HAS COLONIALISM BEEN ABOLISHED IN SUB- SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA?

Tamanaha (2001,115) assessed the role of law in the contemporary context and found that, while the revival of traditional law was

"one of the leading slogans of the worldwide decolonization movement of the 1950s and 1960s," the decolonization process kept much of the legal regimes "virtually intact through 'transnational' clauses that continued existing colonial law until repealed," and such repeals, if they were pursued, involved a lengthy bureaucratic process outlined in colonial languages and falling in line with colonial goals. Tamanaha also placed the role of Western law in decolonized settings within the context of international politics. He found that, "under the prompting and influence of international aid agencies, of transnational banks and other corporations that required familiar legal regimes as conditions of investment," and in the best interests of capitalism as "partially inspired by Weber's argument that formally rational law best suits the needs of capitalism," Western legal systems continued to implement control not only over the previously colonized peoples but primarily over their national resources (2001, 115). Africa as a continent is rich in resources but poor in wealth. Europe and North America, while not so bountiful in resources, continue to maintain control over global wealth. This legal construction of wealth through the capitalist structuralization of global politics is key in maintaining a colonial and exploitative status quo.

Through these assessments current global order is understood as built upon European colonialism. An understanding of contemporary situations void of the context of colonialism would thus constitute an incomplete and inaccurate representation.

Hecht and Simone (1994,17) explain that "colonialism was meant for the West to redefine itself in relationship to the world. And the

work for which African bodies were captured during slavery has much to do with the West's efforts to change itself, to construct new kinds of economics and identities/' forging a journey through which the West erodes opportunities for oppositional competition in the contemporary capitalist world order. In addition to these assertions Hecht and Simone outline the manner in which the African continent, in its "underdeveloped" nature, represents the potential, "not only to survive, but [also to] restructure and reinvent itself within a context of global realities" (15). Within this framework the dichotomization of the problems in Africa becomes difficult.

Resistance becomes a necessary function of oppression, and simultaneously oppression grows to become a tool through which resistance can manifest itself. Despite the Eurocapitalist and thus colonialist structures that maintain an uneven distribution of wealth, and despite the inhumane behaviour of Western 'civilized' states, resistance is not impossible, and oppression is not insurmountable. A starting point for resistance lies in the dismantling of the illusions that the West has constructed in its conceptions of Africa. The strength of such illusions lies greatly in the dichotomization of issues. In fragmenting and ignoring the interrelationships that tie historical and contemporary issues together, the imposition of dehumanized and inferior images of Africa can continue to be manifested.

An example of these fragmentations is the debate on the problems associated with capitalism. Chabal and Daloz (1999) outline the more traditionally dichotomized debate among scholars and politicians who discuss colonialism. This debate tries to decide how to address the assumed problematic nature of African political institutions. On the one side, some argue that political institutions have precolonial roots in the continent and thus are destined to fail; on the other side, others argue that political institutions in Africa are in the process of development, and naturally should face problems and downfalls. Hecht and Simone (1994, 31) bring this debate together, stating that "the power of African colonialism21 was not so much to disrupt

the internal dynamics of household, kinship, and social life but to disrupt the wide-ranging interconnections that existed among communities and people across often vast distances/' adding that colonialism relegated the continent to an inflexible condition, devastating but not eliminating its political structures and internal economic cohesions.

Central to these analyses are not the functional or dysfunctional political institutions that exist in Africa but more the context within which Africa now exists. The reasons for the existence of problematic institutions in Africa are not simply a tenet and natural extension of historical oppression, nor are they due to the struggle to rebuild from the destructions imposed by an oppressive history. The problems are shaped (problematically for the West) by the attempted destruction of an entire continent's social, political, and economic structures. This attempted destruction is perpetuated through a debate assuming that destruction was successful and continues in discussion about why such destruction was successful, and what can be done about it.

In resisting such unproductive and elitist debates, one can begin to .restructure the conversation. What did Europeans achieve in their colonial brutalization of Africa (thus shifting the focus from what Africa is suffering to what the West is gaining)? How can Africans survive such brutality (thus focusing on the struggle as something that must be overcome)? What are Africans facing today in relation to the continued brutalities and exploitations of the former colonizing governments and corporations? How can Africans continue to survive (thus emphasizing that Africans are not victims but survivors)?

Instead of focusing on whether or not the rebuilding of Africa should mirror precolonial social structures, scholars may want to begin addressing contemporary Africa, and its interrelationship to history, culture, tradition, and strength. The proposed rebuilding process is problematic because it keeps Africa within a development framework assuming that destructions of African structures were successful. This is also problematic because people who engage in these debates continue to assess Africa

through a Western lens: "Many discourses on Africa lament that the continent has lost its 'traditions' and become a dumping ground for the world's social and cultural waste. But in practice, Africans don't so much defend their traditions as allow tradition to take its own course, into terrain that is often neither recognizable nor acceptable" to the Western world (Hecht and Simone 1994, 23). In accepting their Eurocentric inability to conceptualize the survival and strength that Africa has displayed in resistance to colonial and slave-trading brutalities, Western scholars can begin to learn from not trying to describe African politics and social structures. The learning process may begin through an in-depth assessment of current domineering nation-states and their reliance on colonial racisms.

These colonizing nation-states have been unable to maintain their boundaries and national identities in West Africa in ways they were able to achieve in Europe and North America. The dilution of statehood in Africa is visible at the national borders that separate African nations but fail to separate African ethnic affiliations.22 Between Nigeria and Benin, although laws exist to regulate trade between the two nations, "the border is the site of rampant smuggling, where unregistered markets provide a livelihood for many.... The illicit exchange is crucial to the economies of both countries. Officials are forced to turn a blind eye or risk further undermining the regions' precarious infrastructures" (Hecht and Simone 1994, 21). The rigid borders defined by colonial governments continue to be ignored by African peoples. The unacceptability of African social structures in Eurocentric eyes places Africans in a position of advantage. Because unacceptability is dealt with through a lack of understanding in the West, Africans can continue to be unacceptable in Western attitudes and non-conformist in practice.

All of these factors prepare Africans for a globalization that appears to be dissolving notions of statehood, and transitioning nationhood to corporate and economic control.

While the imposition of colonial borders on African nations is formal and legal, these borders are meaningless in the face of fluid African structures able to adapt to rigid and centralized

impositions. The non-elastic colonial national borders snap when confronted with the elasticity of African organizations and social structures. Although the laws that regulate trade between nations are being compromised, Hecht and Simone (1994, 19) explain that, while African societies have become

"underdeveloped in the web of advanced capitalism/' what they have essentially accomplished in this underdevelopment is the ability to slip "further out of either comprehension or control.

Post-colonial regimes from Khartoum to Lagos have no idea how many people live in their metropolis, let alone how, with little or no employment or services, millions somehow survive/' And it is in that survival that invisible governance emerges, confusing, sometimes frustrating, but in general destabilizing Western analysis of social structures, while empowering Africans enough to endure and transcend the hardships associated with displacement, oppression, and colonialism.