Danger of expecting leaders of poor African countries to
govern like the rich
Imagine a romantic relationship between a poor young guy and
a demanding girlfriend. They live in a community with former school and classmates
all of whom are rich kids living in posh neighborhoods, driving fancy cars,
wearing designer clothes, taking holidays in the Bahamas, dining at exclusive
restaurants and buying expensive gifts for their girlfriends. The poor guy
finds himself under peer pressure to live like the rich colleagues; and his
girlfriend desires and demands that they keep up to the standards.
Although the poor guy cannot afford to fund a rich
lifestyle, he keeps making promises he actually cannot fulfill. Consequently, the
girlfriend keeps calling him a liar and selfish; sometimes accusing him of
misusing his income by going to night clubs and drinking beer (which is often
true) or of being lazy and disinterested. He attempts to meet his girlfriend’s
expectations by stretching himself or faking ability. He buys her fake products
that are imitations of originals and disappoint her every now and then.
Such a pretentious relationships can only be characterised
by constant quarrels and recriminations. Exaggerated demands and expectations
lead to false promises, which when unmet, lead to frustration. This is the
relationship betweenAfrican political leaders and their citizens. Politicians
in Africa inherited an ideological structure backed by institutions of a modern
state as it works in the Western world. They have since then sought to
replicate its functions across their entire country even when they lack the
necessary human and financial resources to achieve such lofty objectives. The
consequence is frustration resulting from unmet promises by leaders and
exaggerated expectations of their citizens.
In fact, the colonial state provided a very limited range of
public goods and services to a very small group of people, often white
overlords and their collaboratingAfrican elites residing largely, if not
entirely, in urban areas. Nationalist leaders seeking independence said this
governance model was due to racism i.e. the colonial state only cared about the
interests of white colonial overlords and ignored the plight of the colonised
natives.
Such ideological arguments are most effective (and
dangerous) when they make use of (and abuse) obvious truths. That the colonial
state was racist and did not care much about the interests of the colonised is
beyond dispute. However, its racism not withstanding, I am inclined to believe
that the bigger factor was that the colonial state did not have the financial
and human resources to provide a wide range of public goods and services to
everyone – even if it wished to.
I have spent 25 years reading about public policy in Africa.
The discussions begin with an implicit assumption that the government like that
of Burundi with US$47 as public spending per person this financial year, can
afford to provide the same services as the government of the United Kingdom
with per capita spending of $28,000 or that of Botswana with per capita
spending at $5,000. Failure to govern this way, it is often argued, is because
the leaders of Burundi are greedy and selfish i.e. they don’t care about their
people.
After 25 years of studying politics in Africa, I am yet to
read a book or academic paper that addresses the fact that governments on our
continent are poor in financial and human resources to perform the functions
expected of them under the concept of a modern state. All discussion begins
with an implicit assumption that they are able and the failures we see is due
to corruption and selfish leaders.
Yet the state in poor countries is very weak and
underdeveloped such that often it cannot even exercise its most basic function
i.e. maintenance of order. We are seeing this in Burundi, Central Africa
Republic, South Sudan, DRC, etc.
Yet these states, which can barely function, are expected to
deliver universal education, healthcare for all, clean water to every home,
electrify all rural areas, build tarmac roads everywhere, hold free and fair
“democratic elections”, ensure freedom and liberty for citizens, etc. This is
expecting “good governance” in countries where there is hardly a government in
the first place.
In 2012 I visited Somalia. There was barely a state there.
Whatever is called a state there could not even control one inch of its
territory. It functions only because of the presence of armies from neighboring
countries. The EU and USA have been training an army in Uganda to hold this
fictional edifice of the Somali state together. After five years, the
Transitional Federal Government (TFG) does not have an army. All the thousands
that were trained at great cost later deserted and joinedAl Shabaab or went home.
Yet donors were organising elections for parliament and the president.
There is no country with public spending per capita of $100
to $500 that has succeeded in governing like modern states – except post
genocide Rwanda. That we can point to one example among tens of poor nations
only underlines the fact that post genocide Rwanda is an exception that proves
the rule i.e. that poor nations do not govern by providing a wide range of
public goods and services to all their citizens. Without exception, they tend
to rely on a combination of patronage and repression. Indeed, today’s rich
countries governed exactly like ours govern today when they had similar per
capita spending and per capita income as ours.
I recently took my cousin, Dr. Jude Kagoro, a lecturer at
Bremen University in Germany, to Rwanda. One of the few very thoughtful African
elites I know, he was amazed at what he saw. Later in an evening discussion
with Paul Kagame, he told the Rwandan president: “I think you and your people
are magicians. How do you do this?” Kagame smiled, taking it as a courteous but
hyperbolic compliment. Yet Kagoro was serious. He could not believe that a poor
country like Rwanda could do the things he saw.
Many people think post genocide Rwanda’s success can be
easily replicated. If this were possible, many leaders inAfrica would have done
it. What Rwanda has done is without precedent in contemporary history. Just
like it would be unfair to ask every Ugandan to be as rich as Sudhir Ruparelia
or everyAmerican to be as rich as Bill Gates, it is unfair to ask or expect
every government inAfrica to be as efficient as that of Rwanda. They may not
have the history and context that has made Rwanda’s success possible.
****
amwenda@independent.co.ug
****
editor@independent.co.ug
1 comment:
Post a Comment