West Africa Reivew (2002) ISSN: 1525-4488 REVIEW OF VIDEO: RED HAT WHERE ARE YOU GOING?

Siendou Konate

[Emile Adriaan Van Rouveroy Van Nieuwaal and Maarten Van Rouveroy Van Nieuwaal: 47 minutes/ Color: 2000; First Run / Icarus Films, Inc.].

The documentary, Red Hat Where Are You Going?, examines the dynamics of colonial legacy in a modern African nation. European imperialist powers justified colonialism as a mission to save the backward, uncultured, primitive people. Hence, they referred to it as “mission civilisatrice” or civilizing mission. But students of nineteenth century colonialism know that this explanation is false. The rationale behind that European foray into Africa and Asia was largely economic. Africa was colonized to both provide raw materials for the rapidly expanding industries of Europe and markets in which to sell the manufactured products. Definitely, the goal was not to civilize since complex cultures with complex histories and a relatively high level of development were already in existence.

In more ways than one, colonization induced a relentless struggle between African traditions and European colonial ones. In the course of this battle, Europeans utilized the arsenal of propaganda to castigate African values and customs as “primitive” and “pagan.” By their departure in the 1960s, they had successfully left in place Africans who had received colonial education, and who had become the elite. Educated as these elites were in colonial and Western ways, they knew more about foreign values than their indigenous African values. Their internalization of the colonial perspective and its stereotypes of African cultures and values caused them to view themselves as the best possible candidates to rule their people. Afflicted by colonial mentality, they perceived any references to the high social, political and cultural achievements of the ancestors as false. Such was the mindset of a lot of African chiefs, who became the guardian and interpreter of African values and mores.

The documentary video produced by Emile and Maarten Adriaan Van Rouveroy Van Nieuwaal and Burkinabe historian Some Magloire captures this complex history and the political tensions that are spawned today by the legacy of colonialism. It visually portrays the multiple attempts by politically marginalized traditional rulers to retrieve and restore African traditional values and traditions that colonial legacy had left in a state of neglect.

Bonnet Rouge Ou Vas-Tu? or Red Hat Where Are you Going? is about the traditional chiefs, the naabas, who wear red hat as a symbol of their authority. The video undertakes a multi-faceted look at the social, political and cultural analysis of these traditional chieftaincy institutions in former Upper Volta, now Burkina Faso (the land of the Honest Man), in West Africa. It reviews the role these traditional chiefs historically played, are now playing, and intend to play in the future in that country. Like most countries on the continent, Burkina Faso is caught up in a web of tensions between traditions and so-called modernity.

According to the historian, Some Magloire, the Mossi or Moore Empire was, and still is, divided into four dimas, i.e. chiefdoms ruled by Naabas or chiefs. The dimas are not arranged n hierarchical order. They are strongly tied to each other by blood relationship since all of them are descendents of the same ancestor. The four dimas and naabas are: Tenkodogo and Tenkodogo Naaba, Ouagadougou and Mogho Naaba, Yatenga and Yatenga Naaba, and Boussouma and Boussouma Naaba. These Naabas appoint “ lesser” naabas or chiefs to devolve power and ensure the efficient administration of all units of the territory.

Naaba Zigri, former teacher and member of Parliament, states that the role of traditional chiefs, consist in settling disputes, protecting and guarding the cultural heritage of the Moosi. By virtue of their duties, they were the central pivots of the population. However, in modern Burkina Faso, as well as in Africa, in general, these traditional chiefs are typically marginalized. They are called all kinds of negative names and are viewed with great suspicion and mistrust. For ordinary people, especially those in urban areas, these naabas are looked upon as illiterate, corrupt, and gullible.

The government too views them with distrust for they have a history of troublemaking and political attempts to overthrow regimes in power. For example, in 1958 Mogho Naaba Kougri, tried to depose the frail and emerging Western style rule in place in Upper Volta in order to install a constitutional monarchy. The attempt was foiled and consequently, the chiefs were looked upon with deep suspicion. Fear of their potential troublemaking compelled the late President Thomas Sankara, the founder of Burkinabe revolution, to emasculate them furthermore by simply denying them any right whatsoever.

But what is supposed to be the role of traditional rulers in the modern socio-political and economic context of Burkina Faso? Like many other countries in Africa on the road to modernization and democratization, how can they meaningfully contribute to nation-building when they are marginalized?

The regime of Blaise Compaore, which succeeded Sankara’s made some headway in securing some space for traditional chiefs. However appealing this constitutional reform on their behalf may seem, naabas operate under heavy scrutiny from part of the government. They are warned against fermenting public disorder when there is a conflict of customary laws with public order and safety. They are played off against one another, since, like colonial regimes, the different governments in power in Burkina Faso have operated the policy of “divide and rule.” At least that is what Naaba Boussouma, an opponent to these regimes, thinks. Chiefs are used for political purposes and abandoned afterwards. In response to the detractors of traditional chiefs he says:

Everyone speaks about traditional chiefs in Burkina Faso, that is to say, chiefs who are no representative, no minister of the Republic, no councilor, no mayor, or member of any political party, they are supposedly neutral. But those chiefs vote for one party or another and direct people to vote likewise. Presently, everyone, all of the political parties are appealing to traditional chiefs. But there has never been a regime in Burkina Faso that has had the courage to solve the problem of chieftaincy and find an adequate solution to it. Election campaigns are held, people flock to their chiefs, votes are placed and the government is formed but we are played off against one another and in the end we are at the starting point again.”

The same idea is found in the pronouncement of Naaba Zigri who claims that the troubles of traditional rulers start with envy, jealousy and bitterness of those who, on the one hand, could not afford to don the grab and the red hats of chiefs amongst their fellows. And on the other hand, the new sociopolitical context that does not allow them to fully play their part as they used to in the historical past. In a nutshell, they are devoid of power and are looking for rehabilitation of the chieftaincy institution.

Traditional chiefs long for inclusion in the modern process of social change but they are not welcome. Those of them who happen to sit in the administration deem it their duty to be at one and the same time custodians of traditional ways and values while being aware of the exigencies of modernity. Larle Naaba Tigre, a Member of Parliament thinks that “ to be a chief in the 21st century still means guarding our traditional values, being the interpreter of our traditions, being a beacon for our subjects, but importantly, being able to adapt to our time and live up to it.” Such is the dilemma of chieftaincy in Burkina in particular, and in Africa generally. How do we reconcile our traditions with modernity, which is a foreign phenomenon?

Apparently the task looks hard but not unachievable. Fortunately enough for chiefs in Burkina and in Africa in general, they are aware of the changes that are taking place, and as members of the civil society, they are asking for recognition, participation and respect. The concluding words of Some Magloire are a summation of the will of chiefs. “ Chiefs in Burkina Faso are setting out to get involved in the political life of their country in order to rehabilitate themselves, to restore their position in both modern and traditional arenas. However, the elite remains very much suspicious of them owing to the 1958 events”

However, there is a wide array of questions that come up as one deals with the issue of African traditional chieftaincies in our time of radical social changes. As a matter of fact, one might wonder what tradition and cultural heritage our chiefs are intent upon preserving against external influences. Is it the tradition of our ancestors of the pre-colonial era or what remains of it after the assaults of the West on Africa? Is culture supposed to be viewed as something static, pure and monolithic? What image of the chieftaincy institution would emerge if one glimpses into the past when some kings and chiefs, most especially in the western coast of Africa, were the perpetrators and the beneficiaries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade? How far is the traditional chieftaincy working towards a lasting solution to the plagues that are besieging African people—the pandemic of AIDS, and worsening poverty, to cite just these two? How do they set about establishing a balance between “traditions” and “modernity”?

Indeed, the traditional chiefs proclaim that they are the guardians of our cultural heritage; but certainly this does not mean a return to pre-colonial order of things, even if it were possible. There is a need to resort to our cultural heritage, to dig into it and come up with its positive aspects and to build our societies. Likewise, certain superstitious beliefs that impede social advancement need to be abandoned if the general interest is what matters the most. Our cultures, traditions and identity in Africa are not the same as they used to be prior to colonialism. In fact, the contact of Africa with the Western imperialist powers most definitely reconfigured the continent both geo-physically and psychologically. On the geo-physical plane, the partition of the continent by Europeans separated people of the same language community and kept them as foreigners to one another as artificially created nation-states madly cling on to the so-called “principle” of “territorial integrity” more than ever. On the psychological plane, the legal and educational systems, the ways of thinking and acting that Africans inherited from their colonial masters a century ago, have been internalized so much so that they are part and parcel of our cultures today, which proves that cultures do evolve and take into account the everyday reality of the lives of the people. The struggle for a better life as fought by a people is the clearest form of culture. This is what Fanon means when he discusses the notion of national culture in The Wretched of the Earth. For him “national culture is not a folklore, nor an abstract populism that believes it can discover the people’s true nature. It is not made up of inert dregs of gratuitous actions, that is to say actions which are less and less attached to the ever-present reality of the people. A national culture is the whole body of efforts made by a people in the sphere of thought to describe, justify, and praise the action through which that people has created itself and keeps itself in existence.”( Fanon, 188)

From Fanon’s perspective, it appears that our traditions, worldviews and belief system should be full-fledged part of any struggle we undertake in order to set ourselves free from any kind of yoke. Because the struggle for development in Africa is one that is fought against the new forms of colonialism, which causes poverty and further external dominations, it now represents our culture, our national culture.

Amilcar Cabral, who staged anti-colonialist campaigns against Portugal in Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde, provides another take on the issue on culture. He called for a return to our roots because Western imperialists knew that our traditions and culture constituted a tremendous weapon against the civilizing mission. Therefore, they set out to destroy them. Conscious of the power of culture in the independence struggle, Cabral advocated for heritage and tradition. And yet, Cabral acknowledged the need to take from our past only the cultural elements that will help enhance the living conditions of the masses of the people because he knew that there were some negative aspects as well. Does the cultural heritage our chiefs propose to safeguard respond to these criteria?

Another problem is that the traditional chieftaincies of Africa had initiated events that undermined the rapport between the central government and chiefs. As a matter of fact, the 1958 attempted coup by the Mooro Naaba in former Upper Volta is still fresh in the minds of political actors who look upon the chiefs with much justified suspicion. Some traditional chiefs allied with the colonial masters to subjugate and exploit their people during the era of colonialism. This is viewed as evidence of the chiefs’ unbridled ambition and their selfish desire for power at the expense of their people. This also explains why traditional chiefs in Ghana had hard time with the Nkrumah regime.

On the eve of independence the emerging elite in Gold Coast under the political leadership of Kwame Nkrumah, was said to have done everything possible to undermine the authority of traditional chiefs. To these nationalists, those who proclaimed themselves to be the custodians of traditional values and beliefs represented obstacles to modernization and economic growth because of their being too much rooted in times, ideas and worldviews that were not part of the contemporary modern life. Additionally, they looked at these chiefs as uneducated in Western ways and values, and lacking the requisite means to function in a dominantly Western world. To worsen matters, the former Upper Volta traditional chiefs lent themselves to be used as figureheads by the British colonial administration in managing then Gold Coast. It appears that the same will to power that caused the insurrection of Mooro Naaba in 1958 was rife amongst the chiefs in the former Gold Coast. With past historical actions as a guide, it is easy to call into question the claims of chiefs when they request to take part in the political life of our nation states.

Perhaps, the most important questions we have to answer are: how can these chiefs be associated with the process of development of Africa in modern times when they claim to uphold beliefs, traditions and values that are viewed as hindrances to development? Are they ready to put themselves in the service of the people in lieu of their personal power interests? Are the political regimes, which are creating spaces for them really willing to have them take part in the process of national building? We need to remember that Museveni in Uganda allowed Prince Ronald Mutebi to be crowned as the new Kabaka in 1993 thereby restoring the Buganda kingdom after Prime Minister Milton Obote abolished all kingdoms in 1966, and forced the Buganda monarch to exile. And yet, the restoration of the Buganda Kingdom has not been received political autonomy; it is rather a cultural entity. The relationship between the Buganda kingdom and the Museveni government is uneasy because of the failure of the latter to allow the political privileges and autonomy the King has been expecting. It is clear that there cannot be an easy coexistence between the Western mode of governance and African traditional rule.

Red Hat Where Are You Going? is implicitly issuing a call to Africans who are not aware of the potentialities lying in their ancestral values. It stands as an appeal to accord political space and relevance to these chiefs who have a lot to show for the advancement of Africa. At the same time, it is an invitation to re-think the position of the traditional chiefs in the process of development in African countries as chiefs try to re-assert their past authority.

Red Hat Where Are You Going? provides food for thought for African scholars and proponents of African rebirth. For the skeptics of Africa’s potentialities, particularly, those Africans educated in Western manners who still remain blind to the corrosive effect of foreign values and the ever-present colonialism of their countries under globalization, the film provides a better understanding of Africa and its force. A true Africa, one that is devoid of wars, corrupt governments, and other evils, can emerge only if Africans look into themselves and come up with their own models of governance, politics and economy. Can that task be undertaken with or without the traditional chiefs? That is the question.

Copyright 2002 Africa Resource Center, Inc.

Citation Format

Konate, Siendou (2002). REVIEW OF VIDEO: RED HAT WHERE ARE YOU GOING?. West Africa Reivew: 3, 2