Mali was not a national state in the modern sense, but rather a functional entity created to serve the French colonial structure. After formal independence, the basic economic structure did not change, as resources continued to be exploited in the same way.
Enslavement of livestock and herders: France imposed forms of in-kind taxes on the Tuareg, such as the “livestock tax”, which led to the destruction of the traditional economic system based on free movement and exchange.
The Malian state as an extension of this model: After independence, Mali did not build a productive economy that served all its components, but rather continued to drain the resources of Azawad for the benefit of the ruling class in Bamako, making it a “local colonizer”.
Supporting philosophical theory:
Frantz Fanon, in his book “The Wretched of the Earth”, speaks of the “national bourgeoisie” that continues to play the role of mediator between the colonial powers and the oppressed peoples, instead of building an independent economic model.
2. Philosophy of Cultural Hegemony: “Linguistic and Cognitive Colonialism”
How were language and religion used as tools of control?
Exclusion of the Tamacheki: Mali imposed French as an official language and Arabic as a religious language, ignoring the Tamacheki language that constituted the identity of the Tuareg. This constituted a kind of cultural colonialism that made the Tuareg feel alienated within the state imposed on them.
Religion as a tool of taming: Mali adopted Islam as a political tool without recognizing the religious specificity of the Tuareg, who had a religious and social system different from the official Malian conception of Islam.
Supporting Philosophical Theory:
Michel Foucault, in his theory of discourse and power, explains how the state uses language and religious institutions as tools to control the collective consciousness of oppressed peoples.
3. The Philosophy of the Failed State: “When the State Fails to Realize Itself”
Mali as a Model of a Failed State.
Mali did not build a national project that includes all its components, but rather relied on policies of exclusion and repression, which led to the collapse of its legitimacy in large areas such as Azawad.
The state, according to Max Weber, is based on the monopoly of legitimate violence. But in Mali, this monopoly turned into ethnic repression against the Tuareg, which lost the state its moral legitimacy.
Supporting Philosophical Theory:
Thomas Hobbes believes that the state arises when there is a social contract between the ruler and the ruled. In the case of Mali, this contract was never signed with Azawad, which means that the Tuareg do not owe allegiance to a state that did not recognize their existence in the first place.
Conclusion: Mali did not offer anything to Azawad, because it was not a state for Azawad in the first place!
If we look deeply, we find that Mali did not offer anything to Azawad, because it was not interested in its development or integration. The state was little more than a “colonial agent,” created to safeguard French interests while enabling a ruling elite in Bamako to exploit resources.
The real question, then, is not: “What has Mali done for Azawad?” but: “Why is Mali still in Azawad at all?”
WHY IS MALI IN AZAWAD AT ALL?
AZAWAD FREEDOM VOICE 01-03-25
EN_GB 
FR 
AR