RSS
Menampilkan postingan yang diurutkan menurut relevansi untuk kueri patronage. Urutkan menurut tanggal Tampilkan semua postingan
Menampilkan postingan yang diurutkan menurut relevansi untuk kueri patronage. Urutkan menurut tanggal Tampilkan semua postingan

Patronage Machines & What Africans Owe Themselves


In reviewing Wangari Maathai's The Challenge for Africa and Zambian Dambisa Moyo's Dead Aid Francis Fukuyama argues that:

Both women see sub-Saharan Africa's fundamental problem not as one of resources, human or natural, or as a matter of geography, but, rather, as one of bad government. Far too many regimes in Africa have become patronage machines in which political power is sought by "big men" for the sole purpose of acquiring resources—resources that are funneled either back to the networks of supporters who helped a particular leader come to power or else into the proverbial Swiss bank account. There is no concept of public good; politics has devolved instead into a zero-sum struggle to appropriate the state and whatever assets it can control.
He concludes:
...both at least focus on the real core of the problem, which is the region's level of political development. In this realm, solutions are going to have to come from within the region itself. It is a positive first step for the discussion to shift away from what the outside world owes Africa and toward what Africans owe themselves.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Obama: Does He Opposes republicanism?

Let's not forget the big picture during this primary season- defeating President Obama's attempt to hold on to political power. This is not a partisan issue- I don't suggest that Obama needs to be defeated merely because he is a Democrat or a liberal or a progressive or whatever- but rather this is an issue about putting someone in the White House who is better at getting out of my way.

I'm great a working hard, creating wealth, making my own decisions in my life, living with my own mistakes, and producing goods and services for our great nation- and so are you. All you require to be prosperous, happy, and free is a government which protects your life through national defense and police services and the like, a government which protects your liberty and freedom by making sure that enemies without and within do not gain the ability to order you around, and a government which protects your happiness by making sure that the property you do earn you keep. You are all great Americans.

And yet, President Obama does not think that you are great Americans- he thinks that you make bad decisions, that you don't understand how a baby could ruin your life, and that you are not creating the right sort of property or spending your property in the right way. And this dangerous man with these dangerous attitudes has become President of the United States of America and is now using the power of that executive office to take away your liberty and freedom and property and make your life a little less full.

You've felt it, just like I have, over the years and getting worse over the last three- that feeling like people don't matter any more, like peoples lives are inconsequential, and that feeling that our world is a little less alive. It is not surprising that you've felt this way- as government has gotten bigger and more powerful and more in control with more aspects of your lives this impersonal and vast institution has dehumanized us and treated us as numbers and taken away from our life, liberty, and property.

President Barack Obama supports this dehumanizing and confiscating and controlling philosophy because he does not think that you are all great Americans.

Jay Cost on Saturday touched on these ideas in his blog post, where he spoke about just exactly what sort of person Obama was, what his vision of the world was, and why opposing him rises beyond simply a partisan or jobs or improving economy thing- it is a real battle of vision for the future for America- one in which the individual is great and free and prosperous, or another one in which the individual is a slave to the state and controlled by the state and prosperous only as much as the state lets them be.

Here is part of Jay Cost's blog post, from the Weekly Standard, called What's So Bad About Obama?

...Obama is not “radical,” at least not in the way we usually define the concept. But that actually points to the big the problem with this president and his worldview. The progressive ideology dating back to the turn of the last century, and in which Obama is comfortably situated, was never really about overturning the established order, but rather in co-opting it...

... the hallmarks of the First New Deal – were all about grand bargains between government, labor, farmers, and capital owners. The point was to draw all classes to the bargaining table, with the meeting chaired by the progressives, naturally. So it goes for modern-day progressivism. Both Clintoncare and Obamacare did not try to implement “socialized medicine,” but rather strike a grand bargain that would encompass all of the “stakeholders” to manage the nation’s health care...

...Obama has not set out to destroy capitalism. He is no socialist in the traditional sense of the word. He is not interested in controlling the means of production, as Marx put it. He’s happy to let commerce and industry remain in private hands, but that does not mean he's a free market advocate in any politically relevant sense of the phrase. He wants the free market to do its thing, so long as the government can socialize an ever-greater amount of the profit, and also take an intimate role in managing the private sector to “socially beneficial” ends....

...The principal reason for this opposition is that there has always been more than a whiff of anti-republicanism to the progressive agenda. Just consider the name "progressive," which implies a social, epistemological, or moral vanguard -- hardly the hallmark of true republicanism. And what one person views as “socially beneficial," another may rightfully call political patronage. For instance, the New Deal was full of payoffs – small and large – to Democratic constituencies....

...And so, the Democrats’ grand dreams of a “Fair Deal” always stink of unfairness to conservatives in the republican tradition... And Barack Obama, the president who promised to bring change to Washington, has been a very diligent patron to his party's extensive list of clients. On item after item, the topline claim to benefit the national interest is regularly belied by the particularism of the fine print. Klein mentions three items in particular in his column – the auto bailout, the financial reform bill, and the health care bill – that were all justified on purely nationalistic grounds, but peel off the top layer and the stench of clientelism will overwhelm you. To this list I would add the stimulus bill, the jobs bill that Obama proposed in the fall, and the cap-and-trade bill. Liberals look upon them all as fulfilling a great national purpose, but republicans (small "r") see massive payoffs to core Democratic groups.

If you want to understand the seething anger on the conservative side of the aisle, this is what you need to appreciate: It’s not just that Obama is a big government guy in the progressive tradition, which conservatives have opposed for more than a century. It’s also that he’s a client guy, meaning that his idea of big government inevitably has special payoffs hidden in it somewhere. And more than even this, he's a boundless client guy in what should be an age of restraint. Payoffs to party clients are one thing when the economy is growing at a four percent rate per year; that is a situation where the times are so prosperous that government patrons are really just drawing upon the national surplus to satisfy their partisans. But when the economy is growing at less than two percent per year, barely enough to keep up with population growth, paying off party clients is actually like robbing from Peter to pay Paul. And while Obama and congressional Democrats have put off that bill -- in the form of our trillion-plus deficit -- conservatives are not fools. They know they'll be asked to pay up sooner or later, and with a stagnant economy that means less money in their pockets, in part because the president wants to hold together his voting coalition.

That's what's so bad about Obama.
Let's get past all of our past labels- Republicans and Democrats, Romney vs Newt, establishment vs anti-establishment, Tea Party vs Occupier, right vs left, conservative vs liberal- and realize just exactly what the battle is about today: republicanism vs dictatorship. This 2012 is about returning power back to the people of our nation by empowering them as individuals to make lives, be free, and earn property. Obama opposes that desire, and that is what is so bad about him and why he must be defeated in 2012 and his vision of government rejected with extreme manliness.

Jay Cost is the author of Spoiled Rotten: How the Politics of Patronage Corrupted the Once Noble Democratic Party and Now Threatens the American Republic.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Paul Biya: 25 Years and Counting...

Dibussi Tande analyses the sit-tight ineffectual Cameroon presidency.

Paul Biya failed to transform his nationalistic and progressive political vision into reality. By the end of the 1980s he had jettisoned all the key principles of his "New Deal" doctrine that had won him widespread national support and international acclaim early in his presidency...Unlike Ahmadou Ahidjo who was able "to frustrate somewhat the appetite of Northerners in order to stabilize his personal power" by carefully "cultivat[ing] ties with every ethnic group and [by] placat[ing] all the provincial elites with access to state resources," Biya "demonstrated less ability to control corruption and rent-seeking than Ahidjo had." He therefore allowed the "Beti barons" to increase "rent-seeking, corruption, and patronage beyond what Ahidjo ever allowed," and in the process, established a political system based on "ethnoclientelism".

via Pambazuka

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Patronage Networks

Bruce J Berman writes(pdf):

The colonial legacy of bureaucratic authoritarianism, pervasive patron-client relations, and a complex ethnic dialectic of assimilation, fragmentation and competition has persisted in post-colonial societies. Patron-client networks remain the fundamental state-society linkage in circumstances of social crisis and uncertainty and have extended to the very centre of the state. This accounts for the personalistic, materialistic and opportunistic character of African politics. Such networks also penetrate institutions of civil society and liberal democracy, undermining programmes of socio-economic and political reform.

via African Affairs

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

The Establishment Strikes Back, or Dat Seme Weak T!

The story of the Michigan Republican State Convention was the story of missed chances for the tea party and conservative elements of the party to put in place leadership for their future. When the time came for the over 4000 delegates (2K of which were voting delegates) that assembled at the Breslin Center in East Lansing, Michigan on Saturday to decide who they wanted to be the party's nominees for Attorney General and Secretary of State, it was as if the tea party element wasn't even there.

While many, myself included, thought that the tea party groups and anti-establishment crowd would be a big voting presence, when it really came down to it, they voted like many in the establishment, and picked their candidates not on principles such as limited government, federalism, and core principles, but rather the assembled delegates voted based on local loyalty, patronage, recognition, and successful attack ads.

For those of you who weren't there, let me try to paint a picture for you of the days events. The line to get in to the Breslin took several hours, and after it grew too long, security broke down and they just started letting everyone in. The steps to get up and down the seats were narrow and steep, and all the old-timers there had a lot of trouble with that. The speakers all pointed straight, which meant those to the right and left of the stage had trouble hearing. Those in wheelchairs were seated on the floor, but voting took place above. I didn't see anyone signing for the hearing-impaired. The big-screen behind the speakers had poor visuals, the sound was poorly done, and the order of events was chaotic. Rick Snyder, who is at the top of our ticket, spoke somewhere in the middle instead of at the customary end of convention, and then at the end of the convention they just dropped a bunch of balloons, almost as an afterthought. Ron Weisner has a lot to learn from this event I hope that he puts on a much better one next time.

The delegates sat through speech after speech, and then every candidate was nominated (with a 5 minute speech) and then seconded (with a 5 minute speech). Early on there was a real moment of excitement- after several dignitaries nominated state Rep. Brian Calley for Lieutenant Governor, who was Snyder's choice, a member of the Tea Party of West Michigan nominated Fruitport businessman Bill Cooper to challenge him. Since there were no ballots present, the chair called for a voice vote (which sounded pretty close), called Calley the winner, and then after more yelling called for a hand vote (even though at this point they were just letting anyone in the building). Things looked like they were going to get ugly until Brian Calley went in front of the crowd and in a very well done speech nobly withdrew his name for consideration.

The next major race was for Secretary of State for Michigan. After the first ballot Oakland County Clerk Ruth Johnson received 625 votes, state Sen. Cameron Brown received 454, Calhoun County Clerk Anne Norlander had 412 votes; Rep. Paul Scott of Grand Blanc had 335 votes, and Sen. Michelle McManus of Lake Leelenau had 237 votes. The delegates then through a second ballot with only the top two vote getters on it, Johnson and Brown, and on the second ballot Ruth Johnson won the nomination over Brown by 1,089 votes to his 974. I thought those two were the weakest out of the 5, but apparently delegate voters didn't see it that way. Even so, Johnson will be a fine SoS and will do a lot of good things. But the real surprise to me was the failure of Scott to gain any traction and win the nomination- out of all the candidates, he made the most direct pitch to first-timers and to the tea party crowd, crafting a message designed to echo their beliefs and send a message to the establishment. And he soundly lost.

The race that bummed me out the most was the race for Republican nominee for Michigan Attorney General. This race was between former Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Bill Schuette and Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop. Bishop has done a lot great things for our state over the last 6 years, and after voters re-elected Granholm and gave her a House majority, Bishop held together a thing Senate majority and fought Granholm tooth and nail. A lot of voters blamed him for some of the budgets passed and some of the taxes we've had levied on us, but he fought these as hard as he could and that was unfair. The vote was a close one, but Schuette edged Bishop 1,092 votes to 971. Schuette appeared to have most of the party leadership backing him, and there was some speculation that alternates to the convention were raised to delegate voting status by party leadership based on their support for Schuette in pre-convention online polling. I really hope that wasn't the case, because the margin was very thin and Bishop is a great guy, but I saw at least 10 alternates elevated who were wearing Schuette stickers, so who knows. It could have been my my endorsement yesterday, which appears to be the kiss of death around here (Governor, SoS, and AG).

Another important race that delegates voted on where the race for the Supreme Court in Michigan, which was won by Bob Young and Mary Beth Kelly. There were no real moderates or establishment picks in this race- the conservative Justices all lined up behind these two and that was an impressive sight, so establishment and Tea Party aligned with these picks and everyone won.

Leaving the Convention, one couldn't help but feel like an opportunity was missed- our state had a chance to have dynamic and solid conservative leaders for the future stocked in the AG and SoS spots, but instead it is my hypothesis that  after Snyder wins and then wins again, the race for Governor will be wide open in 8 years instead of being contested by solid, experienced executive officers.

(Source data for vote counts was provided by the Detroit News)

UPDATE: RightMichigan has a very good account of what went down at the Convention. In particular, I direct you to the following paragraph to chew on:

I learned in a later private conversation that Rick Snyder, the gubernatorial nominee (and the Strategic National candidate in the gubernatorial primary) had been working behind the scenes - in direct opposition to the party officials and other sundry staffers - to advance my motion. No dice, apparently; it seems that the Yob Machine was already at risk of losing one contested ballot (which I'll talk about in another essay), and they didn't want to take a chance at being embarrassed twice in the same convention.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Why Poor Countries Are Poor Contd.

Akin expands on the "Why Poor Countries Are Poor" theme covered earlier:

Corruption is exacerbated by the layers and hoops of unnecessary bureaucratic requirements that simply keep pen-pushers and deadwood in their positions of unwarranted privilege as enemies of change – people need to get things done and the only way to smooth out any activity is to grease grubby palms...The best thing any government of a developing country can do is reduce layers of bureaucracy, bureaucratic irrelevance and the people who feed that system – time to register companies, accumulation of unnecessary information, provide access to relevant economic data without strictures and nip all sources of patronage in the bud.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Mushtaq Kahn on complex patron-client networks and corruption

Aid Thoughts delves into the work of Mushtaq Kahn who recently participated in debate with Daniel Kaufmann on the issue of corruption.Mushtaq asserts that:

Much of Sub-Saharan Africa is characterised by complex patron-client networks, in which a number of groups vie for the patronage of a Government with a weak power base vis-à-vis these groups. The Government cannot cut the corrupt relationships that exist between them and any of these groups in order to aid economic transformation, as the spurned group frequently has the political power to successfully challenge the Government. This contrasts sharply to patterns prevalent in most currently developed countries at the time of their transition to capitalism.
More here
Listen here

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Smart Aid for Africa

Mired in grinding poverty and social destitution, Africa cries for help. A cacophonous galaxy of rock stars, anti-poverty activists, and heads of state are calling on the G-8 countries to cancel Africa’s $350 billion crippling foreign debt and double aid to the continent. British Prime Minister Tony Blair will make aid to Africa the centerpiece in Britain's presidency of the G-8 meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland in July. Live 8 is planned for July 2. After meeting with President Bush on June 10, modalities are being worked out to cancel at least $34 billion in debt of 27 of the world’s poorest nations, mostly African. Will this African Marshall Aid Plan work?

Africa’s plight follows a ten-year attention deficit cycle. Every decade or so, mega-plans are drawn up and rock concerts held to whip up international rescue mission for Africa. Acrimonious wrangling over financing modalities ensues. Years slip by, then a decade later, another grand Africa initiative is unveiled. Back in 1985, there was Live Aid and a “Special Session on Africa” held by the United Nations to boost aid to Africa. Then in March 1996, the U.N. launched a $25 billion Special Initiative for Africa. In September 2005, the plight of Africa will again take center-stage at a U.N. conference with clockwork precision. Expect another major initiative for Africa in 2015.

Helping Africa of course is noble but has now become a theater of the absurd – the blind leading the clueless. A recent IMF study estimated that Africans in the diaspora remit $32 billion annually back to Africa, with the main destinations being Ghana, Nigeria, and Kenya. About $7 billion is sent to southern Africa (Ghana News Agency, Accra, May 31, 2005). The amount Africans abroad remit back exceeds the $25 billion Tony Blair seeks to raise.

Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo says corrupt African leaders have stolen at least $140 billion (£95 billion) from their people since independence. The World Bank estimates that 40 per cent of wealth created in Africa is invested outside the continent. Even the African Union, in a stunning report last August, claimed that Africa loses an estimated $148 billion annually to corruption – or 25 percent of the continent's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Rather than plug the huge hemorrhage, African leaders prefer to badger the West for more money. And the West, blinded by its own racial over-sensitivity and guilt over the iniquities of the slave trade and colonialism, obliges. This is the real tragedy of Africa.

Between 1960 and 1997, the West pumped more than $450 billion in foreign aid – the equivalent of four Marshall Aid Plans – into Africa with nothing to show for it. Contrary to popular misconception, foreign aid is not free but a soft loan. Outright debt relief and massive inflow of aid without any conditionalities, safeguards or monitoring mechanisms is absurd. It is akin to writing off the credit card debt of a drunken sailor and allowing him to keep the same credit cards. No African government has been called upon to give a full public accounting of who took what loan and for what purpose since many of Africa’s foreign loans taken in the past were misused and squandered. No government official has been held accountable; instead, irresponsible past borrowing behavior is being rewarded.

More distressing, much of the new aid money will flow directly into an African government budget – a huge black maze of vanishing tax receipts, extra-budgetary expenditure items, perks and off-budget “presidential privy accounts,” redolent with graft, patronage and waste. Over the past few decades, African budgets have careened out of control. State bureaucracies have swollen, packed with political supporters. Back in 1996, 20 percent of Ghana's public sector workforce was declared redundant by the Secretary of Finance and Guinea’s 50,000 civil servants were consuming 51 percent of the nation's wealth. In Kenya, civil service salaries take up half the budget; in Uganda, it is 40 percent. Zimbabwe has 54 ministers; Uganda with a population of 35 million has 70, while Ghana, with a population of 22 million, has 88 ministers and deputy ministers. With bloated bureaucracies, soaring expenditures and narrow tax bases, budget deficits have soared.

They are covered with World Bank loans and foreign aid (Ghana’s budget is 50 percent aid-financed and Uganda’s is 60 percent). If the aid is insufficient, the rest of the budget shortfall is financed by printing money. Even when is aid available for “budgetary support”, there is no guarantee that it will be used productively to generate a return to repay the soft loan. It could well be “consumed” when it pays for the salaries of civil servants. Writing off Uganda’s debt does not eliminate the aid dependency. In fact, when the World Bank canceled $650 million of Uganda’s debt in 1999, the first item President Yoweri Museveni purchased was a new presidential jet!


British Prime Minister thinks he can cajole or browbeat African leaders into curbing corruption and ensuring that resources released by debt relief are put to some good use – such as increased spending on education and health care. But the push for good governance and reform must come from within – from African civil society groups, organizations and the people. However, in country after country, chastened by diabolical restrictions, these groups have no freedom or political space to operate.

Carlos Cardoso, an investigative journalist, was murdered in November 2000 for uncovering a bank scandal in which about $14 million was looted from Mozambique's largest bank, BCM, on the eve of its privatization. The official in charge of banking supervision, Antonio Siba Siba, was also murdered while investigating the banking scandals. Such was also the fate of Norbert Zongo, a popular journalist in Burkina Faso, who was gunned down on Dec 13, 1998, while investigating official corruption. In September 2001, President Isaias Afwerki closed down all the independent media and arrested its staff, quashing calls for democratic reforms. In all, the government shut down eight private newspapers and arrested its journalists, picking them up in their newsrooms and homes and from the streets. They were held in a central jail until April, 2002, when they threatened to begin a hunger strike to protest their detention. They were then transferred to an undisclosed location.

In neighboring Ethiopia, President Meles Zenawi, a member of Tony Blair’s Africa Commission, just held fraudulent elections. Anticipating public outrage, he banned street demonstrations for one month and assumed full control of the country’s security forces. When the opposition rallied to protest the results dribbling in, the police opened fire, killing 26; opposition leaders have been placed under house arrest. Witness the election machinations in Egypt.

The paucity of good leadership has left a garish stain on the continent. Worse, the caliber of leadership has distressingly deteriorated over the decades to execrable depths. The likes of Charles Taylor of Liberia and Sani Abacha of Nigeria even make Mobutu Sese Seko of formerly Zaire look like a saint. In an unusual editorial, The Independent newspaper in Ghana wrote: "Most of the leaders in Africa are power-loving politicians, who in uniform or out of uniform, represent no good for the welfare of our people. These are harsh words to use on men and women who may mean well but lack the necessary vision and direction to uplift the status of their people (The Independent, Ghana, July 20, 2000; p.2).

The crisis in leadership remains a major obstacle to poverty reduction and has many manifestations. It is characterized, among others, by the following dispositions and failings: The "Big Man" syndrome, subordination of national interests to personal aggrandizement, super-inflated egos, misplaced priorities, poor judgment, reluctance to take responsibility for personal failures, and total lack of vision and understanding of even such basic and elementary concepts as "democracy," "fairness," "rule of law," "accountability," and "freedom" -- among other deficiencies. In some instances, the leadership is given to vituperative utterances, outright buffoonery, stubborn refusal to learn from past mistakes, and complete absence of cognitive pragmatism.

Believing that their countries belong to them and only them only, they cling to power at all costs. Their promises are worth less than Al Cappone’s. They stipulate constitutional term limits and then break them: Angola, Chad, Gabon, Guinea, and Uganda. African leaders themselves drew up a New Economic Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) in 2001, in which they inserted a Peer Review Mechanism (PRM), by which they were to evaluate the performance of fellow African leaders in terms of democratic governance. What happened? To be fair, they acted in reversing the “military coup” in Togo in February but went on vacation when elections were stolen in Zimbabwe and Togo.

Ask them to cut bloated state bureaucracies or government spending and they will set up a “Ministry of Less Government Spending.” Then there is the “Ministry of Good Governance” (Tanzania). They set up “Anti-Corruption Commissions” with no teeth and then sack the Commissioner if he gets too close to the fat cats (Kenya) or issue a Government White Paper to exonerate corrupt ministers (Ghana in 1996). To be sure, multi-party elections have been held in recent years in many African countries but the electoral process was so contumaciously manipulated to return incumbents to power. Four such “coconut elections” have so far been held this year: Zimbabwe, Togo, Congo (Brazzaville), and Ethiopia.

Ask them to place more reliance on the private sector and they will create a Ministry of Private Enterprise (Ghana). Ask them to privatize inefficient state-owned enterprises and they will sell them off at fire-sale prices to their cronies (Uganda). Or ask them to move a foot and they will demand foreign aid in order to do so. In 2003, some 30,000 ghost names were discovered on the payroll of the Ministry of Education, costing the government $1.2 million a month in salaries heisted by living workers. When Ghana demanded foreign aid to purge the payroll of these ghost names, Japan coughed up $5 million.

The reform process has stalled through vexatious chicanery, willful deception, and vaunted acrobatics. Only 16 out of the 54 African countries are democratic, fewer than 8 are “economic success stories,” only 8 have a free and independent media.

No amount of debt relief and increased aid will help Africa until Africa cleans up its own house. But the leadership is not interested in reform. Thus, without new leadership and genuine reform, debt relief and increased aid would compound Africa’s problems and more African countries will implode. The continent is stuck in a veritable conundrum. What can Western donors do?

Smart aid would do one of two things. One, bypass the vampire state and target the people, who produce Africa’s real wealth. An African economy consists of three sectors: the traditional, informal, and the modern sector. The people who produce Africa’s real wealth – cash crops, diamonds, gold and other minerals – live in the traditional and informal sectors. Meaningful development and poverty reduction cannot occur by ignoring these two sectors. But in the 1960s and 1970s, much Western development aid was channeled into the modern sector or the urban area, the abode of the parasitic elite minority. Industrialization was the rage and the two other sectors – especially agriculture – were neglected. Huge foreign loans were contracted to set up a dizzying array of state enterprises, which became towering edifices of gross inefficiency, waste and graft. Economic crises emerged in the 1980s and billions in foreign aid money were spent in an attempt to reform the dysfunctional modern sector. Between 1981 and 1994, for example, the World Bank spent more than $25 billion in Structural Adjustment loans to reform Africa’s dilapidated statist economic system. Only 6 out of the 29 “adjusting” African countries were adjudged to be “economic success stories” in 1994. Even then, the success list was phantasmagoric. Ghana, declared a “success story” in 1994, is now on HIPC life-support system.

At some point, even the most recklessly optimistic donor must come to terms with the law of diminishing returns: That pouring in more money to reform the modern sector is futile. Greater returns can be achieved elsewhere – by focusing on the traditional and informal sectors.

Second, smart aid would empower the African people (African civil society groups) to monitor how the aid money is being spent and to instigate reform from within. Empowerment requires arming the African people with information, the freedom and the institutional means to unchain themselves from the vicious grip of poverty and oppression.

Africa already has its own Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights (the 1981 Banjul Charter), which recognizes the right to liberty and to the security of his person (Article 6); to receive information, to express and disseminate his opinions (Article 9); to free association (Article 10); to assemble freely with others (Article 11); and to participate freely in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of the law (Article 13). Though the Charter enjoins African states to recognize these rights, few do so. When President Thabo Mbeki called on June 3, President Bush should have handed him a signed copy of this Charter to be delivered to President Robert Mugabe of ‘Zimbabwe.

The institutional tools Africans need are an independent central bank (to assure monetary stability and stanch capital flight), an independent judiciary (for the rule of law), a free and independent media (to ensure free flow of information), an independent Electoral Commission, an efficient and professional civil service, and a neutral and professional armed and security forces.

Recent events in Ukraine (November), Ghana (December), Zimbabwe (March), Lebanon (April), and Togo (April) unerringly underscore the critical importance of these institutions. Without them, President Bush’s plan to spread democracy may stall. Democracies are not built in a vacuum but in a “political space” in which the people can air their opinion, petition their government without being fired on by security forces and can choose who should rule them in elections that are rigged by electoral commissions packed with government goons.

On May 13, thousands of Egyptian judges, frustrated by government control over the judiciary, agitated for full independence from the executive in their oversight of the electoral process. “The institutions are presenting Mr. Mubarak with an unexpected challenge from within, one that will be difficult to dismiss. The fact is, major changes in this country are going to come out of those institutions, not from the streets," said Abdel Monem Said, director of the Ahram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo.

In the past 24 years, Egypt has received more than $55 billion in U.S. aid in direct government-to-government transfers. Smart aid would assist civil society in instigating institutional reform. Since this approach carries some risks, the same objective can be achieved by funneling aid through diaspora Africans and their organizations, as was the case with Soviet dissidents during the Cold War.

Africa’s long term growth prospects do not lie in rock concerts and increased dependency on Western aid but on the ability of the African people or civil society groups to instigate reform from within. Assistance to such groups – both at home and abroad – constitutes much smarter aid to Africa than all the LIVE AID concerts Bob Geldof can organize.
______________

The writer, a native of Ghana, is a Distinguished Economist at American University and President of the Free Africa Foundation. His new book is Africa Unchained (Palgrave/MacMillan). This article is culled from his May 10 testimony before the Standing Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate of Canada.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Ruling by Executive Decree: Obamacare Waiver Program Ended by Our Ruler?

President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress who voted in favor of it are going to stand for election in another year, and when they do it is important to for voters to remember that one of the biggest pieces of legislation that they pushed for and voted for was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as 'Obamacare.'

Part of Obamacare included a provision for temporary waivers, which were put put in place to encourage employers and insurers who are currently offering mini-med plans not to withdraw medical coverage before the full regulations come into force. This is an important aspect of the legislation- if these waivers were not in place, employers and insurers might decide to drop coverage for employees and push these employees into the public system, thereby driving up costs for the public and putting further pressure on our already bankrupt system.

The problem with these waivers is that like most aspects of the Obama administration is that it was a corrupt process- corrupt in the sense that this waiver process became tied up in trading in influence, patronage, cronyism, electoral fraud, and kickbacks. Democrats in Congress were supposed to be proving oversight to this process, but were negligent in their duties, and so there was all sorts of evidence that the waiver process was corrupt. I wrote about it myself in my post Evidence is Mounting that Obamacare is All Sorts of Corrupt?, where I wrote the following:

It was my suspicion several months ago that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a corrupt piece of legislation designed to transfer property and choice from those who have it to those who want it. There would be those who would not want to be part of this process who would then ask for waivers, and it was my suspicion that these waivers would be given out based on political considerations- in other words, they would be given to groups that support the Democratic Party, Obama in particular, or to companies who had access and connections to those Democratic party officials who were making the decisions on the waivers, likely because of their campaign donations. So I started to do some research on the issue- as I stated, the research was by no means an exhaustive list of evidence but did end up being some pretty fair anecdotal evidence that those who are receiving waivers from Obamacare are those who donated large amounts of money to Barack Obama. Check out the post for my little bit of research on this issue.
The process of getting waivers was established by law, and supporters of Obamacare gave many speeches on it where they further clarified and expanded on the meaning of the law, and in every case, these Obamacare waivers were to be granted until 2014.

But, as the corruption inherent in the process has become politically damaging, Obama has decided to change the law by issuing a decree ending the health care waiver program on September 22.

This is President Obama, supported by the modern Democratic Party- ruling by decree, changing laws around to suit their political interests, and restraining themselves from engaging in further corrupt activities only because their past corruption is now being exposed by bloggers like me.

The purpose of these waivers was to avoid disrupting coverage, but Obama has decided that it would be much better for him to disrupt insurance coverage for our nation if it will remove a politically embarrassing and corrupt program that he worked to pass. Let me be clear- Obama has made a selfish decision that will damage our nation because he believes it will help him hide politically his policies and his past actions. These sorts of actions move Obama away from simply naively incompetent to dangerously corrupt.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Transparency and Equatorial Guinea

Nick Smith posits at CSIS:

Transparency has been a watchword in development circles for some time now, and the concept is usually linked to a faith in the rational workings of free markets. Researchers and policy makers have argued that overweening state structures in Africa have allowed corruption to proliferate, undermining prospects for broad based growth. Large state structures allow state officials to capture resources and corruptly funnel them through patronage networks. Such invisible patron-client networks work behind the formal state structure, causing distorted development outcomes. The solution, the experts argue, is to free the market from the state and allow it to work with as little government intervention as possible. As this happens, a state’s economy can more readily become embedded in the global market, which will strengthen the incentives for rational economic behavior and serve as a further check on corruption.

In Equatorial Guinea, however, the process has not worked out this way. Formal financial networks have proven opaque rather than transparent because they exist alongside and in conjunction with informal markets. This combination provides increased opportunities for illicit graft, but also simultaneously produces the conditions for wealth creation in licit markets. In this case, greater embeddedness in global markets did not solve the problem of corruption; it merely added new mechanisms through which officials could engage in graft.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Evidence is Mounting that Obamacare is All Sorts of Corrupt?

In several earlier posts I have been critical of Obamacare because it attacks life, liberty, and property and because it represents the growing tyranny of the federal government. But somehow I missed an important reason why we should oppose giving the national government more control over our healthcare system- power should not be concentrated in the hands of government and government officials because when this happens it increases by considerable amounts the chances that this power will be used in a corrupt manner. And we're seeing that under President Barack Obama (Democrat) and a Congress that was run by Nancy Pelosi (Democrat), legislation like Obamacare was passed into law that is now leading to considerable amounts of corruption in our system.

Corruption takes makes many forms, but in this case, we have to consider whether or not Democrats, led by President Obama and Democrats in Congress, passed legislation that allows and encourages more corruption in our nation and also whether or not these same Democrats continue to be encouraging and supporting of corruption. Corruption is seen usually in several ways- trading in influence, patronage, cronyism, electoral fraud, and kickbacks.

It was my suspicion several months ago that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a corrupt piece of legislation designed to transfer property and choice from those who have it to those who want it. There would be those who would not want to be part of this process who would then ask for waivers, and it was my suspicion that these waivers would be given out based on political considerations- in other words, they would be given to groups that support the Democratic Party, Obama in particular, or to companies who had access and connections to those Democratic party officials who were making the decisions on the waivers, likely because of their campaign donations. So I started to do some research on the issue- as I stated, the research was by no means an exhaustive list of evidence but did end up being some pretty fair anecdotal evidence that those who are receiving waivers from Obamacare are those who donated large amounts of money to Barack Obama. Check out the post for my little bit of research on this issue. Usually where there is lots of smoke there is a fire, and it turns out the smoke I saw is now being seen by others.

The Daily Caller is reporting that:

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district. That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers. Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments.
This is not shocking news to me- Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House and Barack Obama is still our President, and both are Democrats, and of course the kick-backs will be going primarily to areas that supported them, whether they be in Pelosi's district or union allies or local government units that vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

I think Mona Charen from RealClearPolitics really understands the nature of Obamacare- it is designed to move us away from a nation built on equality and laws to a nation built on power and men:
....There are rumblings of suspicion that HHS has shown favoritism -- labor unions have received some 26 percent of waivers while comprising only 12 percent of workers. As Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee remarked, "What does it say about the feasibility of the health care law when the administration needs to exempt over 1,000 health plans from its own law?"

A few wags have suggested that the HHS grant the rest of the country a waiver and be done with it. But the implications of what Professor Richard Epstein has called "government by waiver" aren't funny. As Congress has ceded more and more power to regulatory agencies, the opportunities for abuse of power multiply. Writing in National Affairs, Epstein notes that among the companies and entities that successfully sought waivers from Obamacare's provisions were PepsiCo, Foot Locker, the Pew Charitable Trusts, many local chapters of the Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial Workers union, and numerous public-employee unions.

But, asks Epstein, "(W)hat about employers who do not have the resources to navigate the waiver process? What about those lacking the political connections to make their concerns heard in Washington? And what happens when the one-year waivers run out? Will they be renewed? Under what conditions? And what rights will insurers have to waive then in order to avoid going out of business?"

The world of Obamacare is no place for the little guy.

The danger of waiver power is that it will be used differentially, giving one private entity a competitive advantage over another. The company denied a waiver can bring suit -- but litigation is expensive and slow....

....Because there are so few avenues of recourse when we live under a government by waiver, we are forced, as Epstein warns, to trust in the good judgment of bureaucrats and elected officials: "The fate of our rights and liberties is left to the wisdom and discretion of individuals; we are therefore governed by men, not by laws."

In Marbury v. Madison, Justice Marshall wrote: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." It will also cease to deserve that "high appellation" if we submit to the unreviewable discretion of agencies.
There really are two visions of the future of America being pushed for by the two parties in our nation- one vision pushes for a nation built on laws (although you might disagree with some of those laws) and another vision pushes for a nation built on the rule of powerful men (although you might agree with some of the rules these men establish). It's a tough choice for many- side with the strongman who promises a better future, or side with the lawman who promises a nation built on law. Many will be seduced, and our nation will be less because of it.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

How Entrepreneurs Break Oligarchies

In CIPE Robert Litan on capitalism:

When oligarchs dominate, they keep entrepreneurs from building new industries that might threaten their hold on power. When state-guidance dominates, bureaucrats can import ideas to jump-start development but aren’t equipped to develop new ideas. When big firms dominate, innovation becomes routinized and incremental rather than radical and transformational. The oil-rich countries of the Middle East and North Africa have long been more or less oligarchic thanks to revenues from oil and the patronage they support.
When entrepreneurs have a strong presence, they help break down oligarchies through creative destruction from new industries, generate new ideas to sustain development, and, in tandem with the dispersive commercial capacity of big firms, they radically transform every day lives for the better.
More here
Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Industrialization As a Tool for Job Creation in Nigeria

From Africa Industrialization Day where Thomas Mattig of Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in conjunction with the Garment and Tailoring Workers of Nigeria stated:
Nigeria is experiencing solid economic growth for several years now. However, employment remains low and can hardly catch up with population growth. The sectors of the economy that are booming such as the banking, telecommunications and insurance industries, do not create many jobs.
 continuing:
...even a large bank branch will only employ a handful of people, while a factory can give employment to a whole town.
regarding the oil industry:
The prosperous petroleum sector is built virtually on extraction and not value addition as Kaduna, Warri and Port Harcourt refineries remain comatose.
and the critical informal sector:
It is also widely acknowledged that the informal sector provides over 70 percent of employment in the country, yet many workers daily face harassment and intimidation from Government officials at all level whilethere is no systematic programme of training and re-training in the face ofchanging technologies and market dynamics, credible programmes ofaccess to credits as well as decent workspaces.. This must change, workersin the informal economy need state support in capacity building, finance and patronage and social protection.
More here
via All Africa

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

"Constitutional rule over Autocracy"-Obama

Excerpt from President Barack Obama's address to the Ghanaian Parliament:

Time and again, Ghanaians have chosen Constitutional rule over autocracy, and shown a democratic spirit that allows the energy of your people to break through. We see that in leaders who accept defeat graciously, and victors who resist calls to wield power against the opposition. We see that spirit in courageous journalists like Anas Aremeyaw Anas, who risked his life to report the truth. We see it in police like Patience Quaye, who helped prosecute the first human trafficker in Ghana. We see it in the young people who are speaking up against patronage, and participating in the political process.
Read complete speech here.
Obama preaches tough love.
Related coverage here.
A snub for Nigeria
Photo courtesy of Huffington Post




Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

40 years of Pillage-Omar Bongo

The Guardian profiles the life long rule of Omar Bongo,president of Gabon:

Bongo's rule has been a masterclass in the use of patronage. His ascent to the presidency coincided with Gabon's rise to being Africa's third-biggest oil producer, and he quickly realised that money could be more effective than bullets in keeping power...The scale of the high-level cronyism and corruption astonishes diplomats from other African countries. "In Gabon, government and business are one and the same," said one. "If you want to do business here, you must know a minister, or at least somebody with the surname Bongo."

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

The Urban Poor & Apathy

John Iliffe writes:

In normal circumstances, the urban poor, while resenting corruption and the gulf between ‘us’ and ‘them’ were too vulnerable, divided, dependent on patronage, committed to rural values, and aware of recent social mobility to challenge their rulers openly.
via Aid Thoughts

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Enterprising Ethnic Minorities

PSD Blog reports on enterprising ethnic minorities within African private sectors quoting Vijaya Ramachandran who has found that:

  • The great anomaly is that in most cases African governments have, however inadvertently, created conditions under which ethnic minorities do better than African groups, who would otherwise appear to be in a favored position.
  • There is probably some degree of correlation with levels of corruption in general and the relative prominence of ethnic minorities in business, although I don't recall this being empirically demonstrated. This is not to say that they are more corrupt, but that in poor governance environments "outsiders" actually end up being able to deal more effectively in business over the long term. This may be partly because patronage networks change over time, or that ethnic minorities and foreign companies are not perceived as political threats, so their emergence as economic powers is less contentious.
  • Ethnic minority-owned companies have tended to start larger, and grow faster, partly because they may possess some of the general characteristics associated with higher growth to a greater degree than other companies.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

A Stolen Election

The Guardian writes about the recent Kenyan elections:

This election promised so much, not only to Kenya but to Africa as a whole. It would have been the first time that a Kenyan president would have lost through the ballot box, and the first time an incumbent would have been voted out of office. It would have been, in the best sense of the word, a revolution. Many of the old guard who had dominated politics since independence were swept out of office by a younger generation of politicians who owed their popularity to votes rather than tribal loyality or patronage. Instead. Kenya appeared last night to be stepping back several decades. Deprived of power in the way that his late father - the Luo nationalist hero Oginga Odinga - was, Raila Odinga darkly predicted a stormy future for a nation that could once again split on tribal lines.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS