Talk:MPLA

Ideology
Is Marxism-Leninism really still the official ideology of the MPLA or is it the previous ideology? Over the last twenty years almost they most certainly have not been leading Angola on a Marxist path. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.105.238 (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I see some evidence (primary source) of the relationship between the 1974 revolution and the Soviet Union? I'm not doubting its existence, I would just like to see the extent. RabidSnail 20:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There was a BBC documentary that said the opposite on the 14th of December you can download as podcast that said that the ideology switched in the 1990s. 114.77.173.128 (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The ideological positions of the MPLA have greatly varied over time: (1) The MPLA started off in the 1950s/1960s with a nationalist ideology where some of its members introduced marxist ideas. No ideological clarification took place during that period, but there was some support from the Soviet Union, China, and other "socialist" countries. (2) In the decolonization conflict 1974/75, this support, especially that from Cuba, gueranteed the survival, and in the end the victory, of the MPLA. As a consequence, its discourse became increasingly "leftist". When the civil war broke out in 1975, it became evident that this constellation was to last for some time. (3) At its first congress, in 1977, the MPLA declared itself "marxist-leninist". However, its leadership under Agostinho Neto made it clear that the goal was to attain "socialism" as defined by that ideology, not "communism". The communist tendency within the MPLA, led by Nito Alves, attempted a revolt that same year, but was eliminated (many of them physically) by harsh repression. (4) During the one-party regime that lasted until 1991/92 and was sometimes dubbed "Afro-Stalinist", the discourse was marxist, and the practice authoritarian-centralist, but the "socialist" model was implemented in a halfhearted way, and only in part. (5) When the evident failure of this experience, combined with external pressure, forced the MPLA to radically change its orientation, marxism-leninism was given up at the 1991 party congress, and multiparty democracy was introduced in Angola. The MPLA continued in the driver's seat, but did not redefine itself in ideological terms. Its becoming a member of the Socialist International was a symbolic gesture meant to express its having abandoned marxism-leninism, but did not imply an option for any non-marxist (socialist, social democratic or other) model. (6) Over the last two decades, the practice developed by the MPLA has become "petro-diamond capitalism" (see Tony Hodges) - a crude form of "neo-liberalism". There is the occasional manifestation of "social concern" (more in discourse than in practice), but overall the line is more centre-right than centre-left. The MPLA finds it useful to be considered as "social democratic", but this term does not reflect its effective position. Aflis (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, well well: it is really amazing that there is still one user or another who clings to the ahistorical cliché of a "socialist" MPLA, rejecting the factual situation by alleging lack of sources or then lack of neutrality. I cannot imagine that these people know Angola; if they did, the statement that the MPLA is by now anything but socialist would be selfevident for them as well. Anyway, if this continues, I shall feel obliged to add a whole section & sources on the subject. Aflis (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, a section is needed. Charles Essie (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * move back page, MPLA-PT is the current name of the party
 * ''Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~


 * Support Soman 06:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this seems a more common (and convention-meeting) name. violet/riga (t) 21:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 21:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mpla.jpg
Image:Mpla.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Move to MPLA?
Move Parsecboy (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

MPLA is the common usage for the party, shouldn't we move it to that name? We do for UNITA. Thoughts?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the idea too rename the page. We also did it for SWAPO. All these parties are know by their acronym, not the full name. Slapsnot (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Terrorists"
Hallo Dudeman: I reverted your last edit because neither the MPLA nor the UNITA could ever be classified as terrorists - a term which is often used in an unduly overstretched way, generally for reasons of political convenience. When MPLA, FNLA and UNITA fought for the liberation of Angola from colonial occupation, the Portuguese did of course call them terrorists. And when, after independence, UNITA fought the ruling MPLA, the latter called them terrorists, while UNITA posed as anti-communist freedom fighters. If you label any use of armed force against established regimes as terrorists, we will end up including those who made the French or the American revolution, and hundreds of others... Aflis (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the link altogether. I am not sure of the link's value to the page versus the high potential for POV.--TM 16:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I do believe that the START database provides a useful summary of information on attacks which the runners of the site deem as "terrorist" -- some of which are reasonable,I think, because they involve attacks on private citizens. This issue of "terrorism" in Angola should at least be addressed, and I believe a link to a RS - for all the factions involved -- would be appropriate, particularly for UNITA, which I should have added as well.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I insist: before using this kind of source, one has first to define what the (non-involved) analyst should understand by "terrorist", and what not. After that, a critical use may perhaps yield some gains. Rather not in the context of an article on one of the movements, but on the independence war, the decolonization conflict, and the civil war. -- Aflis (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ideology
The ideology box says, "Ideology officially Social democracy, in fact strongly neoliberal (originally Left-wing nationalism, 1977-1991 Marxist-Leninist)" Neo-liberal is a set of policies not an ideology and left-wing nationalism is not a recogized ideology. Consistent with other parties that consider themselves soclailist and are part of the Socialist International, the best description is "socialist". TFD (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The (admittedly complicated) question of the ideological positions over time assumed by the MPLA, officially and/or in practice, was abundantly discussed on this page: you will see above the reasons why in the box differentiated information is necessary. Let me repeat and/or add: (a) Behind the neo-liberal set of policies there is evidently an ideological position. For a good illustration, see the present electoral campaign in the USA. (b) There is no such thing as "recognized ideology". Any set of ideological positions constitutes a (more or less elaborated) ideology, whether somebody "recognizes" it ot not. (c) In the 1960s, the MPLA started by being broadly nationalist and absorbed then some marxist input. This situation is well described by "left-wing nationalism". See John Marcum's The Angolan Revolution, vol. I, if you can get hold of it. (d) In Socialist International includes a wide range of ideological positions; diverse socialisms, labour, Scandinavian social democracies etc.etc. The MPLA was admitted when it had solemnly rejected Marxism-Leninism, and wanted to make it clear that it had radically changed its ideological position. It hase since then carefully avoided calling itself (or being labeled) "socialist", occasionally pretending to be "social democrat" (or tolerating that label). At the grassroots one can still come across residual tendencies linked to the socialist past, but at the top (neo)liberal position clearly prevail: for a clear illustration, see now the appointment of Manuel Vicente as minister for economic coordination. To put it bluntly: the MPLA leadership would shriek with laughter if someone called them "socialist". -- Aflis (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not have a copy of Marcum's book, but he does not appear to use the term "left-wing nationalism". Nor am I suggesting that they be described as "Marxist-Leninist".  Most socialist parties have adopted neoliberal policies in government (see for example Rogernomics) and they are no different from other parties in the Socialist International.  See the Historical Dictionary of Socialism:  "Many of the former communist, but now social-democratic, parties were allowed to join [including the MPLA]" (p. 15)  "...many former ruling communist parties reorganized themselves as democratic socialist or social-democratic ones [including the MPLA" (p. 276)  TFD (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (a) Marcum: I did not sugest that he used the term, but that his description of the MPLA allows us to define them as leftist nationalists (quite like, by the way, Jonas Savimbi in the early 1960s). There are, of course, other sources on this point as well.(b)What you are quoting is exactly what I said: the MPLA give its Marxist-Leninist façade up, and by entering the Socialist International, told the world it had become democratic, with some sort of social twist to it. In fact, it became "ideologically empty". It has nothing even remotely like a socialist programme; in its discourse and practice you will find social democrat elements alongside with neo-liberal ones. NB: Don't forget the MPLA as such is not ruling the country; it is just an instrument in the hands of the networks clustering around President José Eduardo dos Santos which are set on maintaining & increasing their political and economic power (& benefits). This may sound as cheap polemic, but is unfortunately the outcome of quite some serious scholarly studies. Aflis (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Left-wing nationalism therefore is synthesis and has no place in the article. The sources however say they are a socialist party, and are recognized as such by the SI.  Do you have a source that says they are substantially different from other SI parties and should not be considered socialist?  TFD (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think WP:SYN applies, but ok, I shall reduce it to "nationalism" in the box. - Membership in the Socialist International means the party is considered "socialist or social democrat". The European social democrats would never become members if only socialist parties were admitted. And the question can never be "difference of the MPLA from other SI parties", but: to what tendency inside the SI does the MPLA belong". - Sources which label the MPLA as "socialist": as they are not based on the ideological discourse (& practice) of the MPLA itself, what are they worth? Most of them are just copies of copies, and are mislead (like you yourself, I'm sorry to say) by an erroneous interpretation of the SI membership. - Just to make my own background clear: I am a political scientist, and have studied Angola for several decades. -- Aflis (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As a political scientist then you would be aware of Klaus von Beyme's classification of political families. Here is a link to a description.  Could you explain where they would fit in this framework.  TFD (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Instead of the table, I prefer the more differentiated text in von Beyme's Politische Theorien im Zeitalter der Ideologien (2002). As to the MPLA, I had hoped to make it clear it does not fit in any one of the families in the table. First of all, the party is in the hands of a network of power-holders who in the last instance don't believe in anything but their "self-reproduction". Whatever ideological discourse & practice they allow the MPLA to have depends on what they consider as functional in their self-interest (electoral results, international negotiations etc. etc.). They made the MPLA adopt the label "Partido do Trabalho" (labour party) in order to suggest they were now (1991) democrats, had given up any socialist ideas, but were still in some ways concerned with "the people" - and that this placed them in the social democratic wing of the SI. However, in actual fact their positions are a far cry from "social market economy" to which they make concessions only under heavy pressure, e.g. in 2006/2008, in the wake of the 2008 parliamentary elections. The neo-liberal tendencies which have increasingly surfaced correspond to the ideological convictions of some, for others are measures imposed by the IMF which serve (but possibly harm on the long run) their self-interests. Thus: the MPLA doesn't really have any consistent ideology, and doesn't belong to any famille spirituelle; it is made to pose ideologically in this or that way, according to the convenience os os que mandam ("those who are in command"), as the saying goes in Angola. The classification schemata formulated in the Northern Hemisphere simply don't apply - as they don't in the "emerging democracies" of the Arab world. Aflis (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not seen an studies that attempt to classify African parties. Do you have any sources that say it would be classified as "other" and that it has no ideology?  If so, the current description may not be valid.  I don't think "neo-liberal" is a valid classification.  Parties across the spectrum pursue neol-liberal policies, particularly when they are in power.  TFD (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Politics in Africa is my main subject. To the best of my knowledge, until now there has not been an attempt at classifying African parties (beyond such inocuous dichotomies as progressive vs. conservative). The reason is most certainly that Africa is still in the middle of complex transformation processes, and that many things are still in too fluid a state for us to pin labels on them. Aflis (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It it not our task to examine the ideology of parties ourselves. That would be original research. We strictly have to stick to what we can find in the sources. Moreover, the infobox can never provide a conclusive and complex description of the ideology. It can only offer rough categories. "Social democracy and neo-liberal tendencies" is not a usual category for the infobox. German Social Democrats, British New Labour etc. etc. have had neo-liberal tendencies, especially when in power. Still we only put "Social democracy" in the infobox. Even if this does not satisfyingly describe their "real" or de facto policies. We should describe their policies in detail in the main text. The infobox cannot accomplish a complete description of a party's policies. --RJFF (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

When we write about any object, we are of course under the obligation to examine it closely from all sides, on the basis of the sources we can come by, in order to give an adequate description. In the case of the ideology of the MPLA, we have secondary sources (which unfortunately all too often are cruelly unreliable), and we have primary sources (texts where the MPLA leadership define ideological positions). In the academia, this is usually called "desk research" (as opposed to "field research"). - As to what belongs in the infobox, the criteria cannot be what happens to be usual and what not. The keywords have to be adequate, and as concise as possible. I think the formula I choose corresponds well to both criteria. NB: I agree that European social democratic parties have on occasion adopted neo-liberal policies, but if you know Angola, you will have to conclude that there is a qualitative (and not just gradual) difference between what we see there and the European examples. And don't forget the instrumental character of the MPLA! -- Aflis (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But where are the sources you propose to support your "formula"? At the moment, it merely looks like it were your own research. You seem to be very well-informed and I am really willing to trust your evaluation. But you know that WP:original research is not acceptable. By the way, I think it would be more helpful if you could write a short paragraph about the policies of MPLA during the last years, instead of debating about the infobox label. At present, this article does not inform about what the MPLA stands for, at all. And sketchy labels like "neo-liberal tendencies" are not really helpful. The article should inform about the policies of MPLA in government, e.g. reform projects or the like, a bit more in detail. It would be great if you could do this, because you really seem to have a lot of knowledge about this topic. --RJFF (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To make the situation clearer: originally, this article was not written by myself. When I discovered it, it was, like practically all Angola related articles, flawed and unsatisfactory. In between other commitments, I have on and off been improving some of these articles, and am determined to keep on doing so. I accept your suggestion to add to the text a paragraph or two on the policies followed, indicating sources, and laying the basis for the shorthand statements in the infobox. But please be prepared for this not to happen very speedily. -- "Original research" is one of the expressions that are often improperly used in WP. When you sit down to write or improve a given article in WP, consulting the primary and/or secondary sources available to you, this is "desk research", whatever you call it. Aflis (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S.: If you say that "things are still in too fluid a state for us to pin labels on them", shouldn't we leave the ideology field of the infobox empty? --RJFF (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As you can see from the context, the sentence above applied to Africa in general, and not only to political parties. In the case of the MPLA, there has been a evolution of the ideological positions which one can easily pin down by the keywords I have used in the infobox. This said, I once again agree this should be explained to some more detail in the text. -- Aflis (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would agree with RJFF. If we do not have sources that categorize the party, then we should leave the field blank.  TFD (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no lack of sources for the three periods (nationalism - marxism - social democracy/liberalism). The only question is which ones are reliable. Anyway, as soon as I find time, I shall write a paragraph (& sources) on this in the text of the article. As I want to make the piece waterproof (and am up against a number of commitments in "real life"), this is not for tomorrow. -- Aflis (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, maybe I am just blind, but I cannot see the sources. Could you please put a footnote behind the respective statements to make clear which source supports which statement? --RJFF (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I did not express myself clearly. What I wanted to say is that such sources exist, not that they are already referred to in the article. I shall include some of them when writing the paragraph I am announcing (following TFD's suggestion). -- Aflis (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Human Rights Records
Suggest removing or rewriting from the bottom up. The section as of now looks like anti-communist propaganda, and does not inform much about the context. elpincha (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * All governments have "been accused of human rights violations by numerous international organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch". We need to explain what the specific claims were and must avoid weasel words like "numerous" unless we have a source that uses the term.  R.J. Rummel's blog as a source of numbers killed should  be avoided because his estimates are consistently extremely higher than academic consensus.  I question too whether the SWaudi-funded National Society for Human Rights is a relible source - certainly letters to the editor are not rs.  Notice that none of the claims made by these sources is contained in the AI or HRW sources.  That leaves nothing in the section to be saved.  If someone wants to re-write the section with good sources, that would be fine.  Notice too that AI and HRW say human rights violations have decreased since the civil war.  I imagine that is what Rummel is talking about and human rights violations during that period are best addressed in the "Independence and civil war" section.  TFD (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with several articles on Angola, in en:WP like in other WPs, is that many contributors are extremely biased, in one way or another. On the MPLA they either follow the party line, or are "anti-communist" (which is all the more inadequate as the MPLA physically eliminated its communist wing decades ago, and severed all links with socialism in 1991/2). Thus I agree with the comments above, and second the proposal to rewrite the part under discussion. -- Aflis (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Off topic chat
Volodia

There's a beautiful song called Volodia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mnIRdk0HNM

Does anyone know which Volodia are they singing about? His full name?--74.57.167.219 (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * >z far as I can remember, "Volódia" is/was the nom de guerre of an MPLA militant. I don't know the song. Aflis (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

UNITA
"UNITA" is the acronym of "União Nacional para a Independência Total de Angola". This is the way UNITA calls itself, and is called by anybody familiar with Angola. This is also the situa<tion of MPLA and FNLA, the two other movements who waged an anti-colonial guerilla war against Portugal. The form "Unita" can be found in a few texts written by people unfamiliar with Angola and who don't speak Portuguese. They were apparently mislead by the Italian word "unità" (unity), and were convinced UNITA had adopted a name that symbolized a will to fight for the unity of the Angolan population. They obviously ignored that in that case they would have called themselves "unidade", which is the Portuguese word for unity. In any case, UNITA protested immidiately when the form "Unita" appeared, but then decided to simply not care, convinced that the authors of the erroneous form would rapidly find out they were wrong. Which is what in fact happened: I have been following the literature on Angola, the Angolan newspapers, documents issued by UNITA etc. - for more than a decade I have not seen anybody using "Unita"  -  until an IP came up with it in en:WP, in this article and another one. Needless to say, for an encyclopedia an error of this kind is particularly shocking. I sincerely hope the author will draw the proper conclusion from the explanations above. If he has still any doubt, I am perfectly ready to discuss them with him. Aflis (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MPLA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100902221909/http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/ang1992elect3.htm to http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/ang1992elect3.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080105182138/http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2576 to http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2576
 * Added tag to http://www.mpla2012.ao/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

International Affiliation
I removed the Progressive Alliance from the International Affiliation section of the info box at the top right of the page, as according the the Alliance's website, they do not have any member parties from Angola. Here is the link to the Alliance's Parties and Organizations page: http://progressive-alliance.info/network/parties-and-organisations/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.224.139 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Minor Possible Error, But Not Sure
I might be wrong, but in the section "Independence and civil war", I think the sentence, "The United States Congress barred further U.S. military involvement in the country against the wishes of President Ronald Reagan, fearing another Vietnam-style quagmire.", should be "The United States Congress...wishes of President [Gerald Ford]".

This would make more sense because the paragraph is about 1976 and it accords more with the info available on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angola–United_States_relations). That page cites the book "Eight Hundred Ninety-five Days that Changed the World" (https://books.google.com/books?id=VuLen052wtoC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=angola+congress+ford&source=web&ots=TlNo2VBlmH&sig=mebpy_W4S8OA_psT8U6JVQ7N2Ug&hl=en#PPA50,M1). I don't have this book so I can't confirm if that citation is accurate.