I. The Transformation of Africa:
When I was initially asked to speak here today, it was suggested that I limit my remarks to approximately 30 minutes and take questions afterwards. Given the complexity of the subject, such a limitation is a most formidable burden. Thirty minutes, 30 hours, 30 years or even 30 lifetimes would prove inadequate when discussing a topic as demanding as Governance and Democracy in Africa.
Well, given the limitations, what I can perhaps do most usefully is to provide a perspective of someone who has lived and worked in Africa, someone who has seen close-up the practical implications of these monumental questions of democracy and governance on a continent searching for both. I hope that while it may not be creative, it will serve to stimulate discussion on what options and alternatives USAID might offer, and Africa might consider.
All of us in this room today are aware of the enormous transition – indeed, more than that – transformation really, that Africa is currently undergoing. Virtually the entire continent has been touched by the movement for democracy. From Algeria to Zaire and all points in between, Africa is seeking and expecting more open political societies. Robert Press of the Christian Science Monitor, quoting Freedom House in New York, points out that since the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, eight African nations have had multiparty elections, another 13 countries are undergoing democratic reform and 17 others have started democratic transitions which are currently stalled. In short, 38 of sub-Saharan Africa’s 47 countries are affected.
Not long ago I had a conversation with a Japanese scholar of some renown. He knew nothing of Africa and asked me to explain the trends and movements on the continent. I spoke to him about democracy and structural adjustment and apartheid and after I was through, there was a silence as he deeply thought of what I had said. Finally he looked at me and said: “The poor African; nothing about him is right.”
His comment affected me profoundly because it truly reveals the dilemma Africa confronts today. And that dilemma is simply this: a total transformation of the Africa character, culture and society. At once, Africans are undergoing democratic transitions and the political upheavals associated with it; seeking better governance and the uncertainty it creates; and suffering through the complete transformation of its economies and the resulting trauma which it produces. What transformation can be more total than being told that everything about your way of life needs to be completely restructured?
Well, without getting bogged down in the metaphysical, I should turn to the issue of governance in Africa.
Dunstan Wai, a good friend, is currently the adviser to Kim Jaycox, Vice President of the Africa region at the World Bank. Dunstan is Sudanese, and from his personal and painful experience knows first-hand the importance of political liberalization and good governance. Dunstan and I have discussed this issue of governance and democracy ad nauseam. Sometimes we agree; often we don’t. I won’t bore you with that debate, however, for the purposes of our discussion here today, a critical definitional issue must first be resolved. Dunstan is of the belief that the quality of governance should be evaluated in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of a government in achieving social and economic development. Others attempt to fuse democracy and governance by perceiving governance as the nature and style of a political system and thus they advocate a movement towards liberal democratic structures. Still others see governance in terms of what John Rawls, the noted jurisprudential scholar would call distributive justice or the maximization of benefit to all.
Sometime ago, in yet another life, I was a senior associate at the Carneige Endowment for International Peace. I was asked early on if I would speak to the issue of democracy and governance in Africa. This was at a time when it appeared to me that our policy was rapidly drifting towards an untenable link between democracy and governance. I said then that:
democracy is fundamentally procedural; governance is essentially bureaucratic. Democracy does not presuppose any particular set of government policies; governance is the exercise of government policies. Democracy is concerned with representation, the consent of the governed. Governance is the process of administering the institutions and mechanisms of the state. Democracy is certainly necessary in Africa, but democracy alone will not address the crucial issue of reviving Africa’s decayed economies. To change governments is relatively easy; to undo institutions is neigh near impossible. Africa needs to do both.
II. Governance as an Ideal:
Needless to say, of the three definitions I’ve just offered, given my perspective, I tend to find Dunstan’s view most persuasive. At the same time, however, I do not believe his view adequately captures the true thrust of what the term “governance” implies. Governance is more than simply effectiveness and efficiency, although it is surely that. At the outset I said that 30 lifetimes would be insufficient to adequately address this issue. I said that because while the mechanical or technical qualities of governance cannot be denied, in truth, governance is a diaphanous veil that covers and yet reveals far more fundamental, philosophical questions as to the very nature of society itself, how it is organized and how it functions. Any thoughtful examination of society and the way in which we live, inexorably leads to a realization that in some form or fashion, people are shaped by their life experiences which inevitably defines and structures their responses to that experience. In Africa, we are asked to experience the experience of another. And what Africa is experiencing is the daunting task of simultaneously constructing political and economic systems in the midst of political and economic upheaval.
As a lubricant in that construction, competent governance is critical in facilitating the transition to a newer, more efficient, more responsive Africa. Nonetheless, it should be recognized and appreciated that however governance is defined, in each and every instance it tends to be associated with the notion of a homogeneous, static and cohesive society with shared values and traditions and a common cognition of reality. Obviously governance takes place without these prerequisites, but for governance to be in Dunstan’s words, “efficient and effective,” it seemingly suggest that a necessary precondition for enhancing the governance process is a relatively stable and capable societal framework. In my experience, there are precious few societies in Africa to which this notion would apply. According to Francis Deng, the former Sudanese Foreign Minister and currently a fellow at the Brookings Institute, “liberal democracy presupposes a framework characterized by a broad consensus on the fundamental principles of nationhood, the structure of government, and the shaping and sharing of power, wealth, and other natural resources.” A lack of consensus on these fundamentals reflects a lack of a shared sense of nationhood. Clearly a commonly held notion of belonging to society by those who constitute society is critical to governance. Certainly good governance can help foster this sense of belonging, but id does seem to imply an extraordinary degree of skill, expertise, and perhaps luck to make this happen. It therefore is important to note that while governance clearly belongs in the domain of the ordinary and the mundane, it also belongs to the realm of he ideal for it represents a stylised notion of the perfect community which functions according to rational, logical, scientific theory producing in turn, Dunstan’s orderly, efficient and effective society.
III. Governance as Power:
For all of its attributes, and however defined, ultimately governance and power are indistinguishable. The question of governance is the question of power – real power. It is power that controls economic resources, and it is power that allocates benefits for the good of society. Governance is the use of political authority, which in turn is the exercise of power. Democracy is the obtaining of power; governance is the use of power once it has been obtained.
Now, I’m not at all sure that Dunstan and I would agree as to whether or not it is accurate to equate governance so closely with power. I do know that we have tended to disagree about the character of governance. He sees governance as a means to an end, while I maintain that governance is a political act, which can lead to beneficial ends, but that it is more to see governance for what it is, and that is the exercise of power. Over the past several years a degree of unanimity has been reached regarding the criteria for good governance: accountability, transparency, predictability, openness and the rule of law. In and of themselves, each of these elements is unassailable. But in the context of African states, what does this mean? In many instances the implementation of good governance requires nothing short of a complete restructuring not only of government but society itself, if for no other reason than a government is nothing more than a reflection of the society it represents. With its emphasis on power, the real question that governance presents, is essentially, how do we bell the cat? How do you get those in power to do what is not in their perceived best interest to do?
It is this nexus between power and democracy that creates the greatest controversy. There is little question that democracy in Africa matters, and matters in the deepest and most profound way, because if government is a reflection of society, then democracy in Africa may well reflect a fundamental shift in the continent’s attitudes and values. Indeed, the central lesson of the past 30 years – the critical contribution of African leaders no matter how incompetent – has been the continent’s success in educating its peoples. Following three decades of independence a new generation is emerging in Africa whose only life experience is democracy. They see the world and its possibilities and recognize that they too are a part of a global revolution. It is them that will make a difference in Africa, even if that difference is only for a moment.
Well I have been metaphysical and theoretical, how about being a little practical?
IV. Governance, Democracy and Development:
I think it is more than fair to say that USAID is deeply concerned with how to effectively carry out its mandate of being of assistance to countries seeking to accelerate the development process. The increased emphasis USAID is placing on governance is because it is believed that there is an inseverable link between development and good governance. That certainly is the view of my friend Dunstan. It is his basic thesis that the efficiency and effectiveness of countries in achieving sustainable economic development is contingent on the quality of their governance.
It is this fairly recent perspective that has compelled USAID to think seriously about devising a more holistic approach, which will in turn, serve as a guideline for the formulation of policies and programs to address the issue of development in Africa. The approach itself is necessary and worthwhile. However, many in USAID argue that because economic reform in Africa has taken on a life of its own, it requires a more open and accountable political system. They would therefore seek to link democratic pluralism and governance as central elements of the Development Fund for Africa.
Given what I have said above, I suppose it goes without saying that I am opposed to this approach of fusing democracy and governance. What then should be the approach?
V. Tentative Policy Prescriptions:
First and foremost must be the realization that at best, efforts at governance can only be incremental in nature and have but limited effect in the short-term. Efforts at instilling new values of governance can only take hold over time which suggests that USAID must give careful consideration to what constitutes critical needs and priorities in the pursuit of development in Africa.
Secondly, the sequence should be assistance and then conditions as oppose to conditions and then assistance. It may be merely semantics, but if reflects a profoundly more caring approach which is critical to the dignity of Africans in this traumatic process of political, economic and social transformation. Aid is not, and should not be a Pavlovian exercise.
Thirdly, a decision must be made about preferences and the consequential and necessary cleavage between democracy and governance. That is not to suggest that both cannot and should not be pursued, rather that they should be decoupled and approached separately and independently.
Given the implicit long-term nature of instilling democratic values in a society, priority should be given to governance, and governance in the more narrow, easily quantified area of developing effective public managerial skills. Such an approach will necessitate close cooperation with African leaders to rethink institutional structures, streamlining administrative processes, and revamping the civil service. By and large, the state exercises sweeping economic power in most of Africa but it is managed through a thin layer of reasonably competent bureaucrats. Policy reforms and structural adjustment programs must be judiciously monitored to not only ensure compliance, but to surgically intervene when necessary.
With respect to democratic reform, a less rigid, more elastic approach is needed. It is necessary to look more closely at those elements in African society that are in transition and determine how they can be adapted to a more democratic culture. It may require retooling Africa’s ancient concepts and institutions for use in promoting democratic pluralism, rather than seeking to introduce new, and alien institutions of questionable value. Finally, we should seek to identify those elements in Africa’s history that may gradually bring about improvement in human relations and cultural understanding, even if this has to be done over a long period of time with governments that only gradually shed their characteristics of authoritarianism.
Such an approach will require our using our technical knowledge, skills and managerial capacity in such a way as to ease the transition to democracy by widely diverse people. To accomplish this objective, “we may have to become more African in thought while assisting Africans to become more democratic in practice.”
It is a challenge clearly worth taking.