Deconstructing African Development from Neo-liberalism, Ubuntu Ethics and African Socialism to Dignified Humanness

This paper argues that there is a need to reconstruct a new paradigm for poverty policy planning in Africa because Neo-liberalism, Ubuntu ethics and African Socialism as proposed paradigms for Africa’s development are untenable. This is so because the above trio are sexist, androcentric and oblivious to structural injustices that feminize poverty in Africa. The paper further argues that even in the Western world, the neo-liberal GDP metric has been challenged and the search for alternative development indicators and paradigms is on. In addition, there is a fully fledged post-neo-liberalism movement in Latin America and a de-growth and post-growth social movement in the West against neo-liberalism and its nebulous economic growth understanding of wellbeing. The paper contends that Africa cannot afford to remain aloof to all these developments. There is therefore a need to develop Pan African paradigms to articulate an endogenous perspective to African development. The paper thus advocates for the Dignified Humanness Paradigm (DHP) as an alternative to neo-liberalism, Ubuntu ethics and African Socialism. The paper also surmises that the actualization of the DHP requires an immediate awakening of the Pan African Moral Consciousness since this will militate on decolonization of the African mind from the amoral neo-liberal economism.


Introduction
Classical liberal Philosophers such as John Locke and J. S Mill envisaged a state (civitas) where individuals' liberties would not be unnecessarily curtailed by the state even for the sake of economic efficiency. The state was envisioned as so central to social organization and its main function was to protect individual liberties or freedoms. Mill for example argued that the state could only infringe on one's liberty in order to 'prevent harm to others'. In other words, where no harm is done to another individual, the state has no justification to curtail one's liberties. Locke, the father of classical liberalism argued that property conflicts necessitated the formation of a state which must derive its mandate from the people through a constitutional arrangement [1]. John Locke argues that people form a state in order to protect their common good i.e. property. Property includes lives, liberties and fortunes or estates. A government that fails to protect the common good loses its legitimacy [2].
Although Social justice liberal philosophers (Social liberal philosophers) of the 19 th century agreed with classical liberalists on the centrality of the state in protecting individual liberties, they argued that individual liberty should be in tandem with the common good. They also supported the free market economy but urged that it must be in harmony with the common good [3]. However, in the 20 th century, a neo-classical liberal philosophy known as neo-liberalism or economic neo-liberalism emerged. This new liberal philosophy emphasized the sovereignty of the individual and the market over the state and the common good. Neo-liberal thinkers attacked social justice liberalism as untenable and blamed classical liberalism for the dwindling levels of economic growth in various States [4].
The term neo-liberalism derives from two notions, namely, 'neo, which means 'new' and liberal which means free from government intervention. Neo-liberalism can be traced from Adam Smith's magnum opus, 'The Wealth of Nations' (1776) where he categorically advocated for a minimal role of government in economic matters so that trade could flourish. African Socialism to Dignified Humanness This conception dominated economics for almost 200 years only to be replaced in the 1930 by the Keynesian liberal economics which emphasized government intervention in economic matters [5].
This paper is premised on the argument that the situation of Africa's poverty policy planning frameworks in neo-liberalism is ethically unsustainable because it is exogenic, paternalistic, colonial, authoritarian and treats people as cogs in the development process. Neo-liberalism is also untenable as an ideology of poverty reduction in Africa because it has been deceptively simulated and dissimulated as pro-poor, pro-gender, pro-human rights yet it is amoral and positivistic in essence. The paper contends that since ethical poverty policy planning cannot be attained using a logically contradictory ideology, there is a need for a new frame work for poverty policy planning in Uganda. The paper has proposed a new foot print for measuring poverty and wellbeing. Although this foot print agrees with some of the tenets of the Human Development Paradigm, the Dignified Humanness Foot Print (DHFP) is superior Human Development Index because it focuses on structural injustices in societies as the root causes of poverty. The DHFP places ethics, integrity, human rights and gender empowerment at the center of measuring human wellbeing or flourishing. Unlike the Gross Domestic Product (DGP) growth index that focuses on the mere accumulation of material capabilities, the DHFP argues that material amenities are valuable to human development only if they improve the quality of life of human persons. The DHFP contends that a society that places human development above mere economic development ought to be measured by the level of endogenous discourses on human wellbeing as explicated in the endogenous measurement of wellbeing index.

Neo-liberal Dogmatism and the Slumber of the Pan African Moral Consciousness
In the 1950s, 1960 and 1970 Makerere University distinguished its self as an 'ivory tower' for Pan African Discourse. During this time, both the academic and political intelligentsia opined that capitalism was alien and repugnant to African societies where the common good takes precedence over individualism. Scholars at Makerere university inculcated into their students the argent need to get rid of colonialism and restore the spirit of African communitarianism.
In fact, the clamour for independence in Uganda like in many African countries was premised on the re-construction of a state where African values of community and reciprocity would betake precedence over the capitalistic values of individualism, greed and selfishness. This opportunism was short lived because when the British colonialists theoretically left in 1962 and declared Uganda an independent nation, the so called pan Africanists such as; Milton Obote and Idi Amin Dada turned against fellow Ugandans and unleashed on them terror and suffering. The human rights atrocities committed by these pan-Africanists were worse than the colonial impunity in the eyes of a number of people.
The breakdown of law and order in Uganda in the 1970s and early 1980s forced many elites into exile and rendered a terrible blow to the Pan African Movement. Museveni's takeover of power in 1986 was looked at as a wind of change that would resuscitate the pan African developmental Ugandan state. In fact, the late 1980s and early 1990s were characterized by a buzz of pan African re-discourse at Makerere University. A number of scholars at Makerere University supported the dependency theory perspective that Africa (satellite) was poor because it was being used as a source of raw materials for the North (metro pole). They thus opined that Africa needs to develop domestic industries in order to progress from the pit of underdevelopment. However, the upsurge of neo-liberalism rendered the dependency school 'dead and buried' as industries were shifted from the North where labour standards were high to the South where sweat shops flourished due very low labour standards.
Immediately after taking over power, Museveni succumbed to IMF and World Bank (WB) neo-liberal Structural Adjustment reforms. These reforms superimposed Uganda into disorganized capitalism or vulture capitalism. This neo-liberalism marginalized and disempowered both the elites and peasants. Public civil Servants were retrenched from work and the salaries of the remaining civil servants were severely cut. Cost sharing was introduced in the health and education sectors and funding to universities was incredibly reduced. This led to the slumber of the Pan-African Moral consciousness. Neo-liberalism in Uganda became an almost divine ideology without an alternative.
In his magnum Opus, Scholars in a MarketPlace: The Dilemmas of Neo-liberal Reforms at Makerere University (1989)(1990)(1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005), Mahmood Mamdani has succinctly explicated how the neo-liberal cancer ate the bones and marrows of the minds of the intelligentsia in Makerere University. Mamdani argues that when the state cut its funding, Makerere university embraced privatization as a survival strategy rather than a preference [6]. He further opines that the reform that started as a move towards simple privatization was soon overridden by commercialisation and vocationalisation. He also points out that though the university administration preferred privitisation, the combined force of academic staff and students at Makerere university put their weight around a form of privatization that entailed profit maximization and income maximization. This involved getting commercial units to become profit -making while professional schools would become fee-earning [6].
The market ethic that penetrated Makerere implied that full time academic staff were no longer willing to do anything that was not directly paid for [6]. Consequently, a lot of teaching was left to Part Time academic staff with dubious qualifications [6] and lecture facilities turned into some kind of slums [6]. Worse still, with the neo-liberal greedisation of economy and life, even scholars from the humanities at Uganda's ivory tower turned into traders, entrepreneurs, project consultants, poultry farmers, goat farmers instead of academic thinkers. This disorganized capitalism espoused by neo-liberalism has made survival the major term of reference for elites in Uganda hence rendering academic discourse a periphery activity. Thus, Makerere University that had distinguished its self as an ivory tower of African Socialist discourse was turned into a regional icon of neo-liberal capitalism.

The Dignified Humanness Paradigm (DHP) as an Alternative Development Paradigm for Africa
According to Gudynas, "the classical Western idea of development has been declared dead several times in the last decades, but it persists. Critical positions that counter the myth of development have been repeated several times over the last 40 years. There are countless reactions from social movements against the negative effects (both social and ecological) of many 'development projects [7]". He further opines that, "the fact that most of the reactions were at a superficial level, attempting to repair or fix what was considered inappropriate applications of classical development, resulted in Western development being declared deceased and then at the same time being resuscitated [7]".
Gudynas, surmises that "the western idea of development has paradoxically became a zombie concept (dead and alive at the same time) which even the recent financial crisis failed tore solve [7]". This is the reason why this paperis advocating for a Pan African Dignified Humanness Paradigm as an alternative development Paradigm for Uganda in particular and Sub-Saharan Africa in general. Alternative Development is concerned with local development, alternative practices on the ground, and challenging global alternatives. This Dignified Humanness Paradigm (DHP) rejects the economistic and neo-liberal conception of development in terms of GDP growth and instead advocates for a Human development perspective to human wellbeing and human flourishing.

Situating the Metaphysics of the Dignified Humanness Paradigm (DHP)
The DHP is premised on the ontological dictum that male and female human persons are dignified individual selves of equal moral worth and therefore should be treated as ends in themselves and never as a means to an end. The DHP further contends that both male and female persons have intrinsic value and are possessors of personness, reason, rights and duties. The DHP refutes the sexist and androcentric philosophers such as Aristotle and Kant who have denigrated the dignified selfhood of female human persons basing on a biological fallacy.
According to this fallacy, the situation of a human being in a male body qualifies this being to be a possessor of reason and the situation of a human being in a female body qualifies this being to be a posers of emotions/feelings. Proponents of this fallacy fail to make a distinction between accidents and substances. The body just like colour, height and size is a mere accident whereas the soul is the fundamental substance that both male and females equally possess. Because human beings are fundamentally souls, they are possessors of freedom, conscience (moral law), the will to choose and are subjects of justice and human rights.
The sameness of male and female persons does not necessarily mean the similarity of human persons. For instance, although male and female persons have the same dignity of the human person, they are not at the same level of intelligence, artistic and scientific skill. For example some men and women are geniuses (have the highest level of intelligent quotient) while other men and women are simply very intelligent (have a high intelligence quotient). In addition, some men and women have very high mathematical skills, whereas other men and women are very skilled in music and fine art.

Re-awakening the Pan African Moral Consciousness from Neo-liberalism, Ubuntu and African Socialism to Dignified Humanness
The Pan African Moral Consciousness refers to an ontological perception of the indispensable role of immanent moral values in the beingness of persons in traditional African communal societies. This consciousness can be envisaged in the moral nostalgia that was characteristic of African minds after being superimposed in colonial modernism and individualism. This consciousness created an awareness of the ethical contradictions between the African Moral continuum that was premised on the dictum, IAM because We are and the Colonial or Western Moral continuum that was premised on the dictums, I think therefore IAM, I sell therefore IAM and IAM because of what I have (my being is dependent on the material wealth I possess).
The pan African moral consciousness spearheaded the impetus to develop an ideology that would guide African development in a post-colonial era. A number of Afro centric scholars such as; Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, Modibo Keita of Mali, Leopold Senghor of Senegal, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana and Sekou Toure of Senegal advocated for African socialism as the best ideology that would steer post-colonial Africa to the path of prosperity. Advocates of African socialism claimed that it was not the opposite of capitalism nor a response to it, but something completely different [8]. Common principles of various versions of African socialism were: social development guided by a large public sector, incorporating the African identity and what it means to be African, and the avoidance of the development of social classes within society [8]. Senghor claimed that ''Africa's social background of tribal community life not only makes socialism natural to Africa but excludes the validity of the theory of class struggle," thus making African socialism, in all of its variations, different from Marxism and European socialist theory [9].
In addition to his brilliant discovery and analysis of neo-colonialism, Nkrumah demonstrated an avid espousal of revolutionary Pan-Africanism and African Socialism in his theoretical treatise, Consciencism. According to him, philosophical consciencism "...is...the map in intellectual terms of the disposition of forces which will enable African society to digest the Western and Islamic, and the Euro-Christian elements in Africa, and develop them in such a way that they fit into the African personality [10]". In relation to personality, he opines that "the African personality is itself defined by the cluster of humanist principles which underlie the traditional African society [10]". He further points out that consciencism reflects a philosophy which is African in content and the basis for this philosophy, is the need to unite Africa through an ideology which is essentially African [11].
As a materialist, Nkrumah acknowledges the primacy of matter by reiterating that: "the... assertions... I put forward as philosophical consciencism are... two-fold. First, there is the assertion of the absolute and independent existence of matter; second, there is the assertion of the capacity of matter for spontaneous self-motion" [10]. Nkrumah not only declares again and again his faith in the materialist world view, but he also demonstrates his disdain for idealism as a tool to understand reality: natural or societal [11].
He opines that, "idealism favored a class structure of a horizontal sort, in which one class sat upon the neck of another;... materialism, on the other hand, was connected with a humanist organization through its being monistic and its referring all natural processes to matter and its laws, it inspired an egalitarian organization of society. The unity and fundamental identity of nature suggests the unity and fundamental identity of man is society. Idealism favors an oligarchy; materialism favors an egalitarianism [11]". He also declares, "by reason of the connection of idealism with an oligarchy and of materialism with an egalitarianism, the opposition of idealism and materialism in the same society is paralled by the opposition of conservative and progressive forces on a social level [10]". In addition, Nkrumah's most explicit affirmation of his belief in the materialist school of philosophy is stated as follows: "on the philosophical level... it is materialism... that in one form or another, will give the firmest conceptual basis to the restitution of Africa's egalitarian and humanist principles... It is materialism, with its monistic and naturalistic accounts of nature, which will balk arbitrariness, inequality and injustice" [10]. Finally, he declares that "it is materialism that ensures the only effective transformation of nature [10]".
Novack, argues that "... the basic propositions of idealism and materialism are absolutely opposed to each other. One must be right and the other wrong. Both cannot be correct. Whoever maintains consistently the position of the one is inescapably led to conclusions exactly contrary to the other [12]", According to Wooten, "this is precisely the contradictory trap into which Nkrumah falls by asserting his philosophical consciencism as materialist in foundation, yet simultaneously declaring it ''not necessarily atheist [11]" He further urgues that, "for one to declare oneself a materialist, one is necessarily declaring his atheism, because within the materialist school no thought, no emotion, no idea can pre-exist nor exist independently of matter. The same exclusion holds for idealism. For the idealist the idea presupposes all things and gives birth to all things. Thus we see under no theoretical circumstances can a materialist be not necessarily atheist [12]". Wooten, reiterates that, "if philosophical consciencism is not atheist, then it is in no way rooted in materialism. "Atheism is contained in materialism as the fruit is potential in the seed. It is the logical outcome, the necessary conclusion of materialist thought. Materialism necessitates atheism, theism necessitates idealism. These two views are at war and can never find co-existence [11]".
Wooten adds a final nail to crucify the African Socialism embedded in Consciencism, by arguing that "Nkrumah takes an explicit materialist philosophical position and also implicitly upholds idealism on the nature of the origin of matter. By declaring that his "materialist" consciencism is "not necessarily atheist," Nkrumah bankrupts his theory by contradicting himself on the very fundamental question of philosophy, the nature of being. Although his analysis of the evolved identities of contemporary Africa and his ability to envision the necessity to develop a conscious ideology to dialectically synthesize Africa's three identities were outstanding, they are still overshadowed by his attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable [11]".
Mazrui was also very critical of socialism and all strains of Marxism and regarded Nkurumah and Nyerere as dictators. He argued that communism was a Western import just as unsuited for the African condition as the earlier colonial attempts to install European type governments [13]. He argued that a revised liberalism could help the continent and described himself as a proponent of a unique ideology of African liberalism [13]. At the same time he was a prominent critic of the current neo-liberal world order [14]. He believed the current capitalist system was deeply exploitative of Africa, and that the West rarely ever lived up to their liberal ideals. Therefore, capitalism could be described as global apartheid [14]. Although, Mazrui's ideology of African liberalism was not logically articulated and comprehensively developed, his criticism of African socialism and Marxism is well-founded. Socialism could not work in the African social setting because African societies had not dialectically or scientifically evolved from primitive communalism to slavery, feudalism and then capitalism as per Karl Marx's positive philosophy of dialectical materialism. Therefore, the implementation of socialism in peasant African Societies is simply unthinkable. Like neo-liberalism, socialism is not a viable paradigm for African development because it is positivistic, amoral, gender blind and oblivious to structural of injustice that produce and re-produce poverty.

Juxtaposing Ubuntu Ethics with the Dignified Humanness Paradigm (DHP)
Ubuntu ethics is one of the strands of African Ethics that development ethicists and scholars appeal to as a panacea to neo-liberal development. It is articulated in the aphorisms "I am because we are; and since we are, therefore, I am", umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu (Nguni) and motho ke motho ka batho be babang (Sotho) [15]. These aphorisms could also be translated as "a person is a person through other persons. To be human means to be through others. Thus any other way of being would be in human that is 'not human' and 'disrespectful of or even cruel to others [15]". These, roughly, are the teachingsthe descriptions and prescriptions -of Ubuntu [16]. Ubuntu ethics cannot be relied upon in the promoting of human wellbeing or flourishing because it is premised on the fallacy of homogenizing men and women without paying attention to the asymmetrical or unequal power relations between men and women. The humanness or muntuness of a men and women is not dependent on communal expedience or patriarchal consensus for that matter. The Dignified selfhood of the IAM is a fact that does not depend on social intercourse or communal dictates. Social intercourse is simply a manifestation of an Iam in full dignified expression (expression of the dutied self of the Iam). Thus, the person is not an IAM because we are, on the contrary, male and female human persons are dignified selves with a dutied side.
Characteristic features of ubuntu ethics are articulated to be pity and compassion towards others, respect for the rights of minorities, a search for consensus and understanding, a spirit of mutual support and cooperation, hospitality, generosity, and selflessness [15]. This is not accurate because virtually all African societies that practiced the ubuntu ethic had many cultural tenets and practices that violated the ethics of Obuntu Bulamu (dignified treatment of the male and female self) especially in relation to the respect of women's rights and capabilities. These rights included freedom of expression, freedom of association, right to property, right to inherit property.

Individual Rights and the Ubuntu Communitarian
Ethic According to Leopold Senghor, a great Pan African scholar from Senegal, Africans view community as precedent to its component individuals. Consequently the community is more important than the individuals who make it. Likewise, according to Senghor's views, solidarity should take precedence to individual decision and activity. Community needs should be precedent to individual needs. He contends that Africans place more emphasis on the "communion of persons than on their autonomy [17]." The above perspective is premised on an error in reasoning because the concept community begs the question i.e. does community mean, a community of adult males, a community of adult males and females or a community of equally dignified males and females. Senghor's so called community or communion of persons excludes women asequal participants with equal dignified selfhood. It is thus a patriarchal communion of male persons. Senghor implicitly advocates for a dictatorship of a patriarchal communion of males. This is unethical because it promotes the violation of rights of individuals under the guise of promoting the interests of the community. For example, it is unethical for a communion of persons to agree to sacrifice an individual in order to appease a deity or ancestral spirits. DHP argues that the individual's right to land can be limited in order to promote the common good by for example compensating the individual for land he/she is to lose because of a community road.
Gyekye explores the tension between basic personal rights (autonomy, freedom and dignity) and the underlying need for the society in realization of individual's potential [18]. Gyekye states that there is a relationship between the individual and the society which is reflected in the "conceptions of social structure evolved by a community of people [18]". To explain the relationship between the society and the individual, Gyekye cites an Akan proverb which goes, "The clan is like a cluster of trees which, when seen from afar, appear huddled together, but which would be seen to stand individually when closely approached [18]". This proverb is an analogy which implies that even though some branches of the trees may touch, or even interlock each tree stands individually and has its own identity. Relationships in Ubuntu should not overshadow the importance of individual autonomy. There is need for discernment and distinction of the delicate balance between the two aspects of Ubuntu.
Gyekye articulates the ISness of the individuality of the human persons even in the face of social intercourse. However, he does not seem to realize that in many patriarchal African Ubuntu societies, the dignified selfhood of women is violated because men are treated as autonomous selves while women are treated as the less autonomous others. Consequently women's property rights, inheritance rights and other social economic rights are greatly violated by sexist and androcentric ubuntu motivated African cultures.
In fact Gyekye rightly observes an inevitable symbiotic mutuality between personal inalienable rights and the society. The society is a needed context for realization of personhood and self-actualization. However, "individuality is not obliterated by membership in a human community [18]". Each individual retains his or her uniqueness and basic human rights regardless the role and importance of community to the individual. According to Gyekye "the most satisfactory way to recognize the claims of both communality and individuality is to ascribe to them the status of an equal moral standing [15]".

Ubuntu Ethics, Social Consensus and Power
Asymmetries According to Louw, "the desire to agree, in an ubuntu oriented communal democracy which-at least in theory -is supposed to safeguard the rights and opinions of individuals and minorities, is often exploited to enforce group solidarity [15]. Louw, further opines that "because of its extreme emphasis on community, ubuntu democracy may be abused to legitimise what Themba Sano [19] calls the constrictive nature or tyrannical custom of a derailed African culture, especially its "totalitarian communalism" which "frowns upon elevating one beyond the community [19]".
Sano reiterates that "the role of the group in African consciousness, could be overwhelming, totalistic, even totalitarian. Group psychology, though parochially and narrowly based..., nonetheless pretends universality. This mentality, this psychology is stronger on belief than on reason; on sameness than on difference [19])". He further opines that "discursive rationality is overwhelmed by emotional identity, African Socialism to Dignified Humanness by the obsession to identify with and by the longing to conform to. To agree is more important than to disagree; conformity is cherished more than innovation. Tradition is venerated, continuity revered, change feared and difference shunned. Heresies [that is the innovative creations of intellectual African individuals, or refusal to participate in communalism] are not tolerated in such communities [19]".
Sanofurther argues that, "although Ubuntu ethics articulates such important values as respect, human dignity and compassion, the ubuntu desire for consensus also has a potential dark side in terms of which it demands an oppressive conformity and loyalty to the group. Failure to conform may be met by harsh punitive measures [19]". Boele van Hensbroek opines that "avoiding this 'dark side' poses one of the most important challenges of ubuntu as a social ethic, namely that of affirming unity while valuing diversity, of translating "I am because we are" into "we are because I am". As such, it is the challenge of developing an emancipatory understanding of ubuntu, an understanding that would effectively meet "the essential issue of politics formulated by Hannah Arendtas 'handling plurality [15]".

Ubuntu Ethics and the Thingfication / Queer-thingfication of Human Persons
In his book, Ich und Du (I and Thou) (1923), Martin Buber argued that human social intercourse should be premised on '1-thou' relationships and not I-It relationships. An "I-It" relation experiences a detached thing, fixed in space and time, while an "I-Thou" relation participates in the dynamic, living process of an "other". Buber therefore characterizes "I-Thou" relations as "dialogical" and "I-It" relations as "monological [20]." In an 'I-It' relationship one individual treats the other individual as a thing i.e. analogous to the way a student treats his/her pen. An I-thou relationship on the other hand implies that one individual treats the other individual as a being who should never be treated as a means to an end because he/she has an inherent dignity or dignified selfhood.
Patriarchal Ubuntu African societies are characteristic of 'I-it' social intercourse where a male (thou) treats a female (it) as a lesser being. In fact there are a number of instances where women have been treated as Bintu (things) and Gantu (queer things) as evidenced in the fact that in some African societies women were subjected to female genital mutilation and many traditional African men caned women for 'wrong doing' the same way they caned children. The reason why female genital mutilation was carried outwas to reduce the sex prowess of a woman in order to reduce chances of female infidelity. In some African societies such as the Bahima, a number of women entered marriage after being subjected to the ordeal of defilement or rape. This kind of violence againstwomen was looked at as normal although it thingfied or queerthingfied female human persons.
In addition, there are many instances where both men and women were treated as things or queer-things because Ubuntu was mainly exercised mainly with the confines of one's specific tribal society or ethnic group. This simply means that members of other tribes could be treated as Bintu (things) and Gantu (queer things). For example the Baganda looked at the members of other tribes as 'banamawanga' (queer lesser human foreigners) that needed to be conquered and humanized. No wonder, the British exploited this fallacy by using the Baganda as a tool to bring other tribes in Uganda under British rule.
The custom of cattle raiding that is practiced among Karamojongand Turkana treats human persons as things or queer-things and therefore it is devoid of Ubuntu. Furthermore, some traditional African Ubuntu societies regarded twins as an omen (queer things) that needed to be gotten rid off because they were Gantu (queer things). In addition, intersex persons (persons with both themale and female genitalia), homosexuals, bisexuals are typical Gantu (queer things) with in African Society Ubuntu paradigm.
More so, Ubuntu was exercised and practiced within the confines of class in a number of African societies. For example the so called upper classes looked at other persons in lower classes as less bantu and actually treated them as Bintu (things). In Buganda for example, there was the upper class of the Barangira (princes) and Bambeja (princesses) who looked at themselves as more bantu than the bakopi (subjects/servants). King Sunna I a.k. amukabya (the one who makes others weep) was probably one ofthe cruelest African kings. He is famous for vices such as resting his spear in the foot of a mukopi (servant). He was so royal that his spear could not rest in the ground!!! Similarly, in Ankole, the Bahima royals treated the Bairu (servant) as things. No wonder, the majority of Bairu in Ankole do not want the Obugabe (kingship) to be reinstated. A muhima prince or princes could spit inside the mouth of a Muiru (servant). This heinous violation of human dignity de-buntulised the Bairu and the rendered them mere things. Therefore Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu errored in arguing that according to Ubuntu ethics myhumanity is caught up and bound inextricably with yours such that when I dehuminise you, I inevitably dehuminise myself [21]. This is not true because when the men dehuminised women and when the royals dehuminised the servants, this was looked at as culturally acceptable and thus did not tantamount to dehuminisation of their selves. Therefore this paper is proposing and defending the DHP Paradigm as an alternative framework for African Development because it is superior to Ubuntu ethics. The superiority of the DHP arises from its treatment of both male and female human persons as dignified selves of equal moral worth irrespective of sex, sex orientation, sex expression, gender, age, social status, intellectual ability, colour, beauty, class, nationality, opinion and religion.

Ubuntu Ethics, Gendered Collectivism and Patriarchy
Oppression Ubuntu ethicists have 'painstakingly' argued that in Africa individualism is a misnomer because individuals only find meaning in a collective. The icon of these African Philosophers, John Mbiti argues that in Africa, the individual can only say: "Iam because we are; and since we are, therefore Iam [22]". African philosophers who subscribe to collectivism have argued that even person is not an inherent characteristic but rather something that is defined by a collective [18].
In reaction to the one of the criticisms against Ubuntu ethics that it limits personal autonomy and does not champion realistic freedom, weilargues that: "It is not true that freedom of one man is limited by that of other men." Freedom is always relative to the freedom of others. "Man is really free to the extent that his freedom fully acknowledged and mirrored by the free consent of his fellow men finds confirmation and expansion of liberty. Man is free only among equally free men." Ubuntu recognizes the fact that "the slavery of even one human being violates humanity and negates the freedom of all [23]". Freedom in particular and virtue in general, therefore, are contingent to, and defined by community society and the common good. No individual is greater than the society; individual members of the society are parts of, and enabled by the society. Similarly, Bhengu has situated Ubuntu ethics in the principle of the spirit of man which postulates that man is entitled to unconditional respect and dignity, and organizations must work in harmony with him in the spirit of service and harmony [24]. The above arguments by Weil and Bhengu are indicative of the sexist and androcentric nature of Ubuntu ethics. According to this ethic, man as the measure of all things. He is the measure of whatever is that its and whatever is not that it is not.
Therefore it is evident that African Philosophers have persistently philosophized without taking cognizance of the fallacy of homogenizing social realities such as persons who are situated in gender asymmetrical relations. Very little attention has been made to critically assess the sexism, gender biases, gender distortions and gender blindness of African philosophies such as Ubuntu ethics. To-date African cultures are still largely patriarchal, sexist and very hostile to women's rights, gender equality and equity. It is an undisputable fact that despite the Ubuntu ethics of African Patriarchal cultures, the majority of women were treated as lesser 'bantu' as compared to men. Women were denied right to eat foods such as chicken, fish, eggs in many African societies. In addition, women were denied the right to freedom of expression, the rightto inherit land, could be inheritedas property, and in some cultures women were subjected to the cruel and inhuman female genital mutilation. Sylvia Tamale, a lawyer, legal academic and prominent African feminist argues that: …..as mothers and wives, women come to embody the continuity and maintenance of the family and the communities. Hence, women are denied their individuality and perceived as passive extensions of their larger communities. Through the lenses of the female sexuality constructed by patriarchy, women are viewed as chaste daughters who represent the honour, virtue and purity of the family and by extension, the clan, tribe and nation [25]. Despite the prevalence of the above status quo in African cultures, Ubuntu ethicists continue to ignore the need for a thorough gender and feminist analysis of African cultural and social realities thataim of empowering and emancipating both African men and women. Kwame Gyekye succinctly argues that philosophy is not just a system of beliefs, it is a conceptual response to human situations [18]. Thus, the philosophy of a given society as espoused in ethical texts of its various thinkers is a reflection of the cultural praxis and the de-facto social situatedness of men and women across the gender divide.
Although philosophers are sometimes looked at as conscientious objectors with the capacity and skill to rise against the biases and irrational conjectures of their societies through reason, philosophers are most of the times products of their unjust, gender blind and sexist societies and thus their philosophical thoughts or systems aim at perpetuating and entrenching oppressive and unjust social structures. Ubuntu ethicists are a case in point. Therefore the sexism and sex-blindness in African ethical scholarship is largely an un conscientious reaction to the cultural and gendered existential conditions of persons in African societies and is indicative of patriarchy, and rocentrism and gender oppression in African cultures.
This paper situates the Dignified Humanness Paradigm as a better alternative to ubuntu ethics and African communalism because it recognizes men and women as dignified selves of equal moral worth whose dignity cannot be trampled upon for the sake of promoting the good of the community. The DHP advocates for the deconstruction of the hegemonic masculinity embedded in patriarchal African cultures that promote and protect patriarchal structural injustices against women. The DHP paradigm also advocates for development policies that equally promote the dignified selfhood of women and men to be and to do in accordance to their needs and interests.

The Dignified Humanness Paradigm as an Alternative to the GDP Growth Metric
Although the failure by African Scholars to harmonize African communalism with socialism in order to develop and articulate counter capitalistic paradigms such as African Socialism is eminent, African Scholars have virtually failed to shake off the dust and move on by developing and articulating counter post neo-liberal development paradigms. This implies that an African perspective hasn't yet been included in the international discourse even though alternative indicators such as the Grassroots Focus Index (GFI) and alternative concepts of wellbeing such as Ubuntu do exist within the African context. African voices criticizing and reflecting mainstream perceptions of development and analyzing its impact on African countries and societies from an internal perspective are rare to find and not heard at the global arena [26]. Even the 'Africa-rising narrative' is solely based on recently increasing economic growth figures on the continent [27].
Mortenopines that it was because of low or negative growth rates in the 1980s and the 1990s that the Economist magazine declared Africa a 'hopeless continent' in the year 2000, and it was again at the back of increasing rates of growth in the 2000s that the narrative of Africa has turned 180 degrees, and we are now talking of 'Africa Ascending' and 'Africa Rising' [28]. The UNCTAD's Economic Development in Africa Report (2012) also concludes that: "despite the progress that has been made by the region over the last decade, the current pattern of growth is neither inclusive nor sustainable [29]".
The one-dimensional monetized understanding of well-being leads to an understanding of poverty and development only on a financial basis by using GDP as a sole indicator of progress which is reflected in most of the international and national development strategies for African countries. Therefore, development policies tend to largely focus on increasing the economic progress and try to raise the national GDP figures at any cost. The long-term societal and environmental impact of this rapid 'quantitative' development remains largely unquestioned. Jolly argues that, the GDP growth matrix of neo-liberalism "is totally silent about the endsto which economic growth indicators lead. Itmay address the increase in income, but it does not consider what that income actually brings to people's lives and whether they enjoy better living conditions or not [30]".

From the TINA to the TATA Principle: The Dethroning of Neo-liberal GDP Tyranny in the West
Neo-liberalism has covertly been hegemonised as the only alternative for mankind as far as development is concerned using the so called TINA principle. According to this principle, there is No Alternative to neo-liberalism and its GDP-growth metric. However, the current global movement to dethrone the economic tyranny of neo-liberalism is evidence that people, governments and development institutions feel that They Are Thousands of Alternatives (TATA) to neo-liberalism [31]. Thus there is a need to extricate development from the neo-liberal TINA principle to the social justice liberalism TATA principle.
Several countries, such as the U.K., Belgium, Australia and Bhutan, have developed new indicators to Supplement GDP indicators. Beyond-GDP indicators are defined as indicators with a societal dimension, which cover economic, environmental and social aspects and are considered by their developers as possible functional complements to GDP [32]. Australia set up Beyond-GDP indicators as early as 2002, developed and supported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and its statistician in chief. The dashboard comprises 26 dimensions grouped around four headline themes: society, economy, environment and governance [32].
For the past two decades, the government of Bhutan has rejected GDP and has instead adopted a "gross national happiness" index, which serves as the main guiding parameter for the country's development policy. The Bhutan Gross National Happiness Index (GNHI) conceptualizes happiness as the highest form of development and is meant to guide policy-making towards the improvement of conditions of "not-yet-happy people [33]". The index is based upon a multidimensional methodology which uses 33 indicators categorized under nine domains (psychological well-being, time use, community vitality, cultural diversity, ecological resilience, living standard, health, education and good governance) to measure happiness [34].
Belgiumratified a law, in early 2014, that aimed at developing indicators to complement GDP. These indicators are currently being developed by the Belgian Federal Planning Agency. The United Kingdomhas also produced a comprehensive dashboard of Beyond-GDP indicators since 2011 under a national programme for measuring wellbeing which was supported by former Prime Minister David Cameron [32]. The dashboard of indicators in the UK contains more than thirty indicators, some are objective (i.e. income level) and other are subjective (i.e. percentage of anxious people in the population) [32].
The New Economic Foundation, a progressive think-tank based in London, has been calculating a number of alternative measurements to GDP over the years, including the Happy Planet Index, a metric combining the environmental impact of our economies with the human well-being of citizens in order "to measure the environmental efficiency with which, country by country, people live long and happy lives [35]". The WWF and the UN Environmental Programme have been promoting a Living Planet Index, while the Global Footprint Network has been advancing the use of their Ecological Footprint, "a resource accounting tool that measures how much nature we have, how much we use, and who uses what [35]".

Reconstructing 'African' Ethics' in Search of Dignified Humanness
There is a need to endogenise development and poverty policy planning in Africa by inculcating local or endogenous ethical perspectives from African scholars, development activists and development practitioners. Prof. Adebayo Adedeji, the former Secretary General of the African Economic Community (AEC) argues that "Africa continues to be in search of a development paradigm that would rid it of abject poverty, the bug of disease and the quagmire of ignorance …in pursuit of that goal, a series of theories and concepts of development have been advanced, and tried to no avail. Most of them have been grounded in Western political and development traditions that failed to take cognizance of Africa's cultural and historical background" [36]).
Bhengu opines that "although African countries are being advised to embrace the neo-liberal economic credo in order to escape from the trap of underdevelopment, the economic success of South Asia on one hand and the failure of economic development in Sub-Saharan African on the other are proving that neo-liberal self-interest and market rationality do not seem to be sufficient explanations of economic development. Africa is poised between an old world that no longer works and a new one struggling to be born [24]. Huntington argues that succinctly that "for an African civilization to have universal power, it would have to have a strong African-oriented economic philosophy, rooted in an African idiom [24]".
There is thus a need to deconstruct the African mind from the neo-colonial and imperialistic economism and development positivism of the World Bank and IMF that essentially looks at development and poverty eradication in terms of the nebulous GDP/GNP economic growth matrix. This matrix can never measure human wellbeing and human flourishing. There is thus a need to develop Pan-African poverty paradigms such as the DHP in order to be able to measure the wellbeing of African people in general and Ugandans in particular. This will negate the master slave mentality that have been created by IMF and World Bank imperialism. These neo-colonial imperialists have succeed in making us believe that there are no alternatives to neo-liberal market fundamentalism and the GDP economic growth matrix because they are scientific at most and mathematical and statistical at least. The old positivism adage states that science and numbers do not lie yet economic growth statistics have been used over and over again to tell lies about development and wellbeing in African countries.
According to Hegel, the asymmetrical master-slave relationship is perpetuated because the slaves accept that they are inferior to their masters. However, at one point, the slaves come to realise that they are the ones producing the wealth of their master. Therefore, the challenge of the status quo by the slaves constitutes a new synthesis or relationship [37]. Following the footsteps of Hegel and Marx, Frantz Fanon argues that the racialised relationship between whites and blacks (colonised and colonisers) persists because the blacks or colonised accept that they inferior to whites (their colonial masters). Thus, genuine decolonisation of the African people must start from the de-colonisation of their mind (negation of the white mind in a back skin) [38]. Therefore, there is an argent need to decolonise poverty policy planning frame works in Africa from growth oriented statistical colonialism. There is also a need to demythologise the false consciousness in the African mind that there is no alternative to neo-liberalism and the erroneous belief that, the imperialists through the World Bank, have discovered objective, positive scientific knowledge about development and poverty reduction.

From the Gendered Ubuntu Ethics to an Engendered Ethics of 'Obuntu Bulamu' (Dignified Humanness)
Ubuntu ethics is not an efficacious ethics that can inform engendered poverty eradication because it is sexist, androcentric and situated on hegemonic masculinity (male dominance). This ethic perceives reality from a male point of view and is based on self and otherness dichotomy. In Ubuntu ethics, the males are the autonomous 'selves' and females are less autonomous 'others'. In addition this ethics justifies a patriarchal status quo where male views are the norm and female perspectives are deviations from the norm. It is therefore illogical to use the Ubuntu ethics as an epitome of poverty eradication in Africa because this ethics glorifies patriarchal structures of injustice that are largely responsible for the feminization of poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. There is thus a need to replace the Ubuntu ethic with the ethic of Obuntu Bulamu or dignified humanness that is founded on an androgynous gender ethic. This ethic treats both male and female human persons as equal bantu (persons) with equal dignity, selves, personness and human rights.
Unlike the Ubuntu ethic that is based on the androcentric Mbitian notion that postulates that, "Iam because We are and since we are therefore Iam [39]" and the Tutuian equivalent that states that "a person is a person through other persons [21]" the ethic of Obuntu Bulamu ordignified humanness is based on an androgynous notion that postulates that, Iam, an IAM (a self) living with other IAMs (WE or selves). Since the other IAMs (selves or WE) are simply the other side of the dutied and social me, therefore, Iam not an Iam (a self) because We are. In other words the 'ISNESS' of the individuality (IAMNESS or SELFNESS) of the male and female human person is not dependent on the ISNESS of the WE (IAMs or SELVES). In fact the We is simply a metaphysical conglomeration of different IAMs. Thus, although the actuality of the IAM is limited by the existence of the WE, the IAM has independent existence from the WE (IAMs). The WE (Iams) is simply the side of the IAM coin. In other words, the We is simply the IAM in full dignified expression. The anti-social or anti-duty IAM is not a negationor absent IAM but rather an IAM without full dignified expression. Thus an IAM without the WE is simply unthinkable just as the one-sided coin is simply unthinkable.
The ethics of Obuntu Bulamu or dignified humanness therefore deconstructs patriarchal structures of oppression that situate both men and women on asymmetrical power relations in relation to access and control or resources that are a pre-requisite for poverty eradication. This ethic also negates the neo-liberal ethic that not only veils structures of injustice that produce and reproduce poverty but also thingfies human persons in the development process by allowing markets and economic growth to take precedence over human persons. The ethics of dignified humanness therefore understands poverty as a structural issue and hence aims at confronting patriarchal structures of injustice that lead to the feminization of poverty. Thus, Africa's poverty policy planning frameworks should be based on the ethics of dignified humanness instead of ethics based on hegemonic masculinity or male dominance.

The Androgynous Gender Ethics (The Ethic of Obuntu Bulamu or Dignified Humanness)
Feminism and masculism lack a coherent gender ethic that can be relied upon to make credible development or poverty policy decisions and that is why the Dignified Humanness Paradigm (DHP) advocates for an androgynous gender ethics as a viable alternative development framework to promote gender equality, and equity as well social justice for both men and women. Androgynous gender ethics is situated on the apriorinotion that both men and women are free moral agents who are equal in dignity and rights. Thus aposteriori gender roles are mere accidents that have been created by a patriarchal superstructure. This implies that they can be deconstructed in order to promote equality, equity and justice for men and women.
Androgynous gender ethics refutes the sexist feminist ethics notions of masculine ways of moral reasoning and feminine ways of moral reasoning and argues that both men and women have the capacity to make rational moral judgments. This ethics rejects patriarchy and matriarchy in favour of an androgynarcy and therefore an androgynous social justice system where asymmetrical power relations between men and women are negated and where the dichotomous private sphere (women sphere (sphere of domesticity and reproductivity)) and public sphere (men sphere (sphere of productivity)) are deconstructed in favour of equitable role performances. Thus, unlike traditional western ethics that ignored the issues in the stereotypically feminine private sphere of the household and unpaid labour, androgynous gender ethics challenges the oppression of women in the household and advocates for the deconstruction of the stereotypically masculine public sphere of politics, economic and paid employment.
In addition, an androgynous gender ethicsadvocates for equal access to and control over resources by both men and women in addition to strategic interests aimed at empowering both men and women to be to do in accordance to their needs and interests. This paper therefore argues that an androgynous gender ethic should motivate poverty planning in the African context.

The Dignified Humanness Foot Print (DHFP)
The DHFP is premised on the contention that there is a need to come out with new indices to measure human flourishing in Africa in order to challenge the nebulous and colonial GDP growth index. As already argued, this index is simplistic because it does not address structural injustices in society. The DHFP comprises of eight indices that ought to be considered when measuring human development or human wellbeing in Africa. These indices are; Economic development index, Ethics, Integrity and Governance index, Equality measure index, Equity measure index, Human Rights and Social Justice index, Human Development sustainabilities index, Material Capabilities and quality of life index and Endogenous Measurement of wellbeing index. The DHFP also consists of over 50 indicators as explicated in table 1 below.

Conclusion
Apparently, there is great skepticism about neo-liberalism in the western world as an ideology that can guarantee human wellbeing and ethical development. This has culminated into not only an ardent criticism of the neo-liberal GDP growth metric but also the development of alternative metrics to measure development. Bhutan a country from the Asian continent has completely rejected the positivistic economic growth oriented GDP index in favour of the Gross Happiness Index (GHI). Also, elsewhere in the South America, countries like Bolivia and Equador have adopted the bio-centric buenvivir paradigm as an alternative to the western neo-liberal developmentalism perspective. Africa cannot therefore afford to remain aloof to all these developments. That is why this paper has advocated for the Dignified Humanness Paradigm (DHP) as an alternative to western, tyrannical and ethically flawed neo-liberal paradigm. The DHP is better than Human Development Index (HDI) and buenvivir because it addresses the patriarchal structural injustices that feminize poverty. The DHP is a replacement of African Socialism and obuntu ethics which veilfy patriarchal structures of injustice because of their sexist and androcentric nature.