ABOUT INDONSAKUSA

CONTENTS

AUTHOR INSTRUCTIONS

The New Partnership for African Development: An initiative that lacks integrity. (NEPAD)

 Mpho A. Ncube  - 15 April 2002

NEPAD outlines a number of steps that Africans will have to take in order to solve the many problems that afflict the continent today - problems of endless wars, mismanaged economies and the poverty they produce.  Underpinning NEPAD are the 3 principles of Democracy, Human rights and Good governance- principles which are not in existence in their entirety anywhere in Africa.  Let us take a closer look at the three countries championing NEPAD.  Of the three, Nigeria is an interesting case and what some would say is a perfect example of everything wrong with Africa.  It is a country on the brink of civil war, has immense wealth but is unable to distribute it equally amongst its citizens and cannot meet its own energy requirements yet supplies 10% of American oil imports.
Algeria's is a country in the grip of civil war and has a questionable human rights record while South Africa is beginning to exhibit signs of economic decline and  struggling to live up to the expectations of its black citizens.

Given this background, NEPAD would seem a deeply flawed initiative because it contradicts itself.  These three countries, however well-intentioned their aims may be, come across as wanting to be seen as doing something because they themselves are in breach of the very same standards they are prescribing for others.  This therefore denies NEPAD the integrity it needs if it is to be taken seriously by African leaders and the people whom they serve.  What chance has it got in the Western corridors power, where most of the funding is expected to come from, will it be shot down even before it takes off?  I hope it does this time around because while I support NEPAD in principle, the conditions for its implementation are not right for the reasons I will spell out in this article.  Before I do that, it is important for you to separate the idea from the environment in which it will be applied, as you'll see why.

The "African house" is in a mess, chaos reigns supreme.  Things must be done in an orderly fashion; order therefore is a pre-requisite of any meaningful development agenda in Africa.  It is surprising that given this chaotic background, the founding leaders of NEPAD did not engage the very people, ordinary Africans, whom they say they want to help - they promise to engage them later on in the project, presumably after they've secured the funds they need.  As a result, most Africans I meet have never heard of NEPAD and herein lies the first major flaw.  I doubt it even, that Joseph Kabila and others like him will have heard of it. Surely the fiercest debates about NEPAD should have taken place in African homes/communities first, with governments collating citizens' views and making representations to a continental body such as the African Union, for discussion and fine-tuning before engaging with the West.
That ordinary Africans were not consulted about what NEPAD should seek to do means that most of their leaders will give scant regard to the plan.

This total disregard for citizens' views exposes NEPAD as an idealistic plan which worries itself more with abstract notions of democracy and less with what the people of Africa really want to see done about their plight.  What the citizens of Africa need are realistic assessments of their problems and the right action programmes to deal with them - assessments of democracy, good government and human rights they will carry out themselves (elections, referendums etc), action programmes they will formulate and therefore be able to evaluate from time to time.

Given these shortcomings, the founding leaders of NEPAD should not be presenting this plan to the industrialised countries of Europe and America just yet.  Africa must first measure up to the standards set in NEPAD, the starting point should be the restoration of order in the continent.  Sovereignty issues must be the basis for an African revival because the absence or weakness of the nation state in some parts of the continent continues to undermine all efforts by communities and governments to forge ahead.
NEPAD should insist on African countries seeking and obtaining international legal sovereignty i.e. the recognition of governments by the international community.  Countries like the [Democratic] Republic of Congo and Somalia, where there is little or no central government at all, have no access to international markets.  In Zimbabwe, the government of Robert Mugabe is not legally recognised by some countries and shunned by others because of alleged electoral fraud.  These countries cannot hope to benefit from NEPAD unless they are brought back into the international fold.

The porous nature of African borders poses a serious threat to stability.  The instability of the Great Lakes Region is further exacerbated by the collapse of borders, which has resulted in the uncontrollable mass movement of people.  This in turn has caused the total collapse of domestic sovereignty in the countries concerned because local authority structures have disappeared, making it impossible to regulate society.  Lawlessness and war lordism have replaced authority, looting and plunder being the only thriving activities.

Of most importance is the need for NEPAD to empower governments to intervene in countries where crimes against humanity are committed.  While international law does not allow leaders to interfere in the internal affairs of another country, special mechanisms must be enshrined in NEPAD so that intervention is allowed where deemed necessary.  Knowledge that other leaders will intervene will deter genocidal tendencies from African leaders.  If, however, abuses of power in Zimbabwe and the impotence of other leaders in stopping them are anything to go by, NEPAD is doomed to failure.  South Africa and other so-called "superpowers" of Africa lost an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to the ideals of NEPAD, prevaricating over Robert Mugabe's flagrant abuses of power which continue to this day.  It shouldn't be any wonder then that NEPAD is met with cynicism in some quarters.

If intervention mechanisms can be enshrined in NEPAD, leaders will be able to protect future African generations from slaughter.  The culture of genocide, which saw tens of thousands of Ndebele people murdered in Zimbabwe in the 1980's, will have been banished.  African leaders must not be allowed to hide behind international law when abusing their citizens, they must be open to external sources of authority, which in the first instance, should be other African countries/institutions.  Courts of justice, for example, can be created and given full independence to pursue perpetrators.  International organisations such as the UN should complement the efforts of African institutions, not supplant them.

One of the biggest ills that afflict Africa today is war.  Together with HIV/AIDS, it is the biggest threat to social and economic development - it is encouraging that NEPAD acknowledges this even though the South African president, a leading proponent of NEPAD, dangerously intellectualises about HIV/AIDS while more and more of his countrymen get infected everyday.  His virtual denial of the existence of HIV/AIDS is nothing short of genocide against the people of South Africa.

Most governments in Africa are involved in wars of one kind or another.  Wars of attrition, survival and legitimacy litter Africa at the same time that new ones threaten to erupt everyday.  NEPAD should look at the causes of war, which ordinary people can readily give, if it is to come up with a solution once and for all.  The tribal tradition which in some countries was abolished by colonialists and replaced with Western models of government lies at the root of most, if not all conflicts which rage on today.  Post-independence governments have failed to adapt to the Western systems they inherited, choosing instead to revert back to tribal systems, which are often biased in favour of the majority tribes.

The failure of African leaders to rise above tribal politics is often cited as the main source of conflict between governments and citizens.  Marginalised communities throughout Africa have at one point or another resorted to armed struggle as a way of asserting their rights.  Can NEPAD be honest enough to acknowledge that there are countries where the unitary/central system of government has not worked and is the source of conflicts.  Can it be bold enough to recommend other authority structures such as monarchies and/or federal systems if they can be accepted as legitimate by the people concerned?

NEPAD is a diagnosis of Africa very few people will disagree with.   Its authors need to address the question of legitimacy and integrity before they can sell the initiative as African.   This they can achieve by giving their citizens a voice, allowing them to say for themselves what they want their leaders to do as far as solving problems is concerned.

Only when NEPAD is endorsed by ordinary Africans, who will have been satisfied that standards they will have set for their governments have been met, that the "African house" has been restored to order, should the leaders take the idea to the second phase - international support.  Doing it the other way round suggests that the founding leaders of NEPAD do not believe that Africans can improve themselves without outside help.  All African people want is total and absolute enfranchisement in their countries, the rest will follow on from that.