It is my view that the major reason Africans are far behind
as compared to Europe, America and Asia, and indeed any other continent is
because Europe denied them monarchy, the best form of government indigenous to
them. From the political history of Africa, one can tell that African societies
that practiced monarchy as a form of government thrived high and reached the point
in their career but Europe denied them their gift. One could tell that Ghana,
Mali, Kanem-Bornu, Old Oyo and Benin at their heights were all comparable to other political
societies of the world.
Monarchy as a form of government is indigenous to Africa and
best suited to the people. The unity and orderliness necessary to stabilize Africa
can be found only where supreme authority is vested in a single
individual. This is to be found in monarchy. Since history, the most
powerful of ancient African societies have depended on single individuals for sovereignty to thrive. Is it possible to write the history of Ghana without
the mention of Osei Tutu or Benin without the mention of Ozolua? How can you
discuss Ethiopia without Menelik 1? You certainly cannot also discuss Ibusa without the mention of King Ezesi despite his short reign. This is where Asaba also strikes the mind; much of its today's successes are derivable from Asagba system.
Monarchy is a natural institution to Africans and obedience
to one man called Emir, Alafin, Obi, Oche or Oba is as natural as a child
would obey his parents. Africans view their king as father and the king views
his subjects as children. The traditional judicial system was potent and cases
of adjournment were unheard of. One powerful man soon arises and the rest of
the people deal with him effectively. This is because, if a single individual
cooks for ‘oha’, oha will consume it all, but if oha cooks for a single man, he
will never be able to eat it all. Oha in this case, is the people.
Furthermore, the king was best suited to deal with
emergencies as he was not obligated to consult the senate or House of
Representatives that comes with complexity and difficult procedures. The King easily took decisions and everyone
understood this and respected himself as best as he could. Although, monarchy
has its defects, one man could easily become a despot that tended to grow
larger than an entire society but he was soon easily put down. Again, the case of King Ezesi of Ibusa, deposed on account of his wife's meddlesome attitudes in the patriarchal society thereby forcing the King to go on self-imposed exile, which then ended the era of that monarchical system in the community and all other cases of Alafin in the Old Oyo Empire presented with the calabash and egg readily strike the mind. If only Africans
were allowed to continue with this practice, they would have perfected on it. Is
it not ironical that while the British destroyed this political system of
administration in Africa, taking away power, authority and influence from
monarchs and leaving them without official roles and responsibilities towards
the nation, the supreme executive authority in the UK is still vested in the crown? While
the King or Queen of England is considered the head of the British society and officially empowered to pay state visits to foreign states, African kings were denied of official responsibilities by the same British. While the King or Queen is the head of the Commonwealth, African monarchs are rendered powerless.
The destruction of African political system is one of the evils of imperialism
done on Africans by Europeans. Although, it may not make sense to anyone now, because
the people have adjusted, it is one of the reasons the people suffer
inefficiency and backwardness today. No thanks to Europe.
Comments
Post a Comment