Debating Ideas reflects the values and editorial ethos of the African Arguments book series, publishing engaged, often radical, scholarship, original and activist writing from within the African continent and beyond. It offers debates and engagements, contexts and controversies, and reviews and responses flowing from the African Arguments books. It is edited and managed by the International African Institute, hosted at SOAS University of London, the owners of the book series of the same name.
A policeman (R) fires at protesting miners outside a South African mine in Rustenburg, 100 km (62 miles) northwest of Johannesburg, August 16, 2012. REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko
In their historical overview of the impact of the 140th anniversary of the Berlin Conference on Africa, Odinkalu and Sambu highlighted political violence as one of the enduring legacies of the Conference on the continent. This piece is part of a series of essays that reflect on the legacy of the infamous Berlin Conference of 1884–85.
When one does a Google search for Africa today under “people also ask”, the top result is “what is the safest country in Africa”? Similarly, Google’s AI overview lists political violence first under challenges of Africa. This highlights how the prevailing image of Africa in global discourse is still largely defined by war and instability, often overlooking the complex historical and social contexts that contribute to these problems. This portrayal feeds into stereotypes while ignoring the immense resilience, progress, and potential within many African nations.
The Berlin Conference can be described as an event that perpetuated violence on and in Africa. This is ironic given that the General Act of the Conference stated that the gathering wished “in a spirit of good and mutual accord, to regulate the conditions most favorable to the development of trade and civilization” of Africa. Yet historian Steven Press points out that the hidden motives of the conference were for Otto von Bismarck to gain rubber-stamp approval for certain partitions that had already occurred. In fact, the conference was envisaged as a means of curbing potential deadly competition over African territories through diplomatic relations. The Berlin Conference thus not only marked the beginning of European imperialism and the arbitrary division of Africa but also set the stage for future violence that continues to undermine state formation, stability, and governance across the continent. The major powers who eventually became colonial authorities imposed brutal systems of exploitation, tyranny, and control that left lasting scars on the continent. This is manifest in several areas of life across the continent that are highlighted here.
Africa’s borders
One of the most significant legacies of the Berlin Conference was the drawing of artificial borders that ignored existing ethnic, cultural and linguistic demarcations. As Ieuan Griffiths frames it, Africa’s boundaries were drawn by Europeans, for Europeans and, apart from some localized detail, paid scant regard to Africa, let alone to Africans. This disregard for existing political structures and kingdoms led to the creation of states that grouped together or separated ethnic groups with little consideration for historical or social realities.
These boundaries were then reinforced by colonial rule often splitting cohesive ethnic groups or forcing rival groups to coexist within the same state. For instance the Ewes of West Africa were split between Ghana, Togo and Benin, Somalis were split among five colonial entities, the Luos of east Africa were split between Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Sudan, the Afars were split among Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Djibouti, while the Anyuaa and Nuer were split between Ethiopia and South Sudan. Although these artificial divisions did not hinder the development of unified national identities for some countries, for others, the placement of rival groups or groups with highly differing cultural practices within the same nation made it harder for these countries to establish peaceful, stable governance post-independence. Equally, the division of the same groups across several countries enables the crossing of these national borders with ease. This in turn, especially in countries with security problems, facilitates the spillover of conflict between nations through the free movement of people, arms, and resources making it easier for violent groups to gain support and prolong instability in the region.
Similarly, the impact of these artificial borders is felt in the secessionist movements and civil wars that mark Africa’s postcolonial history. Some regions, believing they would be better off as independent states, sought to break away from their primal units. An example is the secession movement that made South Sudan the world’s newest country in 2011 after years of civil war. Unlike in South Sudan, a secession movement was thwarted in the region of Biafra in Nigeria. One key cause of the conflict was the forced amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates of Nigeria in 1914 that merged major ethnic groups and laid the groundwork for future tensions and consequently the Nigerian civil war of 1967-70. Indeed, these divisions not only fuelled ethnic tensions but also shaped violent separatist movements and the fragile postcolonial states that emerged from independence.
Africa’s independence movements
The struggle for independence in Africa often resulted in fractured societies, where newly formed states faced the dual challenge of establishing legitimacy and authority while managing the violent aftermath of colonial resistance. In countries like Algeria, Kenya, and Angola, armed anti-colonial movements clashed with European forces in wars of liberation, which resulted in widespread loss of life and suffering. Colonial powers used military force, and divide-and-rule strategies to maintain their dominance, but these only fuelled further resistance. Thus, independence movements became increasingly radicalized, with many nationalist leaders advocating for armed struggle as the only way to achieve freedom. The protracted wars of liberation drained resources, weakened infrastructures, and left many nations with broken economies and political systems. Equally, colonial regimes set up coercive military and police structures which, as scholars have pointed out, were designed to maintain control through violence. Many postcolonial states inherited these structures. Unfortunately, no reforms were introduced to adjust these structures to the postcolonial context.
Africa’s weak states
The violent struggles for independence and the colonial powers’ resistance to self-rule directly contributed to the emergence of weak states in postcolonial Africa. State building scholars such as Ayoob argue that for a state to be successful, it needs firstly to have a monopoly over violence, the ability to control all the territory under its command and lastly, to have control over the nation’s resources and use them to provide public goods and services. After independence, newly formed African governments struggled to unify diverse and often divided populations, as the arbitrary borders drawn by colonial powers had already created deep tensions between the central state authorities and peripheral ethnic groups. In addition, the process had left states weakened. Prolonged colonial rule had hollowed out state institutions, leaving newly independent countries with fragile political systems, inadequate infrastructures, and a lack of sufficient trained leadership. The rapid transfer of power did not allow for the gradual development of strong, functioning governments capable of addressing the complex ethnic and social divides that colonialism had created.
In the Sahelian countries such as Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso, significant inequality existed as the vastness of these countries ensured that power was concentrated in southern, urban regions while rural, northern areas remained underdeveloped and ripe for exploitation by extremist groups that seek to secede from the country or have other objectives. This led to violent clashes with the state apparatus, subsequently weakening the power of the state and promoting general instability.
Africa’s incomplete democracies
Mansfield and Snyder have a theory about democratic transitions. They argue that countries without political institutions that are strong enough to introduce and sustain the democratic process often lead to democratic backsliding. The Berlin Conference’s legacy of creating states with little regard for pre-existing social and political structures left many African countries with fragile institutions. The absence of a strong, centralized state apparatus hindered efforts to build cohesive societies. From the late 1950s through the 1970s the lack of political legitimacy in many African countries resulted in numerous military coups, particularly in regions where ethnic divisions were most pronounced. The disadvantage of military regimes and their authoritarian rule is that they do not have the legitimacy and resources needed to build inclusive states. Thus, they focus on retaining power through coercion, repression, and patronage politics. This prolonged the instability that colonialism had instilled in the region. While some countries such as Ghana were able to transition back to civilian rule and make solid attempts to consolidate their democracies, others such as Mali (which made the transition to civilian rule and was once termed the poster child of democracy) have been set back with more coups in recent years.
In sum, the Berlin Conference’s arbitrary division of Africa created lasting challenges that continue to undermine the continent’s stability and state-building efforts. By drawing borders that ignored existing ethnic, cultural, and political realities, colonial powers set the stage for decades of conflict, secessionist movements, and weakened states. The violent struggles for independence, fuelled by resistance to colonial rule, further fractured societies and left behind fragile political structures. These newly formed states inherited repressive colonial institutions that often prioritized control through violence, perpetuating cycles of instability. Consequently, an enduring effect of the Berlin Conference’s legacy is a continent still marked by violence and the ongoing struggle to escape its grip. This struggle continues to shape Africa’s present.
This piece is part of limited series dedicated to mapping the ongoing legacy of the 1884 Berlin Conference on the underdevelopment of the African continent.
