Conceptions of the tribe and their consequences hang like an albatross around the neck of contemporary Africa. At times, it seems as if the direction that the continent takes will be determined by how conversations about the tribe turn out. And it can be such a hot potato.The roots of the conceptions of the tribe are particularly disturbing. While tribes – now elevated to the status of ‘ethnic groups’ thanks to political correctness – always existed, their conceptions have changed due to historical circumstances.Across Africa, the colonial logic transformed existing tribal relationships from those of cooperation to competition and even created new tribes where none existed. Indirect rule served the important role of pitting tribes against each other as a strategy to avert potential resistance by the natives. The idea was to use alien force when necessary, but to generally exploit any real or perceived social cleavages for ‘peaceful’ colonization. We are also told that when tribes come into close contact, they are ready to destroy each other, as a matter of instinct, driven by the tribal sentiment.It is hardly surprising that the manipulation of tribes has been very damaging to social relations. It has broken social ties, elevating difference over similarity among groups. It has increased animosity and distrust. It has emphasized competition over cooperation. And crucially, it has been an impediment to the pursuit of the common good.It is striking how Africans have failed to overcome these conceptions and to develop new interpretations that transcend the parochial sub-national interests for a more embracing national identity capable of uniting us in the pursuit of collective efforts to overcome problems that keep us backward. This failure keeps multitudes in debilitating poverty that strips them of their dignity.So, why do we continue to hold on to something so harmful? Truth be told, the tribe, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. The problem is how it has been exploited both by the colonial and post-colonial authorities for their own ends. It has been a gift for myopic leadership and international actors keen to fish in troubled waters for their selfish ends.And ordinary Africans have often played along, for ethnicity has been a very good rallying point for the masses, a source of emotional security. The insecurity that drives the ordinary person to political entrepreneurs riding on ethnic identity is most prevalent in situations of state neglect, where little promise exists.In Rwanda, myopic leadership once herded society into a dark tunnel from which we are yet to emerge. The logic that justified the elimination of part of the population is also responsible for the failure to construct a common consciousness to condemn it collectively. Even worse, it continues to inform minds that continue to belittle genocide, if they are not busy denying that it existed at all. When they acknowledge that it indeed happened, they are quick to suggest that there was also a counter-genocide.It shows that there is no collective consciousness about what happened. Nor has there been adequate soul searching that should have led to collective recognition of the need to realign values, to chart a new path that transcends parochial and myopic interests. This is what will propel collective support for investment in a national identity, driven by common aspirations.The challenge of our generation is therefore to overcome the myopia that allows one to see others as competitors rather than as allies. Our success will be measured by our ability to create a new identity that places a premium on solidarity among compatriots. In the absence of soul searching, the albatross of tribalism or ethnic bigotry will remain firmly tied to our collective neck. This is not how we can ensure that Rwanda claims its rightful place as a self-respecting and respected member of the global community of nations.