'Pan Africanism as defined by the Pan African conferences is "The total liberation and unification of Africa under scientific socialism."

It stresses the need for organisation and opposition to the combined oppression brought about through capitalism, imperialism, Zionism and Neo-Colonialism'

This is part of the problem. This definition fails to recognise that all these isms mean different things to different African people at different times. The Somali dream of a greater Somalia encroaching on a bigger share of the Horn of Africa for example could be viewed as Imperialism. The growth of a certain Zimbabwean mobile network to Botswana, one could make noises about capitalism.

I would not take that definition, and I would not sell it to anyone. It puts Africa in a box, it makes us only react to political processes in the world, rather than shape them to our needs. Socialism? That is not an African thing now, is it? Not all of Africa, anyway.

That is another thing, there is the failure to recognise that Africa is never the same everywhere every time. There are disparaties even in the same civilisation. The ancient Empire of Munhumutapa built the great city of Zimbabwe and traded with China and Venice etc, but the lives of the ordinary folk did not reflect this splendour and sophistication. Tshaka the Great is remembered as a brilliant military strategist and nation builder, but the people only remember his era as the mfecane- the time of trouble.

This narrow-mindedness is a bit like Zionism- the arrogant assumption by European Jews that every other Jewish community had to share their vision and support their methods of attainment even when they did not agree with them.

I am not saying to embrace all of Africa is impossible. But, one has to get a wider picture of Africa as it is now before bringing it all together.