Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Why is Africa in such a mess?

Ken, I fully understand your points and I agree with them to an extent, especially your argument regarding the visible and invisible intrusions of global capital in our lives. Yes, some of these intrusions are so subtle, invidious, and normative that we the victims now actually participate actively in the process of sustaining and further entrenching them. I understand all that, and I am very persistent in reminding my students and other interlocutors about these strictures and about how they partly account for postcolonial African dysfunction. I diverge from you only in the sense that you give too much deterministic and explanatory power to this organism called the global neoliberal order. Conversely, you don't accord Africans/Africa and other marginal peoples and zones the ability to determine their fates in local contexts where the reach of the global neoliberal behemoth is necessarily limited and where in fact the resilience of local actors often complicates and deflects the workings and effects of neoliberal policies and structures. Nor do you see marginal peoples wittingly and unwittingly shaping, constituting, and reconstituting this global economic order. Even without acknowledging it, the Chinese are now active players in the global neoliberal order. In fact they now shape its contours and the direction in which some of its advantages flow. They used to be peripheral spectators and marginal players in it. They found a hole and punched through. They found room to maneuver. Ditto India to a lesser extent.

 As a theoretical tool to understand the workings of the global economic order and its ability to manufacture inequalities and asymmetries around the world while reinforcing vertical relationships and the strictures of power and economic leverage, what you describe is powerful. But as an explanation for African leadership dysfunction, it is of questionable provenance. Like Mamdani, I don't agree with perspectives that pathologizes the African postcolonial predicament. Pathology explains little to nothing. That should be commonsensical among scholars and intellectuals.  I am always looking at Africa not in isolation from the world but in relation to it, so I am mindful of the perils of African exceptionalism and of the need to look at the global triumph of capital and its structural and individuated consequences. However, I disagree in equally vehement terms with perspectives that fetishize the global neoliberal hegemony and that by doing so release groups and persons in leadership positions from accountability and personal responsibility. I know that it is not an either-or proposition, but it is my view that for most peoples of the South and the North who are poor and dispossessed, the global neoliberal order is a more distant culprit in their predicament than are their proximate leaders and political actors.

We should advance and understand the structures that interpellate our peoples into certain ways of seeing and acting, but we should also clear an analytical space for choices and decisions made at the micro or local levels by leaders and elites and the consequences of these decisions. We can debate how or to what degree these choices are externally constrained but it does not exculpate the people who take these actions that end up brutalizing their own citizens.

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:44 AM, kenneth harrow <harrow@msu.edu> wrote:

my argument is that it isn't africa but all the countries in the world that are experiencing the same effects of neoliberal economic policies. africa is not the exception, it is the same story elsewhere. your response wants to set the issue with africa facing an outside pressure. there is no outside, it is a system in which africa and the rest of the world are all enmeshed. maybe n korea excepted.
ken

On 12/15/10 1:23 AM, Chikwendu Christian Ukaegbu wrote:

Yes, makes sense to me. The global economy is not an "iron cage" from which African
leaders and followers cannot extricate themselves. To blame the global economy
implies that the African is devoid of agency i.e. no capacity to think and act
independently and courageously for the public good. Yet he/she has capacity to think
and act in self-interest. The postcolonial state may be more culpable than the
global economy. But even that still places doubts on the efficay of African agency.
Might it be that the postcolonial state is an iron cage? The continued
externalization of the African condition after 50 years of independence is
troubling. When will the child grow up?
Cu

Ken, unlike you, I have little sympathy for the notion that the the crevices
of the machine of inequality called the global economy are too narrow for
competent and selfless African leaders to maneuver in. Or that, given all
that we know about the despicable ways of Africa's ruling elites, we can
heap all the blame of Africa's political and economic stagnation on the seen
and unseen hand of global capital. That tale is stale, tired, and of little
comfort under today's circumstances. I would not want to put all my
explanatory eggs in that one basket, valid as the global structural
restrictions on African political initiatives may be. How does the tired
tale of dependency theory and its mechanics *alone *explain the rampant,
mindless corruption of the African political class, or their serial erosion
of the democratic will and rights of citizens? Yes, several decades ago,
that explanation cast a spell on African(ist) scholars because these were
they heydays of foreign interference and the forgiven follies of
postcolonial infancy. Now, it's explanatory value has diminished. The notion
that African states and peoples are entrapped in some sinister, monstrous,
global capitalist hegemony from which they cannot escape and which
inevitably and consistently determines their economic and political fates is
a little passe. That's too much determinism than I can stomach. It fails to
account for the fact that, skewed as the global capitalist structure may be
and as asymmetrical as the resulting relationships and structural
connections may be, African states hold a few cards that they can play
selflessly and cleverly to benefit their citizens and the fact that even
within the constraints of the foundational economic structure in which they
operate African leaders can and should privilege their quotidian
governmental obligations to their own citizens. To be sure, I always make
sure to remind my students who tend to gloss over these overarching
realities of the global political economy and their constraints on the
people and institutions of the South that these structural impediments are
real and limit the political and economic wiggle room available to countries
of the South. But I don't subscribe to the idea of a global neoliberal
economic system in which African leaders or citizens cannot negotiate,
maneuver, or act in their self-interest, or in which localized political
action and selfless political conduct is impossible. Where is African
political agency in this picture? Where is accountability for Africa's vast
army of rulers? I am sorry, but your position, once again, strikes me as the
familiar alibis and easy excuses for African leadership failure. We're not
talking about the ability of African leaders to wrought transformative
change in their domain or to overturn their countries' fundamental
relationship with the North's economic and political system. Obviously that
would require giving much weight to what you're describing. We are talking
about the need for leaders to keep faith with the mundane, basic obligations
of leadership. Don't African citizens deserve these from their leaders? Are
these very basic obligations of leadership unrealistic in the context of the
global forces you describe?

You wrote:

*"Why do the poor continue to vote for those who strip them of the means of
living?"*

Good question. However, I do not believe that it can be answered from a
structural, ideological perspective alone. One of the abiding imperfections
of Western liberal democracy is that it is an elite business in which flawed
elite choices are presented to poor, voting citizens who then have to choose
the person that they perceive to be the less bad of the two or more choices.
I agree that the system, by its nature is rigged, ab initio, to throw up
elite choices--people who for the most part possess no pro-poor experiential
or ideological pedigree. But I disagree that this is necessarily a function
of an omnipotent global capitalist hegemony. It is the nature of Western
liberal democracy and its emphasis on representation, one-man-one vote, etc.
The problem encapsulated in your question inheres in the nature of democracy
itself. Choices are determined by elite consensuses and trade-offs. The
system and its ritualistic elections require that poor people take a chance
on one elite candidate over another, not knowing whether the candidate of
their choice would not "strip them of the means of living" and sometimes
knowing that they would. They have little choice in the matter. The poor
can't control the processes by which the choices emerge. One of the reasons
for this is their financial handicap vis-a-vis the rich, but it is not the
only reason. It is sometimes a function of inherited status, education,
ethnicity, etc. Besides, in these local political dynamics, the reach of
global is only a partial, limited factor. In my opinion, it is not the
be-all-and-end-all that explains all. The poor are presented with a highly
constrained choice in the name of democracy and they have to choose someone.
Democracy, not neoliberal economic hegemony, is the operative construct
here. The alternative is to reject Western liberal democracy altogether,
which is not feasible.

Anyway, my two cents so far.

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:55 AM, kenneth harrow<harrow@msu.edu>  wrote:

 i would appreciate an astute political scientist making an evaluation of
the united states taking the sentence below: "we, the elite of africa [the
u.s.], are the primary enemies of ordinary africans [americans]" and "the
tragic role African [congressional] leaders have and continue to play....
etc"
in a recent conference mamdani made the astute, if obvious, statement that
it isn't individuals in africa who are different from those elsewhere. it
isn't bad luck, bad elites, bad leaders, but rather the conditions that
frame the creation of elites, leaders, politicians.
why not face it: there are systems of exchange and production that produce
not just goods and wealth but conditions that account for social structures.
those conditions today generate the possibility of enormous wealth for a
small group, who try their best to hold on to and accumulate as much as
possible, while the larger numbers go to hell.
which country am i talking about??? the US? Nigeria? Congo? Rwanda?
Senegal? south africa? china? Guatemala? Morocco? ireland? russia?
name a continent that is not relatively described by the "mess" created by
the international economic order?
do you think the conditions created by neoliberal global capitalism are not
fundamentally responsible for the abominable social and economic
imbalances??
it is time to STOP flagellating africa for the ills that follow the
dynamics of an unjust economic order. stop talking about how rich the congo
would be, only if...
so here is my fundamental disagreement with many on this list who call for
better leaders. it isn't the people, it is the system within which they take
power that needs to be rethought.  if we do that, we might then rewrite the
headline to be, "Why does the IMF put africa into such a mess," or "why do
we have a global economic order that results in misery for the majority?" or
"Why do the poor continue to vote for those who strip them of the means of
living?"
a tea party question indeed
ken

On 12/14/10 9:00 AM, Toyin Falola wrote:




 *Why is Africa in such a mess?*
 http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/Commentary/-/689364/1071802/-/view/pri
ntVersion/-/156btsfz/-/index.html

By Harold Acemah

 Posted Tuesday, December 14 2010 at 00:00
 In October 1993, I bought a little book titled, Tiny Roland: the ugly
face of Neo-colonialism in Africa by an EIR Investigative Team. EIR stands
for Executive Intelligence Review, based in Washington DC, USA.
 The thesis of the book, which at that time I found outrageous, but which
I am now more sympathetic to, was that Africa is on its deathbed, its people
relentlessly mowed down by starvation and disease. Among the perpetrators of
this holocaust are the International Monetary Fund, the former colonial
powers, the transnational corporations and commodity cartels such as the
Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
 On this list, one should add African leaders and the elite. Increasingly,
I believe we, the elite of Africa, are the primary enemies of ordinary
Africans. We, and especially our leaders, have let Africa down, very badly.
Current events in Ivory Coast confirm the tragic role African leaders have
and continue to play in the destruction of Africa. I fear Uganda is next.
 According to EIR, one man above all the rest, bears special personal
responsibility for turning the 1960s dreams of independence into a
nightmare. His name is Roland Walter "Tiny" Roland, boss of a British
Transnational Corporation, LONRHO. LONRHO is acronym for the London Rhodesia
Company. For decades this shrewd fellow was the most powerful Western
businessman in Africa. He had access to all African Heads of State and
government as well as African freedom fighters, guerrillas and even bandits.
 He would do business with African leaders, while funding guerrillas
fighting the very leaders he was wining and dining with. He was a
practitioner of the dictum: Never put all your eggs in one basket.
 The introduction to the EIR book on Tiny Roland is prophetic. It begins
with a short three-word sentence: "Africa is dying". It denounces Tiny
Roland and asserts that "the list of African leaders and guerrilla leaders
with whom Tiny Roland has had intimate financial dealings reads so much like
a Who is Who of modern African history. It includes past and present leaders
of Uganda and Kenya. Like all devious types, Tiny Roland had a tragic end
and is no more.
 Aside from the treacherous behaviour of African leaders, Sub-Saharan
Africa is simply poorly led, by mediocres, conmen, frauds and drop-outs.
Since the advent of independence in the 1960s, Africa has had far too many
tyrants and gangsters as leaders, far too few statesmen, let alone merely
competent office holders at political and bureaucratic level. Too often
African leaders reject sound policy advice and refuse to take the long or
broad view of their job.
 For example, how can anybody justify and rationalise the sale of Uganda
Commercial Bank (UCB), Apollo Hotel, Uganda Hotels and Uganda Electricity
Board, to mention but a few, under the guise of liberalisation and
privatisation. All these parastatals were making profit, but more important,
they were owned by the people of Uganda. UCB was fondly and rightly called
"The People's Bank". UEB was sold to ESKOM, a company owned by the
government of South Africa. It defies logic and one does not need a PhD in
Economics to see through the absurdity of the actions of African leaders.
 The few African leaders who seem to be progressive at the beginning of
their tenure of office soon revert to the familiar form of autocratic
one-man rule. Some are literally insane and remind me of the Roman Emperor
Caligula. Take the example, Master Sgt. Samuel Doe and Sgt Jean Bedel
Bokassa. The former became a General and Life President of Liberia while
Bokassa crowned himself Emperor of the Central African Republic. He was
following the footsteps of his hero, Napoleon Bonaparte of France.
 Today, another crazy young man called Yahya Jammeh who has terrorised
tiny Gambia for years, now wants to be crowned "King of Gambia" and
establish a dynastic rule in that ruined and impoverished strip of land
which is too small as a runway for the airbus 380 Jumbo Jet. And the
international community is just watching. For the enemies of Africa it
confirms their worst fears and prejudices about Africans. During the 1960s
many of these types used to patronisingly argue that Africans are barbarians
and not yet ready for self-government, let alone independence.

 When one looks at the map of Africa from Zimbabwe to Somalia to Eritrea
and Gambia and in between, it is painful for me as pan-Africanist to nod my
head and in silence admit that these enemies of Africa were perhaps partly
right. We Africans are our own worst enemies. Let us stop blaming
colonialism, the slave trade, imperialism, etc for our own self-made
tragedy.
 Our education has failed to remove the village mentality in most of our
leaders. All we think and talk about is "eating" or "manger" in French. Some
allege they have killed an animal and must be given eternity to feast on the
carcass. With such mind-sets Africa may indeed sooner, rather than later,
die. Yes, Africa is dying. Our primary challenge is to save Africa from
imminent death and keep the hopes of our people alive.
 *Mr Achema is a political scientist, consultant and a retired ambassador
based in Arua*
*hacemah@gmail.com*<hacemah@gmail.com>

 --

Toyin Falola
Department of History
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station
Austin, TX 78712-0220
USA
512 475 7224
512 475 7222  (fax)
http://www.toyinfalola.com/
www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa
http://groups.google.com/group/yorubaaffairs
http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa
Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit
http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit
http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

 --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa
Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit
http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit
http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's
greed.


---Mohandas Gandhi

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue
Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
   For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
   For previous archives, visit
http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
   To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
   unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
 For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
 For previous archives, visit  http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
 To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-       unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.


---Mohandas Gandhi

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com