African Socialist States

[Orcris]

Whenever people talk about communism, they talk about Eastern Europe, East Asia, and Cuba. I've never heard anything about any of the following:

People's Republic of Angola
People's Republic of Benin
People's Republic of the Congo
People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
People's Republic of Mozambique
Somali Democratic Republic

What were these countries like when they were socialist? How are they now? Are they any better than the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa?

[Comrade Chernov]

Don't forget Burkina Faso.

[Marxaveli]

"Socialist State" is an oxymoron. If there is a state, that means there is classes, and if there is classes....there is no socialism. Socialism is an internationalist ideology and therefore it cannot be nationalistic - the two are imcompatible (despite the name of the fascist German party of the 1930's, who were in fact extremely anti-communist, though many dopes today seem to think fascism and communism are somehow the same).

[Crabbensmasher]

To be honest, I think in a lot of these situations the countries were just caught in the Soviet sphere of influence during the cold war. It was either Soviets or Americans; either way, you would get funding and a strong ally. I read a bit about Ethiopia under the Derg, as well as Burkina Faso (Thomas Sankara was kind of a badass). The attempted 'revolutionary zeal' was admirable, but of course, it fell short. I think in all these examples, they remained state capitalist regimes, inherently unstable and rife with rivalries. Either way, if you look at these countries nowadays, they have the highest child mortality rates, lowest life expectancies in the world, even compared to their 'western' African counterparts. Angola still professes to be socialist I believe, and they have one of the highest income inequalities in the world. Kind of depressing considering they fought like a 25 year war too.

[Red Commissar]

Before I write any more we have to understand the climate these states emerged from. Their conception of socialism usually came from one of two ways (ignoring the points about why a socialist state can't exist...)-

-A more nationalist inspired one which saw socialism in a welfare sense. These involved a lot of regulation, state-run entities, etc.

-A pro-Soviet one that attempted to replicate central planning, portrayed itself in more revolutionary and internationalist slogans.

In both cases it took a distinctly more populist and nationalist vibe, with not much reference to workers beyond the usual token mentions.

When the Cold War started, most of Africa was under colonial rule. The only two nations which had been ruling themselves were South Africa and Ethiopia, and of those only the latter can really said to've been truly independent as South Africa was a settler state.

When decolonization began, many new nations were created, with borders simply being drawn for convenience sake or mirroring old colonial borders. You had a lot of states born that needed to A. form functioning governments and assert state power and B. In many cases, had their economies still dominated by foreign interests.

Socialism was seen by many of the younger generation as a way for their people to truly advance and go into the future, as capitalism was (correctly) associated with continued exploitation from their former masters. To that end a lot of these groups managed to gain power by one way or another and tried to construct strong, centralized states to address the problems above and as they saw it, improve the lot of the people.

Some of these, in time, became less genuine about their goals. For some, the state-emphasis opened the way to corruption and careerists. For others, their positions was for the sake of the Cold War, to get aid from the Soviet Union to further their own objectives. Many ended up getting mired down in economic problems from a combination of foreign pressures and difficulties in constructing their economies from scratch.


People's Republic of Angola

Angola was a Portuguese holding along with Mozambique. Portugal tried its best to retain this remnant of their colonial empire and attempted to make concessions while simultaneously giving preferential treatment to those of Portuguese descent in the holding.

Long story short, this started a war of independence which ended up spawning three major factions- the FNLA, MPLA, and UNITA. FNLA did not have much ideological substance beyond pro-independence, while MPLA was self-declared Marxist and UNITA subscribing to what they saw as socialism. The coup ("Carnation Revolution") in Portugal effectively ended that country's involvement abroad due to the unpopularity of those wars there, and this happened simultaneously with an agreement that made Angola independent.

MPLA assumed control of Angola's government, getting the support of the Soviet Union in the process. It chose to rule the state essentially on its own to advance its ideals, and this led to civil war as other factions were predictably angry (of course wanting to have done the same thing). The FNLA became more and more irrelevant and UNITA became the main opposition to MPLA, taking support from the west, South Africa, and China. There never really was an opportunity for MPLA to actually create a functioning state as it was directed towards fighting a long civil war. This had both ideological reasons as well as some more ethnic ones.

As it tended to occur in the Cold War, local conflicts rarely remained that way, and became regional and from there tied up in the Cold War. Angola's war of independence and subsequent Civil War ended up drawing it into the broader regional conflict centered on South Africa, where that nation's apartheid regime pursued anything it considered an existential threat. This included opposition to the government from within by organizations like the ANC or SWAPO in occupied Southwestern Africa (Namibia), and their allies in neighboring nations. More often than not this meant pro-Soviet.

Angola's situation saw the MPLA cooperate with SWAPO, drew South Africa's involvement, resulting in a brief clandestine involvement before falling back and supporting UNITA from then on. Cuba also got itself involved on behalf of the MPLA as the civil war ended up essentially becoming a proxy between the Soviets and Americans.

This civil war would continue to rage even after the Cubans left and the Soviet Union collapsed. By the time the Soviet Union collapsed, the MPLA abandoned its lip service to Marxist-Leninism and oriented to a more vague socialism until ending up at social democracy, and reformed the state into a multi-party democracy, at least in name (though the same, revolutionary flag was kept). Peace was attempted with UNITA involving elections where the MPLA won, UNITA alleged vote rigging and the civil war resumed, not technically ending until this past decade (2002) when the leader of UNITA was killed.

Angola of today still bears scars of the conflict and this has made it difficult to recover. The nation is mineral rich and has some oil deposits, but this apparently hasn't benefited the whole population.

The reason why I mention all this is because for its whole existence as a nominal communist state, it was so embroiled in a civil war that there never was any opportunity to see what it would have done anyways. One could extrapolate from the actions of the current MPLA what would've happened, but ultimately it doesn't matter.




People's Republic of MozambiqueThis one has much the same origin as Angola. It was a Portuguese holding which resisted control by its colonial master, though not as fierce as the Angolan one. Regardless, the coup came along in Portugal which ended its involvement abroad, and the Marxist FRELIMO assumed control. Nationalization took place and a single-party state came into existence, and much like its contemporaries it attempted to take measures to modernize and centralize.

Like Angola it got stuck in a civil war from then on out with the western and South Africa supported RENAMO, a conflict which wrecked the nation. The Civil War ended after the civil war, both because of FRELIMO losing Soviet support but RENAMO losing South Africa's as well on account of the Apartheid regime's collapse. This gave way to a multi-party democracy, which FRELIMO won, and though RENAMO accused it of rigging the whole thing didn't go back to war like UNITA did. FRELIMO like the MPLA in Angola still exists and has continued to rule the nation since the Cold War, though it has moved to the center and is more of a social-democrat outfit. With that said though, the country is still poor and FRELIMO isn't immune to problems of corruption.

Mozambique is probably also notable for being the only country in the world whose flag contains a rifle.




People's Republic of Benin
Benin was born a communist state through a military coup by a Mathieu Kérékou, built from the previous Republic of Dahomey. Upon independence from France this country had been wrecked by regionalism and tribal differences, creating an opportunity for Kérékou and fellow officers to assume control. They took the familiar shapes of a "communist state"- one party rule, a centralized state and economy, and attempts to overcome ethnic divides by creating a new national identity.

The government tried to do some changes here and there to address literacy problems and education in general, ethnic conflicts, regionalism, welfare, and so on. Ultimately though Benin was an agricultural economy with little industrial strength- it relied on aid from the Soviets and the Eastern Bloc. This hampered it economically, and combined with corruption and other problems, made the country less than ideal to live in. Kérékou seemed more concerned with ensuring his own political survival, taking some bizarre steps like a brief conversion to Islam to apparently butter up Qaddafi. Kérékou for his part is now an evangelical christian.

Benin eventually negotiated for a bailout, which was tied to demands for market reform in exchange for lowering its outstanding debt. This began to move Benin away from the old Soviet model of its economy.

When the Eastern Bloc dissolved and the Soviet Union collapsed, Benin changed with it. Even before it had attempted to introduce some modest market reforms which made matters worse, and by the time the 90s rolled around became a multi-party democracy. Kérékou lost the first election and stepped down, then became president again in the following president for the next ten years before leaving office again.

As far as I know the People's Republic of Benin didn't achieve anything particularly notable in its existence, at least in the way of even modest social welfare.




People's Republic of the CongoThis like the previous one came on the back of a military coup. The Republic of Congo was previously a French holding and like other nations independent then, had to deal with many of the issues that plagued Africa that I outlined above. By the 60s the nation already seemed to be making some token advances to a socialist system, declaring itself to be "scientific socialist", but this wasn't meaningful and political conflicts where still common.

This led to a coup by some officers who established a revolutionary council, and the Congo was eventually transformed into communist, one-party state along the lines of the Soviet Union, the first in Africa to do so. The usual foreign ties were established and it attempted some improvements- but was still weighed down by conflicts among its leaders, corruption, and trying to overcome ethnic differences. The economy wasn't as bad as Benin's was, but at the same time it wasn't particularly notable either. Its first leader, Marien Ngouabi, was probably the most committed and genuine- the later leaders seemed to be more veering toward careerism.

The 90s come around and with the Soviets and the Eastern Bloc gone, this state ends as well and is replaced by a multi-party democracy. The last leader of the PR Congo, Sassou Nguesso, like Kérékou above, manged to get elected and has been president of the nation since 1997.




People's Democratic Republic of EthiopiaThis one, much like the last two, was also formed on the initiative of the military. The Imperial government preceding it was facing problems domestically, and while abroad Emperor Haile Selassie was held in high regard at home the government was seen as repressive and didn't do much for the population at large despite some token attempts at modernizing the empire. This perception was reinforced when a famine occurred and much of the populace was obviously affected by it. The Imperial Government's treatment of Ethiopia's numerous minorities wasn't pluralistic either, so there was a lot of anti-government sentiment in the country.

The military saw an opportunity to seize control and upon doing so, executed the Emperor and dispersed his supporters. They formed a junta which ruled the country from then on, known as the Derg, and it is often pointed out that beyond their rhetoric the Derg were more interested in their self-preservation than anything else. The Derg gained the support of the Soviet Union and the rest of the Eastern Bloc, and while some of its members were probably opportunist, some were genuinely driven by their Marxist convictions.

The Derg tried to overcome the old social structures in Ethiopia which owed itself to tribalism, as well as go on a modernization drive that was carefully twinned with state centralization. Education was expanded to include a larger segment of the population than before as were opportunities to join the ranks of the administration. There was not much change in minorities policy, presumably because of the attempts at centralization, which in turn led to problems later down the road.

Derg rule in Ethiopia was ultimately repressive, and it eventually gave way to an internal rebellion that came down on regional and ethnic lines, which in itself eventually got seized upon by western powers trying to trouble a pro-Soviet government. A famine hit the country in the 80s that killed many people, and it got into a war with its neighbor Somalia over conflicting claims in its eastern territories (the Ogaden), which in itself became a proxy war between the Soviets and the US.

The Derg eventually reformed itself into the Workers' Party of Ethiopia and the state was formally declared as the People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. The practices continued, by it did so now in a more civilian facade. This didn't mean anything different for the Civil War, and eventually the government was overthrown by the rebel coalition, and with it its self-declared Marxism-Leninism, to form the current Ethiopian state. The last leader, Mengistu Haile Mariam, fled to Zimbabwe where he still remains.

Like Angola and Mozambique, the Derg and the subsequent civil state was pretty much embroiled in conflict. There wasn't much of an opportunity to do anything related to civil construction, and of all the states listed the Derg probably has the most negative reputation due to the famine and genocide targeted towards ethnic groups that resisted the centralization drive.




Somali Democratic RepublicThis also came to power in a military coup led by Siad Barre. Barre was ideologically driven and subscribed to socialism as a means by which Somalia could modernize. He declared "scientific socialism" to be the state ideology and set about trying to overcome the country's significant tribal and ethnic differences as well as deeply held religious sentiments (though this didn't mean a drive to state atheism) through an education campaign by sending out youth among their villagers, much like China. Large industries were nationalized and agriculture organized into cooperatives.

At first Barre aligned with the Soviets and the Eastern Bloc, but this began to change as he began to embrace a nationalist objective to annex the Ogaden from Ethiopia, which was seen as part of Greater Somalia. This led to a conflict between Ethiopia and Somalia, and with the Soviets and the Eastern Bloc supporting the former, Barre received aid from the West and China.

The Ogaden War didn't do good for either Somalia and Ethiopia, but it's long term effects were far worse on Somalia. The end of the war saw a culling of the military on the pretext of an attempted coup, which also saw some executions. Barre's polcies at ending the tribal/clan divides didn't do much and in a sense exacerbated them, and the cost of the Ogaden War drove resistance to Barre's government. There was discontent as well from the extreme means Barre took in the name of combating tribal and clan issues, which ran the gambit from forced resettlement to executions.

Somalia did not have a good economy, already hindered by corruption within the party. It got bad enough for Barre to ask for an IMF loan, which as we know pretty much meant some nasty restructuring. Barre kept asking for bailouts, and with the economy going even worse, this set up the grows for the government to become weak enough for the opposition to gain strength, and as a parting shot from its rival in Ethiopia, rise up in armed resistance.

The government was overthrown, but unlike Ethiopia the state completely imploded and Somalia turned into the mess it is now today. In hindsight one may look at Barre's time in Somalia with nostalgia, especially when compared to the chaos of Somalia in the 90s and still nowadays, but Barre certainly contributed to creating its conditions by its poorly implemented strategy to combat tribes which ended up reinforcing tribal identity instead of eliminating it.

Barre for his part fled to his hometown where he tried to make a comeback with the support of his clan, but he was eventually forced into exile in Nigeria where he later died.

Ultimately for a lot of these states they were caught up either in some internal conflict that usually tied in with the cold war, or there was some shortcoming in its economy or corruption in its party ranks.

You should also look up examples of "socialism" or at least some progressive struggle that weren't necessarily modeled on a soviet system to get a better understanding of this period in Africa. Some others you could look up- Ghana's Kwame Nkrumah, Senghor and Senegal, Keita and Mali, Lumumba and the DR Congo, Kenneth Kaunda and Zambia, Guniea's Ahmed Sekou Toure, PAIGC and Guinea-Bisseau and Cape Verde, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, Burkina Faso and Thomas Sankara, Namibia and SWAPO, even the ANC and SACP and South Africa.

This isn't an endorsement of any of these figures or groups, but that they represented a period of African history involving attempts at socialism tied up in anti-colonial struggle and land reform. Some later on of course went into more repressive forms, if not doing a 180 on their previous views. Honestly of everyone above it would seem that for all his troubles and conflict (with unions in particular), Thomas Sankara was probably the most genuine about his views. You should certainly check him out for an admirable attempt at bringing about change in Africa, for all his faults.

[Brutus]

Funny thing about Angola:

"When the Portuguese left in 1975, Gulf Oil Company had refused to abandon its offshore platforms in the Cabinda region. A contract with the MPLA government was arranged... President José Eduardo dos Santos assigned squads of Cuban soldiers to guarantee the safety of Gulf and the other Western oil giants based in Luanda, including Chevron's new office tower [on the Avenida Lenin]. And thus, Angola became the only place in the world where Cuban troops, supposedly sworn to the destruction of capitalism, were protecting U.S. multinational oil companies against attacks from U.S.-backed guerrillas."*
(Tom Zoellner. The Heartless Stone: a Journey Through the World of Diamonds, Deceit and Desire. New York: St. Martin's Press. 2006. p. 180.)

[Ismail]

Basically, of those countries you listed, Angola, Mozambique and Ethiopia were considered the most "ideological" of the "socialist" regimes, whereas Benin, Congo-Brazzaville and Somalia pretty much claimed "socialism" because it was trendy. Guinea-Bissau (Cabral died before independence), Cape Verde and Madagascar likewise had few persons who were genuinely enthused about "socialism" in their countries both domestically and internationally. Ethiopia had the reputation of being the most pro-Soviet and "hardline" of the regimes.

It's worth noting, though, that the majority of these countries (I think Ethiopia was the sole exception) had most of their trade occur with the West. That quote about Angola by Brutus gives one indication of that, and the best example is Mozambique where Reagan and Thatcher teamed up to aid Samora Machel's avowedly "Marxist-Leninist" government against a South African-backed rebellion. Benin and Congo-Brazzaville didn't rock the boat with their former colonial master (France) much either. Soviet support came mainly in the form of military assistance.

If I recall right these countries didn't actually claim they constructed socialist economies. The Soviet theory after 1955 was that virtually every pro-Soviet government in the third world was engaging in "non-capitalist development" wherein, with the support of the USSR and the rest of the "world socialist community," local parties/movements were weakening the influence of capitalism and gradually laying the foundations to begin constructing "socialism." This applied to governments as diverse as India and Syria as it did to Mozambique or Ethiopia, though the Soviets did allow for a few nuances.

What I find interesting is how the Soviets, who portrayed themselves obviously as being at the head of international communism, encouraged these countries to form one-party systems and declare themselves explicitly "Marxist-Leninist." In Somalia for example, with Soviet influence Barre went from making generic nationalist statements about the lameness of colonialism and profit-seeking, to declaring that there was no such thing as "African" or "Arab Socialism" but only Scientific Socialism (which made the Soviets happy and increased economic and military aid), to moving from military junta rule to a one-party "vanguard" state (which made the Soviets really happy), to comparing Mengistu (a then-emerging pro-Soviet leader) to Hitler and waging an irridentist war in the Ogaden. This last bit caused the Soviets and Cubans to think about the subject a bit, and they decided that Mengistu was both more stable as a "socialist" ally and that Ethiopia was geopolitically superior to Somalia, so they backed it against Somalia.

Once that happened Barre denounced the USSR, removed any conceivably Marxist aspects from his "scientific socialism" (which had been declared compatible with Islamic faith beforehand), and he established ties with social-democratic parties in Africa while obtaining military and economic aid from the USA. His government also became mired in corruption and conflict between clans in the 80's, as opposed to the enthusiasm that marked economic and social initiatives in the early-mid 70's. Obviously at this point the Soviets were denouncing the Somalis, while in neighboring Ethiopia Mengistu's government was being praised, his decision to form a "Workers' Party" was likewise praised, etc.

For what it's worth Mengistu was interviewed in the late 90's. He praised Brezhnev, Castro and Kim Il Sung, claimed Gorbachev betrayed not just Ethiopia but the whole "international socialist movement," and came off as someone whose ideology didn't change much from when he was in power.


You should also look up examples of "socialism" or at least some progressive struggle that weren't necessarily modeled on a soviet system to get a better understanding of this period in Africa. Some others you could look up- Ghana's Kwame Nkrumah, Senghor and Senegal, Keita and Mali, Lumumba and the DR Congo, Kenneth Kaunda and Zambia, Guniea's Ahmed Sekou Toure, PAIGC and Guinea-Bisseau and Cape Verde, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, Burkina Faso and Thomas Sankara, Namibia and SWAPO, even the ANC and SACP and South Africa.Senghor was not progressive, he was practically the epitome of a "respectable" pro-French leader in Africa. Besides his country being a blatant neo-colony, he said that colonialism was a good thing because it brought Christianity and that it was no good to focus on colonialism's negative aspects. He also founded the philosophy of "Négritude" that basically said whites and blacks have inherent differences in perceiving and interpreting the world. Furthermore he was the most anti-communist of all the "African socialist" leaders.

[Stalinist Speaker]

What about Rawanda?

[Ismail]

What about Rawanda?I haven't studied Rwanda, but if it claimed "socialism" it wasn't of the "Marxist-Leninist" variety.

Sankara didn't claim to be a "Marxist-Leninist" either, although he thoroughly enjoyed reading Lenin and there was a pro-Albanian person in his cabinet (when Hoxha died Sankara declared a short period of national mourning, making it the only country besides Vietnam and the pro-Vietnamese government in Cambodia, who both enjoyed friendly state and party relations with the Albanians, to do so.)

[Roach]

There was at least one attempt to turn Angola into something more similar to socialist state, at least in the Soviet view of that time. It was Nito Alves coup attempt in 1977, Alves who had been the leader of the MPLA on the ground during the anti-colonial war and Agostinho Neto's exile, had entered in conflict with the rest of the MPLA in the first two years of their troubled rule over Angola (or at least their hold over the region around Luanda). Neto trusted him the Interior Ministry in 1975, just to abolish that very ministry when his atrittion with Alves started, from 1976 to 77, Neto procceeded to purge and jail Alves supporters from the MPLA with charges of "factionalism". Alves then procceeded to send his troops to free his supporters and to overthrown Neto on what ended being called the "May 27 Coup". Needless to say he failed, ended up arrested and executed, same with his more influential supporters. Meanwhile Neto used this to completely purge the MPLA from any opposition to his rule.

I once read that Nito Alves group was initially Mao Tse-Tung thought oriented, but apparently there are claims the May 27 Coup had Soviet support.

[Roach]

Senghor was not progressive, he was practically the epitome of a "respectable" pro-French leader in Africa. Besides his country being a blatant neo-colony, he said that colonialism was a good thing because it brought Christianity and that it was no good to focus on colonialism's negative aspects. He also founded the philosophy of "Négritude" that basically said whites and blacks have inherent differences in perceiving and interpreting the world. Furthermore he was the most anti-communist of all the "African socialist" leaders.

One more evidence against Senghor is that Négritude was very influential in that mess that was the ideology of UNITA and Jonas Savimbi, it was one of the reasons of Savimbi's mistrust of the mestiço community of Luanda and his condemmation of MPLA for defending it. In spite of the obvious racial privilege that the mestiços had in Portuguese Angola, neither Neto nor Alves had any immediate problems with them, claiming that the MPLA had a "multi-racial ideology". But lets be honest here, it is very hipocritical and opportunist on Savimbi's part to claim that the MPLA was not hard enough with the settlers while receiving military support from the Apartheid.

[Comrade Jacob]

Well we all know what Somalia is like now (a libertarian paradise).

[Ismail]

I once read that Nito Alves group was initially Mao Tse-Tung thought oriented, but apparently there are claims the May 27 Coup had Soviet support.It appears he didn't have a consistent ideology outside of trying to appear more revolutionary than Neto. Apparently he read Albanian and Chinese materials (the former being put out into Portuguese and sent to Angola with the assistance of Alves' cohort Cita Vales) but by 1977 he was trying to convince the Soviets that he should be their man in Angola rather than Neto. The Soviets continued wholeheartedly backing Neto.

UNITA, by contrast, started out as a Maoist guerrilla movement, it praised China and Albania and denounced Soviet social-imperialism. Throughout the rest of his life Savimbi would continue to cite Mao (he also met Che, but he criticized his "foco" theory as elitist) as teaching him how to wage war. Upon independence the Cubans invaded Angola to prop up the MPLA, Savimbi said of the situation that: "If you are a drowning man in a crocodile-filled river and you've just gone under for the third time, you don't question who is pulling you to the bank until you are safely on it." On this basis he allied with South Africa while still claiming to be a socialist and that said socialism did entail socializing the means of production at some point after taking power. This produced an amusing situation in the 80's where liberals and conservatives in the USA argued over whether he had actually stopped being a Maoist or not, even though when he wrote and spoke in the USA he did use free-market rhetoric.