I am often asked to explain what possessed me, a white American political scientist, to undertake African studies. Usually, I reflect upon my state of mind in the mid-1950s and mention the allure of a new horizon for democracy, limned by the doctrine of self-determination for subject peoples. Even then, however, realists warned that democracy in Africa, as in Asia, would bleed and die on the altars of national consolidation and social reconstruction. But democracy dies hard. Its vital force is the accountability of rulers to their subjects. Democracy stirs and wakens from the deepest slumber whenever the principle of accountability is asserted by members of a community or conceded by those who rule. Democracy cannot be destroyed by a coup d'etat; it will survive every legal assault upon political liberty. The true executioner of democracy has neither sword nor scepter, but a baneful idea. Ironically, the deadly agent is an idea about freedom.

In Africa today, freedom from want is a universal goal. Millions of lives are blighted by the effects of poverty, unemployment, malnutrition, untended illness, and inadequate education. In all countries, political leaders dedicate themselves to the cause of economic and social development. Most leaders also claim to respect the principle of accountability to the people. However, the imperatives of development are far more demanding than the claims of democracy. Appalled by the human condition and waste of resources in Africa and other nonindustrial regions, many intellectuals proclaim the validity of an antidemocratic idea, to which the term “developmental dictatorship” is aptly applied.

Political science has become a dismal science for most of the world. In the proverbial third world, where most people live, the “physical quality of life” is often abysmal and liable to further deterioration. Steeped in “realism,” political science foretells a future of dictatorial rule for most of those who face the prospect of increasing physical misery.

On 11 November 1965, the Government of Rhodesia, firm in its resolve to maintain minority racial rule by persons of European descent, abrogated the colonial constitution then in effect and declared its independence of Great Britain. The works under review in this essay examine the dilemmas of Zambian leaders, on the one hand, and loyalist members of the Rhodesian judiciary as well as the loyalist governor of Rhodesia, on the other.

In the latter 1940s, a growing number of American intellectuals, including scholars in various academic disciplines, were attracted to the study of Africa by two powerful incentives. First, African nationalism created a new horizon for the advancement of democracy, the twentieth century's preeminent political ideal. Second, many intellectuals were anxious to reconstruct the prevailing theories of society so that they would fairly represent the aspirations and problems of people everywhere on earth. From this perspective, due regard for the contributions of Africa was deemed to be a scientific, as well as a moral, imperative. These goals, democracy and universalism, were embraced and combined by the theorists of modernization.

Several African countries with rich endowments of mineral resources and petroleum have, paradoxically, achieved less by way of economic development than other African states without such wealth. In the African mineral economies there is less diversification of production, less investment, higher foreign debt, greater unemployment, and weaker overall productive growth. The causes of this poor economic performance involve both external factors, such as declining prices of primary commodity products, and internal factors, such as rent-seeking activities of politically powerful groups which give their support to governmental leaders in return for access to wealth. Inevitably, the mineral industries, which depend on timely investments and good management, decline. As a result the governments then resort to heavy foreign borrowing.

A week before the Reagan-Gorbachev summit in Washington, a group of American and Soviet scholars met in Moscow to explore how a new spirit of cooperation could be applied in Africa. The challenge was to find ways of transforming the well-established pattern of hostile competition between the two countries in that area of the world into one of collaboration for the mutual benefit of both countries and Africa. The results of the Moscow workshop are highly promising.

Ideological conflict between capitalism and socialism is more than 150 years old in the industrial countries of Europe and North America. Its gradual extension to other parts of the world during the twentieth century has entailed a basic alteration of the terms of debate. Within the leading industrial countries, partisans have debated both the economic merits of privately-owned productive capital, and the justice of profit-taking as a right of such ownership. In socialist thought, ‘social justice’ has meant that the whole product of labour belongs to those who actually produce it; hence its value should be realised by the producers themselves, either individually, or collectively through public institutions. On that basis, socialists have promised to construct an efficient, humane, and just social order. With equal conviction, proponents of capitalism hold that no alternative economic system produces as large a volume of goods, jobs, and other material benefits for as high a percentage of the population; that social inequality is inevitable, regardless of the property system in effect or the organisation of economic production; and that justice, in any case, is always individual, never ‘social’.

In this day and age, Marxism-Leninism is the leading and least parochial theory of social revolution in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. It strongly appeals to intellectuals who believe that capitalist imperialism in “neocolonial” forms perpetuates social injustice on a world scale; and that a “conscious minority’ ‘ or vanguard of the downtrodden should establish a “developmental dictatorship” dedicated to the pursuit of economic and social progress. Since the death of Mao Zedong and the subsequent repudiation of his economic theories in China, collectivism as an economic strategy has been reassessed and found wanting in other countries whose leaders are disposed to learn from China. For example, in the People’s Republic of the Congo, where collectivist methods, inspired by Marxism-Leninism have been discarded in favor of entrepreneurial methods, the minister of agriculture has said simply, “Marxism without revenue is Marxism without a future.”