By Professor Artwell Nhemachena

ON a continent where impoverishment keeps on rising, it is necessary to ask the question: Who is actually being sustained by the so-called sustainable development? In a world where some animals are more equal than others, and where some animals are deemed fair dessert for other animals, the sustainable development of some animals cannot be interpreted as the sustainable development of all animals.

The notion of global sustainable development hides more than it reveals; it is a mask that hides the fact that some animals survive by cannibalising others in this world. In his famed book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Walter Rodney is essentially telling us a story of how Europeans cannibalised Africans. Indeed, a careful reading of Rodney’s book constitutes a caveat for those who may be uncritically reading and believing in contemporary discourses about sustainable development in the world. If Europe has historically underdeveloped Africa, by what magic has Europe shifted from underdeveloping Africa to sustainable development that is in Africa’s favour? Put differently, how do the contemporary discourses about sustainable development play out with the history in which Europe has underdeveloped Africa? Indeed, Europe has not actually changed its predatory relations on Africa. Yet Africans are being fed with mendacious discourses on the so-called global sustainable development.

King Leopold II ruled Congo Free State as his personal fiefdom.

Africans are being fed with discourses to the effect that this 21st Century is an era of sustainable development even when the Africans are actually being dispossessed and exploited by European and American transnational corporations which are currently grabbing African land in the ongoing second scramble for Africa. In essence, it is similar to colonial discourses where Africans were fed ideologies about civilisation even as they were actually being dispossessed and exploited. It is much like a lion telling a hare that there is need to have ‘sustainable meals’, and the stupid hare goes around parroting the lion’s discourse about the need to have the ‘sustainable meals’.

Contemporary Africans should be able to see the ongoing repetition of colonial history right before their eyes. In other words, there is nothing new in the contemporary discourses about sustainable development because they are merely repeating logics of colonial discourses on civilisation on a continent where the Africans are actually being dispossessed and exploited by Euro-American transnational corporations.

Similarly, even as the Belgian King Leopold II was preaching about civilising Africans in the then Congo (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) of the 1800s, he was actually dispossessing and exploiting the Congolese – forcing them to collect rubber, cutting off the hands, feet, breasts and genitals of the Congolese who refused to collect the rubber or who did not collect enough rubber for the Belgian king. What I am hinting at is that Africans do not need sustainable development which is being evangelised by the West. Rather, Africans need what I call ‘restitutive and reparative development’ which is cognisant of the need to return stolen resources back to Africans and to pay reparations for enslaving and colonising Africans.

What I call ‘restitutive and reparative development’ is different from the socalled sustainable development because it considers the history of enslavement and colonisation which accounts for the impoverishment and suffering in Africa. The idea of ‘restitutive and reparative development’ helps Africans to realise what they actually need from the West are not humanitarian aid and loans but restitution and reparations. ‘Restitutive and reparative development’ helps Africans realise they do not owe the West anything by way of debts but that it is the West that actually owes Africans restitution and reparations for enslavement and colonisation.

The point here is that African scholars who write and teach development studies and economics in ways that depict Africa as indebted to the West are, in fact, not telling the truth. Development studies scholars should start writing and teaching the truth; which is that it is the West that is indebted to Africa. African scholars who continue to parrot Western discourses that Africans are indebted to the West are failing the continent and African future generations who will be fooled to believe that they are indebted to the West.

Contemporary discourses on sustainable development are designed to sustain Euro-America; they are not designed to sustain Africans. In fact, such discourses on sustainable development are designed to manufacture ignorance among Africans, many of whom are already beginning to believe that it is Africa which owes Euro-America. Put simply, discourses on sustainable development generate ignorance about the history of enslavement and colonial dispossession and exploitation; which history should be part of the equations of 21st Century development designs.

The idea of ‘restitutive and reparative development’ defeats the ignorance that is being generated through the deployment of the notion of sustainable development. Development cannot be neutral in a world where some have been, dispossessed and exploited. The notion of sustainable development is a political construct in the sense of it masking the enslavement and colonial origins of impoverishment among Africans.

It is a term which plays the geopolitics of impoverishment by masking the Euro-American origins of poverty in Africa.

Poverty is not African simply because it exists in Africa. Development studies and economics scholars must recognise that Africa has been hollowed out for centuries since the era of enslavement and colonisation; and the continent is still being hollowed out through ongoing dispossession and exploitation which belie discourses on sustainable development. Africans may blame and change their leaders a million plus times but they will remain doomed if they do not see the enslavement and colonial origins of impoverishment in Africa. It is time African scholars, thinkers and politicians work in terms of ‘restitutive and reparative development’.

The notion of sustainable development does not help Africans. Indeed, as I write, Europe and America are discussing reparations to Ukraine which they argue has unjustly suffered the Russian invasion. This is what I mean by ‘restitutive and reparative development’ which should displace the useless notion of sustainable development. If Ukrainians warrant reparations from Russia, why would Africans not similarly warrant restitution and reparations for enslavement and colonisation by Europeans and Americans?

If the notion of sustainable development is sufficient, as is assumed by Westerners, in relation to Africa, why then is that notion of sustainable development considered insufficient for Ukraine which Europe and America are saying should get reparations from Russia? Instead of working in terms of sustainable development, the UN should operate in terms of ‘restitutive and reparative development’, including for Africans.

Africans have been forced to sustain Europe and America for centuries during enslavement and colonialism. Thus, the notion of sustainable development is an apology for such a history – indeed, it legitimises the continuation of such a history where Africans sustain Europe and America.and are still being, dispossessed and exploited.

The notion of sustainable development is a political construct in the sense of it masking the enslavement and colonial origins of impoverishment among Africans. It is a term which plays the geopolitics of impoverishment by masking the Euro-American origins of poverty in Africa. Poverty is not African simply because it exists in Africa. Development studies and economics scholars must recognise that Africa has been hollowed out for centuries since the era of enslavement and colonisation; and the continent is still being hollowed out through ongoing dispossession and exploitation which belie discourses on sustainable development. Africans may blame and change their leaders a million plus times but they will remain doomed if they do not see the enslavement and colonial origins of impoverishment in Africa. It is time African scholars, thinkers and politicians work in terms of ‘restitutive and reparative development’.

The notion of sustainable development does not help Africans. Indeed, as I write, Europe and America are discussing reparations to Ukraine which they argue has unjustly suffered the Russian invasion. This is what I mean by ‘restitutive and reparative development’ which should displace the useless notion of sustainable development.

If Ukrainians warrant reparations from Russia, why would Africans not similarly warrant restitution and reparations for enslavement and colonisation by Europeans and Americans? If the notion of sustainable development is sufficient, as is assumed by Westerners, in relation to Africa, why then is that notion of sustainable development considered insufficient for Ukraine which Europe and America are saying should get reparations from Russia? Instead of working in terms of sustainable development, the UN should operate in terms of ‘restitutive and reparative development’, including for Africans.

Africans have been forced to sustain Europe and America for centuries during enslavement and colonialism. Thus, the notion of sustainable development is an apology for such a history – indeed, it legitimises the continuation of such a history where Africans sustain Europe and America.