Decolonizing the Language of Political Science

Post-independence, African societies became the new frontier for political scientists. Yet, as they set their gaze upon this vast and diverse continent, they did so through a lens crafted far from the shores of Africa. Their conceptual toolkit, honed through years of study in the halls of American and European academia, seemed a natural fit. Terms like ‘social contract theory,’ ‘classical liberalism,’ and ‘modernization theory’ were the tools of their trade, borrowed from a landscape where popularly elected governments had long held sway. For these scholars, the familiarity bred by generations of analysing Western political institutions lent an air of universality to their scholarship. It was as if these concepts were as applicable in the heart of Africa as they were in the capitals of Europe or North America, where they were forged. Therefore, armed with these terminologies, such scholars ventured into the African political scene, seeking to apply Euro-centric concepts wholesale to African socio-political and linguistic contexts, scarcely pausing to consider the nuances and intricacies that might require adaptation. As a result, these imported concepts and theories lacked organic connection to African realities. After all, how can ideas forged in the crucible of Western political thought truly resonate in a vastly different cultural and socio-political landscape?

In their quest for universal Truths with a capital ‘T’, Western political scientists risk overlooking the unique political concerns and aspirations of African countries. By tethering themselves so tightly to Western frameworks and theories, they inadvertently limit their ability to develop truly inclusive and comprehensive understandings of politics in all its diverse forms.

Additionally, social contract theory posits that individuals surrender certain rights to form a society governed by common laws. In the Hobbesian version of the social contract specifically, Thomas Hobbes asserts that human beings are, by nature, self-interested, albeit rational. According to Hobbes, if society did not exist, human beings would live in the state of nature. Moreover, because human beings are self-interested and resources in the state of nature are limited, life in the state of nature would be ‘nasty, brutish, and short’ as each individual would be in constant fear of losing their life to another individual in the fight for those scarce resources.

In African political and philosophical thought, however, the social contract theory does not resonate. Notions of self-interest and individualism that underpin the social contract theory are alien to the African communitarian structure. As scholars of African political thought have argued, the state of nature never existed within the African communitarian structure. Philosophy scholar, Munamato Chemhuru, pokes a hole in the Hobbesian and Lockean conceptions of the state of nature by asserting that there was no time in the recorded history of humanity when human beings have been in a state of nature and social contract. Both are, at best, figments of Locke’s and Hobbes’ imaginations. Communitarian existence, however, is a socio-political reality that has been the fabric binding African communities together for eons. This is not to imply that individuals in African contexts must lose their uniqueness to blend with the community. In African communitarian thought, each human being still maintains their will, identity, and liberty. As Ghanaian philosopher, Kwame Gyekye, noted in the book, African Cultural Values: An Introduction, ‘The clan is like a cluster of trees which, when seen from afar, appear huddled together, but which would be seen to stand “individually” when closely approached.’

In addition, modernization theory, which gained traction in the mid-20th century, framed development as a linear progression from traditional to modern societies. At the heart of all variations of modernization theory is the implicit or explicit insinuation that there is a distinction between third-world or backward societies and modern societies. Rooted in Cold War ideologies, this theory perpetuated Western hegemony over many countries, particularly in Africa. The development of modernization theory coincided with the establishment of critical global development institutions, including the World Bank. Unsurprisingly, modernization ideas, including the link between economic development and industrial growth, free market economics, and globalization, informed the establishment of these global institutions and continue to influence their relationship with so-called ‘underdeveloped’ countries significantly.

However, African scholars claim that modernization theory is nothing short of a concept designed to continue the oppressive imperialism and extractive domination of poorer countries by the hegemonic West, especially the United States. Modernization frameworks of development continue to fail poorer countries because they are not designed for the advancement of those countries but as socio-economic Trojan horses for the West’s continued pillage of the Global South. The promise of modernization and development sold to African countries by powerful nations of the West and their agents (especially multinational conglomerates) have only left nationals of poor countries poorer. In many cases, the wealth gotten from under the feet of these people, especially in the form of natural resource extraction, hardly touches their hands. Ultimately, modernization theory is an instrument of power developed by the West and spread through its agents of soft imperialism—multinational corporations and Bretton Wood institutions—to perpetuate Western interests and continue the pattern of exploitation established in the colonial era.