Master–Slave Mentality: An African Political Dilemma

 Master–Slave Mentality: An African Political Dilemma Politics is a universal conversation centered on decision-making, resource management,...

 Master–Slave Mentality: An African Political Dilemma

Politics is a universal conversation centered on decision-making, resource management, and the competition for power. Ideally, it is a system in which people democratically elect leaders to govern at every level. Democracy is meant to ensure that the voices and rights of the people are not merely heard, but respected. It is regarded as the most civilized form of government because it brings the people closer to those in power, allowing for meaningful participation in the affairs of the state.

However, a shadow hangs over this ideal. Although it has been more than 200 years since the end of the transatlantic slave trade, the “master–slave” mentality continues to haunt global politics, especially African. This lingering mindset makes the decolonization of African minds, both among the people and their political leaders extremely difficult, yet absolutely necessary. While Western powers often still view themselves as masters over their African counterparts, many African politicians continue to behave like subordinates to their Western “masters.” This raises a fundamental question: Is Africa truly free, or have African leaders simply failed to recognize their own power and place in the world?

Around the world, we see examples of leadership driven by national interest and intentionality. During his campaign, Donald Trump popularized the slogan “Make America Great Again” (MAGA), promising to prioritize American interests. Regardless of personal opinions about him, his approach reflected a fierce commitment to national self-interest. In China, Deng Xiaoping is celebrated as the architect of modern China. The world does not celebrate mediocrity; it celebrates intentionality. Deng’s leadership lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and transformed China into a global economic powerhouse.

Similarly, visionary leadership in Singapore turned a small island with limited natural resources into a thriving global financial hub. True “masters” in politics do not seek office to persecute opponents or satisfy personal ambitions; they govern to serve the collective interest of their nation. In contrast, “political slaves” beg for public approval while failing to do the substantive work required to earn it.

In many African countries, politics has degenerated into a battlefield. Leaders trade away national sovereignty and resources in exchange for Western backing. As a result, they are unable to make decisions that genuinely benefit their own people when those decisions conflict with the interests of the foreign powers that helped install them.

Is quality leadership too expensive? Is good governance impossible in Africa?

In Nigeria, often cited as a symbol of systemic corruption, electoral victories frequently go to the highest bidder or the most ruthless candidate. Public records, competence, and character are often treated as irrelevant. When institutions responsible for conducting elections are compromised or bribed into silence, the entire system collapses.

The contradictions are glaring. Terrorist sympathizers are granted media platforms, while peaceful protesters languish in detention. We witness leaders negotiating with, rehabilitating, and even reintegrating terrorists into the national army. How can such slave-minded leadership govern a civilized society? Even at the state level, corruption runs so deep that proactive governors are sometimes persecuted by their own colleagues simply for doing the right thing.

Recent developments in Abia State, Nigeria, presents a sharp contrast. After more than two decades of decay under successive administrations, the state is beginning to show what intentional leadership can achieve in a relatively short time. Governor Alex Otti has demonstrated that good governance does not require limitless resources; it simply requires a leader who prioritizes public interest over personal gain.

Predictably, the “old guards”; those embarrassed by the destruction they left behind, have united against him. Instead of supporting progress, they resort to ridicule, with some dismissively labeling him a “painter governor” because he refuses to follow their corrupt path. It remains puzzling why Nigerian leaders, despite being among the most widely traveled in the world, refuse to replicate at home the quality of life they enjoy abroad. Do they believe Nigerians are undeserving of good schools, functional hospitals, and reliable infrastructure? Or has the slave mentality sunk so deep that they can only recognize excellence when it exists in their master’s house?

Ultimately, the crisis in African politics is not one of limited resources, but of identity and intent. As long as leaders see themselves as subordinates to foreign powers or predators to their own citizens, the continent will remain trapped in a cycle of regression. The progress seen in places like Abia State proves that the African dream is not a fantasy; it is merely being held hostage by those trapped in a master–slave mindset. It is time for a new generation of leaders to stop seeking validation from some dirty-minded masters and start finding it in the eyes of their own people. Only then can Africa transition from a politics of survival to a politics of greatness.

Family Writers Press International