Sukarno and Cabral: Difference in analysis and approaches

“the African…hand…has laid the foundation stones of the world” (Cabral)
“Asia and Africa are the classic birthplaces of faiths and ideas” (Sukarno)

The two writers are united in their appreciation of the depth and diversity of Africa’s cultures. While Cabral views culture as an expression of a region’s material reality- evolving as the political and economic realities change, and not homogenous even within the same race or religion, Sukarno focuses on the diversity of culture based primarily on race, religion, ethnicity and nationality.  Since Cabral’s focus is on a nationalistic struggle against imperialism, he stresses on the significance of converging the cultures of the multiple social groups in society into a singular national culture, to form a unified foundation for militarized struggle. Within this convergence, he believes, the cultural elements not conducive to the struggle, like nepotism and gender inequality, will be done away with. In short, the creation of an inclusive national culture in opposition to imperialism will, in turn, develop the cultures further. Sukarno, however, is addressing nations across Asia and Africa, and therefore, sees nationality as a divider instead of a unifier. For him, the desire to work against imperialism, racialism and wars is enough to form a collective goal for countries with a similar colonial experience to work towards. Highlighting the principle of “live, and let live”, Sukarno is not attempting to suggest an amalgamation of cultures, or the creation of a unified identity: the will to understand each other and work together for peace is enough. 

I think that Sukarno’s belief in the power of numbers of the Asian and African people in being able to influence global policy making, purely in the realm of mutual understanding and perpetuation of ideas with a respect for their individuality, stands in stark contrast to Cabral’s focus on organization and mobilization of different social groups in a region strategically, by creating a unified identity under which they can band together.  

Other than the differences in their approach to countering imperialism, Cabral’s nuanced understanding of culture in relation to class, particularly under colonial rule, is missing in Sukarno’s analysis- alluding perhaps to the conference’s participants’ lack of self-awareness in terms of their own urban, elite backgrounds and the effect this identity has on conceptualizing the nation’s culture. Cabral calls out the colonial strategy of sectioning off populations, by assimilating the urban and rural elite into the colonizer’s circle of superiority. This would alienate this powerful minority from the cultures of the masses, and even though the former might join the struggle when pragmatic, these political leaders would remain culturally aloof. This made me think that Sukarno’s analysis of neocolonialism should then, not only incorporate the influences by the West still having a hold in African and Asian societies, but also the remnants of colonialism pervading society through the new elite political leadership.