Dr. Franklin Nyamsi (Cameroon) speech at the Global Conference on Multipolarity
Dr. Franklin Nyamsi (Cameroon) – philosopher, writer
WHAT IS A MULTIPOLAR WORLD IN TERMS OF FREEDOM OF AFRICA?
I would like to seize this opportunity to take a moment here in Moscow at the international conference on building global multipolarity to thank the organizers, because the idea of a world without hegemony inspires great hope in all of us. I am a native African and a citizen of France, have been persecuted in France since 2021 because of my calling for rebellion African and Western people against French neo-colonialism, Western imperialism, Middle Eastern imperialism, and African despotism. Just the other day, the French Ministry of Education expelled me from teaching for three months for criticizing French and Western neo-colonialist policies in Africa outside of my classes. This is a clear demonstration of how dangerous it has become to think and speak out against the government. And yet we live in the heart of a society that was thought to be the birthplace of universal freedoms, which today proves as dangerous for me as Athens once was for Socrates.
With all this in mind, speaking at this international conference gives me the opportunity to call for the unification of all the civil and spiritual forces of our planet to defend our right to education, to freedom of thought, to freedom of expression, and to unite every people, every civilization, every person in their respect for the ancient traditions of the humankind. For the protection of these civil and spiritual human rights, deeply rooted in the consciousness of human civilization, is a prerequisite for the victory of cosmic forces over apocalyptic ones, which still dominate our planet under the sign of what the French philosopher René Guénon rightly called "the dominance of quantity," a true cult of the golden calf, which symbolizes the triumph of greed, violence, meanness and perversion of anything and everything as the highest standards of the world order.
When I hear about multipolarity, this concept breaks down in my mind into two logically opposite parts. “Multi” in terms of “Many" refers to that which is plural, hence scattered, isolated, atomized. Whereas "polarity" implies both separate centres and a binary opposition between these centres, the poles. Indeed, the Greek word polos, in Latin polus, originally meant “axis,” the extremity of an axis or the centre of rotation. Thus, the concept of multipolarity contains a potential tension between a dividing, opposing and dispersing multiplicity on the one hand, and a concentrating, tying up and unifying pole on the other. What would a multipolar world be like then? Will it remain a single, unified world at all if it is multipolar? After all, would it really be multipolar if it did not allow for real, potential, or logical unity of the world? Obviously, the complexity of the "multipolar world" concept lies in its dual hermeneutic interpretation: it simultaneously seeks to unite and separate, to concentrate and to distinguish. Thus, there is not one form of multipolarity, but at least three: atomistic, schismatic, and dialogic or intersubjective multipolarity. In fact, these are the three models of multipolarity that are currently available to us.
Atomistic multipolarity asserts dispersion as the theoretical basis of human social reality. Black African civilizations, Western, Eastern, American, Indian, Russian civilizations, etc. would be unique (lat.sui generis). Humanity would be a set of human races, different in nature, which would be formed by spontaneous appearance in big numbers at a certain point in the world at a certain point in history. In this vision of the world, peoples, civilizations, nations, and states should have as their absolute ideal self-sufficient autarchy, and the pinnacle of human experience should be the principle of "every man for himself.” It is clear, however, that such a vision of humanity, based on the irrationality of polygenism, would easily feed the already tragically familiar racist, colonialist, imperialist and ethnocentric attitudes, and views that could lead to a total indifference to the "Others.” Atomistic multipolarity is therefore not suitable for Africa, nor for any modern civilization in the world, since the model of civilizational development in which they are separate from one another has become untenable because of the already established interconnection of societies, spaces, ideas, enterprises, and people.
Schismatic multipolarity postulates the principle of primordial separation, the rupture of human unity as an irreversible tragedy. A rift between people would be a very historical inevitability. This refers us to Thomas Hobbes, who argued that the rivalry of human desires in theory is irresistible; to Kant, who spoke of the unsociability of man; to the famous African myth of Amon-Ra, who constantly had to force the first gods of Ogdoada to watch over creation, since Amon-Ra himself was not in that city; and to the myth of the ceaseless evils of Set and Apop, representing the relative and the absolute evil. Thus, a schismatic multipolarity will result in a world left to itself, doomed to perpetual decline, to an endless war of all against all, which, especially given the current nuclear, environmental, pandemic, and economic threats and risks, will lead to the collective suicide of humanity. So, rift is no better than atomization. It leads to the triumph of chaos. Even despite the interests of Africa and the Common Good of humankind, this model is doomed to failure,
Dynamic and dialogical multipolarity is the principle of unity in diversity. It is about building a world in which no state has a monopoly on international law, trade routes, monetary units, technical and biological norms, norms of social life, norms of sexuality and identity, political, moral, or spiritual values that are considered universal. When meaning is found as part of a dialogue, when parties listen to each other and respect each other's sovereignty, the world truly becomes a shared creation, rich and strong through its harmonious diversity. Thus, the value of all people becomes equal relations, mutual recognition of sovereignties, and respect for differences that are well thought out, reasoned, justified, and negotiated in a dialogue in which the parties respect the traditions of every people, every civilization, every nation, and every state. Building such a world is no easy task, but it is when Africa has a chance. Clearly, it is a question of the modern African peoples consciously committing themselves to a world in which a four-point program of African liberation will be possible: the complete withdrawal of the troops of the neo-colonial and imperialist powers from African soil; the abolition of foreign monetary and economic domination of the dollar, euro and CFA franc in Africa; the end of illegal regimes resulting from neo-colonial and imperialist hegemony in Africa; the revival of all African institutions on the basis of the centuries-old Maat (Truth-Justice-Solidarity) tradition, which represents the ideal of the search for harmony in its three forms: harmony between humanity and the cosmos, harmony between people and harmony within people themselves, realised as individuals, aware of their spiritual origins and vocation. It is therefore necessary to rethink the perspective of the African Renaissance, rediscovered, discovered and developed through the works of Cheikh Anta Diop, Theophile Obenga, Ebussey Bulaga, Amadou Ampaté Ba, Kaulan Morenga, Kalal Omotunde, Mboga Bassong, Molefi Kete Asante, Jan Assmann, Jean-Marc Ela, Wumby Jock Moudimbe, Gregoire Biyogo and others. Africa's internal security, economics, politics, technical sciences, aesthetics, and spirituality need to be reinterpreted. All this must be renewed through a self-critical approach and a comparative political anthropological study of human civilizations. This can be done in terms of revolutionary, traditional, anti-racist, anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, and anti-depressive politics. This is our path of hope which we came to know.
In conclusion, free Africa is committed to the model of unity in diversity (model 3), because only this will allow it to preserve both its millennia-old cultural identity and the necessary and fruitful relations with all the other cultures of the planet. The dialogical and dynamic model that we promote will enable Africa to join the nations that follow the UN Charter, to join the BRICS, to seek a non-hegemonic world monetary system, and to seek models of international cooperation that are primarily based on dialogue, agreement, negotiation, mutual benefit, compromise, and listening carefully to the diverse expressions of human thought.
It was this beautiful prospect of collective international work and the return of dignity to the indigenous peoples of Africa, so despised for the past six centuries by those committed to "quantity dominance," that inspired me to attend this conference in Moscow.
Thank you for your attention.
Dr. Franklin Nyamsi
Philosopher, writer, participant of international conferences
Head of the Institute for African Liberties
QU’EST-CE QUE LE MONDE MULTIPOLAIRE DU POINT DE VUE DE L’AFRIQUE DES LIBERTES ?
Che cos’è il mondo multipolare dal punto di vista dell’Africa libera?
Wat is een multipolaire wereld voor de vrijheid van Afrika?
Was bedeutet eine multipolare Welt für die Freiheit Afrikas?
¿Qué es un mundo multipolar en términos de libertad para África?
