Examination of the impact of Colonialism in Congo
Hassan Mudane, Istanbul Ticaret University
“Africa went into colonialism with a hoe and came out with a hoe.”
Walter Rodney, 1982
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) spans 1.5 million square miles, about the size
of the United States east of the Mississippi River. It is the third largest country in Africa. The
region in which it is located, Central Africa, is the home of most of Africa’s rainforest. The
Congo River nearly 3,000 miles long cuts through Central Africa and drains into the Atlantic
Ocean. A number of smaller rivers feed into the Congo, forming the huge Congo Basin, home
to numerous species of plants and animals. Mountains as high as 17,000 feet and Lake
Tanganyika border the region to the east, and in the south, there are great stretches of
grasslands and hardwood forests. The country also has deposits of gold, diamonds, copper,
and manganese. All of these factors combine to make Congo one of the most geographically
diverse and mineral-rich countries in the world.
However, the most obscure question is how did [King Leopold II of Belgium] colonize a
territory in central Africa that was roughly eighty times its own size? The answer to this
question can be found in an unparalleled story of personal ambition. (Breuning, 2007). [He]
displayed a strong interest in trade and colonialism well before he ascended to the throne in
1865. He travelled widely to visit other European countries colonial possessions and read
extensively on the subject. Importantly, his interest was driven by knowledge of the profits
generated by other countries colonies, although he was also interested in aggrandizing his
According to Breuning (2007), by the time the European powers met in Berlin in 1884–85
to settle conflicting claims on Africa, King Leopold II had laid the groundwork to make
himself the biggest beneficiary of that meeting. In his younger years, he had been quite blunt
about his desire for profit, but he had long since learned to cloak his ambitions in the rhetoric
of humanitarianism. Just short of a decade prior to the conference in Berlin, Leopold had
begun his quest by hosting an International Geographic Conference. This meeting brought
together a group of notable geographers, explorers, and missionaries, who were delighted to
be invited to stay at the royal palace and went home to advertise the king’s benevolence—
exactly the effect Leopold had intended. The meeting also created the first of a series of
organizations that, despite the façade of being humanitarian and scientific associations, were
all controlled by the king and aided him in acquiring the land that became the Congo.
The King Leopold had searched for colonial acquisitions to increase the prestige and
power of Belgium in a time of European expansionism into Africa and Asia. After having
failed to acquire notable colonies like the Philippines, Leopold looked to a place that he
would not have to bribe or fight with a major European power to attain, and that was the
Congo. (Johnson, 2014). Lying in the centres of Africa and roughly seventy to eighty times
the size of Belgium, King Leopold II knew that he had to tread carefully and gain the
recognition from the other European powers before colonization could occur. Therefore,
Leopold ushered in a philanthropic campaign stating that he wanted to civilize the Congo. He
created the International Association of the Congo... to show the world that he wanted to
drive the Arab slavers out of the Congo and establish free trade.
During this period, [he] employed the famous explorer Henry Morton Stanley to map the
Congo river basin and to conclude treaties with local African leaders, which in effect ceded
their land to the king’s various associations, and thus to him. Meanwhile, the king collected
vast amounts of intelligence on the interests of other European countries in Africa, which
permitted him to craft his arguments for best effect. In the end, the European powers gathered
at Berlin agreed to Leopold’s territorial claims in the center of Africa, largely because they
were under the impression that the Belgian king would permit free trade in the Congo—he
had led them to believe that his colony would be open to traders from across Europe.
What King Leopold II actually did with the organization was to send Henry Morton
Stanley, to map out the Congo and take as much land as possible. In 1878, Stanley returned
from his great journey, he was met at Marseilles by a representative from the King of
Belgium, who enrolled the famous traveller as an agent for his Association. (Doyle, 1909).
The immediate task given to Stanley was to open up the Congo for trade, and to make such
terms with the natives as would enable stations to be built and depots established. In 1879
Stanley was at work with characteristic energy. His own intentions were admirable. "We shall
require but mere contact," he wrote, "to satisfy the natives that our intentions are pure and
honourable, seeking their own good, materially and socially, more than our own interests. We
go to spread what blessings arise from amiable and just intercourse with people who have
been strangers to them." (Doyle, 1909). He spent 5 years doing this. The international aspect
of the operations soon evaporated, and Leopold financed the enterprise from his private
fortune - hence the award of the Congo Free State as his personal property.
Early in the 1900s mismanagement and ill-treatment of the Africans in the Congo Free
State led to international concern, particularly in Britain and the United States. The result was
that in 1908 the Belgian government took over the colony, and the worst of the abuses were
removed. Although Leopold’s agents in the Congo did indeed originate from an assortment of
different countries, they served the sovereign and his desire for profit. Through meticulous
study; the careful cultivation of geographers, explorers, and diplomats; the use of payments
and payoffs; and a good dose of duplicity, King Leopold II managed to acquire the colony he
so much craved.
The Congo remained his personal possession until it was transferred to the Belgian state in
1908, after an international movement exposed the extreme coercion and violence that had
accompanied the acquisition and exploitation of the territory. King Leopold II’s interest in
acquiring a colonial empire is perhaps understandable in the international context of the
nineteenth century, when powerful countries tended to have colonial empires and sought to
solidify their claims in Africa. After a number of unsuccessful attempts to buy a colony from
another country, the Belgian king worked tirelessly to partake in the scramble for Africa.
(Breuning, 2007). Thus, it is unmistakable that King Leopold II influenced the course of
history: without enormous ambition and effort, he would never have acquired the Congo,
Belgium would not have become a colonial power, and the Congo would have had a different
history as well. The king’s efforts overcame both an unfavourable international environment
and unfavourable domestic opinion. The story is notable because it is unusual: not only did
Belgium not have a tradition of worldwide exploration, but it was a relatively new and small
country that conducted its foreign affairs—and trade!—primarily with the surrounding states
However, from the critical perspective, the literature on Colonialism in Africa, particular
in Congo is written by Western scholars. They tried to make interpretation of the Congolese
Colonial Experience by looking at the problems caused by the Colonial powers through the
lenses of white glasses instead of black glasses. Therefore, to come up conclusion by making
generalizations about the conditions in Africa is not easy. Thinkers do not divorce themselves
from their beliefs when they think theories into existence. As Robert Cox once remarked
‘Theory is always for someone and for some purpose.’ However, there is believed that the
truth about the Leopold’s crimes was deliberately hidden to protect Belgium and Belgian
inches in the Congo.
[He] convinced that the reason why public opinion has not been more sensitive upon the
question of the Congo Free State is that the terrible story has not been brought thoroughly
home to the people. (Doyle, 1909). Thus, this paper will try to reveal the historical biased of
Congolese Colonial experience, and also will try to exam the problems of the Congolese
colonial experience through the lenses of black glasses. Different critical assessments are
needed to correct each of these biases and I have a number of ways to cover with them. This
paper, I will explore the colonial legacy in Congo and exams interpretations of this history by
Western scholars. The picture of a continent which had experience of colonialism raises
several questions, which I hope to deal with in this paper. These questions are:
1. How did Colonialism Affect people in Congo?
2. Why Congo did not benefit from Colonialism?
However, the main aim of this paper is to exam the impact of colonialism on Congo. This
shall lead to the following objective: To critically evaluate the literature on Colonialism in
Africa, particular in Congo.
The Colonial Period
As individuals and peoples we are products of our past. Events don't unfold in a vacuum.
What happens today is an outgrowth of history. To learn the facts of Conrad's case, one can
turn to Adam Hochschild's book, King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror and
Heroism in Colonial Africa. It is a history of Belgium's King Leopold's crimes against
humanity in the rainforest of equatorial Africa. Leopold felt stifled by his country's
parliamentary democracy, as it tells. He wanted to rule; if he couldn't rule his own people, he
could at least rule over a colony. In 1877 he sent an agent, the American explorer Henry
Morton Stanley, into the African rainforest with orders "to purchase as much land as you will
be able to obtains" Stanley thereupon negotiated "treaties" with 450 tribal chiefs, documents
that were meaningless to the chiefs who agreed to them. Leopold then used the treaties to
convince other Western colonial powers that he had legal right to the Congo River basin, an
area more than fifty times the size of Belgium. (Jezer, 2001).
The colonial period lasted for different lengths of time in the different colonies, ending
with most African states obtaining independence in the 1950s and 1960s. The peak of the
colonial era was roughly the first half of the 20th century - a period which included the two
world wars. Until the 1870s only Portugal, Britain and France of the European nations had
made any substantial colonisation in Africa. And. the French and British advances had been
rather a periodic, their colonial policies varying with the regime in power, and with the
enterprise of its representatives in Africa. In the 1870s, the outlook of the European powers
towards African colonisation changed. This was partly due to the greater knowledge of the
continent obtained from exploration, and consequent increased opportunities for trade and
access to valuable raw materials; and partly due to efforts to protect the explorers and
missionaries and to suppress slavery and the remnants of the slave trade. But it was also due
to a new spirit of national prestige, stemming largely from the unification of both Germany
and Italy in the period 1859-1870; and perhaps to some extent due to the rise of a sentiment
that it was the duty of the "superior" white man to civilise, educate and convert the Africans -
a sentiment which ignored the fact that the white man was not necessarily superior, and that
the Africans might well be much happier, and certainly preferred, to be left alone.
The result was the ‘Colonization for Africa’ in which the European powers competed with
each other for colonies there. One of the earliest targets was Tunisia, where Italy had greatly
extended her commercial interests and hoped to gain control of the country. The French
people were no very ardent colonists; but France’s policy, after her humiliating defeat by
Prussia in 1870, had become one of vast colonial expansion, partly to restore her international
prestige. Bismarck, the creator of Germany, did not want colonies, but deferred to pressure by
German commercial interests, and Germany joined in the competition. There then followed,
in 1884-85, a remarkable international conference in Berlin at which rules were drawn up for
colonisation in Africa.
One of the first agreements arising from the Berlin conference was the recognition of the
"Congo Free State" as the personal possession of King Leopold II of the Belgians. The
enterprising Leopold, seeing the possibilities of central Africa opened up by the explorations
of Livingstone, Stanley and others had called an international conference in 1876 to
coordinate further exploration and suppress the slave trade. In general, the period from 1885
to about 1920 was one of invasion, conquest And negotiations with African rulers by the
European powers in their chosen and allotted areas, and the setting up of colonial rule. The
only African states to survive as independent were Ethiopia and Liberia. Africa today is
underdevelopment in relation to West. ... And a few other parts of the world; and that the
present position has been arrived at, not by the separate evolution of Africa on the one hand
and Europe on the other, but through exploitation. (Rodney, 1982, P. 33).
[However] Colonization of Africa by European countries was a monumental milestone in
the development of Africa. The Africans consider the impact of colonization on them to be
perhaps the most important factor in understanding the present condition of the African
continent and of the African people. Therefore, a close scrutiny of the phenomenon of
colonialism is necessary to appreciate the degree to which it influenced not only the
economic and political development of Africa but also the African perceptions of themselves.
(Khapoya, 1994, P. 99).
[When it comes] the details and motivations behind [the colonization of Africa] it is best
to leave to the historians, but the results of this imperial competition are obvious. Whether it
was for economic, strategic or cultural reasons, agreements ratified at the 1884–85 Berlin
Conference (and after) saw Africa carved up between the European powers. Only the empire
of Ethiopia and the territory of Liberia (a country established for freed slaves) escaped this
partition. France favoured North, West and Central Africa; Britain claimed great chunks of
West, East, Central and Southern Africa; Portugal took the territories of Angola,
Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau; King Léopold of Belgium was awarded the Congo; Italy
established control in Libya, Eritrea and part of Somalia; Spain did likewise in north
Morocco, the Spanish Sahara and Spanish Guinea; while Germany gained areas in the south-
west and the east of the continent, as well as the Cameroons and Togoland. (Thomson, 2000).
Reasons for Colonialism in Africa
“When Europeans came to Africa, they had the Bible and the African had the land. They gave the
Bible to the African and told him to hold it in his hand, close his eyes, and pray. When the African
opened his eyes, he had the Bible and the European had his land.”
-Jomo Kenyatta, the first president of Kenya.
The primary reason for European colonization of Africa was capitalism. As John Hobson
(1858-1940) noted that capitalist societies were faced with three basic problems:
Overproduction, under consumption at home, and over saving. Therefore, the solution
reached by capitalists was to invest in what are known as Third world countries. The result
was [Colonialism]. Africa today is underdevelopment in relation to West. ... And a few other
parts of the world; and that the present position has been arrived at, not by the separate
evolution of Africa on the one hand and Europe on the other, but through exploitation.
(Rodney, 1982, Pp. 33).
Congo was consistently a source of immense wealth for Europe. King Leopold 2 of
Belgium made at least $20 million for rubber and ivory. ... It is no wonder that of the total
wealth produced in Congo in any given year during the colonial period; more than one-third
went out in the form of profits for big business and salaries for their expatriate staffs.
European Control of Africa
Source: From Khapoya, 1994, P. 100.
Imperial Powers Pre-World War 1 Post-World War 1
1. France 36 37
2. Britain 30 34
3. Germany 8 0
4. Belgium 8 8
5. Italy 7 7
6. Portugal 7 7
Total: 96 93
Before looking into the nature of colonialism in Africa, let’s turn our Attention to the key
question: Why was Europe interested in Africa in the first place? One scholar of Portuguese
imperial history has suggested that the Portuguese were moved by “a crusading zeal, the
desire for Guinea gold, the quest for [the mythical Christian kingdom of] Prester John, and
the search of spices.” Another scholar suggested Prince Henry’s penchant for hazardous
travel abroad, real thirst for adventure in the name of acquiring knowledge. For our purpose
here, however, Ali Mazrui’s three broad reasons for European exploration of the African
continent, which later led to colonization, provide a good starting point:
The first reason has to do with the need to gather scientific knowledge about the unknown.
Africa, then referred to as the “Dark Continent,” provided just the right kind of challenge. It
held a lot of mystery for European explorers, who travelled and observed and recorded what
they saw. Many of the early explorers of Africa were geographers and scientists who were
beckoned by the mysteries and exotic qualities of this new land. Expeditions of people like
Samuel Baker, Joseph Thompson, Richard Burton, John Speke, and others in the nineteenth
century, conducted in the name of science and knowledge, served to attract Europeans to
Africa. They “discovered” rivers, lakes, and mountains. They studied the African people and
wrote about them. (Khapoya, 1994).
Of Prince Henry’s exploratory expeditions, including those to Africa, a historian has
written, “While Henry directed exploratory activities; he placed high value on the collection
of geographical knowledge and rewarded his captains ‘in proportion to the efforts they had
made to carry the boundaries of knowledge farther,’ thus keeping them intent on the work of
exploration.”Without revisiting the debate as to what the Europeans meant by claiming to
have “discovered” Africa’s rivers and lakes, which the Africans had known and sailed and
fished from all along, and without belabouring the often extremely racist and distorted
descriptions of African societies that they purveyed, it will suffice to say that the writings of
some of these foreign travellers increased knowledge of Africa in their own countries and
ultimately helped Africans to know their continent better.
The second reason stemmed from European ethnocentrism or racism, itself rooted partly in
Western Christianity. Implicit in the Christian doctrine (as well as in Islam, I might add) is
the requirement that followers of the faith spread the gospel (or the Koran) to others and win
converts. Since much of Africa followed their own traditional religious beliefs, Europeans
felt that there was a definite need to proselytize and convert Africans to Christianity. In the
early years of both Christianity and Islam, evangelical work was often carried out with
military campaigns. Later, other methods of persuasion were applied. Missionaries were
dispatched to Africa. They set up health clinics, schools, and social service centres. They
treated the sick and taught people how to stay healthy. They taught European languages to
Africans, who in turn assisted missionaries in translating the Bible into African languages to
help disseminate Christian doctrines. Individuals like Dr. David Livingstone were able to
combine missionary activities with extensive scientific research and geographic
investigations. To this day, Africa remains a favourite destination for missionaries.
The third reason was based on imperialism, the desire by European patriots to contribute
to their country’s grandeur by laying claim to other countries in distant lands. Imperial
Germany’s Karl Peters’ adventures secured Tanganyika for his kaiser. Britain’s Cecil John
Rhodes’ exploits yielded a huge chunk of central Africa for his king. Henry Morton Stanley’s
expeditions to Africa paved the way for the Belgians’ King Leopold to acquire the Congo—
which he ironically named “The Congo Free State.” And Portugal’s Prince Henry and others
who followed founded an early Portuguese empire in the Indian Ocean, Estado da India, “the
first Portuguese global empire, upon which the sun never set.” The three reasons mentioned
earlier are not mutually exclusive; indeed, they are very much interrelated. For example,
scientific information collected by geographers was often evaluated by European
governments to determine if a certain area was worth laying claim to. If the information
collected suggested that a given area had a pleasant climate, friendly people, evidence of
natural resources, or good prospects for lucrative trade, and then plans were laid down for a
government-financed expeditionary force. (Khapoya, 1994).
The relationship between the missions and the colonial governments was truly a symbiotic
one. There is no question that Africans took to Western education with zeal. The little
education that they got opened their minds and provided them with practical and intellectual
skills they never had before. With some Western education, an African had a chance at a
lifestyle that up to that time he or she could only read about in Western school textbooks.
There was a tremendous demand for education that was far beyond the Ability of the
missions to provide. Despite this, colonial education very often alienated young people from
their own culture and undermined traditional authority. Gradually, African people began to
acquiesce to colonial rule and to surrender the elements of their culture and traditions.
Moreover, missionary intentions were not entirely limited to spiritual matters.
The civilizing Missions
What did colonial powers do in the interest of Africans? There is a argument which says,
colonial governments did much for the benefits of Africans and they built roads, schools,
hospitals. To sum total of these was small, as Rodney (1982) pointed out, ‘Colonialism was a
system which functioned well in the interests of the [colonial powers].’ In general, African
did benefit from colonialism only European workers did benefit. Rodney, (1982) argued that
‘colonialism did bring social services to Europeans workers- firstly, as a by product of
providing such services for the bourgeoisie and the middle class, and later as a deliberate act
of policy. Nothing remotely comparable occurred in Africa.’
The king of tiny Belgium, Leopold II, claimed to a huge chunk of Africa nearly ninety times
the size of his own kingdom. (Khapoya, 1994). His mission was to “civilize” the Africans.
Patrice Lumumba, the first prime minister of the Democratic Republic of Congo, summarizes
Belgium’s colonial code number 29 as follows:
Belgium’s mission in the Congo is essentially a civilizing one. It has a twofold aim. On the moral
plane, it is to ensure the well-being of the native population and their development by the broadening
of individual liberty, the steady relinquishment of polygamy, the development of private property and
the support of institutions and undertakings promoting native education and giving the natives an
understanding and appreciation of the advantages of civilisation. On the economic plane, Belgium’s
mission is to achieve the development of the colony for the benefit of the natives and, to this end, to
work towards an increasingly complete organisation of the country which will strengthen order and
peace and guarantee the protection and expansion of the various branches of economic activity:
agriculture, commerce and industry.
Indeed, those Africans in the Congo who had been educated in the mission schools were
referred to as the évolués—“those who had ‘evolved’ from savagery to civilization.”
(Khapoya, 1994). To qualify as an évolué, an African had to have gone to school, exhibit
good behaviour, and be firmly opposed to such uncivilized practices as polygamy and
witchcraft. These conditions were so vague and so indeterminate that when the scheme was
introduced between 1948 and 1953, only 500 Congolese could be deemed to have risen to
Belgian cultural standards.
Whether colonization hurt or helped the African people is a subject both Africans and
Europeans have very strong feelings about. It is an issue that will continue to engage the
intellectual passions of scholars and may never be resolved fully. Some have argued that
Africa has benefited from the colonialism:
1. Introduction of Western Medicine.
2. // // of formal education.
3. // // of Christianity.
4. Small infrastructures
5. Boundaries on African people
The Congo had just as much a civilization as most European countries during the 16th
century all the way up to the horrendous period known as the slave trade. Yet, Europe saw
Africa as the ‘Dark Continent,’ mysterious and unexplored. (Johnson, 2014). As Adam
Hochschild, in his book King Leopold’s Ghost, one of the most seminal studies on the Congo,
Ranulf Higden, a Benedictine monk who mapped the world about 1350, claimed that Africa contained
one-eyed people who used their feet to cover their heads… In 1459, an Italian monk, Fra Mauro,
declared Africa the home of the roc, a bird so large that it could carry an elephant through the air.
Europe justified its colonization of Africa on grounds that it was its moral duty to “uplift”
Africans from their primitive state. Ample evidence suggests that all European powers did
not think much of Africans or African culture and history. Writings by Europeans who visited
Africa before the actual colonization show views of individuals determined to look at Africa
through their cultural prisms and conclude that Africans were backward and uncivilized. In
the Congo, it was the missions that undertook the campaign to transform— they used the
term ‘civilize’—the African into an imitation black European. It is easy to see why the role of
Christian missionaries in Africa has been assailed by many writers and social scientists as
having abetted and aided colonial oppression and exploitation. (Khapoya, 1994.)
In the earlier years of his reign King Leopold the Second of Belgium began to display that
interest in Central Africa which for a long time was ascribed to nobility and philanthropy,
until the contrast between such motives, and the actual unscrupulous commercialism, became
too glaring to be sustained. So far back as the year 1876 he called a conference of
humanitarians and travellers, who met at Brussels for the purpose of debating various plans
by which the Dark Continent might be opened up. From this conference sprang the so-called
International African Association, which, in spite of its name was almost entirely a Belgian
body, with the Belgian King as President. Its professed object was the exploration of the
country and the founding of stations which should be rest-houses for travellers and centres of
civilization. (Doyle, 1909).
One of those people Leopold used to acquire the Congo was Henry Morton Stanley. The most
important part of Stanley’s expedition was to attain treaties during the early 1880s from
African chiefs from the Upper Congo to Boma.74 Gondola states, “He had under his belt a
sheaf of some 400 treaties extorted from local chiefs. These treaties paved the way for
military penetration of the Congo Basin and also ignited the „Scramble for Africa‟.”
However, since it was not written in their native language, the African chiefs had no idea of
what they were signing. Hochschild quotes Leopold saying, “The treaties must be as brief as
possible … and in a couple of articles must grant us everything.” Cutting right to the point,
Leopold was telling Stanley that he wanted the Congo as a colony with no exceptions. This is
reminiscent of the ‘El Requerimiento’ or the Spanish Requirement of 1513 that the Spaniards
read in Spanish to the Native Americans saying they had the right to take the Native
Americans property and possessions and that any resistance would be met with annihilation.
Of course the Native Americans could not understand since the language was foreign, and
many because of this were exploited and slaughtered. Unfortunately many Congolese
suffered the same fate. (Johnson, 2014).
Hochschild includes one quote in his book detailing some of the circumstances of what these
treaties said. Hochschild mentions one treaty signed on April 1, 1884 that read:
In return for "one piece of cloth per month to each of the undersigned chiefs, besides present of cloth
in hand," they promised to "freely of their own accord, for themselves and their heirs and successors
for ever ... give up to the said Association the sovereignty and all sovereign and governing rights to
all their territories ... and to assist by labour or otherwise, any works, improvements or expeditions
which said Association shall cause at any time to be carried out in any part of these territories.... All
roads and waterways running through this country, the right of collecting tolls on the same, and all
game, fishing, mining and forest rights, are to be the absolute property of the said Association."
I argued that Congo could not benefit from Colonialism, due to King Leopold’s ruthless, and
a selfish desire to have more money, motivated by naked ambition and greed. However, the
paper went through the critical literature on Colonialism in Africa, particular in Congo and it
identified that most of those literature is written by Western scholars. They tried to make
interpretation of the Congolese Colonial Experience by looking at the problems caused by the
Colonial powers through the lenses of white glasses instead of black glasses. Therefore, to
come up with conclusion by making generalizations about the conditions in Africa is not an
easy task. Thinkers do not divorce themselves from their beliefs when they think theories into
existence. As Robert Cox once remarked ‘Theory is always for someone and for some
purpose.’ Therefore, the paper concluded that the truth about the Leopold’s crimes was
deliberately hidden to protect Belgium and Belgian inches in the Congo.
Marty Jezer, 2001. Why did Europe Colonize Africa? Available from here:
http://www.peace.ca/afcolonialismcongo.htm (Accessed in 25 March, 2017).
Marijke Breuning (2007), Foreign Policy Analysis: A Comparative Introduction, Palgrave
Steven P. Johnson (2014), King Leopold II’s Exploitation of the Congo from 1885 to 1908
and its consequences, University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida
Arthur Conan Doyle (1909), the Crime of the Congo, London: Hutchinson & Co.
Walter Rodney (1982), How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Howard University Press,
Vincent B. Khapoya (2012), an African Experience, Routledge, PP. 99
Alex Thomson (2000), an introduction of African Politics, Routledge, USA.