Comment
Between Westminster And The Elysees
France might very well be the nearest country to the British Isles geographically but the differences between the two countries appear to be far more than differences in language.
The two countries are different enough and in spite of their proximity to each other and centuries of friendship. have never really been able to live together without mutual distrust. The points of conflict in modern times have served more as petty irritations and amusement than anything to go to war over; even though that might be difficult to appreciate when the periodic battles over long life milk and mutton are being fought.
In the attempt to transplant the two cultures in different climates, however, the differences have been magnified very considerably. Such differences have been manifested not only in the type of legacies both countries have left around the world, but also in the post-independence relationships with their former colonies.
There, on the one hand is the Commonwealth, born out of necessity and not having been planned and since the end of the second world war, having had to change beyond its original conception. It is complete with a Secretariat and all the paraphernalia of an international organisation, very long on words and a determination never to present anything but a united and smiling public face. Apart from the peculiar position of the sovereign, it is supposed to be a club of equals. The one unifying factor being that all the member countries were once part of the British Empire and they all speak the English language - at least in one way or the other.
On the other hand, is the French alliance without any well defined organisation. The break-up of the French colonies started much later but was swifter once the decision had been taken. Without a monarch, and with an abiding faith in republicanism and egalitarianism, the French still make no pretence whatsoever that their relationship with their former colonies is equal. And that seems to be the underlying difference between the two approaches of the two countries in their dealings with their former colonies.
It is in the post-independence relationship that the difference in attitude has been marked. The former British colonies have considered it an important mark of independence to dispense with all things British and to be apologetic about whatever traces remain. The former French colonies are unashamed about striving to be more French than the French. To start with, the former British colonies certainly looked like they were to win confidence and appeared to have been trained to stand on their own two feet, did not want and were not offered any formal or informal dependency in any sphere of life. But that was the strength, they could walk tall and demonstrate to the whole world that they would manage on their own.
It has often been said that at the start of independence, the two countries on the African continent that held the most promise were Ghana and Uganda, both former British colonies, they had trained personnel, a good infrastructure and natural resources. The rider is always added that some twenty-five years later, it is those two countries that have caused the most havoc and suffering to their people.
In the two vital areas of security and finance, France has never let go of her former colonies. While the former British colonies quickly introduced their own currencies. France introduced the CFA monetary unit for the francophone nations and kept a tight rein on it from Paris. This seemed to negate all that was involved in the fight for independence because it was difficult to imagine that any country could be said to be truly independent when its economic purse strings are manipulated by another! country. The neo-colonialist tag was thus more easily attached to the francophone countries.
Some twenty-five years later, almost every former British colony on the African continent has had inter- minable problems with their currencies, their economies have taken a frightful battering and most of them are in debt and have had to accept IMF loans and terms or are engaged in protracted negotiations with the IMF. The currencies that were introduced so proudly at independence have not been able to hold their own and are often accepted only within their own borders with the citizens all clamouring for foreign currencies. Even the sense of pride in having our own currencies have gone, with the realisation that these symbols of true independence have turned out to be useless pieces of paper.
The CFA has remained stable and enabled the francophone countries to enjoy a measure of economic stability. Guinea and Mali, the two countries that opted out of the CFA zone have crawled back into the fold. When it involves matters of security, the French hand in her former colonies has been even more obvious ranging from the stationing of French troops in some of the countries to flying in troops to prop up tottering rulers. Once in a while the intervention has been more dramatic with French inspired and backed coups against recalcitrant rulers and the installation of those deemed to be more friendly with France. This has led to some strange and sometimes dubious relationships.
The British on the other hand, have largely resorted to in their former colonies or pretending that they cannot be as bad as they are made out. The result has been that on the political front also, there has been relatively more stability among the francophone nations than the anglophone ones. This has not prevented "revolutions' in Benin or the Congo or in Burkina Faso. There probably will have to be a coin tossed to determine whether Idi Amin of Uganda was the more embarrassing phenomenon or the dubious honour should be given to Bokasa of the Central African Republic.
The French alliance in making no pretensions appears to be getting more purposeful and more influential. The Commonwealth in the meantime appears to lose all substance. Maybe it has something to do with the facing of reality.
