Despite being gifted with this year’s Mo Ibrahim prize, Africa’s only
elected female head of state, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf was a nepotist who
left Liberia wallowing in the same poverty, corruption, incompetence and
general backwardness that her predecessors left behind. That was after
10 years in power. PHOTO | FILE | SIA KAMBOU | AFP
Are
we too prone to dwelling on things that go wrong or that do not work
and far less inclined to look on the bright side? Are we so used to
seeing our glass as always half empty rather than as half-full, to
borrow a familiar cliché?
Obviously I do not speak to
or interact with more than a handful of fellow Africans on a typical
day. And the interactions are usually about mundane things such as work,
the weather, and personal issues linked to everyday existence.
Occasionally, however, I talk to Africans who think of themselves as
intellectuals.
Sometimes the encounters happen in the
context of seminars, workshops and conferences, which are usually
organised to discuss this or that aspect of Africa’s “development.”
Sometimes
the conversations happen over drinks here and there. For some reason,
even over cups of tea or coffee, the conversations tend to be dominated
by politics or issues related to “development.”
Recently
I told a friend, one of the intellectuals I usually have these
conversations with, that many times I find them exhausting. For one
thing, they are so repetitive when it comes to what is wrong with Africa
or with this or that country. And the ideas presented for turning
things around are “standard,” with no regard to contextual complexity.
And
so one hears how this or that country is a police state, how there is
no democracy there, how there is no media freedom, how elections are
rigged, how corruption is too much, how this and that is not working.
Discontent Africans
Africans
living outside Africa, in places where things work differently can be
particularly vocal on these matters. They and the rest of us who live
here and who tend to live in a permanent state of discontent often
imagine that the conditions we are discontented about can change if we
keep shouting and being angry about them.
And we have wanted them to change for a long time and yet shouting and being angry have brought us little relief.
The
one thing that rarely features in all the “intellectual” talk is calm
examination of what it is about us, our societies, our attitudes and the
way we think about leadership and power and how they should be
exercised, that makes the problems we complain about so durable.
It
is, after all, not as if change in leadership or government necessarily
leads to improvement. Recently we heard, for example, that despite
being gifted with this year’s Mo Ibrahim prize, Africa’s only elected
female head of state, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf was a nepotist who left
Liberia wallowing in the same poverty, corruption, incompetence and
general backwardness that her predecessors left behind. That was after
10 years in power.
Obviously Liberians did not mind
all this, which is why they re-elected her to a second term. It is
almost certain that her successor George Weah will do the same and will
possibly also be gifted with the Mo Ibrahim prize for stepping down
after the prescribed two terms, which Liberians will probably accord
him, even as their lives will have stayed pretty much the same.
Particularly exhausting is the tendency to repeat seemingly self-evident truths, which in reality are highly debatable.
Consider the standard argument that electing leaders renders them accountable. It is a typical textbook argument.
In
reality, whether we are talking of national government or local
authorities, elections in Africa do not necessarily produce accountable
authorities. This is not an argument against electing leaders.
Rather,
it is an argument for the imperative to look beyond elections for
workable solutions to the challenge of lack of accountability. What, if
anything, can we learn from values and practices that once upon a time
made leaders in our societies not only political but moral authorities
as well?
Or let us consider the argument that in the
absence of competitive multi-party politics and an “active opposition”
in any country, there can be no possibility of holding a sitting
government to account. The other side of this argument is that only an
“active opposition” can hold a government to account.
Again,
the evidence we have is that this is patently false. Many of Africa’s
most unaccountable governments are elected in competitive, highly
contested elections.
Yet we continue to opine that there is a direct connection between highly contested elections and accountability.
Yet we continue to opine that there is a direct connection between highly contested elections and accountability.
In
our very neighbourhood is Rwanda, one of Africa’s least corrupt
countries, courtesy of highly functioning systems of accountability that
hold elected and appointed leaders in check.
What
lessons Rwanda can teach the rest of us with highly competitive
elections but abysmally low levels of accountability is one question we
should be asking. We don’t.
Instead we theorise
endlessly about building institutions and learning from countries with
societies that bear zero resemblance to our own and with histories that
have no parallels with our own.
Yet it is those very
histories that have shaped their systems, which we think we can simply
import and use without modification or adaptation to our societies with
their own peculiarities. If there is one thing we ought to explore
seriously on matters of governance, it is the need for less “cut and
paste” and more originality.
Frederick Golooba-Mutebi is a Kampala- and Kigali-based researcher and writer on politics and public affairs. E-mail: fgmutebi@yahoo.com
No comments :
Post a Comment