Part 1
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
Monday, July 19, 2010
Making Of A Constitution: Kenya
This is the best account of Kenyan history I have seen. The series covers some of the historic factors underlying Kenya's Constitution:
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
Monday, April 19, 2010
Powerful East African tribes rocking the boat
Napoleon Bonaparte of France once told his son while in exile: “My son always study history, reflect on it; it is the true philosophy.” East Africa is among the regions in the world that have a very rich and exciting history.
It is common knowledge to those who have had the time, interest and ability to read that Tanzania’s senior statesman, Baba wa taifa, Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere was willing to postpone and delay the independence of Tanganyika in order to achieve the East African Federation.
Indeed in 1961 when Uganda and Kenya were still fighting for their own independence, Dr. Milton Obote of Uganda and Mzee Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya seemed to support the idea. But when they got their respective independence, Mzee Jomo Kenyatta backtracked.
In his own words he said that his support for the East African Federation before his country’s independence was “ujanja ujanja,” which is Kiswahili for trickery. As President, he made sure that the Kikuyu tribe stood above all the other forty-two tribes of Kenya. He empowered his tribe politically and economically such that no one could govern Kenya without their consent.
It is this superiority complex amongst the Kikuyu that has time and again threatened the national unity and the democratic progress of Kenya and by extension, East Africa. In Uganda, Buganda has always put every regime, and more so the NRM government, on “bunkenke” as President Yoweri Museveni has always stressed. Bunkenke is Luganda word for keeping one on tenterhooks.
There is hardly a regime in Uganda that has not been ‘disorganised’ by Buganda and her demands for a special status of being a state within a state. The Ganda people have also successfully fought Kiswahili, which is actually favoured by majority Ugandans, as the country’s national language.
Buganda, like Zanzibar in Tanzania, has always harboured the need to secede and form an independent country or state of her own. Unlike Zanzibar though which is geographically detached from mainland Tanzania, Buganda is in the heartland of Uganda which makes it very difficult to achieve this desired aspiration.
No Ugandan leader, even if he/she was to be a Muganda him/herself, in their right senses would ever grant Buganda her unrealistic demands of secession. To make it more complicated, Kampala, the capital city of Uganda, is located in Buganda.
Buganda as an entity has never been in bed with the East African Federation. Kabaka Edward Mutesa II, the first President of Uganda, is known to have vehemently opposed the formation of this federation in the 1950s. Now to imagine that Kabaka Muwenda Mutebi, the son of Kabaka Mutesa and current king of Buganda, can support and have the goodwill for the federation is to expect eggs out of a cow.
As our leaders dream big about forming the East African Federation for whatever reasons, they still have a lot of domestic challenges to sort out. This is why when a consultation was carried out in Tanzania for people’s opinion on the East African Federation around 2007, many said: Muungano kwanza; shirikisho baadaye, meaning the union should be streamlined first, and then the federation can come later.
In 1964 after the Afro-Shiraz Party (ASP) successfully took over power, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere of Tanganyika and Sheikh Abeid Amani Karume of Zanzibar merged the two nations with ease to form the United Republic of Tanzania.
This union sailed smoothly, basing on the goodwill legacy of the two leaders until Benjamin Mkapa’s administration, when the passion for the marriage started wearing thin and cracks in the union began to appear more than ever before.
One of the current President Jakaya Kikwete‘s campaign promises was to sort out the cracks in the union government after assuming power. But sources close to him intimate that at times his efforts to heal the cracks have instead created new cracks.
Finally, the efforts our East African leaders have tried to use in trying to manage Buganda, Kikuyu and the Zanzibari reminds one of a statement in A. Koestler’s novel Darkness at noon in which somebody says, “We diagnosed the disease with microscopic exactness; but when we applied a healing knife, a new sore developed elsewhere.”
The author is a teacher and freelance journalist
mwalimakol@gmail.com
It is common knowledge to those who have had the time, interest and ability to read that Tanzania’s senior statesman, Baba wa taifa, Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere was willing to postpone and delay the independence of Tanganyika in order to achieve the East African Federation.
Indeed in 1961 when Uganda and Kenya were still fighting for their own independence, Dr. Milton Obote of Uganda and Mzee Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya seemed to support the idea. But when they got their respective independence, Mzee Jomo Kenyatta backtracked.
In his own words he said that his support for the East African Federation before his country’s independence was “ujanja ujanja,” which is Kiswahili for trickery. As President, he made sure that the Kikuyu tribe stood above all the other forty-two tribes of Kenya. He empowered his tribe politically and economically such that no one could govern Kenya without their consent.
It is this superiority complex amongst the Kikuyu that has time and again threatened the national unity and the democratic progress of Kenya and by extension, East Africa. In Uganda, Buganda has always put every regime, and more so the NRM government, on “bunkenke” as President Yoweri Museveni has always stressed. Bunkenke is Luganda word for keeping one on tenterhooks.
There is hardly a regime in Uganda that has not been ‘disorganised’ by Buganda and her demands for a special status of being a state within a state. The Ganda people have also successfully fought Kiswahili, which is actually favoured by majority Ugandans, as the country’s national language.
Buganda, like Zanzibar in Tanzania, has always harboured the need to secede and form an independent country or state of her own. Unlike Zanzibar though which is geographically detached from mainland Tanzania, Buganda is in the heartland of Uganda which makes it very difficult to achieve this desired aspiration.
No Ugandan leader, even if he/she was to be a Muganda him/herself, in their right senses would ever grant Buganda her unrealistic demands of secession. To make it more complicated, Kampala, the capital city of Uganda, is located in Buganda.
Buganda as an entity has never been in bed with the East African Federation. Kabaka Edward Mutesa II, the first President of Uganda, is known to have vehemently opposed the formation of this federation in the 1950s. Now to imagine that Kabaka Muwenda Mutebi, the son of Kabaka Mutesa and current king of Buganda, can support and have the goodwill for the federation is to expect eggs out of a cow.
As our leaders dream big about forming the East African Federation for whatever reasons, they still have a lot of domestic challenges to sort out. This is why when a consultation was carried out in Tanzania for people’s opinion on the East African Federation around 2007, many said: Muungano kwanza; shirikisho baadaye, meaning the union should be streamlined first, and then the federation can come later.
In 1964 after the Afro-Shiraz Party (ASP) successfully took over power, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere of Tanganyika and Sheikh Abeid Amani Karume of Zanzibar merged the two nations with ease to form the United Republic of Tanzania.
This union sailed smoothly, basing on the goodwill legacy of the two leaders until Benjamin Mkapa’s administration, when the passion for the marriage started wearing thin and cracks in the union began to appear more than ever before.
One of the current President Jakaya Kikwete‘s campaign promises was to sort out the cracks in the union government after assuming power. But sources close to him intimate that at times his efforts to heal the cracks have instead created new cracks.
Finally, the efforts our East African leaders have tried to use in trying to manage Buganda, Kikuyu and the Zanzibari reminds one of a statement in A. Koestler’s novel Darkness at noon in which somebody says, “We diagnosed the disease with microscopic exactness; but when we applied a healing knife, a new sore developed elsewhere.”
The author is a teacher and freelance journalist
mwalimakol@gmail.com
Friday, March 5, 2010
Optimist or pessimist, Kenya’s future is clear
For the optimist, Kenya will become the rail, air and sea travels hub of East Africa. Oil and farming products will be hauled on rail and road to the Indian Ocean from places as far away as Uganda, Sudan and Ethiopia.
The nation’s stability and democracy will provide the credibility for an economic rebirth.
For the pessimist, however, corruption and political instability will overtake the country and drag it down into the depths of its neighbours.
Tribal and political battles will divide the country and it will lose its foothold as one of Africa’s greatest democracies.
For the realist, the future is filled with questions. Will there be forthcoming trials of people implicated in the 2007 post-election violence?
Will the nation be able to reverse a culture of corruption to take advantage of some very real economic possibilities?
Will the country rid itself of the current political mess and find new leadership that will take it forward?
Let’s start by looking at the opportunities. With Southern Sudan soon to become independent, Kenya is likely to have a burgeoning economy on its northern border.
They will need to find a way to get their goods to the sea, and Kenya offers the most secure port. As reported, the Chinese are interested in building rail lines that will carry goods from the east, particularly Uganda, to ships ready to sail to Shanghai.
The Ethiopians, seeking to avoid a turbulent Somalia, have the same need.
The negatives are obviously in the papers everyday. Most appalling, at least to me, was the recent rip-off of education money from the Kenyan children by those who were in charge of educating them.
Call me old-fashioned, but the children should be a sacred trust.
Then there is the inflow of weapons from the war zones of an unstable northern Uganda and the Islamic battlegrounds of Somalia. Too many disputes are settled by the barrel of a gun in Kenya.
There is tribalism. In some respects, a tie to one’s past is a good thing. In America, we’re celebrating St Patrick’s Day in a few weeks, and it is said that almost every American has some Irish blood in the veins.
But we all take pride in our heritage, whether it’s English, French or Kenyan.
Tribalism takes the matter to a far different level. The British used tribalism to divide and conquer the continent, and now it’s become the weapon of choice of native Africans, most recently in post-election violence.
And there’s the matter of leadership. Both President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga showed the nation in the last few weeks that their interests were more directed at themselves than at the nation.
Their refusal to sit down and talk put the nation on edge, and almost lit the fires that took so long to extinguish in 2007.
Most observers agree that Kenya desperately needs fresh leadership.
My prediction is that the forces of economic opportunity, combined with the international pressures against corruption, will end up pushing the country towards a more prosperous future.
But Kenyans must mirror the change that they want to see.
By RANDALL SMITH Posted Friday, March 5 2010 at 17:10
The nation’s stability and democracy will provide the credibility for an economic rebirth.
For the pessimist, however, corruption and political instability will overtake the country and drag it down into the depths of its neighbours.
Tribal and political battles will divide the country and it will lose its foothold as one of Africa’s greatest democracies.
For the realist, the future is filled with questions. Will there be forthcoming trials of people implicated in the 2007 post-election violence?
Will the nation be able to reverse a culture of corruption to take advantage of some very real economic possibilities?
Will the country rid itself of the current political mess and find new leadership that will take it forward?
Let’s start by looking at the opportunities. With Southern Sudan soon to become independent, Kenya is likely to have a burgeoning economy on its northern border.
They will need to find a way to get their goods to the sea, and Kenya offers the most secure port. As reported, the Chinese are interested in building rail lines that will carry goods from the east, particularly Uganda, to ships ready to sail to Shanghai.
The Ethiopians, seeking to avoid a turbulent Somalia, have the same need.
The negatives are obviously in the papers everyday. Most appalling, at least to me, was the recent rip-off of education money from the Kenyan children by those who were in charge of educating them.
Call me old-fashioned, but the children should be a sacred trust.
Then there is the inflow of weapons from the war zones of an unstable northern Uganda and the Islamic battlegrounds of Somalia. Too many disputes are settled by the barrel of a gun in Kenya.
There is tribalism. In some respects, a tie to one’s past is a good thing. In America, we’re celebrating St Patrick’s Day in a few weeks, and it is said that almost every American has some Irish blood in the veins.
But we all take pride in our heritage, whether it’s English, French or Kenyan.
Tribalism takes the matter to a far different level. The British used tribalism to divide and conquer the continent, and now it’s become the weapon of choice of native Africans, most recently in post-election violence.
And there’s the matter of leadership. Both President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga showed the nation in the last few weeks that their interests were more directed at themselves than at the nation.
Their refusal to sit down and talk put the nation on edge, and almost lit the fires that took so long to extinguish in 2007.
Most observers agree that Kenya desperately needs fresh leadership.
My prediction is that the forces of economic opportunity, combined with the international pressures against corruption, will end up pushing the country towards a more prosperous future.
But Kenyans must mirror the change that they want to see.
By RANDALL SMITH Posted Friday, March 5 2010 at 17:10
Friday, February 12, 2010
DISTURBING TELEVISION – DIVERSION - MILK GLUT AND COTTAGE INDUSTRY
I was sitting before a panel of interviewers today for admission into a training course and one of the questions that was shot at me by the panel was, "What have you watched on television recently that has disturbed you?” Of course with the pressure of an interview my response was absolute rubbish. I went on to talk on how the format of a documentary on television could have been improved...how they should have personalized the presentation by using an interview...how they should have tried to engage the audience by focusing more on the people rather than plain impersonal video shots. Clearly I missed the point of the question and I have already taken myself through the process of feeling like an absolute idiot. So here are the answers I should have given with emphasis on one point that so completely irked me.
Here are a few stories recently carried on Kenyan television that have disturbed me:
• How our politicians divert attention from one scandal that is receiving media attention to resurrect another "dying" but yet to be resolved scandal. Case in point- the maize scandal brought up by one faction of the political class to divert attention from the free primary education scandal in which politicians their side of the coalition are implicated.
• How the prime-minister played down the findings by Price-Waterhouse-Coopers on the maize scandal by saying that the Anti-Corruption Commission had earlier carried out investigations and had found “no wrong doing” by those implicated and exonerated them. However on a positive note he has set-up a committee to reconcile the two contradictory positions.
• The most disturbing of all, is how we, after suffering a long devastating drought and yet to recover from its effects are now forced to pour out thousands of litres of milk because our milk factories are not able to process it. We are still suffering from severe food shortages in many parts of the country, yet we are not at this point able to handle our domestic dairy production. We should have had the capacity to process all this wasted protein.
Our dependence and insistence on large scale industry scares me. It seems that everything (even the simplest) needs to be done on a large scale. It’s about time that we were able as communities to handle our local production. What we produce should be sustainably produced and consumable. If it is not consumable at that point it should be preservable. Local dairy farmers should have capacity (at least in terms of knowledge) to produce cheese or butter or yoghurt or ghee. It was sad to see farmers who had put in so much effort after the drought watch their labour go down the drain. What if this farmer had a way to process this milk? What if the technology and the know-how to process this milk was accessible to him?
With these questions the old concept of cottage industries came to mind. In our rush to industrialize we have ignored this important stage in the process. If we are not making progress on the macro level, let us work on the micro level. Several countries have successfully ensured food security by focusing on small scale local production. On a policy level, our politicians have let us down. It’s time for us to shift focus to small scale manufacturing and production (and I am not talking about jua-kali) its time for industries run by two or tree or ten people scattered in every corner of this country to make a difference in this economy...lets stop thinking super or mega or giga and start working on the local...one person with a cow, another with a micro-dairy, one with a maize shamba, another with a posho mill, one with a soap making project another with a fish farm...small sustainable communities working together…using what they produce and selling, saving, storing or preserving the excess.
However, you still cannot ignore the Macro-level. The government with the input of communities should implement a shift in policy and focus on building local capacity for communities to handle their own production. It is in the governments very own interest to ensure that its communities are knowledgeable enough and capable enough to handle their own economy -whatever the scale- right from production through processing, distribution and consumption. For a country that is yet to achieve food security and experiences such erratic weather patterns we cannot afford to waste such a rich source of protein as milk. Our government needs to be able to predict outcomes and support the efforts of its citizens.
James Adolwa
February 12, 2010
Here are a few stories recently carried on Kenyan television that have disturbed me:
• How our politicians divert attention from one scandal that is receiving media attention to resurrect another "dying" but yet to be resolved scandal. Case in point- the maize scandal brought up by one faction of the political class to divert attention from the free primary education scandal in which politicians their side of the coalition are implicated.
• How the prime-minister played down the findings by Price-Waterhouse-Coopers on the maize scandal by saying that the Anti-Corruption Commission had earlier carried out investigations and had found “no wrong doing” by those implicated and exonerated them. However on a positive note he has set-up a committee to reconcile the two contradictory positions.
• The most disturbing of all, is how we, after suffering a long devastating drought and yet to recover from its effects are now forced to pour out thousands of litres of milk because our milk factories are not able to process it. We are still suffering from severe food shortages in many parts of the country, yet we are not at this point able to handle our domestic dairy production. We should have had the capacity to process all this wasted protein.
Our dependence and insistence on large scale industry scares me. It seems that everything (even the simplest) needs to be done on a large scale. It’s about time that we were able as communities to handle our local production. What we produce should be sustainably produced and consumable. If it is not consumable at that point it should be preservable. Local dairy farmers should have capacity (at least in terms of knowledge) to produce cheese or butter or yoghurt or ghee. It was sad to see farmers who had put in so much effort after the drought watch their labour go down the drain. What if this farmer had a way to process this milk? What if the technology and the know-how to process this milk was accessible to him?
With these questions the old concept of cottage industries came to mind. In our rush to industrialize we have ignored this important stage in the process. If we are not making progress on the macro level, let us work on the micro level. Several countries have successfully ensured food security by focusing on small scale local production. On a policy level, our politicians have let us down. It’s time for us to shift focus to small scale manufacturing and production (and I am not talking about jua-kali) its time for industries run by two or tree or ten people scattered in every corner of this country to make a difference in this economy...lets stop thinking super or mega or giga and start working on the local...one person with a cow, another with a micro-dairy, one with a maize shamba, another with a posho mill, one with a soap making project another with a fish farm...small sustainable communities working together…using what they produce and selling, saving, storing or preserving the excess.
However, you still cannot ignore the Macro-level. The government with the input of communities should implement a shift in policy and focus on building local capacity for communities to handle their own production. It is in the governments very own interest to ensure that its communities are knowledgeable enough and capable enough to handle their own economy -whatever the scale- right from production through processing, distribution and consumption. For a country that is yet to achieve food security and experiences such erratic weather patterns we cannot afford to waste such a rich source of protein as milk. Our government needs to be able to predict outcomes and support the efforts of its citizens.
James Adolwa
February 12, 2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Sustainable fishing is the way forward
The population of Lake Victoria’s most famous produce – the Nile perch – is dwindling and conservationists have started making shocking projections for future stocks.
They say the population of the Nile perch has declined from 1.2 million tonnes at the turn of the century to a mere 331,000 tonnes last year. The figures could plunge further if remedial action is not taken immediately.
Up to 22 million people from the region depend on the lake for fish. The industry directly supports two million people, providing them with much needed incomes to sustain their households.
That the population of the Nile perch is thinning is therefore bad news to many. But it must also be understood that the fishermen face difficult but important choices between conserving the resource – so there will be fish to catch in the future – and earning a decent living.
That is why the duty of conservation must not be left to them. It is encouraging the governments of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania through the East African Community’s Council of Ministers, have now launched Sh129.6m campaign to help conservation efforts.
Partner states
The ‘Operation Save the Nile Perch’ drive must not be in vain. It must not follow the familiar script of poor locals whose need for economic development is fought by affluent outside conservationists.
Residents of the three partner states rely on the fishing industry for subsistence. And their economic future will be improved more by preserving the ecosystem and promoting better fishing methods than by unsustainably exhausting what is currently available for export.
Conservation efforts must be supported by all stakeholders with partner states being encouraged to implement the proposed ‘harmonised action plan’ to help end illegal fishing on Lake Victoria and help restore the ecological balance.
Now it is up to the Council of Ministers to create regulations that will make the fishing industry successful. It is time to get rid of systems that have failed and replace them with better alternatives that will protect the marine ecosystem, allow fish stocks to rebuild, and increase revenues.
This will allow fishermen to make profit and also ensure future generations will enjoy the delicacy. It is upon the Ministry of Fisheries to ensure fish catchment sites are not only protected but also nurtured and sustainably exploited.
EA Standard
They say the population of the Nile perch has declined from 1.2 million tonnes at the turn of the century to a mere 331,000 tonnes last year. The figures could plunge further if remedial action is not taken immediately.
Up to 22 million people from the region depend on the lake for fish. The industry directly supports two million people, providing them with much needed incomes to sustain their households.
That the population of the Nile perch is thinning is therefore bad news to many. But it must also be understood that the fishermen face difficult but important choices between conserving the resource – so there will be fish to catch in the future – and earning a decent living.
That is why the duty of conservation must not be left to them. It is encouraging the governments of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania through the East African Community’s Council of Ministers, have now launched Sh129.6m campaign to help conservation efforts.
Partner states
The ‘Operation Save the Nile Perch’ drive must not be in vain. It must not follow the familiar script of poor locals whose need for economic development is fought by affluent outside conservationists.
Residents of the three partner states rely on the fishing industry for subsistence. And their economic future will be improved more by preserving the ecosystem and promoting better fishing methods than by unsustainably exhausting what is currently available for export.
Conservation efforts must be supported by all stakeholders with partner states being encouraged to implement the proposed ‘harmonised action plan’ to help end illegal fishing on Lake Victoria and help restore the ecological balance.
Now it is up to the Council of Ministers to create regulations that will make the fishing industry successful. It is time to get rid of systems that have failed and replace them with better alternatives that will protect the marine ecosystem, allow fish stocks to rebuild, and increase revenues.
This will allow fishermen to make profit and also ensure future generations will enjoy the delicacy. It is upon the Ministry of Fisheries to ensure fish catchment sites are not only protected but also nurtured and sustainably exploited.
EA Standard
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Why Africa welcomes the Chinese
Africa must attract broad investment, not rely on handouts, if we are to sustain development
There is a debate among geopolitical and economic commentators about the merits of Chinese versus western involvement with Africa. One argument is that Chinese investment is exploitative and undermines the development of democracy and human rights on the continent. Others view the matter in terms of competition, arguing that China is encroaching on the decades-long monopoly of the west over Africa's natural resources.
Neither of these viewpoints addresses the core issues. First, major players in global investment and development are discussing Africa without engaging its people as equal partners. Second, Africans are not seen to be proactive in setting their own priorities and terms of engagement.
Development aid, fashioned on this skewed relationship, has long been a key source of income for the continent. While helpful, aid has not delivered sustainable development. It is clear that trade and investment bring greater opportunity for wealth creation. Africa welcomes investment, from the east and west, north and south, and Rwanda is no exception. We want investment that offers skills and jobs, encourages entrepreneurship, and provides the opportunity to improve millions of lives.
This call for investment and trade rather than traditional aid does not mean the latter's contribution to addressing poverty is not recognised. However, the fundamental problem with the current development aid practice is the danger countries face as they become perpetually reliant on handouts.
So what should those who give aid, and those who receive it, focus on? The primary purpose of aid should ultimately be to work itself out, leaving a positive legacy behind. Aid should also be used to create opportunities for trade, enhance self-sufficiency and assist with the development of a robust private sector to attract investment. In many countries, for example, aid offers resources such as fertilisers for free. The intention is good but this often prevents local businesses from being able to provide these goods competitively. Given the choice, people would prefer to work and provide for themselves, rather than receive charity. Africans want self-determination and dignity.
Our continent, like others, requires investment to further its development. Efforts to pursue this need not be seen as a threat to the strengthening of democracy. Of course, African leaders should take good governance and human rights seriously – and most do. This is not – and should not be – because anybody else tells us to, or in return for investment, but because it is the right thing to do. The presence of Chinese investment in Africa does not discharge governments of their responsibilities any more than its presence in the EU or US should erode human rights there.
In Rwanda, we have worked hard to tackle the root causes of corruption and ensure there is a strong case for attracting investment. This programme of reform is yielding results and has been recognised by the World Bank's 2010 Doing Business Index, which saw Rwanda jump from 143rd to 67th position in one year, making it the world's leading reformer. In 2008, Rwanda's GDP grew at 11.2%, and despite the global financial crisis our 2009 projections give us cause for optimism. Wages in key export sectors have grown more than 20% annually over the last eight years, and all these developments have occurred while the percentage of our national budget funded by aid has been reduced by half since 2001.
Ultimately, Africa's relationship with its international counterparts should be redefined. For too long, we have not been able to trade fairly with Europe and the US; trade barriers and subsidies, particularly in agriculture, have protected external markets from African products, hindering our ability to trade as equals. Investment and trade with willing countries, including intra-African trade, helps the continent to build a much-needed culture of entrepreneurship and development.
All would benefit if the world focused on increasing investment in Africa, and if Rwanda and the rest of the continent worked to establish more equitable international partnerships. A trade relationship built on this new approach would be more helpful in reaching what should be our common goal: sustainable development, mutual prosperity and respect.
Paul Kageme
President of Rwanda
There is a debate among geopolitical and economic commentators about the merits of Chinese versus western involvement with Africa. One argument is that Chinese investment is exploitative and undermines the development of democracy and human rights on the continent. Others view the matter in terms of competition, arguing that China is encroaching on the decades-long monopoly of the west over Africa's natural resources.
Neither of these viewpoints addresses the core issues. First, major players in global investment and development are discussing Africa without engaging its people as equal partners. Second, Africans are not seen to be proactive in setting their own priorities and terms of engagement.
Development aid, fashioned on this skewed relationship, has long been a key source of income for the continent. While helpful, aid has not delivered sustainable development. It is clear that trade and investment bring greater opportunity for wealth creation. Africa welcomes investment, from the east and west, north and south, and Rwanda is no exception. We want investment that offers skills and jobs, encourages entrepreneurship, and provides the opportunity to improve millions of lives.
This call for investment and trade rather than traditional aid does not mean the latter's contribution to addressing poverty is not recognised. However, the fundamental problem with the current development aid practice is the danger countries face as they become perpetually reliant on handouts.
So what should those who give aid, and those who receive it, focus on? The primary purpose of aid should ultimately be to work itself out, leaving a positive legacy behind. Aid should also be used to create opportunities for trade, enhance self-sufficiency and assist with the development of a robust private sector to attract investment. In many countries, for example, aid offers resources such as fertilisers for free. The intention is good but this often prevents local businesses from being able to provide these goods competitively. Given the choice, people would prefer to work and provide for themselves, rather than receive charity. Africans want self-determination and dignity.
Our continent, like others, requires investment to further its development. Efforts to pursue this need not be seen as a threat to the strengthening of democracy. Of course, African leaders should take good governance and human rights seriously – and most do. This is not – and should not be – because anybody else tells us to, or in return for investment, but because it is the right thing to do. The presence of Chinese investment in Africa does not discharge governments of their responsibilities any more than its presence in the EU or US should erode human rights there.
In Rwanda, we have worked hard to tackle the root causes of corruption and ensure there is a strong case for attracting investment. This programme of reform is yielding results and has been recognised by the World Bank's 2010 Doing Business Index, which saw Rwanda jump from 143rd to 67th position in one year, making it the world's leading reformer. In 2008, Rwanda's GDP grew at 11.2%, and despite the global financial crisis our 2009 projections give us cause for optimism. Wages in key export sectors have grown more than 20% annually over the last eight years, and all these developments have occurred while the percentage of our national budget funded by aid has been reduced by half since 2001.
Ultimately, Africa's relationship with its international counterparts should be redefined. For too long, we have not been able to trade fairly with Europe and the US; trade barriers and subsidies, particularly in agriculture, have protected external markets from African products, hindering our ability to trade as equals. Investment and trade with willing countries, including intra-African trade, helps the continent to build a much-needed culture of entrepreneurship and development.
All would benefit if the world focused on increasing investment in Africa, and if Rwanda and the rest of the continent worked to establish more equitable international partnerships. A trade relationship built on this new approach would be more helpful in reaching what should be our common goal: sustainable development, mutual prosperity and respect.
Paul Kageme
President of Rwanda
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
