A Time to Follow
Today in the NY Times, there is an article about a new prize being established to reward African presidents who uphold basic democratic principles (such as stepping down after their constitutionally-allotted number of terms, which already rules out Museveni). There is an interesting quote in it by Mo Ibrahim, the Somali-born founder of Celtel who is now a billionaire:
“We must face the reality,” Mr. Ibrahim said, referring to Africa’s leadership record. “Everything starts by admitting the truth: we failed. I’m not proud at all. I’m ashamed. We really need to resolve the problem and the problem, in our view, is bad leadership and bad governance.”
This quote makes a very important point: Africa's problems are in no small way Africa's own creation, and Africa alone can and will fix them.
In a class I took once on democracy, development, and the rule of law, we were talking about Africa's famous problems: why has it suffered so much, and fallen so much behind the rest of the world? Fifty years ago (OK, I admit that I'm fudging this statistic, but you should read this as "sometime in the early-to-mid 20th century") it had the same per capita GDP as India. What happened?
The answer of every student: it must be colonialism's fault. That, and a lack of resources.
In this incredible rush to be seen as politically correct, to be non-western-centric pro-indigenous peoples, every single person in the class had just shat all over Africa. According to their argument, Africans have never had any control over their destiny. Africa is seen as a helpless virgin, powerless before the indomitable dragon of the West.
This revisionist history is as divorced from reality as it is insulting to Africa. (And it shows that liberals are not inherently more in touch with reality than the Christian right. Sometimes I think George Bush and MoveOn.org are competing to see whose rhetoric can be more ideological and less pertinent to reality.) Leave aside the starved-for-resources argument, which is akin to complaining that Minnesota lacks an adequate fresh water supply. You can't pin Africa's problems solely on Westerners. I'm not excusing Europeans and Americans for the crimes against humanity they did commit. I'm just saying that Africans played a big role in their own misfortune.
The slave trade, for example, would never have gotten off the ground were it not for the eagerness of many Africans to barter one another for sundry European goods, cowry shells, and guns. And even though some analysts (such as John Reader, in his otherwise laudable tome, "Africa: A Biography of the Continent") imply that in supplying these goods, the Europeans were somehow tricking the naive Africans into demanding them, that is illogical crazy-talk. A supply does not generate its own demand. Africans demanded European guns because they wanted power over other Africans, just as man has always strove to have power over man.
While colonialism was staggeringly violent, coercive, and abusive (Adam Hochschild estimates that by the end of Belgium's rule over the Congo, the population was half what it should have been), many Africans also opportunistically cooperated with the European rule, too. The European technological advantage played a huge role in the colonialists' dominance, but as John Reader fairly well shows, the "thin white line" by which the colonialists kept themselves in power was far too fragile to have held were it not for the complicity of many local leaders.
The point of this tangent was not to point a finger of blame back at Africa, nor was it to excuse Europe and America of moral responsibility for the atrocities they committed and were complicit in. It is to say, however, that Africa is not, was not, and has never been helpless. Since independence, Africa's leaders (by and large) have been brutal despots; Africa's misgovernance is its number one hindrance to development—not the colonial legacy, not the slave trade, not the WTO, the IMF, the Washington Consensus, or EU agricultural subsidies. (Although those certainly are evil... seriously, they're more than just misguided. Western farm subsidies are a crime against humanity.)
And look: if Africa is no damsel in distress, if it is not floundering in the grasp of some Western Smaug, then it doesn't need a knight in shining armor to come save it. The great thing is that Africa does control its own destiny, and it can solve its own problems. I see all these hotshot young foreign do-gooders working for Western NGOs, riding around in a shiny Land Rover like a well-armored, trusty steed. They do nothing but boost their bleeding heart credentials. As evidence: I fairly trip over foreign NGOs here in Kampala. If most of them were even remotely worth the time and money that's thrown into them, if they were really a worthwhile investment, Ugandan poverty wouldn't possibly be on the rise, 80% of Ugandan children would not fail to finish primary school, lepers and beggars wouldn't line the streets.
I don't dispute that the NGOs and the volunteers who staff them mean well, and I know many of them do make a difference for a few people. But the place of Americans and Europeans who want to make a difference in Africa is not to lead, it is to follow. Yes, we do have a moral responsibility to help. But only Africa can find the solutions to Africa's problems, and the role of the U.S., the E.U., and the rest of the international community is to provide them with support, and (even more importantly) to stop holding them back.
Africans are aware of this. Hardly ever do I hear an African go on a diatribe against colonialism (although I wouldn't blame her or him if they did). Instead, I hear statements like this quote from Mo Ibrahim: "We really need to resolve the problem and the problem, in our view, is bad leadership and bad governance.” Africans are stepping up to tackle their own problems. The question is, will the Westerners step down from their high horse to walk with them arm-in-arm?
“We must face the reality,” Mr. Ibrahim said, referring to Africa’s leadership record. “Everything starts by admitting the truth: we failed. I’m not proud at all. I’m ashamed. We really need to resolve the problem and the problem, in our view, is bad leadership and bad governance.”
This quote makes a very important point: Africa's problems are in no small way Africa's own creation, and Africa alone can and will fix them.
In a class I took once on democracy, development, and the rule of law, we were talking about Africa's famous problems: why has it suffered so much, and fallen so much behind the rest of the world? Fifty years ago (OK, I admit that I'm fudging this statistic, but you should read this as "sometime in the early-to-mid 20th century") it had the same per capita GDP as India. What happened?
The answer of every student: it must be colonialism's fault. That, and a lack of resources.
In this incredible rush to be seen as politically correct, to be non-western-centric pro-indigenous peoples, every single person in the class had just shat all over Africa. According to their argument, Africans have never had any control over their destiny. Africa is seen as a helpless virgin, powerless before the indomitable dragon of the West.
This revisionist history is as divorced from reality as it is insulting to Africa. (And it shows that liberals are not inherently more in touch with reality than the Christian right. Sometimes I think George Bush and MoveOn.org are competing to see whose rhetoric can be more ideological and less pertinent to reality.) Leave aside the starved-for-resources argument, which is akin to complaining that Minnesota lacks an adequate fresh water supply. You can't pin Africa's problems solely on Westerners. I'm not excusing Europeans and Americans for the crimes against humanity they did commit. I'm just saying that Africans played a big role in their own misfortune.
The slave trade, for example, would never have gotten off the ground were it not for the eagerness of many Africans to barter one another for sundry European goods, cowry shells, and guns. And even though some analysts (such as John Reader, in his otherwise laudable tome, "Africa: A Biography of the Continent") imply that in supplying these goods, the Europeans were somehow tricking the naive Africans into demanding them, that is illogical crazy-talk. A supply does not generate its own demand. Africans demanded European guns because they wanted power over other Africans, just as man has always strove to have power over man.
While colonialism was staggeringly violent, coercive, and abusive (Adam Hochschild estimates that by the end of Belgium's rule over the Congo, the population was half what it should have been), many Africans also opportunistically cooperated with the European rule, too. The European technological advantage played a huge role in the colonialists' dominance, but as John Reader fairly well shows, the "thin white line" by which the colonialists kept themselves in power was far too fragile to have held were it not for the complicity of many local leaders.
The point of this tangent was not to point a finger of blame back at Africa, nor was it to excuse Europe and America of moral responsibility for the atrocities they committed and were complicit in. It is to say, however, that Africa is not, was not, and has never been helpless. Since independence, Africa's leaders (by and large) have been brutal despots; Africa's misgovernance is its number one hindrance to development—not the colonial legacy, not the slave trade, not the WTO, the IMF, the Washington Consensus, or EU agricultural subsidies. (Although those certainly are evil... seriously, they're more than just misguided. Western farm subsidies are a crime against humanity.)
And look: if Africa is no damsel in distress, if it is not floundering in the grasp of some Western Smaug, then it doesn't need a knight in shining armor to come save it. The great thing is that Africa does control its own destiny, and it can solve its own problems. I see all these hotshot young foreign do-gooders working for Western NGOs, riding around in a shiny Land Rover like a well-armored, trusty steed. They do nothing but boost their bleeding heart credentials. As evidence: I fairly trip over foreign NGOs here in Kampala. If most of them were even remotely worth the time and money that's thrown into them, if they were really a worthwhile investment, Ugandan poverty wouldn't possibly be on the rise, 80% of Ugandan children would not fail to finish primary school, lepers and beggars wouldn't line the streets.
I don't dispute that the NGOs and the volunteers who staff them mean well, and I know many of them do make a difference for a few people. But the place of Americans and Europeans who want to make a difference in Africa is not to lead, it is to follow. Yes, we do have a moral responsibility to help. But only Africa can find the solutions to Africa's problems, and the role of the U.S., the E.U., and the rest of the international community is to provide them with support, and (even more importantly) to stop holding them back.
Africans are aware of this. Hardly ever do I hear an African go on a diatribe against colonialism (although I wouldn't blame her or him if they did). Instead, I hear statements like this quote from Mo Ibrahim: "We really need to resolve the problem and the problem, in our view, is bad leadership and bad governance.” Africans are stepping up to tackle their own problems. The question is, will the Westerners step down from their high horse to walk with them arm-in-arm?
posted by Nate at 11:42 PM
2 Comments:
Wow, I'm really impressed. This post shows that you're considering the issues critically and independently, not just repeating what you've learned in classes or from books, and your writing style is impeccable - clear and to-the-point, and enjoyable to read. Are you really my little brother?
Really, you're on the way to a book here. Your writing style is mature way beyond your years, and your arguments sound, at least, very logical and right on. Certainly enough to qualify you to publish a book, or a column. I'm also impressed that your opinions are based on your own observations and experiences, as well as familiarity with the literature of the field. Way to go.
Post a Comment
<< Home