Diversity from within

One argument which was common between both Sukarno and Cabral was the call for a third world internationalism which aroused from within the Afro-Asian nations. By internationalist, Sukarno meant the post-colonial states of Africa and Asia whereas, for Cabral, it was the Pan-Africanism. Both drew their internationalism from the internal diversity of the people of those nations. For the former, it was the common desire for mutual support on international affairs. For Cabral, it was the quest of an authentic African culture that bound Africa together. However, while both the leaders saw the third world unity based on ‘unity in diversity’ and ‘culture’ respectively, there are certain stakes to that.

           Cabral highlighted that colonialism was able to subjugate African people only after destroying their culture. This is because he saw culture as the ‘organic nature’ of society. He believed in culture as the driver of history which came from the idea that the African culture had always remained the same. He symbolized culture as a flower that continues the cycle of a plant. However, such an analogy implies that culture reproduces a cycle of history which is repeated at a regular interval. The repeating of the past in cycles resulted in a history of Africa which had always stayed the same. This is inherently against historical progression which has been a process of both gradual and abrupt changes. In the case of history, like a plant life cycle, had remained constant, there would have been no change in the course of human evolution. Secondly, he argued that due to colonialism as external interference, African culture was destroyed which needed to bring back in its authentic form. This reflects his construction of a binary of a pre-colonial and a colonial African culture which called for the undoing of the colonial intervention in Africa and instead reconnects to the pre-colonial culture. It was an attempt to purify the culture which also shows the cultural fixity in Cabal’s mind which had always been there until the Portuguese came and disrupted it.

           Sukarno had a broader yet cursory approach towards the international arena. He invited the premiers of various third world countries and vowed for a united effort for world peace. However, his speech was more rhetorical than being logical. He only celebrated the Afro-Asian diversity and portrayed it as the ultimate solution to the problems of the third world; economic, intellectual, and political instabilities would all be solved through unity. There is however a contradiction in his argument. If on one hand, he lauded the power of unity of diverse humanity towards a specific cause i.e. peace, by simultaneously confessing that the third world is presently in a weaker physical, economic, and political condition but since they were united, these problems did not matter. On the other hand, he also said that as a nation, they could not remain detached from international politics: “The states of the world today depend on one upon the other and no nation can be an island unto itself”. In that case, then, the idea of bringing peace in the world through ‘moral violence of nations in favor of peace’ is nothing but a bleak hope for an attempt which will render futile. This is because to remain on the world stage, one needs to have power. Mere slogans cannot make a state hear on the international front.

           By presenting the arguments brought forward by both the leaders, I argue that these people did not previously have any experience of state governance. Their speeches, and manifestos before and during independence from the Europeans promised a better future for their people but ended up having cultural crises in the case of Cabral, and a directionless politics on the international front in the case of Sukarno. Their call for liberation was aligned with each other in terms of internationalism, but different in methodologies where Cabral’s approach was more nuanced and focused on culture.