Why a country is not always a nation...

I often hear people calling South Africa a nation & I cringe because while South Africa is under a single political structure, it is very diverse linguistically & genetically so most certainly is not a nation. A country is not exactly a nation, below are reasons why.

A NATION 

A nation is a settlement of homogeneous clans which originated as families. I assume as clans used to roam about, they would encounter ethnic territories or lands where they would settle among. The roving clans may intermarry within the larger nation & become part of it. Multiethnic "nations" or empires are typically a Eurasian ideal than an African one & came with increased population & improved modes of travel. What centralises a nation is usually feudal chiefs, a monarch, a faith/belief system or simply physical features of an individual (genetics) & language. A nation, by default, is a usually - at best - a country because it's land & thus it's borders are typically known by other regional clans & nations. A nation with no land typically become roving clans among other nations or are constantly in conflict with the imperial power that aims to annex their land. 

A COUNTRY 

A country is a state with centralised or consolidated authority. An empire made of many other nations & states can be an country. What centralises a country is politics or documents. A country's land (or borders) are commonly demarcated on a map. A country cannot exist without land it can defend or exist on. 

Example of how an empire can simultaneously be a nation.

In brief; a diverse country (linguistically or ethnically) is more commonly referred to as a "state", "country" or "empire" & a more ethnically homogeneous country is often called a "nation" 

(N. B.: A homogeneous empire is still a nation.) 

A nation is more a homogeneous people regardless of which political structure they are under & a country is more often a political structure governing a land. So while you can call the USA, South Africa, Belgium, Nigeria, DRC, Kenya, Australia & India "countries", they are not nations. 

This may or may not be associated with the above but here's something interesting to know: 

Country in Zulu is "izwe" & inhabitants of an izwe are "isizwe" (a nation). Nation & country having the same etymological origin in the language. Indicating that in the Zulu world a nation & country used to be one & the same thing. 

In Latin languages, peace & country seem to have a similar etymological origin indicating a country is a land where citizens can live in peace. The assumption then is if people can't live with each other in peace, it's not a country. 

National Unity

Ubuntu

Ubuntu is a computer operating system created by billionaire & "first African in space" Mark Shuttleworth. 

Ubuntu simply means "humanity" in Nguni languages (compare with "ubulwane" meaning "animal-like cruelty") but it has been stolen & twisted to become a cult ideal embraced by celebrities & influencers as some sort of virgin African mentality. It's the belief that is verbatim stated as "I am because you are" by certain influencers. For me, this concept is just asking to be ridiculed. Personally, I would find it more sensible if ubuntu meant civilization because Africa had some precolonial civilizations as you may or may not know. Civilization in the dictionary is stated as; "An organized culture encompassing many communities, often on the scale of a nation or a people; a stage or system of social, political or technical development." By this, I think we could call the iron smelting, stone wall building, stone calendar making, gold & bronze artifact making Bantu agripastoralists - a civilization. The Bantu Civilization being called called Ubuntu would make more sense to me than the vague vitriol I've heard. 

"I am because you are" is virtually black Nazism & could lead to ethnic genocide. For the sake of all logical Africans, I think we should rebrand this word called "Ubuntu" because it will lead to othering disenfranchised people not indoctrinated into another person's idea of "ubuntu" as not being "abantu" (people/humans). We mustn't forget that these so-called ubuntu preachers can be ubulwane practitioners when no one can see. 

Ubuntu bethu: Our civilisation. 

The Bantu region, as by anthropologists, in Africa. 

Ubuntu should simply mean "humanity" or the Bantu Civilization. Nothing more.

The lost art of being a black conservative.

Most black people grew up around "conservative" black people. For many black people, their parents seemed conservative. The English dictionary definition of the word "conservative" states; "One who seeks to promote or preserve traditional values or institutions." Black conservatives are just black traditionalists. 

At some point in a black individual's life, they have been conservative about something & liberal about other things, this is why sticking to one political label is so complex, people seem stuck on leftism or rightism as labels when they are more a spectrum across various differing matters. One person may be conservative on immigration matters & at the same time liberal on economic matters, the vice versa is also true. 

Black conservatives are usually seen as uptight, privileged & often unreasonable when it comes to matters black people are faced with. Especially because being from a disenfranchised populace, being conservative comes off as siding with oppressors of an "un-black" system. This is why populism almost always wins against traditionalists in Africa, disenfranchised people want a man of action - they want someone in power that they can relate with. They want someone who looks familiar & seems like they walked the same streets in life as them & so, thinks like them. 

Conservatism, in it's nature comes with siding with old orders i. e. 'old models of power' & ultimately power attracts power therefore there are black conservatives who end up siding with colonial oppressors in some fields (as do black liberals). This is where other black conservatives draw the line & become nationalists/populists because while African conservatives are about order, they are about black indigenous/African order. Again, you can't really box people into left & right, populists can be conservative. And it will always be counterculture to be a conservative popular leader of a disenfranchised people because either, your people thrive unstereotypically for a black nation in Africa or you become an oppressive dictator. 

While African politics is filled with popular leaders who you often see riding through streets upon streets of cheering followers & unpopular "conservative" dictators who are often pictured as very troubled & grumpy when leading a displeased populace, I believe conservatism can still succeed in Africa. We have old orders which many laymen recognise & still respect which could hold the key to the emancipation of Africa in future. 

N. B.: Old doesn't always mean outdated, old can also mean established or tried & tested through the centuries. 

African liberalism vs African traditionalism. 

I feel while African politics is often filled with charismatic politicians - I believe sensible, progressive brother-figures have a place in African leadership & tradition can still save us despite secular liberalism being the order of the day in modern Africa. 

For more, see: Kwatuism & Repartition Africa.

Do kings/chiefs need to be educated in separate educational institutions?

I've always juggled with this concept but never reached a conclusion because a separate education institution for royalty would still need the requirements of other schools & it would be seen as an elitist institution in some way - so may gain some dislike from common people. Funding models, physical training & systems to ground the princes & princesses enrolled in such an educational institution would need to be created. And, of course, this educational institution needs to be funded so the royals & state should naturally "foot the bill". 

Personally, I feel that royals need to be in touch with the people, gain military training & a short briefing or "education" on their role as tribal leaders from a select group of elders. So, I do feel that the sons of chiefs & kings should be among common people (i. e. the people they will lead) during their school years somehow. But I suppose interaction with common people can be done during the course of daily life & not enforced upon royals as a requirement. 

Public school education could present a unique problem for educators & perhaps some unwanted obsession with the school the royal is in & peer obsession during school or maybe even hatred due to having royal blood being something common people can't work towards having. 

Perhaps, a separate education system for children of royalty could be established - one for males & one for females that could go from primary education right up to tertiary education where they would then join national military service. In these educational institutions they could learn the land's language, the land's laws, land's faith, the land's politics & political history, the land's history, public speaking, self-defence alongside the national school curriculum. Their chosen tertiary studies - if they wish to have further education - & military service with "commoners" would follow afterwards. 

I wrote this blog entry partly because I feel many African royal houses send their youths to overseas educational institutions where they become out-of-touch with the people they are expected to lead. An indigenous educational institution for only royalty could help prevent this divide. 

And I suppose that this is my idealistic blueprint of creating generation after generation of chiefs & monarchs that won't embarrass the people they lead or tribal leaders who won't go against what is required of tribal leadership. 

AN IDEAL EDUCATION SYSTEM FOR AFRICA

Xenophobia vs Indigenization

Intro: This is me, a while back. I mention rejecting some foreigner's application to live in a country because I understand that some societies may be resentful of immigrants. And if your land has xenophobic individuals, I suggest there be an anti-xenophobia campaign or simply not allow immigrants to enter your country as a foreign policy. 

I am not very xenophobic, I just don't have the time. Sure, I believe that a country's resources can be strained by mass influx of immigrants but that's what refugee camps are for. I believe that a land should simply have refugee camps by borders & process foreigners on the borders, seas & airports. I do not believe that South Africa is bursting at the seams, brimful of foreigners & I wouldn't want it to be. If a country is suffering from an influx of foreigners, it simply means the border management systems are not up to scratch or they did not plan for the population growth they allowed. 

My solutions would be:

1) Constantly guarded & double-fenced (with barbed wire) borders. 

2) Large refugee camps for undocumented/illegal immigrants on the land's borders. 

3) Indigenization of naturalised citizens.

I believe that a country can plan for it's population by building high-rise flats & building infrastructure (by even using it's massive population as builders) for it's growing population. 

The reason we should indigenize naturalised citizens from foreign lands comes from the ancient African custom of unhostile foreigners being seen as a potential extension of a nation & them becoming part of a national heritage rather than being chased away from go. For example, Zulu people come from many places in Africa & came together to build a nation over the centuries & millenia. If we apply the same concept of indigenizing foreign names & allowing foreigners to learn the national language, we simply strengthen a nation (see blog on National Unity).

There are lands far more densely populated than South Africa but built systems to accommodate their population. I'd understand the complaint of strained resources if South Africa was one of the Top 10 most densely populated countries in the world but it is not. So, affordable high-rise flats, more educational institutions, more agricultural produce & strengthened border corps should more than accommodate a growing population as well as create jobs. We simply need some population planning strategies & systems to accommodate a national population so we don't have people who feel a foreigner took his/her job somehow. 

The reason for the ethnonationalism campaign in Africa.

“We have artificial 'nations' carved out at the Berlin Conference in 1884, and today we are struggling to build these nations into stable units of human society.” - Mwalimu Julius Nyerere

I think most of our leaders try to discourage tribalism in Africa for a benevolent reason & while anti-tribalism sentiments are to encourage unity in our states, these sentiments are often in vain because tribalism has not ended in decades after the age of African independence.

I always maintain that certain ethnicities should simply govern themselves because under the rule of others they fall into disarray & become disorderly but to this some say, "Africa never had borders." Sure, there were no physical walls or barbed wire borders except in a few places like Benin or various city-states across the continent but it was known & general consensus that certain rivers, forests or mountains were borders to certain kingdoms, chiefdoms, confederacies & empires. Just because there were no man-made borders, it doesn't mean that Africa was one united country. There are places with no borders between two or more countries in Eurasia but it is known that crossing a certain river or mountain range means you're in a territory of a nation that is not the one you just left.

Now, seeing the ethnic conflicts & tribal tensions in Africa - you'd think a few leaders would think, "No, the Berlin Conference made a big mistake here" & correct those borders & sure, quiet a few leaders have spoken on Berlin Conference borders but they either are too overwhelmed by the task of reclaiming/relinquishing territory, do not have legislative power or their voice is so meek in a distant rural region that it is easily ignored by the larger state they are in.

FAMILIES DIVIDED BY THE SOUTH AFRICA-MOZAMBIQUE BORDER

I often see how ethnostates in Europe govern themselves & notice how they make rules for the benefit of the people in the land & not just laws that prevent individualism like in Africa. How is it that it makes sense to make laws that make your people struggle instead of systems, legislature & infrastructure that allows them to thrive & live freely? It is counterproductive to create a land that you yourself would not want to live in as a commoner.

Now, people will say that an ethnostate Africa is "fanciful" or "An ethnostate Africa will never happen" but just because you've accepted being cooked in a melting pot, doesn't mean that it's good for you or benefits you in the long run.

Former president of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere on the borders Africa was left with after the 1964 Cairo Declaration. 

President Paul Kagame on the borders that made Belgian Congo. 

A passage from writer, Ngugi wa Thiong'o's writings citing how other continents have ethnonational borders but Africa is stifled from doing so.

I've gone through a whole lot of benefits of the ethnostate for years. It is common logic that an ethnostate works but would take some shifting of the "struggle mentality" of Africans to a progress & solutions mindset. When you see other ethnicities having proper schools, I doubt you'd let your own ethnic group go to school in roofless mud schools. This is one of the main benefits of an ethnostate, it allows you to work towards your people's cause instead of getting a Ferrari for your youngest son while the people you govern are starving. 

I don't care what political system the new ethnostates in Africa use after we finish our reverse Berlin Conference in Accra or Addis Ababa. The nations will choose what works best for their people & ethnicity whether it's a president, monarch or collective group of chiefs or elected leaders... It makes sense to have an ethnicity govern itself than be ruled by someone of another ethnicity who would ultimately develop tribalist sentiments in time & stifle the progress of certain ethnicities/nations just out of spite that his own ethnicity isn't as developed as others. Because of Berlin Conference borders, you become stuck with a president who hates your ethnicity/nation for developing while their own are incapable of doing so for one or another reason. Just unprovoked hatred because of being born your ethnicity. It would be better if this man were just in charge of their own people & left your people alone, separate the country if need be. Silent, secret, tribal hatred festering unnoticed is worse than open campaigning for self-determination of ethnicities & nations. 

This is what we notice when we campaign for an ethnostate Africa, it's not because we're being rebellious or vain - it's because ethnicities governing themselves was the norm in Africa. Even in greater empires, the individual tribes within that empire were given a decent amount of freedom to govern themselves so they do not starve or become dependent on an unsustainable, centralised state where there was no motorised transport, information relay & telecommunications networks to make governing the land easier. Each tribe in a greater tribal confederation would have it's own set of warriors which could be of use to the tribe or the greater nation, a decentralised national unity. We discard ancient African governance systems as outdated but they made a lot of sense when you look at them in the context of what individuals played in the community of certain nations. 

Multicultural/multiethnic rule is discredited when you rule in a way that diminishes a people's freedom, you risk being seen as a foreign entity & not beneficial towards the people you rule. We need to understand that tribalism is not always just open disdain of other ethnicities but also ruling a certain people in a way that they live in squalor under your rule. 

We need to take a look at the idea of reversing the Berlin Conference borders & even if we do not make a Pan-African Conference to Repartition Africa, we have an idea of what Africa would look like with country borders defined by original ethnic rule. 

Repartition Africa 

AN IDEAL AFRICA

What to do after Cape Independence...

Cape Republicans / Kaapenars citing why secession from South Africa is necessary. 

After the Western Cape secedes from South Africa, financial institutions regarding banking, insurance, life cover, investments & pensions would need to be allowed to continue their services. I imagine all Eurasian people would migrate to the new country & leave the rest of South Africa black. Barring the few that really, really want to live around black people. 

The proposed Cape Republic flag.

I genuinely believe that the Cape Republic will succeed when separated from black South Africa & would likely join forces with Orania isolates. I even believe that the West would be more than happy to invest in a sovereign Cape Republic state... perhaps to just teach black South Africa a lesson. Ofcourse, the Cape Republic will sooner or later try to destabilise black South Africa but we'll have to simply be prepared. So #FreetheCape , a Eurasian state at the southern most tip of Africa is not a terrible idea because having everyone go to their ancestral homelands would simply be too costly & may be taken as a forced deportation of minorities by a racist black country. 

What do anti-decolonization forces really want?

The question we forgot to ask is "WHAT DO ANTI-DECOLONIZATION FORCES REALLY WANT?" So, the Pedi get a federal province with their own bank, police, education curriculum & currency. What's the problem? Who is it harming? As someone in Gauteng, KZN or Eastern Cape, I would not give a damn. 

Then they say, "It threatens South African unity". These are black people saying this, not some Apartheid beneficiaries. South Africa is an Anglo-Dutch creation. Unless you are Anglo-Dutch, what exactly is the source of your patriotism? There is apocalyptic racism & tribalism going on in South Africa daily... what unity are they talking about? 

Mind you, decolonisation simply means cultural dignity for indigenous people. No one of any race ever died from language change & a minor upgrade of national institutions. Federal provinces with their own institutions would work. South Africa's provinces are already loosely divided by ethnicity, people. The Referendum Party & Cape Independence want to separate from South Africa. Why don't we let them go?! It makes South Africa look clingy & needy. If someone tells me they want to leave me, I just let them go. I don't ignore them & force them to stay. Give Orania, the Sotho part of the Free State province & Western Cape independence from South Africa. The Constitution of South Africa, African Union & United Nations legislature promotes self-determination. 

And sure, some people might be afraid that their financial possessions would become void in a new political system & measures can simply be taken to avoid this between financial institutions, places of employment, insurance companies & institutions in charge of national services which require monthly payments. With a detailed, clear plan it is not as difficult as it is made to seem. 

Xenophobia & the King's Speech.

I'm very much a Pan-Africanist, I believe in Africa making strategic alliances to increase economy, infrastructure & security. But I also do not believe in unity for the sake of unity because that just causes contempt. 

Now, South Africa is known to be xenophobic. This is because some people are defensive of the economy. The old "foreigners occupying space meant for locals" story. Which is mostly true in South Africa, easier jobs are easier to obtain for foreigners & foreigners cost less & are less likely to complain or be part of a worker's union so they cost employers less. But as much as foreign labour is good for employers, they're not always good for locals. Recently, there were news that foreigners are selling expired & toxic goods at their spaza (tuck) shops. I've lived in townships & have seen the local spaza shop economy replaced by foreigners & this is because our people were simply not competitive enough at times. Somalian foreigners obtain bulk savings by bringing their money together to get discounts & deals direct from producers of products. Foreigners even manufacture some of their own products to sell at their shops. And, sadly, we've even heard of cases of foreigners bullying local shop owners out of business. Some foreigners in South Africa are, genuinely, breaking the law with their businesses but it's laws that are not reported by South Africans themselves because many South Africans dislike authority. So both South Africans & foreigners end up being quietly lawbreakers because nobody wants to report illegal activity. 

Now, I've already blogged about the unchecked migration of people into South Africa. But who is in charge of this? Who is in charge of Home Affairs, migration & border security? Why is everyone but the people responsible talking? And the people talking are not reporting to authorities or to the people responsible for the mass illegal immigration & human trafficking in South Africa. You'd think the people in charge of Home Affairs, migration & border security don't care or want illegal immigrants in South Africa. 

The King's Speech: 

I watched a film called The King's Speech once, starring Colin Firth & he played King George IV of England. A king who had a problem of stuttering & through going to a speech therapist, this King of England eventually learnt how to speak without stuttering. We do not have such a problem in South Africa but we do have a Zulu king who speaks "off-the-cuff" & is taken too literally at times by South African media. 

South African media needs you to be very specific on what you mean while being politically correct & that is a very difficult thing to do on-the-spot. As a public figure or traditional leader, you simply need a speech written for public events because some paid journalists & people with agendas will turn light words into a serious matter. 

I'm not really that xenophobic but do believe immigrants should enter a country legally & contribute positively to the land they're allowed into. Hopefully, the people in charge of the systems controlling immigration into South Africa explain what's happening or people in South Africa may get rowdy (as they're known to do) & attack foreigners indiscriminate of whether they are legal or illegal. 

A few political quotes...

"Sovereignty is the absolute & perpetual power of a commonwealth, which the Latins call 'Maiestas'; the Greeks 'Akra Exouisia', 'Kurion Arche' & 'Kurion Politeuma; & the Italians 'Segnioria'... while the Hebrews call it 'Tomech Hévet' - that is the highest power of command..." 

Jean Bodin (1576) 

"Our people are like children, who would never of their own accord decide to learn, who would never take up the alphabet without being compelled to do so by their teacher, who would at first feel despondent. But later, when they have finished their studies, they are grateful for having been made to go through them. This is evident today: has not everything been achieved under constraint? Yet now one hears gratitude for much that has already borne fruit." 

Peter the Great (1723) 

"A survey of all states in the world will show that those states which undertook reforms became strong while those states which clung to the past perished. The consequences of clinging to the past & the effects of opening up new ways are thus obvious. If Your Majesty, with your discerning brilliance, observes the trends in other countries, you will see that we can change, we can preserve ourselves, but if we cannot change, we shall perish." 

K'ang Yu-wei, Confucian reformer 

(Memorial to the imperial throne, submitted 29 January 1898) 

"No people ever die, nor stop short upon their path, before they have achieved the ultimate aim of their existence." 

Unknown 

"We estimate that if the seven billion people of the year 2000 have a GNP per capita as high as that of present-day Americans, the total pollution load on the environment would be at least ten times its present value. Can the Earth's natural systems support an intrusion of that magnitude? We have no idea." 

Club of Rome (The Limits to Growth 1972) 

Revolutionary Quotes

Quotes (IsiZulu)

Why Africa seems to lag so behind when compared to the rest of the world.

I've always felt that Africa is given an unfair spotlight in certain fields, primarily technology & quality of life. The thing is, technology is often made in one part of the world then spreads across the region before spreading worldwide. While the wheel is commonplace today, it was made in Persia before spreading across the world. Austronesians, Australasians, trans-Saharan Africans & Native American tribes did not use the wheel until they learnt the technology from someone else. This goes for other technologies such as the firearm & electricity. In fact, neither the wheel, electricity or the firearm were invented or discovered in Europe. These three essential technologies of the modern world were all Asian. Technology spreads depending on it's usefulness. 

Why we did not develop our own technology in Africa despite seeing it from other peoples is because in sub-Saharan Africa we rejected a lot of developments due to simple complacency among other things. We almost didn't believe anything was greater than our way of life. Some African nations called the gun, the "coward's weapon" just to show how disdainful Africans were of Western technology. So even if we did see many modern technologies on journeys & from colonisers, we didn't think that they were better than our way of life on most occasions & technologies we saw as better or superior, we - obviously - quickly adopted. This was the southeast African mentality. 

I can quote two lectures online of people more educated than myself on why Africa didn't develop the same technologies that Eurasia managed to develop, one cites simple geography & the other cites modern misunderstandings of ancient Africa but I'm going to note that culture & the accepted ideas of a given people played a role in many African nations remaining unaccepting of foreign technology. In some regions, colonisers might have caused so much damage that anything they came up with from their clothes, food & technology may have been rejected. It was not lack of intellectual capacity that made Africa lag behind Europe & Asia but more culture, environment & geography coming together to prevent the adoption of new technologies. 

The quality of life in Africa correlates with our experiences; Africa is a large, hot, hostile continent... we have the common idea that possessions are not permanent so we often didn't bother in making non-permanent items, especially in southeast Africa. This was the same for Australasians & Native Americans as well. The only reason it seems like the southern African way of life is unique & exotic may be simply due to our skin colour. There is no other way to put it because on other continents they lived lifestyles that focused less on possessions as well. There are "uncontacted tribes" today in modern America & Asia who have not discovered the wheel & might be considered less developed than most African countries. 

Despite all this; the destabilisation of our nations, way of life & hostile environments - Africa has made a lot of contributions towards the development of the modern world. Comparing African countries to China by claiming that China was one of the poorest countries in the world thirty years ago works in humiliating Africa. Sure. But putting into context that China's massive population shares one language & national ideal while Africa's nations were forced into ethnic conflicts through European-made national borders & dealt with unfair deals in terms of land & mining since the 1800s will make you understand that China had a sociocultural advantage & was given a further economic advantage when the world (i. e. USA & associates) made China a giant manufacturing plant. There's no reason an African nation focused on agriculture, shelter, industry & defence couldn't be successful even if that African nation never reaches the heights of China & Europe. 

Our quality of life in Africa needs to be a priority or we'll forever be just the struggling, malnourished, corrupt Dark Continent. We cannot compare ourselves to other continents when we were clearly dealt a different set of cards. 

AFRICAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE MODERN WORLD 

The price we pay for Africa's development.

Why consensus in a language & identity is important in a land...

I spend some of my time studying human nature. Partly to make up for the time I was accepted to do a Sociology degree but chose to go to another university. I often study other countries concept of national unity compared to South Africa's lived reality. We have two realities in South Africa each trying to enforce their way of life as the truth. One group of people believes in a decolonised land & one believes the "natives" are savages to be tamed. This is the simple truth, a bipolarised land with no identity consensus. Anything else; crime, poverty, racism, tribalism, inequality & even some corruption are a byproduct of this underlying conflict.

We have to ask why is it that the most multiracial & multicultural countries are the most racist & tribalist. While most monocultural ethnostates, simply get things done. This is especially pertinent to Africa because we're not like Europe & Asia, our concept of nationhood was stripped away in the 1800s. The most common type of state historically & most successful type of state today is the single language nation-state. Yet, somehow, modern-day Africa did not get this memo. 

Unfortunately, in many cases where there is exteme nationalism or "rabid nationalism" as it is sometimes called, we get bouts of ethnic cleansing. This is unfortunately often a bloody process which I think could be fast-tracked by a better process of amicable deportation, making less enemies while freeing a people from an imposing group. Amicable deportation can even involve swopping of non grata population groups among countries to solve problems on two fronts. 

A monocultural ethnostate can most definitely accommodate minorities, we see this all the time worldwide but it is the native majority that is the accepted creators of the national identity not the minorities. If minorities are not imposing, discrimination of them is less likely to occur. This is simple human nature & requires no degree to comprehend. 

Language unity goes a long way in expressing ideas within the land, this alone causes the unity required for a land to move forward without implementing further unifying measures like standardised national education. 

National Unity

Black Excellence.

A list of black public figures who have helped progress Africa & black people worldwide. 

• Piankhi: A ruler of ancient Egypt who created the 25th dynasty of Egyptian pharoahs. 

• Queen Amanirenas of the Kingdom of Kush: A Nubian queen who lost her eye in battle against the Romans. She is famous for leading her armies against Roman expansion in the late 1st century BC and for her fierce resistance, which ultimately led to a peace treaty that preserved her kingdom's independence. 

• Marcus Garvey: A political figure who promoted black independence in the Caribbean & the USA.  

• Dr. Thomas Mensah: A Ghanaian-American inventor & engineer who pioneered fibre-optic technology. 

• Thomas Sankara: A political figure of post-colonial Africa who sought to make Burkina Faso a self-sufficient country. 

• Kofi Anan: Former Secretary General of the United Nations.  

• Kwame Nkrumah: A founder of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), which is now the AU. He sought to make Ghana self-sufficient with grain silos. 

• John Langalibalele Dube: Founder & first president of the South African Natives National Congress (SANNC) which became the African National Congress (ANC). He founded Ilanga newspaper & Ohlange High School. 

• Charles "Buddy" Bolden: Creator of the jazz music genre. 

• Frederick Nathaniel Hibbert: Father of reggae music. 

• Pelé: Brazilian footballer who holds multiple records in football. 

• Wilt Chamberlain: American basketball player who holds multiple records in basketball. 

• Usain Bolt: Jamaican sprinter who holds multiple athletics records. 

These are just a few people of black (African) origin who have helped the black race obtain some dignity. I left out some controversial figures who may have caused more harm than good. 

• Senegalese inventors.

• Kenyan inventors.

• Nigerian inventors. 

• Black South African inventors. 

• African-American inventors & scientists.

A select five leaders who were among the most influential African history.

Why aren't more countries designed like this?

I understand the importance of culture in any society but why couldn't it be done when the fundamentals & basics for survival in a land are dealt with? Primarily; food, shelter & defence. Anything after these three factors is surplus if we're being bare bones basic. The main industries of the land would revolve around food ( i. e. agriculture, livestock, compulsory state farm service, state-owned supermarkets & state food banks etc.), shelter (i. e. subsidised housing, state-owned hotels & hotel franchises) & defence (i. e. compulsory military training, border guards & a local military industrial complex). 

You'd think some of the developed countries would be designed like this but they aren't for various capitalist reasons. Some socialist countries may have used these methods but perhaps not in the exact same fashion. They're all very laissez-faire & decentralised. In fact, I've only heard of a state hotel being spoken of in Burundi. 

A state bank would ensure that the finances of the land are kept in the land if all individuals are required by law to have an account in the state bank. 

Subsidised housing could be our matchbox houses (lounge, bathroom, kitchen & two bedrooms) in South Africa in a five-storey, high-rise building or a simple, single bedroom-bathroom, two-room arrangement for the poor/homeless which themselves would be a five-storey high-rise housing arrangements with a small planting patch for each house like in rural China. Five-storey so it is not too difficult to construct & not too catastrophic if disaster should happen. The larger housing would be a rent-to-own type contract & the smaller housing for the homeless would be a small fee for two months just to help individuals in need. The hotel franchise would be in select cities & towns across the land & perhaps expand continentally or even internationally. Subsidised high-rise buildings for housing are a Soviet creation. I imagine subsidised housing would be easier for the government to document on a census in order to provide services also.

Transport system in the land & National Unity would be as in the links below. Taxi drivers are part of the communities we live in & many would surely prefer government employment. National Unity would ensure tribalism & racism is kept to a minimum. 

The Education & Sports system in the land would work symbiotically. 

We could borrow the easy & fast business registration concept from Rwanda to grow our economy. 

An employment or job seeker database for every citizen in the land to help in the census & helping individuals find employment. 

A legal system that punishes the crime the individual committed & not punishes the individual regardless of which crime they committed aka Lex Talionis. 

A near perfect land that leaves no one, including minorities, disenfranchised. 

In brief: 

• Food, Shelter, Defence are the state's first priority. 

• State Bank. 

• Subsidised public housing & hotels. 

• State-owned transport system. 

• Symbiotic Education (comprehensive education for the needs of the land) & Sport system. 

• Easy business registration. 

• Employment/job-finding database. 

• Concept of National Unity.  

• Lex Talionis.  

Kwatuism 

National Unity.

I am an admirer of the concept of "national unity" as I have seen how much a lack of national unity has harmed South Africa. Were South Africa as unified as China or Sweden, we'd be near a first world country but we are so divided, the stark ideological & cultural differences within South Africa have consistently proven to us that we are forcing a united country in vain on many occasions. So I propose this (more conservative) branch of Kwatuism to deal decisively with disunity in nations. I studied global politics to reach this conclusion so I cannot give this political concept an African name. Instead, it's based on Old World-ist tried & tested methods of national unity. 

• The state language: I don't understand how a land does not embrace the concept of a national language more often. In South Africa we insisted on having a full eleven official languages rather than simply choosing English as the medium of instruction in schools, language of the media, language of communication & our lingua franca. This could've avoided a lot of problems nationwide. Instead now, we have remained divided in islands of indigenous languages which find it difficult to integrate with the larger land. The most spoken & understood language being Zulu will not be learnt by tribalists of Xhosa, Sotho, Tswana, Pedi & other groups. When whites, Tsonga, Swazi, Ndebeles & even Vendas don't find a problem with the Zulu language - we find tribalists truly loathe the concept of Zuluness nevermind learning the language. A national language likely provides unity more than anything else. If South Africa is to unite, we may need to consider adopting the European languages of English or Dutch/Afrikaans as the national language in all media (TV, radio, internet & print) & daily life because learning any of our indigenous languages will simply increase tribal hatred. 

• The state religion: A state's faith provides a moral foundation of a people & ensures all the people in a land understand the land's concept of wrong & right. The state religion should naturally bleed into the nation's legal frameworks with the religion of the land being the foundation of the law of the land. While living in a land that has laws that oppose an individual's religion today is the norm, it is what causes religious extremism. I imagine that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church could gain ground in Africa instead of Roman Catholicism, Protestantism & other Christian sects which were founded in Europe. If not, Africans could resurrect their ancient faiths which would ultimately be both their faith & law. 

• Integration of foreign names: I'm a studier of languages i. e. linguist & study how languages define culture. I understand how the Anglophone, Lusophone, Francophone & the Castillian-speaking world integrates & understand how foreign names can cause confusion in a land. So for this I propose, domestication of foreign names into the local language. Everything from provincial names, city names, river names, mountain names & even the names of individuals in the land. I'm of the belief that a rich & vibrant language is vital in maintaining a successful nation. Using my native indigenous/vernacular language as a reference base: Biblical names could be indigenized (e. g. Eve ~ Eva, Michael ~ Mayikheli, Jacob - Yakobe, Thomas ~ Tomasi etc.) while foreign names could be translated into local names (e. g. Thomas ~ Wele, Harold ~ Mbusi/Mholi, Henry ~ Mzuziwendlu, Paul ~ Mphansi etc.) This could be done by default for anyone on the national database who has citizenship in the land. They would need, at least, one name in the indigenous language to obtain citizenship & perhaps prevent ridicule of individuals in intolerant communities.

• The head of the state: Ideally, the head of state could be a leader elected with open ballot elections but this causes problems in time & lacks consistency. Whereas a monarch & the elected ministers could provide long-term consistency, a minister under a monarchy could stay twenty years & grow to understand his portfolio better than the five-year ministers of our democratic elections. A monarch is often a descendant of the ancient rulers of the land so provides a link from the land's past into the future which serves in legitimising a land & it's institutions. 

Many of the readers of this blog entry are going to ask where any of this has worked in the world or in Africa particularly. You're in luck as I have plenty examples: Imperial Ethiopia, Japan, Thailand, England, the Netherlands, Spain & the entire Scandinavian world (Denmark, Sweden, Norway & Iceland somewhat). Germany & France have a state language even though they no longer have a monarchy & have a more secular society today. The same secularism that is now proving a problem in Western Europe with the influx of Islamic extremists. Eswatini loosely employs two of the four above-mentioned points in unifying their land but they are less insistent on using Swazi as the absolute language of the land, I suspect that they are more tolerant of different faiths as well as foreign names so only have their monarch & partly their language as unifying factors in their land. Another example of language creating unity would be the East African bloc where language unity through the Swahili language has made it possible for them to seamlessly work together across different countries. A state religion works in unifying lands especially in Islamic lands, where their faith is their culture & often their law which often indirectly accelerates development of a nation (e. g. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, & the UAE). So the above-mentioned four points have genuine real-world examples of their success & are not just fabrications of this blog post writer. 

The above-mentioned four points may seem unimportant but become defining factors in divided lands to forge unity. This could be the early stages of an index measuring a country's national unity in place of using economic or financial equality as measures of a country's unity.

Could monarchy still work in Africa today?

Most of us in the world today descend from a history of monarchy or a version of it. Even the birthplace of democracy, Greece, had a king & Rome started of with a dictator - then in time, Rome's empire was governed by an emperor (i. e. a king of many nations). Monarchy is the most natural form of leadership because it is what we are naturally used to as human beings. A king rules until death or until he abdicates - or is forced to abdicate & his son takes after him. A simple order. 

While the idea of democratically electing a president is less than one hundred years old in most of Africa, it has gained rapid popularity because of influence from Europe. So between monarchy & democratically elected national leaders, which is better? 

The original stance of a monarch was that a monarch's word was the law, divine rule as it were. But today, in the age of global human rights, most monarchies have moved towards a constitutional monarchy where the king may not always be above the law. This benefits a nation in the case there is a self-destructive monarch, the nation could protect itself from destruction through the law. While democratically elected national leaders are through people's votes, many elections are rigged when there is a secret ballot. The main objective of a politician is to get public votes so often politicians will make promises they will never keep. While the monarch has no obligation to keep any grand promises, he is already the head of state. In fact, many constitutional monarchies in the world today who have employed democracy when electing ministers are considered more democratic than countries who have "democratic" in their name. The monarch only has to keep the land stable, ensure it's economic prosperity & defend it from external threats for his rule to be considered a success. Monarchy also provides continuity & political stability in that monarchs often rule for decades while elected heads of state often rule for a period of five years before campaigning again trying to get votes from the people. Most election campaigns are an inconvenient waste of money disguised as the people's power while a monarch simply appoints a minister & could call for a referendum to consider the people's approval on a matter.

Ideally, elections in a democratic land should be done in a way that even bystanders can see exactly which political party an individual voted for in real time. But since elections are often a secret ballot, a lot can happen in the shadows including double-voting, lost ballot boxes & other forms of election rigging. 

An elected monarch: 

Since many countries in Africa have people who want to have the lifetime reign of a king, an elected monarch may be a solution. A list of the strongest, fastest, most intelligent & wealthiest people in the land could be compiled. The one who the people is the strongest, fastest, most intelligent & wealthiest in comparison to the rest could then be elected as king & establish his dynasty in the country to rule for eternity. 

Monarchy is still the most enduring form of governance worldwide & maybe we should accept it as the default setting of humanity.

Two blog posts that are worth reading again.

Fame: https://potmfm.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-reality-of-fame.html

Liberty ideas: https://potmfm.blogspot.com/2025/06/what-happens-when-western-concepts-of.html