Mozambique to End Up Like Uganda

Published on 9th May 2006

Mozambique is today what Uganda was a few years ago. If you read anything about Mozambique today and the 'tremendous progress' the country is supposed to be making, one cannot help recollecting similar reviews and reports about Uganda in the late 1980s through the 1990s.

The statistics are very familiar: over 6% growth rate, expanding opportunities for business, IMF/World Bank ideology, a confident middle class, and an environment open to foreign investment, NGOs and Donors. In plain words: A nation open to business. In the case of Uganda, there was also identification with 'A strong Man' who is considered an 'enlightened' or 'benevolent' dictator.

 

Of course the ovation for Uganda is no longer as enthusiastic as it used to be not only due to the economic limitations of macroeconomic rejuvenation in a dependent economy, but also the limits of political tolerance between the ruling party/clique and President on the one hand, and their erstwhile over-indulgent foreign supporters. In some sense, President Museveni has become the tail that wags the dog or in another sense, a beggar who cannot accept the ultimate loss of sovereignty stemming from an economy that is too much dependent on outside forces and support.

 

So it was with Uganda in mind that I arrived in Maputo last week. There are no doubts about the visible signs of a country in some kind of rebirth after a painful history of armed conflicts, largely the result of regional destabilization of neighboring apartheid South Africa and the immoral logic of the Cold War. Many new buildings are going up and old ones being rehabilitated. The hotels are in brisk business full of ubiquitous UN, Western NGO officials and assorted business men and women.

 

There are more than twenty big donor agencies and organizations in the country who are basically the engine of the new growth. It is a reward for successful peaceful settlement of the war against RENAMO, ideological capitulation or pragmatic realignment away from the former Stalinist model and endorsement for the political leadership.

 

But as in Uganda, this support comes with costs that increase everyday. One, it is not sustainable that a country be so dependent on foreigners through both direct budget support and resources for its capital development. Two, such endorsement comes with political consequences that often lead to collisions in the future, especially after a period of stabilization. Those who pay the piper will want to call the tune eventually. Also the growth may not guarantee any long lasting development.

 

Speaking to some key government ministry officials, the story is similar to what many people in the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning in many African countries will recognize. Just take the example of the time that the government of Mozambique spends on a twice-yearly review with donors. Each round takes 45 days each which means 90 days in the year.

 

If you had one month of official holidays in the country (January) and the one month of annual leave in the Western countries (generally August), this means that the working year is actually 7 months including all the national holidays, usual weekends! What time is spent by government officials on actually working to deliver services to their own people? Those who are condemned to these endless missions, evaluations, know that as a consequence of these meetings, more meetings and missions are generated. In a way, development becomes paper-driven. No wonder the 'miraculous' average growth rates bandied about often mean nothing to the vast population condemned to eke out their living in the 'micro' level.

 

Many African governments as a result of their collective political failure and mismanagement of the resources of the continent have made themselves supervisors for foreign interests and are now conditioned to be accountable to Donors and Western agencies. They are often too scared or intimidated to resist unless when their narrow political interests (like continual stay in power) are concerned. Yet donor demands and interventions are collectively undermining the capacity of our governments and peoples.

 

Even our largely foreign sponsored NGOs (increasingly substituted for Civil Society) are more accountable to their funders than the people they serve. Many of the so called opposition politicians spend more time complaining, whining and pining to foreign (and usually Western) diplomats and other AID officials than organising to politically challenge misruling governments.

 

Our governments sign up to international commitments like the Millennium Development Goals in addition to mountains of other intra-African protocols or agreements like NEPAD, the African Peer Review Mechanism, APRM, without expecting to fulfill them. Not a few Africans are fed up with this situation but too many of us agonise instead of organising.

 

Reverend Ndungane, the Arch Bishop of Capetown, following in the tradition of activist priests like his predecessor, Bishop Tutu, is hoping to reverse the trend of governance without accountability both continentally and internationally. And he is challenging other Africans to join him.  On Wednesday May 3, after almost a year of consultations across the continent among civil society, NGOs, governments, international agencies and multilateral institutions, he launched the African Monitor. The mission is to make sure that African governments and non African governments too meet up to the commitments they have made under various instruments, chiefly the MDGs, NEPAD and G8.

 

It is a very daunting task.  However because the Bishop has a wide constituency of Faith based groups (not limited to Christians or Anglicans but involving other faiths) and existence of  so many groups working (often in isolation) across the continent, the African Monitor  may actually provide a useful service in building bridges of activism and policy engagement and ensure accountability  through high level advocacy backed by grass roots activism.

 

Africa does not need new commitments or promises. A fulfillment of old ones will do. While our governments are used to being formally accountable to outsiders, the African Monitor hopes to make them accountable to their own people and also monitor the accountability of others to us. In a way it may operationalise one of the few good things in the APRM, the principle of 'mutual accountability' between us and those who claim to be our 'international partners.'

 

As the South African Vice President observed in her conclusion at the workshop that preceded the launch event, “monitors” need to be watched. The ultimate monitor is the active citizenship in Africa and outside Africa that governments they elect be politically accountable to them and honor commitments they sign up to.


This article has been read 1,753 times
COMMENTS