In Africa, fiscal policy continues to be used to allocate resources for economic investment and infrastructure with ethnic and regional considerations.  This has been attributed to the “regime of the day’s” desire to consolidate power and deflect challenges to its power. Policy making of this kind has created environments conducive for civil strife, conflict, and full blown war. If economic allocations in stable countries or conflict prone countries were distributed indiscriminately—that is without ethnic and regional considerations—the notion of politicizing ethnicity in Africa would probably decrease. In the long run, the idea that a particular regime is against the development of a particular region or ethnic group could begin to disappear. Sustained peace, economic and social development would likely take root.

It is likely that once ethnic and regional considerations are de-linked from resource distribution and political representation in Africa, each region, ethnic group, and individual would begin to truly associate themselves with the concept of nationhood.

Making the playing field more sustainable for equitable development in Africa also requires a serious investment in the private sector. Since the dawn of independence, African leaders have been suspicious of the private sector and stifled it through policy making. Consequently, doing business in Africa is fraught by institutional inefficiencies, corruption, and weak legal infrastructures to regulate economic activity. African governments are however beginning to make reforms to improve the business environment in Africa. According to the World Bank (WB) and International Finance Corporation (IFC) 2005 Doing Business in Africa Report, “Africa made the top three among reforming regions, after Eastern Europe and OECD Countries.” Reforms reduced the “time, cost, and bureaucratic tape to comply with legal and administrative requirements.” Ghana and Tanzania were among the world’s top 10 reformers.

Investing in the private sector would allow Africans greater ease in building their own wealth and increasing economic productivity, which would lead to economic growth and self reliance—all of which contribute to the reduction of poverty. Some wars occur in Africa because of poverty. This is particularly true for resource rich countries where natural resources are centrally controlled by governments who distribute revenue derived from these resources inequitably. Several groups thus fight for a piece or the entire national pie. If African governments continue implementing reforms to enable a conducive environment for private enterprise, there would be more opportunity for people to advance themselves and their community as there would be multiple pies to compete for. Notions of regionalism and ethnicity, as they relate to resources, economic development, wealth creation, and subsistence, could very well become less politically charged. Ultimately, the propensity for an outbreak of war would more then likely decrease.           

This view has been taken by the Johnson-Sirleaf administration in Liberia. Madame President Johnson-Sirleaf, continues to emphasize the importance of investing in Liberia’s private sector to build peace in Liberia. This is because peace in Liberia is seriously threatened by ex-combatants wandering aimlessly with nothing to do coupled with debilitated infrastructure that is vital to reconstructing the country’s economy. By investing in the private sector, ex-combatants would have something to do, because the opportunities for that to happen would be increased by the investment. The likelihood of them inciting war or perpetuating violence and crime would therefore decrease.

African states stand to gain a lot if governments would do away with policies that marginalize entire regions. For this to happen, a degree of power held by the state should be relinquished. Opening up political systems in this manner would harness Africa’s economic potential, and ensure a more equitable distribution of political power. The end result would be increased state and human security. To make this a reality, Africa’s leadership, both present and future, will have to be willing to let go of the idea that the state is an entity to be pillaged and plundered for their benefit.

Equally important is the need for African leadership to assume the task of nation-building. The Ivoirite policy in Cote d’ Ivoire finds its basis on marginalizing Ivorians on the basis of a narrow view of citizenship and nationality. Ivorite was a cause rebel factions in Cote d’ Ivoire rallied behind because it prevented Alassane Outtara, a Muslim from the North born in the country with Burkinabe origins, from running for presidency in 2002. Conflict in Ghana played out similarly.

In Ghana, the Northern Rebellion in 1994 was not only related to discriminatory land tenure practices directed at the Konkomba people, but  the long held perception that the Konkomba people are an immigrant people to Ghana also contributed to the state’s indifference to the initial stages of the rebellion. In Rwanda, the origins of Tutsi, and their differences with the Hutus (promoted and instituted by the Belgians) thrust Rwanda into genocide. In Mali, continual marginalization of the Northern Region specifically, the Tuareg people included exclusion of government revenues and the “misappropriation of food aid by the government” during the 1973 and 1984 droughts. The roots of this conflict are grounded in the general absence of national allegiance to Mali among the Tuareg, a carryover from colonialism. This factor coupled with Bamako’s indifference to the above mentioned droughts were contributing factors to conflict that Mali experienced during the 90s. All of these examples affirm the need for a concerted effort to examine policies related to nationality and citizenship while building peace and preventing conflict.

The AU’s decision to deploy AMIS is commendable because the rest of the world has been slow to respond to Darfur. AMIS’s deployment is however equally troubling. Troubling, is the fact that African leaders with all the relevant academic, military, and professional credentials made the decision to deploy the mission without the sufficient amount of logistical and operational support. If Africa is going to be taken seriously in matters of the continent’s peace and security, it should employ good planning.

In  future, rather than wait for the UN or one of the Western powers to provide the logistical support it needs,  where it can, the AU should more actively rely on Africa’s strongest militaries— Egypt, Nigeria, and South Africa for logistical assistance in peace operations—before seeking external assistance.

Africa’s intellectual talent cannot be ignored as it has created frameworks for economic development, peace, and security. These frameworks have not made Africa any more politically or economically progressive than Africa was after colonialism. What will is a reorientation of the minds. Sentiments, concepts, and ideas of the private sector, ethnicity and citizenship, as each relates to politics, nationality, economic development, security, and nation building must be reworked. If the continent’s goals for peace and sustainable economic development are to be achieved, it is imperative that Africa’s intellectuals, religious and traditional leaders, and political activists begin to galvanize the momentum needed to assume this enormous task.

The goal would be de-coupling ethnicity, regionalism, and politics to change the conventional approach to politics in Africa and ushering in a new order. The foundation for assuming such a task has already begun with Africa’s younger generations who have a different worldview and perspective on governance than the current crop of leadership. Although such a shift is not likely to take hold for hundreds of years, young African intellectuals and politically minded individuals must continue viewing this issue as central to peace and security in Africa. More importantly, Africa’s younger generation should work towards building such a future. Doing less than this would likely mean the continuity of war, and insecurity—something no African nation can afford.