Quasi liberty

For Fanon decolonization is not merely a change in regime or a transfer of power from one faction of elites to another group of elites. Decolonization in its essence is coming out of the shell, overthrowing the colonial structure and getting born again. The change can only occur if it is desired by common colonial subject at large. In order to replace the old order with the new order, the decolonization process should have a historical significance. The process or the struggle against the colonial master, and the effort made to hold a knife against the throat of the colonizer is what gives meaning to decolonization. Decolonization is reversal of roles, where the colonial subject must retaliate with the same amount of violence as was inflicted by the colonist. As mentioned by Fanon, the spectator becomes a privileged actor. The transformation of roles transforms people as well. The person previously oppressed by informal and formal tools of oppression is now liberated. The new roles give birth to new people. However, if a new species if to be born which ought to dance to its own rhythm, the old system must go. The old colonial system must be uprooted and buried deep. Furthermore, Fanon also highlights that as soon as the colonized start to gain power, they are asked to stay calm and be reasonable. However, it’s very hard to be reasonable when the common masses have been subjected to violence for generations, and white supremacist/imperialist ideas are imposed on them, until they are ready to internalize them. when colonial state starts to feel that they are losing control, they strike a bargain with the elites of the colonial society who become mouthpieces of colonial culture. Furthermore, when the exit of the colonial master is inevitable, a campaign of is waged against the colonized in the fields of culture, technology and values. While highlighting the importance of the struggle against colonization, Fanon argues that if independence is granted by the colonial master, or it is negotiated and not snatched then a society is not truly liberated.  

Fanon believed that the independence should be gained as a result of a fully matured struggle against the colonial master. If the independence is granted before the struggle has made a significant impact among people, then it’s a mere change of faces, the policies and the system remain the same. One set of bourgeoise is replaced by another group of the same. The new ruling elite borrow the same ideology as the previous colonial master. Fanon calls the new elite as “spoiled children of yesterday’s colonialism”. Their aim is nothing but to continue the process of deprivation and looting of the so-called independent nation. Intellectually the new elite is on the same page as the colonial master. A second coming of the colonizer starts, where people who were being oppressed before don’t get out the vicious cycle.

Fanon’s claim that true decolonization can only be achieved by violence only, and the colonized must inflict violence against the colonial infrastructure which emulates the violence inflicted by the colonist does not prove to us how he hopes to make the situation better for the colonized people. While he shows to us that the colonial subjects are reduced to animals and they are dehumanized, he does not lay out a plan or points to a direction in which a previously colonized state should go. The rant in itself might be a good depiction of how colonization cripples a nation, but Fanon fails to give substantive idea about what a previously colonized nation must do after it has gained independence.  What must a boy converted to man do after getting liberated?