According to Nabudere (n.d:1) the Ubuntu philosophy, in its different settings, is at the base of the African philosophy of life and belief systems in which the peoples' daily-lived experiences are reflected. The Ubutnu philosophy is practically used on a daily basis to settle disputes and conflicts at different levels on the continent and is therefore crucial to the idea of reconciliation and leadership (Nabudere n.d). This gives evidence to the vitality, dynamism and vibrancy of this philosophy in whatever African linguistic expression it may be expressed. However to the contrary, it does not follow that all the African people propagate or are even consciously aware of the philosophy as such. Indeed, some of those who are
149
aware of it sometimes dismiss it as a post-colonial `Utopia' invention and/or a `prophetic' illusion crafted by the African political elites during the age of decolonization. Some of the cynics even question the philosophy on the ground that, at best, it is a "Bantu" philosophy not related to the ways of life and outlook of other "tribal" groupings of Africa.
Similarly, Ubuntu has been criticized for being narrow in its focus because its origin is attributed to the Bantu people and yet there are numerous tribal groupings in Africa. As such, the Africanness of Ubuntu becomes questionable as it is only attached to the Bantu and yet it is referred to as the African philosophy. In this vein, it seems as not representative of all the African practices and traditions. Given this background should Ubuntu be therefore formed on African rather than purely Bantu philosophy. However, it must be stressed that talking about African philosophy does not mean essentialising the African experience as being unique and valid outside actual lived experiences and histories. African philosophy in its current form is about a resistance to the Western philosophical discourse that denies Africa its contribution to world knowledge and civilization (Masolo, 1994:1). This in turn calls for the universalization of Ubuntu as an African Philosophy.
Paulin Hountondji and Marcien Towa are famous critics of the idea of a philosophy defined as the worldview of an ethnic group to be representative of a whole continent, arguing that philosophy is not the expression of a culture but the very possibility of stepping out of that culture and the unexamined collective opinions it carries in order to develop individual and critical thinking: folk wisdom expressed through proverbs cannot be considered the equivalent of philosophical argumentation, and one cannot speak of African philosophy in the absence of a universal written tradition because in oral cultures the function of memorizing is so demanding that it makes critical distance impossible. Hountondji (2002) also made the point that equating philosophy and culture would mean that everybody shares the same view in a society where unanimity would be a value; consequently, the political danger of legitimizing authoritarianism in the name of philosophical consensus could hardly be avoided. Thus traditionalism could be valued even when oppressive—to women, for example, when it comes to practices such as female circumcision. The criticism of "ethno- philosophy" on the other hand has however been denounced as accepting an exclusivist Western notion of philosophy that fails to comprehend the challenge African and other speculative traditions present to ethical thinking from a traditionalist perspective (Hountondji 1983). The contestations on whether Ubuntu is indeed a philosophy or not existent among
150
scholars is also present among politicians and leaders hence the absence of a common template for ethical leadership continent wise.
In addition, in as much as Ubuntu is a commendable African philosophy that gives much emphasis on humaneness, communitarianism, respect, diplomacy, empathy, solidarity, intercultural brotherhood, patience and consensus among other values, a number of challenges have been leveled against it. Such as why a continent with such a rich and wholesome culture could allow genocide to occur in Rwanda and why several tribal clashes and civil wars are happening in the land where supposedly Ubuntu understanding is rooted?
Is there no danger therefore to romanticizing the Ubuntu thoughts to the extent of even forgetting to deal in reality with the root causes of certain conflicts? And many other questions can come up to keeping in mind that Ubuntu is not the only absolute approach to understanding the life of human beings, though it has its fair share and contribution for the peace culture.
In addition to the above, Louw (2009) points out that, because of its thrilling prominence on community, Ubuntu democracy may be mistreated to legitimize excesses as what Themba Sono (1994) calls the constrictive nature or tyrannical custom of a derailed African culture, especially its “totalitarian communitarianism” which “frowns upon elevating one beyond the community”. The role of the group in African consciousness, says Sono (1994:7), could be overwhelming, totalistic, and even totalitarian. Group psychology, though parochially and narrowly based..., nonetheless pretends universality. This mentality, this psychology is stronger on belief than on reason; on sameness than on difference. Discursive rationality is overwhelmed by emotional identity, by the obsession to identify with and by the longing to conform to. To agree is more important than to disagree; conformity is cherished more than innovation. Tradition is venerated, continuity revered, change feared and difference shunned.
Heresies [that is the innovative creations of intellectual African individuals, or refusal to participate in communitarianism are not tolerated in such communities (Louw 2009).
In short, although it articulates such important values as respect, human dignity and compassion, the Ubuntu desire for consensus also has a potential dark side in terms of which it demands an oppressive conformity and loyalty to the group. Failure to conform may be met by harsh punitive measures (Sono, 1994:11, 17). Avoiding this ‘dark side’ poses one of the most important challenges of Ubuntu as a social ethic, namely that of affirming unity while valuing diversity, of translating “I am because we are” into “we are because I am”. As such, it
151
is the challenge of developing an emancipatory understanding of Ubuntu, an understanding that would effectively meet “the essential issue of politics formulated by Hannah Arendt as
‘handling plurality’’ (Boele van Hensbroek 1999:201).
Further on agreement, exponents of Ubuntu regularly note that, African traditional culture has an almost infinite capacity for the pursuit of consensus (Louw 2001: 19). In light of this, the African traditional culture leaves room for consultations and consensus from the family level to the community level. While regular democracies involve majority rule, traditional African democracies rather operate in the form of some lengthy discussions. Ramose (2008) observed that the communal ethos of African culture placed a great value on solidarity which in turn necessitates the pursuit of unanimity or consensus not only in such important decisions as those taken by the highest political authority of the town or state, but also decisions taken by lower assemblies such as those presided over by the heads of the clan, that is the councilors.
It is therefore apparent that a serious challenge of Ubuntu is that of underscoring the importance of agreement. This desire to agree which is least in theory is supposed to safeguard the rights and opinions of individuals and minorities is however sometimes sacrificed at the altar of enforcing group solidarity. Therefore, because of this extreme emphasis on community, Ubuntu in democratic terms may be abused to legitimize what Sono (1994: xiii, xv) terms the constrictive nature or tyrannical custom of a derailed culture alluded to earlier on, African culture, especially its “totalitarian communitarianism” which frowns upon elevating one beyond the community. Hence it is within this backdrop that indeed Ubuntu has a serious challenge.
The role of the group in African consciousness is yet another serious challenge of Ubuntu. As Ubuntu stresses the importance of existing as a group and not in isolation or as individuals, the role of the group has its own negatives in as much as it is encouraged. Sono (1994:7) propounded that; the role of the group in African consciousness could be overwhelmingly totalistic and even totalitarian. Group psychology, though parochially and narrowly based, nonetheless pretends universality. This psychological mentality is stronger on belief than on reason, at the same time on sameness than on difference. Further, discursive rationality is overwhelmed by emotional identity, by the obsession to identify with and by longing to conform to. Agreement thus becomes more important than disagreement and cherishing of conformity than innovation. Tradition is therefore venerated, continuity revered, change feared and difference shunned.
152
The innovative creations of intellectual African individuals or refusal to participate in communalism (heresies) are abominable in such communities and not to be tolerated at all.
Therefore, it is clear that existing as a group as per the guiding values of Ubuntu has serious challenges. Further, although Ubuntu articulates such important values as respect, consensus, compassion and human dignity. The Ubuntu desire for consensus has a potential dark side in terms of which it demands an oppressive conformity and loyalty to the group. Failure to conform attracts serious punitive measures (Sono 1994:11-17). To avoid this dark side stands as a serious contest and challenge against Ubuntu as a social ethic, namely that of affirming unity while valuing diversity, or translating, “I am because we are” into “We are because I am”. As such it is a challenge of developing an emancipatory understanding of Ubuntu, an understanding that would effectively meet the essential issue of politics formulated by Hannah Arendt in Hensbroek (1999: 201) as handling plurality. Hence it becomes apparent that the desire for consensus in Ubuntu stands as a challenge.
The principle of multi-party systems of Western democratic cultures has proved to be adversarial and a serious challenge undermining the principle of solidarity in traditional African political culture. This serious challenge has been central and still rages debate among the African philosophers concerning the appropriateness of Western style multi – party democracy in African societies. In light of this Wiredu (1998:75) raised a case for an African non – party polity and argues for a consensual democracy which draws on the strength of traditional indigenous political institutions which as such do not place any group of persons consistently in the position of a minority. It rather aims to accommodate the preferences of all participating individuals and not parties, however on another note, in line with this, Ramose (2002) pointed out that traditional African political culture embodied and invited progressive opposition through the principle of consensus seeking, not that he underscores the importance of opposition for a democratic dispensation. Importantly Ramose, whilst not so much against multi – party Western democracy, is for the maintenance of the African solidarity principle, precisely because it safeguards the rights of individuals and minorities better than any majoritarian democracy could. Hence his strong emphasis on the Northern Sotho (Sepedi) saying, “Kgosi ke kgosi ka batho” (the sovereignty of the king derives from and belongs to its subject) (Eze 2008:388). All this serves to show how multi–party systems of Western democratic cultures challenges African ethics.
However, in response to the question on how attainable and practicable the solidarity or rather consensus at which the Ubuntu democracy aims, reference becomes crucial (Wiredu
153
1998:380). Illuminates the importance of the willingness to compromise and made important reference to the voluntary acquiescence of the momentary minority. This allows the community to come to a decision and follow a particular course of action, an important outcome in a world that often requires quick decisions to retain control. Ubuntu in democracy allows for agreements to disagree (Wiredu 1998).
The insufficient dissemination and sensitization about the Ubuntu philosophy is a serious challenge of Ubuntu. Although the Ubuntu philosophy is associated with positive attributes, it is not well disseminated to peoples within African societies. Consequently, some people do not know anything, or know very little about its foundational concepts. This is even more pronounced in African towns and suburbs in urban centers where different people with different socio – cultural backgrounds and without extensive and ancient family ties live together (Bujo 2001). On the contrary, some Eastern and Western cultures have documented their philosophies and have disseminated them into educational systems, unlike the African scenario where training is still based on foreign ideologies, and African theories are not taught. Therefore, big business in Africa is still dominated by theories that were created within and for individualistic cultures (Western cultures) that do not match the communal culture of an African society (Lutz 2009:317). It is quite saddening that most people running an organization in Africa fail if they do not practise what they are taught in schools, especially at tertiary level and are ill–equipped to practice anything else. Various stakeholders who range from media houses, educational systems, government and community have a serious role to play in the sensitization of people on Ubuntu. Cognizance should be taken of the fact that some of the valued African traditional practices, customs and rituals are becoming obsolete in a changing modern environment. It is therefore evident that Ubuntu has a challenge of insufficient information dissemination and sensitization about the Ubuntu philosophy.
African Ubuntu philosophy is based on unrecorded practice hence a serious challenge. The major challenge on African indigenous knowledge is that it is not written down and is mostly transmitted from one generation to the next mainly through oral tradition (Afro–Centric Alliance 2001). Successive generations learn about Ubuntu through direct interaction within local communities. This is diametrically opposed to Western and Eastern ideologies which are carefully and well documented and are easily transmitted in schools and through various media such as the internet, books, magazines, journals etc. African philosophy (Ubuntu) is therefore devoid of ancient written tradition, which makes it very difficult for the younger
154
generation to practice the African Ubuntu philosophy fully. All this brings out the fact that Ubuntu is based on unrecorded practice hence a serious challenge.
Another challenge to the African Ubuntu philosophy is the proliferation of some foreign ideologies. Important values or rather guiding principles of Ubuntu are inclusive of consensus, human dignity, solidarity, morality among other things (Rugeje 2017; Mangena 2011; Bujo 2001). Modern African societies have become composed of people from a variance of backgrounds and cultures. Therefore, understanding and practicing some of the principles of Ubuntu have become problematic due to the multi – cultural challenges. In South Africa, homosexuality has been legalized and it threatens the very existence of African ethics. In light of this, it can also be argued that what really is African about the African philosophy is basically an issue of geographical location but the actual practices and values have been affected and diluted by some foreign practices and ideologies.
Further, in countries like Zimbabwe, homosexuality has been outlawed and castigated though it is manifest in some communities. Malawi dismisses gay marriages as criminal offenses under the Malawian statutes and regards it as gross indecency and unnatural acts contrary to the laws of Malawi. This was evidenced by the case of two men, Mr Steven Monjeza and Mr Tiwonge Chimbalanga who arranged to wed but were arrested on 28 December 2009 and jailed for 14 years. In passing judgement, the Chief Magistrate Judge Siwasiwa (Malawi Government 2010a, BBC 2010b) ruled that, “The engagement and living together as husband and wife of the two accused persons who are both males transgress the Malawian recognized standards of propriety since it does not recognize the living of a man with another man as husband and wife. Both these acts were acts of gross indecency.
International bodies including the NGO’s, governments, human rights groups, some religious groups and international organizations, including the United Nations made a public outcry over the case that compromised African ethics. After the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon intervened by visiting Malawi, the two gay prisoners were pardoned on 28 June 2010 by the Malawian President, Dr Bingu wa Mutharika (BBC 2010). This case was and still is symptomatic of recognition of larger forces that are having an impact on the Ubuntu way of life. Within the multi – cultural environment of African urban society, the synchronization of the Ubuntu philosophy with some aspects of foreign culture poses a great challenge to the upholding of principles and beliefs governing traditional African society.
155
A serious challenge to Ubuntu is that it was much appreciated during the decolonization era.
African societies worked together during the colonial times in a bid to extricate themselves from the white imperialists. No wonder Ghana as the first independent country in Africa took the initiative to support the African cause and worked tirelessly for the independence of other African states (Gyekye 2004). Ghana under Dr Nkwame Nkrumah argued that, Ghana is not independent until the whole of Africa is independent. African’s development goals were therefore predicated on unity for equal levels of development. Ghana even went to the extent of using her own financial resources to ensure the liberation of other nation states.
This clearly revealed how selfless Ghana was and this same selflessness constituted the African Ubuntu Philosophy. Nkrumah argued that, “I am not African because I was born in Africa, but I am African because Africa was born in me” (Mwakikagale 2018; Kyoso 2017).
This is testimonial of how African ethics were engraved in the peoples of Africa who were proud of whom they are. Further, the formation of the Organization of African Unity in 1963 is evidence to the role of a group in Ubuntu. However, it is quite saddening that as member states ultimately gained their independence, they came out with individualistic missions to the detriment of the spirit of Ubuntu ethics (Mwakikagale 2018).
Globalization has seriously challenged Ubuntu. The process of growing into a more interconnected world with the aim of making a world economy has brought about the phenomenon of broken family ties (Masango 2002). This has destroyed the African concept of keeping the family together and the value of extended families. The role of aunties and uncles in nurturing Ubuntu is no longer visible as nuclear families take precedency over extended families. There is also infiltration by foreign cultures into the domestic cultures thereby eroding certain conducts and ethics previously held dear in Indigenous Religion.
Such cultures and practices as homosexuality, rights, lesbianism, capitalism and other religious movements that do not acknowledge the Indigenous Religion concept of Ubuntu affect it adversely. Commenting on the issue of rights, the young generation has been granted these but the responsibility is lacking. The issue of rights has castigated the respect due to elders, other people and also self-respect, hence society is now characterized by erosion of values and moral decadence a feature more peculiar to Africa rather than other cultures.
Globalization has resulted in the abandonment of traditional values and practices. Further, Africans in general are now xenocentric in that they now prefer goods, services and cultural values that are foreign as they largely consider their culture and practices as inferior to those