Blog – Week 3 : Cabral and Sukarno

Cabral and Sukarno dream visions of a future that is truly free from colonial rule, not merely in terms of the formal occupation of land and the economic domination of the imperial powers but total freedom from their cultural, social, economic and political influence. Both leaders stress upon the idea of resistance – for Cabral it comes in the form of culture whereas Sukarno defines it as an ‘undying, indomitable, invincible spirit.’ While Cabral’s central thesis is revolves the idea of culture as a manifestation the historical and material reality of a people; the ways in which it has been used by colonial powers as a tool of subjugation, and by native populations as the means to liberation, Sukarno’s speech provides a more holistic overview of the challenges that await newly freed nations. Sukarno’s focus is two aspects of the liberation movement – unity in diversity of all the decolonized nations, and the promotion of international peace and security moving forward.

Sukarno and Cabral share similarities in how they perceive the significance of culture in the struggle against colonialism. They both envision culture as something larger than the sum of its parts. Sukarno advocates for his dream of Third World unity despite the fact the nations comprising the project have a ‘variety of skins, variety of religion’ claiming that such differences are superficial and can be reconciled with the greater aim of advancing and reconstructing the decolonised nations of the world as they break free from the chains of imperialism. Similarly, Cabral opines that while there are “several African cultures” there are common traits shared by the people of Africa that go beyond the prejudices of racialism that the colonial powers entrenched in the minds of the colonized. They converge around a dream of the future that is best expressed by Sukarno’s proclamation of ‘what harm is in diversity, when there is unity in desire’?

Following this, Cabral goes on to deliver a grave warning against a dangerous kind of cultural chauvinism that may arise out of decolonization in an attempt by the native peoples to strongly reassert their own dominance. He warns of ‘undiscerning praise; systematic exaltation of virtues without any criticisms of faults; blind acceptance of cultural values’ as he believes that these will do little to change the strict hierarchy imposed upon the world by colonialism and will instead reinstate and continue to uphold binaries of what is superior and what is inferior. While not explicitly stated in these terms, Sukarno is also apprehensive, if not completely filled with trepidation at the thought of the outbreak of war that may very well be the result of such exaggerated claims of cultural nationalism as explained by Cabral. The latter speaks of the necessity of developing ‘positive and progressive elements’ in the nation building and rebuilding process, while the former stresses on the need for morality and ethics to take precedence in a world marred by uncertainty and chaos where those in power have ambitions of ‘controlling the world.’

Therefore, while they make use of different expressions in elucidating their post-colonial dreams, Cabral and Sukarno have strikingly similar goals, although the methods they describe in achieving them may seem quite different. While Cabral’s more nuanced analysis of culture as it is used by the colonizer and the colonized does differ from Sukarno’s idealistic fantasy of a decolonized world, it is ultimately of great significance that these two men, from Guinea-Bissau and Indonesia, from Africa and Asia, had similar visions of a world ruled by progressive development that is strengthened by cultural diversity rather than weakened by it.