13 - African Nationalists and Human Rights, 1940s–1970s

Summary

‘Contemplating human rights in the abstract is a luxury that only the most isolated occupants of the ivory tower can afford’.

I.

It is now something like a truism that the end of the Second World War marked the dawn of a new era of rights. Since the adoption of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the subject of rights ranks high among themes of great popular and academic interest. For instance, rights have become the language of choice for making and contesting entitlement claims. Today the language of rights underlies many facets of private and public discourse, from claims within the family unit to national and global political debates. During the process of decolonization, the European colonial powers in Africa made considerable efforts to prevent the extension of fundamental human rights in their African possessions. On the other hand, a human rights discourse is usually regarded as an important tool of independence movements south of the Sahara. The human rights paradigm of the Universal Declaration is implicitly state-centred: The nation-state is recognized as both the greatest guarantor as well as the greatest threat to human rights. Before Africa could fit into this paradigm, modern African states had to be born. Most of them, under the banner of the right to self-determination, came into being in the 1960s, and several post-colonial constitutions embodied a bill of rights. In many cases, commitment to human rights remained rhetorical, however, often sacrificed in the name of ideology, traditions or institutions. Many of those anti-colonial nationalists who fought against suppression – once in power – suppressed their political opponents. In an article published in 1980, Dunstan M. Wai gave expression to a widespread disillusion among Africanist scholars and activists: ‘Although during the heyday of anticolonialism and decolonization the founding fathers of African nationalism emphasized their faith in fundamental human rights, freedom, and the dignity of the human person, their behaviour and policies in their respective countries after assumption of power shows clear disrespect for human rights. The record of their successors remains disappointing’.