Nature abhors vacuum, so says philosophers, and scientists postulate that air occupies space. Similarly, a leadership vacuum must and will be filled at any given time by an individual or a state to help create order and an enabling environment for development, as we have learnt from ancient and recent history: The Roman empire (27BC - AD 1453), the United Kingdom (18th and 19th Centuries) and the United States (20th and 21st Centuries) have all played crucial global economic, political and military leadership roles, sometimes at heavy human toll and substantial fiscal costs, in maintaining order through minimizing conflicts between societies or states in the natural pursuit of resources, power and dominance. A nation’s leader sets the moral tone (e.g. the rallying of the world against Nazism and Fascism by Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill), backed by economic muscle to drive a nation toward that moral imperative (e.g. building a democratic and free world where the rights of sovereign nations are respected).
In the post-World War II era, America has been the moral impetus crusading for the spread of democracy, freedom and human rights. America's foray into Vietnam (1965-1975, combat operation), Korea (1950-1953) and the Gulf (1991 and 2003-present) were inspired primarily by the economic, cultural and moral incentive to fight against communism, dictatorship, terrorism, oppression and the need to spread freedom and democracy. Whilst a nation may pursue global and regional geopolitical interests (e.g. the U.S. removal of Saddam’s forces from Kuwait), such leadership sometimes turns out to advance the interest of a region or the world (relatively unrestricted flow of oil from the Gulf).
West Africa and Ghana lack the leadership that existed in the days of Ghana’s first president Kwame Nkrumah. Nkrumah set the moral tone on why Africa needed independence and why the whole continent ought to pursue that objective with deliberate haste. Such impetus helped speed up the independence movement, and within just three years after Ghana's independence, Nigeria, Senegal, Cameroon, Ivory Coast and others successfully wrested political power from the British and the French in their respective countries in 1960.
Kwame Nkrumah coined the term the Black Star to refer to the leadership of Ghana on the continent of Africa. Ghana was indeed a star of Africa, being the first Sub-Saharan nation to achieve independence and advocate for full economic, cultural and political self-government in Africa. In effect, Nkrumah created a Ghana that took a leadership role in foreign policy. That leadership position was relinquished after Nkrumah's overthrow in 1966 when Ghana was plunged into political and economic upheaval.
Today, Africa lacks continental leadership. South Africa has the economic muscle but lacks the will and the moral tone necessary to foster that kind of continental leadership. We see chaos and disorder in African foreign policy. Civil wars have thrived for years in West Africa (Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Liberia, etc), in the horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia), in Central Africa (Zaire, C.A.R) and in the Southern African region (Angola, Mozambique). In the last 40 years, we have witnessed virtually no regional or continental leadership in Africa. In the face of this leadership vacuum, minor disagreements or skirmishes can easily spiral out of control. Liberia's troubles started as resentment by a segment of population over the perceived dictatorship and political and economic dominance by President Doe’s Krahn ethnic group, which eventually escalated into a full-blown civil war. Similar trends and sequence follow most of the other trouble spots on the continent.
Ghana undoubtedly has the brain power, the moral rectitude and, to a lesser extent, the economic power to reassert itself as a regional and continental power on the foreign policy front. On brain power, Ghana is one sub-Saharan country with a pool of competent leaders with extensive intellectual pedigree, including Kwame Nkrumah (Penn, doctorate), second president Kofi Busia (Oxford, doctorate), Kofi Annan (MIT, management), John Kufuor (Oxford, law), Attah Mills (Stanford Law School, Fulbright scholar), to name a few. The nation's emphasis on education early on in its history has paid off big time. No wonder it can boasts of such intellectual powerhouses. Not only can Ghana claim bragging rights for giving impetus to the independence movement in Africa, it now currently stands as Africa's most successful democracy. It has recorded four successive transparent elections since 1992 and twice has successfully transferred power from an incumbent party to an opposition party. The country has a robust and competitive media industry that enjoys relative freedom with virtually no government intimidation or intervention.
The case for financial power is harder to make given the relatively small size of Ghana’s economy compared to countries like South Africa and Nigeria. Nevertheless, Ghana has the best-performing economy in West Africa (annual GDP growth rate of 6% in the last 6 years) and is among the top five in sub-Saharan Africa (in the league of South Africa, Botswana, Gabon, Angola). The country can boast of a robust economy that has expanded or registered higher growth than the previous year consistently in the last 10 years. Without doubt, Ghana's economy is one of the fastest-growing and most stable in Africa. The discovery of oil resources has led to diversification of the economy and a burgeoning new petrochemical sector, which will undoubtedly boost the Ghana’s quest to become a regional and continental economic and political power.
West Africa needs a regional leader and Africa needs continental leadership. Ghana aptly filled those roles in the 60's, thanks to the vision and charisma of Kwame Nkrumah and his young team of men and women inspired to help secure a rightful place for Africa in the modern community of nations. Given Ghana's current economic resurgence and flourishing democracy, the nation is ripe again to claim that leadership mantle.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
AFRICA'S BEST CHANCE
In the early 1990s, shortly after the end of the Cold War, I wrote a paper, arguing that the moment of Africa's economic and political resurgence had arrived. Why? The conventional wisdom was that the end of the Cold War also marked the end of Africa's victimhood as pawns in the proxy wars between the United States and the then-Soviet Union.
The Cold War’s ending was so abrupt; nobody expected it to end the way it did. Even though Africa is geographically far removed from the US and the former USSR, the continent provided such a fertile ground politically as well as economically for the superpowers to tussle in our backyard. This tussle between two elephants on the world’s second largest continent played a major role in civil wars (for example in Congo, Angola, and Sudan), rampant coup d’états (Ghana 1966, Congo 1960) and accentuated ethnic rivalries. The political, economic and security rift between the United States and the Soviet Union was very ideological and tense, and in Africa (as in Central America and South Asia), the struggle for American and Soviet influence contributed to a series of factors (e.g. colonialism, “artificial” national borders, African rivalry over land and dominance, etc) that pit one ethnic group against another, and black nation against fellow black nation (Angola vs. South Africa vs. Namibia).
With this ideological war's end in the early 60's, the stage seemed to be set for Africa to concentrate on creating a better world for its people and securing its rightful place in the world. But strangely enough, the war's ending unleashed the worst nightmares for Africa's: it marked the breakout of even more civil wars and political chaos. West Africa in particular literally went up in flames: Liberia burned; Sierra Leone imploded; Ivory Coast went helter smelter. In the Eastern and Central Africa, Uganda, Congo, Rwanda, Burundi were consumed by conflagration. The Southern region saw escalation of wars in Angola and Mozambique, whilst fighting escalated in the perennial hotspot in the horn of Africa—Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia.
Apparently, the Cold War heightened already existing rivalries in Africa: ethnic and religious differences were more deeply drawn as geopolitical strategies in the East and West sought to promote their self-interest in the proxy war. The falling of the Berlin Wall created a vacuum that oiled the flames of war on the continent. Thus, the optimism that greeted ending of the Cold War and the hope that the decade of the 90s was the beginning of great things to come for Africa turned out to be a mirage.
Can we get it wrong again? This time the spread of democracy and fall of military juntas and dictators—long the scourge of Africa's progress—marks a new turning point for the better. More African nations, including Ghana, Senegal, Nigeria, South Africa, Benin, Mozambique, etc, are democracies than ever before. This has already reaped huge economic benefits for the continent as many African countries (Ghana, South Africa, Botswana, etc) are registering economic growth rates of 5% or higher. The fall of military dictatorships means that African nations are now better governed and are more transparent.
Now the fear is can democracy take root in Africa without some resistance and ultimate cost? There are still pockets of resistance to new phenomena as hold outs from the old era that benefit from the corruption of dictatorships are resisting the new winds of change. Togo’s Eyadema resisted change till his death in 2005 after almost 38 years in office, whilst Ghana’s Rawlings and his followers continue to celebrate the coups of 1979 and 1981. Such elements are always fomenting trouble to bring back the old system.
Moreover, the system of democracy has its flaws and tends to accentuate already existing differences. A lot of this will depend on leadership; responsible leaders can always avoid such pitfalls by putting the interest of the people ahead of their own deep-seated tendencies to gain or perpetuate power by any means.
In the end, the new prognostication for Africa's success following the winds of democracy blowing over the continent sounds plausible. Already countries like Ghana, Mozambique and Uganda have shown great strides the hope is that more African countries will follow in their stead.
The Cold War’s ending was so abrupt; nobody expected it to end the way it did. Even though Africa is geographically far removed from the US and the former USSR, the continent provided such a fertile ground politically as well as economically for the superpowers to tussle in our backyard. This tussle between two elephants on the world’s second largest continent played a major role in civil wars (for example in Congo, Angola, and Sudan), rampant coup d’états (Ghana 1966, Congo 1960) and accentuated ethnic rivalries. The political, economic and security rift between the United States and the Soviet Union was very ideological and tense, and in Africa (as in Central America and South Asia), the struggle for American and Soviet influence contributed to a series of factors (e.g. colonialism, “artificial” national borders, African rivalry over land and dominance, etc) that pit one ethnic group against another, and black nation against fellow black nation (Angola vs. South Africa vs. Namibia).
With this ideological war's end in the early 60's, the stage seemed to be set for Africa to concentrate on creating a better world for its people and securing its rightful place in the world. But strangely enough, the war's ending unleashed the worst nightmares for Africa's: it marked the breakout of even more civil wars and political chaos. West Africa in particular literally went up in flames: Liberia burned; Sierra Leone imploded; Ivory Coast went helter smelter. In the Eastern and Central Africa, Uganda, Congo, Rwanda, Burundi were consumed by conflagration. The Southern region saw escalation of wars in Angola and Mozambique, whilst fighting escalated in the perennial hotspot in the horn of Africa—Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia.
Apparently, the Cold War heightened already existing rivalries in Africa: ethnic and religious differences were more deeply drawn as geopolitical strategies in the East and West sought to promote their self-interest in the proxy war. The falling of the Berlin Wall created a vacuum that oiled the flames of war on the continent. Thus, the optimism that greeted ending of the Cold War and the hope that the decade of the 90s was the beginning of great things to come for Africa turned out to be a mirage.
Can we get it wrong again? This time the spread of democracy and fall of military juntas and dictators—long the scourge of Africa's progress—marks a new turning point for the better. More African nations, including Ghana, Senegal, Nigeria, South Africa, Benin, Mozambique, etc, are democracies than ever before. This has already reaped huge economic benefits for the continent as many African countries (Ghana, South Africa, Botswana, etc) are registering economic growth rates of 5% or higher. The fall of military dictatorships means that African nations are now better governed and are more transparent.
Now the fear is can democracy take root in Africa without some resistance and ultimate cost? There are still pockets of resistance to new phenomena as hold outs from the old era that benefit from the corruption of dictatorships are resisting the new winds of change. Togo’s Eyadema resisted change till his death in 2005 after almost 38 years in office, whilst Ghana’s Rawlings and his followers continue to celebrate the coups of 1979 and 1981. Such elements are always fomenting trouble to bring back the old system.
Moreover, the system of democracy has its flaws and tends to accentuate already existing differences. A lot of this will depend on leadership; responsible leaders can always avoid such pitfalls by putting the interest of the people ahead of their own deep-seated tendencies to gain or perpetuate power by any means.
In the end, the new prognostication for Africa's success following the winds of democracy blowing over the continent sounds plausible. Already countries like Ghana, Mozambique and Uganda have shown great strides the hope is that more African countries will follow in their stead.
Friday, April 3, 2009
WHY PRESIDENT MILLS IS FAILING HIS FIRST TEST
Alexandria, April 3 – With all its touted numerous virtues, democracy can be a very imperfect political system with serious flaws, especially when demagogues and selfish leaders are allowed to have their way. For one, democracy can be very polarizing, especially during the two quarters following a hotly-contested election. Political campaigns are about winning and can produce tons of toxic and divisive rhetoric, as most campaign gurus and political leaders would do or say anything to win –sometimes splitting their countries along ethnic, racial or religious lines --regardless of the long-term consequences for a nation. But once elected, many leaders prudently spend time to clean up the noxious waste they spewed on the campaign trail, and immediately seek to unify their countries shortly after a new leader is sworn-in. Ghana’s new President, John Mills is failing this critical and important test.
Ghana’s 2008 presidential election was the closest and most polarizing in its history –and arguably the most competitive in Africa’s history, with barely 40,000 votes separating the victor from the loser out of over 10 million votes cast. There is no question the campaign often got testy and dirty, with both major parties clearly guilty of ethnic demagoguery. The National Democratic Convention (NDC) played on the subliminal anti-Ashanti sentiment ever present in Ghana politics and the New Patriotic Party was just as guilty pounding away on anti-Ewe rhetoric also all too common in Ghana. The result is that we have a Ghana that is now the most ethnically polarized in our history.
All this make it very disconcerting that President John Mills is acting like a stone deaf leader at the ugly, new political climate that is threatening Ghana’s stability. He sits idly by whilst unscrupulous elements in his party are busy harassing opposition leaders, particularly, the ex-President John Kufuor and NPP leader Nana Addo. President Kufuor has endured unwarranted verbal abuse and ill-conceived property seizures from the NDC, presumably as cover for protecting state property and as retaliation for similar actions by the NPP in the last 8 years.
The world economy is experiencing the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression and whilst Washington, Johannesburg, London, Beijing, and other centers of power are busy brainstorming solutions to combat the global recession, it is comic hour in Ghana—with politicians fighting over state vehicles, houses and other properties. That is democracy in Ghana and Africa –it is all about who gets to enjoy the spoils of state property and money.
President Mills ought to promote unity and project an assertive presence that he is in charge at this social and economic turning point in the nation’s history. President Mills cannot continue to look weak and helpless whilst his cronies are busy creating chaos and discord. We are seeing a level of lawlessness unhealthy for the unity and stability of our nation. The worst of the government officials committing such wanton acts is ex-aide to former President Jerry Rawlings, Victor Smith. Accompanied by armed commandos he has been the main leader going after ex-government officials to seize properties in often confrontational and demeaning manner, rather than follow legal or appropriate channels. And thugs from the Ga Adangbe Youth are out there threatening ex-President Kufuor. The stone deaf silence of the president in the midst of the gangster abuse of state office by low-level staff and acts of lawlessness by the governing party-affiliated interest groups that can ignite civil strife is quite disappointing.
The President must lead by reining the so-called Ga-Adangbe Youth. He must use the bully pulpit to unite and encourage Ghanaians to desist from acts that would foment tension and conflict. Setting such a positive tone would create the right atmosphere for serious policy discussions that the nation currently and desperately needs. We are not immune from the global economic breakdown and we need to seriously debate our way forward. In the past, we sit lazily for the IMF and World Bank to lecture us on restructuring our economic and financial systems, even writing our budgets. Whilst their recommendations are often well-intended, they are not always right as the global institutions often employ foreign experts who often do not have full grasp of our cultural, political and socio-economic systems. As a result, the international consultants often make recommendations that seldom help to curb inflation, stabilize our currency or strengthen our export-driven industries. It would be more effective if we take the lead to drive our own destiny and tell these institutions what we need and the direction in which we want to go. Such a proactive effort will more effectively complement the efforts of these donor institutions to help us.
President Mills must lead and at the moment he is failing his first test of setting a unifying tone for the nation. He is tight-lipped on a very polarizing climate unleashed by elements from his party –a situation that is counter-productive for our democracy and a distraction for national progress. The President must also lead by setting in motion serious policy debates on urgent matters facing the Republic of Ghana.of Ghana.
Ghana’s 2008 presidential election was the closest and most polarizing in its history –and arguably the most competitive in Africa’s history, with barely 40,000 votes separating the victor from the loser out of over 10 million votes cast. There is no question the campaign often got testy and dirty, with both major parties clearly guilty of ethnic demagoguery. The National Democratic Convention (NDC) played on the subliminal anti-Ashanti sentiment ever present in Ghana politics and the New Patriotic Party was just as guilty pounding away on anti-Ewe rhetoric also all too common in Ghana. The result is that we have a Ghana that is now the most ethnically polarized in our history.
All this make it very disconcerting that President John Mills is acting like a stone deaf leader at the ugly, new political climate that is threatening Ghana’s stability. He sits idly by whilst unscrupulous elements in his party are busy harassing opposition leaders, particularly, the ex-President John Kufuor and NPP leader Nana Addo. President Kufuor has endured unwarranted verbal abuse and ill-conceived property seizures from the NDC, presumably as cover for protecting state property and as retaliation for similar actions by the NPP in the last 8 years.
The world economy is experiencing the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression and whilst Washington, Johannesburg, London, Beijing, and other centers of power are busy brainstorming solutions to combat the global recession, it is comic hour in Ghana—with politicians fighting over state vehicles, houses and other properties. That is democracy in Ghana and Africa –it is all about who gets to enjoy the spoils of state property and money.
President Mills ought to promote unity and project an assertive presence that he is in charge at this social and economic turning point in the nation’s history. President Mills cannot continue to look weak and helpless whilst his cronies are busy creating chaos and discord. We are seeing a level of lawlessness unhealthy for the unity and stability of our nation. The worst of the government officials committing such wanton acts is ex-aide to former President Jerry Rawlings, Victor Smith. Accompanied by armed commandos he has been the main leader going after ex-government officials to seize properties in often confrontational and demeaning manner, rather than follow legal or appropriate channels. And thugs from the Ga Adangbe Youth are out there threatening ex-President Kufuor. The stone deaf silence of the president in the midst of the gangster abuse of state office by low-level staff and acts of lawlessness by the governing party-affiliated interest groups that can ignite civil strife is quite disappointing.
The President must lead by reining the so-called Ga-Adangbe Youth. He must use the bully pulpit to unite and encourage Ghanaians to desist from acts that would foment tension and conflict. Setting such a positive tone would create the right atmosphere for serious policy discussions that the nation currently and desperately needs. We are not immune from the global economic breakdown and we need to seriously debate our way forward. In the past, we sit lazily for the IMF and World Bank to lecture us on restructuring our economic and financial systems, even writing our budgets. Whilst their recommendations are often well-intended, they are not always right as the global institutions often employ foreign experts who often do not have full grasp of our cultural, political and socio-economic systems. As a result, the international consultants often make recommendations that seldom help to curb inflation, stabilize our currency or strengthen our export-driven industries. It would be more effective if we take the lead to drive our own destiny and tell these institutions what we need and the direction in which we want to go. Such a proactive effort will more effectively complement the efforts of these donor institutions to help us.
President Mills must lead and at the moment he is failing his first test of setting a unifying tone for the nation. He is tight-lipped on a very polarizing climate unleashed by elements from his party –a situation that is counter-productive for our democracy and a distraction for national progress. The President must also lead by setting in motion serious policy debates on urgent matters facing the Republic of Ghana.of Ghana.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
