strategy. Rather than presenting a formal, codified academic doctrine, Cabral’s political
writings implicitly challenge the classical Westphalian paradigm of sovereignty (Krasner,
1999, cited in Gonçalves, 2017). Through an analytical reconstruction of his primary works,
his framework can be understood as resting upon four interwoven pillars: historical agency,
political emancipation, economic autonomy, and cultural assertion (AHS, n.d.; Vecchi,
2020). While Cabral did not formalize this taxonomy into a rigid system, these dimensions
articulate a holistic vision of self-determination.
The foundational concept of "unity and struggle" - which served as the central principle of
the PAIGC - synthesizes this broader paradigm. Cabral maintained that no anti-colonial
movement could achieve meaningful liberation without constructing political cohesion
capable of transcending ethnic, regional, and socio-economic divisions (Cabral, 1984, pp.
19, 46). This formulation departed significantly from romanticized nationalist currents that
posited the nation as a pre-existing, static entity. Conversely, Cabral conceptualized the
nation as a dynamic political project under continuous construction, forged through
collective mobilization against colonial subjugation. As Patrick Chabal (2002) observes,
this position reflected a sophisticated understanding of the socio-cultural fabric of
Portuguese Guinea. Recognizing that colonial governance relied heavily on
instrumentalizing ethnolinguistic fractures to suppress collective resistance, Cabral argued
that national unity could not be administratively decreed; it had to develop organically
through political conscientization and popular participation.
The centrality of culture constitutes a cornerstone of Cabralian political thought. In his
seminal 1970 address at Syracuse University, Cabral famously asserted that "national
liberation is necessarily an act of culture" (Cabral, 2020; Santos, 2020). This proposition
marked a major shift within post-colonial studies by expanding the scope of liberation
beyond state-centric and military parameters. As Maria do Carmo Santos (2020)
highlights, Cabral recognized that colonial domination functioned not merely through
territorial annexation or economic extraction, but through the systematic erosion of
indigenous cultural matrices. Consequently, cultural resistance represented far more than
a defensive preservation of tradition; it functioned as an active, strategic reinterpretation
of history to construct autonomous futures. Expanding on this point, António Tomás (2007)
argues that Cabral’s cultural thesis avoided both essentialist nostalgia and abstract
universalism. Rather than conceptualizing African culture as homogeneous or immutable,
Cabral understood it as a dynamic product of historical conditions, emphasizing that
revolutionary political strategies had to adapt continuously to localized material realities.
Crucial to the Cabralian theory of sovereignty is its critique of post-colonial elite formation.
Cabral harboured deep concern that newly emerging ruling classes would replicate colonial
modes of exploitation upon inheriting the state apparatus. In his landmark 1966 address
at the Tricontinental Conference in Havana, he famously called upon the revolutionary
petty bourgeoisie to commit "class suicide" - to renounce its structural privileges and align
its material interests directly with the popular masses (Almada, 2023). As Peter Mendy
(2019) observes, this imperative sought to prevent the institutionalization of post-colonial
oligarchies and ensure that formal independence translated into substantive socio-
Comum, Folder 07056.003.004, Title: "Carta da FLGCV"
(http://casacomum.org/cc/arquivos?set=e_2617#!e_2774).