Pan‑Africanism

United in Spirit, Divided by Reality

Pan-Africanism was born out of pain. The pain of colonization, of stolen land, broken families, and the quiet humiliation of being ruled by foreigners who saw themselves as superior. It came from watching borders drawn by outsiders, languages imposed, cultures dismissed, and the wealth of a continent drained while its people were told to be grateful.

It’s no surprise, then, that the idea of unity would emerge as a way forward. That Africans, after centuries of division and conquest, would dream of standing shoulder to shoulder. That pride, once trampled, would fight to rise again. There is something deeply human in this response, something noble.

However, good intentions don’t guarantee good outcomes, and sometimes, in chasing the right goal, we take the wrong path. That’s where Pan-Africanism, as it’s often understood today, begins to fall short – not because the desire for unity is wrong, but because the way it’s pursued risks repeating the very mistakes it means to correct.

This article isn’t a rejection of African dignity or pride. It’s a challenge to rethink the tools we use, and to ask whether freedom, not centralization, might be the better way forward.

The Problem with Pan‑Africanism

At first glance, Pan‑Africanism sounds noble. Who could argue against the idea of Africans standing together? But when you look closer, it quickly falls apart. It asks the most diverse people on earth to unite under a single political and ideological banner, and it does so by ignoring real history, real differences, and real human nature.

It is not just naïve – it is also contradictory, coercive, and ultimately self‑destructive.

The Myth of a Single African identity

The notion of a unified African identity overlooks the immense variety that exists within the continent. Africa encompasses a vast array of peoples, customs, beliefs, and traditions—arguably more than any other region on Earth. Groups like the Yoruba and Igbo – who have interacted for centuries and even share linguistic roots – sometimes find it difficult to coexist peacefully, yet some believe they would seamlessly align with Berbers, Zulus, or Somalis. This is unrealistic

Throughout the continent, such complexities are common. In Rwanda, Hutus and Tutsis speak the same language and occupy the same terrain, yet that did not prevent devastating violence. In countries like Nigeria and the Central African Republic, Christians and Muslims reside within the same national borders, but mutual distrust and outbreaks of hostility persist. Meanwhile, North African communities, whose linguistic and cultural ties often lean toward the Arab world, can view those from sub-Saharan regions as entirely other, and at times, even with contempt.

When shared faith, language, or historical experience is not enough to ensure harmony within existing nations, the idea that an entire continent of over a billion individuals – spread across countless ethnicities and belief systems – might coalesce into a single cooperative whole simply due to geography, seems rooted more in hope than reality.

A Confused and Exclusionary Idea

Pan-Africanism often lacks a clear and consistent definition. At various points, it presents itself as a movement meant to bring together “all black people.” Yet the African continent is home to far more than those typically identified as black. Its population includes Arabs, Berbers, Nubians, Indian-descended communities, and white South Africans whose families have lived on the continent for many generations.

Would a white farmer in South Africa, whose lineage traces back centuries on African soil, be regarded as part of this vision? Would Indian families in countries like Kenya or Uganda, whose roots in the region span generations, be included? In practice, they are not. The framework relies on a racial foundation, and it is this element that reveals a deep vulnerability in the idea.

To define an ideology around race is, by definition, racist. Either call for the unity of all people as individuals, judged by their character and choices, or not at all, but to call for unity only among “black people,” while excluding others, is no different in spirit from any other racial nationalism.

From Anti‑Colonialism to Anti‑White Resentment

It is true that Europeans colonized and exploited Africa. Crimes were committed, and some effects still linger. But Pan‑Africanism often drifts from healthy pride into something darker: open anti‑white resentment.

Not all white people think alike, nor do all white people care about race. Many judge others on merit and character. Yet Pan‑Africanism often treats all white people as a single hostile block, ignoring those who fought colonialism and slavery, supported African independence, or live peacefully on the continent today.

Even stranger, Pan‑Africanism often aligns itself politically with Russia or China – societies that, if we are honest, are often far more racist towards Africans than modern Western countries. Chinese and Russian elites care little for African dignity beyond what can be extracted economically or politically.

The Loss of Individual Agency

Another problem is that Pan‑Africanism encourages blame‑shifting. Whenever something goes wrong, it points to slavery, colonialism, neocolonialism, or the West. It suggests Africa’s problems come entirely from outside forces. Yet most African countries have been ruled by Africans for decades. Corruption, bad governance, and abuse of power come from local politicians, not foreign rulers. Pan‑Africanism rarely looks inward. Instead of asking, “What can we do better?” it asks, “Who can we blame?”

This mindset ignores obvious counter‑examples. Many nations that were once colonized or conquered now thrive: Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, the US, and India, among others. Entire peoples once enslaved or persecuted have gone on to rebuild and succeed. Consider the Slavic peoples, whose very name is the root of the English word “slave.” Despite centuries of foreign rule and serfdom, they built modern states, industries, and cultural institutions. Jewish communities, after millennia of exile and persecution, created strong economic networks and contributed globally to science, arts, and business.

The lesson here is clear: history shapes us, but it does not imprison us. Blaming the past forever might offer comfort but not solutions. A serious movement would focus less on external enemies and more on strengthening property rights and demanding accountability from leaders. Without that, progress remains a slogan, not a reality.

Let not the reader think that I’m so naïve as to believe that there are no foreign forces who – for whatever reason – desire to see Africa remain poor. I agree with many Pan-Africanists who believe in external forces working to impoverish us. Where I differ from them is in my belief that Pan-Africanism – as is prescribed by most of its adherents – isn’t the solution.

Collectivism over Freedom

Pan‑Africanism is also deeply collectivist. It wants to build a continental political structure that decides for everyone, even for those who disagree. By definition, this means using force: passing laws, collecting taxes, and imposing policies on unwilling minorities.

True freedom means the right to opt out, to secede, to live by your own rules as long as you do not harm others. Pan‑Africanism sees dissent not as a right, but as betrayal.

That is why it is so quick to silence critics by accusing them of being “colonial” or “self‑hating.” But real unity cannot be forced. If it requires laws and punishment to hold together, it is not unity at all.

Socialism Disguised as Unity

Finally, Pan‑Africanism almost always walks hand in hand with socialism. Its spokesmen do not call for private property and voluntary exchange among African peoples. They call for massive state control: more redistribution, central planning, and uniform policies.

This is tragic. Africa’s real hope lies in entrepreneurship and trade – in individuals and communities building businesses, creating wealth, and trading freely with neighbours near and far. Unity built on voluntary cooperation, mutual respect, and economic exchange would be worth supporting, but Pan‑Africanism, as proposed today, wants forced economic and political integration. It demands power, not partnership. It wants to decide how people should live and punish those who resist.

The Better Path: Freedom and Self‑Rule

Africa’s real problem isn’t a lack of unity. It’s a lack of freedom. Without strong rights over land and property – a thing conspicuously absent in Africa – anyone’s future can be taken away with a stroke of a pen. As a Zulu, imagine some bureaucrat from Kaura-Namoda determining that your land is in the interest of the continent, and having it seized for “the greater good”. Although unspoken, this is the subtle promise of Pan-Africanism.

Pan-Africanism promises more government control, not less, and with it, more corruption, more inefficiency, more and more poverty. Africa doesn’t need more centralization, but more decentralization, it needs less coercive collectivism and more individualism.

In a follow-up article, I will explain the destructive economics of Pan-Africanism, and how individual liberty is the real solution to the problem Pan-Africanism sets out to solve.

Thank you for your time.

Read the second instalment