by Leonard Wantchekon, NYU Professor of Politics
I would like to thank everyone for their comments on my previous post, Africans already got the idea: “Africa does not need strong men, it needs strong institutions.” This is very helpful and healthy.
How many countries that can be considered to be at war, in Africa? The two clear cut cases are Somalia, and Sudan. But you can add Chad and to some extent Congo. That is 4 out of 54 countries in Africa. That is 7 percent of Africa. You can throw in Nigeria or Kenya because of electoral violence. But would we call India a country at war?
It is important to have an accurate picture of conflict in Africa for at least three reasons.
First, policy response would radically differ if we think 20 percent of countries are at war or if it is only 7 percent. In one case, it might be useful to have a neutral rapid intervention force or a trusteeship of failed states. In the other case, all is needed might be technical assistance to courts, and police forces that can be handled locally.
Second, if we want to promote investment and tourism in Africa, it is really counter-productive to exaggerate the security situation. We also need to report progress, which has been significant in the past 10 years.
Third, we really need to underline the fact that political conflicts in Africa are increasingly peaceful despite economic hardship and the sometimes brutal repression as in Zimbabwe. Morgan Tsvangirai should be praised to not have responded to Mugabe’s violence by street violence. Zimbabwean opposition has shown incredible restraint and maturity in their struggle to establish democratic institutions in their country.
Regarding the strong man syndrome, I am not saying that it has have disappeared. Instead, I am saying that things are moving in the right direction. First, a majority of people reject it and second, the new “strong men” are nowhere near the “old” ones in terms of their autocratic style of government. Wade or Museveni are not, and can not possibly be, Mobutu or Eyadema. In addition, why call Obasanjo a strong man, even if he tried and failed to extend his term in office? But I entirely agree with Jeff Barnes when he says we now need to investigate “how do we translate this stated desire for strong institutions over strong men into reality”?
The development challenges in Africa are enormous. But we need to use serious empirical evidence to identify what the real problems are and to acknowledge progress. We need to be careful not to perpetuate this idea that it is “all the same everywhere and all the time in Africa.”
8 Comments
I do have a question for clarification. You mention that 4 or 6 (depending on definition) of 54 countries are ‘at war’ in Africa, in the context of a greater point that such violence is the exception not the rule.
It would be more helpful, I would think, not to look at how many countries in the past 10 years (for instance) have seen such conflict.
I agree with your overall point, but I do think that recent history bears out that violence on a significant scale (be it civil war or…) has been a significant problem for some African states.
Yes, we can’t count just today. But counting today, add Madagascar, add rape and murder rates in South Africa. We had looked to moving our regional HQ to Abidjan, just before it turned to violence, Nigerian oil fields, Mauritania, outlying areas of Niger. Ask how many women would feel safe taking public transportation across two borders, be it Cape to Cairo train, our Senegal to Bamako.
Dear Professor Wantchekon,
As the previous two comments show your post might require a little bit of nuance to be more accurate. Sure the cases you mention are clearly upfront in their nature, but other countries are also experiencing some sort of civil unrest. Moreover, from other countries we have no data to analyze: Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Central African Republic, Republic of Congo and other African states are led by strong men with little respect for civil rights, human rights, democracy or even political stability. One year ago I published a list of ten leaders who qualify for the “African Long Standing Leaders award.” Some of them are more harmful to their countries than others, but they are there and a certain prospect and danger for violence exists whether we like it or not. Let me put this problem in different terms. Museveni is arguably one of the most aggressive reformers in Africa. But what will happen when and if he steps down at the next elections? The country has yet to experience another leader and those who are the likely candidates have the same profile as Museveni. The situation will not necessarily be better off him. But when he steps down, the situation could go worse.
On the other hand, I agree with your argument that security threats are often exaggerated. I’ve done extensive research on Ugandan locally based entrepreneurs and the difficulty they face. One of the most common complaints is the perception of violence that tourists have about Uganda despite the fact that Uganda might fairly be one of if not the safest country in the region. My point is that exaggerating either the failure or the progress of African states is equally detrimental to a fair assessment of the current situation in Africa.
I agree with the previous comments. And I would like more clarification and detail about what stereotypes you’re addressing.
First, what stereotype are you talking about, and who came up with it? From what I gather, I think part of what you’re talking about is the negative and/or inaccurate images people seem to have about African countries. While they may appear as the most war/conflict torn regions, wouldn’t you say South American countries also come across as conflict regions? And I’m sure many US citizens imagine the Middle East as miles and miles of shrapnel and bearded men and veiled women, all indistinguishable from the neighboring countries.
Also, the title of your post is “No more African stereotyping that justifies military intervention,” but you only talk about war-torn countries. Are you only addressing situations in which military invasion is declared for war-torn countries? Because, whether or not we like it, military intervention is declared for other reasons as well, such as natural disasters, political unrest, and weapons of mass destruction.
You state “we need to use serious empirical evidence to identify what the real problems are and to acknowledge progress,” but I’m still not sure what your post offers. Do you have an idea of what the problems are? Or how to acknowledge progress? I’m guessing whatever news and media people choose to watch is the real problem. Also, I doubt many people know the difference among African countries, let alone where they are on a map (I, certainly, cannot name them all).
War happens normally among two or more parts.
While I would not include Kenya in the African countries “war list” I believe that many more wars should be added to such a sad bulletin.
I know the UN give a scientific definiton of “war” but on the other hand it is quite easy to complete it even without that theory.
Personally I believe that Africa is now hosting war in at least 15 out of 54 countries, which correspond to 27% of the number of different countries in Africa.
They are:
DRCongo
Uganda
Rwanda
Somalia
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Algeria
Sudan
Chad
Nigeria
Angola
Western Sahara
Mauritania
Ivory Cost
Morocco
So as you can see we are really far from the figure of your post.
Army from each of the above listed countries is actually fighting or controlling at least another army (no matter if from another country or from a knwown rebel group)
I don’t actually believe that Kenya is fighting a war now. Unfortunately Kenyan government is doing everything is possible to achieve that goal by the next poll in 2011.
Regarding countries like Zimbabwe it should be noted that they are running a war against their own people without the evidence of a organized rebel group on the other side.
I have to second the sentiment of the comments above.
Would one call India at war? By my completely back-of-the-envelope calculations, if one applied the same proportions at least 30,000 Indians would have been killed and over 1 million displaced. I don’t know what we would call that but it would not be peace.
Also, Somalia, Eritrea and perhaps to a lesser extent Ethiopia are all surely on any list of ‘countries not at peace’ by any reasonable definition.
So what are your prescriptions for a continent that is 20% at war?
I think this post is lacking a great deal of nuance, as other commenters have suggested. The fact is that a country needs some modicum of stability to be considered ready for investment and even if only two countries by your estimation are at war, there is a pronounced instability in way too many others to make them sustainable investments. Is aggressive reform needed? Without question. But any reform that doesn’t take into consideration the security structure and its role on the ground is going to fall short. Just because a Big Man isn’t a Strong Man ignores the hold/relationship he has with his security forces.
Support of the Lou Zhu, Lou Zhu worked hard
Signature——————————————————————————————————————–
Nothing is impossible for a willing heart
ugg Boots