Third, argue proponents, foreign
investment has helped improve the quality of labour in the South and in deed,
in Africa. It provides needed managerial skills that improve production,
creating more jobs. The service sector, in particular, has seen notable
improvement in some African countries over the last decades. The creation of
jobs, the provision of new and better products, and programs to improve
education for local employees and communities have been evoked as a case for
MNCs activities in the Southern hemisphere in general and the preponderance of
liberal capitalism and its Smithian heritage over socialism.
African
Nation States and the Development Challenge: Limits of Grand Strategies
There is an asymmetry between the
assumptions of liberal policies on the economic development in Africa, nation
building and the actual political, social and economic experience on the
ground. Often overlooked are the actual impacts of SAPs on the life of the
least advantaged members of the society.
The paradox of economic development in Africa is inextricably tied to
the methods, policies and strategies employed by African nations to effect
economic turnaround, notably: (1) foreign aids; (2) structural adjustment
programs (SAPs); (3) privatization programs.
First, let me make a brief
description of the World Bank and IMF. The two most important and yet most
contested institutions of our time, the International
Monetary Fund and International Bank
for the Reconstruction ad Development (World Bank) were founded in the
period following World War II under the famous Bretton Woods Agreement to
monitor and establish the parity or value of the currencies of the first world
nations, advice these countries on policies affecting monetary systems; and
very important for Europe and the US, they provided loans for current accounts
deficits as well as capital for reconstruction purposes. These funds came from
member states and benefited fellow member states. For instance, between 1945
and 49 the US gave financial assistance amounting: $3 billion in relief funds
and $3.75 billion to Great Britain to enable it complete its reconstruction and
return the pound to convertibility. The US too, benefited from this
arrangement. Huge sums of money from these institutions helped build the US
rail network.
Short of their own funds, developing countries too, turned
to these funds in the form of bank loans. In fact, in the first five years,
half of the World Bank loan lending went to European reconstruction and
development; the other half was extended to developing countries on hard terms.
In deed, in the 1950s and 1960s financial/technical aid emerged as a new form
of economic interaction. According to economic analysis of the time, the growth
of less-developed countries was truncated primarily by insufficient capital
investment and external financial assistance was thought to be only viable solution. The developing
countries benefited much at first. Between 1961 and 1969, the Development Loan
Funds (DLF) initiated by the US availed $4.8 billion to Latin America, while
British aid doubled from $648 million in 1956 to $414 in 1963.
Monetary Aid as the
Double Bind: The Peonage of Debt
While aid thus ushered in a new form of international relations,
beneficial to the countries of the Southern hemisphere, it did not and has
not since, been able to change the balance of economic power between the North
and South. In fact, it has dismally fallen short of being a springboard for
sustainable development. Instead, what has emerged among others is the problem
of unserviceable debt. The figures are revealing:
Total external debt stock in underdeveloped countries has
not just accumulated to frightful heights. Between 1980 and 1991, it climbed
from $79 billion to $178 billion. In the meantime however, economic growth in
real terms in these countries has shown no improvement. Interest areas on these
loans meanwhile have rocketed from a mere US$1.25 billion in 1982 to $12.89
billion in 1991. The total debt of African countries rose from $6 billion in
1970 to $210.7 billion in 1994, representing 82.8% of Africa's GDP and 254% of
its export earnings.
Unless canceled, the debt owed by
Africa is likely to exceed the $300 billion mark. What this means, is simply
that Africa, and many highly indebted countries can not in any way develop or
move out of its daunting poverty, a frightful disease. In the same vein, Africa
cannot under these circumstances adapt to changes in the global economic
environment. Take the case of Uganda. Although the Ugandan economy has
experienced some improvements in the years following the adjustment programs
(IMF/WB conditionalities) [which occasioned the lowering of inflation to 6%]
Uganda's total debt showed no improvement. Instead, the national debt rose from
$ 2,6 million in 1993 to 2.9$ in 1994, with debt servicing taking as much as
167 million. The mounting debt burden has created phenomenal gap in the balance
of payment and eaten into its foreign exchange reserves.
The implication of this is grave
and surpasses by far mere figures. More affected by debt burden are the poor,
the vulnerable, and the politically and economically disenfranchised. The heavy
interest on debt (loan repayment) not only means the government can not invest
in productive development activities, but also there is not much left to invest
into the basic infrastructure, particularly in health and in education. I was recently stunned by an experience of a
family in Uganda that lives in the outskirts of Kampala, not far from the
multimillion dollars WB regional office. They lost their 5-year-old daughter in
June and were about to loose another one from malarial attack because they
could not afford 1$ to take her for treatment at the National hospital, which
had just been restored, at high cost, with a loan from the World Bank. The
child actually died in the hospital, on the ICU bed and she was not the only
one. When I took the second dying child, I found out that that attractive building
was only a shell. Not only is it under-equipped but the cuts in health spending
by the Uganda government under the IMF/WB adjustment programs had driven many
nurses and doctors out of the country, or into other professions. The irony
here is that it is the same IMF/WB who will give money to improve the health
infrastructure but care little about the consequence of adjustment policies on
the quality of health-service delivery.
This and related experiences
justify, in my estimation, the call to cancel Third World debt. Not however,
because it makes it impossible for these countries to develop, but because of
the consequences on the most vulnerable. I underscore the most vulnerable
because it is the poor and not rich bureaucrats who ultimately service the
interest on debts through taxes. In most Third World countries, Africa in
particular, not only is the case that subsequent governments pay the interest
accrued on foreign debts, but most of the times, large percentage of the loans
find their way with the knowledge of some IMF/WB officials in the private banks
of these leaders. What professor Denis Brutus of South Africa recently pointed
out about the uncanny conduct of some African leaders and IMF/WB officials is
revealing and disturbing:
The issue of debt is an
obscene reality for Africans across the continent and in deed for the whole
world. The IMF loaned money for the apartheid governments and Nelson Mandela's
government is expected to pay those loans back. The IMF supported Mobutu (RIP)
knowing well that the loans made to Zaire went into Mobutu's personal accounts.
In Southern Africa – Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and all across the continent the IMF
has not only hurt current generations, but they have devastated the heritage of
future generations (Third World Resurgence, 97, 1999:35)
This sounds quite hard and even
extreme but the message it brings forth is clear. The issue of debt crises is
complex, to be sure. The argument by liberal capitalists that the poor
countries must not only pay their debts but must also make themselves ever
credit worthy flies away. The current debt problem, as I perceive it, by far
supersedes the issue of economic justice, narrowly understood. Closely
observed, there is a blatant injustice on both sides. Not only the powerful negotiators
on both sides, but the taxpayers, do not primarily experience this injustice.
On your side in the South, you tax feeds capital into these institutions
(IMF/WB), which tacitly allow unscrupulous leaders to place sizable amounts of
these loans into private accounts. On the Third World front the real debtors
are the poor who bear the brunt of it all. The African leaders do not bother
and are largely quite philosophical about the burden the debt burden creates on
the poor. In stead, they are quick to succumb to token measures adopted by the
WB and IMF.
Ghana & The impasse of Adjustment
Centered Policies on Economic Restructuring
Ghana's experience is equally
stunning. Like Uganda, Ghana has been showered with foreign aid as a reward for
its pursuit of the WB/IMF recovery programs. In its decade-long quest for
economic recovery, the government has drawn virtually every funding mechanism
available at the Bank and Fund, contracting more than $1.75 billion in loans
and credits by the end 1990. Despite massive amount of foreign financing, Ghana
has not achieved as much progress. The often-cited indicator of success – the
GDP growth averaged 3.88% between 1983 and 1990, representing a nominal
improvement over the pre-adjustment period. However, this figure contrasts
sharply with the sectoral distribution of GDP, which shows, among other things,
that in Ghana, growth has been uneven and has taken place principally in areas
receiving direct investment support. For instance, while the mineral and
forestry sectors have grown, manufacturing has declined. The performance of the
domestic food and livestock sub-sectors, critical to the well being of most
Ghanaian consumers, has on balance been negative. Thus although the WB and IMF
have hailed the agricultural export sector as a success story, it is little
known that the emphasis on cocoa production has exacerbated regional and local
income disparities. Although cocoa farmers comprise only 18% of Ghana's farming
population approximately 46% of government expenditure in the agricultural
sector has been allocated in the cocoa industry. As a result, Ghana's food self-sufficiency declined steadily well
into the 1990s, and per capita income of non-cocoa farmers stagnated. Producers
of rice, vegetable oil and other cash crops were hit by cheap imports, the
product of liberalization policies and exchange rate adjustments. The claim made by World Bank economists
that adjustment policies have created a framework for poverty eradication and
that market liberalization in agriculture has increased prices and increased
rural household incomes flies away before the experience of poverty of rural
farmers in Ghana and many other sub-Saharan African countries. Oxfam's
experience across Africa has shown, on the contrary, that "an undue emphasis on
market deregulation has exposed vulnerable peasant producers to private sectors
monopolies that have proved every bit as exploitative as their parastatal
predecessors". (Oxfam America).
This trend of affairs calls into
question liberal growth policies. The ensuing inequality and consequence on the
most vulnerable members of the society can no longer be considered mere trade
offs. Inattentiveness by African leaders to economic needs of the most
vulnerable members of the society explains why African states which have
"excelled" in pursuing liberal economic strategies do not rank as the most
humane and are more often than not, prone to revolt and dictatorship. As the
British pundit Charles Handy correctly points out in his erudite work The
Hungry Spirit: "A society in which the top 1% earn more, collectively than
the bottom 40% will not long be tolerated in a democratic state. The 40% will
eventually revolt, and, dictatorship, one hopes, is not an option". The libertarian adage that inequality is at
best an inevitable tradeoff of a free market economy and, in a sense, necessary
for efficient economy has been questioned and found wanting by one of Britain's
leading economic analysts, Will Hutton. In his instructive work, The State
We are In, he notes:
Inequality between classes and regions affect both
demand and supply. Demand becomes more volatile and unbalanced while supply is
affected by under investment and neglect of human capital. Economic cycles are
amplified; firms become more like opportunist traders than social organizations
committed to production and innovation. As a result, the long-run growth rate
tends to fall, unemployment rises and the government's underlying fiscal
position deteriorates, and a vicious cycle intensifies the volatility of the
demand and supply.
The above citation sums up the British experience
accurately. The collapse of social cohesion that ensued Margaret Thatcher's
economic restructuring did not only rid off what was old and inefficient. The
individualist, laissez-faire values, which guided the reforms, ripped the
British society of all sense of human decency, solidarity and social justice.
The dogmatic commitment to inequality and euphoria for quick-wins provided
fresh grounds for new owners to employ and remunerate at will. Although this
allowed employers to suck more efficient workers into the work force, this
market based employment strategy did not always deliver. In the downsized
industries, the same flexibility generated a rise in unemployment – up 1.5 million
over the years – and led to a sharp fall in demand. The loss of income by more
than one third of the population affected the economy at large. Consumer
spending fell by 7.6 billion pounds by 1992.
The impasse of a purely
market-driven development agenda on Africa need not be proven any further. What
is clear is that, in the absence of any sense of commitment to the good of the
society, further implementation of adjustment policies is more likely than not,
going to lead to the disintegration of African nations. This will further be
exacerbated by the absence of any realistic safety nets within most African
states.
Privatization and the impasse of "Quick turns"
Efficiency
Despite the unfailing support
from WB/IMF economists, the pursuit of privatization programs over the last
decade has drawn criticism not only from the academics, community activists but
also the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). As the UNDPs' 1993 World
Development Report asserts: "In many countries the privatization program has
been more of a 'garage sale' to favored individuals and groups than a part of a
coherent strategy to encourage private investment" and promote equal
opportunities. In many African countries, notably Kenya, privatization has
served as a conduit to corruption and flight of capital from the country. In
more than one case, the sales of public enterprises have been made to parties
lacking managerial capacity. All in
all, what parties drawing the policies have not taken into consideration is the
long-term consequence on the society. When assessed in terms of the hard-fast
logic of efficiency and profitability, many of the firms may in deed, not have
been relatively successful.
Furthermore, there is evidence to
show that parastatals in Kenya perform better than private enterprises on a
range of economic indicators. Besides, the fact that some privatized
enterprises have not performed any better, but have shown greater inefficiency
such as Uganda's Nytil Pifcare, indicates that the trouble with some companies
(and there are many such companies in Africa) is not the lack of private
incentive, but ineffective management.
By ineffective management I do not mean lack of managerial skills and
competencies. The irony is that in Britain itself, the threshold of
privatization, the sale of public utilities have not delivered the promised
benefits to the public. The Thames Water Company and the British Rail are by no
means paragons of efficiencies. It is now well accepted among management
academics that a listless pursuit of economic efficiency is not sufficient in
itself. In his works The Empty Raincoat and The Hungry Spirit
Charles Handy argues that an economic agenda that places efficiency and
productivity gains over and above the demands for justice, solidarity and the
common good is not the mark of a decent society. Moreover, a decent capitalism
cannot be built on the narrow idea of wealth accumulation, but must instead
rest on a broader understanding of human life and society. "Capitalism, no
matter how successful, will never on its own give a complete answer to the
question 'Why'…Ultimately, we need a new understanding of human life, one that
gives money (capital accumulation) its due, but not more than its due".
Which way then, for Africa?
Towards A New Vision of Economic
Development and Nation building in Africa
From capital accumulation to capability enhancing policies:
the indispensable role of freedom
Economic development in Africa
cannot be built and sustained on models of economic growth, which places
self-interest and profit maximization over and above all other values,
including the concern for the vulnerable. Economic development in Africa ought
to be built on values of caring, so as to narrow the highly unjust and
unacceptable gap between the very few rich and the majority, that live in
insecure sub-human conditions. This requires that African governments give
priority to policies and programs, which promote the common good and enhance
the capabilities of their citizens. The capability approach enhances the
understanding of development in significant ways. It draws attention on the
agency of economic actors, and emphasizes their freedom to determine their
lives. As the Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has correctly pointed out in his most
recent work, Development As Freedom, development seen in terms of
substantive freedom of people has far-reaching implications for understanding
of the process of development as well as the means of promoting it. To wit, it
includes the removal of constraints and deprivations: economic, social, as well
as political.
The
emphasis Sen lays on freedom is important; it smacks at Africa leadership
profoundly. Economic development will forever remain a distant dream as long as
African leadership does not break away from their dependence, not only on
financial aids, but also on development policies designed elsewhere. The
African development needs, like the people, are unique and have unique sets of
values. To accept full-scale and to apply piecemeal strategies for development
drawn by economists who have only a notional knowledge of the African continent
and its need is to betray the African people. This betrayal is all the more
painful as those masterminding it are precisely those who have been entrusted
with authority by the people to manage the economy on their behalf. As Pope
John Paul II points in his encyclical Solicitudo Rei Socialis:
Development,
which is merely economic, is incapable of setting man free. On the contrary, it
will end up by enslaving him further. Development that does not include
cultural, transcendent and religious dimensions of man and society, to the
extent that it does not recognize the existence of such dimensions, and does
not care to direct its goals and priorities towards the same, is even less
conducive to authentic liberation…Peoples aspire to be free: their search for
full development signals their desire to overcome the many obstacles,
preventing them from enjoying a 'more humane life'". (SRS: #46).
Economic development can only issue
from political freedom. However, the sort of political freedom Africa needs is
one that is not dictated by global economic concerns, in the first place.
Without doubt, Africa cannot lock itself out from the world, and must, where
necessary, respond to the competitive forces in the global market. However, the
blind pursuit of the dictates of the market will not engender the peace,
stability and security that Africa needs. As managers of their nation's
economy, African leaders need to free themselves from ideas, policy dictates
and strategies which run counter to the values of the people. Any economic
activity, which does not promote the dignity of the human person and integrity
of the community "runs the risk of unduly absorbing human energies and limiting
people's freedom". African
political leaders have an enormous moral task to safeguard, defend and
promote the economic independence of their nations.
Again, we have examples to learn
from. Nations which were at one time uncompetitive and economically backward by
the conventional standards, such as India, Korea, China and Taiwan have made
their ascent precisely because of the decision by their leaders to steer free
of economic 'conditionalities'. The main task that lies ahead in this regard
for Africa to acquire its economic identity is to make a decisive effort to de-neocolonize
itself. It goes without saying that African leaders can not lead Africa into
greater political freedom and enable their compatriots to enjoy fruits of civil
liberties when they are not free themselves. The Latin adage: "nemo dat quod
non habet" (Nobody gives what he/she does not have) is true in this
regard.
The 'model' of development Africa
needs is one that integrates Africa's social values, especially the values of
community, sharing and mutual support with the spiritual destiny of the people.
The African world-view is phenomenological, i.e. embedded in experience,
rather than in some rationalistic or rationalizable notion of the person
(anthropology) and society (sociology). Africans do not just co-exist; they pro-exist,
they live, engage in any form of activity not primarily for personal gains, but
for the good of the one and the many. They act for the good of
all. In this purview the common misconception that African solidarity or
community spirit is a constraint to economic efficiency and development is wild
and unjustified. That the Japanese were able to transform their post World War
II economic adversity because of their hard work and selfless ethos
(embodied in the kyosei i.e., commonality) is now not only widely
accepted; it is even admired as a case of economic miracle, by hard core
liberal ideologues.
In a
word, Africa needs a distinctive vision of development. This vision,
however, is not to be had in mainstream economic principles and strategies. The
basis of such a vision can ultimately be in the agent, in the actor, the
protagonist of economic development – the human person. The inalienable right
of each person to health, shelter, food, education, work and to a just wage
must transcend the economic mandates of efficiency, howsoever valuable this may
be.
From the law scarcity to abundance: recovering the African
phenomenology of community and ownership
I have just noted that sustainable
economic development cannot be achieved without a distinctive vision of
economics. Critics might object, with good reasons, that there is no such a
thing as African economic laws. True. Fair enough. In deed, economic relations
in Africa in the broad sense are not governed by classic presuppositions of
scarcity and utility maximization. Economic relations are based on the vision
of pro-existing and co-acting persons, sharing resources, wealth and
possessions. What guides this sharing is not charity, the gift of what spills
over from what the individual has maximized, but the abundance of goodness
experienced by living and acting with the other, and in creative relationship.
The faith in our interconnection allows us to give abundantly
from the little we possess. Sharing does not make inefficient homo
economicus. On the contrary, we become homo matures by reaching out
to others. Thus, possessions have meaning only in the context of relationship,
which they serve to build. In this purview, economic development well understood
from the African phenomenology of community and ownership is the quality of
being in relationship, rather than the accumulation of capital in
terms of inanimate GDP.
Resources are bridges rather
than ends in themselves. The Alur people of Uganda have a saying: "kech mi
uwuru ceri nindo" (that is, "your bother's hunger makes you sleepless").
To be sure the truly honorable person works hard, yields plenty of food, raises
many cattle to share with others who have not. Hunger is not new to Africa, but
it bites harder today, because we have gradually drifted away from our
phenomenology of life, work and community. Economic and nation-building
strategies are more than likely than not to forestall, if they do not attend to
values germane to African people.
From Structural Adjustment Policies to Economic Partnerships with
Africa: the Indispensable Role of Solidarity
"International
solidarity is not an act of charity. It is an act of unity between allies
fighting on different terrains towards the same objectives. The foremost of
these objectives is to aid the development of humanity to the highest level
possible" (Samora Machel+: 1933- 1986).
Our analysis of the socio-economic experience
of Africa and the role of multinational/global emphasizes the need for a new
mode of thinking about wealth creation as well as more humane economic
strategies. The good news is that, the international community is gradually,
albeit painstakingly, realising that relationship with Africa, political as
well as economic, need to be redefined. The old policy options, or rather, the
canons girding these policies, are far from effective. Susan E. Rice, the
Assistant Secretary General for African Affairs' remark is note worthy:
Democratic
governance and respect for human rights are also crucial to the goal of
integrating Africa into the global economy. Recent history has taught us that
governments which safeguard human rights as well as political and economic
freedoms can more effectively establish conditions for sustainable economic
growth (Rice, October 29,1998).
More pertinent however, is her statement that
sustained growth should be patterned on a policy of APartnership for Economic Growth and
Opportunity in Africa@. Unquestionably, relationship based on partnership presents, in my
estimation, a far more open and respectful agenda for development in Africa. It
also offers more meaningful guideline for cooperation between donor agencies
and African governments. Unless these agencies consider themselves partners in
transforming the society, rather than drivers of wealth creation, their impact
on the local community will forever remain suspect.
Is the Susan Rice sort of
partnership one that will carry the day for meaning social transformation? Not
quite, in my estimation. As long as the US trade relations focuses only on
opportunity windows for US companies as the program APartnership for Economic Growth and
Opportunity in Africa@ insinuates, relations between African nations and foreign donor
agencies will remain anything but Anew wine in old wine skin@, which, as Jesus of Nazareth once
said, will burst.
The path to the sort of partnership
that I believe, will sustain the relation between the West and Africa is one
that has been charted by the APartnership Africa@ forum in Stockholm where, in an open forum, the two parties (Africa and
Sweden) challenged in a spirit of respect their mutual assumptions about
progress, development and cooperation. Sweden, with its economic power realized
that its paternalistic attitude towards Africa, based on the belief that she
must set the terms and conditions of their relations was disrespectful of their
partner, Africa, and did little to foster the sort of mutual trust that is the morum
basis of any relationship, let alone commercial relationship. The host
nation realised that economic policies glutted on Africa did little to ignite
the creativity and vigour that the continent=s leadership needed to become agents
of their development but led to a general feeling of infantilism. Moreover,
Sweden deprived herself of the opportunity to enrich itself in ways other than
economic, from the rich and virgin cultural resources, including caring,
community and solidarity.
To sum it up, the partnership that
development agencies need in Africa must be based on the following factors:
- Subject
to subject attitude: There is need for a real change of attitude. No partnership can
thrive without respect for the humanity of the other. African nations
should not acquiesce in the monetary benefits they receive from donor
agencies.
- Being explicit and respecting each
other=s values:
As partners in development the donor nations have their own sets of
expectations which must be explicit, but they need to recognise and
respect the values of the nations they deal with. The Aexpert@ syndrome needs to give way to
the spirit of collaboration and solidarity. However, as Samora Machel
cautions, international solidarity is not to be perceived of an act
of charity. "It is an act of unity between allies fighting on different
terrains towards the same objectives. The foremost of these objectives is
to aid the development of humanity to the highest level possible".
- Transparency
of Interest:
Even if interests diverge, as they always will, common ground can be
found. This requires, openness, something that WTO and some MNCs are not
terrible virtuous about.
- Clear
contractual standards: New contractual relationships should focus on the critical factors
of success and mutual benefits and avoid paternalistic conditionalities
that bedevils cooperation towards achieving social transformation.
- Equality
of Capacity:
Commercial contracts between MNC and Africa, like loans for development,
should be based on equality with the latter being availed of all the
necessary information pertaining to the contract and implications of the
operations. Many African governments feel duped by the donor agencies.
In practice, I see the following changes to be
made to partnership modalities:
- Outreach
and respect for democratic and human rights processes. If there is to be genuine
partnership the donor agencies need to suspend their functionalistic
conditionalities to embrace the cause of the poor and disenfranchised
people in African countries.
- Transparency
of Principles:
Principles guiding partnerships should be meaningful and clear, and not
clouted with legal jargons and obscurities.
- Coherence: Lip-service is often paid at
high political profile meetings between host representatives and top donor
representatives, but often little is done in practice
This sort of partnership sits comfortably with
a more dynamic understanding of economic relations and echoes well what T.S.
Eliots alluded to in The Chorus from the Rock:
What life have you if you have not life together?
There is no life that is not in community,
And no community that is not lived in the praise of God
When the stranger says: AWhat is the meaning of this city?
Do you huddle together because you love each other?@
What will you answer? AWe dwell together
To make money from each other@ or AThis is a community@?
The time is right for architects
of development in Africa to follow the path of love and justice. Christians in
particular, can not ignore the prophetic call by Isaiah: "to break unjust
fetters, to undo the throngs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free", share
food with the hungry, shelter the homeless poor and clothe the naked (Isaiah
58:6-7).
At
this point, I wish to underline that in my estimation, one group that deserves preferential
attention are women. Despite the fact that women have generally occupied a
humble position in the African social structure, they have always shown
unfailing care for the family. Most Africans, men and women, cherish the role
played by their mothers in providing for their education, often at a very high
cost to them. It is known in our society that when you give a woman one dollar,
you have fed the entire family. Give the man a dollar, you have boozed one
mouth for a couple of hours. Educating women, empowering them and providing
them with start-up capitals ensures effective development. The remarkable
success of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh is a challenging example. This
visionary micro-credit movement, led by a humane economist Yunus, has shown
that what the disadvantaged need to take charge of their economic needs are
equal opportunities to capital. Economics is not the preserve of men.
The Task Ahead for Christian Churches in Africa
The position of
the Christian churches in Africa on economic development and nation building
sits comfortably with the vision of the gospel, to wit: commitment to the cause
of the poor, oppressed and downtrodden. The All Africa Council of Churches,
spelled out, in a report published as far back as 1958 emphasized:
The
church has a duty to bear witness, in humility, to its understanding of the
will of God for man in organized society. For that reason, it dare not assume
passive, indifferent or neutral attitude towards the crucial political and
social issues of the times. It must uphold righteousness, champion
the oppressed, and declare the sovereignty of the institution of man.
This declaration
not only underscores the position of the Christian churches in Africa. It
challenges the faith communities "to champion the oppressed and declare the
sovereignty of the institution of man". What does this mean for development? It
not only means "a fundamental change of moral attitudes and mental structures
of the population, as a whole," as the theologian Laurenti Magesa notes.
It challenges the churches to engage themselves through concrete activities in
nation building (development) agenda. The various Christian churches have,
since pre-independence set, precedence in providing quality education at
primary, secondary and tertiary levels in Africa. This needs to be strengthened
and re-focused. While education in theology, philosophy and anthropology are
significant, they should not be given more than their due. One might argue that
it is perfectly congruent with the mission of the church that it refocuses its
commitment to education by targeting those disciplines, which obfuscate human
longing for justice and equity. Economics, business, politics should not be
perceived any more as 'secular' or positive discipline to be handled by experts
in civil/national universities. The mystification of these disciples by
'experts' is just as false as is their secularization by Christian institutions
of higher lining.
The case of Uganda Martyrs
University
These veils are
falling. It is worth noting that academic institutions in Africa are beginning
to rise to these challenges. Uganda Martyrs University, which is the first
private university in Africa, has set precedence in this regard, by
establishing the first full-fledged degree course in development studies and
ethics—well ahead of the national university. It has also established a
Business and Management program, targeting health professionals, bankers,
insurers, tax and revenue officials. In a bid to achieve its mission of serving
the needs of the rural community, it has set up schools of Agriculture and
Building Technology, which run rural pilot projects. Our programs, whatever,
their nature, embrace Christian, non-partisan moral values. Ethics is not an
option/elective but a major course. Conscious of the political and moral
dimensions of development, the University has set up, in partnership with the
government, a Center for the Eradication, Detection and Education and Study of
Fraud. This seeks to support and strengthen the efforts of the ministry of Ethics and Integrity,
Uganda Debt Network and Transparency International to find solutions to the
problems of fraud, which arrest development in Africa.
The importance of 'fundamental option for the poor'
Education
is key to development, to be sure. Admit, we must, that it is not a panacea for
all problems of development. The church cannot congratulate itself for
providing education and wash its hands clean. She must also challenge the
structural forces, which oppress the people, including those manned by political
powerhouses, whatever the cost. She must also stay dry shod, by refusing 'false
praises', which may be showered on her to domesticate her. While whimsical
confrontation is not useful, complicity by church leadership to any form of
oppression is a betrayal of her "christic" mission. It is against this that
Archbishop Oscar Romero's dictum against the oppressive Nicaraguan regime can
be understood: "When I give food to the hungry, they call me a saint. If I ask
why they are poor they call me a communist". Thus, the church must
unpretentiously but courageously, integrate her salvific and prophetic
missions, in her bid to spearhead development and nation building.
Conclusion:
The
challenge of attaining sustained economic development in Africa includes both the
removal of constraints and the setting of people sensitive policies. Developing
and strengthening a democratic system is an essential component of the process
of development. It calls for partnership and collaboration between donor
agencies, national governments, church institutions and local communities.
Above all, African development must be built on values, which are at once
social, economic, moral and religious. True development must promote
capabilities to achieve the desired functionings, as Sen underscores.
