The pursuit of decolonisation remains ‘deeply’ contested

Decolonisation of higher education in Africa has become a trending issue in academic discourse, policy-making and student activism. The movement seeks to undo the epistemic, cultural and institutional legacies of colonialism and apartheid by reconfiguring curricula, pedagogical practices and governance structures to reflect African world views, histories and knowledge systems.

However, despite its noble aspirations, the pursuit of decolonisation has evolved into a deeply contested and problematic endeavour, fraught with conceptual ambiguities, ideological contradictions and practical challenges.

The discourse often oscillates between radical calls for systemic change and more reformist efforts that focus on inclusion within existing structures, raising questions about the feasibility and effectiveness of decolonisation as a transformative agenda.

This commentary critically examines the problematic nature of decolonisation in African higher education systems.

What hinders the agenda?

While the decolonisation agenda aims to achieve epistemic justice and institutional transformation, it is frequently hindered by inconsistencies in definition, an over-reliance on political rhetoric, and an impractical bifurcation of knowledge into ‘African’ and ‘Western’ categories.

Moreover, the movement sometimes overlooks the broader socio-economic constraints that shape institutional transformation, such as funding limitations, global academic competition and the persistence of structural inequalities.

This article argues that, unless decolonisation undergoes conceptual reform and pragmatic recalibration, it risks becoming an exclusionary and ineffective exercise, ultimately failing to address the deeper systemic issues embedded within higher education.

Conceptual ambiguity

One of the most significant challenges facing decolonisation is its conceptual ambiguity. The notion of decolonisation, while compelling and necessary, is fraught with conceptual contradictions, ideological rigidity and practical difficulties.

Although the movement seeks to redress the ongoing colonial legacies embedded in institutions, knowledge systems and power structures, its multiple interpretations and applications make it a deeply contested and often ambiguous discourse.

The lack of a unified framework has led to tensions between different strands of decolonisation, ranging from political and economic liberation to epistemic and cultural reconfiguration.

Scholars such as Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Frantz Fanon, Edward Said, Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Walter Mignolo and Achille Mbembe have contributed significantly to these discussions, yet their perspectives reveal the inherent complexities and challenges of the decolonial project.

Boaventura de Sousa Santos

One of the most significant conceptual challenges of decolonisation lies in the question of knowledge production and legitimacy. Boaventura de Sousa Santos, in his concept of epistemologies of the South, critiques the dominance of Western-centric knowledge, arguing that it excludes and marginalises other ways of knowing.

He calls for the recognition of non-Western epistemologies, including indigenous, Afrocentric and other subaltern perspectives, as legitimate and valuable sources of knowledge.

However, while Santos’ approach seeks to expand the scope of knowledge production, it inadvertently reinforces the very binary that decolonisation aims to dismantle – an opposition between ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’ epistemologies.

This binary framing risks essentialising knowledge systems, portraying Western thought as monolithic and inherently oppressive while positioning non-Western knowledge as uniformly emancipatory, thereby neglecting the internal complexities, diversities and contradictions within both traditions.

Frantz Fanon

Similarly, Frantz Fanon, in The Wretched of the Earth, critiques the psychological and cultural impact of colonialism, arguing that true decolonisation requires a complete rupture from colonial structures and mindsets.

Fanon’s call for a radical, sometimes violent, rejection of colonial influence has inspired many decolonial movements, particularly in Africa and the Global South.

However, the practical implementation of such radical decolonisation remains problematic in an era of globalisation and transnational knowledge exchange.

A complete severance from colonial epistemologies is neither feasible nor necessarily beneficial, as it risks undermining the very intellectual and institutional foundations needed for critical engagement and progress.

Fanon’s revolutionary model of decolonisation, while powerful, does not fully address how formerly colonised societies can navigate the complexities of integrating local knowledge systems with global intellectual and technological advancements.

Edward Said

Edward Said’s theory of Orientalism further highlights how colonial representations of the ‘Other’ continue to shape knowledge production.

Said argues that colonial powers constructed distorted and essentialised images of the East, reinforcing Eurocentric superiority while simultaneously marginalising non-Western perspectives.

This critique extends to academia, where Western institutions have historically dominated the production and validation of knowledge.

However, while Said’s critique is crucial in exposing colonial epistemic violence, it raises the challenge of how decolonisation can move beyond mere critique to offer a constructive alternative.

If all knowledge that has been shaped by colonial influence is viewed with suspicion, how can postcolonial societies create new, inclusive epistemic frameworks without falling into the trap of reverse essentialism?

Ngugi wa Thiong’o

The tension between linguistic and epistemic decolonisation further illustrates the inconsistencies within the movement. Scholars such as Ngugi wa Thiong’o advocate for linguistic decolonisation, arguing that colonial languages serve as a tool of epistemic domination and alienation.

In Decolonising the Mind, Ngugi wa Thiong’o asserts that the continued use of colonial languages, such as English and French, perpetuates colonial cultural hegemony and inhibits the development of indigenous thought.

He calls for a return to indigenous languages as a means of reclaiming African identity and autonomy. However, linguistic decolonisation faces significant practical challenges.

Many African countries are linguistically diverse, with multiple indigenous languages spoken within the same national borders.

Implementing a purely indigenous linguistic framework in education and governance could create new hierarchies and exclusions, potentially marginalising certain linguistic groups.

Moreover, in a globalised world where English and other colonial languages serve as key mediums for scientific, technological and economic exchange, a strict rejection of these languages could isolate African scholars and institutions from international academic and professional networks.

Mignolo and Mbembe

Meanwhile, thinkers like Walter Mignolo and Achille Mbembe emphasise epistemic decolonisation, which seeks to dismantle the Eurocentric dominance over knowledge systems, university curricula and academic traditions.

Mignolo’s concept of the decolonial option argues that coloniality, the enduring legacy of colonial power structures, persists even after political independence, and continues to shape knowledge, culture and institutions.

He advocates for border thinking, a mode of knowledge production that challenges Eurocentric universality and integrates multiple epistemic perspectives.

Similarly, Mbembe critiques the colonial foundations of African universities and calls for a rethinking of academic institutions to reflect local epistemologies and histories.

However, epistemic decolonisation, unlike political decolonisation, remains an abstract and ongoing struggle.

Burdened by contradictions

While political decolonisation had clear and tangible goals, such as national independence and governance restructuring, epistemic decolonisation lacks a singular, coherent strategy for institutional transformation. Without precise articulation and structured implementation, epistemic decolonisation risks becoming an inconsistent and, at times, ideologically driven movement that lacks pragmatic solutions for higher education reform.

Furthermore, the decolonial movement is often burdened by contradictions in its relationship with modernity and globalisation.

Many decolonial scholars critique Western modernity as a project of colonial domination yet, at the same time, the movement relies on Western academic frameworks, institutions and publishing platforms to articulate its critiques.

For instance, the very concept of decolonisation as an academic discourse is largely shaped by Western critical theory, poststructuralist thought and Marxist analysis.

Risking reducing decolonisation to a checklist

This paradox raises important questions: Can decolonisation truly be achieved while operating within the structures it seeks to dismantle?

How can decolonial scholars navigate the tension between rejecting Western hegemony and engaging with global intellectual discourses? These contradictions highlight the challenges of defining and implementing decolonisation in a way that is both intellectually rigorous and practically viable.

Despite its radical and transformative potential, decolonisation has, in many cases, become a politically charged and performative exercise rather than a substantive transformation of higher education.

Many universities and institutions have embraced the rhetoric of decolonisation, issuing statements of commitment, renaming buildings and revising reading lists to include non-Western scholars.

While these gestures signal progress, they often fail to challenge the deeper structural inequalities that colonial legacies have left behind.

The focus on symbolic actions, such as removing statues or diversifying syllabi, risks reducing decolonisation to a superficial checklist rather than addressing the entrenched power imbalances that shape academia.

Meaningful change or a branding exercise?

One significant issue with this performativity is that it prioritises visibility over meaningful change. Institutions that claim to be decolonising their curricula may still adhere to assessment methods, research frameworks and funding structures that reinforce Eurocentrism.

A syllabus that includes a few African or indigenous thinkers does not necessarily mean that these perspectives are being engaged with on equal terms.

More critically, the very structure of academic knowledge production, including what is considered valid scholarship, who gets cited and how research is evaluated, often remains untouched.

Without a fundamental shift in these structures, decolonisation risks becoming a branding exercise that satisfies institutional and political pressures without redistributing intellectual power in any meaningful way.

Thus, decolonisation must be critically re-examined and pragmatically reconfigured if it is to serve as a true catalyst for academic transformation and social justice in Africa.

While decolonisation remains a vital and necessary discourse, its problematic nature stems from the conceptual ambiguities, ideological tensions and practical constraints discussed in this article.

The movement must grapple with the challenges of epistemic binaries, the complexities of linguistic decolonisation, the paradoxes of globalisation, and the need for a coherent strategy for institutional transformation.

Without addressing these issues, decolonisation risks becoming an exclusionary or even performative exercise, rather than a truly transformative process.

A more nuanced and pragmatic approach, one that acknowledges historical injustices while engaging critically with the realities of the modern world, will be essential in ensuring that decolonisation serves as a meaningful and effective force for academic and social change.

Professor Emnet Tadesse Woldegiorgis is the director of the Ali Mazrui Centre for Higher Education Studies at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.