The struggle of our party, the Revolutionary Communist Party of the Ivory Coast (PCRCI), is based on the knowledge of the economic, social and cultural development of our country in order to transform that reality. To do this, we are obligated to use the science of nature (mathematics, physics, mechanics, etc.), the science of man, social science (paleontology, psychology, cognitive science, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, economics, law, history, etc.). These sciences allow the study of the evolution of human societies and identify the contradictions of opposing forces and the laws of this evolution. The science that allows the study of human societies is historical materialism discovered by Karl Marx. Similarly, we resort to the art of determining objectives, to find the means to achieve these objectives and to combine the forces in men (political and / or military forces), in material resources (economic and moral) to achieve the objectives. This art of determining objectives, finding the means and combining and coordinating forces, is strategy.
On strategy, in our program approved by the 4th Party Congress, one
point states: “Faced with all the contradictions, 1) The first is the
principal one that opposes the people of the Ivory Coast to
international imperialism, French imperialism in the first place, and
to the bureaucratic and comprador bourgeoisie. 2) The
second opposes the working peasantry to the vestiges of patriarchal and
slave-owner forces as well as to the representatives of the big
bourgeoisie in the countryside. 3) The third is that which opposes the
proletariat to the bourgeoisie. The Revolutionary Communist Party of
the Ivory Coast fights for a democratic republic of the workers,
peasants and other working people, to ensure full political freedom for
the people; where all political and administrative officials will not
only be elected but can also be recalled at any time at the demand of
the majority of the voters, where representative parliamentary
institutions will be replaced by committees of representatives. ”
Our objective is to make the revolution in the Ivory Coast, to organize and coordinate the social forces of the country. By organizing and coordinating the social forces, which is what we want, we mean the proletariat, the other working people in the cities, in the countryside and the peasantry, which supposes a compromise among these social forces. The difficulties of coexistence of the peoples of the Ivory Coast in the last 20 years due to the reactionary politics of the bourgeois parties, leads us to this compromise. That means to work to create factors of unity of the peoples, that these peoples should form a shield around the PCRCI. To help one get a clear understanding at the level of the party of the order in which the contradictions indicated above will be resolved to ensure the victory of the revolution. To address the contradictions indicated, presupposes the existence of a national framework in which the peoples coexist in good will, accept one another and engage in a common struggle for liberation. But especially since 1994, the Ivorian bourgeoisie is trying to make difficult the historical and geographical definition of the people. This situation leads to the extreme intensification of the contradictions that exist within the people, minor contradictions compared to those with imperialism, particularly French imperialism, the principal contradiction in the present stage.
To address these questions, it seems to us necessary to the extent that we cannot lose our doctrinal focus even if at times, such as those of 2010-2011, murky factors can lead us to make necessary concessions, or to start maneuvers in our fight for better carry it out.
1. The national and neocolonial question in the light of Marxism-LeninismIs the Ivory Coast a nation? The answer is that the Ivory Coast is not yet a nation. In order to become one a historical period of struggles will be necessary. In reaching this conclusion, we carried out an analysis of Ivorian society, inspired by the positions of Marx, Engels and Lenin on the national and colonial question, and on the positive conclusions of the debates that shook the communist movement in the early 20th century. Particularly, we have based ourselves on the definitions of Stalin, who defined a nation as a historically constituted and relatively stable entity, consisting of a community of people under the same economic and political system, sharing the same geographical territory, with a common history, a common language and sharing a common culture and psychology.
A nation has to meet all these criteria. From this point of view, the Ivory Coast is not yet a nation. It is a multinational state comprised of various nationalities. It still does not make up a stable community of people, even though the men who form it are under one state with one economic (capitalist) and political system and share a unified territory. Despite this unified territory, the acceptance by certain populations of this State or the central Power is based more on ethnic or regional criteria than institutional or political ones. The common history is still very recent, dating from the colonization, that is, a little more than a century. There are numerous maternal languages and their unification through French is not a reality and everything indicates, in the light of the experiences of other geographical areas, that this is unrealizable. With regard to culture as well as psychology it is very diverse.
But the PCRCI considers that these conditions can be transformed by the revolutionary gains in a process that involves a political revolution inspired by a philosophical and cultural revolution, and also by a scientific and technological revolution. All these revolutionary gains, whose principal axis is the political revolution, the party describes as a national people’s democratic and anti-imperialist revolution (NPDAR). These revolutionary gains will allow for the liberation of the country from the rule of the imperialist powers, particularly the French power, thus its anti-imperialist character; these revolutions will be democratic and popular, desired and carried out by the great majority of the population, that is, by the workers, peasants, artisans, patriotic intellectuals, and a part of the bourgeoisie called national or nationalist bourgeoisie.
The PCRCI is convinced that this great task can only be carried out by
a united people, free from violent and deadly internal contradictions
of an ethnic, regional or religious nature. In recent years, we have
seen that the
Ivoirians are divided by the attitude to take towards French imperialism and its army based on our territory, as well as towards foreign armed forces in general. These forces are applauded by certain sectors of the population (originating from the North) and are jeered by others (originating from the South). And that is simply because during the “post-electoral crisis” of 2010 to 2011, these forces supported Alassane Ouattara representing a Northern power and participated in the arrest of Laurent Gbagbo, who represented a Southern power. This feeling has developed among the masses under the influence of bellicose chauvinism. This is a situation detrimental to the anti-imperialist struggle and has led to the weak consolidation of the nation, which is explained by the terrible national policy (divide and conquer) carried out by the colonial power and continued since 1960 by the successive neocolonial power holders.
To maintain itself, the colonial and neocolonial power is resorting to the exacerbation of chauvinism and tribalism. To achieve revolutionary power and stabilize it, we must find a solution to chauvinism. The question arises whether the solution to chauvinism will be found before or after the victory of the revolution. If we listen to the quote that follows, we will see that it is the revolutionary power that, once established, can resolve this issue. In this respect, Stalin said in the Report on National Factors in Party and State Affairs, April 23, at the 12th Congress of the RCP(B), April 17-25, 1923:
“Sometimes this chauvinism begins to undergo a very interesting evolution. I have in mind Transcaucasia. You know that Transcaucasia consists of three republics embracing ten nationalities. From very early times Transcaucasia has been an arena of massacre and strife and, under the Mensheviks and Dashnaks [nationalists], it was an arena of war. You know of the Georgian-Armenian war. You also know of the massacres in Azerbaijan at the beginning of 1904 and at the end of 1905. I could mention a whole list of districts where the Armenian majority massacred all the rest of the population, consisting of Tatars, Zangezur, for instance. I could mention another province – Nakhichevan. There the Tatars predominated, and they massacred all the Armenians. That was just before the liberation of Armenia and Georgia from the yoke of imperialism. (Voice: ‘That was their way of solving the national question. ’) That, of course, is also a way of solving the national question. But it is not the Soviet way. Of course, the Russian workers are not to blame for this state of mutual national enmity, for it is the Tatars and Armenians who are fighting, without the Russians. That is why a special organ is required in Transcaucasia to regulate the relations between the nationalities. It may be confidently stated that the relations between the proletariat of the formerly dominant [Russian] nation and the toilers of all the other nationalities constitute three-quarters of the whole national question. But one-quarter of this question must be attributed to the relations between the formerly oppressed nationalities themselves. And if in this atmosphere of mutual distrust the Soviet Government had failed to establish in Transcaucasia an organ of national peace capable of settling all friction and conflict, we would have reverted to the era of tsarism, or to the era of the Dashnaks. ”
History has shown that the solution of the national question, that is, the problem of nationalism that can turn into aggressive chauvinism, could be made on a more solid basis only after the victory of the proletarian revolution in Russia. But this does not prevent the party of the proletariat while not yet in power from having the duty to fight all chauvinism. This is a necessary fight to maintain internationalist sentiment among the workers. It is a duty incumbent on both the proletarian parties in the dominated countries as well as in the ruling countries. The PCRCI is faithful to the Marxist-Leninist doctrines and is carrying out a firm fight against chauvinistic theories and policies. Especially as these positions are introduced under the protection of French imperialism.
Many works of Bolshevik literature insist that revolutionary social-democracy must fight against chauvinism before seizing power, both in white Russia and in the peripheral and dominated republics. This is clearly seen in Stalin, in “Marxism and the National Question”:
“The period of counter-revolution in Russia brought not only ‘thunder and lightning’in its train, but also disillusionment in the movement [social-democratic movement, our addition – PCRCI] and lack of faith in common forces. As long as people believed in ‘a bright future,’ they fought side by side irrespective of nationality – common questions first and foremost! But when doubt crept into people’s hearts, they began to depart, each to his own national tent – let every man count only upon himself! The ‘national question’ first and foremost!
“At the same time a profound upheaval was taking place in the economic life of the country. The year 1905 had not been in vain: one more blow had been struck at the survivals of serfdom in the countryside. The series of good harvests which succeeded the famine years, and the industrial boom which followed, furthered the progress of capitalism. Class differentiation in the countryside, the growth of the towns, the development of trade and means of communication all took a big stride forward. This applied particularly to the border regions. And it could not but hasten the process of economic consolidation of the nationalities of Russia. They were bound to be stirred into movement.
“The ‘constitutional regime’ established at that time also acted in the same direction of awakening the nationalities. The spread of newspapers and of literature generally, a certain freedom of the press and cultural institutions, an increase in the number of national theatres, and so forth, all unquestionably helped to strengthen ‘national sentiments. ’ The Duma, with its election campaign and political groups, gave fresh opportunities for greater activity of the nations and provided a new and wide arena for their mobilization.
“And the mounting wave of militant nationalism above and the series of repressive measures taken by the ‘powers that be’ in vengeance on the border regions for their ‘love of freedom, ’ evoked an answering wave of nationalism below, which at times took the form of crude chauvinism. The spread of Zionism among the reactionary Jews found support among the Jewish small and middle bourgeoisie, traders and artisans, among the intellectuals, the employees in commerce and the more backward layers of the Jewish workers. This current had the aim of organizing a Jewish bourgeois state in Palestine and trying to isolate the masses of Jewish workers from the common struggle of the proletariat.
“The wave of nationalism swept onwards with increasing force, threatening to engulf the mass of the workers. And the more the movement for emancipation declined, the more plentifully nationalism pushed forth its blossoms. At this difficult time Social-Democracy had a high mission – to resist nationalism and to protect the masses from the general ‘epidemic. ’ For Social-Democracy, and Social- Democracy alone, could do this, by countering nationalism with the tried weapon of internationalism, with the unity and indivisibility of the class struggle. And the more powerfully the wave of nationalism advanced, the louder had to be the call of Social-Democracy for fraternity and unity among the proletarians of all the nationalities of Russia. And in this connection particular firmness was demanded of the Social-Democrats of the border regions, who came into direct contact with the nationalist movement. But not all Social-Democrats proved equal to the task – and this applies particularly to the Social-Democrats of the border regions.”
2. Once again on the thesis of “Ivorianization”The thesis of “Ivorianization” was promoted by many Ivorian intellectuals; however, it fell upon Henri Konan Bedie, then President of the Republic (1993-1999), to legitimize the term, institutionalized in his book “The ways of my life.” Like all national chauvinist theses in a backward multinational country such as the Ivory Coast, “Ivorianization” quickly led to tribalism. After the coup d’etat of December 24, 1999, the most enthusiastic propagandists of this thesis, particularly the members of the University Cell for Research and Dissemination of the Political Ideas and Action of President Henri Konan Bedie (CURDIPHE), led by Professor Saliuo Toure, Minister of Higher Education, lowered their tone, but the ideology did not disappear. The holders of the Gbagbo power took care to keep it alive(1) with the maneuver of the intellectuals who initially tried to present themselves as against or adversaries. Professor Sery Bailly, former Minister of Higher Education, is one of the most famous supporters of ideas of national chauvinism.
This case of this professor is illustrative of the psychology of the intellectuals who adhere to the national chauvinist ideology. These intellectuals fear micro-nationalism or tribalism. But they do not find adequate forms to combat it because they feel tempted to fall into their own tribalism. Sery Bailly found in Bedie’s thesis of Ivorianization the Akan [largest ethnic group in the vory Coast – translator’s note] tribalism. This led him to write:
“In short, the politics of every one for himself in his home comforts tribalism and Akan ideologues in their convictions and prejudices, in their desire to take advantage of the mechanisms of the state to promote their culture and their interests to the detriment of the Nation. We must criticize the Akan ideology in order to avoid the pitfalls that our national community tends toward. ”(2)
Professor Sery Bailly has remained silent toward the tribal drift of his own power while the fight he had launched against “Akan ideology” was far from over and that it was essential to maintain an attitude of vigilance against tribalism in our country. Therefore the national question entered a crucial phase and the proposed creation of an Ivorian nation ran up against very important historical obstacles.
The global and globalizing character, not only its cultural character as Bedie claims in his project, is clear. Let us see what he also says:
“...When we tried to find a formula that evokes the cultural synthesis among the ethnic groups that inhabit the Ivory Coast, we referred to geography and forged the Ivorian- ization that underlines the quality of what it is to be Ivorian in a sense of culture and identity (...). Ivorianization concerns (...) first the peoples who are rooted in the Ivory Coast, and also those who live and work here and share our values. ” (“The Ways of My Life.”)
The “cultural synthesis,” is exactly what Konan Bedie says. Whoever speaks of culture speaks of language. Should the cultural synthesis be created in French, a foreign language that is that of the colonizers which over 70% of the Ivoirians do not speak correctly? Or should this cultural synthesis be created in the 60 maternal or national Ivorian languages? In the absence of a precise answer to this problem, it is useless to speak of a cultural project for all of the 60 nationalities that make up the Ivory Coast. In a country such as ours, such a project cannot be implemented without a prior and open debate, which recognizes that all natural languages, in this case the 60 Ivorian languages, are equally rich and therefore equal to each other and to other languages such as French, English, etc.., that they all may serve for identification, treatment, representation and information storage and signs. What kind of future is reserved for those 60 languages in the evolution of the Ivory Coast? “Ivorianiza- tion” does not answer this. The path taken by supporters of national chauvinism is not able, clearly, to lead the Ivory Coast to cultural independence and to the unity of the 60 rooted nationalities, as Bedie says, and to achieve a nation open to cultural values, assimilating the most advanced scientific discoveries. These cultural and scientific values accumulated today, largely on the Internet, are the common heritage of all humanity, a heritage to which the peoples of the Ivory Coast should have access, which would be greatly facilitated if they could do it in their own languages.
3. The opinion of the PCRCI on the need for unity of the peoples of the Ivory Coast for a victorious revolution and the need for a clear struggle against the national chauvinist current within the villages.The formation of nations appears with the end of serfdom (serfs) in Europe and the rise of capitalism. In Western Europe (England, France, Germany, Italy, etc.) the formation of nations coincides with their transformation into independent national states. In Eastern Europe multinational states were formed, that is, states composed of various nationalities, such as, for example, Austria-Hungary, Russia, etc. It is in this latter process enshrined in history that the Ivory Coast finds itself.
In the context of the Ivory Coast, a country
dominated by imperialism, nationalism was positive during the struggle
against colonization, to the degree that it was directed against the
big bourgeoisie of the dominant state, that is, the French big
bourgeoisie. With the formal independence of the Ivory Coast
patriotism, which had a more progressive content than nationalism, is
the slogan of unity for the struggle to pass from the present formal
independence to complete independence, which entails political freedom,
freedom to produce and cultural freedom. Patriotism is also a not
inconsiderable component of the proletarian revolutionary movement.
Again this requires further clarification. The Ivorian Popular Front
(FPI) has so misused the word patriotism that, without good
explanation, a part of the Ivorian people may be afraid of it. Besides
the phenomenon of the “patriotic youth,” of unhappy memory, it is
necessary to speak in terms such as patriotism of good quality, a
patriotism that cannot be anything but anti-imperialism.
In recent years the dominant current of Ivorian nationalism/patriotism has led to bellicose chauvinism leading to violent clashes, sometimes with deaths, between neighboring nationalities, between nationals and foreigners as well as Africans.
The democratic movement born in the 1990s tried primarily to overthrow Houphouet-Boigny in order to promote the freedom and democratization of the country. This objective was not reached because the Ivorian Popular Front (FPI) of Laurent Gbagbo, the party with most influence at that time, led it along winding roads of ethnic, identity and chauvinist alliances. In 1990 the FPI created the republican front with the so- called Union of Republicans (RDR) in order to attract the Malinke electorate of the north of the country; in 1999 it created the “Patriotic Front” with the Democratic Party of the Ivory Coast (PDCI), the former party and only pillar of the power of Houphouet-Boigny, in order to win over the Baoule electorate. The slogans were not to fight against the autocratic power and imperialist domination, but to align ethnic groups one against another. They tried to suppress or limit the political rights of a part of the population. They tried to push some nationalities against others. It was in this atmosphere of disorientation of the democratic fight in which Laurent Gbagbo and his forces managed to seize power in October of 2000 with the support of the French government then headed by the French Socialist Party. Besides French support to bring Gbagbo to power, we must add that since the 1980s, Gbagbo's FPI considered that imperialism no longer existed; that lets us understand that it was a pro-imperialist party that had established a markedly pro-imperialist power, which praised national- patriotism at the same time as it practiced a xenophobic policy of the most abject tribalism. That xenophobia and tribalism hindered the development of a positive patriotism capable of confronting imperialism and leading the people of the Ivory Coast jointly to a fight against foreign domination. Throughout the whole Ivorian conflict of recent years, Gbagbo has not authorized the Ivorian army to fire a single shot against the French imperialist army. While Gbagbo was in power he did not even demand the withdrawal of the French military base established in the Ivory Coast.
All factions of the Ivorian big bourgeoisie have been protected under the French umbrella, each one of these factions sought to benefit from the protection of the French army in their internal confrontations.
The PCRCI has never allied itself with the tribal and xenophobic movement led by Gbagbo. It considered and continues to consider that this movement undermines the accumulated revolutionary energy. Thus it has avoided contributing to the spread of tribalism and xenophobia within the multinational working class of the Ivory Coast. The PCRCI has refused to associate itself with the massacres perpetrated by certain nationals exalted by the bourgeois political forces. Today the PCRCI is the only political force that no Ivorian nationality can accuse of having created problems. It is the only party that is not labeled as representing a particular tribal group.
Even today, the Ivorian Popular Front (FPI) continues its work of inciting chauvinism and supporting imperialism. That party supported the French military intervention in Mali in January of 2013.
On tribalism, we must take note of another demonstration (in April of 2013) in which the FPI issued a statement in which it called on the Democratic Party of the Ivory Coast (PDCI) to form a “patriotic front” against the Union of Republicans (RDR). One paragraph of that statement reads:
“Brothers and sisters of the PDCI: Now is the time for a great national leap. Let us strengthen our ranks to stop the predators. Let us unite to defend the Nation in danger. We have no other Fatherland than this, let us defend it together under the threat that we will all disappear, because we are required to live together in our house, but without us.”
Note that “living together” is the slogan of the Union of Republicans (RDR).
No further comment would be necessary for the Ivoirians to understand what we are presenting here. But those who do not know the Ivorian reality must know that the parties of the Ivorian upper bourgeoisie have an essentially ethnic base. Thus, the members of the RDR mostly originate from the North. Many people from the North have migrated to other regions of the country and are considered by the FPI as unconditional voters for RDR candidates, hence the suspicion of them by the FPI. The characterization of “predators” is not at all political; it is above all an expression of contempt towards those originating from a particular region of the Ivory Coast.
Conclusion
The PCRCI remains true to the fundamental principles of contemporary political science, which corresponds to this era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, and which has seen the victory of the peoples over Nazi-fascism, over the colonial system, over apartheid, and has laid the foundations for the next victories. Let us recall the fundamental principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations:
1) The aggression on a people or a nation by any power, whatever the reasons, is unacceptable...2) Nations and peoples have the right to self-determination, and all peoples and all organizations have a duty to support the initiatives towards the liberation of the nations and peoples...
3) People have the right to life, to work, to access to scientific information and to universal culture, and to help in times of danger.
Against these political and ethical principles, the French army intervened directly in April of 2011, between the main protagonists of the Ivorian conflict who had reached the electoral stage of their agreements. Finally the “way out of the crisis,” for which they had obtained endless agreements, were signed at Mar- coussis [a suburb of Paris, France – translator’s note] and Ouagadougou [Burkina Faso], through Lome [Togo], Accra [Ghana] and Pretoria [South Africa], between 2002 and 2007, obtained not by political or electoral means, but by military means. The French army intervened and changed the relationship of forces in favor of Alassane Ouattara. One cannot bring up this period without taking sides. Certainly there were elections. Ouattara’s supporters claim that they won the elections in November 2010 and believe that their leader should be President of the Republic. The intervention of the French army was considered by that camp according to the agreements signed. Gbagbo’s camp considers that its leader won the election of November of 2010, and that he was even invested by the Constitutional Council before being overthrown by the French army (Gbagbo laid claim to his election in early February 2013 in the case against him at the International Tribunal on charges of crimes). For this camp, therefore, the French military intervention was a coup against a “democratically elected President.”
How does the Revolutionary Communist Party of the Ivory Coast (PCRCI) analyze and judge this problem on the principles listed above? Our party has taken note of the violation of ethical principles described, but it does not limit itself to that to conclude that Gbagbo was the winner of the election and that it was necessary to support him. This position is based on several reasons, of which the most important are:
1) The French army is in the Ivory Coast with the agreement of all candidates in the presidential election that we are concerned with; the army acted as a mediating force at the request and agreement of all.2) An election in a neo-colony such as the Ivory Coast is always tarnished by fraud, vote buying and pressures of all kinds on the voters. In the present case, some people will say that the camp that was cheating more or is either that of Gbagbo who had the state apparatus in his hands or that of Ouattara who relied on armed rebellion; the taking of the position of the foreign forces only took place after a deadlock of three months, from December 2010 to April 2011. Everyone knows that neither candidate had any reservation in the first round (of the elections), in which Gbagbo was leading. So why “tolerate” the cheating in the first round and go to war over it in the second round?
3) The violation of ethical principles, such as the aggression against a country by the imperialist armed forces, has to be denounced; the PCRCI has done this, but to say that this violation automatically took advantage of Gbagbo, our party has not seen any basis for this and still does not see it. If revolutionaries should absolutely defend Gbagbo’s camp, that assumes that this camp is the one that opposes imperialism. To defend the fundamental principles of modern political science does not mean to mourn for the Gbagbo regime, let alone to defend it post mortem. What we are writing holds, for example, for the camp of Bozize that just fell in Central Africa. For the PCRCI the Ouattara camp is pro-imperialist; the Gbagbo camp is a part of the pro-imperialist forces in the Ivory Coast, which should not be confused with the will, still somewhat vague, of the Ivorian people to free themselves from foreign domination, a will that that the Gbagbo camp has abused in recent years. The Gbagbo camp is the standard bearer of bellicose chauvinism, a barrier against the development of internationalism among the average workers and working people in the country. No concession can be made to this ideology, which is radically opposed to the development of anti-imperialism that unifies the energies of all the peoples of the Ivory Coast.
4) We can look at this question from another angle to see if the Gbagbo camp can be recovered based on principle;, imagine that the PCRCI had considered that the Gbagbo camp stood on the side of the people and that the contradictions with the Gbagbo camp were secondary to the contradictions with French imperialism, and that therefore an alliance between the PCRCI and the FPI was possible or desirable. Such an alliance, whose principal force would be the Gbagbo camp, would not be directed against French imperialism but against the nationalities opposed to keeping Gbagbo in power. The PCRCI has correctly rejected coming out against certain nationalities of our country. The judgment of history will not be against us on this point. The “pressure” of Gbagbo’s “young patriots” against the French army to make it understand that it is guilty of an “injustice” in refusing to apply the defense agreement between France and the Ivory Coast, the refusal to save the Gbagbo regime against the rebellion, in this there is not one iota of anti-imperialist struggle. From 2000 to 2011, the Gbagbo camp raised no slogan of struggle against the French presence. Reviewing the history of the revolutionary struggles of the peoples of the world, we believe that alliances are founded on common, clear objectives between political forces that maintain relations or had been better in the past, that have common points of doctrine. The example of the Chinese anti-Japanese front often serves us as a reference and we think, wrongly, as arisen “from nothing” or from a shared hatred against Japanese imperialism. We know, however, that the Chinese Communist Party was organized in the patriotic atmosphere led by the Kuomintang of Sun Yat Sen, and on the basis of the same understanding of patriotism, the two parties that openly opposed Japanese domination worked together and knew each other. The CCP took into account the nature of the variations in the line of the Kuomintang, led by Chiang Kai-shek, who had become an ally of U.S. imperialism. One should not forget the context of the Second World War in which the U.S.S.R. supported the PCC and the U.S. the Kuomintang, but the two were allies who wanted the defeat of Japan, at least until the end of World War II. The PCRCI and the FPI had never even approached each other because of the FPI’s defense and propaganda of national chauvinist. But we state that our party is ready, as it has always been, to consider favorably any proposal for a common struggle against imperialism. In the past we took initiatives in this regard but without result.
In the joint liberation struggle of the peoples of the Ivory Coast, the PCRCI has a correct strategy and tactics that consist in developing internationalism in the multinational workers’ movement of the Ivory Coast, and it is working to achieve a just patriotic movement. We do no waiver in our efforts to combat bellicose national chauvinism. These are these conditions for the development of an anti-imperialist movement capable of resolving the national question in an adequate manner and freeing the Ivory Coast from foreign domination.
Abidjan, September 25, 2013Revolutionary Communist Party of the Ivory Coast
Notes:
1) Now that the FPI [Ivorian Popular Front] has lost power with the arrest of Gbagbo on April 11, 2011, it remains to be seen what the attitude of these people will be to “Ivorianization.”
2) The Notebooks of the “New Spirit” no. 6, January-February, 1998.
Click here to return to the Index, U&S 27