If the conditional (or ‘subjunctive') did not exist, it would have to be invented for Africa. The Black continent should be as developed as South America or Asia. Africa possesses every precious metal or other raw material that the earth has to offer. It has 88 percent of all platinum reserves, 73 percent of all diamonds, 60 percent of all cobalt and manganese, and 40 percent of all the gold in the world. Agriculture could flourish and produce surpluses. Africa's rivers have immense potential for hydro-electric power generation. The Congo River basin alone could generate enough energy to light up virtually the whole continent from Cape to Cairo.
Should, could, would - the variations of the conditional describe the fate of a whole continent and its 800 million people. Instead of increasing in prosperity, however Africa has fallen far behind the rest of the world. In spite of a few advances, it still presents an image of extreme poverty, disease and violence.
The bloody battles that have racked Kenya since the election farce at the end of December provide new evidence of how fragile even the so-called anchors of stability are in Africa.
Kenya is just another fragment of a sombre overall picture. In the centre lies the giant Congo, the ailing heart of the Continent. Just beyond, in the Sudan's western province, Darfur, and also in Chad, civil war and anarchy reign; while in Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea the war drums are beating again. In Zimbabwe an aging dictator has been ruining this former model of development. And in South Africa, the most advanced state on the Continent, a man being prosecuted on charges of corruption - and married to four wives - has been elected as leader of the ruling ANC.
The constant pleas from Europe to concentrate on the alleged success stories make no difference to this dismal balance sheet. Quite apart from the fact that none of these success stories would be regarded as such elsewhere in the world, they are limited to only a couple of hardly representative semi-arid savannah countries, such as Botswana and Mali, and the island republic Mauritius - together representing scarcely 2 percent of the total population of Africa.
Fifty years after decolonisation, the following questions are being posed with increasing urgency: why is Africa the only continent which has remained stagnant for decades? And, with the exception of South Africa (which had been under white rule till 1994), why has Africa been virtually completely isolated from international commerce? Many people, especially Africans themselves, hold colonialism solely responsible for the misery of the continent. Africa, it is said, was disfigured and plundered by white colonialism. Yet the West acted no differently in, for example, Indochina. Vietnam was laid waste by war in 1976, and fell far behind Africa. Nevertheless, today it is one of the booming countries of the world.
Europeans only penetrated the African interior after 1870, and barely 100 years later they had virtually disappeared from the continent - except in Southern Africa. In many regions their dominance lasted scarcely half a century. Nevertheless, Africa's internal structures are clearly crumbling to such an extent that, in contrast to Asia, new beginnings are not evident. African's long-standing and constant reproach about the evils of colonialism has become a convenient excuse for Africa's own derelictions. Incontestably, the slave trade and colonialism must share in the blame for the fact that Africa has not succeeded in standing on its own feet. And, of course, Africans have suffered psychological damage so that even now many Africans still lack a sense of self-worth.
But colonialism had also, more than anything else, driven the modernisation of Africa. And the assigning of historical guilt provides no foundation for future progress.
With Kenya's election, Africa's gradual movement towards a democratic mind-set has suffered a severe setback. That election fraud has been becoming increasingly frequent on the Black continent, is on the one hand - from a Western perspective - attributed to an inadequate understanding of democratic values. However, it is also true that elections create disagreement and therefore do not fit in well with Africa's characteristic philosophy of consensus and harmony.
On the other hand, the characteristics of the (European) nation state have had to be combined with the traditional norms of local communities. On this interplay has been imprinted the apparently absolutist and virtually untrammelled power of the typical African head of state; as well as a conception of the state which regards it as simply a source of income.
Kenya provides a striking example of this. When the country became independent, its Founding Father, Jomo Kenyatta, professed a severing of ties with colonial Europe - yet promptly adopted the most characteristically European of all political structures: the nation state; which further strengthened the traditional African hierarchical structures.
And yet most of the states of Black Africa do not satisfy the basic criteria for the existence of a sovereign nation state. They often neither control their own national territory nor maintain a functioning administration throughout it. The weakness of their democratic institutions is in direct proportion to enormous presidential power.
The support of civil society in the framework of development cooperation has had little impact on this situation. On the contrary: the mentality of audacious self-enrichment of the African elites has led increasingly to disintegration and the further erosion of the thin veneer of democracy.
Sheer disappointment with their continuing impoverishment, has persuaded many Africans to remain closely attached to their tribal roots and to acknowledge no overriding loyalty towards their recently created nation states.
"When corruption and nepotism are the distinctive hallmark of a society, as is the case almost everywhere in Africa, the thin veneer of civilisation with which postcolonial states managed to conceal the fact they were in fact not states in the modern sense, crumbles," wrote Ulrich Menzel, a conflict researcher.
Naturally the fragmentation of a country along ethnic fault lines, as is happening in Kenya, is not unique to Africa. Nevertheless, in Africa this process is more pronounced than elsewhere. Most Kenyans seem to be making the same demand that Bismarck made to the German people, to "think with their blood." Moreover, the diverse groups often feel like a large extended family, which is defined culturally (by language or religion), biologically (by race or tribe) or territorially (by region).
The expectation that urbanisation and industrialisation would act like a great melting pot, eventually blurring the differences between ethnic groups, has proven to be a fallacy. Instead, it seems true that in the confusion of modern society many people are seeking an emotional anchor. Consequently, as is now happening in Kenya, the emotional instincts of ethnicity are linked to a strong material component. In the scramble for a share in scarce resources ethnic groups become pressure groups. Therefore, turning to their own tribe provides individuals with an entirely rational form of social security.
The possibility of sharing in the sinecures provided by the state is, as a rule, only possible at election time - and it is precisely this that demands militancy and leads to the temptation of election fraud. Apart from the ignominy of defeat, an election setback means a loss of power and the beginning of the disintegration of an established clientele. Hence, in African elections a great deal is at risk. If the President is voted out of office, this can have repercussions down to the lowest levels of society.
In the colonial era, with its strong centralisation of power, tribalism was either violently suppressed or manipulated as a useful tool. Many African states are no longer in this position: they are fragile and lack a monopoly on the use of force. The violence in Kenya is a painful reminder that tribalism has clearly lost none of its ancient attraction. In Kenya, too, this is a direct consequence of dereliction by the state. Although President Mwai Kibaki brought together all ethnic groups in his earlier cabinet, among the people there is little doubt that his Kikuyu people are firmly in control.
There has been growing resentment among other tribal groups at this domination by the Kikuyu, which is the strongest group both numerically and in wealth. The fury that was unleashed following the elections shows clearly that (primarily economically-based) tribal conflicts have eclipsed not only the earlier resentment against whites but also any emerging general class consciousness.
Apart from the irresponsibility of African elites, an equally important factor is the fact that the four driving forces of modernisation are virtually or totally absent. These are private ownership of property, education, the importance of the nuclear family, and a politically independent middleclass. It is for this very reason that it is futile to impose a (western) concept of democracy which has found no fertile breeding ground in Africa. Instead it is becoming ever clearer that neither culture nor democracy is simply exportable. Furthermore, deep structural changes in a society cannot be purchased with money from outside. In the end, every continent and society must secure these changes independently for themselves. Thus, for example, the traditional African obligation to share with the extended family, and the wide net of community solidarity, impede capital accumulation and constrain economic potential.
What can be done to narrow the gap between North and South? A good start would be to put an end once and for all to a double hypocrisy. On the one hand there is an inability (conditioned by colonial guilt) of the West to tell Africans that they should stop their self-destructive behaviour. On the other hand, there is the mind-set of Africans who are actually aware of their home-made problems, but indignantly reject each and every criticism in order not to lose the regular maintenance payments extracted by manipulating the feelings of guilt of the West.
Besides the many aid programmes by which donors salve their own consciences, the prosperous North should start by developing ideas of a new, more honest relationship with its independent southern neighbours. This applies in particular to a new form of aid and cooperation. It is not enough simply to spend generously on better governance, or to send observers to oversee elections - only to end up tolerating undemocratic outcomes and even the most egregious election fraud. To this end strict oversight over all aid projects and disbursements is essential. Latent feelings of guilt have for too long resulted in Europe scarcely applying any pressure on even the most blatantly repressive regimes in Africa - all too often reinforcing the intolerable status quo.
However, one should not hope for a rapid improvement in the situation. Too much time has already been lost. More than fifty percent of all Africans are younger than fourteen and are (often) entirely unequipped for the future. We shall for a long time have to come to terms with the fact that, in Africa, a small economic upswing - as recently occurred as a result of a boom in the demand for raw materials - is followed by a long period of stagnation. This pattern will only be broken when Africans no longer barricade themselves behind the colonial past, but finally - as the other continents have done - risk the leap into the modern world and take more responsibility for their own fate.
At best we are left with prospects that may perhaps be compared with a second marriage. Experience speaks against it, only hope speaks for it.
Wolfgang Drechsler is Africa correspondent for Der Tagesspiegel, Germany. This is an edited free translation of an article which first appeared in Der Tagesspiegel on February 10 2008
