From The Center for Chinese Studies

CCS COMMENTARY:

Misconceptions and omissions in the China-Africa discourse

Pairing histories and discourses in China-Africa relations

The newly emerged studies on China-Africa relations tend to be trans- disciplinary, employing a variety of theoretical frameworks and favouring the use of comparative methods. However, a major problem arises when attempting to make a case for African factors that may serve as a platform for replicating the successes witnessed in China since the introduction of the reform and opening-up policies. Such studies usually start by describing factors that have led to successes in China and then attempt to draw parallels to those prevalent in Africa. Examples of such cases are those that seek to demonstrate parallel factors such as history of oppression, traditions and other aspects of value systems manifest in China and Africa using the discourse and other forms of persuasion employed by the former towards the latter within the China-Africa relations framework. Such tendencies are discernible in the use of the “African Dream”, “win-win” and “China, a friend for all weather” rhetoric. Such maxims are a product of Chinese political machinery meant to implement China’s reform policies at home and abroad. While such rhetoric is favoured by Chinese scholars when articulating current China-Africa relations, the Chinese Communist Party leaders have warned that the China model cannot be simply copied for use in Africa. While there is no harm in emulating powerful and effective rhetorical tools of persuasion, it may have dire results when such is used to define societies that lack connection to such discourse as is the case of when China’s political discourse is applied to describe the ideals of a variety of African peoples.

Furthermore, the use of borrowed rhetoric may be an attempt at keeping abreast with the advancement of forums that are established and funded by China, such as the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC). FOCAC, besides serving as a platform for announcing China’s engagements into Africa, seems to have doubled as a locus for the emerging scholarship of China-Africa relations judging from academic exchange conferences held under its framework. Furthermore, the “China-Africa Joint Research and Exchange Program” coupled with FOCAC themed grants help replicate China’s political rhetoric in Africa. Such borrowing of political rhetoric from China for use when studying a myriad of issues pertaining to China-Africa relations tells a different story than that expressed by China. While China speaks of relations based on mutual respect andreciprocity, current political and academic discourses are reflective of asymmetries which are telling of who is in the driver’s seat in China-Africa relations.

Comparing Chinese and African values

Studies borrowing Chinese discourse to express African ideals include those that seek to compare traditional Chinese values to African ones. Such studies have sought to analyse a variety of African traditional concepts. However, the process of studying African traditional concepts meant for comparison with those prevalent in the Chinese culture have met with a variety of problematic hurdles. One such hurdle is the selective and amnesiac reading of the traditional African concepts timeline. The readings tend to divorce traditional African concepts from the impact of colonial histories and Western modes of development. The search for establishing an existence of ideal traditional African concepts has tended to reveal an idyllic past, which is immune from recent post-colonial African calamities. Such a search results in the revival of imagined archaic traditions that have been dormant for centuries and only manifest within a seclusion of the African private family with no ability to deliver final public goods or a means to acquire such goods. The definitions by these studies seem to be misleading as the bulk of traditional African concepts have for centuries not been salient in spaces that produce public goods. If anything, the locus for traditional African concepts has its roots within the wars of independence in Africa, representative of either a hurdle to attaining modernity as defined within Western modes of development or as a foundation for establishing alternative forms of social systems throughout the continent. However, even in post-independence Africa, traditional African values have not been successfully employed for the running of government and national economies. The discourses of struggles for independence on the continent should be regarded as a central locus for study of traditional African values that may offer insights into their relevance and validity to current society and perhaps to employ as a tool for nation building. The above suggested framework may reveal changes, adaptations and a variety of rationalisations that traditional African concepts have undergone throughout recent history.

Misconceptions of a homogenous Africa

The current readings of traditional African values by scholars investigating China-Africa relations tend to ascribe, if not imply, secondary status for peoples residing on the continent. The fundamental cause for such outcomes is the assumption of a homogenous Africa with uniform values. One begs to question that, if different language families are representative of a variety of cultures why then would values within such societies be deemed homogenous? The tendency to ascribe to the rhetoric of a homogeneous Africa is not an invention of China-Africa relations and scholars studying it, rather, its roots are located in colonial history where second and third class status was attributed to the African. Thus, to carryover the discourse of a homogeneous Africa to studies of China-Africa relations may only lead to reinstating the second and third class status to the African continent.

Platforms of empowerment

Politicians, academics, analysts and observers of China-Africa relations need to distance themselves from perpetuating the disempowering discourse of a homogeneous Africa. The South-South co-operation forums such as FOCAC and BRICS, and local African frameworks, such as the African Union (AU), New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA) need to serve as platforms of empowerment and produce a discourse which delivers greater public goods meant to empower the entire African community. Borrowing traditional cultural concepts from a distant and foreign culture to articulate local ideals, coupled with the assumption that an homogeneous Africa will aid development is tantamount to political euthanasia.

Paul Tembe

Research Fellow Centre for Chinese Studies Stellenbosch University