In their foundational issue, the Editorial Working Group of ROAPE clearly and concisely asserted the intention of the publication as one that would provide a radical alternative to the inaccurate assumptions and mystifying conclusions about Africa’s post-colonial politics and chronic poverty found throughout much of the social science literature at the time (ROAPE 1974). The journal was to challenge market-centric development and international relations scholarship by considering Africa’s colonial legacy and present dependence in its critique of modernisation and ‘white saviour’ narratives. In an effort to move beyond the impracticality of much academic knowledge production, ROAPE contributions were to address themselves to issues of the tactics, strategy and action to be considered as Africa developed its potential and steered its struggle (ibid.). The journal set out to do this without promoting a dogmatic formula or certain political faction, applying a Marxist political economy that analyses a situation in order to change it. Producing analyses that identified emerging contradictions in global capitalist relations, ROAPE’s contributions indicated essential features of social formations required to be changed and opportunities to be seized for the desired social change. The relevance of political economy was echoed and prioritisation was recommended for reconsidering the link between analysis and practice and the role of intellectuals in this dynamic by the Editorial Working Group’s reflections 30 years later (Bujra et al. 2004). ROAPE continues to examine and understand Africa’s present condition through a historical lens – centred around the roots of her socio-economic realities – but, as it breaks the chains of corporate publishing and transitions to an open-access format, the journal requires a reminder and focused reorientation towards ensuring space for radical knowledge and information-sharing that can inform how scholars and activists think critically about geopolitical power relations and the persistent inequalities that concede opportunities for change in Africa.
The journal’s concentrated emphasis and dedication to scholarly praxis was advanced by way of Burawoy’s (2004) contribution to the 30th anniversary issue. Burawoy did not offer a new paradigm for ROAPE but aimed to stimulate debates about the practical and intellectual implications of studying Africa in order to better understand the challenges and opportunities for change. Reflecting on Harold Wolpe’s 2004 Memorial Lecture, Burawoy urged an acute reflection and attentiveness to past and contemporary struggles for liberation and reconstruction – the uses of power and agency required, political practice demanded, and the obligations of intellectual responsibility. In an earlier paper, Burawoy (2003) rethought the central propositions of classical Marxism to help frame the dual obligations of the intellectual as effective interpreter in the trenches of civil society and legislative councillor in critical analyses on changing social arrangements and reconstruction policies. Burawoy and others since have highlighted the role of the intellectual as interpreter – reflecting on and informing modes of struggle and forms of solidarity – and the responsibility of impartiality after liberation; however, as neoliberalism ceaselessly becomes further socially and culturally entrenched in Africa through Western-directed social engineering and internationally funded community-based initiatives, the importance of ROAPE contributions to critically interpret the conditions and relationships within civil society is paramount to informing effective resistance and change.
The last two decades of ROAPE contributions have produced meaningful interdisciplinary scholarship on Africa’s pseudo-democratic sovereignty and disproportionate development – predominant themes acknowledged in the 40th anniversary editorial (Bush and Harrison 2014) – but strides to overcome a stunted inertia need renewed vigour, and fundamental questions require further debate in order to recentre an intellectual commitment to engaged radical thinking. One effort to do this began in the June 2021 issue, when Zeilig and Smedley initiated a new section of the journal that aimed to link scholarly, peer-reviewed contributions with timely, indicative and pragmatic analysis published on Roape.net. Where the journal continues to exist as a radical alternative to mainstream scholarship on development and international relations, Roape.net serves as a living platform that can swiftly pivot to react and respond to the ever-evolving social conditions and contradictions in African political economy, making it a vital part of the project of radical political, environmental and economic transformation (Zeilig 2021). Since its inception, the section ‘Connecting People and Voices for Radical Change in Africa’ has aimed to highlight current questions and debates in order to shift the dynamics of popular protest and serve as a platform for African voices of struggle. This routine contribution provides leftist intellectuals and activists alike with a current and contextualised roadmap for reflection on organic ideals and engagement with revolutionary interventions.
One area of engaged scholarship that is ripe for rekindled debate and analysis is the question of the entrenched role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in advocacy and popular campaigns for poverty reduction, gender inequality and other social injustices. As agents of service delivery and champions for democratic reforms, NGOs have maintained their embedded presence in African civil society and furthered the pervasiveness of neoliberalism set in motion with the initial ideological tsunami of the 1990s. ROAPE has published notable contributions to the ongoing critical investigation of NGOs in Africa, such as Hearn’s (1998) pioneering study on the long-term consequences of the donor-sponsored NGO-isation of African society and Kelsall and Mercer’s (2003) important article on the disproportionate power dilemmas that result from NGO-led participatory development and empowerment initiatives. A new era of critically engaged scholarship on the role of NGOs in protests, popular movements and social change is being proclaimed by scholars and activists in Africa and the diaspora. For instance, reflecting on Shivji’s (2007) Silences in NGO Discourse, the Kenyan Organic Intellectuals Network (Ndungu 2023) have warned of the impacts of depoliticisation and NGO-isation of radical grassroots movements through NGO-led ‘movement-building’ initiatives – a new development industry buzzword and tactic executed throughout the non-profit industrial complex. The accounts and reflections of African activists that show how NGOs astroturf radical movements of resistance and liberation by championing misguided solutions to illusory grassroots concerns and demands display a reality that requires engaged research and a space where scholarship can be interpreted to practical action for the emancipatory design of strategy and navigation of struggle.
