|
|
Emerging African development thinking
Part One
Following US President Barack Obama’s Accra visit
on July 11 and his famous statement that Africa’s
future is in Africans hands, the Ghanaian-born
American University economist Prof. George Ayittey
argued that it is an “intellectual vindication” for
the “Internalist School” of African development. In
the following interview, Kofi Akosah-Sarpong
discusses with Prof. Ayittey wide range of African
development issues such as why the Internalist
victory and whether finally Africa has come out with
its own home-grown development paradigm
Why is Barack Obama’s
speech in Accra an “intellectual vindication” of the
“Internalist School” of African development?
Here are some highlights from President Obama’s
speech in Accra on July 11, 2009:
• Africa's future is up to Africans.
• The West is not responsible for the destruction of
the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade, or wars
in which children are enlisted as combatants. In my
father's life, it was partly tribalism and patronage
in an independent Kenya that for a long stretch
derailed his career, and we know that this kind of
corruption is a daily fact of life for far too many.
• Development depends upon good governance. That is
the ingredient which has been missing in far too
many places, for far too long. That is the change
that can unlock Africa's potential. And that is a
responsibility that can only be met by Africans.
• No country is going to create wealth if its
leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or
police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No
business wants to invest in a place where the
government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head
of the port authority is corrupt. No person wants to
live in a society where the rule of law gives way to
the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not
democracy, that is tyranny, and now is the time for
it to end.
• Make no mistake: history is on the side of these
brave Africans and not with those who use coups or
change Constitutions to stay in power. Africa
doesn't need strongmen, it needs strong
institutions.
• As we provide this support, I have directed my
administration to give greater attention to
corruption in our human rights report. People
everywhere should have the right to start a business
or get an education without paying a bribe. We have
a responsibility to support those who act
responsibly and to isolate those who don't, and that
is exactly what America will do.
• Here is what you must know: the world will be what
you make of it. You have the power to hold your
leaders accountable and to build institutions that
serve the people. You can serve in your communities
and harness your energy and education to create new
wealth and build new connections to the world. You
can conquer disease, end conflicts and make change
from the bottom up. You can do that. Yes you can.
Because in this moment, history is on the move.
• But these things can only be done if you take
responsibility for your future. It won't be easy. It
will take time and effort. There will be suffering
and setbacks. But I can promise you this: America
will be with you. As a partner. As a friend.
Opportunity won't come from any other place, though
— it must come from the decisions that you make, the
things that you do, and the hope that you hold in
your hearts.
• Freedom is your inheritance. Now, it is your
responsibility to build upon freedom's foundation.
And if you do, we will look back years from now to
places like Accra and say that this was the time
when the promise was realized — this was the moment
when prosperity was forged; pain was overcome; and a
new era of progress began.
Africa’s destiny lies in her own hands; it does not
lie with some external agency or on the rocks of
Jupiter. Nearly all the obstacles that have held
Africa back that President Obama identifies are
internal factors. He lashed out at bad governance:
corruption, rule of brutality, tyranny, tribalism,
patronage, tec. Development depends on good
governance, he said. He was even more explicit: “The
West is not responsible for the destruction of the
Zimbabwean economy.” “Africa doesn’t need strongmen;
it needs strong institutions.” These institutions
are built from within Africa, not imported from
Venus.
Broadly, what is the “Internalist School” of
Africa’s development?
The causes of Africa’s lack of development have
always evoked heated debates. On one hand are those
who portray Africa as a victim of powerful external
forces and conspiracies. This group may be described
as “externalists.” On the other are those who
believe that the causes of Africa's crisis lie
mostly within Africa – in the nature of government
or governance and the environment created by
government policies. This group may be described as
the “internalists.”
The Externalists
The externalists believe that Africa's woes are due
to external factors. Disciples of the externalist
school include most African leaders, scholars, and
intellectual radicals. For decades the externalist
position held sway, attributing the causes of almost
every African problem to such external factors as
Western colonialism and imperialism, the pernicious
effects of the slave trade, racist conspiracy plots,
exploitation by avaricious multinational
corporations, an unjust international economic
system, inadequate flows of foreign aid, and
deteriorating terms of trade.
In his book, The Africans, African scholar and
historian Professor Ali Mazrui examined the African
crisis, claiming that almost everything that went
wrong in Africa was the fault of Western colonialism
and imperialism. "The West harmed Africa's
indigenous technological development in a number of
ways" (p.164). He attributed Africa's collapsing
infrastructure (roads, railways, and utilities) to
the "shallowness of Western institutions," "the
lopsided nature of colonial acculturation" and "the
moral contradictions of Western political tutelage"
(p.202). In fact, "the political decay is partly a
consequence of colonial institutions without
cultural roots in Africa" (p.199). Therefore, self
congratulatory western assertions of contributing to
Africa's modernization are shallow: "The West has
contributed far less to Africa than Africa has
contributed to the industrial civilization of the
West" (p.164). Decay in law enforcement and
mismanagement of funds were all the fault of Western
colonialism too. "The pervasive atmosphere in much
of the land is one of rust and dust, stagnation and
decay, especially within those institutions which
were originally bequeathed by the West" (p.210).
They signal "the slow death of an alien
civilization" (p.204) and Africa's rebellion
"against westernization masquerading as modernity"
(p.211). Western institutions are doomed "to grind
to a standstill in Africa" or decay. "Where Islam is
already established, the decay of western
civilization is good for Islam since it helps to
neutralize a major threat" (p.19).
Many African leaders also subscribed to and espoused
similar views that the causes of Africa's crises
were externally generated. In fact, since
independence in the sixties, almost every African
malaise was ascribed to the operation or conspiracy
of extrinsic agents. The leadership was above
reproach and could never be faulted. The late
President Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, even blamed
corruption on European colonialism. Asked who
introduced corruption into Zaire, he retorted:
"European businessmen were the ones who said, 'I
sell you this thing for $1,000, but $200 will be for
your (Swiss bank) account'" (New African, July,
1988, 25).
In his address to the third Congress of the
Democratic Union of Malian People in 1988, former
President Moussa Traore observed that,
“The world economy is passing through a period
characterized by monetary disorder and slow trade
exchanges. The worsening crisis is affecting all
countries, particularly developing countries. Due to
the difficult situation, which is compounded by the
serious drought, socio economic life has been
affected by serious imbalances that have jeopardized
our country's development growth. Debt servicing,
characterized mainly by state to state debts are a
heavy burden on the state budget. The drop in the
price of cotton, which accounts for much of the
country's foreign earnings, has led to a great
reduction in export earnings" (West Africa, 16 May
1988, 876).
“President Danial arap Moi accused the IMF and other
development partners of denying Kenya development
funds, thus triggering mass poverty” (The Washington
Times, June 3, 1999; p.A12). According to the
Chairman of Ghana’s ruling NDC, Issifu Ali, whatever
economic crisis the nation is going through has been
caused by external factors. “He said the NDC has
since 1982 adopted pragmatic policies for the
progress of Ghana, adding that the macro-economic
environment of 1999 has been undermined by global
economic developments" (The Independent, Nov 18,
1999; p.3).
According to Zimbabwe Independent (April 27, 1999),
“Mugabe rejects the criticism of those who blame the
government for the economic crisis. It is, he says,
the fault of greedy Western powers, the IMF, the
Asian financial crisis and the drought” (p. 25).
President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe also blames
Western sanctions, British colonialists, racists and
“snakes” (whites) for ruining his economy.
African organizations such as the African Union are
also steeped in the externalist orthodoxy. The New
Economic Partnership for African Development (NEPAD)
claims that Africa’s impoverishment has been
accentuated by the legacy of colonialism and other
historical legacies, such as the Cold War and the
unjust international economic system. Colonialism
subverted the "traditional structures, institutions
and values," creating an economy "subservient to the
economic and political needs of the imperial powers"
(para 21). Colonialism, according to NEPAD, retarded
the development of an entrepreneurial and middle
class with managerial capability. At independence,
Africa inherited a "weak capitalist class," which
explains the "weak accumulation process, weak states
and dysfunctional economies." (para 22). More recent
reasons for Africa's dire condition include "its
continued marginalization from globalization
process." (para 2). NEPAD seeks $64 billion in
investments from the West.
Now, Col. Ghaddafi, the chairman of the African
Union, says Israel is the cause of Africa’s
problems.
The Internalists
Internalists are the new and angry generation of
Africans, who are fed up with African leaders who
refuse to take responsibility for their own failures
and, instead use colonialism and other external
factors as convenient alibis to conceal their own
incompetent management. Internalists believe that,
while external factors have played a role, the
internal factors are far more significant in causing
Africa’s crisis. This school of thought maintains
that while it is true that colonialism and Western
imperialism did not leave Africa in good shape,
Africa's condition has been made immeasurably worse
by internal factors: misguided leadership, mis-governance,
systemic corruption, capital flight, economic
mismanagement, declining investment, collapsed
infrastructure, decayed institutions, senseless
civil wars, political tyranny, flagrant violations
of human rights, and military vandalism.
The origins of the internalist orthodoxy can be
traced to the 1970s when a rash of military coups
tossed out of office some of the first generation of
post colonial African nationalists. Coup leaders
seldom mentioned colonialism, slave trade, the World
Bank or other external factors as motivating them.
They always cited economic mismanagement, corruption
and inadequate pay – all internal factors.
Furthermore, the civil wars that ravaged Africa in
the 1970s and 80s were not sparked by external
factors. In fact, rebel leaders have never sought to
redraw artificial colonial boundaries. Rather, they
have been driven by internal grievances – against
the state. Representing groups that have been
politically marginalized, rebel leaders head
straight to capital cities where power lies.
Since 1970, more than 40 wars have been fought in
Africa. Year after year, one African country after
another has imploded with deafening staccato,
scattering refugees in all directions: Sudan (1972),
Angola (1975), Mozambique (1975), Ethiopia (1985),
Liberia (1992), Somalia (1993), Rwanda (1994), Zaire
(1996), Sierra Leone (1997), Congo DRC (1998),
Ethiopia/Eritrea (1998), Guinea (1999) and Ivory
Coast (2001). And year after year, grisly pictures
of emaciated bodies of African famine victims are
paraded on Western television in urgent appeals for
humanitarian assistance.
Some wars never end (Algeria, Burundi, Somalia,
Sudan, Western Sahara) while others restart after
brief lulls. At least 20 African nations are
currently wracked by conflict and civil strife.
Populations have been decimated, infrastructure
destroyed and homes razed. The economic toll has
been horrendous: devastated agriculture, deepening
poverty, declining investment, increasing social
misery, and a massive refugee population of mostly
women and children. Children are abducted into child
soldiery and women fall prey to marauding soldiers,
turning refugee camps into breeding grounds for the
spread of AIDS. Since women constitute about 80
percent of Africa’s peasant farmers, Africa's
agriculture has been hardest hit -- so severe that
Africa, which used to be self-sufficient in food in
1950s, now imports 40 percent of its food needs. The
World Bank estimates that Africa's agricultural
production would increase by as much as 30 percent
if the civil wars would end.
The vast majority of Africa's conflicts are intra
state in origin. They are not about driving away
colonial infidels; nor redrawing colonial
boundaries. They are about political power, pure and
simple: Power to plunder resources; power to
allocate resources to oneself, cronies and kinsmen;
power to perpetuate oneself in office; and power to
crush one's enemies. These are internal factors.
The destruction of an African country, regardless of
the professed ideology of its government, always
begins with some dispute over the electoral process.
Blockage of the democratic process or the refusal to
hold elections plunged Angola, Chad, Ethiopia,
Mozambique, Somalia, and Sudan into civil war.
Hard-liner manipulation of the electoral process
destroyed Rwanda (1993), Sierra Leone (1992) and
Zaire (1990). Subversion of the electoral process in
Liberia (1985) eventually set off a civil war in
1989. The same type of subversion instigated civil
strife in Cameroon (1991), Congo (1992), Kenya
(1992), Togo (1992) and Lesotho (1998). In Congo
(Brazzaville), a dispute over the 1997 electoral
framework flared into mayhem and civil war. The
military's annulment of electoral results by the
military started Algeria's civil war (1992) and
plunged Nigeria into political turmoil (1993). All
this destruction stemmed from the adamant refusal of
one individual or the ruling elites to relinquish or
share political power. This has nothing to do with
the slave trade, colonialism or external factors.
By the beginning of the new millennium, the
externalist doctrine had lost so much credibility
that even Africa’s children no longer bought it.
Chernoh Bah, president of the Children's Forum
asserted that Africa's socio economic problems are a
direct repercussion of incompetent and corrupt
political leaders who usurped political office via
the gun. "Some blame colonialism for Africa' plight
while others blame the continent's harsh climatic
conditions. I think the reason is the kind of
political systems we have had over the past
decades”, he said. (Standard Times [Freetown], April
2, 2003; web posted). At the United Nations
Children's Summit held in May 2002 in New York,
youngsters from Africa ripped into their leaders for
failing to improve their education and health. "You
get loans that will be paid in 20 to 30 years and we
have nothing to pay them with, because when you get
the money, you embezzle it, you eat it”, said
12-year-old Joseph Tamale from Uganda (BBC News, May
10, 2002).
Prominent Africans also started lashing out at the
leadership. U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan,
himself an African, excoriated African leaders at
the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Summit in
Lome in July 2000. He pointedly told them that they
are to blame for most of the continent's problems.
“Instead of being exploited for the benefit of the
people, Africa’s mineral resources have been so
mismanaged and plundered that they are now the
source of our misery” (Daily Graphic, July 12, 2000;
p.5). Earlier in the year at a press conference in
London in April, 2000, Kofi Annan, “lambasted
African leaders who he says have subverted democracy
and lined their pockets with public funds, although
he stopped short of naming names” (The
African-American Observer, April 25 – May 1, 2000;
p.10). During a brief stop-over in Accra, he
disclosed in a Joy FM radio station interview that
"Africa is the region giving him the biggest
headache as the Security Council spends 60 to 70% of
its time on Africa. He admitted sadly and that the
conflicts on the continent embarrasses and pains him
as an African" (The Guide, July 18-24, 2000; p.8).
Ordinary people are speaking out too. Said Akobeng
Eric, a Ghanaian, in a letter to the Free Press (29
March - 11 April 1996): "A big obstacle to economic
growth in Africa is the tendency to put all blame,
failures and shortcomings on outside forces.
Progress might have been achieved if we had always
tried first to remove the mote in our own eyes" (2).
The African people, fed up at the incompetence of
their people, started lashing out. Angry at
deteriorating economic conditions in Ghana,
thousands of Ghanaians marched through the streets
of the capital city, Accra, to denounce the ruling
regime of President Rawlings. “If Jerry Rawlings
says the current economic crisis is due to external
forces and therefore, beyond his control, then he
should step aside and allow a competent person who
can manage the crisis to take over," Atta Frimpong
demanded (The Ghanaian Chronicle, Nov 29, 1999;
p.1). Appiah Dankwah, another protestor blamed the
NDC government for mismanaging the resources of the
nation.
In Zimbabwe, the people did not buy President
Mugabe’s claim that “Britain, greedy Western powers,
the IMF, the Asian financial crisis and the drought”
were responsible for the country’s economic mess.
They rejected his request for constitutional
revisions to give him more draconian powers in a
February 15, 2000 referendum, handing him his first
political defeat in 20 years of virtually
unchallenged rule.
President Barack Obama echoed these internalist
sentiments when he said in Accra on July 11, 2009
that, “the West is not responsible for the
destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last
decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as
combatants.”
Continued, Part Two
|
