WHO RULES AFRICA?

The current buzz word is 'governance'. At all international conferences, Africa is being told that if it wants investment from outside, it must display good governance. We say Amen to that not just for investment but because good governance is what we all want.

But wanting something is not the same as having it. In this world of 'regime change' with the West deciding who will rule and who will not, the whole issue of independent governance, let alone good governance, becomes crucial. It begs the question - who really rules in Africa?

There is a growing body of opinion, among African and Africanist thinkers, that in fact Africa's independence has mostly been a sham. The strings are pulled elsewhere. This was plainly obvious during the Cold War when both the East and the West imposed their leaders of choice and supported them economically and militarily.

When the Cold War ended, the hope was that Africa would now be free to set its own priorities. It was hardly a coincidence that the majority of African countries chose democracy. But did this mean that Africa was free at last?

African experts shake their heads. The new puppet masters, they say, are international institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, the aid donors and International Non Government Organisations. A new term has been coined to describe this phenomenon: Globalised dependency. Phoebe Griffith who specialised on issues of good governance and North-South Relations at the UK's Foreign Policy Centre, says: "globalised dependency means that because most of their revenue is generated externally (whether its through aid or mining revenues), African governments are more accountable to the outside than to their own people."

Marina Ottaway, a Senior Associate in the Democracy and Rule of Law project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, writes: The rise of a few more democratic regimes in Africa in recent years should not distract attention from the reality that even elected regimes remain largely accountable to the agencies that finance their budgets, rather than to their citizens. The most aid dependent region in the world, Sub-Saharan Africa cannot pretend that its citizens have a strong impact on policy decisions, regardless of the character of the political system."

She goes on to argue that this in-built 'governance deficit' makes even the most well-intentioned government impotent to change policy: "When a country's macro-economic policy is prescribed by the International Monetary Fund, its education and health policies are negotiated with the World Bank in the preparation of a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (as is the case almost everywhere in Africa) and domestic and foreign NGO have more influence on revenue spending than the government, the election of a President and parliament have little impact on policies".

Since the whole point behind democracy is to involve the majority in policy decisions, this governance by outside agencies gives African democracy a hollow sound. Ottaway writes: "(In) the majority of highly dependent African states increasingly micromanaged by externally imposed conditionalities, democracy is reduced to a choice of leaders, with little relevance to policy decisions."

HOLLOW DEMOCRACY

Anyone who has followed the election processes in most African countries will attest to the accuracy of this observation. Once democracy has been reduced to a choice of leaders, rather than policies, it inevitably follows that candidates will attempt to buy votes by promising their supporters high office and other largess that comes with power. Corruption, nepotism, tribalism, danism, and favouritism follow as a matter of course and political competition is reduced to personality attacks.

Africa's exports, says Ottaway, remain the same as in colonial times: unprocessed raw materials being exported to the same countries to which they were exported in colonial times.

This total dependence on external markets for revenues, compounded by the need for aid and technical support from outside means that African governments do not have to be accountable to their own people. As long as the donors are kept happy, regimes can continue to rule.

The one exception to this rule is South Africa which does not seek aid from outside and is not heavily dependent on exports of unprocessed raw materials. It is also far more industrialised than any other sub-Saharan country. As a consequence, South African politicians are far more sensitive to their own people's needs and here democracy does translate into people's power.

How can the rest of Africa break away from this globalised dependency and begin to govern their countries to the benefit of their citizens? There are no clear answers as yet but Nepad, in our opinion is a healthy beginning. For the first time in post-independence history, it is programme that looks at Africa's own resources to provide growth and empowerment, rather than seeking external help. It aims to plug Africa into the world economy not as a dependent but as an equal partner. It is perhaps no coincidence that South Africa is leading the charge because today only South Africa can compete externally on equal terms. Nepad may, just may, be the answer we have all been looking for.

Copyright International Communications Aug/Sep 2003
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved