Afro-Fascism

Deleted member 1487

I don't see anything explicitly fascist about that. If you substituted "Tutsi" for "Jew", sure, you'd get Nazi Germany, but you'd also get medieval Europe. There's more to fascism than racism, support for mass murder, and dictatorship.
Such as? Fascism was a rather incoherent ideology.
 
Such as? Fascism was a rather incoherent ideology.

Grand mythologies about the past that need to be reclaimed through mobilizing society. Economic policy based on syndicalism and corporatism. A spiritual dimension to things. Uniting the people as a mass under one leader.

Generally these traits are not present in African dictatorships of the 1960s onward.
 

Deleted member 1487

Grand mythologies about the past that need to be reclaimed through mobilizing society. Economic policy based on syndicalism and corporatism. A spiritual dimension to things. Uniting the people as a mass under one leader.

Generally these traits are not present in African dictatorships of the 1960s onward.
Boko Haram would qualify:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram#Ideology

And it seems really like the Rwandan group I cited earlier does have many of those features. At very least they were racist authoritarians.
 
Would Somalia have a strong enough national consciousness to provide the preconditions for a fascist movement? Siad Barre would start calling himself any political label if it meant more weapons and advisers to use against the Ethiopians, it depends what the world political situation is and what period of the twentieth century we're talking about.

On paper most people in Somalia and Ogaden share a common language and religion, but clan identities still play a large role in Somali life (to the degree that a common Somali culture exists, identity is more of a political choice than an objective interpretation of facts on the ground).

By African standards Somalia is relatively homogenous, but it seems closer to the way clan loyalties that divide Saudi Arabia than a European ethnic group (Poles, Hungarians, etc.).
 
Would Somalia have a strong enough national consciousness to provide the preconditions for a fascist movement? On paper most people in Somalia and Ogaden share a common language and religion, but clan identities still play a large role in Somali life (to the degree that a common Somali culture exists, identity is more of a political choice than an objective interpretation of facts on the ground).

By African standards Somalia is relatively homogenous, but it seems closer to the way clan loyalties that divide Saudi Arabia than a European ethnic group (Poles, Hungarians, etc.).
If Fascist Italy remains neutral in World War 2 but realizes that holding onto Italian East Africa beyond Eritrea is unfeasible, you could see the establishment of a Fascist government in Mogadishu.
 
I don't think it's what you were looking for but Nasser could be described as fascist (or perhaps better national socialist). It's one of those "politics is a circle" arguments. Not a perfect analogy but not entirely false.
And continuing along the circular political road where the divisions between socialism and fascism get blurry at times.... Mugabe's Zimbabwe could be classified as either fascist socialist based. In either case, the implementation was horribly clumsy.

Meanwhile another African ruler who moved along the blurry line between fascism and socialism was Kenya's Jomo Kenyatta.

A fan of one party type "democracies", Kenyatta flirted with communism in Britain and Moscow. As ruler of independent Kenya, he veered right economically while pursuing socialist policies such as land reform and national healthcare. Rejecting socialist global solidarity ideals, Kenyatta went fascist style regarding national identity at the expense of both Indian born Kenyans and whites.
 
If Japan becomes more involved in Ethiopia (perhaps earlier on), could we see the development of a pan-Africanist ideology that resembles Japan's visions of a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere in the Horn of Africa?
 
If Japan becomes more involved in Ethiopia (perhaps earlier on), could we see the development of a pan-Africanist ideology that resembles Japan's visions of a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere in the Horn of Africa?

Even in a Axis victory scenario, Africa is going to be far away from Japanese sphere of influence. Italy and Germany would not look kindly at such meddling.
 
Even in a Axis victory scenario, Africa is going to be far away from Japanese sphere of influence. Italy and Germany would not look kindly at such meddling.
The OP doesn’t dictate that an Axis victory is necessary for Afro-Fascism to rise so anything’s on the table - or would you say an Axis victory is necessary for the spread of Fascism throughout Africa?
 
Is there any other way that these same movements could arise without becoming puppets of Nazi Germany?

I think it is possible that, when India or China go (pseudo?-)fascist - maybe the KMT wins the Chinese Civil War? India goes authoritarian right-wing Hindutva under the RSS? - , Afrofascist movements latching onto Indian and/or Chinese fascism can arise. These would be indigenous, but still to some extent beholden to Delhi or Beijing.

Or else, Russia goes fascist instead of communist in the late 1910s.
 
I think it is possible that, when India or China go (pseudo?-)fascist - maybe the KMT wins the Chinese Civil War? India goes authoritarian right-wing Hindutva under the RSS? - , Afrofascist movements latching onto Indian and/or Chinese fascism can arise. These would be indigenous, but still to some extent beholden to Delhi or Beijing.

Or else, Russia goes fascist instead of communist in the late 1910s.
While these are interesting recommendations, I want to focus on how we could see Fascism in Africa blossom.
 
While these are interesting recommendations, I want to focus on how we could see Fascism in Africa blossom.

We would somehow need to get a reputation of fascism that makes Africans believe that fascism will "liberate" them from European Imperialism. I think this is best achieved by a power that doesn't really count as "European" - Russia, the Ottoman Empire, India, China, or even America? Or Mexico or Brazil? - first going fascist in a March-on-Rome type scenario.

This power arms up, invests in the military,...

And then, when Europe has fought World War II against a non-fascist ideology (or even just for a good power struggle and some measly territory!), this power begins to start fascist movements in Africa. These are led by natives, and thus, Africans believe that - under an anti-European stratocratic dictatorship - they will blossom.
Kwame Nkrumah becomes a fascist, Julius Nyerere, Mengistu Haile Mariam, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Muammar al-Ghaddafi, Robert Mugabe, even someone like Nelson Mandela might turn towards this sort of "fascism".

And by the 1990s, most of Africa is under (pseudo-)fascist dictatorships. Which sometimes even turns out to be better than the OTL constant military coups and civil wars that African nations suffered.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram#Ideology

"Islamofascism" has been a widely criticised term, and Boko Haram is not a fascist movement. Although some West African jihadists do cite the Almoravids and Fulani Jihadists as inspirations, this isn't universal and there are divides in jihadism over that. Or to compare them to European "clerical fascism", the clerical fascist vision of an ideal society seemed a lot more compromising with modernism than what these Islamists want. It's easier to put clerical fascist movements (both Protestant and Catholic) in the political tradition of the nation's they arose in
And it seems really like the Rwandan group I cited earlier does have many of those features. At very least they were racist authoritarians.

As I said, medieval Europe would qualify under that, since it was an authoritarian (not totalitarian of course) society which had moments of extreme racism/antisemitism toward Jews, Moors, etc. Yet no one calls medieval Europe a fascist society. That's why it's hard to qualify Hutu Power and that period of Rwanda as fascist. Personally, I favour a more narrow view of movements which you can apply the label of fascism to (with the key example Mussolini's Italy), most of which operated in the interwar period. A lot of post-war movements labeled "fascist" or "neo-Nazi" mostly seem linked to fascism via the Nazis, and the elements of the Nazis they loved the most was their racial policies and their success, not so much Nazi economics or other elements of Nazi Germany (like George Lincoln Rockwell's World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists).

If Fascist Italy remains neutral in World War 2 but realizes that holding onto Italian East Africa beyond Eritrea is unfeasible, you could see the establishment of a Fascist government in Mogadishu.

An Italian fascist government, but not necessarily an Afrofascist government or the sort of fascism which a Somali might create.

Even in a Axis victory scenario, Africa is going to be far away from Japanese sphere of influence. Italy and Germany would not look kindly at such meddling.

International fascism is a challenging thing to create (and Japan wasn't really fascist like Italy and Germany since Japanese fascism was only one of several factions in the 30s/40s), and African fascism could borrow off of several models, although would likely be just ways to aggrandise the leader of the movement and his followers. The fascist focus on a singular "great leader" (a duce, a fuhrer, etc.) will appeal greatly to some leaders in Africa (by this I mean the types like Félix Houphouët-Boigny, who moved the capital of his country to his home village Yamoussokro as a show of power) who would use appeals to fascist economics and nationalism to get enough other people on board to build a powerful movement. Japan's appeal as the "liberator of non-white races from colonialism" inevitable, and Japan will want Afrofascist movements to support them to exploit those countries for the resources Japan needs.

Pan-Africanism will be a major part of Afrofascism. "Africa" as a united country can be created like India was (at least in the minds of some intellectuals), and the African diaspora will be essential for this.

We would somehow need to get a reputation of fascism that makes Africans believe that fascism will "liberate" them from European Imperialism

Japan was engaging in imperialism throughout the early 20th century yet at the same time was presenting themselves as liberators of non-white races from white colonialism, to the point they gained support from certain Ethiopians and even black Americans (via black American support for Ethiopia against Italy). But if Italy was neutral, post-WWII fascist Italy (and maybe with Spain/Portugal as allies) could be a solid bloc promoting fascism in Africa (to weaken the British/French), at least until Portugal's wars in colonial Africa.
 
We would somehow need to get a reputation of fascism that makes Africans believe that fascism will "liberate" them from European Imperialism. I think this is best achieved by a power that doesn't really count as "European" - Russia, the Ottoman Empire, India, China, or even America? Or Mexico or Brazil? - first going fascist in a March-on-Rome type scenario.

This power arms up, invests in the military,...

And then, when Europe has fought World War II against a non-fascist ideology (or even just for a good power struggle and some measly territory!), this power begins to start fascist movements in Africa. These are led by natives, and thus, Africans believe that - under an anti-European stratocratic dictatorship - they will blossom.
Kwame Nkrumah becomes a fascist, Julius Nyerere, Mengistu Haile Mariam, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Muammar al-Ghaddafi, Robert Mugabe, even someone like Nelson Mandela might turn towards this sort of "fascism".

And by the 1990s, most of Africa is under (pseudo-)fascist dictatorships. Which sometimes even turns out to be better than the OTL constant military coups and civil wars that African nations suffered.

While I am definitely no expert on fascism, one could consider Charles Maurras' theory of integral nationalism that rejected materialism and modernism in favor of an organic, spiritual state built around a strong leader and a set of traditional national values. Interestingly, Charles Maurras rejected colonial expansion, seeing it as a way for the Jacobin/Republican government to divert French attention from Europe (particularly Germany) and impose French culture on downtrodden peoples (which he, accordingly, did not appreciate).

Thus, if fascism were to develop more closely along Maurrasian lines, or minimize its imperialist aspect while maximizing its spirituality, then it would definitely attract many groups in Africa - but mainly local elites and conservative lower classes, opposed to the hated European colonists' destruction of their culture and imposition of Western values.
 
While I am definitely no expert on fascism, one could consider Charles Maurras' theory of integral nationalism that rejected materialism and modernism in favor of an organic, spiritual state built around a strong leader and a set of traditional national values. Interestingly, Charles Maurras rejected colonial expansion, seeing it as a way for the Jacobin/Republican government to divert French attention from Europe (particularly Germany) and impose French culture on downtrodden peoples (which he, accordingly, did not appreciate).

Thus, if fascism were to develop more closely along Maurrasian lines, or minimize its imperialist aspect while maximizing its spirituality, then it would definitely attract many groups in Africa - but mainly local elites and conservative lower classes, opposed to the hated European colonists' destruction of their culture and imposition of Western values.
With a few tweaks here and there, I see no reason as to why Afro-Fascism wouldn't be able to succeed, even under a different moniker.
 
Top