While Africa was in the throes of the decolonisation process, many of its leaders considered classical federalism an effective way of reconciling unity and diversity.1 Along with their counterparts in Europe, they reasoned that federalism would compensate for the nation-state's inability to meet modern political, economic, and strategic demands without at the same time threatening the special interests of the constituent parts. Federalism would avoid the extreme of overcentralisation seemingly implicit in unitary government as well as the risks of disintegration which continually threaten multilateral economic and military communities. Such a system had worked for political craftsmen in earlier times; now it was to be extended to the needs of Africa.

SEVERAL years ago, Wilfred Whiteley, the linguist and Africanist, argued that ‘to some extent the nature of political action… may be related to people's conception of what constitutes politics’.1 Formulated in this way, Whiteley's argument seems to assume that all people have some conception of what constitutes politics—the only difference being what kind of conception. But can this be taken for granted? In 1952— to take an example almost at random—Nnamdi Azikiwe, the Nigerian leader, referred in a speech at Port Harcourt to ‘the growth of political consciousness’ in Nigeria. What did he mean? Had the Africans of Nigeria known no political activity until then? If they had, had they not been ‘conscious’ that the activity was ‘political’? Or was it a case of having no special name for this kind of activity as something distinct? If none of these hypotheses apply, what then was meant by this kind of reference to ‘political consciousness’ as if it was something new among Africans?2

As Swaziland approaches independence and stands poised to enter the complex political arena of southern Africa, its internal political configurations are changing rapidly and profoundly. The previously irresistible coalition between the traditionally based Swazi Imbokodvo National Movement and the predominantly South African-oriented, conservative, white, United Swaziland Association has broken down, and the Imbokodvo has emerged as the overwhelming dominant force on the Swazi political scene. The coalition, which arose in 1964 to prevent the more radical Swazi political parties from gaining control of the legislative council in the June 1964 elections, arose out of a peculiar set of circumstances which developed in Swaziland after World War II.

To understand the factors behind the formation of the Zikist Movement it is necessary to examine the political situation in Nigeria after World War II, which had stimulated national awakening to an unprecedented degree. Ideas of self-determination had taken root and various militant organisations had emerged—the trade unions, the ex-servicemen's unions, the Association of Market Women—each with its own grievances against the British colonial administration. These bodies, if properly organised and disciplined, could have become a powerful force in the struggle for freedom.

Since the end of World War II there has been a marked change in at least the emphasis in economic writing. The history of economic theory seems to be studded with controversy; successive writers overthrow their predecessors, and the problem is not made easier by the tendency of the various schools each to claim to have discovered universal truths. In perspective, it is more sensible to see how each major writer or school has attempted to grapple with the problems of the day. What was said was generally illuminating but the principles drawn up were not necessarilly relevant, and were sometimes downright misleading, in relation to another period or another group of countries.1 Nevertheless, each writer how much Karl Marx owed to Adam Smith and Ricardo. At a very different time, J. M. Keynes deliberatelly attempted to demonstrate how misleading ffro the problems of the 'thirties in the developed western world was the system evolved in the preceding century. Although he was clearly right, it is not difficult to discern the extent to which he was a pupil of Alfred Marshall.

In nearly all the major historical fields one can see the increasing use historians are making of methods, models, and insights from the social sciences. E. H. Carr's exhortation, that the more history becomes sociology and the more sociology becomes history the better for both, is being taken seriously. Yet there is much more that can be done to bring these fields together. Most historians have used sociological theory only to gain insight, not with great rigour. They have learned their sociology by osmosis, so to speak. They have not gone through the social science literature, but rather have soaked it up second-hand from other interpreters. Consequently their works have not had the precision they might. Concepts have been distorted because of a lack of familiarity with them. African historians, on the whole, have been reluctant to use this rich and suggestive literature. This is probably true because the greatest efforts have been made in finding new sources in this difficult field—oral tradition, linguistic evidence, and so forth. But one is hard pressed to find works by African historians which have employed the theoretical literature of the social sciences.

African studies in the Soviet Union have deep roots in the past. The nature of Africa, the African peoples' way of life, their culture, arts, and crafts have long been of special interest to scholars in the Soviet Union. We have never had any mercenary motives, for our country never had colonies in Africa and never aimed at seizing African lands. No Russian soldier has ever been to Africa. Moreover, many Russian progressive intellectuals strongly protested against any form of exploitation and slavery. More than once they spoke in support of Africans and attacked the slave trade and the policy of turning the vast regions of Africa into what Karl Marx called ‘field reserves’ for the hunting of Africans.

The Nigerian Institute of International Affairs is an independent, nonpolitical and non-profit-making organisation which promotes the study of international questions and the understanding of peoples of the world through research, lectures, seminars, and information exchange with institutions of learning in Nigeria, Africa, and the world.

It is supposed that most readers of The Journal of Modern African Studies know something of A.M.S.A.C., its origins, and the programmatic implementation of its purposes; if not, then certainly of its existence. Accordingly, only a summary recapitulation of the Society's history of origin will be made here.

This was the third international seminar held by the Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, and was attended by 50 representatives of different organisations active in refugee work and in African political movements. The seminar, supported by the Swedish International Development Authority, was one of the first to be held on this topical subject. Lars-Gunnar Eriksson, Director of the International University Exchange Fund, acted as secretary.

The second biennial plenary conference of the African Studies Association of the United Kingdom benefited greatly from the admirable arrangements made by the Centre of African Studies, University of Edinburgh. The conference was attended by upwards of 100 members and observers. Countries represented, in addition to the United Kingdom, included Canada, Denmark, Ghana, Jamaica, Kenya, Nigeria, Swaziland, Uganda, and the United States.

This conference was sponsored by the University College Nairobi, with the generous assistance of the Dulverton Trust and the Ford Foundation. The 82 participants included academic staff from the University Colleges of Nairobi, Makerere, and Dar es Salaam, and their associated research institutes, ministers and senior civil servants from the three East African governments, representatives of F.A.O., I.L.O., and a number of national and international aid agencies, and officials concerned with rural development programmes in East Africa, Nigeria, France, Denmark, and West Germany.

The judgment of the International Court of Justice of 18 July 1966 in the South-West Africa case throws revealing light on the role of that Court in the international community. A proper analysis of this case may also help to dispel some of the mystification about international law and the attitude of the new nations to it.