Deciding in Unison Themes in Consensual Democracy in Africa

Edited by

Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani University of Ghana

Edwin Etieyibo University of the Witwatersrand

Series in Politics

Copyright © 2020 by the Authors.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Vernon Art and Science Inc.

www.vernonpress.com

In the Americas: Vernon Press 1000 N West Street, Suite 1200, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 United States

In the rest of the world: Vernon Press C/Sancti Espiritu 17, Malaga, 29006 Spain

Series in Politics

Library of Congress Control Number: 2019950175

ISBN: 978-1-62273-853-3

Cover design by Vernon Press. Cover image designed by Freepik.

Product and company names mentioned in this work are the trademarks of their respective owners. While every care has been taken in preparing this work, neither the authors nor Vernon Art and Science Inc. may be held responsible for any loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by the information contained in it. Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.

Table of contents

Foreword v

Barry Hallen

Southern Crossroads Academic

Introduction vii

Chapter 1 The Consensus Project: The Debate So Far 1

Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani

University of Ghana

Edwin Etieyibo

University of the Witwatersrand

Chapter 2 Consensus as Model for Re-conceptualizing African Epistemology 19

Husein Inusah

University of Cape Coast

Chapter 3 Deliberative Theory of Truth: An Epistemological Approach to Kwasi Wiredu’s Theory of Democracy and Consensus 35

Martin F. Asiegbu

University of Nigeria

Victor C. Nweke

University of Koblenz-Landau

Chapter 4 Towards a “Multi-party” Consensual Democracy in Africa 55

Dennis Masaka

Great Zimbabwe University

Chapter 5 Conceptualizing Traditional Consensus in Modern Africa 69

Bernard Matolino

University of Kwazulu-Natal

Chapter 6 The Problem of Elections in Wiredu’s Consensus Democracy 87

Vitumbiko Nyirenda

University of the Witwatersrand

Chapter 7 Consensus and Compromise 103

Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani

University of Ghana

Chapter 8 Afro-consensual Democracy for Twenty-first Century Africa: In Pursuit of an Indigenous Maximalist African Democratic Paradigm 119

Munamato Chemhuru

Great Zimbabwe University

Chapter 9 African Consensual Democracy, Dissensus and Resistance 135

Edwin Etieyibo

University of the Witwatersrand

Chapter 10 Is Partisan Extremism Inherent in Multiparty Democracy? 149

Alexander Kwakye

Ghana Education Service

Chapter 11 Wiredu and Eze on Good Governance 163

By Helen Lauer

University of Dar es Salaam

Notes on Contributors 185

Index 187

Foreword

Barry Hallen

Southern Crossroads Academic

The issues relating to consensual democracy offer unique insights into

precolonial and postcolonial Africa. What makes consensual democracy

important is that it is said to arise from indigenous African beliefs and

practices with regard to human relations generally and governance in

particular. Governance in precolonial Africa did not involve factional political

‘parties’ or occasional ‘elections’ in which people are supposedly ‘free’

(making an ‘X’ mark on a ballot) to exercise their political will. Consensual

democracy is meant to restore the right (not privilege) of people to govern

themselves on a constant basis.

In modern times, consensual democracy is first said to have been

systematically expressed by noteworthy political figures at the time of African

independence in the 1960s. More recently, its most important advocate is the

Ghanaian philosopher, Kwasi Wiredu. Wiredu has published no less than ten

major essays articulating, elaborating, and defending it as a political

alternative that will save the nation-states of Africa from the perils of the

liberal democratic forms of government they were obliged to adopt by the

European powers at the time of independence.

For Wiredu it is a gross mistake to attribute the problems and instabilities of

African nation-states to endemic corruption and incompetence. The liberal

democratic form of government championed by the West has proved to be

incompatible with the political and moral values and practices of Africa’s

indigenous cultures. That is why it has ended up causing more problems than

it has solved. In a consensual democracy, ethnic bias is to be controlled via

the absence of political parties. Candidates who seek office are to be

evaluated solely on the basis of their professional qualifications rather than

party affiliation. Regular ‘town meetings’ of the electorate with their

representatives to arrive at a consensus on pertinent issues will be frequent

and foundational. Consensual democracy thereby restores the right of the

individual to participate directly in governance.

vi Foreword

Wiredu recognizes that he alone is not competent to give a complete picture

of the consensual democratic state. He, therefore, appeals to colleagues to

help him with that task. That is at least one way the ten essays that constitute

this volume should be regarded. They are written by colleagues involved with

political philosophy in the African context who are concerned to review the

merits and demerits of consensual democracy as a political alternative for the

Africa of today.

With that in mind, the introductory chapter to this volume provides a

history and synopsis of consensus theory, prioritizing the thought of Kwasi

Wiredu. In subsequent chapters, some contributors endorse Wiredu’s views

overall, but with substantive revisions and additions. Others disagree entirely

with consensual democracy and argue that adjustments can be made to the

liberal democratic model that will make it compatible with contemporary

Africa. Still, others focus on Wiredu’s overall philosophy and the status and

role of consensus in it.

All contributors recognize that consensual democracy is not to be treated as

the product of a purely theoretical thought experiment. It is said to have roots

in the cultures of Africa that can be empirically demonstrated. Consensual

democracy, therefore, becomes an example of applied philosophy. It is meant

to be of indigenous origin and a real-life political alternative that can be

adopted by the nation-states of Africa. As far as Wiredu and the contributors

to this volume are concerned that makes the assessment of its merits and

demerits relevant to problems that should demand the attention of all.

Introduction

The chapters in this edited volume open up new vistas in the debate about

how we could fashion a consensual democracy that minimizes the adversarial

element of the majoritarian democracy African countries inherited from their

colonial masters. In the main, the contributions set the stage for new frontiers

by linking traditional African consensus decision making with knowledge

production, epistemology, and the building of resistance movements. The

volume also features a frontier breaking piece seeking to demonstrate that

Wiredu’s consensus proposal is consistent with his views about the relativity

of truth, and how we should handle this relativity. But there are chapters

demonstrating that the non-party system proposed by Wiredu is unsuitable

for practice, and other chapters tracing the problems associated with

transferring consensus-supporting values such as communalism into the

contemporary Africa setting.

The collection is presently composed of eleven chapters. The first is a

summary of the consensus debate so far, and aims to introduce the reader into

what has happened in the literature. This chapter, written by Emmanuel Ani

and Edwin Etieyibo, explains that the debate is a broad one that encompasses

different debates, which have been going on regarding different aspects of Kwasi

Wiredu’s proposal, or/and different ramifications of his proposal. The sub

debates that are currently active are on the role of rationality, the question of

interests, the question of models of democracy, the communitarian question,

the issue of the structure of the party system, and the consensus potential of

different issues. This chapter devotes separate sections to summarizing these

sub debates and developments in these sub-areas.

In chapter two, Husein Inusah argues that current attempts at identifying an

African epistemology fail because they do not consider what could pass as

justified belief and knowledge. Inusah argues that they do not give us the

opportunity to study how an epistemic subject stands in relation to a

proposition, or study the doxastic attitudes of epistemic agents constructed

upon the epistemic canons of truth and objectivity. Inusah suggests that

consensus provides a possible platform for meeting these requirements in

determining an African definition of knowledge and furthermore providing

the resource to reconstruct African epistemology.

In the next chapter, Martin Asiegbu and Victor C. Nweke contend that Kwasi

Wiredu’s argument for an African model of democracy that operates in the

absence of political parties is consistent with his conception of truth. They

argue that there is a link between Wiredu’s understanding of truth and what

viii Introduction

has come to be known as consensual democracy in African political

philosophy. Their approach is expository, critical, and argumentative. They

present an analysis of both Wiredu’s theory of truth as well as his position on

the place of democracy and consensus in the intellectual heritage of Africa.

Their central submission is that Wiredu’s conception of truth as ‘considered

opinion’ is fundamentally deliberative. They explain that a careful reading of

Wiredu’s idea of consensus and democracy in connection with his

epistemological standpoint will reveal that Wiredu advances a specific variant

of deliberative democracy that is consistent with his conception of truth. They

thus conclude that Wiredu is a foremost theorist of a variant of deliberative

democracy that stems from the African intellectual heritage.

The fourth chapter by Dennis Masaka takes issue with Wiredu’s thesis that a

non-party system of democracy is a realistic possibility in solving the political

crises inaugurated in Africa through the imposition of majoritarian democracy.

Whilst Masaka agrees with the thesis that liberal or majoritarian democracy has

led to some significant problems in Africa thereby justifying the need to rethink

the possibility of a return to the “traditional” consensual democracy model, he

thinks that multi-party politics might still be viably pursued within the

framework of a consensual democratic model. His general point is that the

existence of political parties might turn out to be necessary for a viable

consensual democratic system of governance in Africa in present times.

In chapter five, Bernard Matolino argues that supporters of consensus have

to strike a balance between its rooting in traditional communalist societies, its

modern conceptual defence and its possible application. He explains that this

balance is necessary to bolster the claimed desirability and conceptual

superiority of democracy by consensus vis-à-vis majoritarian democracy. He

points out that the juxtaposition of these two modes of democracy is partially

a historical and partially a conceptual battle. The historical factors present

themselves as a mirror image of the contest between accounts of the

conceptual vitality of traditional politics and the unsuitability of forcibly

imposed Western liberal multi-party democracy. However, as Matolino

observes, the sticking problem for supporters of consensus is the correlation

between the past, in which consensus worked, and the present theorization of

its superiority. In this chapter, Matolino attempts to show that the latest

attempt by Martin Ajei at supporting consensus does not work as it fails to

transcend the tension between consensus’ rootedness in communalism and

its supporters’ attempts to cast it as conceptually superior to its rival.

We then see the sixth chapter by Vitumbiko Nyirenda, in which he examines

Kwasi Wiredu’s proposal of an alternative to the majoritarian system of

democracy in Africa. In this article, Wiredu had argued against majoritarian

democracy as a system of governance that fails to deal with most of Africa's

Introduction ix

political problems — problems that arise as a result of the need for parties to

retain power and lack of substantial representation of the electorate. To deal

with these problems, Wiredu had proposed consensual democracy as an

alternative form of governance. In this chapter, Nyirenda demonstrates that

Wiredu’s consensus democracy does not avoid the issues of elections that are

central and problematic to majoritarian democracy. Nyirenda’s central

argument is that as long as consensus democracy involves elections, it will

lead to the same problems in one way or another.

In chapter seven, Emmanuel Ani shows that Wiredu’s proposal for a reading

of consensus democracy as unanimity in decision making did not earn the

agreement of scholars generally. Ani then shows that the feasible way for

advancing the consensus democracy project is to re-read it as a democracy by

compromise. Ani delves into the concept of compromise, explaining three

types of compromise. First, we have proportional compromise (when we

compromise in terms of degrees, quantity, scales, qualities). We do this when

we bargain over what quantity of time to invest in meetings or projects with

other people, when we bargain over the prices of goods, and so on. Second,

we have strategic compromise (when we compromise to resolve a conflict

over strategy and method, and over strategic interests). Third, we have

normative compromise (when we compromise to resolve a conflict over

normative values such as religious beliefs and moral principles). Ani

compares this taxonomy of compromise to Chiara Lepora’s three kinds of

compromise (substitution, intersection, and conjunction compromise), and

draws lessons. Ani argues that Lepora’s taxonomy is about what we lose and

gain, and Ani’s is about the content or item upon which we wish to

compromise. Going beyond this, Ani explains that the most important

denominator between the two taxonomies is that the proportional and

strategic compromises (as well as the substitution and intersection

compromises) offer veritable prospects for practice, whilst the normative

compromise (and Lepora’s conjunction compromise) is the most challenging.

Ani argues that scholars exploring the prospects and challenges of a

democracy by compromise would need to take in stock these kinds and sheds

of compromise to figure what practitioners in such a democracy are up

against, as well as how, in what ways, and in which situations they could

maximize the material and psychological benefits of compromising, as well as

reduce its psychological costs to compromisers.

The eight chapter is the contribution by Munamato Chemhuru, who seeks

to foster what he calls ‘Afro-consensual’ democracy as a plausible basis for

inclusive democratic political practice in post-colonial Africa. He provides

reasons why Afro-consensual democracy guarantees participation,

inclusivity and freedom, which the multi-party system of liberal democracy

x Introduction

is thought to represent. Overall, he concludes that Afro-consensual

democracy is more appealing when compared to the Western multi-party

constitutional style of democracy as it is currently being understood and

practiced in post-colonial Africa.

In chapter nine, Edwin Etieyibo discusses consensus in the context of

dissensus, especially in the form of resistance movements. Etieyibo explores the

implications of the idea of dissensus qua resistance to Wiredu’s proposal for a

consensus democracy. He acknowledges that although Wiredu’s consensual

democracy recognises dissensus as the starting point for consensus, and allows

for suspension of disbelief by parties or representatives, the role and value of

opposition or dissensus qua resistance appear to be compromised given

Wiredu’s claim that consensus leads to genuine reconciliation and abstention

from further disputation and recrimination. Etieyibo argues that although

Wiredu acknowledges dissensus and proposes a suspension of disagreement in

order to reach consensus, the idea of opposition seems lost by the very nature of

consensus and Wiredu’s claim that consensus leads to genuine reconciliation, as

well as abstention from further disputes and recrimination.

In chapter ten, Alexander Kwakye looks at what he considers some of the

defects that some scholars have identified with multiparty democracy, a

political order widely adopted in Africa. In particular, he examines the

positions of Kwesi Wiredu and Kwame Gyekye on multiparty democracy.

Kwakye accepts the position that in order for democracy to thrive in Africa, it

ought to be tailored contextually to meet the socio-political needs of Africa.

However, he rejects the ontological view that partisan extremism is a sine qua

non of multiparty democracy. He argues in support of Gyekye’s view that

partisan extremism is a product of people’s behaviour rather than a necessary

consequence of multiparty democracy.

The book concludes with the eleventh chapter, which is Helen Lauer’s

analysis of democracy and good governance in comparing Kwasi Wiredu and

Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze. Lauer explores what she describes as ‘the widely

read controversy’ between these two scholars of African governance systems.

Lauer argues that we should re-read these two scholars on a more careful

reading as compatible rather than opposing. As part of this, she revisits some

of Eze’s critique of Wiredu in order to revise them. Lauer notes that Wiredu is

concerned with effective distributive justice whilst Eze is concerned with the

entitlements of individuals to recognition and opposition, and Lauer argues

that there is ‘a basic congruity between these divergent yet complementary

foci of West African political heritage and their relevance to our current

economic and demographic conditions.’

Overall, the contributions in this book further the debate on consensual

democracy in Africa by criticizing objectionable features of the consensus

Introduction xi

proposal whilst affirming the general value of a consensual variant to African

politics. We hope this book provides material for research that seeks to bring

new dimensions to the consensus project.

Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani Edwin Etieyibo

Accra, Ghana Johannesburg, South Africa

Chapter 1

The Consensus Project: The Debate So Far

Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani

University of Ghana

Edwin Etieyibo

University of the Witwatersrand

Introduction

This chapter summarizes the debate that has so far greeted Kwasi Wiredu’s

proposal for a non-party system of democracy based on consensus. Wiredu’s

proposal is inspired by the traditional consensual practices of his native

Akan of West Africa. We survey the support his proposal has received, as well

as the opposition. The debate is a broad one that encompasses different

debates, which have been going on regarding different aspects of Wiredu’s

proposal, or/and different ramifications of his proposal. The aspects or

ramifications are the role of rationality, the question of interests, the

question of models of democracy, the communitarian question, the issue of

the structure of the party system, and the consensus potential of different

issues. We devote separate sections to summarizing the debates and

developments in these sub-areas.

Wiredu’s Rejection of Multiparty Democracy

The debate about the propriety of democracy by consensus in Africa (which

we shall henceforth call the consensus debate) began with a proposal by

Kwasi Wiredu, a prominent African philosopher who argued that the

multiparty system of competitive democracy is inappropriate for African

countries. Wiredu argued that the multiparty system exacerbates political

conflicts in an especially divisive way. According to him, it is not the case that

political conflict is foreign to Africa; rather, it is the claim that conflict that

emanates from the activities of political parties is not indigenous to Africa

(2011: 1060). Wiredu calls this system of democracy “an epiphenomenon of

colonialism” (Ibid) and argues that it is dangerous to practice in face of the

2 Chapter 1

ethnic configurations and other kinds of conflicts in Africa because it

exacerbates pre-existing tensions, including the marginalization of smaller

ethnic groups by larger ones (2011: 1064).

Wiredu argues that the raison d’etre of political parties is to wrestle other

parties for political power, which he sees as institutionalizing conflict or

making it officially permissible and laudable. Electoral outcomes are

sometimes very close, with the result that when one party wins and forms

government, it wins by a slight majority, and those who support the

opposition is often as numerous as those who support the party in power,

resulting in what Wiredu refers to as a relative disenfranchisement of a

section of the population (Wiredu 2011: 1060). He points out that this

arrangement is backed by the constitution, amounting to what he calls a

pre-established disharmony (Ibid). He writes that when a party wins power,

others lose and stay out of it, and their ideas normally do not receive

attention (2011: 1061). Wiredu asks us to think about the psychological

infelicities of losing power, and the fact that the winners are keen to show

their power to reach decisions to the exclusion of losers (Ibid).

It does not stop here. The multiparty system specifies that the political

opposition is supposed to act as a check on the ruling party. But Wiredu

argues that checks become unbalanced when one party has the presidency

and another party the legislature, because the political opposition uses the

legislature to turn opposition into obstruction of meaningful government

initiatives (2011: 1059). Wiredu thinks the central idea is simply

uncooperativeness, and a consequent adversarial spirit in politics (Ibid).

Wiredu also takes another shot at elections in the multiparty system. He

begins by reminding us that the only way of seeking the consent of the governed

is through rational persuasion, and argues that this is not what we see in

elections. He notes that elections are so expensive that only those rich enough

can participate, and much of the money goes into kinds of campaigning that do

not aim at rational persuasion (2011: 1062). These are the kinds of processes

that give us democratic leaders, including the President of the United States of

America, as well as in many African countries where bribery and deception are

among other darker methods of getting votes (Ibid).

In contrast to the multiparty system, Wiredu proposes a democracy by

consensus. He argues that such a system could be inspired by traditional

consensual practices. For an example of a traditional consensual system,

Wiredu presented an account of the consensual political system of the

Ashanti of Ghana.

The Consensus Project 3

Wiredu’s Presentation of Traditional Consensual Practices

Wiredu asks us to take a refreshing look at the consensual systems of

governance that were used by some traditional African societies. Wiredu cited

Kenneth Kaunda as saying, “In our original societies, we operated by consensus.

An issue was talked about in solemn conclave until such time as agreement

could be achieved” (Wiredu 1996: 182). Wiredu also cited Julius Nyerere as

saying, “… in African society the traditional method of conducting affairs is by

free discussion” and Guy Glutton Brock as saying, “The elders would sit under

the trees, and talk until they agree” (Ibid). Wiredu then notes that consensus was

not merely a political phenomenon, but was “an immanent approach to social

interaction” and generally regarded as axiomatic, although this did not mean

that consensus was always achieved (Ibid). There was indeed conflict in African

society, but the important issue for Wiredu was that the aim of resolving issues

was to achieve reconciliation “rather than a mere abstention from further

recriminations or collisions” (Ibid). This is not the same as the usual scenario in

which disputes could be settled without the achievement of reconciliation. And

reconciliation is for Wiredu “a form of consensus”, because it restored goodwill

by a reappraising of “the importance and significance of the initial bones of

contention” (1996: 182-183). Wiredu clarifies that consensus need not entail an

agreement on moral or cognitive issues, what is important is that all parties felt

that their positions were considered on the issue at hand, neither does

consensus “entail total agreement” (1996: 183). Wiredu, in fact, reminds us that

consensus actually presupposes (at least initial) diversity, and since issues do

not always polarise along the lines of strict contradictoriness, dialogue could be

used to smoothen edges and produce compromises that all agree to.

Wiredu argues that we might avoid value-laden issues and dwell more on

agreeing over practical issues. He writes, “where there is the will to consensus

dialogue can lead to a willing suspension of disagreement, making possible

agreed actions without necessarily agreed notions. This is important because

certain issues do, indeed, precipitate exhaustive disjunctions which no

dialogic accommodations can mediate” (1996: 183). Here, Wiredu seems to be

saying that certain issues are quite intractable to discuss. And when he

prescribes that we should limit our consensus drive to action-related issues,

he appears to be suggesting that intractable issues are more in the value-

laden category. Wiredu tells us that the suspension of disagreement is usually

to be done by “the residual minority” (Ibid). But what is special about

consensus is that “the majority prevails not over, but upon, the minority” “…

to accept the proposal in question”, instead of simply living with it as we see

in majoritarian democracy (1996: 190). He adds that a minority is expected to

acquiesce in a consensus system in order for a decision to be reached (Ibid).

4 Chapter 1

Wiredu, however, points out that this process depends on the patience and

persuasiveness of the right kind of people.

Wiredu distinguishes between two categories of traditional African societies:

those with a centralized authority exercised through the machinery of

government, and those without centralized government-like authority. He

noted that life in the second category was just as orderly as life in the first (Ibid).

Wiredu then tells us that consensus was practised by those in the first category,

who were among the most centralized and warlike ethnic groups in Africa, and

he cited the Zulus and Ashantis as examples (Ibid 183-184). Wiredu then muses

that, by contrast, less militaristic societies also manifested less enthusiasm for

consensus. Wiredu sees this contrast as ‘paradoxical’, but does not reflect on it.

Having mentioned the Zulu and the Ashanti as two prominent examples of

traditional societies whose political systems were based on consensus, Wiredu

writes that, in the Ashanti kingdom, lineage was a basic political unit, and

every such unit had a head, elected through consensus. The qualifications for

such a position were “seniority in age, wisdom, a sense of civic responsibility,

and logical persuasiveness” (1996: 184). Wiredu narrates that where these

qualities united in one person, election was routine, but where they were

scattered among different persons, discussions were often more prolonged

but aimed at consensus. Indeed, Wiredu reports that there was never an act of

formal voting, and no longstanding word for voting in the Ashanti language.

All elections were done through consensus. The lineage head represented the

lineage in the village or town council, which in turn elected someone to

represent it at the regional council, which in turn elected someone to

represent them at the national council headed by the king of the Ashantis, the

Asantehene. Decisions (presumably both electoral and substantive) were by

consensus at all levels (Wiredu 1996: 185).

Wiredu tells us that consensus was not an accidental method to the

Ashantis, it was a premeditated option because they considered voting to be

too easy a way to reach decisions (1996: 185), and voting side-lined minorities

(1996: 183, 186, 190). Minorities are represented in consensus, and Wiredu

tells us that there are two concepts of representation. We have formal

representation (the representation of a given constituency in council), and

substantive representation (the representation of the will of a constituency in

the making of a decision). Wiredu observes that formal representation could

exist without substantive representation, even though the formal is desired for

the sake of the substantive (1996: 186). He writes that the Ashanti considered

substantive representation a fundamental human right, that each individual

should not only be represented in council but also in counsel on any matter

that is relevant to her interests or those of her group, and that this is why

consensus is important (Ibid). Wiredu concedes that consensus may not

PAGES MISSING

FROM THIS FREE SAMPLE

Notes on Contributors

Alexander Kwakye (Mr)

Teacher, Ghana Education Service, Accra, Ghana

Bernard Matolino (PhD, UKZN)

Associate Professor, School of Religion, Philosophy and Classics, University of

KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

Dennis Masaka (PhD, UNISA)

Lecturer, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Great Zimbabwe

University, Masvingo, Zimbabwe

Edwin Etieyibo (PhD, Alberta)

Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of the Witwatersrand,

Johannesburg, South Africa

Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani (PhD, Nnamdi Azikiwe University)

Senior Lecturer, Department of Philosophy and Classics University of Ghana,

Ghana

Helen Lauer (PhD, CUNY)

Professor, Philosophy and Religious Studies Department, University of Dar es

Salaam, Tanzania

Husein Inusah (PhD, University of Ghana)

Senior Lecturer, Department of Classics and Philosophy, University of Cape

Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana

Martin Asiegbu (PhD, Catholique Université de Louvain)

Senior Lecturer, Department of Philosophy, University of Nigeria, Nsukka,

Nigeria

186 Notes on Contributors

Munamato Chemhuru (PhD, University of Johannesburg)

Senior Lecturer, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Great

Zimbabwe University, Masvingo, Zimbabwe

Victor C. Nweke (Mr)

PhD Student, University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz and Landau, Germany

Vitumbiko Nyirenda (Mr)

Masters Student, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Index

A

Abidjan, 169, 184

Abraham Lincoln, 122

Africa, v, vi, vii, viii, ix, x, 1, 4, 6, 12,

13, 16, 17, 24, 32, 33, 34, 46, 52,

53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61,

62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70,

71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 80, 83, 85,

87, 93, 95, 96, 100, 101, 102, 117,

119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125,

126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132,

133, 135, 139, 141, 147, 148, 149,

150, 152, 158, 161, 163, 164, 165,

166, 167, 169, 172, 173, 174, 179,

180, 181, 182, 183, 184

African, v, vi, vii, x, xi, 1, 3, 4, 6, 7,

8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20,

21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30,

31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 46, 48, 49,

50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 61,

62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74,

75, 79, 82, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 95,

96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104,

117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124,

125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131,

132, 133, 135, 136, 139, 140, 141,

142, 147, 148, 149, 150, 155, 160,

161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168,

169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177,

179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184

African epistemology, vii, 19, 20,

21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30,

32

African ontology, 21, 24, 25

African philosophy, 24, 35, 36, 46,

75, 83

Afro-consensual, ix, 119, 120, 121,

123, 125, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132

Afro-consensual democracy, x,

120, 130, 131, 132

agreed actions, 3, 60, 77, 85, 104

agreed notions, 3, 60, 77, 85, 104

agreement, ix, 3, 11, 12, 47, 59, 63,

77, 90, 104, 105, 107, 123, 131,

146, 154, 170

Akan, 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 23, 24, 33, 34,

46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 73, 74, 77,

78, 79, 90, 91, 94, 102, 152, 163,

164, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171,

173, 175, 176, 179

Alexander Kwakye, x, 149, 185

Alvin Goldman, 28

Amaechi Udefi, 20, 24, 33

American, 7, 9, 17, 33, 123, 154,

165, 178

Amilcar Cabral, 50

ancestors, 21, 23, 46, 49, 75, 81,

168, 173

Angola, 125

Anke Graness, 52

Anthony Oritsegbubemi Oyowe,

146

Arabic, 20, 33

Aristotle, 9

Asantehene, 4, 141

Ashanti, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 30, 46, 51, 62,

104, 105, 128, 141, 152

associations, 5, 14, 79, 90, 92, 129,

152, 166, 168

authority, 4, 8, 9, 30, 42, 49, 75, 82,

88, 144, 163, 164, 167, 168, 173,

174, 175, 177, 178, 179

188 Index

B

bargain, ix, 106, 145

behaviour, x, 7, 135, 137, 143, 156,

157, 160, 176, 179

Belgium, 14, 153

belief, vii, 5, 8, 10, 12, 21, 23, 24,

25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38,

39, 41, 43, 48, 63, 78, 79, 108,

109, 114, 140, 149, 158, 173, 175,

176, 178

Benin, 167

Bernard Matolino, viii, 7, 9, 11, 12,

14, 17, 35, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53,

69, 70, 76, 78, 83, 85, 87, 89, 90,

102, 105, 117, 142, 145, 147, 185

Billy Graham, 178

Blocker, 37, 45, 52

Bruce Janz, 72

Buganda, 6

Bulisa, 175

C

Carl Hempel, 178

Carlos Jacques, 7, 13, 165, 166,

169, 171

Chewa, 91, 98

Chiara Lepora, ix, 103, 105, 106,

111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117

chief, 6, 8, 47, 49, 94, 135, 167, 168,

169, 173, 177

Chieftaincy, 176

Chinese, 20, 33

cognitive, 3, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 47,

77, 112, 170

Cold War, 178

colonial, vii, ix, 49, 56, 71, 74, 80,

81, 83, 95, 98, 101, 120, 121, 122,

123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 131, 132,

163, 164, 165, 166, 169, 173, 174,

175, 179, 181

colonialism, 1, 10, 13, 74, 84, 95,

97, 101, 126, 171, 175, 181

colonialist, 97

colonizers, 98, 181

common good, 11, 14, 96, 97, 98,

99, 100, 101, 130

communal, 12, 30, 70, 72, 73, 97,

146, 149, 167, 169, 171, 173

communalism, vii, viii, 12, 84, 97,

99, 102, 150

communalist, viii, 78, 95

communalistic, 12, 69, 72, 79, 80,

81, 84, 97, 99

communitarian, vii, 1, 13, 130, 145,

171

communitarianism, 12, 13

community, 11, 12, 30, 44, 46, 47,

49, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101,

102, 108, 109, 128, 130, 131, 145,

146, 167, 168, 170, 172

competition, 58, 65, 89, 90, 92,

119, 121, 131, 139, 177

compromise, ix, 5, 7, 16, 47, 103,

105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111,

112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 123,

136, 140, 142, 143, 144, 146, 152,

155, 167, 170, 173

conjunction compromise, ix, 103,

113, 114

consensual democracy, v, vi, vii,

viii, ix, x, 7, 12, 13, 14, 16, 29, 30,

31, 32, 36, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52,

55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 65,

66, 67, 85, 88, 89, 96, 98, 103,

104, 105, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125,

128, 129, 130, 131, 135, 136, 138,

139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145,

169

consensus, v, vi, vii, viii, ix, x, 1, 2,

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,

15, 16, 19, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 46,

47, 48, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,

Index 189

59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 70,

71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79,

80, 82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92,

94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102,

103, 104, 105, 116, 120, 121, 122,

123, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131,

135, 136, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142,

143, 145, 150, 152, 153, 154, 155,

160, 163, 165, 167, 170, 171, 176,

179, 180

consent, 2, 47, 48, 94, 112, 114,

123, 131, 146, 150, 170, 171, 173

constituency, 4, 6, 153

constitutional, x, 14, 119, 131, 138,

140, 151, 153, 154, 164

constitutionalism, 121, 122

cooperation, 5, 78, 155, 173

corruption, v, 84, 100, 108, 164,

176, 179

council, 4, 6, 46, 47, 49, 91, 94, 104,

141, 163, 167, 168, 170, 171

culture, v, vi, 20, 46, 50, 56, 91, 96,

97, 98, 120, 130, 167, 169, 173,

176, 177, 180, 181

customs, 22

D

Dagbon, 167, 168

Daniel H. Levine, 165

David Archard, 82

David Gauthier, 145

decision making, vii, ix, 6, 7, 14,

19, 21, 24, 29, 30, 31, 82, 94, 96,

98, 100, 101, 104, 105, 123, 128,

129, 154, 160, 165, 168, 170

decisions, 4, 7, 14, 15, 21, 30, 31,

32, 47, 48, 62, 78, 87, 88, 90, 94,

98, 99, 100, 110, 124, 125, 127,

131, 138, 139, 141, 142, 150, 153,

154, 158

decolonial, 71, 81

decoloniality, 71, 75, 81

deliberation, 8, 10, 15, 30, 31, 32,

44, 45, 47, 52, 70, 89, 105, 106,

120, 139, 145, 156, 170, 182

deliberative, viii, 9, 36, 44, 52, 67,

78, 81, 120, 138, 139, 144, 154,

164, 165, 171

democracy, v, vii, viii, ix, x, 1, 2, 3,

5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 29, 30,

36, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56,

57, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67,

68, 69, 70, 71, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83,

87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 96, 98, 99,

100, 101, 103, 104, 116, 119, 120,

121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127,

128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 135, 136,

137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 149,

150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157,

158, 159, 160, 164, 165, 166, 167,

170, 171, 176, 179, 180, 181, 182

Democratic Progressive Party, 93

Dennis Masaka, viii, 55, 185

Descartes, 42

Desmond Tutu, 145

dialogic, 3, 60, 65, 154

dialogue, 3, 8, 59, 60, 61, 63, 104,

131, 139, 154, 180

Dirk Louw, 12

disagreement, x, 3, 11, 12, 13, 60,

63, 104, 138, 142, 165, 169

disbelief, x, 61, 136, 142

discussions, 4, 29, 30, 32, 38, 141,

169

Dismas Aloys Masolo, 119, 120,

132

dissensus, x, 136, 137, 138, 140,

142, 143

Dissent, 136, 138

divination, 22, 25, 26, 27, 32

doxastic, vii, 19, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29,

30, 31

190 Index

E

E. Bolaji Idowu, 24

education, 9, 108, 110, 152, 177

Edward Wamala, 6, 17, 46, 141,

148, 149, 161

Edwin Etieyibo, vii, x, xi, 1, 16, 135,

146, 147, 185

elders, 3, 46, 47, 91, 94, 163, 165,

167, 168, 170, 173, 175

elections, v, ix, 2, 4, 5, 6, 64, 87, 88,

89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 98, 99, 100,

101, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125,

126, 127, 131, 150, 151, 161

Electoral, 2, 102

Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze, x, 7, 8,

9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 35, 48, 49,

50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 67, 68, 73, 79,

85, 87, 101, 117, 121, 124, 125,

132, 133, 145, 147, 161, 163, 164,

165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171,

172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178,

179, 180, 182

Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani, vii, ix, xi, 1,

7, 9, 15, 16, 31, 33, 35, 47, 49, 51,

52, 60, 65, 67, 69, 70, 77, 78, 81,

85, 87, 101, 103, 109, 115, 117,

120, 127, 129, 131, 132, 142, 145,

147, 153, 161, 167, 185

epistemic, vii, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27,

28, 30, 31, 32, 41, 43, 45, 52, 174

epistemology, vii, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,

24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,

33, 35, 36, 45, 52

ethnic, v, 2, 4, 14, 15, 46, 48, 64, 65,

72, 75, 84, 104, 107, 110, 127,

128, 130, 140, 149, 152, 157, 158

ethnicity, 60, 74, 110

ethnophilosophers, 83

European, v, 16, 24, 52, 85, 126,

132, 166, 174

expansionist social

epistemologists, 28

extremists, 157, 158, 160

F

folklores, 21, 22, 32

Frantz Fanon, 71

free-market, 181

G

Ganda, 6

Geneva Convention, 114

Gettysburg, 122

Ghana, xi, 2, 21, 75, 102, 141, 149,

154, 161, 163, 165, 166, 167, 169,

171, 175, 176, 177, 179, 181, 182,

183, 184, 185

Ghanaian, v, 102, 159, 165, 177

Ghanaian parliament, 159

God, 9, 15, 24, 26, 33, 109, 115,

168, 178

governance, v, viii, x, 3, 6, 7, 9, 30,

46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57,

58, 62, 63, 64, 67, 87, 95, 120,

123, 124, 127, 128, 129, 132, 152,

163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 173, 175,

176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183,

184

government, v, 2, 4, 5, 6, 48, 57, 89,

102, 107, 108, 122, 123, 125, 127,

129, 131, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153,

159, 163, 166, 176, 177, 178, 180

Greek, 166, 167

Guy Glutton Brock, 3

H

harmony, 13, 110, 131, 140, 142,

145, 169, 171

Hastings Kamuzu Banda, 124

Index 191

Hausa, 167, 168

Helen Lauer, x, 7, 13, 17, 48, 49,

148, 163, 169, 184, 185

human right, 4

Husein Inusah, vii, 19, 185

I

Ifá, 26

Igbo, 33, 53, 167, 168

independence, v, 13, 122, 124, 129

India, 175

indigenous, v, vi, 1, 46, 49, 50, 51,

71, 119, 120, 121, 128, 132, 135,

141, 149, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167,

168, 179, 180, 181

individual, v, 4, 12, 26, 28, 38, 39,

41, 42, 43, 44, 75, 84, 92, 93, 94,

95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 124, 129,

130, 131, 142, 143, 145, 146, 156,

158, 159, 163, 164, 165, 168, 171,

175, 177

individualism, 13, 97, 99

interests, vii, ix, 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11,

12, 14, 15, 46, 47, 48, 63, 72, 78,

79, 87, 89, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100,

101, 105, 107, 108, 109, 116, 117,

126, 130, 138, 139, 140, 145, 146,

150, 158, 159, 160, 168, 170, 171,

173, 174, 175

International Committee of the

Red Cross, 114

Introspection, 42

irrationality, 5, 10

Islam, 157

Islamic extremism, 157

J

J. B. Danquah, 24, 183

Jason Brennan, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101

Joe Teffo, 6, 17, 141, 146, 148, 149,

161

John Dewey, 38

John Rawls, 144

John S. Mbiti, 24

Jonathan Moyo, 126

Joseph Omoregbe, 37

Julius Ihonvbere, 126

Julius Nyerere, 3, 58, 70, 124, 152,

171

justice, x, 82, 117, 122, 130, 144,

164, 177, 181

K

Karl Marx, 135

Karl Popper, 82, 131

Kazeem Fayemi, 87, 119

Kenneth Kaunda, 3, 13, 58, 124

Kenya, 125, 127, 132, 161

Khabele Matlosa, 95

Kibujjo Kalumba, 14, 16, 17, 105,

117, 142, 147

king, 4, 8, 9, 104

kingdom, 4, 104, 141

kinship, 5, 74, 97, 104

knowledge, vii, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,

24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,

42, 45, 49, 70, 80, 91, 181

Kofi Busia, 30

Kwame Gyekye, x, 6, 7, 17, 46, 58,

67, 91, 94, 102, 122, 123, 132,

141, 147, 149, 154, 155, 156, 161,

165

Kwame Nkrumah, 60, 67, 124, 152,

169, 171

Kwasi Wiredu, v, vi, vii, viii, ix, x, 1,

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,

14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 29, 30, 34, 35,

36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44,

45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53,

54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62,

192 Index

63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71,

73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 83,

84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,

94, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103,

104, 105, 116, 117, 120, 121, 123,

128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135,

136, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145,

147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153,

154, 155, 159, 161, 163, 164, 165,

166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172,

173, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181,

182, 184

L

legitimation, 8, 11, 82

Legon, 17, 34, 117, 147, 148, 161,

165, 166, 167, 171, 176, 182, 184

Lévy-Bruhl, 73, 175

liberal, v, vi, viii, ix, 55, 70, 75, 81,

84, 119, 120, 122, 176

liberal democratic, v, vi, 119

lineage, 4, 104, 141, 176

logic, 9, 35, 40, 41, 43, 79, 156

logical, 4, 9, 15, 21, 37, 39, 141,

145, 156, 157, 175, 178, 179

M

mainstream epistemology, 19, 20,

22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

majoritarian, vii, viii, 3, 16, 29, 47,

50, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65,

66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 76, 81, 83, 87,

88, 89, 92, 93, 96, 98, 100, 101,

104, 123, 124, 130, 131, 135, 136,

137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 150, 152,

153, 155, 173

majoritarianism, 7, 14, 74, 82, 119,

122, 127, 140, 150, 153, 155, 160

majority, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 14, 31, 47, 48,

61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 84, 87, 89, 90,

93, 94, 95, 105, 107, 113, 121,

122, 123, 124, 127, 130, 138, 139,

150, 152, 153, 154, 155, 167, 168,

176

Malawi, 93

Malawi Congress Party, 93

Malawian language, 98

Mark Lance, 165

Martin Ajei, viii, 7

Martin Asiegbu, vii, 185

metaphysical, 15, 108, 109, 111,

116

Michael Eze, 12, 16

minority, 3, 4, 14, 31, 48, 56, 61, 62,

64, 65, 66, 67, 89, 93, 94, 104,

107, 123, 127, 129, 130, 138, 139,

140, 150, 151, 153, 165

Mogobe Ramose, 12, 146

monarchy, 6

moral, v, ix, 3, 8, 9, 16, 47, 77, 82,

89, 95, 102, 105, 107, 109, 110,

114, 116, 117, 120, 139, 145, 150,

156, 157, 158, 160, 164, 179, 181

Mozambique, 125

multiparty, viii, x, 1, 2, 6, 7, 13, 14,

57, 63, 64, 65, 66, 76, 89, 90, 121,

123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 131, 137,

138, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 156,

157, 158, 159, 160, 166, 171, 172,

173, 176, 180

multi-partyism, 121, 125

Munamato Chemhuru, ix, 119,

186

Muslims, 157

Mutombo Nkulu-N’Sengha, 25

myths, 22, 173

N

Nana, 167

nation states, v, vi, 119, 120, 122,

135

Index 193

nationalism, 110

negotiation, 7, 58, 59, 108, 113,

146, 155

Nepal, 175

Ngugi wa Thiongo, 71

Niger Delta, 174

Nigeria, 34, 167, 181, 182, 183, 185

non-party, vii, 5, 8, 14, 48, 51, 57,

76, 77, 85, 89, 152, 153, 171, 172,

180

normative, ix, 8, 15, 25, 30, 49, 51,

103, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112,

114, 115, 116, 119, 121, 163, 164,

165, 168, 170, 175, 176, 178, 180

normative compromise, ix, 103,

106, 109, 114, 116

O

objectivism, 40, 41

Odera Oruka, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 54

Ogoni, 174

oligarchy, 14

ontology, 23, 24, 25, 31

Onyame, 168

opinion, viii, 3, 6, 7, 8, 37, 38, 39,

40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 51, 59,

60, 77, 128, 130, 131, 137, 155,

156, 158, 159, 163, 165, 167, 170,

176, 179, 180

opposition, x, 1, 2, 8, 13, 14, 58, 70,

71, 76, 83, 90, 93, 112, 114, 125,

126, 127, 130, 136, 137, 138, 139,

142, 143, 144, 150, 151, 164, 165,

170, 171, 172, 173

oral traditions, 21, 23

P

partisan, x, 16, 107, 122, 130, 149,

150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157,

158, 159, 160

partisanship, 6, 7, 155, 156, 158

party, v, vii, viii, ix, x, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,

11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 31, 47, 48, 49,

50, 51, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63,

64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 75, 76, 77,

78, 85, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 100,

104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110,

111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 119,

120,121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127,

128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 135, 136,

137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 144,

149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155,

156, 158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 166,

167, 168, 171, 172, 173, 176, 177,

180

party1, 12, 51, 76, 79, 90, 91, 92

party2, 14, 76, 90

party3, 76, 79, 90

Paulin Hountondji, 13, 169

Persian, 20

philosopher, v, 1, 35, 51, 75, 135,

155, 165

philosophy, vi, viii, 21, 32, 35, 36,

37, 41, 42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51,

52, 75, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 102,

135, 161, 182, 183

Placide Tempels, 24

Plato, 37

political, v, vi, vii, viii, ix, x, 1, 2, 3,

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,

15, 29, 30, 35, 36, 44, 46, 47, 48,

49, 50, 51, 52, 56, 58, 60, 64, 65,

66, 67, 71, 72, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79,

80, 82, 83, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93,

94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 104, 107,

108, 111, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123,

124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130,

131, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140,

141, 150, 151, 152, 155, 156, 157,

158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 165, 166,

167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173,

194 Index

174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180,

181, 183

political parties, v, 14, 48, 57, 64,

65, 66, 90, 92, 93, 125, 126, 127,

152, 156

politics, viii, xi, 16, 46, 48, 49, 54,

56, 57, 63, 65, 66, 71, 76, 81, 82,

85, 104, 113, 122, 124, 125, 126,

127, 128, 131, 136, 137, 138, 139,

140, 141, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154,

155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 163, 164,

166, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174,

175, 176, 180

postcolonial, v, 74, 121

precolonial, v, 49, 50, 51, 97

Preservationist social

epistemologists, 28

priest, 26

proportional compromise, ix, 103,

106, 107, 112, 115

proposition, vii, 5, 19, 21, 23, 38,

40, 43, 71

Propositional, 21

Propositional knowledge, 21

proverbs, 21, 22, 32

Q

qualifications, v, 4, 57, 141, 155

Queen of England, 174

R

R.G. Collingwood, 177

Raila Odinga, 126

rational, 2, 5, 8, 10, 15, 30, 39, 40,

41, 43, 45, 70, 139, 144, 145, 146,

174, 175, 176

rationality, vii, 1, 8, 9, 28, 29, 43,

70, 85, 145, 146

reconciliation, x, 3, 8, 12, 58, 59,

84, 123, 130, 136, 139, 142

relativism, 39, 45

representation, ix, 4, 37, 47, 71, 87,

88, 92, 94, 101, 105, 122, 127,

129, 130, 141, 150, 152, 153, 160

representatives, v, x, 46, 47, 48, 62,

88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 98, 100, 108,

124, 127, 129, 136, 141, 142, 144,

152, 159, 173, 178

resistance, vii, x, 58, 136, 137, 138,

140, 142, 143, 144

Revisionist social epistemologists,

28

Richard Rorty, 37, 45

Robert Addo-Fening, 174, 175

Robert Mugabe, 124

Robin Horton, 73

Ronald Reagan, 178

Rorty, 45, 54

Rwanda, 127, 181

S

Samkange, 130, 133

scientific, 15, 21, 25, 42, 44, 55

Sekou Toure, 13, 171

Senegal, 181

Senghor, 171

Sithole, 171

social contract theory, 146

social epistemology, 20, 28, 29, 30,

31, 32

socialism, 83, 110

societies, viii, 3, 4, 10, 58, 62, 72,

73, 74, 79, 80, 84, 95, 97, 98, 99,

100, 104, 110, 127, 128, 130, 135,

137, 150, 152, 167, 168, 169

Somalia, 181

South Africa, 127, 185

South African, 6, 179

strategic compromise, ix, 103, 106,

109, 115

subjectivism, 41, 42

Index 195

Sudan, 181, 183

summum bonum, 145

Switzerland, 14, 123, 153

T

Táíwò, 26

Tanzania, 125, 182, 185

terrorism, 157

theory of truth, viii, 36, 37, 38, 39,

40, 42, 43, 45, 50, 52

Thomas Blanchard, 28

Thomas Kuhn, 44

Thomas Nagel, 43

Tibetan, 175

traditional, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,

7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 19, 20, 22, 29, 30,

32, 36, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 54,

55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 62, 69, 70, 72,

73, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85,

90, 91, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102,

104, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 127,

128, 129,130, 131, 135, 139, 141,

150, 152, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167,

168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175,

176, 179, 180

traditions, 22, 23, 50, 56, 57, 74, 81,

121, 124, 176

truth, vii, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 35, 36,

37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45,

49, 50, 51, 52, 169

Tsenay Serequerberhan, 71

two crocodile heads, 10

tyranny of the majority, 61, 138,

139

U

Uduigwomen, 22, 23

ujamaa, 83

UK, 166, 168, 173

unanimity, ix, 11, 13, 15, 16, 47, 60,

61, 63, 103, 105, 116, 140, 170

United States of America, 2, 84,

166, 168, 173

United Transformation

Movement, 93

University of Ghana, 171, 176

V

Victor C. Nweke, vii, 35, 186

Vitumbiko Nyirenda, viii, 87, 141,

186

votes, 5, 6, 92, 93, 100, 127, 152,

154, 168

voting, 4, 6, 87, 91, 92, 95, 96, 98,

99, 100, 101, 105, 120, 131, 141,

153, 160, 178, 179

W

Wamba-dia-Wamba, 57, 67, 68,

121, 124, 125, 126, 133

Wande Abimbola, 26

Washington DC, 102, 178, 183

West Africa, 163, 174

Western, viii, x, 11, 20, 29, 33, 37,

40, 45, 50, 55, 56, 81, 83, 105,

119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126,

128, 129, 148, 149, 177, 181, 183

Western epistemology, 20

William Alston, 37

William E. Abraham, 24

World War II, 114

X

xenophobia, 127

Z

Zimbabwe, 66, 68, 125, 126, 127,

132, 133, 185, 186

196 Index

Zionist extremism, 179 Zulu, 4, 91, 128, 179