Ghanaian Elections 2012

           After reading Annelise’s paper for the peer critique and seeing Ghana’s election results today, I couldn’t help but notice how relevant her argument is to Ghana’s current situation, and how my previous post about Ghana’s global rise and its label as the fastest growing economy in 2011 (TIME) are highly applicable. There is an interesting dichotomy in Ghana’s elections, because they are democratic and there are two predominant parties, NDC and NPP, which makes the political sphere very modern, but the elections are centered on controlling the oil revenues, which makes it somewhat rudimentary. The combination of being one of the world’s fastest growing economies and being Africa’s most stable democracy (BBC) presents a unique reality, as the growth is currently from the resource sectors, but it said to be invested in sustainable infrastructure and economic growth.

            Much talk on natural resources centers around the natural resource curse that Paul Collier speaks of, and we have seen many countries fail with the economy of natural resources as their foundation, such as Chad and Nigeria. In response, there are many different arguments regarding natural resources. Some advocate to not invest in oil extraction, others say that investment must be conditioned with policies, etc. However, Ghana presents a condition that other African countries do not have: it has a high-quality government that is capable of handling resource rents. These rents often force other countries to succumb to resource dependence, as Nigeria discovered oil many years ago, but it has failed to develop and many of its citizens still live on $1.25 a day (Oxford).

            Ghana not only has the potential, but also the political will to circumvent this resource curse and handle its revenues well. John Mahama of the NDC (who just won the election) has promised that his long-term investments in infrastructure will fuel long-term growth for Ghana and enable them to escape reliance on the resource sector (Madison), while Akufo-Addo of the NPP claimed that he would use resource wealth to offer free education. Recent news claims that the NDC has secured the election with 50.7% of the vote (ModernGhana), which, according to statements made by both candidates, will ensure that oil revenue is invested well.

            However, news also states that because of the extremely close election, there is much tension in the country (ModernGhana). This presents another interesting dichotomy, because although Ghana is considered to be Africa’s most stable democracy, high tensions over this election could potentially lead to some destabilization. While it is a positive thing to have high voter participation and civic engagement, this election had an 80% voter turnout (BBC), so citizens are extremely impassioned about the election results and could become violent, according to some. This high civic participation does indicate that citizens are concerned about government action and also have a say “in how government will use oil revenues in the future” (Madison), so the Ghanaian government is held accountable to citizens.

            This fact alone prevents the natural resource curse, because in authoritarian regimes with resource rents, political leaders are not held accountable to citizens, but in the Ghanaian democracy, citizens and leaders hold each other accountable. Despite the fact that there is raising tension surrounding these elections, both parties claim that they will use oil revenues for investment in a sustainable economy. The elections may produce short-term unrest, but as long as the resource industry is still utilized to produce a sustainable economy, Ghana will remain to be a predominant African success story.

http://www.modernghana.com/news/435039/1/npp-protests-ghana-2012-elections-results.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20660228

Hope, Doubt, or Both?

I am always intrigued by The Economist’s thoughts on development of Africa (as if I hadn’t made this obvious already), but statements made in a recent post on the hope of the Sahara startled me. The article begins in the fashion of most, discussing the lack of political sovereignty of African states. However, it does state that the practices of “free and fair elections” are more commonly practiced than in the past. While some governments seem to be developing more justifiable systems, such as that of Ghana, elections in eastern Africa are causing much rebellion and unrest, so I find this statement somewhat contradictory. While some states are practicing better governance, some are only getting worse.

The article addresses that the countries typically rely on resource wealth, and with a very large young generation coming into the workplace, new industry must be created. This is true, as primary commodities are now 80% of sub-Saharan Africa’s commodity exports (Carmody, 39), and this is not at all a sustainable industry. Ghana specifically had a “growth rate of 13.4 per cent in 2011” (Ghanaweb) and 39% of their population is under age 15 (prb), so this is an African example for true potential. However, most countries have this large percentage of a young population without a high growth rate to match.

The article addresses that this century could turn out to be Africa’s century instead of Asia’s, but this can only occur if Africa is given the opportunity to achieve success with a sustainable economy and polity. Currently, Ghana is the best example of this, but no African country is on their way to beating out Asia any time soon. Asia took advantage of globalization in the 1980’s, so they have over a 20-year head start on Africa and have already developed a significant price gap between the two continents. “China didn’t have to compete with China” (Carmody&Hampwaye, 97), so claiming that Africa can succeed by simply developing industry is only skimming the surface of the problem.

The article then introduces a peculiar fact, that the “population is becoming increasingly urbanized.” The author claims that this will make citizens petition for better governance. However, I don’t entirely buy into this. A country becoming urbanized does not necessarily mean that the citizens will become more informed and even if they did, neopatrimonial leaders are usually not responsive. Also, an urbanization involving working, middle-class citizens that usually are involved in government requires industry to draw people to the cities. However, in reference to the author’s earlier mention of Africa’s dependence on natural resources, this doesn’t add up. People will not move by the masses into a city if there are no industries.

However, I found the last paragraph of the article to be the most contradictory. Mo Ibrahim, a Sudanese billionaire offers a $5 million prize to “a democratically elected African leader who has governed well, raised living standards, and then voluntarily left office.” The article concludes with the hope that maybe this will happen soon. While having leaders like this in Africa would be highly beneficial and a drastic change from precedent, the incentives are just those that are perpetuating corruption now. Leaders are not held accountable to their citizens and receive mass amounts of wealth, so their actions are driven by their greed. Leaders often promise reform and don’t follow through to receive funds for themselves. While this incentive does guarantee good policy, the draw to a large amount of money worries me in that it could still attract crooks. Offering good governance with an extensive monetary reward is not creating new social norms or instilling better values; it is only perpetuating inequality and neopatriotism.

I agree that Africa has many reasons to both hope and doubt its future, but placing its hope in the fact that Africa will outrun Asia and good governance will come from monetary incentives doesn’t sound promising. Sustainable industry must take top priority if true reform is going to take place.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/theworldin2013/2012/11/africas-future