Were African countries ready for independence?

Sometime back in the early 1990s, the then mayor of Entebbe Municipality, Mr Bazira made what many believed was an outrageous and shameful statement calling on the British government to come back and rule Uganda.
This is because the post-independence leaders had made a big mess of the management of state affairs.
According to him, Ugandans and by extension many, Africans still needed lessons (from their colonial masters) on how to run countries efficiently.
As expected, he received a barrage of condemnations and bashing from all quarters with politicians leading the chorus. I have no doubt the British High Commission gleefully reported back home that there are some Ugandans appreciative of the British rule in Uganda!
On reflection though, this gentleman was certainly no lunatic, but someone who voiced loud what others prefer to say to themselves out of fear of being laughed at.
That Uganda under colonialism was comparatively more efficient, more orderly and more equitable is now evident. The chaos that has befallen Uganda and many African countries after independence inevitably invokes nostalgia among many who have not benefited from Matunda ya Uhuru (fruits of independence) and they are the silent majority, whose numbers are growing exponentially.
Colonialism was barbaric, but Africa after independence is often worse off. The post-colonial leaders have not made us proud. A few leaders have performed commendably, but they are too few in a continent of 54 countries.
By the end World War II, Europe was left in ruins and had to depend on the United States of America through Marshall Plan to breathe life into its devastated economies. That senseless war by Europe against itself had not only weakened European colonial powers but had made them ‘mortal’ in the eyes of the colonised Africans and Asians who were conscripted into the war by the colonial masters.
When they returned, they started agitating for independence. The idea of independence was hence born and Europe’s ‘paymaster’, the United States, also encouraged Europe to unburden itself of the colonies.
The granting of independence to Africa was thus a ‘by-product’ of World War II and the idea of independence spread across the continent in the 1960s. But half a century later there is not much to show.
Part of the problem is in what Nkwame Nkurumah called “neo-colonialism” or “the last stage of imperialism”, as the former colonial masters assumed economic, cultural, and social domination of the continent, increasing the gap between developed and developing countries.
The preamble in the 1963 Charter of the Organisation of African Unity actually recognised the dangers of neo-colonialism, but African leaders instead of fighting it, became agents of neo-colonialists, aiding and abetting the exploitation of African resources for the benefit of the colonial masters and themselves.
Instead of losing colonies, the colonial powers and ‘fellow travellers’ actually gained a continent ready for exploitation to the fullest.
The end result is what Nkurumah had predicted that the last stage of imperialism would be more vicious and would impoverish the countries and peoples of Africa.
The former colonial powers have, of course, ensured that leaders that do not tow their line are eliminated, and replaced with compliant ones ready to do their bidding. Even the so-called ‘revolutionary leaders’ have been converted and have ended up as accomplices in the grotesque looting of Africa.
Comparing the experiences of Africa and Asia in the last 50 to 60 years, it is difficult to conclude that Africa was ready for independence.
The former colonial masters never wanted a truly independent and prosperous Africa, given the abundance of its resources and they took advantage of the greed and lack of vision of most of the continent’s leaders.

Mr Naggaga is an economist, administrator and retired ambassador. [email protected]