Page Title
Post-Independence Dynamics in Guinea-Conakry: Exploring the Impacts of Decolonization and the Complexities of Nation-building.
Moussa BA
Cheikh Anta Diop University
In the aftermath of the Second World War, France initiated a number of reforms in her African colonies. Under the pressure of the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Nations, African leaders in Francophone colonies, and the situation in Algeria, France was compelled to gradually grant its African colonies political freedom, paving the way to future self-determination. It is in that context that French President Charles De Gaulle in 1958 initiated a West African referendum aimed at choosing “either local autonomy within the newly created French Community or total immediate independence with all its consequences” (Kaba 1977: 25). Ahmed Sekou Toure’s Guinea voted to reject of De Gaulle’s self-affirmation scheme and became the first Francophone colony to achieve its independence in September 1958. This political move resulted in several outcomes propelled by the ideological war opposing socialism and capitalism and thrust Guinea’s first republic into a difficult political crisis.
Sekou Toure is a central figure in any discussion about the post-independence dynamics in Guinea-Conakry due to his pivotal role in shaping the country’s political, social, and economic landscape following decolonization. His leadership during decolonization and nation-building makes him an indispensable figure for understanding the post-independence dynamics in Guinea-Conakry. His policies, actions, and the resulting consequences provide a comprehensive lens through which to explore the impacts of decolonization and the complexities involved in building a new nation. Hence, this essay focuses on the Parti Démocratique de Guinée’s (PDG) political power by reflecting on the following questions: (1) what were the sociopolitical consequences of Guinea-Conakry’s independence from colonial rule, and how did they shape the nation-building process? (2) How did Guinea-Conakry navigate the process of decolonization following independence, and what were the key factors influencing its approach? (3) What role did France play in shaping Guinea-Conakry’s post-independence trajectory, and how did their interactions impact the nation-building process?
The manner in which Guinea-Conakry gained independence from colonial rule has shaped its nation-building process, leading to particular challenges in consolidating a cohesive national identity and effective developmental trajectory. The country’s break from France in 1958 was abrupt, leaving it without infrastructure or support, unlike Ghana and Nigeria, which had more gradual, negotiated transitions. Ghana, gaining independence in 1957, experienced fewer immediate hardships but faced neocolonialism and ethnic challenges. Nigeria, independent in 1960, soon faced instability due to ethnic divisions, including a civil war. Senegal and Côte d'Ivoire maintained ties with France post-independence, benefiting from economic stability but remaining susceptible to neocolonial influences. The broader lesson for decoloniality is that successful post-colonial nation-building requires not only a break from colonial powers but also the creation of inclusive national identities, economic self-sufficiency, and political stability. These factors are essential to overcoming the long-term consequences of colonialism and avoiding the pitfalls of neocolonialism. My argument rests on a theoretical framework composed of dependency theory and state-building theory. The methodological approach is based on historical analysis and causal inference, with more emphasis on causal analysis to highlight the link between independence politics and post-independence dynamics in Guinea-Conakry. The paper opens with a brief overview of dependency theory. The second section focuses on the ideological background which enabled the emergence of anticolonialism under PDG, the third section analyses the outcomes of independence and the complexities of nation-building in the 1960s and the final section deals with the issues of nation-building and ethnicity.
I. Brief Contextual Overview of Dependency Theory
Dependency theory is an economic and sociopolitical approach that suggests that resources flow from a “periphery” of poor and underdeveloped states to a “core” of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former. This theory, developed in the mid-20th century, primarily addresses the persistent economic disparities between developed and developing countries. It posits that the economic development of peripheral countries is constrained and shaped by their dependence on core countries, leading to a cycle of underdevelopment and exploitation.
The theory is appropriate for the analysis of post-independence dynamics in Guinea-Conakry since Sekou Toure’s Marxist approach is grounded in historical materialism, which emphasizes that economic and material conditions shape societal structures and historical development. Dependency theorists collectively point to how historical exploitation and global capitalism shape unequal development and maintain systemic dependency between the Global North and the Global South. According to Samir Amin (1974), “Accumulation on a world scale depends on unequal exchange. The flow of surplus from the periphery to the center is the essential mechanism that makes possible the development of the world capitalist system.” Immanuel Wallerstein’s World-Systems Theory frames dependency as part of a broader global capitalist system that systematically disadvantages peripheral nations. He thinks that the modern world system, which has evolved over the past 500 years, is marked by an economic and political division of labor in which dominant core nations control and exploit the resources and labor of peripheral countries (1974). Theotonio Dos Santos (1970) focused on how developing countries are locked in dependent relationships, whereby their economic trajectories are shaped by the interests of dominant capitalist countries. These theorists argue that the historical exploitation and economic relationships established during colonialism continue to shape contemporary global inequalities, much like Marxists view class struggle and capitalist exploitation as central to historical development. Dependency theory mirrors Marxist concepts of exploitation, where the periphery (akin to the proletariat) is systematically exploited by the core (analogous to the bourgeoisie). The theory suggests that the wealth of core nations is built upon the exploitation and underdevelopment of peripheral nations, echoing Marxist views on the extraction of surplus value from the working class by capitalists. Dependency theory critiques the global capitalist system, and argues that global capitalism inherently produces inequality and underdevelopment in peripheral countries. Similarly, Marxism critiques capitalism for creating class divisions and perpetuating inequality through the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. Marxist theory, particularly Lenin’s theory of imperialism, describes how capitalist countries extend their control over weaker nations to secure markets and resources. Dependency theory expands on this by detailing how economic and political dependencies are maintained in the post-colonial era, ensuring continued control and exploitation of peripheral nations by core nations. In short, dependency theory extends and applies Marxist concepts of exploitation, class struggle, and imperialism to the global stage, emphasizing the systemic inequalities and dependencies fostered by the global capitalist system. Therefore, this is closely linked to Sékou Toure’s political rhetoric, particularly in its critique of the economic and political control exerted by former colonial powers over newly independent nations. His encounters with Marxists led him to discover that imperialism and neocolonialism share deep bonds, which dependency theory reveals as well. In fact, it argues that post-colonial nations remain economically dependent on industrialized countries, perpetuating a form of neocolonialism where the Global South continues to supply raw materials and labor to the benefit of the Global North. Sékou Toure’s rejection of neocolonial ties, exemplified by his decision to break away from the French Community in 1958, reflected his belief that true independence required severing economic and political dependence on former colonizers. Toure’s anti-imperialist stance aligned with the principles of dependency theory by emphasizing the need for economic autonomy, self-reliance, and the rejection of exploitative international relationships that benefited imperial powers at the expense of African development. Dependency theory critiques the economic exploitation of peripheral nations by core countries, maintaining colonial-era inequalities. Decoloniality expands this critique to include cultural and epistemic domination, emphasizing the need to reclaim indigenous knowledge and sovereignty. Both frameworks highlight the lasting effects of colonialism and call for dismantling global structures that perpetuate subordination. Both frameworks seek to challenge and resist the lingering impacts of colonialism, advocating for greater autonomy, self-determination, and a rethinking of global power relations. Together, they advocate for self-determined development and intellectual autonomy in the Global South.
II. Toure’s Political and Ideological Conception of Anticolonialism in Guinea-Conakry
After 1945, a new era in the relationship between colonizers and colonized began in West Africa. In Guinea, Toure organized trade union activity with the creation of the Post, telegraph and telephones workers’ union on 18 March 1945. He was motivated in his initiative by the inequalities that existed between white workers and African workers and decided to fight to improve the working conditions of the Africans. During those years, he frequented communist circles through which he received an ideological formation that helped him understand the fundamental principles of communism and applied them to the analysis of the colonial situation in Guinea-Conakry, such as the defense of the interests and rights of workers and the oppressed. Thus, Toure became familiar with Marxism which proposes a framework for a critical analysis of economic exploitation under the capitalist mode of production. In the context of Guinea, recognizing the mode of production made it possible to point out the contradictions embedded with the colonial situation and, therefore, to derive from the analysis of political and social actions to improve living conditions. This led him to better conceptualize forms of collective organizations in order to coordinate the struggle against colonial exploitation in all its forms and manifestations. According to his ideological orientation, colonialism generated economic exploitation. France sought to exploit natural resources, cheap labor and Guinea as a market to enrich metropolitan capitalists. The Guinean leader realized that French domination was based on the exploitation of the people and the wealth of the colony, which transformed the people into a means of production (Toure 1967: 26). From this observation arose the need to resist to colonial exploitation and oppression by organizing the Guineans. Thus, his contact with communist circles led him to become aware of the alienation of his people through the practices of exploitation and oppression from a particularly crooked system supported by imperialism.
The creation of the pan-African African Democratic Rally (ADR) also known as RDA, in 1946 made it possible to design a framework for political action in Guinea-Conakry with the establishment of PDG, the Guinean section of the ADR known at that time as PDG-RDA. RDA was established with the purpose of fostering effective anti-colonialist efforts, supported by an efficient mass support. It emerged as a pivotal movement within African nationalism, its goals and organizational structure were set with a nationalist agenda. Framed as the leading inter-territorial movement, RDA played a central role in uniting Africans across different regions in their struggle against colonial oppression. This federal political party’s endeavor in African nationalism was characterized as revolutionary since it reflected a significant departure from previous approaches to resistance and liberation. It brought a radical shift towards a more coordinated and inclusive movement that aimed to challenge colonial authority and advocated for African self-determination. Kaba (1977: 27) underscores its importance in advancing anti-colonial struggle in Africa and highlights its role as a key player in the broader movement for African nationalism. It was thence, established in French West Africa a progressive political organization among whose objectives was the independence of the French colonies in West Africa. Analyzing the progressive character of the RDA, Toure declares (1967 : 42): « R.D.A. thus created a new mentality based on the identity of the destiny of our peoples and on the desire to fight together to put an end to exploitation and oppression. The awareness of this identity of destiny and the desire to fight together were the two progressive characteristics that the African Democratic Rally possessed, from its birth, [my translation]».[1] RDA’s anti-colonial vision was similar to that of Ahmed Sekou Toure, who put the emphasis on the exploitation and oppression of the Guineans by imperialism in his study of French colonialism, as Marton, Cesaire, Rabemananjara, Price-Mars report:
In the phase of the struggle for independence, SEKOU TOURE insists on the idea that the dominant fact is the colonial subjection. The principal contradiction is the one which opposes the whole of Guinean society to imperialism. Therefore, the principal form of class struggle is located on the international level and take concrete form in the antagonism , on one hand, the colonized and dependent Peoples, and, on the other hand, the world-wide system of imperialism which has engendered colonialism. (1978: 31)
The trade union struggle was further strengthened thanks to its junction with political action to raise Guinean’s level of political consciousness, which led to an awareness of colonial alienation and made the nationalist claim more significant.
Guinean wage earners were not the only victims of colonial subjugation. The effects of colonialism were even more stifling in rural areas. Indeed, an essential aspect of the colonial system and its impact on rural populations was the extensive power held by the canton chiefs, who were essential in the colonial governance structure. Their role as collectors of taxes and transmitters of orders to the indigenous populations gave them almost absolute authority, reinforced by their possession of land. The French colonial administrators had set up an arbitrary colonial legal system, controlled by the canton chiefs. This served to perpetuate the despotic power of the chiefs, allowing the unfettered expression of their will on the indigenous populations. In his analysis of colonial oppression, Toure shed light on the oppressive and authoritarian nature of the colonial system, where these chiefs were key agents of colonial administration, exercising extensive and arbitrary power over local populations. Control of the land and manipulation of the legal system were essential tools for maintaining their authority and domination over indigenous peoples. As a consequence, Toure diagnosed how colonialism shaped power relations and social dynamics in colonized territories, highlighting the mechanisms of domination and exploitation established by the colonizers in rural areas and argued that their populations made up the vast majority of the people in their quest for freedom from colonial shackles. In this analysis, he discovered what follows:
The second reality is foreign domination, based on the exploitation of our peoples and resources, and on oppression in all areas: political oppression, cultural oppression, administrative oppression, and more. This reality characterizes the practices of a domination that transforms our peoples into mere means of production, thereby condemning them to a generalized form of slavery, and totally alienates the existence of an entire continent for the selfish interests of a particularly odious political system [My translation].[2] (Toure, 1967: 26)
This pushed them to adhere en masse to the ideals of self-determination canvassed by PDG. In short, the colonial protest took shape through the trade union action put forth by the ideological formation received from communist circles and the creation of the PDG-RDA to expand the framework of nationalist action everywhere in Guinea-Conakry. Such an ideological stance facilitated mass mobilization which involved a combination of anti-colonial sentiment, economic exploitation, political organization, and influential leadership fueling a desire for sovereignty, economic control, and political freedom.
III. Implications of Independence and Nation-building in the Cold War Context
The 1958 referendum led not to true independence but rather to political interference by Paris in the internal affairs of Guinea, driven by geopolitical and ideological considerations in the context of the Cold War. The French government regarded Toure as an obstacle to its own interests and to those of the French Community. He was perceived by France as being too independent and aligned with the Soviet Union. As a result, the French authorities thought to get rid of the Guinean regime through the FDCES (the Foreign Documentation and Counter-Espionage Service) branch of Africa, which was entrusted with the mission of monitoring the Soviet presence in Guinea and in particular the technical assistance provided by the Czechoslovakians. In 1959, Paris decided to isolate and destabilize Guinea through Maurice Robert (Turpin 2015: 204) and his men acting on behalf of the French government with the aim of setting up clandestine activities in order to create internal unrest to weaken Toure’s government.
This effort at destabilization of Guinea by plots and manipulation of political opposition and certain ethnic groups was supported by some African political leaders, mainly in Senegal and Ivory Coast. Ivory Coast and France shared the same political and geostrategic interests: a post-independence ideology at the service of liberalism. This approach by France caused political turmoil often shaped by its plots to overthrow the PDG, supported to a large extent by Western secret services interested in the triumph of capitalist ideology and influence. Acknowledging the existence of genuine plots against Sekou Toure, Turtio (2023: 253) declares that not all of them were driven by the will of the people. Her analysis highlights the complexity of political dynamics and the presence of external influences in shaping opposition movements. It sheds light on the interrelation existing between these opposition movements and the broader context in which they occurred.
Still, the 1958 referendum had real consequences. The real struggle to effectively gain independence began after the overwhelming majority of Guinean rejected the French Community project. The meteoric rise of PDG and its support by the masses revealed the way in which Toure’s political party spread everywhere in Guinea-Conakry. This led to the popular support enjoyed by PDG, illustrated in the electoral outcomes which de facto made Toure’s political party the choice of Guineans seeking to get rid of colonialism perpetuating misery and dependence. In view of its pervasive features and popular support, Guinean nationalism was considered to be inclusive, that is to say it involved “heterogeneous populations that” were “ethnically and religiously diverse” (Schmidt 2005: 984). Guinea under the PDG regime, therefore, embodied the interests of the people.
With independence, the state of Guinea became internationally recognized despite France’s reckless and aggressive maneuvers. This enabled the country to be legally endowed with a state apparatus as a mechanism through which the PDG exercised political authority over its territory and population (Turtio 2023: 111). Being internationally recognized endowed Guinea-Conakry with the full privileges of sovereign States in the international system. Sovereignty manifests in the state’s power to freely determine its structure and functioning, particularly through its constituent power. This power cannot be granted to a fraction of the population or a simple majority, but rather resides within the organized entirety of the nation. To function effectively, it was necessary for the sovereign State to get individuals to submit to the laws of the State, in other words, get them into conformity to the laws and decisions made by the government, even if it may sometimes entail sacrificing their own political interest (Bluntschli 1877: 432). As such, Guinea-Conakry was free under the leadership of Toure to choose without constraints and interference the political ideology with which to rule its population since it was a party chosen by the majority of the population. Hence, for the PDG, organizing and manipulating insignificant oppositions to the regime was to undermine the greatness and the dignity (Bluntschli 1877: 431) of Guinea-Conakry.
In the context of African decolonization, nation-building often came after state-building. The same was true in Guinea. The political struggle did not focus, before the attainment of independence, on building a nation out of a country composed of several ethnic groups each advocating for the sole interests of its members, which could endanger national cohesion and question the coherence of a homogenous territory made up of Guineans. The PDG’s efforts attempting to ensure a sense of collective identity were seen as crafted by colonial domination and not widely accepted in Guinea, especially among the Fulani. The latter considered itself to be fighting against traditional chieftaincy. This reaction coming from the logical conception of theoretical assumptions from in-groups and out-groups led this ethnic group to consider themselves as opposed to PDG. French neocolonialists supported them to overthrow Toure and put in place a regime amenable to Paris, in line with the neocolonial approach of the post-independent situation in Francophone Africa. That is the reason why Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2020, p.189) is right when she opines: “Ethnic divisions and “tribalism” undermined nation building projects and rendered them vulnerable to neocolonial forces”.
Majumdar (2007:192) states that decolonization was driven more by the needs of the international economy than by the essentially political struggles in the post-colonial states. Toure was one of those who understood very early that political independence was a decoy, unless it was accompanied by real economic independence which challenged the system of the world economy. Hence, the development of a nationalist rhetoric focused on the concept of revolution that ran into a counter-revolution harmful to the interests of the people. In his conception, these counter-revolutionary forces, with the major support of imperialism, must be annihilated (Toure 1969: 428) by all means in order to guarantee the mission that the people have assigned to the PDG. This constant struggle against imperialism and its followers, for the benefit of the interests of the people, enabled as well by the new State’s legal character and its legal use of the means of coercion at its disposal, increased the powers of the Presidency and Toure, in order to manage national interests (Kaba 1977:177). It is in this sense that the President eventually became the supreme leader of the revolution (Camara 2007: 81).
This was a failure in the management of the post-independent situation which led to an authoritarian regime. From this stance, the chief’s words were true and just as they were and no one dared to say the opposite, because criticizing the leader meant challenging “the superb idea”. Therefore, fear forced citizens to consider as gospel truth all that the leader of the revolution (Camara 2007: 82). This situation of full power granted to one man led to harmful consequences in political management and led to disastrous economic choices that did not benefit the welfare of the people. Given Toure’s Marxist approach to nationalism, this situation exacerbated his conception of the dialectic revolutionary forces and counter-revolutionary forces to the point of stamping his tenure with autocratic traits. Furthermore, the repressive policy undertaken by the regime in its bitter struggle against neocolonialism led the country to lose civil servants technically able to help post-independent Guinea-Conakry to overcome challenges posed by self-determination. These skilled individuals actually played a significant role in the functioning of the State. Losing such people had a detrimental impact on PDG’s capacity to govern effectively, implement policies and maintain its infrastructures and the technical capabilities, in a context where bureaucracy was central to the work of the regime. This flaw reflects the interconnectedness of nations and the recognition of the importance of skilled personnel in sustaining a country’s progress and stability.
IV. Toure’s Approach to National Consciousness and Ethnicity
In his conception of dialectics, Sekou Toure ended up analyzing the struggle between the revolutionary forces and counter-revolutionary forces in the self-determination process of the People of Guinea-Conakry. Much like in almost all the colonies that gained independence, ethnic exclusivism played a destabilizing role in the advent of national unity. The link between the Fulani chieftaincy and the colonizer resisted the assault of independence and was deemed to serve French neocolonialism by providing an element at their disposal to bring down Ahmed Sekou Toure’s regime. In reality, he had defined the identity of the Guinean through a history of common exploitation suffered under the orders of the colonizer with the complicity of traditional chieftaincy. In his understanding of the relationship between customary chieftaincy and colonial power, Sekou Toure came to the following conclusion put forth by Imre Marton et al.:
More than 300 canton chiefs exercised omnipotent power over the country. Responsible for tax collection, they humiliated the population, overexploited their subjects, and engaged in malpractices. The struggle against the chieftaincy, while allowing the creation of a common denominator founding the unity of action of the masses, even led to the very challenge of the colonial regime. (1978: 19)
In the context of nationalism in Guinea-Conakry, the actions of these chiefs were considered provocative and led to deep resentment among the masses, who saw them not only as local oppressors but also as representatives of the oppressive colonial regime. The struggle against this second-in-command of colonialism thus became a rallying point for various factions of society, unifying the oppressed population in rural Guinea in collective action against the injustices resulting from the colonial system they endured. Consequently, this local opposition was part of a broader framework of contesting colonialism. By targeting the canton chiefs, the resistance movements were indirectly attacking the colonial system that had established them. The struggle against the canton chiefs took on a larger political dimension, aimed at questioning and challenging the existing colonial power.
According to PDG leaders, these local abuses of power catalyzed a broader resistance against an oppressive regime, unifying different segments of the society around a common goal of justice and liberation. Sekou Toure sought to build the Guinean identity in a nationalist approach by emphasizing this history of exploitation and oppression suffered by the popular masses. However, the Fulani ethnic group did not share this vision of a common identity experienced by the entire Guinean people, and saw this nationalist drive towards the independence of Guinea-Conakry as a political movement opposed to any ideology except that of Toure’s PDG. The clash between nationalism and tribalism that was to occur years later had already shown its beginnings in the September 1958 referendum when the population voted “No” while Fouta, the region of the Fulani ethnic group, voted to remain in the French Community project, contributing to maintaining French imperialism within the territorial fold. According to Toure, when France and Western imperialism sought an ally in Guinea-Conakry in their quest to destabilize the Guinean regime, they found supporters among the Fulani. Many of them were described as fifth columnists and considered agents of imperialism in Guinea Conakry, hence the unprecedented repression they faced.
This conception of the ethnic question in the nationalist approach inevitably created political-ethnic tensions in Guinea-Conakry. National consciousness was not and could not be a national reality to the point of allowing the emergence of an identification of the entire Guinean population to this colonial past. This means that reducing the gestation of a Guinean identity to colonial suffering and exploitation was rather superficial for the creation of a territorial identity reflecting the experience of the homo-guinéensis. Given the nationalist foundation of PDG, any political opposition was de facto considered antithetical to the vision of the People in the Guinean nationalist context. In this approach, placing the Guinean opposition within an ethnic group meant denigrating that very ethnic group as being opposed to the People, and thus conceiving them retrograde in the nationalist vision to be established. By adopting this approach, Sekou Toure lost sight of an important factor in creating national momentum: managing opposition purely on political and not on ethnic grounds. This failure in approach included an entire ethnic group in a political struggle that presented it as proxies of imperialism and consequently as figures to be eliminated. This stance exacerbated the autocratic tendencies of Toure’s regime and undermined the national momentum needed to conceive inclusively the rise of the nation-state in Guinea-Conakry’s struggle against imperialism.
Conclusion:
This research paper focusing on Guinea-Conakry’s post-independent trajectory has ultimately revealed that the ruling regime implemented a repressive system which has resulted in the formation of an autocratic state detrimental to nation-building due to its inefficiency in governance. After independence, the country entered an era of a faltering political situation driven by a context of ideological opposition between two blocks. This antagonism brought in Guinea-Conakry the adoption of an approach led by the need to get rid of imperialism disguised in neocolonialism. This is a logical step since the negative impacts of imperialism operate through the capitalist system in the neocolonial era, nurturing a conditioning of Guinea-Conakry’s economy to the development and expansion of capitalists’ economies, especially France. Therefore, Toure acted in this way to avoid placing his country’s economy under the dependency of developed countries and the key factor was his ideological background which considers economic dependency “as a formal theory of underdevelopment” (Ghosh 2019: 2).
On a theoretical level, Sekou Toure was a political visionary. Before the 1960s, he sought to free himself from colonialism by developing an anti-imperialism sentiment aimed at ending any attempts to continue the colonial model. This struggle is still ongoing in some countries in West Africa (Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Senegal). However, his aggressive struggle against imperialism led him to failure in enhancing national consciousness that would put the homo-guineensis at the center of political endeavors whatever his ethnic affiliation. France played a pivotal role in tracing post-independence dynamics in Guinea-Conakry, her interference to overthrow Toure’s regime for an amenable one led to the emergence of counter-revolutionary forces and to some extent to ethnic opposition to PDG, but also the development of political repression which impacted a lot the nation-building process and halted the provision of economic benefits of independence to Guineans. As a consequence, the conception of anticolonialism by PDG and the way they attained their independence has shaped the nation-building process in Guinea-Conakry fostering particular sociopolitical challenges among which the need to forge national consciousness.