A Potential Governance Model for Africa

Does Africa have problems? There’s an affirmative knee jerk response to this question. However, how would you respond to someone’s dictum that: ‘Africa does NOT have problems!?’ While one cannot deny the grandiloquence of this latter assertion, the many that ‘see’ the continent’s economic, social and cultural potential will, surely, agree since they have rose colored glasses on. Alternatively, those mired in disease, disasters and poverty will excoriate anyone trouping the hakuna matata meme in Africa! But Africa has relatable problems to those that the U.S., Iceland, Greece, China, Argentina and Australia have – and at the same time, Dark Continent does not have to deal with the issues the other continents face. At the core of this paradox is the mundane fact that each region has to deal effectively with the unique churlish aspects fate has dealt them.

In an article entitled ‘Why Has Africa Grown Slowly?’, Paul Collier and Jan Willen Gunning argued that geographic and demographic characteristics predisposed the continent to slow growth; that there was domestic policy failure after independence and that despite its strategic location vis-a-vis developed markets than Asia, external forces have conspired to keep African resources away from profitable markets. The last argument is that globalization and debt have seemingly sentenced African countries to the bottom of the birdcage. The article has overall wisdom. However, it also borders on trepidation by not criticizing landlocked African countries for failure to develop a Switzerland like trade policy that ensures its progress. The article even hints that things were better for the Africans under the colonial governments, but is not sanguine about this statement. Whatever they say, the article ought to have gone as far as saying that African elite arguments against external policy and globalization as neocolonialism are circumventing and could even be spurious!

Thus, undulating as this might seem, the difference between pre independence Africa and the status quo is simply an element of management. The colonialists were capitalists looking for a profit. They, with determined truculence, extracted resources, but also built roads, hospitals, mines, railway lines – managing to make South Africa and Kenya the economic ‘giants’ they are today. Collier and Gunning make mention that just after independence, African leaders had the infrastructure to grow their respective countries’ economies. Instead, these African elites took advantage of ethnic division and played favoritism with their own people.

So: What would happen if African countries were managed by managers with targets, projects and the resources required to turn a profit in a specific period? For starters, those who cannot fathom African countries being run like corporations ought to see that many multinational corporations have much bigger financial portfolios than most African economies. Kenya, for instance, has a GDP of about US$ 66 billion while Uganda stands at about US$ 17. According to Forbes, If he had not sold any of his Apple shares back in 1985, Steve Jobs [RIP] would have been worth an astonishing US$36 billion. Besides, Apple alone had over US$ 81 billion in cash by October 2011. Today, the company’s market capitalization is more than US$ 350 billion – the combined GDP of Israel, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon or all 32 euro zone banks. In simple terms, Kenya, South Africa or even Nigeria can, to a certain extent, be synonymous with a single private enterprise because although they occupy large geographical areas, resources can be availed for their effective management.

The colonialists may have been brutal bastards – but they were sentient beings when compared to some African leaders. It shouldn’t surprise anyone to hear venerable older folks looking back at the 1960’s with folornness. Africans basically made things worse for their own people. As a matter of fact, people now ask: What is the worst thing hired managers could do to an African country? Will they increase the amount of road in the potholes (yes?) or should they increase the loadshedding of electricity from 48 to 72 hours? Either way, the Africans in Uganda or Nigeria do not care. They are used to the incompetence of their home governments and this, to them, is a sad commentary on the state of affairs. And at best, country managers build infrastructure and provide public goods and services – and at worst, they’d probably slash a bloated and inconsequential civil service. But this, if done well, would unleash countless private entrepreneurs onto whatever market they work in. This might attract foreign direct investment which would lead to more social services for the people – roads would be built, hospitals would serve the people, schools and universities would finally churn out as many doctors as are required and corruption would be considered ‘earmarks’ or ‘lobbying.’

At the end of the day, burgeoning a theory as this management model might be, it would be more responsive to Africa’s problem than what is currently in place. Many African heads of department are politicians governing bureaucrats who, themselves, badly need guidance to generate results. Project managers and Consultants know, only too well, that if they are going to collect their hefty paychecks and contract fees, their respective models have to show signs of progress. Deadlines have to be met and quality has to be ensured. These results would mean a great deal to a woman who does not lose her life and baby in an unstaffed maternity ward. Managers can come up with models to staff hospitals, schools and the police with competent and adequate personnel or they will have failed in their duties. If managers know that they could be fired for non performance, there would be fewer potholes in the roads. And despite the nascent aspects here, that is what development means.

Dennis Matanda,
Editor – [email protected]