Compare and contrast Peter Ekeh’streatise on colonialism with Claude Ake’s position on colonialism.

Peter Ekeh and Claude Ake are two prominent African scholars who have made significant contributions to the discourse on colonialism. However, their perspectives on the subject differ in several ways.

Peter Ekeh's treatise on colonialism, particularly his theory of the two publics, is centered on the dichotomy between the civic public and the primordial public in post-colonial African societies. According to Ekeh, the civic public, which is a product of colonialism, is governed by alien rules and norms and is characterized by bureaucratic corruption and a lack of accountability. On the other hand, the primordial public, which is rooted in indigenous African traditions, is governed by norms of communalism and kinship and is characterized by moral obligations and accountability. Ekeh argues that the tension and imbalance between these two publics is a major source of the problems facing post-colal societies in Africa.

Claude Ake, on the other hand, takes a more structuralist approach to the issue of colonialism. He argues that colonialism has fundamentally distorted the economic, political, and social structures of African societies, making it difficult for them to develop on their own terms. According to Ake, colonialism has created a dependent and peripheral capitalist system in Africa that is characterized by underdevelopment, inequality, and exploitation. He also criticizes the post-colonial African elite for perpetuating the colonial structures and for failing to address the needs and aspirations of the African people.

In contrast to Ekeh, Ake does not make a clear distinction between the colonial and the indigenous, or between the civic and the primordial. Instead, he sees them as part of a single, integrated system that has been shaped and distorted by colonialism. He also places a greater emphasis on the role of the African elite in perpetuating the colonial structures, whereas Ekeh focuses more on the role of the ordinary African people in resisting and subverting these structures.

In conclusion, while both Ekeh and Ake recognize the negative impacts of colonialism on African societies, they differ in their analysis of the nature and dynamics of these impacts. Ekeh's theory of the two publics provides a more nuanced and complex picture of the post-colonial African society, while Ake's structuralist approach offers a more critical and radical critique of the colonial legacy.