President Paul Kagame of Rwanda. Is the “Kigali Consensus” an
authoritarian model destined to fail in the end, or the way best suited
to the peculiarities of Africa? PHOTO | CYRIL NDEGEYA
This week, we have been at a conference
on Africa on the banks of Lake Como, outside Milan, the Italian fashion
capital. Lots of clever people who research on, and have written about,
Africa were in the house.
It is interesting that 75 per
cent of the conversation, in the end, was not about the broad Africa as
such but six countries: South Africa; Ghana, a shining star whose
lights are dimming; Rwanda; Ethiopia; Kenya; and Nigeria, a giant that
refuses to die and defy all laws of nature, economics and history, and
is being throttled by Boko Haram terrorists.
During
coffee breaks, when the microphones weren’t near, a few chaps whispered
to me that it cannot be an accident that the most important economies on
the West African coast (Nigeria) and on the eastern side (Kenya) are
hobbled by terrorism.
They think there is a grand conspiracy by an evil hand somewhere, designed to bring down Mother Africa.
I
never even for a second entertained such a thought, so I was caught so
off guard by the claim I couldn’t say anything. The only thing is that
they didn’t say who the main conspirator was, but it is truly an
intriguing idea.
But the two African countries that were mentioned almost every 10 or so minutes were Rwanda and Ethiopia.
CITIZENS VS. SUBJECTS
I
didn’t know, but the chaps who frame these issues, have apparently been
talking about how the “Beijing Consensus” on development, i.e., whether
Africa should follow China’s way, or as President Uhuru Kenyatta would
put it, “look East,” or there is an even better model closer home, the
“Kigali Consensus” and, less so but gaining popularity, the “Addis Ababa
Consensus.” In short, development and security first, and democracy
later or not at all.
The house was divided down the
middle, with several people arguing the “Kigali Consensus” is an
authoritarian model destined to fail in the end, while others making the
case it was the way that was best suited to the peculiarities of
Africa.
I
was surprised that this “Kigali Consensus” thing is big out there, and
so a good conference neighbour from Chatham House in London offered to
send me a paper that was written about it — and he did.
Apparently
it gained currency after Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf said:
“The one country that I had wanted to follow was Rwanda…
We had the advantage of natural resources. But we did not have the
advantages they had of capacity, work ethic and discipline. We also
departed from Rwanda in terms of the implementation of democracy.”
But
for today, we will focus a little more on the Kenyan case. The Western
types, generally, were enamoured of Kenya and described it as a country
“with a weak state and strong private sector” as opposed to Ethiopia
that is a “strong state with no private sector.”
However,
because Kenyans are able to make decisions about their leaders and how
the country is governed more than Ethiopians, Kenyans are considered to
be “citizens” and a few fellows referred to Ethiopians as “subjects.”
EASIER TO EXTRACT CONCESSIONS
Academics are an interesting lot, and it is good to hang out with them a little — not too much, though. They can derail you.
Kenya
had fellows batting for it, and someone acknowledged that yes, unlike
Ethiopia, with its empire and the entrenched (and deeply conservative)
Coptic church, Kenya has no history of a strong state. But what is seen
as a “weak” state and institutions is not how it fails. It is how it
succeeds.
A “weak” state has limits on how much power
it has to prey on the private sector (compare that with Ethiopia, where
the State, ruling party and military corporations dominate the economy).
Secondly,
Kenya’s “weak” state means that it is easier to negotiate claims
against it and to extract concessions too. Because it is not inflexible
and you can get something from it, the country has had relative
stability “without any sustained long-time violent conflict” and avoided
the mass appeal of radical politics. So the present problems of
terrorism, by this logic, are an anomaly.
One might
agree or disagree, but for a few days, it was refreshing to listen to
people grappling with Kenyan problems in a highly intellectual manner,
without hurling tribal spears. It was worth every minute of it.
Mr Onyango-Obbo is editor of Mail & Guardian Africa (mgafrica.com). Twitter:@cobbo3
No comments:
Post a Comment