Blog 3: Third World Culture

Sukarno and Calbar, both anti-colonial leaders of their respective homelands, illustrate a framework for national liberation that center around the significance of the collective masses and their unity in the struggle for independence. However both these  leaders, Asian and African, approach the journey from colony to independent nation state with differing conceptions of a liberation movement- its necessary foundations, its leaders, and what determines its success. 

Sukarno, in his address to the Bandung Conference in 1955, marvels at the feat of collecting and hosting a group of leaders of newly decolonised states. He speaks with a purposeful optimism, paying heed to the years shared under colonial aggression, emphasising the sacrifices having been made in their struggle, and provides a goal for the future: to be free of colonialism in all its forms. His speech, while moving, pins a common colonial history at the heart of what binds the 'Third World' together in their pursuit to decolonize themselves. He asserts that their differences in color, religion, and culture are small differences in the face of a larger goal for peace and freedom. As he says,“ we are united by a common detestation of colonialism in whatever form it appears”, Sukarno is in essence asserting that the shared experience of  having been colonised is integral enough to the character and identity of these countries; that this experience binds them together, and that their pursuit for independence is a victory not just for the concerned peoples, but the collective colonised world.

While Cabral’s formulation of the nationalist struggle does not deny the importance of a people united in their goal towards liberty and independence, his conditions for its blossoming would test the assumptions Sukarno so bravely narrates. Cabral is not addressing a conference of new independent nations, instead he writes at a time when the liberation of Guinea-Bissau has not taken place, placing him in an ongoing struggle for liberation. Cabral argues that in order for a nationalist liberation struggle to be successful it must first identify and recollect its culture, “ a mass character, the popular character of the culture, which is not, and cannot be the prerogative of one or of certain sectors of the society”. Importantly, he claims, that within Africa and its many communities, there lies various cultures that are attributed to each social group, divided across socio-economic class and political interests. One such group is the intellectual elites who experience a form of ‘cultural alienation’, that is to say, a disconnect from one's own culture and a re-shaping of attitude that resembles the colonisers, such as being convinced of one’s inherent superiority over the people and culture they originate from. Calber then emphasises the importance of re-converting these minds, of integrating them within the culture and environment that is their own, and assimilating all groups towards a shared national character. Otherwise, the liberation is at risk of being dominated by members of such groups, who, in their class interest, remove the coloniser only to replace him and replicate colonial social hierarchies. He warns, “ all that glitters is not necessarily gold: the political leaders-even the most celebrated-may be culturally alienated”.  

Cabral therefore creates a divergence of interests of groups within just a singular community- divided across class, education and economic and political interests.  If creating a shared national culture is a difficult task for just one singular nationalist movement in a corner of Africa, how might it be so simple for the entire Third World? Sukarno emphasises the common history of having experienced colonisation, but he forgets that not every state experienced it the same- not by the same coloniser, not for the same amount of time, and not to the same degree of devastation. Not all those who were colonised were colonised equally. His call for a united Third World falls short of addressing this fact. Sukarno also repeatedly mentions Indonesia's ‘fight’ for independence, its mass resistance and struggle for a common goal, but in the case for much Africa, liberation was more a formality than a struggle; a case of  “flag sovereignty” achieved only when colonisers could no longer afford to maintain these lands. The question of what independence meant remained unanswered for many of these nations, all they really had to symbolise their freedom was a flag. Independence in that case, was less of a victory and more of a new struggle. It is then arguable just how much the Third World, in its entirety, might share in its history and culture. If we are to pay attention to Calbar’s words, certainly not a lot. Calbar’s warnings unfortunately seem to have been true, for the task of developing a popular indigenous culture was a terribly difficult one in the aftermath of a society segregated by various class interests, and that is perhaps why we find African states under dictatorial rulers such as Nkrumah. In the face of such difficult realities, Sukarno's ambitions do not align with the challenges that are placed in front of him. The story of unity amongst all colonised nations remains unlikely.