This “limited” view of the outside world conditions social interactions. Indeed, wars and social upheavals are caused, among other factors, because of the way people perceive one another. In our own times, the wars, for example, in Rwanda, Kosovo and Iraq testify to this observation.

At another level, at the level of positioning for political power within countries, leaders hold political views that dictate their policies and directions. If their views are conditioned by looking at reality from a limited, rather than a comprehensive, perspective, then they are apt to make serious errors in political judgements and the directions they take their countries. It is in this context that the following three-tier analysis is suggested for comprehending the African reality as a guide to future policy and action.

A holistic analysis requires us to look at all the following three factors in an interconnected manner:
• The Imperial Factor (at the global level),
• The Governance or Democratic Factor (at the national or State level) and
• The Social Factor (at the level of the people).

At the very basic level is the “Social Factor” (SF). A system is legitimate only if it is able to advance the basic human rights (as defined above) of the people. And this means being sensitive to the vulnerable sections of the population – such as the children, women, people with disabilities, the workers, poor peasants, refugees from neighbouring countries, and minorities amongst us – and underprivileged geo-political regions and communities.

At the intermediate or second level is the “governance or democratic factor” (DF) – how the political system functions, how decisions are made and implemented, who they benefit, the question of justice and fairness in the distribution of the resources and opportunities, corruption and the system of countering accumulation and abuse of power.

And at the third, but no less significant, level is the Imperial (or global) factor (IF) – how the system works at the global level, how decisions are taken and implemented (or enforced) at that level, who they benefit, the question of justice and fairness in the distribution of global resources and opportunities, and the system of countering accumulation and abuse of power at the global level.

In order to comprehend the African reality (and this should generally apply to whole of the South) it is necessary to take a total view of the situation and not analyse matters in a fragmented manner. For example, when a proposition is made that imperialism is the cause of crisis in our countries, there is a general tendency to counter this by saying, “Yes, but you can’t blame imperialism all the time, it is our governments who follow wrong policies, who indulge in corruption, and so on”. Or if the Government is reminded about its failure to live up to its responsibilities, it turns around and puts the blame on outside forces, such as donors, or imperialism, or drought.

It does not have to be an either/or proposition – either one or the other. Indeed, an argument that isolates imperialism as the cause of the crisis exonerates local or national actors from responsibility. Similarly, an argument that puts the blame entirely on local factors shields imperialism. The above argument in quotes is often heard in both popular and academic discourse. There are three effects of this argument.
• One is to deflect from the analysis of the imperial/global factor, and begin to talk about “regime change”, because the regime in power is targeted as the single cause of the crisis. In some cases in Africa this has led the opposition of the regime to go to the Empire to bring about “regime change”. Instead of solving the problem it compounds it, because the Empire is not an innocent or neutral bystander.
• The second effect is that it deflects from an analysis of why governments come and go in Africa, and each one may be as bad, or worse, than the one it replaced. Why do the elite in post-colonial and post-revolutionary situations have a tendency towards authoritarianism (and corruption)? This tendency has to be analysed in a scientific manner and not in terms of personalities.
• The third effect of this kind of fragmented analysis is that it exonerates the people’s movement (including trade unions and civil society organisations) from critical scrutiny. They too must be held responsible for errors of political judgement and lack of strategic thinking. Why is there a tendency within the people’s movement to throw up leaders who, when they come to power, behave no different, or even worse than leaders whom they have replaced? For brevity, we may call this “the Chiluba syndrome”, but so that it does not appear that we are personalizing it on Chiluba, let us say that the same thing could happen to leadership in any country, if the regime change does not take place in a thoroughly transformational manner.

The struggle of the people must be based only on an understanding of the total reality – not in a one-sided but in a comprehensive manner. Ignore one of the factors and one is likely to make serious errors in political judgements, and lead astray the nation or the Party (as the case may be), as well as cause social and political tension.

From the three level analysis, three propositions follow.

• Ignore SF, and you have discontent and rebellion
• Ignore DF, and you have suppression and opposition.
• Ignore IF, and you have domination by the Empire, and Resistance.

From these, the following formula suggests itself as a guiding principle to achieve peace and justice. It may be written thus:

Peace and Justice = SF + DF – IF

The general guideline to attain justice and peace in Africa is by fulfilling the material and social needs of the people, especially those most vulnerable, through a system of governance that is democratic and accountable, and through minimizing (and if possible eliminating) imperial interventions in African societies.