But the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest.
- Carlyle.

So begins the first chapter of Ideas Have Consequences (1948) by Richard M. Weaver. Weaver's book is now regarded as a classic and is still in print (University of Chicago Press) nearly 60 years after its initial publication, no mean feat for such a philosophical, polemical and (for its time) topical book. The epigraph, incidentally, is taken from Thomas Carlyle's On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History, and the "thing" that Carlyle refers to is "religion", but not the religion of professions and assertions. Rather, Carlyle refers to the religion of what a man practically believes and consequently lives; the religion of a man's most deeply held ideas about himself and the world around him. Another word might be "mindset". Or in modern management-speak: "paradigm". The meaning is the same: those ideas and attitudes that dominate a man's mind and determine the course of his life.

My purpose in this essay is to explore this theme of the fundamental and unbreakable connection between certain ideas and attitudes, whether held consciously or unconsciously, and certain consequences, particularly in the African context. Or to approach it from the opposite direction: certain practical realities that we observe in Africa are the inevitable consequence of certain deeply held ideas and attitudes. Indeed all practical situations are inextricably linked to certain ideas and attitudes. My thesis is that the failure to grasp this simple linkage accounts for the parlous state of much of the continent.

As a simple example, let's take the concept of "wealth". Historically, in African societies, wealth has been associated with material or physical assets: livestock; crops; land; people in the form of wives (or husbands in matriarchal societies), children, subjects, serfs, servants, or slaves; and so forth. In other societies, the concept of wealth was developed further to include other forms of assets with varying degrees of connection to material assets: ranging from "titles" to material assets such as deeds or prospecting licenses to purely intellectual assets such as screenplays or financial futures.

This conceptual development is clearly linked to an increasing level of intellectual abstraction. It is also linked to the whole question of the origin of wealth. With only a rudimentary conception of wealth, one is more inclined to believe that wealth is merely acquired or appropriated (and so people speak of "amassing wealth"). One is also liable to believe that there is a finite amount of wealth on earth. With a more sophisticated conception of wealth, it becomes apparent that earthly wealth is potentially limitless—the only "limitation" being man's ingenuity. This is not to say wealth cannot be acquired, appropriated or amassed (for clearly, it can and is), but merely that a society in which this is the dominant view will inevitably focus on the associated mechanisms (conquest, redistribution, theft, etc.)

It is entirely possible to live in the modern world and the modern global economy and yet hold an entirely inappropriate theory of wealth in that world. Such a theoretical view would, and does, have practical consequences. If, for instance, one takes the view that wealth is largely static and that it is "unfairly" distributed, the key question becomes: How should this limited wealth be shared and distributed among the inhabitants of the world? Such a view tends to produce a sense of guilt in the rich, a sense of injustice in the poor and a sense of self-righteous indignation amongst the self-appointed correctors of the status quo. Sound familiar?

The Post newspaper (www.postzambia.com) editorial of 2 November 2007 was entitled "Let's have a fair share of the cake". The subject was the pending renegotiations of the mineral royalties tax (currently 0.6%) between the Zambian government and private mining companies. This has become an increasingly emotive and controversial issue in Zambia, one of the world's largest producers of copper and other minerals, particularly against the backdrop of rising metal prices internationally and stubbornly high poverty levels at home. The editorial concludes: "Everything should be undertaken to ensure that the process is successful so that for once the people of Zambia will have a fairer share of their prized possession. It is time Zambians had a fair share of the cake." It's all there: the implicit idea that wealth is static; the self-righteous, self-appointed do-gooder; the hard-done-by poor; and the guilty rich.

Messrs. Geldof and Bono revitalised their flagging celebrity status (or virtually, non-existent celebrity status in the case of Mr. Geldof) and boosted sagging earning potential (Red and DATA) by peddling such misconceptions. New wealth and new friends (Bill, Melinda and Warren to them; Mr. Gates, Mrs. Gates and Mr. Buffet to you and me) have been swift in coming. And much chatter about a Nobel Peace Prize in the offing, as though that accolade had not been sufficiently discredited already.

If, on the other hand, one takes the view that wealth is dynamic and unlimited, then an entirely different set of consequences is likely to follow. The key question then becomes: How can we best organise ourselves to facilitate the creation of wealth? Such a view produces a sense of opportunity and freedom. The pillars of wealthy societies are well known and well documented: the protection of private persons and property; the rule of law; the curtailment of government bureaucracy and regulation; and so forth.

One view focuses on how wealth can be accumulated and (re)distributed; the other view focuses on how wealth can be created. One view assumes scarcity; the other view assumes abundance. One view emphasises consumption; the other view emphasises production. It's no coincidence that the poorest countries in the world are organised around the first view, whereas the richest countries in the world are organised around the second view.

It's also important to be aware of the viral effect of ideas. Ideas in a society are like antibodies or viruses in a biological organism. The predominant ideas in a society will determine the social, economic and cultural health of that society. An inordinate focus on consequences (symptoms), at the expenses of correct detection and diagnosis of the prevailing ideas, is potentially fatal.

Even those who profess to be action-oriented and not wedded to "impractical" ideas are merely deluding themselves and their followers. For the idea that actions matter more than ideas and that actions can be divorced from ideas is just that: an idea. A dangerous and misguided one, to be sure, but an idea nevertheless. Michael Sata, the prominent Zambian opposition politician, espouses just such an ideology. As does Mr. Sata's hero, President Robert Mugabe, who has successfully bankrupted Zimbabwe by steadfastly refusing to follow "bookish" economic principles.

The failure to recognise the link between ideas and consequences is the reason for the dismal failure of Africa as a continent. Since his ascent to the presidency of South Africa, Africa's most powerful nation, Thabo Mbeki has famously spearheaded the African Renaissance. But any talk of a Renaissance in Africa is nonsense without an acknowledgement of the prevailing darkness (the Dark Ages) and the need for light (the Reformation and the Enlightenment), darkness and light being metaphors for ideas, bad and good.

So, ideas have consequences.

But Africa may have to learn a more subtle lesson first:

Consequences have ideas.

---