Africa’s future depends on principled classical liberalism—nothing less
The West is once again mobilizing to strengthen African democracy. The Ford, MacArthur, and Open Society foundations recently launched a $20 million West Africa Democracy Fund, a seemingly well-intentioned deterrent to various anti-democratic threats in the region.
While the involvement of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations is a cause for concern, given the many illiberal initiatives they fund in Africa and across the world that are united by a shared commitment to rent-seeking taxation and redistribution policy, the West Africa Democracy Fund could very well succeed in its mission to “reimagine, renew, and strengthen democracy” in West Africa.
But what Africa really needs is classical, principled liberalism from within. Africans are in desperate need of a strong free market where companies, jobs, and opportunities run aplenty. In addition to economic freedom, the continent’s free-market champions must continue to denounce the critics of private initiative who—sometimes overtly and sometimes subtly—propose socialism as a viable alternative.
Liberalism’s critics are loud, and their voices inevitably impact African policymakers. Critics of liberalism argue, relatively unopposed, that liberalism (though, somehow, not socialism) is not an “authentic” African phenomenon but rather a relic of Western colonialism. They claim to criticize “Western” liberalism (or its proxy, capitalism) from an “authentically” African(ist) perspective.
And yet, classical liberal values like individual liberty, private property, free enterprise, and limited constitutional government were not entirely absent from precolonial Africa. To the contrary, as the African affairs analyst ibrahim B. Anoba argues, qualities like respect for individual happiness, personal interest, and dignity were generally permitted before colonialism ever came to Africa. Others note that African chiefs did not have the free reign to do as they pleased in their societies that many contemporary “authentic” Africanists now believe governments should exercise.
Nevertheless, neo-Marxist socialists on the continent reject the conventional wisdom of “hard work entails success” because this, they say, is the common sense of capitalism. They oppose principles like “agreements must be kept” (pacta sunt servanda) because this is a “religious” doctrine of capitalism. And they equate any semblance of freedom with some sort of “white” cultural hegemony, conveniently ignoring Africa’s precolonial past while presumably welcoming the similarly Western redistributionism that Soros and others encourage across the continent.
Although Westerners may have first articulated and developed the thought around classical liberalism, it is by no means a “Western” approach that can only apply in the West. To suggest that the notion of a free, asset-owning individual, who may act without molestation from state authorities, never entered the minds of non-Western thinkers or laypersons is utterly perverse. Denying Africans liberties and freedoms because they are allegedly “Western,” as many politicians and “authentically African” political thinkers still claim, will only hold back the continent from the prosperity it can very much achieve.
My native South Africa is a case study. Earlier this year, South African democracy turned 30, celebrating the end of apartheid and a now-three-decade tradition of democratic, non-racial elections. But the forces of neo-Marxism have found new strength in South African politics, while real (free-market) economic freedom all too often takes a backseat to government interference in the economy.
Entrepreneurship is on the decline, while deregulation and privatization continue to be stubbornly avoided by the rent-seeking political elite. Indeed, more than 16 million South Africans—25 percent of the country—now rely on monthly welfare grants for basic survival.
Relatedly, South Africa ranks 81st out of 165 countries and territories in terms of economic freedom, with onerous minimum conditions of employment, compulsory minimum wages, and other job-killing regulations making it difficult for small businesses to hire and expand. Young South Africans are especially hindered, as the costs imposed on employers often exceed the economic value of hiring an additional employee. This contributes to a situation where more than 60 percent of young South Africans are unemployed.
But neo-Marxist socialists ignore the empirical evidence, almost exclusively blaming the West for the struggles of African employers, employees, and job-seekers. The proper response from Africa’s freedom champions is to contextualize classical liberalism to Africa’s reality. The principles of liberalism are as applicable in Africa as they are anywhere and everywhere else, and African liberals must do nothing that creates distance between the continent’s reality and those basic principles of liberty and human agency.
Of course, we must also tread carefully to avoid blindly following or extrapolating Western thinking around those principles. But, at its core, liberalism is nothing more than a political alignment with human nature. As decision-making and responsibility-taking beings, individuals are biologically programmed to choose. And liberalism is, ultimately, the philosophy of choice.
Liberalism is not “Western”; it is clearly a universally applicable approach. Liberalism’s “Africanist” critics betray their own authenticity by utilizing a no less ironically Western methodology of critique (neo-Marxism) and advocating all the same forms of statism seen in the West.
Africans deserve the freedom to choose. Anything less just means socialism, with its inevitable consequences of coercion and destitution.
Martin van Staden is the Head of Policy at the Free Market Foundation in South Africa.