The way forward for Africa

For Richard Dowden, former Director of the Royal African Society in London, who has travelled extensively through sub-Saharan Africa for over 40 years, ‘a lot of the blame for Africa's failure can be placed on its elites who take their money out of the country. They live like exceedingly rich Europeans or Americans with flashy cars and huge houses. Their children all go to British schools and British or American universities and they have no confidence in Africa. They don't want anything to do with it. In fact, when you socialise with them, you realise that they absolutely despise other Africans, especially the poor. They have no interest in developing Africa. They are doing extremely well, as they are living off aid or whatever their income is, and the idea of bringing education or health to their population doesn't interest them in the slightest.'

More accusations come from Oby Ezekweseli, former Vice-President of the World Bank, and minister in the government of President Obasanjo in Nigeria, when in a speech in London in December, 2014 she blamed the parasitic African elites not just for looting their countries but also for not caring about their own citizens.

Further evidence of government apathy comes from the first ever UNDP Africa Human Development Report, published in August 2012, where Tegegnework Gettu, Regional Director of the African Bureau, is highly critical of the paltry lack of effort shown by African leaders towards their people. He writes 'had African governments over the last 30 years met their people's aspirations, this report would not be necessary. He goes on to say that 'chronic food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa stems from decades of poor governance. Regimes bent on amassing wealth absorbed the region's resources into patrimonial power structures. Self-serving elites, quick to profit from graft and patronage, have stood between leaders and the people, monopolised state revenues and emptied the countryside, but they have provided neither employment nor industry. Across sub-Saharan Africa rural infrastructure has deteriorated, farming has languished, gender and other inequalities have deepened and food systems have stagnated.'

Then there is the report in July, 2015 from Professor Githu Muigai, the attorney-general of Kenya, which underlined the massive gap between intention and reality in too many African nations when he claimed that 'only 1% of government spending was properly accounted for (in Kenya) in the year 2013/14.' The report contained allegations of theft, incompetence, waste, misspending and corruption on a colossal scale. That is a truly shocking indictment on a government which received £72 million in bilateral aid from UK in 2021.

Now some people may argue that things have started to change and African nations have recently been on a roll with annual growth of 3%-7% p.a. across most of the continent pre-pandemic. This is, indeed, true. However, this boom is a paradox as it comes on the back of an insatiable demand for natural resources which, until recently, kept commodity prices high but which passed the majority of the people by for the following reasons:-

1. the extraction of gold, oil, copper, iron ore, minerals etc. leads to few new jobs being created and shortages of local skills often mean that expatriates fill many of the best jobs anyway. For example, while oil exports in Nigeria have fuelled real GNI growth of over 5% per annum for the last decade, the official unemployment rate has climbed from 5% in 2010 to 23% in 2018 to 33% in 2022 whilst underemployment is 17%. Worse still youth unemployment is estimated at a staggering 50% whilst 40% of primary age children do not attend a school.

2. there is an ever yawning gap between the rich and poor as, according to Christine Lagarde, former Managing Director of the IMF, 'in too many countries in sub-Saharan Africa rents from extractive industries are captured by just a few.' A good example of this behaviour can be found in oil-rich Angola where 40% of the population live in extreme poverty on less than US$1.90 per day. And it is here, according to the 2019 Forbes List, Isabel dos Santos, daughter of the then President Jose dos Santos, was estimated to have assets worth a scandalous US$2.1bn. At the same time, statistics from the World Bank show that Equatorial Guinea has the highest GNI per capita in Africa at US$24,000 yet 76% of the population is classed by the World Bank as poor. Across the continent 63% of Africans are still engaged in vulnerable employment such as subsistence farming or street hawking.

3. there are ever more mouths to feed as populations continue to grow. In 2000 the population of Africa was 790m, at the end of 2023 it is estimated at 1.46bn (17.2% of world population) and, on present trends, will reach 2bn by 2050.

And all of this is re-inforced by an Africa Progress Panel report in 2017 by Kofi Annan where he stated that despite the recent 'boom', with average incomes rising by a third in the last decade, there are more Africans living in poverty today - around 415m - than at the end of the 1990s.

This league table, 'Table of Truth' is compiled using four respected independent international surveys* on four of the criteria** which the AU promised to pursue in 2002:-

1) political rights/civil liberties
2) economic freedom (ease of setting-up companies/doing business)
3) tackling corruption
4) media freedom

Progress in all of the above areas are essential and African lives would be energised if they were allowed title to their own land, if the bureaucracy involved in setting up a business was minimal, if there were free and and fair elections, if governments were to enforce the rule of law, if judges were independent, if human rights were part of the fabric of society, if the media was set free and, above all, and this cannot be emphasised enough, if corruption did not choke the very oxygen out of daily life.

At the same time, because these all cost little to implement, the position of each country in the league table is not dependent on how wealthy it is or even its position in the latest UNDP Human Development Index. Thus, if any government is serious in laying sound foundations for its people to progress, both economically and socially, there is no reason why even the poorest country should not figure prominently in the league table.

[In order to compile this league table, the score given to a country in each survey has been converted to a mark out of 10 and then the average score over the 4 surveys is shown (in brackets) for each country in 2023 - maximum score 10. And in order to compare the progress in each country (or the lack of it) since the AU was set up in 2002, each country's average score in that year is also shown.]

This 'Table of Truth' shows how far every government in sub-Saharan Africa has progressed in delivering on what could be labelled 'the dynamic drivers of development' which would give Africans the tools they need to start to make the most of their lives. In so doing, this league table opens the curtain on the dark continent shining light on those few African governments which are showing willing whilst flagging up the all too many regimes which are flagrantly disregarding the needs of their people. And it borders on incredulity to find that the average score across all sub-Saharan African governments in 2020 is the same as in 2002 even though the AU promised to deliver improvements in all of the above areas when it was set up in that year. So much then for Africa Rising!

As can be seen from the league table the most determined and proactive governments on the subcontinent are those of the two island nations of Cape Verde Islands and Seychelles, the best-governed nations on the continent, which have increased their already impressive scores 2020/2002. However, both these progressive nations are, in geographical terms, far removed from the shores of sub-Saharan Africa!

In contrast Mauritius 3rd and Namibia 4th have hardly moved in the last 20 years and still maintain their high positions. Sao Tome/Principe is in 5th place having improved life for its people since 2002. This means that four island states occupy 4 of the top 5 positions in our league table. Then in 6th and 7th positions come South Africa and Botswana, 2 nations which still figure near the top but where the sheen has come off former performance. Under former president Jacob Zuma, corruption and cronyism brought South Africa to its knees whilst two credit rating agencies have recently downgraded the country's debt to junk status. Mandela's legacy has not been well handled and he would rightly feel betrayed were he alive today. These two nations can and must turn things round although probably with not the present governments in control. Ghana, in 8th position, is the only other sub-Saharan African nation to score 6 or more.

All in all, going on down the list, for poverty crusaders everywhere, it has to be hugely disappointing that only 16 out of 49 governments (32.5%) pass the test in 'providing the tools' to allow their people to shake off poverty. And 20 years on from the formation of the AU there really can no longer be any excuse for this paucity of effort.

Just above the bottom of the table are 4 nations which, with byzantine leaders, are going nowhere. In the Dem. Rep. of Congo, fabulously mineral rich and desperately people poor, a new president was finally elected in December 2018. Felix Tshiskedi has moved on to shake off the influence of former President Joseph Kabila (2001-2018) and his cohorts but little in the way of progress, apart from more children in school, can be expected here. At the same time, the people of Burundi had to shoulder the heavy burden of megalomaniac Pierre Nkurunziza as president for 15 years before he decided to step away with the promise of a substantial pension in May 2020. He died a few weeks later. In Chad, having just won another election in April 2021, President Idriss Deby was killed on the battlefield a few days later prompting the miltary to promote his son, General Mahamat Deby, to be interim president for a period of 18 months in order to quell Islamist insurgents. Needless to say he has extended his 'term' delaying the next election until 2024 and life here too has stagnated. As for the Central African Republic, where the government is backed by the Russian Wagner Group, civil war smoulders on in a continuing struggle between basically Muslim and Christian groups that attracts little coverage from the international media.

At the bottom of the table there are five countries whose governments bear out the accusation that they are oppressive, hapless and corrosive:-

Eritrea - the North Korea of Africa, where never-ending military service is compulsory, and where discontent is manifested in the large emigration of young men frustrated by a government continually holding the country on a war footing. It was hoped that the rapprochement by Ethiopia, accepted by Eritrea, would push this country forward but with Afewerki Isaias in command there is little chance.

Somalia - now basically three different entities - Somalia, Somaliland and Puntland. Somalia continues to fight off Al-Shabaab with indifferent success. Yet, after 25 years of civil war and deprivation, Somalis were rated the happiest country in sub-Saharan Africa according to the UN World Happiness Report 2017.

South Sudan - after the great expectation of independence in 2011, the rulers and the African Union have let the people of this fledgling nation down badly as civil war engulfed the country two years later killing 50,000 people and displacing 4,300,000. In 2022 half the population required humanitarian assistance. The latest coalition government formed in February 2020 still struggles to gel. Definitely one of the most desperately disappointing outcomes on a continent of too many failures.

Equatorial Guinea - oil rich/people poor. Here resides the world's longest serving ruler President Obiang Nguema with 40 years on the clock. However, even with Gross National Income of US$24,000 per capita, 70% of the population are forced to eke out an existence on <US$1.90 per day.

Sudan - under Omar Al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for crimes against humanity, both economic and social enterprise were stifled as he ruled the country with a rod of iron. However, due to a combination of people protest power and military intervention, al-Bashir was relieved of his post in April 2019. He is awaiting trial. Between them, the army and a congress of the people, nominally agreed on power-sharing for the next three years. However, this forced coalition moved lethargically and the army grew frustrated with a civilian prime minister and have now taken back control. But then civil war broke out in April 2023 when the Sudanese Armed Forces under Abdul Fattah al-Burhan and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces under Hemedti fight it out for ultimate control.This should not have been allowed to happen and again the AU leaders are asleep at the wheel!

(In the last 19 years the countries that have progressed the most are: Rwanda 2.0, Liberia 1.9, Seychelles 1.5.)

(In the last 19 years the countries that have regressed the most are: Mali -1.6, Djibouti -1.5, South Africa -0.9.)

This lack of action and total disregard displayed by most governments in sub-Saharan Africa towards their own people are insurmountable obstacles in attempts at alleviating poverty there. And this needs to be taken on board not only by western governments but also by all in the international community - international NGOs, promoters of the Make Poverty History campaign, church leaders, universities, poverty campaigners and those who long to see justice for the world's poor - so that the reason as to why Africans are perennially paralysed in poverty is brought out in the open and steps can be considered on how best to tackle it. For good governance in a country is paramount in any attempt to raise living standards: far more important than overseas aid, local development projects set up by western NGOs, tax justice and debt relief - put together. In fact it is only with able, honest and proactive leadership in place that the war on poverty can ever really start to be won in any country. And the battle against deprivation desperately needs to be victorious in Africa if there is going to be any chance of stemming the tidal wave of refugees/ asylum seekers/ economic migrants who feel they have nothing to lose as they seek a better life across the Mediterranean in Britain and Europe.

For the sake of the African people, then, it is time for the international community to wake up and cast aside any notions of this being a politically sensitive subject and start to address the problem. However, this need not be done by direct confrontation, which would almost certainly be self-defeating, but indirectly, by accentuating the positive.

Through the information provided by the 'Table of Truth' above, or any similar league table for that matter, western governments should take the 'real politik' - doing business no matter the cost - out of overseas aid and substitute it with pragmatism by moving on to support only the more progressive governments on the continent. And then get right behind them.

One way to do this would be for wealthy countries to consider backing those governments which score say 5 or better in the Table of Truth. At the same time, consideration could also be given to allocating some resources to those countries which score under 5 as long as progress continues year on year. And here countries like Cote d'Ivoire, Liberia, Togo and Rwanda might qualify.

However, this time, as there are major skill shortages in much of Africa, the rich OECD countries should move away from giving overseas aid in financial terms towards more practical based help. By offering the services of engineers, scientists, agronomists, hydrologists, accountants and administrators development should be speeded up, it would be more evenly balanced and there should be less chance of money being siphoned off by corrupt officials. Giving overseas aid in this practical way is also worth that much more according to Paul Collier. In "The Bottom Billion" he argues that 'demand driven technical assistance such as installing safe water through wells/pumps etc. converts every £1 spent into £15.' That alone is a 'mouth-watering' return that should convince even the most sceptical of western donors.

At the same time, whilst helping to deliver on these projects, nationals of each recipient country could be employed and trained in the various skills relating to the numerous tasks involved. This could then be further expanded by say the UK offering to train young politicians and senior civil servants from more receptive nations on how to expand economic activity, tackle corruption and alleviate of poverty. And this in time should surely drive huge improvements in governance and living conditions.

All of this kind of co-operation should carry on as long as recipient governments continue to pursue progressive reforms.

This method of distributing bilateral overseas aid accentuates the positive in a win/win situation for poor people - the more pragmatic African governments working for their people are encouraged to carry on reforming by the guarantee of continuing practical western support. And by making it clear that sound policies will be an essential element in deciding which countries will receive future investment, western governments will also, indirectly, be sending out a strong message to poorly performing administrations that it is time for them to start to take more interest in the needs of their people, or lose out. At the same time, knowing that the international community is backing more open and effective government, civil society groups in sub-Saharan Africa will gain strength in their efforts to hold their own governments to account. Also, by seeking to encourage better governance in this way the chances of any conflict and disruption of the kind seen as a result of the Arab Spring in North Africa may be avoided. In short, overseas aid given in this way could be termed 'live aid' where the money from western taxpayers boosts continuing good governance in contrast to 'dead aid' where funds are too readily given to malfunctioning leaderships by western governments which should know better, in what can only be an attempt to buy international support.

(Underpinning good governance should be the sensible way forward for it has been proved to yield a much greater return. According to figures produced by the World Bank, US$10bn given in aid to better governed poor countries should lift 25 million people out of poverty; spread across a broad range of developing nations US$10bn would lift only 7 million people out of poverty. So adopting this method alone in aid disbursement is constructive, potentially delivering 3.5 times more people out of poverty.)

So how would this new method of distributing bilateral overseas aid affect the UK's Department for International Development (DfID), now renamed the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO)? In 2021 six sub-Saharan African countries featured in the top ten recipients of UK bilateral aid (£m):- Nigeria £140, Ethiopia £120, South Africa £102, Somalia £101, South Sudan £96, Sudan £94. Using the formula suggested above, South Africa would NOT deserve bilateral aid with question marks over Nigeria and Somalia. However, Somalia probably escapes condemnation as aid will almost certainly be humanitarian. Overall though if FCDO really wanted to make a real impression on poverty, it should be more ambitious and reduce that number of countries in receipt of bilateral aid overall. This would lead to more positive and concentrated results whilst reducing bureaucracy, costs and manpower.

(China is also playing a supporting role in development in completing numerous construction projects in many African countries as part payment for the purchase of natural resources. However, even though China may not pick and choose which regimes it deals with, this should not be used by western governments as an excuse for not supporting good governance.)

It is also time for international development NGOs like Oxfam, Save the Children, Christian Aid to get real and face the facts on poverty.

Of course, all these international NGOs do incredible work across sub-Saharan Africa but they could be accused of being disingenuous when it comes to telling their supporters the truth about the main cause of poverty on the continent. Instead of flagging up insidious governance they prefer to blame the West through a combination of climate change, restrictive trade practices, lack of overseas aid and tax evasion by multinational corporations etc.

Some of these issues are a problem for poor countries and it is right for NGOs to campaign for a new approach as Oxfam is currently doing on climate change. Here, this international confederation of 17 charities, is currently sending out a strong message to world leaders whilst reminding its supporters that 'we will always act, we will speak out, and we won't live with poverty.' That is what supporters as well and poverty campaigners everywhere want to hear but you can't help thinking that Oxfam would rather prefer to run a mile than to 'act and speak out' about the all too many woeful governments that litter and hold back much of the developing world!

If charities like Oxfam really do want to 'make poverty history' they, too, are going to have to 'look in the mirror' and face the politically sensitive issue of governance. And what is there to worry about anyway? In order to do this they don't need to walk away from current ventures but should rather seek to maximise the value of their future projects through setting them up in countries with the more enterprising governments. In this way they would not only help the few people benefiting from each project directly in any one country but, also, the many there through indirectly supporting good governance. And, whilst they are at it, they should broadcast the fact to the whole world. This might just make every African government sit up, take notice and start to consider working for all their people. Then, who knows with this new more open, honest and pragmatic approach to tackling poverty, which goes right to the heart of development, these international NGOs may even find that their supporters become even more generous!

Individuals like you and me can also adopt this game-changing approach to development by continually reminding international NGOs of the responsibility of holding governments to account when we donate our money to them.

(Relief/humanitarian aid for victims of famine, conflict and natural disasters etc. would continue to be given to ALL countries directly and/or through UN agencies and NGOs without question as soon as it is needed.)

At the G8 summit at Gleneagles in Scotland in 2005, President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the African Union, promised that in return for OECD countries boosting overseas aid by US$50bn, further debt cancellation and greater access to HIV drugs; African leaders would continue along the path to good governance as laid down by the AU in 2002. And in the intervening years it can be said that the rich OECD nations have generally moved in that direction but that little or no progress has been made in most of Africa in terms of governance. Yet, shamefully, this fundamental part of the 2005 G8 agreement is continually glossed over by the international community, and as such, we in the West must stand accused of being complicit in keeping Africans poor. That position can now no longer be tenable and the performance of African governments should, in future, be monitored and exposed if they fail in their promise to put in place policies which should act as a catalyst for sweeping advances across the continent. For Western world taxpayers should be owed no less; loyal supporters of Oxfam, Christian Aid, Save the Children etc., should expect no less and, most importantly of all, people in Africa deserve no less.

And here a golden opportunity for just such action arose from an ongoing international survey. In 2013, ahead of deciding the goals and targets which would replace the 2015 UN Millennium Development Goals, in a 'My World' poll still actually being conducted by the UN, over 8,400,000 people from 194 countries have indicated their top priorities for the next 15 years. And, for Africans like the rest of the world, after a good education, better health care and more job opportunities, at No 4 comes the need for 'honest and responsive government.' This prompted the UN to declare that this new issue of 'honest and responsive government' will need to be included in any UN Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. Yet, in September, 2015 in New York, when put to the test, the UN General Assembly, in its adoption of 17 goals and no fewer than 169 targets, tiptoed round the crucial issue of governance and so once again the welfare of the world's poorest people is set to be ignored in what can only be described as a shameful concession to African leaders.

For, far too long, the lives of the majority of Africans have been made miserable by the poverty of leadership shown by too many governments on that continent which the outside world has ignored. And if the people of countries from Angola to Zimbabwe are sooner, rather than later, to put the debilitating effects of famine, disease, illiteracy, lack of clean water and misery behind them, all of us in the international community - the UN, western governments, multinational corporations, international NGOs, churches, poverty campaigners, you, me - must now start to play our part in trying to break up the logjam of feckless governments found on the continent. FOR PRIORITISING AND PROMOTING GOOD GOVERNANCE IS PARAMOUNT IF AFRICANS ARE TO HAVE ANY CHANCE OF LEAP-FROGGING FROM THE 14th TO THE 21st CENTURY!

According to the 2020 Mo Ibrahim Index of African Governance Index the best governed countries in Africa are:

1. Mauritius; 2. Cape Verde; 3. Seychelles; 4. Botswana; 5. South Africa;
6. Namibia; 7. Ghana; 8. Senegal; 9 Rwanda; 10. Sao Tome/Principe

And the worst:

49. Somalia; 48. South Sudan; 47. Eritrea; 46. Equatorial. Guinea; 45. Central African Republic; 44. Democratic Republic of Congo; 43. Sudan; 42 Chad; 41. Congo Republic; 40. Burundi

*SURVEYS USED:

for POLITICAL RIGHTS/ CIVIL LIBERTIES average of 2 surveys produced under these headings by Freedom House. www.freedomhouse.org (25-1)

for ECONOMIC FREEDOM annual guide published jointly by The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation, Washington's No 1 think tank. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking (3-2)

for CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS survey by Transparency International www.transparency.org 28-1

for MEDIA FREEDOM based on survey of World Press Freedom by Reporters Without Borders https://rsf.org/en