121.

Kah, Henry (2016), “Kwame Nkrumah and the panafrican vision: Between acceptance and

rebuttal,” Journal of Strategy and international Relations, Vol.5, N.9, PP:141-164.

Kosaka Hitomi & Solomon Hussien, “Xenophobia in South Africa: Reflection, Narratives, and

Recommendation,” Journal of Peace and Security Studies, Vol.2, No.2, PP: 5-30.

Lamont, Christopher (2015), Research Methods in International Relations (London: SAGE).

Maqetuka, Khosi (29-01-2015), “Pan Africanism is the antidote to xenophobia,” Organization

site, URL:< https://www.pambazuka.org/pan-africanism/pan-africanism-antidote-

xenophobia>. (Last accessed: 11-05-2021).

Martin, Guy (2012) African political thought, (Published by Palgrave Macmillan: United

Sates).

Matsinhe, David Mario (2011), “Africa’s fear of itself: the ideology of Makwerekwere in South

Africa,” Third World Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 2, PP: 295-313.

43

Mogekwu, Matt (2005), “African Union: Xenophobia as poor intercultural communication,”

Department of Communication, University of North-West South Africa, Vol.26, No.1, PP: 5-

20.

Momoh, Abubakar (2003) “Does Pan-Africanism Have a Future in Africa? In Search of the

Ideational Basis of Afro-Pessimism,” African Journal of Political Science, PP:31-57.

Mondal, Anindita (2014), “Postcolonial theory: Bhabha and Fanon,” International Journal of

Science and Research, Volume 3, Issue 11, PP: 2965-2968.

Muchie, Mammo (2004), “A theory of an Africa as Unification Nation: A Rethinking of the

Structural Transformation of Africa,” Journal of Development Studies and Center of Civil

Society, University of Natala Durban, South Africa, African Sociological Review, vol.8, No.2,

PP:136-179.

Mugabe, Robert (2012) “Statement by his Excellency the President of Republic of Zimbabwe,

Comrade Robert Mugabe, during the General Debate of the 67th Session of the United Nations

General Assembly” Organization site: URL:<

https://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/67/ZW_en.pdf >. (Last accessed:13-

05- 2021).

Murithi, Tim (2007) “Institutionalizing Pan-Africanism Transforming African Union values

and principles into policy and practice,” PP: 1-16.

Nantambu, Kwame (1998), “PAN-AFRICANISM VERSUS PAN-AFRICAN

NATIONALISM An Afrocentric Analysis,” Journal of Black Studies, Vol.28, No.5, PP:561-

574.

Neocosmos, Michael (2008), “The Politics of Fear and the Fear of Politics: Reflection on

Xenophobia Violence in South Africa,” Journal of Asian and African Studies, Vol.46, No.6,

PP: 586-594.

Okhonmina Stephen, (2008) “The African Union: Pan-Africanist Aspirations and the challenge

of African Unity,” Journal of Pan-African Studies, Vol.3, No.4, PP:85-100.

44

Okoloise, Chairman (2018), “Transnational democracy in Africa and the African Union’s

Agenda 2063: Beyond Nkrumah’s Pan-Africanist pushbacks,” Journal of African studies,

University of Pretoria, pp:325-354.

Sahistory.org, (2018), “Xenophobic violence in democratic South Africa,” Organization site:

URL:<https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/xenophobic-violence-democratic-south-africa>.

(Last accessed: 2021-04-22).

Sangmpam, S.N. (2018) “Why the African Union Should be Dismantled and Buried with

Gaddafi” Journal of African Development, Volume XLIII, No. 3, PP: 53-81.

Spivak, Gayatri (1985), “Can the Subaltern Speak” from C Nelson and L Grossberg (eds.),

Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture London: Macmillan, Education, PP: 66-111.

Steenkamp, Christina (2009) “Xenophobia in South Africa: What Does it Say about Trust?”

Department of International Relations, Politics and Sociology, School of Social Sciences and

Law, Oxford Brookes University, Vol. 98, No. 403, 439–447.

tralac.org, (2021-03-14), “Status of AfCFTA Ratification,” Organization site: URL:<

https://www.tralac.org/resources/infographic/13795-status-of-afcfta-ratification.html>. (Last

accessed: (15-05-2021).

Ukwandu, C.D (2017) “Reflection on Xenophobia Violence in South Africa: What Happens

to a Dream Deferred?” School of Public Management, Governance and Public Policy, Vol.9,

No.9, PP: 43-62.

45

Appendices

Coded material: Nkrumah, Murage, Ramaphosa, Motsoaledi, AU protocols.

46