More than half of the countries in the world are democracies. But what does that really mean? Is democracy still the best system of governance in the world? Some suggest that democracy is in decline. That we are watching its twilight. Do you agree? Join our avid bloggers to find out what democracy means to them and how best to measure it.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Development Tradeoffs?
What does Development Mean?
Is there a "model" for development that is most appropriate for Africa?
Pictured here on the left is Buea, Cameroon, and on the right, garbage disposal at a banana plantation in Cameroon
On the causes of Underdevelopment in Africa, Kristy G: wrote:
Before I delve into the reasons of Africa‚s underdevelopment, I would like to point out that Africa is a continent and not a country. Over two thousand ethnic groups live in Africa, each with its own diverse culture and ideology. There are fifty-four sovereign states within the continent, therefore, to try and come up with a universal answer as to why Africa is the most underdeveloped continent would not only be absurd, but very difficult. In order to derive an explanation, one must look at the history of each individual country and find the causes for whatever problems the country currently faces.
Many socioeconomic, cultural and political factors contribute to Africa being the most underdeveloped continent, yet for most African countries, it is in my opinion that the colonial legacy in Africa has done the most damage. Colonialism resulted in exploitation of labor, unfair taxation, the creation of artificial states, the siphoning of natural resources, and unfair terms of trade. These are just a few of the policies that were implemented during colonialism that have had lingering effects on the development of Africa.
But African cannot be the only cause of underdevelopment. Ethiopia and Liberia are two countries in Africa that never came under colonial rule, but they share the same problems that the rest of Africa is currently facing.
Africa‚s state of underdevelopment is also caused by external factors, such as the presence of Multinational Corporations (MNCs). These corporations have exploited the African labor force, degraded the environment, and facilitated corruption by supporting African dictators. These MNCs continue to contribute to the development of the First World at the expense of African countries.
Although external factors may be the probable causes of the underdevelopment of Africa, can the African people themselves be at fault for some of their problems? Absolutely.
For instance, in Africa, there is a huge problem with deforestation. Due to the scarcity of arable agricultural land, farmers cut down the virgin forests to obtain land for farming. When all of the trees are removed, flooding results during rain storms because there are no longer enough tree roots to absorb the water. In addition, flooding brings mosquitoes; and mosquitoes carry the deadly disease of Malaria. So Africans themselves have indirectly added to this huge health issue that prevents them from leading a better quality of life. I believe that Africans should take some kind of responsibility for this problem.
Another possibility is the fact that there are about 2,000 different ethnic groups living on the continent can be a problem in itself. That means that there are 2,000 different ways of life, belief systems, and competing ideologies. I would like to point out that wars happened throughout African history, long before European colonialism, and they continue to occur to this day. So you cannot argue that because colonial powers „created‰ ethnic „tribes,‰ they instigated tension among ethnic groups. Some form of tension already existed among ethnic groups long before colonials arrived. The bottom line is that an African country may work hard to achieve development, and all of it could go to waste if a war breaks out.
Coup d‚etats have also destabilized many African countries. It is difficult for a country to establish an efficient economic system when there is so much military unrest.
Yet another internal factor for underdevelopment is corruption by government officials. Money that is allocated for the creation of schools and jobs is siphoned out of the country, by government officials, into Swiss Bank accounts and this leads to another cause for underdevelopment. Sometimes, this is exactly what happens with debt relief money. As debt relief money continues to „disappear‰ at the hands of government officials, donor countries begin to think twice about contributing in the future.
People can spend a lot of time arguing over the cause of underdevelopment on the African continent as a whole. Meanwhile, it continues to endure a vicious cycle of problems that prevent development. Instead of pointing fingers and playing the blame game, everyone needs to put the causes to the side and think about the solution. African countries must come together as a whole to help each other solve the problems at hand. Since they are all suffering from the same problems, why not come up with a solution together to fix them?
Africans need to rely on each other instead of Western organizations˜some of whose past attempts to help African countries have failed. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) tried helping many African countries by lending them money with high interest rates for development projects. Since many of the development projects failed, African countries sunk farther into debt and now they are in a worse position than before they borrowed the money. Reliance on Western organizations is not the solution.
Therefore, some type of African unity must take place. One possibility would be in the form of the European Union, or maybe in the form of „The United States of Africa.‰ In my opinion, the best form of unity would be the latter because it would encompass all ethnicities under one nation. Elections should be held based on proportional representation, so that way every ethnic group would have a voice in government. A system of checks and balances should be instituted to prevent corruption at the national level. Also, with all of the „new states‰ working together under this system of checks and balances, they can prevent corruption from happening at the state level and legally kick corrupt officials out of office.
As stated by Ayittey, the people of Africa need „African solutions for African problems.‰ Since no one knows Africans better than Africans themselves, they must use their own ideas to come up with the best solution for development. They should not simply copy the footpaths of Western countries‚ development. Maybe a form of Western government will end up being the solution, or there may be the possibility that Africans will come up with a completely new type of government. Whatever the result, African people need to work fast to solve their problems so that they will have reasons to invest in their future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Featured Post
Turkey's Ban on Insults against Erdogan
Since 2005 Turkey has had a law against insults against Erdogan known as Article 299. The article declares that citizens can be imprisoned ...
-
Great news! Now you can sit back in the comfort of your own home and actually see (provided you have access to high-speed internet) the phys...
-
From 600,000 to 1 million souls slaughtered in just 100 days in Rwanda. Thousands killed, raped and mutilated in Darfur, Sudan. On-going civ...
-
Darfur Sudan. Many Americans don't even know where that is. For many in Darfur, it is hell on earth. An estimated 2.6 million people ha...
16 comments:
Ben,
Nicely written. I agree with your idea of strategically choosing those few African nations that have the greatest chance for success and focusing aid and relief efforts with the confidence of a world report card to catalyze the develpoment of other African nations. My only question is that this assumes that all nations, in particular those few African nations who would be chosen first for fucused help would want to help their neighbors. Do you think that tribalism and social rivalry could lead to the uneven or biased distribution of aid efforts from both the developed world and those African nations that choose to help their friend nation over one that actually needs the help? How would anyone be able to go through your proposed process without the feeling that they're being placed ahead of someone else unless you help them all equally at once?
What are your thoughts...
Theodore,
I think that the idea of developed nations throwing money blindly at nations that are knowingly doing what they will with it is anything but positive and should stop. At the very least, developed countries should follow up with strict reports and mount strict conditions as to what the money can be spent on to help stop corrupt usage.
We should be willing to continue to give aid with strict guidlines in certain circumstances.
I know you think that the developed world should stop giving aid. Is there any circumstance to where you think we should?
Also, what if some leaders don't want to comply with the idea that they should build new public policy ideals? How do you think the develope world should aproach these bull-headed leaders?
It looks like you have a nice blog. CHECK OUT my site at kehnsJAM!
Have you watched INVISIBLE CHILDREN?
Documentary of northern Uganda.
Teodore,
Global unity among the developed world followed by combined resource sanctions on those countries occupied by corrupt individuals would allow for us to keep our military and the military of others out of the solution, which, like your example and our current situation show, would be a good idea. We should use our political power more efficiently when it comes to solving global problems. Tossing the military into a situation leads to, as you said, the loss of lives which often creates domestic issues within the country and often divides the once united public. Nothing can be accomplished or backed by a democracy if the people that lead the democracy aren't united. I think the answer to ousting corrupt leaders is harsh combined resource sanctions by the developed world that would lead to a furious public within that country and possible eventual overthrow due to a sudden lack of resource the people would blame on the leader.
Any thoughts on this idea?
Matt,
I think you have a logical answer, but what happens if the public's frustration leads to large-scale violence? Could that possibly make the entire situation worse off? I'm just having a hard time seeing your solution run as smooth as it does in writing.
Stacey,
The decision is tough. On one hand I don't like the idea of violence amongst a people and on the other I don't think it's right for the developed world to step in, at least to oust a corrupt leader, unless the people suffering want us to specifically. We are in Iraq now because we chose to be not because the people living under Sadaam's regime "asked us", by rising against him. Now, we are looked at as occupiers and the situation is chaos. I think we should have the ability to use military power against corrupt leaders on behalf of the suffering peoples will, but in the future we should be careful about making sure the opinion of the people who will remain after the tossing of the leader will be one of thanks not of hatred for our presence and pushing of values.
So, to answer your question about my comment. I guess I feel that military moves don't usually work, they didn't in Somalia as Theodore said, or Vietnam, and they always, obviously, result in violence. So, I suggested the use of non-military acts of harsh sanctions first. If the people want to fight in response to the sanctions as a result of corrupt leadership than we, as the developed world should act militarily on behalf of the revolting people to hasten the exile of the leader. If violence breaks out, and the odds aren't in the favor of the people who are fighting for what they stand for against a leader, the developed world, not just the US should step in and sway the odds to their favor, oust the leader and get out, removing the sanctions and aiding in the reconstruction efforts along the lines of what the people want for themselves not what we think they should have based off of our values.
Violence is difficult to avoid in situations where greed and corruption are at play. With that said, I think it's neccessary if the process is thoroghly thought out to bring an obvious end to it. The US wanted it's freedom from what we thought to be corrupt leadership in England three centuries ago and recieved help from the French to help sway the odds of success. I think we should do the same for the people that want what we as American's wanted centuries ago. We should do what the French did for us then to people who want to fight corruption and unfair leadership now.
Kind of far out, I know. What do you think?
I think that we may be forgetting the possibility that maybe the US and Western governments want the corrupt leaders to stay in place. If the countries are friendly to the US and allow the TNCs to export billions of dollars of goods that benefit American companies, what incentive does the US have in changing this?
Hell, we've demonstrated in the past that we're not above that. Look at the coups that we supported in Argentina and Chile (against democratically elected governments) as well as Nicaragua (the Iran-Contras scandal). We also mined Nicaragua's harbors and paralyzed their economy even though we were not even at war. In El Salvador, we supported the dictatorship. In the Dominican Republic, we supported Trujillo until his actions got so disgusting that Americans forced our government to do something. Then Trujillo gave in to a few of the American demands, and the American public lost interest.
We've done it in Latin America, why do we think it hasn't happened in Africa? Why do we think that the US government or even the majority of the US population even cares about the well being of the exploited African peoples? Or any exploited people for that matter. The US probably isn't causing the greed of the corrupt rulers, but by allowing TNCs to exploit workers in order to provide Americans with cheap goods, we're helping to fuel the problem.
Just some things to think about...
Matt,
I am not sure what the best solution would be. I understand your suggestion is meant to be the least invasive and I can see the importance of nonintervention based on the past experiences you mentioned. Harsh sanctions seem like a practical solution, but I feel like there could be more. It is obvious that many African leaders are unwilling to reform their governments, but it is hard to know whether problems with corruption could be dealt with most effectively through the government or the individuals in that society. Ousting corrupt leaders is a difficult task and because I have limited knowledge on the subject, I can’t propose what I think would be best. Yes, the people living under a corrupt government should fight back while external entities provide support when needed, but as we have seen over the years, regime changes, electoral reforms, and global pressure have not completely eliminated corruption. I do think that it is important for the developed world as a whole to help with Africa, but I am uncertain what combination of acts would be most successful. Sorry if I seem too vague.
Stacy,
Every plan starts out vague, it's a good place to be. Frankly, I don't know what the answer is either. I think that we, as the developed world, haven't mazimixed the effort you and I think would work with the combination of sanctions and outside aid to those who are honestly fighting back. Maybe if we try harder on a more international level it would work, no one will know until we try. I think what we are realizing in this discussion is that there isn't a clear answer, one that can be read about and applied. The answer is going to have to come from people who are willing to try new ideas, ones that don't rely on military power or ingorance based, "well, everything will work out eventually" strategies, which we no don't work. This generation will have to think outside the box of history to come up with a strategy that works. All plans start vague and then become more focused. If you were asked how to solve the problem of underdevelopment and poverty with every power at your disposal as a world leader, what would you do?
Stacy h,
Every plan starts out vague, it's a good place to be. Frankly, I don't know what the answer is either. I think that we, as the developed world, haven't mazimixed the effort you and I think would work with the combination of sanctions and outside aid to those who are honestly fighting back. Maybe if we try harder on a more international level it would work, no one will know until we try. I think what we are realizing in this discussion is that there isn't a clear answer, one that can be read about and applied. The answer is going to have to come from people who are willing to try new ideas, ones that don't rely on military power or ingorance based, "well, everything will work out eventually" strategies, which we no don't work. This generation will have to think outside the box of history to come up with a strategy that works. All plans start vague and then become more focused. If you were asked how to solve the problem of underdevelopment and poverty with every power at your disposal as a world leader, what would you do?
Wow Matt, that is a loaded question. I am not exactly sure where I would start, but I know that I would do my best to raise awareness about the issue among my fellow world leaders. It would be impossible to solve the problems alone, so it would be necessary to gather support for the cause. If I had all the power and money at my disposal, I would avoid just throwing money at those who need it. Rather, it would be important to show those suffering from underdevelopment how to make decisions that benefit the majority instead of seeking personal advancement. What has continually happened in Africa is that rulers seek power for selfish reasons since they have access to many of the benefits. If you could demonstrate to those rulers how much more rewarding it would be to pursue a type of governing that focuses on the development of the entire state, then maybe they would become less selfish. As well, I think it would be important to create transparency in those states so that the majority of people are aware of the problems they face and try to do something about it.
There are so many issues that trouble underdeveloped countries, so I want to try and focus my answer a little more by talking about economy. From an economic standpoint, I think that many of the underdeveloped countries need to reform their current systems. I think that some of the Asian countries provide a good example of a path that underdeveloped countries could follow. For starters, underdeveloped countries could focus on protecting their domestic market in order to foster growth within their country (Import Substitution Industrialization). Yes, that would require tariffs on foreign products, but it would help foster their own industries in order to build a greater domestic market. As well, ISI is more popular among the people within a society because it generates jobs and diversifies the economy, which can help avoid civil unrest. The purpose of starting with ISI is to help increase capital within the countries so they can use it towards products for exportation. Once their own market is stable, each country should focus on specializing in goods where they have a comparative advantage and invest in those sectors (Export Led Industrialization). ELI is important because it will help generate a flow of money into the country that becomes necessary for battling underdevelopment. A strategy incorporating both ISI and ELI is only one way that underdeveloped nations could strive towards improvement. Obviously, I don’t have all the answers, but based on what I do know, I think that some of my suggestions have potential to be effective.
Stacey:
Nice thoughts, and answer to a seriously loaded question. I agree with you.
Hey Fellow, you have a top-notch blog here!
If you have a moment, please have a look at my against foreign aid site.
Good luck!
Post a Comment