☼ What does Frantz Fanon see as the “task” of nationalist political parties in postcolonial countries?

---

Fanon on Building Postcolonial Sociopolitical Power

Frantz Fanon holds a complex, nuanced view of the role of successful political strategy in postcolonial nationalist political parties. The task of these parties, according to Fanon, is to avoid the perpetuation of “distrust” that is inherent to the kind of political systems of the Western bourgeoisie, and institute social and political reforms that nurture and strengthen trust in the masses. He believes that real belief in the capability of the people is where reliable political legitimacy comes from. He argues that it is precisely the distrust of the masses, and disbelief in their capability to govern themselves, that leads to political fragility. Fanon suggests that the way to carry out the task of repairing mutual trust is to encourage large-scale social, political, and economic reforms that engender the “awakening of the masses”, and thereby affirms their humanity. He insists that postcolonial political parties must undergo these reforms, lest they repeat the same practices inherited from the political elites of the colonial state itself.

First, one of the most important elements of a successful postcolonial national party is in fighting for true rule by the people, or popular will. Fanon views popular will as the supreme ruling force by which the people ought to be governed– that is, that they should govern themselves according to their own intellectual and political instincts. Governance should never be thrust upon the people– “The national government, if it wants to be national, ought to govern by the people…No leader, however valuable he may be, can substitute himself for the popular will”.This kind of agency is completely removed in a colonial setting where the masses, especially those in underdeveloped countries, are viewed as fundamentally incompatible with modernity, and therefore with political sophistication. Those that are outcasted, contrary to the colonial belief in their inferiority, are capable of synthesizing complex political issues themselves. Moreover, Fanon argues that these masses (most especially the poor and disadvantaged) hold a particular expertise on the subject of political reform, due to being deeply acquainted with its “living” effects. He argues of underdeveloped countries that the concept of popular will must be stretched to its furthest limit in order for real political success to occur–“it is not content merely to stay in touch with the masses. The party must be the direct expression… and the incorruptible defender of the masses”. What this does is allow for a reduction of political alienation. Governance by the people and for the people means that political leadership will not be viewed as a distinctive “other”, separate from the people. Rather, the actions of the political leadership should merely represent an expression of the people themselves. This is a system that requires trust in both leadership and in popular will.

Second, the successful nationalist party will reorient itself from “nation-building” to “consciousness-building”-- something that is especially critical in postcolonial states that are struggling under the weight of finding a new postcolonial identity. He argues that national parties fail to see beyond “nation-building” boundaries, ignoring other fundamental aspects of ensuring political stability, stating that “the political leaders ‘name’ the nation. The demands of the colonized are thus formulated. But there is no substance, there is no political and social agenda.”. Critically, the de-prioritization of “national consciousness” is Fanon’s suggestion for the path forward for countries in the decolonization period– “National consciousness is nothing but a crude, empty fragile shell. The cracks in it explain how easy it is for young independent countries to switch back from nation to ethnic group and from state to tribe-a regression which is so terribly detrimental… to the development of the nation”. The postcolonial state, and therefore its nationalist parties, must aid and work with its people to rebuild a sense of self and humanity (outside of the imposed frameworks placed upon them by their former colonial masters) without a complete reversion to tribality. 

Third, nationalist parties must restructure their approach to political legitimacy. A nation is simply an ideological idea, an elaborate construction upon which the state falsely relies on to legitimize its use of power. However, true intellectual enlightenment, as well as political and social realities, are the sources of authentic legitimacy. For too long, Fanon argues that “We have seen that the objective of the nationalist parties from a certain period onward is geared strictly along national lines”. He continues to de-prioritize the nation, instead arguing that it is political and social consciousness that is truly necessary for stability–“If we really want to safeguard our countries from regression, paralysis, or collapse, we must rapidly switch from a national consciousness to a social and political consciousness”. Furthermore, Fanon states of national construction that “The bridge must not be pitchforked or foisted upon the social landscape by a deus ex machina, but, on the contrary, must be the product of the citizens' brains and muscles”, emphasizing the fact that social and political reform should be the first and foremost priority of a successful postcolonial national party. Simply imposing beliefs and ideas upon people via “the nation” is not the path to success, but allowing personal humanity and agency to flourish is where true political legitimacy comes from. 

Fourth, the last area that highlight’s Fanon’s thinking about the task of nationalist parties is the subject of economic reform, a topic which he discusses at length. In a harsh critique of the national bourgeoisie (and therefore of the nationalist parties themselves), he states that “When these parties are questioned on their economic agenda.. they prove incapable of giving an answer because, in fact, they do not have a clue about the economy… This economy has always developed outside their control”. Due to this lack of understanding, and suffering from a lack of “material means” and “adequate intellectual resources”, the nationalist bourgeoisie simply fills an intermediary role in which “its vocation is not to transform the nation but prosaically serve as a conveyor belt for capitalism”, thereby perpetuating servitude to Western colonial powers. Fanon argues that the goal of the nationalist bourgeoisie should instead be “to betray the vocation to which it is destined” and, once again, work with the masses to educate them outside of colonialist structures.

Thus, in order to prevent the perpetuation of Western bourgeoisie thinking amongst postcolonial states, Fanon has outlined 4 key tasks of newly created nationalist parties. These parties should seek to prevent political alienation, de-prioritize the emphasis of the “nation”, source their legitimacy from social and political power, and restructure the economy to sever ties to servitude of colonial powers. Ultimately, in the words of Fanon, these parties “must first restore dignity to all citizens, furnish their minds, fill their eyes with human things and develop a human landscape for the sake of its enlightened and sovereign inhabitants”.