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.
No comments:
Post a Comment