Afrogouvernance – By Gustave Lipo Botela – 23^th June 2008.

American Revolution was an armed conflict which lasted eight years. It all so constituted a civil war between British and American subjects, as well as a rebellion against colonial authorities and an insurrection counters the king of England (George III) and monarchal regime. It was finally a war wanders of «national release ", the first one of modern history. If American Revolution had considerable consequences to the North American continent, they could distinctly determine reasons. 

The strengthening of British power (1763-1776)

With the treaty of Paris of 1763 which officially put an end to the war of Seven Years (1756-1763) between France and Great Britain, all New France, except for the Louisiana given up in Spain, became officially a British possession. Of its huge empire in North America, France kept only the tiny islands of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon in the south of Newfoundland dog. During this time, the war in British North America had brought glory to the English generals, death to the simple soldiers, destiny to the merchants, unemployment to the poor people and economic collapse of the Amerindians people.

However, to conquer the Frenchmen in Canada and in Acadia, Great Britain had had to borrow huge sums of money with a view to paying its expensive military operations. The only interests of debt cost in British treasure more than four million pounds a year. The British government had then the idea of making reimburse a party of these heavy expenses by the Thirteen Colonies (the only ones who could pay), thanks to direct taxes on products such as tea, the wine, the sugar, molasses, newspapers, etc. It seemed normal for the British government to make be the main topic by the settlers of News-England of a part of expenses incurred for their benefits.

On the other hand, the representatives of the Thirteen Colonies saw no more interest to maintain this expensive British military operation owing to the fall of New France. Besides, the settlers of News-England had given that English win to follow their expansion finally westward. And, the king George III had just begun his reign in 1760 and he had intention definitely to reinforce royal prerogatives on his colonies of America. It considered that these settlers were « British subjects » which had to have to first to submit to its decisions.

Two problems were going to come into sight and reduce royal authority considerably. On one hand, the colonial assemblies detained important, similar powers in those among whom had the English Parliament, for instance that to vote for levies and for expenses, without forgetting that to make sure of the initiative of laws. On the other hand, geographical distance and obstacle which constituted a vast ocean made any try of domination more unpredictable on the Thirteen Colonies.

« Intolerable laws » (" Coercive Acts ") in the Thirteen Colonies

The settlers of the Thirteen Colonies knew their first disappointment at the time when Great Britain, by the royal Proclamation of 1763, decided to reserve the « Indian Territory » on the West of News-England for the natives and forbidden even to the settlers to become established there. Here is the extract of this Proclamation:

By royal Proclamation, Great Britain demonstrated so its opposition to the wish of expansion of its settlers westward.

The second disappointment related to Law on the billeting (Quartering Act) of March 24th, 1765, which ordered colonial authorities to assure the accommodation of the soldiers of the British Crown. And, the assertion of the English army in peacetime, that is about 10 000 men, on the colonial territories causes numerous recriminations, especially since the Law on the billeting allowed to requisition houses to lodge the soldiers. Then the Parliament of London adopted Law on the currency (Money Act), Law on the stamp (Stamp Act), Law on the sugar (Sugar Act), etc, the whole intended to pay off the huge debt collected during the war of Seven Years. As though it was not enough, the British government sent its own customs officers, protected by its army, with special powers such as the approval to enter any public or private place to prove the goods and grab very those who would be considered illegal. Finally, Currency Act (Law on the currency) of prohibited September 1st, 1763 officially the program of paper money in colonies and deprived these of liquid assets. As they determine it, « intolerable laws » had no report with linguistic situation in the Thirteen Colonies. English was the common language and the language of usage in these colonies, as in the motherland.

The Act of Quebec of 1774

In front of difficulties and climate which deteriorated in the colonies of News-England, the British government had to take measures to counter tendencies separatists of its colonies of North America. On May 20th, 1774, the government made adopt the Act of Quebec by the British Parliament (traditional translation of Quebec Act); a constitutional law intended to change the status of the « province of Quebec ». Great Britain gave again in the province of Quebec a territory (see the card of left) which reminded of that of New France (without the Louisiana) and restored French civil laws while acknowledging Catholic religion officially. It was huge!

The Act of Quebec literally set fire to powders in the Thirteen Colonies. The English settlers did not accept that London can grant territorial rights to their ex-enemies of New France against whom they had fought about fifteen years earlier, without speaking about recognition « on British earth » « Canadian papists ». The traders of New York and of Albany were outraged to see restricting their expansion westward and the trade of the fur of the Big Lakes crossed to the advantage of Montreal, as before the conquest of 1760.

It seemed unacceptable to the English settlers that the Act of Quebec not only seemed to put aside any plan of assimilation of the French Canadians, but asserted legally the existence of a French civilization in America. They reported immediately the « Anglo-Canadian conspiracy » which joined forces against the settlers of News-England. A lawyer Bostonians wrote then: « Eh that! Us, the Americans, us spent so much blood and treasures in the service of Great Britain in the conquest of Canada, so that the British men and the Canadians can now subjugate us? » That's why the Act of Quebec, as the other laws called " intolerable laws " (" Intolerable Acts "), was considered as wholly unacceptable to the Thirteen Colonies, which received(felt) it as a maneuver aimed specifically against them.

In reality, finally cleared out from the French rival « which did not leave an instant of repose» (according to the words of Benjamin Franklin), the settlers of News-England refused the intervention of the Metropolis, which prevented them from protecting their own commercial interests and enjoying entirely freedom which they thought finally acquired. In other words, another colony, British that one, always blocked the expansion of News-England and acted as military foundation in a motherland become « the enemy to slaughter ». It was therefore necessary to eliminate possible earlier this threat!

American Revolution (1775-1783)

All these events provoked a big anger in the colonies of News-England. Twelve colonies of thirteen (Georgia was missing only) met within the « Congress against Law on the stamp » (Stamp Act Congress), while Benjamin Franklin defended the reason of the settlers in London. With the eyes of these last, these laws violated the right of British subjects to be taxed without consent of their representatives by virtue of principle No taxation without representation (« no taxation without presentation »), because colonies were not represented to the British Parliament; these laws diminished so the independence of their colonial assemblies and constituted the first stage of a "conspiracy" aiming at depriving them of their freedom. Patriots' secret societies (called the « Threads of freedom ») were formed. The colonial movement of protest culminated, in October, 1765, during the Congress against Law on the stamp.

Having said that, Benjamin Franklin did not think that the taxation of these taxes was sufficient to trigger off revolution:

The settlers wanted to be English, but as much as England left they quiet. In fact, they agreed to become rich « behind the bulwarks of Empire », without « to pay the price of security ». With detachment, they would say today that they wanted the butter and the money of the butter!

The unity of the Thirteen American Colonies came true in their common opposition to the policy of the British government: in September, 1774, on the initiative of Benjamin Franklin, they met in Philadelphia during a first continental Congress (October 5th September-26th, 1774). Two colonies are reflected at the head of revolutionary movement: Massachusetts and Virginia. The provision of these two colonies, rich and populated, will constitute a decisive advantage for future. Just before independence, Virginia united 21 % of the American settlers, Massachusetts, 11 %, very as Pennsylvania.

The war of Independence (1775-1783)

The war of American Independence started on June 17th, 1775 (during the battle of Bunker Hill) between the British men and the Thirteen risen up Colonies: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia. All News-England sheltered a population about 2, 5 million inhabitants. The British men could count on an army of 30 000 (disciplined, experienced, well armed and well paid) soldiers of job and the best generals of Europe, without forgetting 700 warships, 2000 merchant ships for the transport of troops and ammunitions, as well as on 150 000 sailors. A formidable force! But American independence was acquired only by dint of a long war of seven years, drawing away the sinking of the British men.

As for the American insurgents, they had only from 18 000 to 20 000 unskilled men - and their number sometimes was even reduced up to 3000 men in state of fighting-, does not have war navy and has only few well formed generals. The insurgents benefited moreover only from militiamen's army badly equipped volunteers, half soldiers and half farmer. In several colonies, they will end up imposing military service for all white men between 16 and 60 year old. However, remained in general exempted from conscript the members of the administration, the pastors, the students and the professors of Yale, the Blacks, Indian and the Mulattos. It was a lot of people! It was also possible to avoid this obligation by paying five pound sum. 

Moreover, the settlers of News-England supported far from all be united and antiroyalist. They became divided between those who advocated independence - the patriots or republicans - and those who wanted to remain British - the loyal supporters (or royalists). Several terms served for indicating the opposing in the American colonies: Roundhead or Puritans (for their strict religious beliefs) linked to Whigs, against Monarchists linked to the Tories. They indicate the monarchists by Loyalists in the United States, but in Canada today they have used expression for a long time United Empire Loyalists (loyal supporters of united Empire). As is well known, the "loyal supporters" faithful to the Metropolis sided with British men before running away in Canada. Having said that, numerous are those who remained neutral.

It is in this epoch when Yankee word appeared. To a probable etymology (Oxford English Dictionary), it would be about a nickname used by the British soldiers to indicate their adversaries. Yankee would come from Dutch word significant Yankee small Jan ". This diminutive would have appeared among British troops as a wry remark xenophobe intended to return the insurgents in a foreign origin and to discredit the true nature of their rebellion. The inhabitants of colonies would have taken this pejorative term in their count to a process of semantic bravado. After independence, the Englishmen will continue using Yankee term to indicate the Americans. They spoke about inhabitants of News-England by saying « the Yankee golden country New England ». From one's part the Frenchmen had quite other interpretation of Yankee word. According to these last, it would be about a distortion of Indian of Massachusetts of word English in Yenghis, Yanghis and Yankies. The Littre dictionary wrote in 1877:

The revenge of France

American insurrection was particularly well received in France, especially to the upper class and the middle classes. One read and commented on news, and in general the rebellion was perceptible as battle of ' « mind of Light » faced with « British dictatorship ». It is while France, eager to take its revenge on Great Britain which had inflicted on him the defeat of 1763, decided, after long equivocation and at the instigation of minister of Foreign Affairs, on the count of Vergennes (1774-1781), to help the insurgents. It began in 1776 to deliver illegally weapon, but decisive help became a reality by the dispatch of soldiers, war ships and of important sums of silver, without counting the naval reinforcements (123 vessels of royal Navy in total) and of about 35 000 men (in total), what will make tilt the scales in favor of the Americans. In fact, if Louis XV had spent so much money as Louis XVI put it to take revenge; France would have kept New France.

All at once, on May 27th, 1977, Benjamin Franklin announced in the American Congress the arrival of the marquis Gilbert de La Fayette in these terms: « The marquis of Fayette, French gentleman of big circles of family and big destiny, left for America on a vessel him, to serve in our armies. » But the Americans had only make of a marquis, furthermore republican and declared outlaw by the courtyard of France, and it became simply "Lafayette". This one learnt English, although it never succeeds in controlling it perfectly. Thanks to the unfaltering support of George Washington, the young French, then 19-year-old nobleman, will acquire rank from « major-general in the army of the United States » and he will become covered with glory.

In the wake of American Revolution, Versailles had declared war in London and drawn away Spain in the firm. In January, 1778, the major-general Lafayette and the field marshal of Rochambeau took the command of a French task force sent to America to support the American revolutionaries by military means. It was about a strange alliance there, because a young republic formed an alliance with a monarchy by divine right, Protestants had become the friends of a Catholic king and ancient British settlers tightened the hand to the Frenchmen whom they had fought for a long time.

In the course of the winter, 1778, some American officers worked out a plan of expedition in Canada to clear out the country of the Englishmen who have had it since the end of the war of Seven Years. They wanted to make offer the chief command by the Congress in Lafayette. This one writes to his wife (February 3rd, 1778):

But the General of the Army of the North had to abandon his plan to win Canada, precisely for lack of means. In any case, General Washington, which did not appreciate see again an ancient colonial potency north of border, had got organized so that Fayette cannot continue her military objectives. Instead of the 3000 promised men, it even did not dispose it a thousand; it had the necessary clothes, neither the supplies, nor the rackets and even less the sleighs which the Office of war had to provide to assure the success of expedition. Washington hastened to excuse Fayette (then old of comes years) by writing him these words:

It being said, the king of Prussia, Frederick le Grand (on 1712-1786, seems to have just seen on the intentions of France, as manifests this extract it of a letter addressed to his ambassador to Paris:

Just after the win of Yorktown, Thomas Jefferson paid tribute to the Frenchmen by declaring that « every man has two fatherlands: his country and France ». This French-American win was worth in France the nickname of "child minder Hercules". That's why SAR Magazine could declare:

However, the extreme expense of French-American war plunged France into a delicate financial standing and speeded up the crisis of the monarchy which will pay its revenge so very a lot on the "traitor Albion". War will have cost a billion pounds tournament, is the equivalent of eight billion today's euro (or ten billion dollars US), digging even more the financial chasm of France. The hope of becoming the first commercial partner of the new United States faints fast, as well as the restitution of New France. George Washington was caused to throw all European colonial potency out of America, that it is Great Britain or France! Louis XVI had to call the general states to reform levies, what will draw away French Revolution (1789) and decapitation of the king (1793). Finally, relations between France and the United States deteriorated fast, especially after the death of Louis XVI and excesses of French Revolution under Dread. Then the Americans, let us remind of it, made not enough efforts to reimburse the huge expenses incurred by France to assure their independence while taking back their commercial links favored with Great Britain. In brief, if the British men had lost war, they knew then how to earn peace. France, her, met Wholesale trade-Jean as front, with as reward the endless recognition of the United States of America.

American independence

This independence was officially acknowledged by Great Britain at the end of the treaties of Paris and of Versailles (September 3rd, 1783). They are John Adam, John Jay and Benjamin Franklin (of more than 70 years old) which signed for the United States the peace treat guaranteeing independence. According to the terms of the treaty, the United States acquired:

 - independence under the name of « the United States of America »;
 - the expansion of their territory westward to Mississippi and the absorption of « Indian Territories »;
 - the fixing of borders with Canada and the division of the Big Lakes in two, except the lake Michigan, which returned entirely to the Americans;
 - the getting of rights of peach on the benches of Newfoundland dog and off News - Shells.

For his/her part, Great Britain acquired:

- The recognition of debts contracted before, hanging and after conflict (repayable in pounds sterling);
- the amnesty of the loyal supporters and freedom for them to become established in other British colonies (Quebec, News - Scotland, Bermuda, British Antilles, etc).

It being said, Canada remained an English possession who had powerful armies, perfectly equipped, and could still, on order of London, pervade the American States of the North. In brief, America lived in a critical stage and nothing was acquired in a final manner. British traditions, being what they were, if the Americans had lost war for their independence, all revolutionaries, among which George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adam, etc, would have been hung or shot in the public, their confiscated property, their families were slaughtered or were thrown into misery.

The American Constitution of 1787 and linguistic question

The new American nation was fast in a difficult political and economic situation. The federal government detained whiles a weak authority. The necessity to establish a central government was soon obvious in minds. A constitutional Convention meets under the presidency of George Washington.

A federal republic

A new constitution of the United States, inspired by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, was adopted on September 17th, 1787 (see the complete text <http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/amnord/USA-Constitution1787.htm>), that is four years after the real independence of the country and more than ten years after the unilateral proclamation of independence. The ratification of Constitution by the elected representatives of the 13 Member States of the Confederation spread out over two and a half years, from December, 1787 till June, 1790. Handling carefully the worry of independence of the Thirteen States, Constitution set up a competent federal power in the domains of the foreign trade, defense and foreign policy, as well as in the field of relations between the federated States. So that the big States do not dominate babies, a presentation equal to the Senate decided on it (two seats by State) and proportional to the House of Representatives. The separation of executive powers, legislative and judicial, was instituted

In a letter of 1787 to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, one of the « fathers of Constitution », wrote: « Divide to reign; this clean corrupt rule in dictatorship is, under certain conditions, the only policy which will allow a republic to be managed by fair principles. » New Constitution was signed, from 1788, by eleven States. North Carolina ratified it only in November, 1789 andRhode Island in May, 1790. On March 4th, 1789, the first Congress of the United States meets in New York. April 30^th, George Washington became the first president of the United States (1789-1797). In 1791 were adopted the first ten amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

Moreover, it is in 1782 when the Congress adopted the white-tailed eagle at white head as national emblem of the United States, at the big disapproval of Benjamin Franklin, which preferred him the wild turkey, what did not prevent the white-tailed eagle from being exterminated in the most part of the States, except there

Florida and in Alaska, under pretext that it harmed the aeries of reproduction of salmons (what turned out to be absolutely wrong).

Colonial elite and people

For instance, George Washington was the luckiest man of America; John Hancock, a merchant thrives of Boston; Benjamin Franklin, a rich printer; Thomas Jefferson, a propertied lucky landowning owner about 200 slaves; Alexander Hamilton, a rich banker; James Madison, a rich planter slave, John Adam, lawyer having made a fortune in Boston, etc. The most part of the "fathers de la Constitution" support professionals of right and spoke all English, but some of them spoke French definitely (Franklin, Adams, Day, Jefferson, Livingston, etc) or German, or even Latin and/or Greek. Jefferson spoke English, French, Italian, Latin and Greek. The most polyglot was indeed Benjamin Franklin who had learnt French, German, Spanish, Italian, little of welsh, without forgetting Latin and Greek. These prosperous landowning owners had slaves, factories, maritime companies and put some money bringing back big interests. If they believe the archives of the Department of the Treasury, 40 of 55 Constituents (that is 72, 7 %) had governmental titles. Let us not forget that in epoch nobody could achieve an official post without having a considerable destiny. For most between them, serf hood appeared as wrong essentials in a colony which lacked work force and traditions of which were those of the colonial world.

Of course, these some favoring made sure to protect their interests by legalizing in Constitution the lower social status of the Blacks, the exclusion from Indian and from the wives, the dominance of the rich men on the poor people, in brief all that existed in the British colonies before independence. Difference, it is that American lucky elite had to make some concessions in favor of the small owners, in the artisans and in the farmers in modest incomes to make sure a broader political support. These mildly prosperous people formed an efficient bulwark against Indian, the Blacks and White poor people. Besides, John Adam will experience difficulty in becoming president of the United States (1797-1801), because he was not particularly appreciated of his fellow-countrymen owing to his ideas on « the rich men, well - born and the able » that have to accept a separate place in the local legislative assemblies.

Constitution envisaged no universal suffrage: the senators were indicated by the terms of office of States, while the president was chosen by a secondary school restrained by voters (the "presidential electors "). Finally, everything was envisaged to prevent a power from overtaking the others and the federal State to stifle the rights of States. Constitution had to rally at least nine States on thirteen. The most part of the constituents were persuaded that the monarchy remained the best form of government and dreams to institute « a monarchy without monarch » while being wary of the "people". Finally, he went out of it a kind of "Monocracy" in which the executive power is theoretically represented by the single person: the president of the United States. Everybody knows undoubtedly word, strictly genuine, of Abraham Lincoln. In full war of Secession, the president had concluded a working meeting (on the emancipation of the slaves), all members of which had expressed a position opposite to his by throwing: « Misters, eight not, one yes. Yes takes it. »

That's why also the behavior of public affairs had to come back to those who had wealth, education and who enjoyed a family tradition - it was then about a « landowning democracy » which lasted until 1824. Those who voted were those who detained an ownership, that is to say those who had something to defend and were directly concerned by the management of public affairs. It is what explains that the president must be elected by chosen delegates, not directly by the people to whom it was necessary to be wary. Later, the appeal in suffrage evolved in a multiplication of democratic procedures. Finally, the citizen will vote in XXth century for the judges, the senators, the sheriffs, or even the teachers.

In what related to the slaves, a compromise was found to establish the sharing out of the representatives between States. It was supposed by all States that a Black was equivalent to the three fifth of a White, what meant that the slave was ipso facto acknowledged by Constitution. States slaves had to agree to pour a contribution which took into account their servile population.

The federal government and the Union

The reason for which the United States imposed the usage of term in their country federal government is historical order. States and the "fathers de la Constitution" could not accept this term which gave the impression that the true government of the United States was in the centre and that States were subjected to him. In practice, it is what happened in a big number of domains, but it was more the result of history, that the juridical rigor, which imposed term federal government rather than central government. Besides, Constitution was a compromise between interest’s slaves of the South and those of the wheeler-dealers of the North. The South had accepted a certain commercial regulation in exchange for promise that they would allow the chase of the trade of slaves during «another twenty years «before thinking of forbidding it. Constituents thought that serf hood would go out in due time. Their optimism was going to be outmaneuvered, because contrariwise it throve in next decades. So, because it had enveloped the serf hood of juridical guarantees almost impossible to undo, Constitution was also going to favor the war of Secession of 1861-1865.

Two political parties developed during the presidency of George Washington: federalists and republicans. Federalists, represented by George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, were favorable to the strengthening of federal power. Having supported by the industrialists and the circles of business of the North, they stayed in power until 1801, with John Adam (1797-1801), successor of Washington. The republicans, with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison at the head, hostile to any extreme interference of central power, were favorable to a strict limitation of federal powers. The republicans were then called "democrats" by their federalist’s adversaries, what meant with a certain contempt « friend of the rabble ». The republicans accepted the support of the small landowning owners of the South and from the west. The Republican Party achieved power with Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and stayed under the presidency of James Madison (1809-1817) and James Monroe (1817-1825) there. This last, by asserting the opposition to any European intervention in the business of the American continent (« doctrine of Monroe » in 1823), defines the principles of the foreign policy of the United States until XXth century. In facts, the political evolution of the United States played made at the same time in the sense of a considerable increase the powers of the federal State and democratization accentuated the political life.

Analysis and conclusion

As you can determine it, the progression of the history of the United States of America has its own features, as so elsewhere in the world. What we try to keep, it is its report with the plan of the United States of Africa. Of course it not there no similarity, because the Africans have never pervaded another continent. As for the history of the Indian people, it is there many common points with the Africans. The invaders Europeans of several countries rushed to win the soil of Indian, in the same way as they made for Africa. But the biggest difference with Indian rest on the loss of their freedom and complete sovereignty and of all their ownership in favor of the invaders. And Indian will never again be able to recover their lands and, their civilizations are not more than symbolisms.

The Africans have advantage on their fields. The invaders were dispelled of Africa almost at the same time during independence movement from 1950s till 1960. So, the Africans can rebuild in due time that they lost Europeans since the arrival of the invaders. As for the length of reconstruction, it depends on the realization of all leaders in place. The history which I have just related you is only an insignificant party and even if it means us the Africans to understand and to push researches farther to discover how we can reconstruct the foundation of our African unity.

Build an African unity, foundation would owe be firmly constituted so that the weight of the column of building of more than fifty floors, resists to any possibility of tempests of every sort and kind. The engineers in building of buildings can definitely assert us this hypothesis. Europe and America as you all know it, was built even not in century. One needed centuries to arrive that they resemble today. And to know that, the today's Organization is not synonymous with perfect. They make updatings regularly on methods and criteria of the governance to ameliorate harmony and management of their temporal environments. The developed countries are more industrialized than civilized because, no culture is better than other one and civilization cannot be compared. The Chinese’s have their civilization, the Europeans have theirs and why not Africans? In it, that can pretend to be better than other one? Every group tries to govern even by copying other one, but so that the management of public property am managed well according to their culture.

The advantage of the Africans at this instant is on several factors. We live as the most part of the technological needs which the human being of this planet needs were almost invented and each develops adapt or adjust this same knowledge and principles pre-established according to his environment. The economy of the market predominates and exchanges of every sort and kind are made without restraint. Africa is not in competition with other continents. Certain thing, every continent must be able of nourishing its population in the present and in the future. It is besides the first basic notion in all families. A continent which does not manage to feed its population, about is its technical superiority, cannot pretend to control the notion of the governance good. The evolution of a country must first concern the human factor in first. If the human beings are not in good health, nothing much will be conceivable or to develop. Therefore the health of the human being is a factor sine qua none for the development of its environment.

Food crisis could never hit the Africans of full face. If they speak about actual food crisis, it becomes synonymous with Africa. Do not you find that it is the error of us even as Africans? What it misses so that food crisis is definitely moved away from the continent African? If the developed countries take the liberty of cloning food and animals, it is because they do not have or do not have fecund areas anymore and are made to duplicate to meet the food needs of their populations. The Africans do not have needs of products duplicated to feed. Only the cultivable and fecund surfaces in all united Africa exceed the area of Europe. Therefore famine could meet under no circumstances in Africa of tomorrow if the Africans leaders want it.

 For 1960s, years of the independence of the most part of the Africans countries, different explanation takes into account first the clean economic and social factors in Africans societies. The majority of the African leaders prefer taking refuge in antinationalistic Utopias which favor emotion to the detriment of reasoning. So, The topic of the ruling majority or ruling African elite, comes to overlap in the topic of the bureaucratisation to give the last causative explanation of individual conditions alienated and manipulated: an elite in power exercises a real authority, under mask of the anonymity brought by the bureaucratic system which it diverts in its benefit.

The concept of ruling minority (it is about big firms, about the military area and about the political world which constitutes a predominant power) does not make the object of a definition nor of a deepened one analysis here, but it its economic connotation take every year in speeches a little more weights and increases. « The topic of ruling minority recalls rationally the men with a direct influence on the formulation of domestic policy and outside. It is about the President, about his advisers and about the tops responsible for the executive power, but also for certain leaders of big firms, about foundations and about the political parties ».

Top of page