A reaction to President Obama’s speech in Ghana by Leonard Wantchekon, NYU Professor of Politics
Overall, I like the theme of the President Obama’s speech in Ghana. Africans must own their future by strengthening democratic institutions and the rule of law in their countries, and by becoming less reliant on assistance. I also like the idea of a real partnership between Africa and other developed countries based on trade. It is very much in line with what most of us would think. He said:
America can also do more to promote trade and investment. Wealthy nations must open our doors to goods and services from Africa in a meaningful way.
As Africans reach for this promise, America will be more responsible in extending our hand. By cutting costs that go to Western consultants and administration, we want to put more resources in the hands of those who need it, while training people to do more for themselves.
What I find a bit questionable is this:
Africa is not the crude caricature of a continent at perpetual war. But if we are honest, for far too many Africans, conflict is a part of life, as constant as the sun … These conflicts are a millstone around Africa’s neck.
My sense is that in saying this he has helped to perpetuate, perhaps unwittingly, the very caricature that he questions. Conflict is NOT as constant as the sun in Africa. While this may have been the reality of the 1970s and the 1980s, it is certainly no longer the case. He forgot to add that many of these conflicts were proxy wars between the US and the former Soviet Union (such as that in Angola), or were manufactured by France (such as that in Congo Brazzaville).
The average African country is at peace. Moreover, it is a democracy, albeit one with relatively weak state capacity, such as Liberia, and Mali. Zimbabwe is the exception, not the rule. And even in Zimbabwe, where there is 90% unemployment, incredible hardships and repression, most people want democracy, not another war.
Freedom, especially freedom of the press, has also drastically improved in the majority of African countries, to the point where Reporters Without Borders have ranked several African nations above developed countries such as Italy and Japan.
Of course, democracy is—as Obama put it—“more than holding elections – it’s also about what happens between them”: good governance, human rights, etc. But I see no path to good governance, human rights, and even conflict resolution in Africa unless elections are held regularly. In addition, elections are intrinsically valuable, beyond their potential effect on governance. I am sure Nelson Mandela would agree with that. In fact, various Afrobarometer surveys from 1999 to 2009 suggest that nearly 70% define democracy purely in terms of political rights, not in terms of governance. Perhaps surprisingly, there is no significant difference between rural and urban citizens, or between more educated and less educated citizens.
In terms of the strongman syndrome, things have changed for the better. All across Africa courts and unions have tried (most of the time successfully) to block and prevent constitutional changes that would allow the sitting president to run for an additional term (African presidents have therefore been less successful than the Mayor of New York City in this regard!). Afrobarometer surveys suggest that 75% of Africans reject military rule, 73% reject a one-party system, and 79% reject strongman rule.
I would like the President to acknowledge more clearly that Africans have already got the idea that “Africa doesn’t not need strong men, it needs strong institutions.”
12 Comments
“The average African country is at peace.”
Well as long as less than half the countries in Africa are at war I’m sure that’s fine. What a dolt Obama is for focusing on the remaining bad cases and not talking in averages.
The majority of Africans may have gotten the idea that strongman rule is no longer the order of the day, but that desire certainly has not translated into reality. Even leaders like Wade and Museveni who were democratically elected have adopted a strongman style of governance. Offhand I can count strongman rulers in Nigeria, Togo, Guinea, Gambia, Chad, Sudan, Ethiopia, Burkina, Congos, Guinea Bissau, Angola, CAR, Mauritania, Libya, and Egypt. Those countries together represent well over 2/3 of the population of Africa. So how do we translate this stated desire for strong institutions over strong men into reality.
I would respond to Jim that speaking about averages doesn’t help–it ignores the only need for change. We aren’t looking for what generally works, we are looking for what works in the worst contexts–the ones that need to see the most improvement. It is not the countries that adhere most closely to the trend line, but the ones who diverge and could improve most easily that we should be paying attention to.
Also, he wasn’t speaking to the people as much as to the leaders. To criticize Obama for speaking truth to power is unfair, especially as moral persuasion can be a surprisingly effective tool–more effective at least than doing nothing, or only changing on our own side. You might say we don’t know what “strong institutions” means, or that strong men are the only ones who can instill good institutions effectively (meaning we need good, strong leaders) or even that we should give up because we can’t do anything with corrupt governments. But to argue that we shouldn’t suggest that good governance through good institutions is to abandon our responsibilities as world citizens.
What about the U.S. not meddling to further its own interests, not to mention the French, British World Bank and other ‘friends of Africa.’ I would expect a Professor of political science to know about that. Pay for a course where you only learn the ‘corrected’ version of history, ask for a rebate.
SS
“America can also do more to promote trade and investment. Wealthy nations must open our doors to goods and services from Africa in a meaningful way”
Here are our american hypocrites again, full of joy and oh so trade friendly. If you know that 98% of AGOA trade consists of african OIL , you learn that “to promote investment” means in a meaningful way in reality: “pump more oil for us, and you can do as you please”.
Have you recently heard any American criticism on those thieves in charge of Angola?
Of course not, americans “need” that angola oil, at a rate of 2 million barrels/day. And please invest more.
They got the message in west africa
Oh and by the way, even if you don’t have oil, please don’t take that Obama blabla seriously,
as long as you support the war on terror, you can do as you please, just like the old Sovjet days!
they got the message in East Africa.
@ anonymous
Sounds like you know something, in that case anonymous is the only place to be.
SS
That isn’t a fair way to look at AGOA numbers. You are doing it in pure dollar terms, which is misleading. In 2007, there was 51.1 billion in AGOA trade, 3.4 of which was non-oil. (http://www.ustr.gov/report-shows-agoa-continues-grow-and-diversify-us-africa-trade) Fair enough, that is a big difference, but 1) oil is expensive and can’t just be compared with some kind of $/$ or gallon/square yard of fabric measurement, and 2) that oil would have been bought either way, now it is just more profitable to the sellers.
You might argue that America would have bought less oil at a higher price point, but that would be detrimental to the seller as well.
American policymakers continually demand two results from developing countries: good institutions and “trade, not aid.” Although good institutions certainly facilitate trade, too often trade is portrayed as a sufficient condition for good institutions–hardly the case. I don’t think Obama’s speech made any improvements here.
For me, the central point of the speech was the acknowledgment that African leaders often lack the political agency to implement the policies that donors demand– purging the government of corruption, streamlining institutions, and providing public services to all. Policymakers would do well to study these conditions in depth, and formulate new types of aid that can provide political leverage and technical and financial resources to reform-oriented elites.
American policymakers continually demand two results from developing countries: good institutions and “trade, not aid.” Although good institutions certainly facilitate trade, too often trade is portrayed as a sufficient condition for good institutions–hardly the case. I don’t think Obama’s speech made any improvements here.
For me, the central point of the speech was the acknowledgment that African leaders often lack the political agency to implement the policies that donors demand– purging the government of corruption, streamlining institutions, and providing public services to all. Policymakers would do well to study these conditions in depth, and formulate new types of aid that can provide political leverage and technical and financial resources to reform-oriented elites.
Speaking about deposed African leaders of some stature and promise like Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso recently with a Rwandan friend she told me that France had tried to assassinate Kagame because of his pro-anglophone position. I have no idea if this is credible but like the street-market understanding of the complex politics leading to Sankara’s death with Western complicity, I suspect it might well be. I do know that U.S. aid was probably involved in Rwandas invasion of the DRC.
Anyone have any thoughts on these issues? They seem a lot more relevant than abstract discussions of strong men and desirable institutions.
SS
Posted on July 17, 2009 13:22
SS:
Speaking about deposed African leaders of some stature and promise like Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso recently with a Rwandan friend she told me that France had tried to assassinate Kagame because of his pro-anglophone position. I have no idea if this is credible but like the street-market understanding of the complex politics leading to Sankara’s death with Western complicity, I suspect it might well be. I do know that U.S. aid was probably involved in Rwandas invasion of the DRC.
Anyone have any thoughts on these issues? They seem a lot more relevant than abstract discussions of strong men and desirable institutions.
SS
WHY IS THIS BEING REMOVED?
Posted on July 17, 2009 13:22
Posted on July 17, 2009 14:03
SS:
Speaking about deposed African leaders of some stature and promise like Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso recently with a Rwandan friend she told me that France had tried to assassinate Kagame because of his pro-anglophone position. I have no idea if this is credible but like the street-market understanding of the complex politics leading to Sankara’s death with Western complicity, I suspect it might well be. I do know that U.S. aid was probably involved in Rwandas invasion of the DRC.
Anyone have any thoughts on these issues? They seem a lot more relevant than abstract discussions of strong men and desirable institutions.
SS
Posted by SS | July 19, 2009 4:03 PM