Africa’s Foundation for a Bright Future

With the possible exception of South Africa, there is no single country on the African continent that is self supporting. The political map that was put in place following the triumph of the allies in World War II must be redrawn so that the landscape changes from a large number of unsustainable dependent countries to larger self-sufficient nations. The current map was drawn with the interests of the controlling countries in mind and not those of the inhabitants.

Nobody likes to be dependent on others especially when they know that given the chance they can actually stand on their own two feet. In order to move Africa to a new and bright future a conference should be organized the objective of which will be the consolidation of large parts of Africa into larger countries. It is unlikely that the entire continent can move in that direction at one time so one area has to take the lead. My proposal is that Sub-Saharan Africa east of Nigeria should be the region to take the lead.

Lead Africa Transition Group Countries

The following is a list of the twenty countries that make up the region in alphabetical order.

1. Angola
2. Botswana
3. Burundi
4. Cameroon
5. Congo
6. Gabon
7. Guinea
8. Kenya
9. Lesotho
10. Mozambique
11. Namibia
12. Rwanda
13. South Africa
14. Swaziland
15. Tanzania
16. The Central African Republic
17. The Democratic Republic of Congo
18. Uganda
19. Zambia
20. Zimbabwe

It is important that the leaders of this group of countries understand and accept that their personal prestige should take a back seat to the interests of their people. They were elected or appointed to leadership positions with the responsibility of furthering the interests of the people they serve and it is these interests to which they are bound by oath.

Working Group

A working group made up of public policy professionals drawn from the executive, elective and judicial branches of the representative states should be developed with representation from each country. An executive office should be established the head of which would be appointed by the heads of state of the representative states and ratified by all the current legislatures.

The executive office would have the responsibility of managing the day to day operations of the working group and would chair a cabinet with the following departments.

• Treasury
• International Affairs
• Transportation and Communications
• Juridical
• Legislative
• Industry
• Health
• Agriculture
• Military
• Education

Oversight

Providing oversight of the executive would be a council made up of the heads of state of each of the representative countries sitting on an oversight committee. The heads of state would be required to report back to their respective legislatures.

Transition Planning

The departments under the executive would have the responsibility of formulating policy for each of the areas that fell under their purview. The initial part of the work of each of the departments would involve the creation of a transition plan to move the region from multiple countries with disparate bureaucracies, legislative, and judicial systems to a unified and functional system. This transition plan would involve the top to bottom evaluation of all the current governments departments and agencies in the twenty countries including staff skill sets, processes, service delivery, budgets, and all matters operational. Once they have documented the existing environment they will move on to an operational needs assessment. They will then use the information from the evaluation and the needs assessment to develop the transition plan including timetables and milestones.

Once the transition plan has been completed it would have to be reviewed and approved by the oversight committee. The members of the oversight committee would provide approval after consultation with their respective legislatures and judiciaries. Each member of the executive committee would have the responsibility of presenting the plan to their legislature for debate and approval by simple majority vote. The legislatures would not be given the authority to modify the plan they would provide a straight approval or denial vote.

Major objections or debate points would be noted and any glaring omissions would be addressed by the working group. The modifications to the plan would then receive the final approval from the oversight committee.

Referendum

With the approval of the oversight committee, the final version of the plan would have to be presented to the citizens of each country in the form of a referendum. It would be the responsibility of each head of state to lead the effort to gain the support of the public in their respective countries for a plural vote in favor of the move to a unified region. The referendum would be public and monitored openly by anyone who felt the need to do so.

Implementation of Transition Plan

Once the approval of the public had been given, the plan would go into effect. The current legislatures would be dissolved and elections would take place for the seating of legislators in a single assembly. Heads of state would officially step down and hand over power to the executive office of the working group. Current government departments and agencies would continue to operate until their functions had been rolled into the central offices using the transition plan and government structure that had been approved by the legislatures. Courts would remain in place but the high courts of each former nation would hand their authority over to the central high court and be dissolved with former members being absorbed into judicial work groups that would work with the executive committee to implement uniform judicial code through the new entity.

New Government Structure

The new government would be structured as follows. There would be an appointed chief executive with responsibility over appointed committee members in office functioning as acting head of state in a defined and limited period leading to elections. There would be an independent judiciary with broad representation from all former countries and there would be an elected legislative body.

The executive would be required to complete the functional transition to a functioning central government within the timeframes agreed upon and ratified by the former legislatures. The new legislature would have oversight authority over the executive as well as budgetary approval authority. The judiciary would have the responsibility of administering a working court system.

Once the transition was completed, there would be a separate election for the head of the executive branch. This election would be open to all citizens of the new entity with the exception of the appointed current executive. Upon election, the “acting” designation would expire and the individual would assume the office of head of state upon ratification of the election by the legislature and endorsement by the judiciary. This head of state would preside over the nation and deliver government services through the branches of the executive.

The Need for a Shift in Africa’s Orientation

An examination of the history of monetary inflow to Africa will reveal a process of supplementary resource allocation to social services. While Africa was, is and will be in dire need of monetary inflow dedicated to the provision of such services, directing the resources to such a limited scope does not serve the best interests of the continent.

If you try something and it does not work the logical thing to do is stop, figure out why it did not work, make the changes you think will make it work and then try again. If this approach is used but the idea continues to produce results that are not in keeping with the stated intent then it is time to go back to the drawing boards and rethink the entire thing. It may be the approach and the goal are not aligned or that there are elements in the process that have not been fully understood.

When people make a reactive decision they normally make it within the context of a result that is encapsulated by the event that triggered the situation requiring the decision. The decision is focused on the result of an occurrence which has created a perceived imbalance that must somehow be brought back into balance.

If a pedestrian is hit by a car the immediate decision is to go to the aid of the pedestrian and if possible restore them to the state they were in prior to the collision – a presumably physically healthy adult. Administer first aid, stabilize them and provide higher levels of medical services as needed to restore the balance which is good physical health. In this case the result is an injured pedestrian, the event is the collision between a moving vehicle and the pedestrian and the situation involves able bodied and competent (to make sound decisions) bystanders confronted with the decision on what to do about the poor sod bleeding on the side of the road. Their natural inclination is to come to the aid of the stricken person.

Taking this a little further, suppose that collisions between vehicles and pedestrians are not infrequent at this place. If this is the case then it is probably the best place to be a pedestrian unfortunate enough to come into violent contact with a moving vehicle because there would likely be plenty of people around with experience making the decisions necessary to restore pedestrians back to their original condition. While it is comforting to know that there are competent and experienced people in place to recognize the event understand the result and handle the situation to the positive benefit of the injured party the decisions and actions taken do nothing to address the occurrence of the events.

The existing structure of foreign aid to Africa amounts to opening a clinic at that location, placing observers by the roadside and assisting in the decision making to either get the injured pedestrian from the roadside to the clinic or bring the medical personnel out of the clinic to the roadside.

A logical observer would realize that while the need is being met a deeper examination is required to determine if it is possible to eliminate the need. A look into what generates the need may reveal several obvious things. The location of frequent collisions is at a point where a rural farmers market flanks a straight and level section of a busy road. The road happens to be paved and the market is located on that road at a point between two metropolitan regions where a major river crosses the road making it a natural location for a trading area or a market. So far everything is logical. There is commercial activity in two metropolitan areas, they are linked by a paved road which facilitates speedy transportation between them. The road crosses a river that runs through an agricultural region and is a natural transportation route for good produced by farmers. The intersection of the road and the river make a logical transfer point for produce destined for markets in the metropolitan regions.

Being an agricultural area, the region receives a lot of rain. Most of the accidents happen during or immediately after the rain. The rain makes the road slippery and reduces visibility for the drivers. They don’t see the pedestrians in time, hit the brakes but because the roads are slick, they are unable to avoid colliding with the pedestrians.

Under the circumstances – neither the road nor the river are going to be moved – it is likely that there will continue to be large numbers of people in the location and a high level of vehicle traffic passing through the area. If a bypass road were created to route traffic around the market it is probable that traffic flow through the market would be reduced but enterprising merchants would simply relocate their establishments wherever the heaviest traffic flowed and the crowds would follow so the collisions would continue. While a good and workable idea, it only temporarily alleviates the problem and does nothing to eliminate the collisions.

If the currently straight road were modified to include an enforced low speed zone that would bring the speed of passing vehicles down to a rate of travel that would allow drivers and pedestrians to see each other well before a crisis situation developed. If the idea was taken to the next logical step and the road was further modified on both ends of the market with a series of progressively sharper curves followed by speed bumps through the market the introduction of these physical impediments to vehicular speed would essentially eliminate the collisions. This is a good and workable idea that eliminates the need while allowing the market to continue to flourish. It not only makes the market safer but in slowing traffic down may actually increase the amount of trade since passers by would be able to see the wares and perhaps be tempted to spend a little money.

Rather than providing aid as a reaction to existing events, a deeper examination must be conducted. Africa is continuing to receive the observers and people in the clinics when what it really needs is the road modified such that the need for the clinic is eliminated.

Africa is receiving handouts when what she really needs is investment. Africa has been receiving foreign aid for almost fifty years and all she has to show for it is a continued slide down the slippery slope of poverty and destitution. The stated intent of the aid is to help Africa move out of its current situation into one where it is no longer dependent on hand outs from generous nations. After a few years of providing foreign aid and seeing that there was no improvement to the situation the aid was intended to alleviate it would seem logical that the providers of aid would go back to the drawing boards and rethink what they were doing and trying to understand the reason for failure and figure out a way to make it work.

It is beyond any reasonable observer why industrialized nations continue to pour millions of dollars in aid into Africa each year when it is painfully obvious that although they temporarily better the lives of the few they touch, they are not really providing long term benefits. They are pretty much handing food down to a person stuck in a trench rather than offering a hand with which to pull them out of the trench so that they can hopefully make meaningful contributions to society at large.

Africa’s debt has reached such a high level that the vast majority of the foreign aid provided is used to pay the interest on the debt while leaving the principal untouched. What is the point for the receiving countries? The banks that loaned African countries money are located in the donor countries so the governments of the donor countries are essentially paying the interest obligation on the loans – artificially supporting huge loan portfolios that really should be written off because under the current structure there is no way any African country will ever have even a faint hope of paying off the debt owed to the donor nations. If the donor governments are going to simply protect their banks why then do they not simply stop sending money to these poor countries? There really is no point in the poor countries spending so much time and so many resources flying officials all over the world negotiating aid packages each year if the money is never going to leave the donor country.

If the donor countries continue to pay the interest without lending additional funds this would place the receiving countries in the position to begin paying down the debt. With each passing year the principal would be reduced and that reduction would lead to smaller interest payments in each successive year. Under the current structure the money used to pay the interest is added to the principal and interest is charged on it in successive years. It seems like an easy way for banks in the donor countries to make money. Hundreds of millions of dollars guaranteed to be paid each year with the principal growing. This is the same as buying a house, receiving money from the bank to assist with the interest on the loan and then having that assistance added to the mortgage thus extending the payment period far beyond the original thirty years and guaranteeing the bank additional income at the expense of the borrower in the event the borrower remains liquid.

There is additional aid reaching African countries that is not used for debt relief. Instead it is used for things such as digging wells to provide clean drinking water, building clinics to extend some amount of medical care to rural areas and tracking locust patterns in an effort to coordinate spraying and avoid hunger that follows swarming. This kind of aid is constructive and should continue. If African countries are put in a position where they pay down the principal and the debt load on the continent is eased, local governments will soon find themselves in a position to provide those services themselves without need for help from outside.

The banks are a little short sighted on this matter. The interest they continue to receive, while guaranteed, will not grow at a rate that would be acceptable to any Wall Street fund manager. If the banks instead pressed their governments to focus their efforts on providing ready access to capital for local businesses, those businesses would borrow, invest and grow at a healthy rate. The donor governments are also short sighted because they are taking hard earned tax payer money and stuffing it in the pockets of banks that really did not earn it. This does not make sense for the tax payers, it does not make sense for the donor governments and it does not make sense for the receiving nation.

The donor governments should be working in the interest of the tax payers. What would be in the interest of the donor nation tax payers would be the creation of an environment in Africa where businesses determine it is safe to invest. When businesses invest in plant and equipment they also need people to fill positions, they create jobs. Jobs provide incomes for individuals and families. Those individuals and families are provided disposable income. That income is used to purchase goods and services and the more people employed the higher the demand for goods and services. Employed people with disposable income are a ready market for goods and services from the donor nations as well as goods and services developed at the local level to meet the needs of an employed population. Banks would receive much higher income and higher rates of growth if investment and employment were driven by market demand rather than government hand outs.

Government hand outs hurt industries and damaged industries do not grow jobs and low or no job growth leads to low or no demand for goods and services, increased unemployment and a slide down the slippery slope of poverty. It drives nations to the position where they need help to simply provide basic services such as water and medicine.

There should be a joint effort between Africa and donor nations to move away from a situation of dependency on hand outs to a climate of investment because investment yields returns on invested capital while hand outs simply provide today’s dose of medicine. Put Africa on a path towards growth and foreign aid will become a footnote in history books.

A Transition for Africa

As you have rummaged through these writings you have probably come to recognize a running theme. Africa is in crisis, a crisis whose foundation was laid by the structure of the colonial administration put in place by the European powers in the time they directly ruled the continent and perpetuated by inept politicians from independence to the present.

The writings to this point are prologue to the exploration of ideas that can break this continent of immeasurable potential out of the cycle of poverty, ignorance and destitution. It is not the nature of any peoples, let alone Africans, to assume a permanently downtrodden posture. Africa is a continent with tremendous natural resources, a vibrant population and an inherent inventiveness that if together unleashed is truly likely to lead the continent through a renaissance that will lift the continent out of the morass that a combination of deliberate planning and short sighted leadership has cemented in place.

It is time to harness the full potential of ideas that to this point have merely amounted to academic exercises. This statement is not an attempt to denigrate the work of the great thinkers of the continent. There are many great thinkers and many ideas but what they have lacked is a cohesive approach and a solid implementation plan that keeps the goal in perspective while incorporating the interests of all the stakeholders in the process.

The stakeholders in the process range from the African children who first saw the light of the world today to corporations across the industrialized world along with the politicians and religious leaders of the various faiths that claim large African followings. A thorough analysis of the interests of each of the stakeholder groups must be conducted. The stake holders should be measured and ranked in terms of current and potential ability to influence the process in a manner that will redirect efforts from the goal towards meeting their own self interest at the expense of the others, the process and, ultimately, Africa.

In addition to understanding what it is that motivates and drives each stakeholder, it is important to understand the root cause of the current problems so that Africa does not find herself expending a tremendous amount of energy struggling with the symptoms while the underlying condition goes untreated. If she does this all she will be left with is either utter failure or an effective way of prettily papering over the problems while hobbling along on evidently lame feet.

There are many things that must be challenged, conventional wisdom, political structures, economic systems and cultural bastardization among them. These and other things must be challenged not for the mere sake of generating arguments and their ensuing heated debates. These things must be challenged so that their efficacy can be either established or disproved. Those that are disproved should be discarded and the rest should be incorporated into the effort wherever they fit the overall strategy.

The foundation and pillars of a new Africa cannot afford to be polluted by outdated and irrelevant notions and conventions. They cannot be allowed to be diluted by the grafting of ideas and processes that have not worked in other areas. That is not to say that all existing ideas should be discarded. No, there are a good many ideas that either in their current form or, modified to the extent needed, have the potential of serving Africa well.

One two large impediments to progress are pride and ego. There are those who have presented ideas in the past and are wedded to them until death do they part. They must be willing to allow a full and honest assessment of their ideas and, if they do not hold water, be happy to let them go and get on board with the ideas that show real potential of constructively contributing to positive movement.

Africa needs change. Not for the sake of change, not for the sake of diplomatic treaties and proclamations but change for the betterment of the people who make up this continent. Change that will allow to Africa to take her place at the table and bring more than an appetite.

Financial Patronage - Africa's Cancer

Financial patronage makes up the framework that supports African politicians and while this is a structure that serves those in power very well, it delivers a great disservice to the general population both in the short and long term.

Under the structure of financial patronage, politicians use financial resources at their disposal to patronize those they choose for inclusion in the political process. By nature of the structure, the politicians on the top of this food chain need two things in order to sustain their hold on power.

The first thing they need is a source of funds and the second is a pool of functionaries who are not only in need of funds but also willing to take what is given to them along with the conditions that are naturally attached.

Elected representatives are entrusted with responsibility over public funds and they use their power to allocate tax income among various departments of government each charged with delivering specified services to the public.

Under a system in which politicians measure their influence not by the power of their ideas or the strength of their track record but by the size of their wallet and the number of people who owe allegiance to that wallet this money entrusted to political institutions is at risk of allocation to political rather than administrative use. Instead of building professional administrative institutions, they end up building job services for commonly unqualified friends and relatives. The individuals who ascend to positions of influence and responsibility under this system do so not on their knowledge and experience formulating and implementing policy but rather because of their ability to funnel money into the political machinery. This leads to a dearth of policy and a total lack of structure for the implementation of development projects.

Financial patrons support their power structure using various channels. One of those channels is direct cash payments and another is favorable consideration for government funded programs. The financial patronage system that has taken root in Africa is a combination of the two.

Politicians ensure that government contracts are directed to their friends and those friends either understand or are directed to share the spoils with certain constituencies. Sharing the spoils ranges from providing jobs to cash hand outs to whoever is on the list.

The focus in this system is not the performance of those individuals and companies but rather the amount of money they deliver into the political system. The greater the amount of money delivered the higher the rewards – rewards in this case measured in terms of access to top level politicians as well as the size and number of contracts awarded.

Outside of firms fully dependent on the generosity of the treasury for their operations and the favor of politicians for their survival, firms in private industry learn that the most effective method of gaining access and influence is by providing money to those in power. Whole industries begin to orient themselves towards meeting the goal of sustaining the political elite.

Companies in favor are protected from competition and without that needed stimulus do not innovate and fall behind firms that operate in competitive environments. Unfortunately, the companies in favor grow to become the largest and their operating model is copied throughout the system and industries become driven not by the strongest and most dynamic companies but by the most connected. Fortunately the nature of business is such that some of those companies are actually well managed but by and large structurally weak companies are propped up by the political system with the aim of self preservation.

It is common that these most connected companies pay little or no taxes thus robbing the government of tax revenue desperately needed to develop wide sectors of the economy. These African countries are already limping along on moribund tax structures and the denial of additional income pushes them further along the road of economic bankruptcy.

With unqualified people occupying positions that would optimally be staffed by trained professionals, opportunities for growth and development are squandered. With industries focused on propping up the political elite and self preservation by bribery rather than operational competitive advantage the already weak tax base weakens and the countries continue the nosedive towards poverty and destitution.

Africa the Cold War Playground

The cold war, dominated by the dysfunctional relationship between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was defined and measured in military terms. The two super powers developed and deployed enormous nuclear arsenals that they used for nothing more than to threaten each other and the rest of the world into compliance with the rules they wrote.

The Extraordinarily deadly effectiveness of nuclear weapons, made clear by their use in Japan at the end of the Second World War, ensured that they would never be used by either of the powers against each other. While they were unwilling to directly attack each other they used other means to define the extent of their power. Geopolitical spheres of influence became a defined term on the chessboard of diplomatic negotiations and though an essentially academic preoccupation, debate around the topic had very real meaning in Africa and the rest of the developing world.

In order to show they indeed had influence, that their brand of economic and political management was superior, the superpowers each formed alliances with as many countries as possible. The super powers were less concerned with the livelihoods of the citizens of those countries than they were with the fact that they could place them in the “win” column, that they could be counted as "one of ours."

Being of the military mindset, the superpowers determined that the most effective way to win over the leaders of less powerful nations was to provide them with armaments so the arms race spread to the poorest parts of the world only here it was measured in conventional rather than nuclear weapons.

Across Africa democratically elected governments that had no interest in building up their armed forces were overthrown and replaced by military dictatorships that danced to the tuned played in Moscow and Washington; depending on which side they placed their allegiance. As one country after another fell to the power of the bullet, the remaining elected leaders quickly learned that they could save their skins by aligning themselves with one side or the other. For this they were rewarded with more guns, mines, tanks and planes.

The caliber of the leaders did not matter, only the likelihood that they could be relied upon to toe the line. Washington and Moscow had many things to manage and they did not always pay full attention to the leaders of these small countries. Those African leaders who felt they were not receiving the level of attention and respect they deserved for having thrown their hat in the ring with one power or another would be tempted to switch sides.

This turned them into a huge returns on the radar screens in both capitals because the movement of one piece on the diplomatic chessboard would mean a change in the geopolitical balance of power and a redefinition of the spheres of influence – an added agenda item in diplomatic discussions. For the side in the position of losing an ally it was also the potential of a loss of face and the creation of a perception that their power and influence was on the wane. If one left the team, then others could follow and a critical mass of nations would jump to the other side. This had consequences in international bodies such as the United Nations where the General Assembly typically voted along lines of alliance so the fewer countries you had on your side, the more likely you would be out-voted in that and other forums. To lose one country would begin a long slide towards a loss of influence.

To the country in the position of gaining a new ally the rewards were great so they would lavish the potential convert with arms and money. The money was usually directed to those in power and they knew well enough to use it to buy influence within their power structures so that when the change was made, the entire leadership would come across. This was the same thing done by the other side in the hope of retaining an ally.

Leaders in Africa were basically turned into patrons of power. They were a conduit of financial influence and it was in the interests of those who served below them to get on the gravy train to show they were loyal to the president. Like their presidents, these leaders used money handed down to buy the loyalty of those below; a system of patronage where people in the power structure within African countries waited around for hand outs. Rather than bringing the real power and influence of a constituency all they brought to the table was an appetite, no more than an open hand held palm up waiting for the benefactor to bestow his generosity. This was like a cancer to the continent since people gained influence not because of their ability but because of their sycophancy. A cadre of yes-men was trained to follow the money, not generate it but to follow it.

In the event that a country was lost to the other side, the losing superpower did not let them go that easily. Over the years they had influence in the lost nation they had cultivated relationships across the political and military spectrum. Since many of these countries were now political or military dictatorships there was a ready supply of deposed politicians or military men who were ready to align themselves with anyone who could credibly promise to get them back in power.

The losing side would determine who among this crop of discards was most needy, who among them was in desperate need of another shot at power. The people identified were provided financial support that they used to buy armaments on the black market. Using their contacts they built armies which turned into insurgencies. The power that just won the country sent more arms and money in an effort to defeat the insurgencies and keep the country as their own.

The African leaders on both sides of the fence came to depend one hundred percent on the hand outs from the super powers as the economies of their countries collapsed around them. The governments lost their tax base and therefore faced a declining ability to meet the needs of the people without additional foreign funds. The leaders of the insurgency, variously described as freedom fighters, rebels, terrorists or bandits, did not have the legitimate authority to raise taxes so they could not deliver services to the people in their territories either. Without the money from the powers, the African leaders were powerless. Africa had become the political playground of the cold war.

Decisions on the amount of money and the level of armaments were made in quiet air conditioned conference rooms thousands of miles away by people who had never and probably would never visit the battlegrounds. Top on their minds was winning the territory, not the livelihoods of the citizens affected so when they saw that they were losing territory they sent more, when they thought that their lapdogs were not demonstrating a high enough level of loyalty they sent less and this went on for years and in some cases decades until one side won. This story was repeated in countries ranging from Mozambique, Angola, Uganda, Somalia, Ethiopia, Chad, Zaire, Sudan and many others.

Africa was robbed of her opportunity to lay the foundation upon which she could build a bright future for her citizens. A leadership that had come to power with the promise of independence and power to the people had instead delivered powerlessness and driven further down the road of dependence. With populations growing at unsustainable rates and economies floundering under the weight of war unrest found fertile ground and dissatisfaction with both sides mounted. Africa now moved backwards and towards the designation of poorest continent on the planet.

The Development of African Dependency

Drunk with the potency of their own rhetoric leaders of newly independent African countries adopted populist positions on many political issues. In the times of colonial rule the Europeans had taken all the best land, they owned and ran all the largest businesses, held all the top posts in the government and pretty much made up whatever semblance of a middle class existed. Now that they were independent, with their leaders promising that they would now take control of their own destinies, most Africans developed hopes and dreams of bright futures. Futures in which with their brothers now in power they would have access to those jobs, would have the opportunity to own those large businesses, would be able to own land, would live in a country where they could afford to educate their children and set them up to succeed to a higher level than their parents. Populist dreams that took root.

These are great aspirations and it is not only the right of Africans to aspire to them, it is also the responsibility of those in power to manage the affairs of their countries such that those aspirations are, by and large, realistically achievable.

Hindsight is twenty/twenty but arithmetic is also pretty simple. Looking back to the decisions that were made at the time and how the ball, once set in motion, was never stopped it is easy to sit in the comfort of an armchair and criticize things we have the opportunity to objectively study. However, the people being groomed for post independence leadership all had the capacity to add a few numbers together. They had the ability to add up the tax receipts of their governments and realize that beyond meeting the basics the current economic structures did not allow for the provision of services beyond sustaining a system that was designed to reap the raw materials and natural resources for export.

In order to be able to afford the things they wanted to promise their fellow citizens they would have to make drastic changes to the fundamentals of their economies. They would have to change the tax structures so that they received additional revenue but also fostered the diversification of the economies beyond dependence on agricultural products which were essentially commodities and over which they had no price control. That is not to say that the politicians should have been planning schemes that would put the government in charge of setting prices; a system like that is doomed to fail.

Africa primarily exports commodities. The word commodities as used in this context means goods that are basically indistinguishable from those produced elsewhere. For instance, if a country is a large producer of sugar, they must sell that sugar at the market price because their sugar does not make coffee any sweeter than sugar produced on another continent. Sugar is sugar and where it comes from makes no difference. It is the same with tea, coffee, oil, iron, coal, wheat, copper, aluminum and all of the other raw materials produced on the African continent. There is another source for them and if you raise your price above what others charge you simply lose customers and go home hungry.

So, what to do? Get out of the commodity business. Rather than exporting crude oil, refine it and sell petroleum products. Rather than selling raw copper, use the copper to manufacture electrical wire, generators, light switches and other products that use copper. Rather than selling raw aluminum, develop parts for cars, windows, bats, boats, engines and anything else in which aluminum is used. These products can be differentiated, and you can charge more for better engine parts, for higher grade airplane body panels or wire with higher conductivity.

If the little money they had on hand had been invested in these industries, even one at a time, they would have been able to grow the tax base and thus increase the revenues to the treasury and increase their budgets to levels where they could actually deliver on promises. They should have them made promises based on what the national wallet could deliver. Taking issues on one at a time and spending only that which they had would have meant slower growth in the beginning but it would have been a growth that would have laid the foundation of wealth creation among the citizenry, wealth that would have been invested in the countries and contributed to increased levels of growth in the future.

Had the politicians come clean with the population and set their expectations to realistic levels they would not have been saddled with the problem of having to deliver on promises they did not have the financial resources to deliver. As long as there is a realistic hope that dreams can be realized, people are generally pretty patient. But, no, they had to go out and promise the world when they could not even deliver the next meal.

In order to deliver they had to borrow money and that money did not come free. The industrialized world naturally charged interest on this money. As the debt grew so did the interest payments and soon the interest payments began to bite into the budgets and have grown to the extent that Africans spend the majority of their discretionary budget on interest payments and have very little discretionary allocation left for the delivery of development activities. The foreign aid that once paid for hospitals and schools now goes to the payment of interest on accumulated debts. So, with this structure it is evidently not the lenders that suffer, it is those who are denied the services that should be delivered by developed economies.

There are many regrettable things the Europeans did to Africa but this situation was home grown. Africa is essentially responsible for the cycle of poverty in which it exist and it is Africa that must find a way to get out of it by pulling herself up by the strength of her arms and the power of her brains.

Our earlier leaders should have been able to count and realize that the numbers did not add up. Rather than be impatient they should have made the tough decisions and waited until they really did have the resources to deliver on promises made. Unfortunately, everyone has a price and a look across the continent will reveal that the political leaders of Africa are all extremely wealthy and that wealth was accumulated during their time in office. They are feeding off the system at the expense of the general population. They are eating more than the land can produce and the only thing that develops is a dependency on the hand that feeds them, the hand of the industrialized countries shoveling “aid” money down their greedy throats.

Subservience – The Enduring Legacy of Colonial Africa

The Europeans were extraordinarily successful at instilling a psyche of subservience in their colonies. They came from a socially stratified society and those who were sent to the outer reaches of the empires were typically from a class below the royals and service to the crown often resulted in their social standing and that of their families rising to a level above the station of which they were born.

Part of being able to rise above that station meant having a layer below and ensuring that layer did not threaten to become equal to ones own. Upon conquering Africa the colonial administrators set about creating constant reminders to the Africans that they were of a class below their masters.

On the plantations they built large residences and used funds available to construct enormous and ornate official buildings in which they held court. In both their residences and administrative offices, Africans were only allowed entry in the capacity of servants.

After the existing social macro structure had been broken down only the Europeans controlled the means to social, career and political (to the extent such was allowed) advancement. Africans lived at the pleasure of the colonial administration.

Although pushed down and controlled by an oppressive power, a natural pride still lingered under the surface preserving the social micro structure. African history, culture, folklore, traditions and social expectations were passed verbally from one generation to the next. Europeans did not find ancient writings they could destroy, they did not speak nor care to learn the languages and culture and in doing so, allowed a great deal of Africa to survive beneath the veneer of colonial dominance.

Even though this cultural memory survived, it became infused with a fear and respect of the authority of European power. While the Europeans did not take the trouble to learn local languages but they ensured that those with whom they came in contact, normally in the capacity of servants or low level functionaries, spoke the language of the crown.

With the norm now being that the way one moved up, provided a good life for your family and a future for your children was by working for the Europeans, Africans lost confidence and respect for one another within the context of controlling authority.

Any African installed in a position of authority such as a clerk at a district administrative office was expected to treat his fellow Africans with the same contempt and lack of respect his European supervisors did. This application of appointed power generated resentment on the part of the Africans who came in contact with their brothers in the administration because they recognized that the position held by the administrative lackey was not only one of negligible or nonexistent authority but also that the authority exercised with such a lack of respect was grudgingly granted by the Europeans who sat in the large offices one floor above or over by the windows.

No matter how fancy the titles such as chief, paramount chief, senior clerk or whatever, those Africans who held the positions were held in contempt. Africans learned through several generations that it was the way of the world; if you wanted something done the only way to achieve the desired result was to beg the assistance of a European. Going to an African was a waste of time.

Although the vast majority of Africa’s leaders around the time of the independence movement were university educated and had years of legislative and professional experience, the average African’s interaction with fellow Africans in positions of authority was with those in subservient roles. Although these people on the radio spoke about this wonderful thing of independence and nationhood, it was understood that nationhood was granted at the pleasure of the Europeans. Even the famous leaders who came out to give speeches, whose photographs appeared on newspapers, and who they crowded around radios to hear were mere lackeys because without the Europeans, they had no legitimacy – it was just nice that the Europeans allowed them to go around saying all those things.

So, when independence rolls around and these leaders take over at the political level, the reality of the situation is the rank and file of the civil service is still filled with Europeans because even though they worked to prepare the politicians for independence, they did not take the trouble to train Africans to rise up in the civil service. An obvious result of this is that nothing changed soon for the majority of Africans. Europeans still ran the provincial administration, the security forces and the educational system so they were still the boss no matter what those young idealists were saying in the capital.

Although the countries were now independent, they still had to go to the Europeans if they wanted to get anything done. Subservience remained. It made sense from the European point of view to do things this way because they did not want Africans to gain control for fear the Africans would not toe the line plus, if they simply turned the new countries over to a population of untrained and inexperienced people then they would probably fall apart fairly quickly. Besides, what would they do with the thousands of colonial administrators if they were forced to return home? There would be a layer of thousands of educated and experienced administrators milling around at home. Just what they needed - educated rabble rousers with the knowledge and ability to run large organizations efficiently. No thanks, leave them in the colonies until they reach retirement age and put them to pasture with generous pensions. Had they let these people come home en masse the unions, which were already very strong as it was would have received an influx of fresh talent – an eventuality neither business, the political establishment nor the royals wanted to face.

Pre-independence national budgets in Africa were developed for the purpose of supporting the colonial administration. The education and health of the locals was neither a high budget priority nor a concern of any kind. The Europeans did not care that Africans had no electricity, no reasonable transportation infrastructure in the areas where they lived, no water beyond the local streams and wells, no access to education that would lead to jobs above the clerical level, no healthcare delivery system and no telecommunications infrastructure. These things just did not matter. That being the case, tax structures were developed so as to exclude funding for these items – they were not priorities and so were kept out of the standard budget.

Post independence leaders inherited this economic structure alongside the aspirations of their people. It costs a tremendous amount of money to deliver the things that were outside of the standard budget consideration of the colonial administration. That was money that the economies just did not produce.

This is how foreign aid started. Africa’s new governments would have to spend money they did not have in order to begin to meet the needs of the people and the only place they could go for that money was to their former colonial masters. Again, Africans in the position of authority had to run to the Europeans in order to get what they needed to do their jobs – the perpetuation of subservience.

Although they gave up political control and spoke to the new African leaders as equals, the general European view of Africans was that of the master to the servant. In that position, Europeans still controlled the destiny of their former colonies. They still owned the means of production – the majority of tax revenue came from the large farms and mines owned by Europeans and thus they held onto the keys of power.

Roots of Africa's Decline

The seeds of Africa’s poverty were sown by the colonial powers when they determined that they could no longer afford to maintain their territories as they had prior to the Second World War. They planted the seeds in fertile soil and tended them to ensure their roots ran deep and would support the plant for generations.

When the Europeans first came to Africa they found a land divided into kingdoms without specifically demarcated borders. As they traveled inland and discovered agricultural potential and mineral wealth they determined that it was important to take over this new source of riches. They had the advantage of firearms and used them and their experience fighting in military formation to great effect as they swept across the continent defeating most of the armies that stood in their way crushing their enemies and subjugating them and even those who sought peace.

Europe was built on war, treaties, alliances and betrayal. Both the victors and the vanquished learned over the ages that one way to put the odds in your favor when confronting an enemy is to divide them so that they cannot fight as one.

As they began their occupation of Africa, the new residents used this experience to great effect by first identifying groupings, then understanding the power structure and struggles within that power structure and finally tearing it apart by aligning with the weaker faction and using their military power to stamp out the opposition. Of course, the new local leaders owed their position to the Europeans and depended on them to stay in power.

The enterprises in which the Europeans engaged were mainly agricultural and mining. These are activities which require a fair amount of labor which was provided by the newly installed leaders. They used their power to move the people off the land on which they subsisted into settlements where they could still subsist albeit at a step below where they had been.

In addition to bringing military dominance the Europeans also brought their religion and worked hard to ensure the locals were converted. They did this by making religious conversion a requirement for attending school, for holding office and for having a job.

Being that they had been moved off their ancestral land into areas that were not as productive as they had been in the past, many Africans found that they had to work for the Europeans in order to feed their families. They were provided wages that basically kept them at a subsistence level. Those who were sent to school were taught the basics of reading writing and arithmetic but were kept away from higher mathematics and science. All the Europeans really wanted was a cheap source of clerical labor. Some Africans made it to university in Europe where they earned degrees in many areas including medicine, agricultural studies and education. The returning graduates were put to work serving their fellow African, a thing Europeans were loath to do.

The vast majority of educated Africans were therefore simply functionally literate. They earned wages a little above farm laborers and only a notch above subsistence. Even though these were low paying jobs with limited career opportunities, the general population was trained to view them as great jobs.

A transformation had taken place. Gone were the days when a family could support itself by the sweat of its brow. The good land was taken and a dependence on the new powers had been developed. Once united communities were actively divided and kingdoms were also cut up into countries or colonial territories and governed in a totally different manner than before. In the past, the function of the monarchy had been to ensure that peace was maintained so that the subjects could not only sustain themselves but also earn greater respectability through various social means of ascendance. Some worked hard and were able to afford more cattle and more land, others proved themselves on the battle field while still others were able administrators, peace makers, ambassadors and the like. There was opportunity for advancement and the social structure made it possible. All wealth was derived from the land and the people lived and made a living on the most productive land.

The Europeans had taken the social fabric away and with it the means of ascendance. They, with their class structure of lords and serfs had relegated all Africans to the level of serfs and engineered a system that would keep them there. It was their intent to reap the highest benefit possible from the territories even if it meant that it would be at the expense of the locals. The only function of the locals was to provide cheap labor. It was not in the interests of the Europeans for the Africans to be educated. If they were educated that would mean that they would rise above the level of serfs and some might even have had the initiative to pull themselves up by their bootstraps to the level of the administrative class just as lowly merchants had grown their wealth to levels above many aristocrats back home in Europe. Those merchants had educated their children who then took over and grew the enterprises even more and while they did not have the titles or the land, they certainly had the education and ability to rule and rule they did. In fact, the colonial administrators were by and large products of the success of the merchant class in Europe. While they served as functionaries for the royals, they were still in positions of considerable power, influence and prestige. The idea that African could rise up to their level was not only counter to their needs, it was abhorrent to their sensibilities.

In Africa, they WERE the royals, they were at the top of the heap and limiting the education and advancement opportunities of the locals was in their own best self interest if they wanted to preserve their positions of power. If the Africans were broadly educated as they were and possessed the same skills and abilities then the royals would really have no need for European colonial administrators, they would simply use the locals.

Not only did the administrators have an interest in keeping the Africans down, the royals did too. Over the centuries they had seen what education had afforded the commoners with the aptitude and means to excel, it lifted them out of poverty, ignorance and destitution all the way up to a true economic and political power, a power to be reckoned with an one that had to be consulted rather than ruled by fiat.

In the event that Africans were provided the same educational and commercial opportunities that the commoners had been they would naturally follow the same path and assume power for themselves and the wealth that the colonies currently delivered would be redirected to the new merchant class of Africa. They would essentially revert to self rule and have to be treated as equals rather than subjects. This would leave Europe at a distinct disadvantage because it would not control the lands that were responsible for a large amount of their revenues. They would exist at the mercy of their former subjects, an idea that was anathema to anyone in power.

So with limited education and a non-existent power structure, any an all advancement depended on the whims of those in power, the Europeans.

African Aristocrats

The history of Europe is a history of control by the landed aristocracy, control by all means available. The tools of control ranged from financial, to military and religious. Aristocrats measured their power by the size of their territories, the size of their armies and the size of their treasuries. Layered on top of this was some form of religion. The purveyors of religion served at the pleasure of the aristocracy and understood that were they to remain viable they had to pledge allegiance to the throne.

In newly independent Africa the new leaders had no wealth to speak of. Any existing forms of leadership or aristocracy had been essentially erased over the two or three centuries of varied European control and rule. Existing and identified leaders in the period leading up to and through the wars amounted to administrative lackeys, salarymen who if they owned any land, counted their acres in the single digits. None of them owned estates, none of them raised armies, none of them had tax authority, none of them controlled any religious power center and none of them was in a position to force the Europeans to enter into peace treaties. All of them owed their power and pledged their allegiance to the crown. Their job was basically to be a mouthpiece of the colonial administration and keep the peace so that the colonial administration could go about its business of sending the bounty back home.

In the newly minted nations, this total lack of any real power ensured that the new leaders would be fully dependent on their European "partners." These new leaders were made to understand the importance of keeping things in the family. They now had access to the keys of the treasury and with that access went about creating a new aristocracy that would rule through the control of resources, would use their newfound wealth to acquire the land that would make them true aristocrats, a true ruling class. They chose to copy the European power structure down to the letter without consideration for what the long term effects would be.

They came from peasant backgrounds and all of a sudden they were riding around in chauffeured limousines, surrounded by bodyguards and treated with great deference by the population over which they had been installed.

While they were able to buy land, while they were able to accumulate financial wealth and while they were public personas with the office and all the accoutrements of power they really had no power. Yes, they collected taxes from commercial activity and used that revenue to pursue their idealistic goals of development but they had no control over the commercial activity that produced that taxable revenue. The colonial powers ensured they did not give that part up and therefore were in a position to ensure sympathizers were always in the political majority. Anyone speaking up about the lack of economic power was told to shut up and if they did not heed the call to do so were removed from any access to power in very short order.

African political leaders were encouraged to espouse all sorts of 'isms from capital to social and commune even a special brand of African Socialism. They tugged at the emotional hearts of their countrymen and got them out there beating drums in support of the 'ism of the day. This pretty much amounted to empty rhetoric as population grew and economies stagnated.

Political unrest was kept in check by the emergence of one party states and political dictators. Political dictators because all they had was the power of speech and the respect that was given to the offices they held. Those with the true wealth protected their own best self interest. They shared some of their wealth with the few that were installed and made them wealthy, very wealthy.

Governments are limited by the size of their treasuries. In the event that they aim to spend above the levels the tax base allows they have to borrow that money from somewhere. In wealthy nations governments sell bonds which individuals and businesses use as investment vehicles. In Africa where the population had no wealth to speak of the people could not finance deficit spending by their governments. So the governments either had to stick to the painfully slow path to development that their small tax base allowed or find external sources of funds.

Former colonial rulers gladly came to the rescue knowing full well that controlling the money means controlling the leaders which means controlling the countries. They provided the needed financial support but used their power to determine what not only the money they gave was spent on but also the full revenues of the governments. It is like a small business borrowing from a bank, they sign over the power to approve all expenditures and they remain at the mercy of the bank until they pay off the loan.

This inbound money was funneled through the central banks and out into the community via companies owned or friendly to the political rulers. This was their way of accumulating wealth, of moving themselves up from peasants to aristocrats. Their wealth was and is very tightly woven into a leash held by the countries that lend money. If they do anything counter to the wishes of the holders of the leash they will loose power, money, status and will be returned to the village as paupers. It is in their own best self interest to protect the interests of the European and other powers providing the money. They are not truly wealthy because they do not control the means of production, they simply feed off it.

In that position, they certainly do not have time to bother with the people beyond spewing rhetoric and using the divide and rule tactics that served their masters so well. They are hollow aristocrats, puppets.

Winds of Change Blow Across Africa

Winston Churchill declared shortly after the second world war that winds of change were blowing across the African continent. The speech in which he made this statement is commonly seen as a watershed moment, the day that the colonial powers realized that Africa was ready to determine its own future and it would be in their best interests to heed the call for political independence that was sweeping the continent. The reality that the European powers had to face was that they were broke and could no longer support their own economies let alone their colonies. The United States bailed Europe out with free oil at the close of the war and with the Marshall Plan after the war ended. The United States, as a former colony had no interest in supporting the global colonial empires of the fallen European powers and thus did not provide funding to hold the system together until Europe recovered to the point where they could pick up where they had left off.

Though they could not afford to run the colonies, the European powers could still derive economic benefit from harvesting the raw materials. Some of the largest companies which provided millions in financial support for the war effort survived the war relatively intact and had millions more available for funding political campaigns. With sympathizers in power and the matters of the colonies light years away, European political leaders with their hands full and energy focused on local reconstruction gave these large companies free reign to influence international policy. Naturally, the large corporations would act to protect their investments and sources of income.

Business does not do well at making money in conflict unless they are directly contributing to the war effort. The colonies provided raw materials and in order to get those out there had to be peace. The decision was made to identify Africans with who they could do business, moderates who called for peaceful transition and "understood" that Europe would still have to participate in the economies for the long run. This crop of young Africans was sent to various European countries for further education, trained to be administrators and then returned and installed.

I use the term installed because they were the only ones recognized as leaders and given positive press so the locals did not have the opportunity to hear from radicals who's ideas did not mesh with those put out by the European capitals. The idea was to create an environment in which the Africans would feel like they were entering a period of self determination and would have full control of their futures.

Colonial legislative councils were created and Africans were elected to represent the locals. After about a decade and a couple of election cycles it was almost time for independence. The Europeans were also a little crafty. The realized that the systems they were putting in place were technically democracies and those tend to be messy. In order to ensure a smooth transition they had to find something the locals in each country would rally around. Moderate individuals with a reasonable amount of charisma were identified, framed and jailed. Somehow, news about these individuals "leaked" to the press and the African legislators naturally rallied around their jailed colleagues.

The jailed leaders were released in dribbles and those that came out were revered by the legislators and paraded in front of the soon to be electorate. Naturally, when these manufactured heroes spoke in public they set the release of their colleagues as the context within which African legislators and aspiring politicians approached their constituents to ask for support. I am a patriot, I am with you and like you I demand the release of so and so.

The people now had heroes to rally around, people they missed and wanted. Any smart African politician joined the band wagon. Thus the stage was set for the transfer to independence in name. Experienced legislators were in place and the people had jailed leaders they wanted released. The people got what they wanted and the jailed leaders were released with great tales of tribulations they suffered in jail.

Their standing propelled them to the helm of political leadership and the parties they headed were invited into talks with the colonial powers and deals were brokered for independence with the recently released leaders being given all the credit.

Naturally the people identified these leaders as the fathers of the nation and rallied around them, they transcended politics and parties. Shortly after independence any remaining parties molded into the ones led by these leaders and the stage was set for dictatorships that created the legacy that burdens us to this day.

Africa's Colonial Baggage

Europe's colonial administrations were designed to harvest the raw materials and export them at the lowest possible point in the value chain. The goods were shipped to the home country where value was added at the great benefit of the colonizing power. Unfortunately a byproduct of that economic structure was the guarantee of poverty on the part of the territories supplying the raw materials.

Change Africa

It is time for a change of leadership across the African continent. Our so called leaders are ony concerned with filling their own pockets and do not have any interest in the moving us forward to the future we deserve.