Poverty in Africa and the Aid Industry June 19, 2007

The Politics of poverty: Managing poverty without eradicating it Is Africa poor? The Economist magazine seems to think so. After all, in 2005, it described Africa as that “poverty-stricken continent.” (The Economist, Friday June 10^th 2005). Apart from the obvious generalization about a whole continent, such description gives succor to the colonial mentality that sees no interest in our strengths and development goals, but in our tribulations. Such patronizing and often insulting descriptions of Africa are not new. Describing Africa as “poverty stricken” does not only ignore the fact  that Africa is doing something about it, but also justifies the continuing exploitation in the name of humanitarian relief. If statistics alone were sufficient, I think we have enough proof. According to the United Nations, 8 million children die each year because of poverty, 150 million children under the age of five suffer from extreme malnutrition, and 100 million children live in the streets. Every three seconds, poverty kills a child somewhere. About 3 billion people receive only about 1.2% of the world’s income, while 1 billion people in the rich countries receive 80%. In a recent document, the UN restated these grim facts: “Currently 4.8 million children in sub-Saharan Africa die before the age of five every year – that is, nine deaths every minute. With one fifth of the world’s births, sub-Saharan Africa currently accounts for 45% of child deaths. … If current trends continue, there will be 5.1 million deaths in 2015, with Africa’s share rising to 57% of the total.” Such statistics provide grim reading. Even without these figures, the reality that confronts anybody with a fleeting interest in the life of people will notice it everywhere in Africa. Social and economic  chaos, poverty, misery, youth unemployment and general unacceptable levels of deprivation.  These grim statistics stand in contrast to the political improvements that Africa has seen of late. At no time in African history has the continent scored such high points in its democratisation process. Successful elections, high voter turn out, functioning parliaments, the mushrooming of political parties, increasing NGOs and civil society organizations. In spite of these successes at the political front, and the immense advantages which globalisation has offered other regions, poverty is increasing daily in Africa. As things stand today, it would be churlish to assume this trend can be reversed within our lifetime without a fundamental rethink.  For decades to come, we will be debating why and how Africa is poor. Poverty, like most concepts, also suffers from a lack of understanding of what it really entails. More often than not, the people who define it, and lead the struggle against it, are coming from a position of affluence, and from a cultural mindset that inhibits their clarity of understanding. For example, all talk about poverty is reduced to how incomes corresponds to the US dollar. For example what odes it means to say that Niger is poor because its farmers earn less than one dollar a day. How does Niger’s situation compare with that of Ghana? Such bogus comparisons may have meaning for some faceless bureaucrats at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), but to someone working to make sense of how people life in such abject misery, it is absolute bunkum. The problems of African farmers, youth, women, and citizens in general cannot be compared simply to another country’s currency, no matter how many smart bombs that country possesses. Some African leaders ignore the grim reality that the above statistics provide. Indeed, in some cases, people are advised to put it with it. Of course, there is another Africa that makes the talks of poverty and demands for social justice seem unnecessary and uncalled for. The roads of some African cities like Nairobi, Accra, Abuja, are full of the most expensive jeeps and 4×4 cars, Benzes, etc. Our politicians and business classes build mansions, have access to the best goods on the market and live in luxury which Europeans will envy if only they knew. This is the Africa nobody talks about. But that is hardly the point. The hard truth is that poverty is stalking the people of Africa under a global system which is supposed to promote equality, social justice and shared values. The global struggle against poverty has two fronts: the global and the Africa. On the global front, anti-poverty programmes are influenced largely by a mindset which is alien to the African cultural milieu in which grim poverty thrives. It is within this context that the use of the term “alleviating” has a particular flavour. How would a poor farmer in Mozambique or the Democratic Republic of the Congo want us to deal with poverty? What does it mean to tell a child who has only one meal a day that all that we can do is to alleviate his or her suffering? Do we really want to abolish the suffering or merely to ameliorate it?   Analysing poverty has become an industry and an end in itself not a means of understanding it.  Government and institutional libraries are bulging with volumes of reports analyzing  poverty. Yet, one would be hard pressed to find any durable and Africa-led solutions in these volumes. Western development agencies like  the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) has spent more money on poverty Consultants, researchers, and analysts, than it has spent on actual poverty  eradication programmes in my village Kongo (Ghana). I dare DFID to  disprove this. The response to poverty in Africa itself has many contradictions. In rural Africa, poor men, women and youth are too busy trying to stay alive. Most of whom are even unaware that governments are supposed to help them find jobs, gain access to schools and primary health care. The resilience of these people should be celebrated and not questioned. From my experience, poverty is not a reflection of  poor people’s inability to stand up for themselves, or the inability of poor people to compete in a free-for-all society as demanded by the axis of economic evils: IMF and World Bank and multinational corporations.  Infact, poor people’s resilience to their conditions is a mark worthy of study. Most poor people have, from the cradle to the grave, relied on their own creativity, intuition  and wit to survive. Most poor people  in most African countries will not have contact with a “government” (except in election time when they will probably see a desperate politician).   Corrupting society Unable to deal with the structural causes of the problem, some ingenious souls have now imposed another problem on Africans. That of corruption. Some have even suggested that corruption is a  major cause of conflict in African. Anti-corruption industries are creeping up everywhere in Africa today, once again led by self imposed apostles of politician-bashing NGOs and civil society organisations.  The current euphoria about corruption is not new. In the 1970s – 1980s, every coup maker used it as a legitimate excuse  for overthrowing a civilian government. Ghana represents the most extreme of these examples. Infact, no African country has goner to such brazen lengths to deal with supposed cases of corruption. The result is almost nauseating. In 1979, the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) regime, led by the now retired Jerry Rawlings, tied up and executed several army officers, including three former Heads of State (General Afrifa, General Kutu Acheampong and  General Akuffo), for alleged cases of corruption. That has not done much for the anti-corruption crusade in Ghana.  Rawlings, who led this execution, was later to preside over one of the most corrupt governments in Ghana to date – the Provisional National Defence Council regime and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) governments.  It is important to acknowledge that corruption is a problem in many cases, but the extent to which this phenomenon contributes to increasing poverty is not proven. Italy, and in some cases, the EU bureaucracy has been accused of corruption in the media, yet, there is not huge industry of latter day saints setting up huge offices to combat it. This statement will no doubt irritate and irk those African intellectuals who have become apologists for Rawlings and his excesses. It is worth repeating: the whole Rawlings era, and the Rawlings government, is one of the most corrupt periods in Ghanaian history. The number of homeless children in Ghana today, the sight of dilapidated hospitals (e.g. the Tamale hospital in Ghana) and clinics, and the extreme poverty in rural Ghana speaks volumes. Rawlings spread the poison of dishonesty, deceit, corruption, dishonor and mistrust in Ghanaian society. His whole period has been a weapon of moral destruction in Ghana. Yet, there is no evidence that a state-led anti-corruption bureaucracy will change the situation in Ghana. State bureaucracies will not eliminate nor stop people from being corrupt.  However, what is new about the current spate of anti-corruption initiatives’ is the amount of resources being spent, and the fact that it is now a “donor-driven” (to use a common cliché) agenda.  Corruption is a symptom or if you like a malaise of the whole process of underdevelopment, and the failure of the neocolonial agenda. To take money which should have been spent on building primary schools to get children into school or clinics for children and mothers, to set up huge bureaucratic machines – called “anti-corruption commissions”, or so-called “accountability centres”  while ordinary people, especially, children,  die for lack of drugs, is to say the least sickening, and does not deal with the problems at all.  Infact this whole anti-corruption agenda is a mere fiddle to make us look the other way while multi-national corporations and their African supporters make away with the wealth of the people. The numerous workshops and press releases on corruption are just another gimmick to hoodwink the people that something is being done, while in actual fact, the leaders of civil society, and the politicians they criticize meet at the junction of plenty, from which they drink from the same water point. The foreign donors who prop them up are part of the same web of deception. It will have no impact because the structural causes of poverty and why people are prone to corruption are not being addressed. That is why I refuse to fall for this gigantic  con-trick being perpetuated  today.Contrary to what Western governments would have us believe, poverty does not persist solely because of incompetent, corrupt governments that are insensitive to the fate of their people. No. Poverty persists because of historical problems created by colonialism, neo-colonialism and now in a global world in which more resources are  spent on killing machines than on pro-poor programmes.   For the past two decades, development experts have held the view that if NGOs, faith groups, and international organisations build primary schools, clinics, dig bore holes, and wells, etc, the lives of the poor in Africa will improve. The number of NGOs in Africa and globally  seem to confirm this optimistic view. Undoubtedly, some of the organisations have made some positive contribution to peoples lives. Others have a made a complete mess in these attempts.  The reality is no matter how many wells are dug in Bukina Faso and  Mali, no matter how many income generation programmes are fronted, and no matter how many workshops are held in the affluent parts of Accra, their overall impact on poverty is at best paltry. It also appears that the more aid money is poured into a country, the more lethargic the government becomes, and the poorer the people. In the 1960s and early 1970s, Ghanaians were  better off relatively  than they are today, yet there were fewer NGOs and little donor money. Today, there are too many NGOs, lots of donor money, yet the people are poorer. Explain that to me.  The reason for this is that many of the programmes that are required to break away from the cycle of poverty are frowned upon. NGOs do not deal with the structural causes of poverty, workshops don’t. Actual improvement in education, health, housing, the agricultural sector, basic industries to provide employment, is the avenue to eradicating poverty. But IMF structural adjustments have ensured that government support to education, health, food production and welfare, have been removed completely. Yet, it is an investment in these areas that will improve the quality of live, and ensure that we begin that fateful road to a government supported welfare state. NGOs do not build roads and hospitals (they may build health centres and train local midwives). But to what extent do such local interventions lead eventually to eradicating poverty? Very little. International NGOs and their Ghanaian counterparts are good at managing people’s poverty, not at eradicating it. Government intervention in school and health infrastructure, improvement in the road system, support to local entrepreneurs, should be the answer to eradicating poverty in Africa. I take my example from the early years of the Kwame Nkrumah government in Ghana. Kwame Nkrumah and his Convention Peoples Party (1954 – 1966) undertook an ambitious and radical reshaping of Ghana, building the foundations of one of the most admirable welfare states in African history. This was demonized after the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency – US) overthrew the Nkrumah government in 1966.  I know it is common for people to fall for imperialist and local propaganda about the Kwame Nkrumah administration. Claims that this government was repressive and corrupt is absolute nonsense. Did it deal with the problems of poverty? Did it respond to the needs of children’s education in Ghana? Did it lay the foundations for self reliance? Did it make an impact on the anti-colonial struggle? The answer to all these questions  is YES. No Ghanaian government has achieved so much in a short a little time. It is no wonder that Kwame Nkrumah remains a giant among African leaders. In essence, we need to return to the early days of African independence in which our founding fathers tired to instill in us a sense of national and patriotic pride and love for Africa. Nations are built on these foundations.  What the Nkrumah era shows is that if the state and our governments respond to the most pressing problems facing people of every country through targeted welfare programmes, corruption will cease to have an attraction to people. Create a poverty-ridden society, remove the moral fabric of that society through IMF-supervised and led structural adjustments, and corruption will thrive. 

(c) Zaya Yeebo – June 2007    

Responding to the Racist bigotry of an American Professor. June 19, 2007

Responding to racist bigotry

Niall Ferguson’s Racist commentary on Ghana Misses the point.

Has anyone ever in Ghana ever heard of someone called Niall Ferguson? No. According to the Daily Telegraph (London), he is a professor of history at Harvard University. That is not all. Recently, this so-called Professor wrote an article which questions his judgement as a professor of history. It is a shameful piece of academic chicanery, racism in its tone and conclusions, and not worthy of print. But it got printed in the racist Daily Telegraph of London.

Entitled “Wearing a red nose for Africa’s corrupt clowns is a bad joke”, Niall Ferguson attacks the whole concept of charity, pegging his piece on so called failures in Ghana. Does he know Ghana at all? The answer is no. Niall Ferguson was referring to Comic Relief’s Red Nose Day (RND). Red Nose Day is held bi-annually to raise founds for good causes in Africa. Through this, Comic Relief has become one the biggest funders of African charity projects. So what was this virtual unknown academic called Nial Feguson saying?

According to this professor of history, Ghana  is so poor that it should not spend “$20 million dollars at a time when the average citizen has a daily income of around 67 pence ($1.33)”. He goes on, “You might also ask what exactly has Ghana  got to celebrate after 50 years of ‘freedom’.” Professor, i can tell you 50 good reasons why Ghana must celebrate. Not that it will ever make sense to you and other racists elsewhere.

Niall Ferguson’s racist diatribe does not end there. He tries in a sort of very un-academic way, to analyse Ghana. His lack of knowledge about Ghana is so glaring that it is not worth analysing here. For example, he claims that “the National Democratic Congress continues to rule the country.” He also claims that “in virtually every case (Botswana the sole exception), former British colonies in sub-Saharan Africa have fared worse under independence  than they did under British rule.” have fared worse. has he ever ventured into an Africa country? I doubt it. But people like do not need to. They feed the racist bigotry which continues to fester in western academic circles. Their thinking is like that of a clonial master, seemingly willing to help the colonised, while raping and mismanaging our resources for the good of the mother country.

The man’s understanding of  Kwame Nkrumah is so poor that I wonder what his students can ever learn from someone with such a racist mentality. Students of this professor need liberating from his arrogant, ignorant and obscurantist nonsense. He calls our leaders “knaves” , claims that someone said in 1957 that “the government is in the hands of knaves … in the hands of dupes”. If this is not racist, then I do not know what it is.

The same professor also claims that Nkrumah has a “KGB trained national Security Service” with a huge network of paid informers.” He goes on with his nonsense, claiming that Ghana is suffering from the “trap of bad governance”.  Ghana’s problem is “misgovernment”. With such bad professors, no wonder that some of his students will turn out to be CIA spies working to destroy countries like Ghana.

For him to write this at a time when the President of Ghana was visiting the UK, is to say the least an insult. The learned professor does not even bother to learn a little about Ghanaian history, so his piece is littered with historical inaccuracies. The learned professor hates Africa, he hates people and organisations trying to help Africa. He is a racist of the Hitler variety. For his racist and misguided crusade, he uses the Red Nose Day as his peg. For those who do not know, Red Nose day is a hugely popular and respected event organised by Comic Relief in the UK, to raise funds for projects in the UK and Africa. Not just Africa.

The professor even questions our right as a nation to celebrate the 50 years anniversary. Ghanaians do not owe the professor any excuse to celebrate our 50 years.

Whether we (Ghanaians) have achieved anything or not is our own business. As for Africa and its problems, people like Niall Ferguson whom we should be watching. In the payroll of the racist movement, and a wider imperialist conspiracy, they paint a picture of an Africa which no one who knows Africa can ever recognise.

Whatever the professor may think, there are many Africans and Ghanaians who will be grateful for what the people of the UK do through Comic Relief. I know one of the projects this professor dismissed – the African Women’s Support Group – is doing a wonderful job helping unskilled girls to gain skills. Is that so bad?

The professor’s posturing is not only annoying, but also dangerous. People like him make Africa look like a hopeless case. But Africans and friends of Africa know better.

It is important that we challenge this racist mind set being peddled about in the name of academia.

Zaya Yeebo

© May 2007

 Note: Niall Fergusson’s article, “Wearing a  red nose for Africa’s corrupt clowns is a bad joke” appeared in the Daily Telegraph, London

Responding to Racist Bigotry June 14, 2007

Responding to racist bigotry

Niall Ferguson’s Racist commentary on Ghana Misses the point.

Has anyone ever in Ghana ever heard of someone called Niall Ferguson? No. According to the Daily Telegraph (London), he is a professor of history at Harvard University. That is not all. Recently, this so-called Professor wrote an article which questions his judgement as a professor of history. It is a shameful piece of academic chicanery, racism in its tone and conclusions, and not worthy of print. But it got printed in the racist Daily Telegraph of London.

Entitled “Wearing a red nose for Africa’s corrupt clowns is a bad joke”, Niall Ferguson attacks the whole concept of charity, pegging his piece on so called failures in Ghana. Does he know Ghana at all? The answer is no. Niall Ferguson was referring to Comic Relief’s Red Nose Day (RND). Red Nose Day is held bi-annually to raise founds for good causes in Africa. Through this, Comic Relief has become one the biggest funders of African charity projects. So what was this virtual unknown academic called Nial Feguson saying?

According to this professor of history, Ghana  is so poor that it should not spend “$20 million dollars at a time when the average citizen has a daily income of around 67 pence ($1.33)”. He goes on, “You might also ask what exactly has Ghana  got to celebrate after 50 years of ‘freedom’.” Professor, i can tell you 50 good reasons why Ghana must celebrate. Not that it will ever make sense to you and other racists elsewhere.

Niall Ferguson’s racist diatribe does not end there. He tries in a sort of very un-academic way, to analyse Ghana. His lack of knowledge about Ghana is so glaring that it is not worth analysing here. For example, he claims that “the National Democratic Congress continues to rule the country.” He also claims that “in virtually every case (Botswana the sole exception), former British colonies in sub-Saharan Africa have fared worse under independence  than they did under British rule.” have fared worse. has he ever ventured into an Africa country? I doubt it. But people like do not need to. They feed the racist bigotry which continues to fester in western academic circles. Their thinking is like that of a clonial master, seemingly willing to help the colonised, while raping and mismanaging our resources for the good of the mother country.

The man’s understanding of  Kwame Nkrumah is so poor that I wonder what his students can ever learn from someone with such a racist mentality. Students of this professor need liberating from his arrogant, ignorant and obscurantist nonsense. He calls our leaders “knaves” , claims that someone said in 1957 that “the government is in the hands of knaves … in the hands of dupes”. If this is not racist, then I do not know what it is.

The same professor also claims that Nkrumah has a “KGB trained national Security Service” with a huge network of paid informers.” He goes on with his nonsense, claiming that Ghana is suffering from the “trap of bad governance”.  Ghana’s problem is “misgovernment”. With such bad professors, no wonder that some of his students will turn out to be CIA spies working to destroy countries like Ghana.

For him to write this at a time when the President of Ghana was visiting the UK, is to say the least an insult. The learned professor does not even bother to learn a little about Ghanaian history, so his piece is littered with historical inaccuracies. The learned professor hates Africa, he hates people and organisations trying to help Africa. He is a racist of the Hitler variety. For his racist and misguided crusade, he uses the Red Nose Day as his peg. For those who do not know, Red Nose day is a hugely popular and respected event organised by Comic Relief in the UK, to raise funds for projects in the UK and Africa. Not just Africa.

The professor even questions our right as a nation to celebrate the 50 years anniversary. Ghanaians do not owe the professor any excuse to celebrate our 50 years.

Whether we (Ghanaians) have achieved anything or not is our own business. As for Africa and its problems, people like Niall Ferguson whom we should be watching. In the payroll of the racist movement, and a wider imperialist conspiracy, they paint a picture of an Africa which no one who knows Africa can ever recognise.

Whatever the professor may think, there are many Africans and Ghanaians who will be grateful for what the people of the UK do through Comic Relief. I know one of the projects this professor dismissed – the African Women’s Support Group – is doing a wonderful job helping unskilled girls to gain skills. Is that so bad?

The professor’s posturing is not only annoying, but also dangerous. People like him make Africa look like a hopeless case. But Africans and friends of Africa know better.

It is important that we challenge this racist mind set being peddled about in the name of academia.

Zaya Yeebo

© May 2007

 Note: Niall Fergusson’s article, “Wearing a  red nose for Africa’s corrupt clowns is a bad joke” appeared in the Daily Telegraph, London

Ghana: The racist Professor’s’ Bigotry June 13, 2007

Responding to racist bigotry

Niall Ferguson’s Racist commentary on Ghana Misses the point.

Has anyone ever in Ghana ever heard of someone called Niall Ferguson? No. According to the Daily Telegraph (London), he is a professor of history at Harvard University. That is not all. Recently, this so-called Professor wrote an article which questions his judgement as a professor of history. It is a shameful piece of academic chicanery, racism in its tone and conclusions, and not worthy of print. But it got printed in the racist Daily Telegraph of London.

Entitled “Wearing a red nose for Africa’s corrupt clowns is a bad joke”, Niall Ferguson attacks the whole concept of charity, pegging his piece on so called failures in Ghana. Does he know Ghana at all? The answer is no. Niall Ferguson was referring to Comic Relief’s Red Nose Day (RND). Red Nose Day is held bi-annually to raise founds for good causes in Africa. Through this, Comic Relief has become one the biggest funders of African charity projects. So what was this virtual unknown academic called Nial Feguson saying?

According to this professor of history, Ghana  is so poor that it should not spend “$20 million dollars at a time when the average citizen has a daily income of around 67 pence ($1.33)”. He goes on, “You might also ask what exactly has Ghana  got to celebrate after 50 years of ‘freedom’.” Professor, i can tell you 50 good reasons why Ghana must celebrate. Not that it will ever make sense to you and other racists elsewhere.

Niall Ferguson’s racist diatribe does not end there. He tries in a sort of very un-academic way, to analyse Ghana. His lack of knowledge about Ghana is so glaring that it is not worth analysing here. For example, he claims that “the National Democratic Congress continues to rule the country.” He also claims that “in virtually every case (Botswana the sole exception), former British colonies in sub-Saharan Africa have fared worse under independence  than they did under British rule.” have fared worse. has he ever ventured into an Africa country? I doubt it. But people like do not need to. They feed the racist bigotry which continues to fester in western academic circles. Their thinking is like that of a clonial master, seemingly willing to help the colonised, while raping and mismanaging our resources for the good of the mother country.

The man’s understanding of  Kwame Nkrumah is so poor that I wonder what his students can ever learn from someone with such a racist mentality. Students of this professor need liberating from his arrogant, ignorant and obscurantist nonsense. He calls our leaders “knaves” , claims that someone said in 1957 that “the government is in the hands of knaves … in the hands of dupes”. If this is not racist, then I do not know what it is.

The same professor also claims that Nkrumah has a “KGB trained national Security Service” with a huge network of paid informers.” He goes on with his nonsense, claiming that Ghana is suffering from the “trap of bad governance”.  Ghana’s problem is “misgovernment”. With such bad professors, no wonder that some of his students will turn out to be CIA spies working to destroy countries like Ghana.

For him to write this at a time when the President of Ghana was visiting the UK, is to say the least an insult. The learned professor does not even bother to learn a little about Ghanaian history, so his piece is littered with historical inaccuracies. The learned professor hates Africa, he hates people and organisations trying to help Africa. He is a racist of the Hitler variety. For his racist and misguided crusade, he uses the Red Nose Day as his peg. For those who do not know, Red Nose day is a hugely popular and respected event organised by Comic Relief in the UK, to raise funds for projects in the UK and Africa. Not just Africa.

The professor even questions our right as a nation to celebrate the 50 years anniversary. Ghanaians do not owe the professor any excuse to celebrate our 50 years.

Whether we (Ghanaians) have achieved anything or not is our own business. As for Africa and its problems, people like Niall Ferguson whom we should be watching. In the payroll of the racist movement, and a wider imperialist conspiracy, they paint a picture of an Africa which no one who knows Africa can ever recognise.

Whatever the professor may think, there are many Africans and Ghanaians who will be grateful for what the people of the UK do through Comic Relief. I know one of the projects this professor dismissed – the African Women’s Support Group – is doing a wonderful job helping unskilled girls to gain skills. Is that so bad?

The professor’s posturing is not only annoying, but also dangerous. People like him make Africa look like a hopeless case. But Africans and friends of Africa know better.

It is important that we challenge this racist mind set being peddled about in the name of academia.

Zaya Yeebo

© May 2007

 Note: Niall Fergusson’s article, “Wearing a  red nose for Africa’s corrupt clowns is a bad joke” appeared in the Daily Telegraph, London

    

Exile Movements and Democratic Change in Africa June 12, 2007

Exiles Movements and Democratic Change in Africa 

Yusuf Hassan, a prominent Kenyan political activist in the 1980s, believes that by not discussing the role of exile movements in African, politics, we are leaving out a great part of the history f political struggles. He call this, the “missing chapter in the history of democratisation” in Africa. By this, he means that any examination of the recent history of Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria would reveal glaringly, how the exile opposition movements are denied their place in history. It is as if the exile movements did not play a central role in the return to constitutionalism and democracy. Yet the role of these groups in the democratisation process is far more remarkable than it is often recognised.

The political turmoil that engulfed some African states in the 1970s and early 1980s, invariably led to the flow of some major political groups towards western countries, principally, the UK, France, Germany, and the United States, among others. In the UK, the exile movement comprised major political groups and activists from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Cameroon, Uganda, the Gambia and Nigeria.  One common feature of these groups was their desire to continue the “struggle” for democracy back in their countries.

It has to be recognised that this was in the period of the cold war, and in no other continent was the cold war fought more bitterly than in Africa, where politics and society in general reflected the divisions created by the cold war. Politics in the 1970s and early 1980s reflected the international situation then. The flow of exiles is also symptomatic of the brain drain that has affected Africa for decades.

Countries which have experienced political instability and violence tend to have the greatest exodus of its professional and business classes. Ghana is a classic example of this phenomenon. Between 1966 and 1980, many professionals left Ghana to seek say or refugee status in other parts of the world. This exemplifies the political instability, economic chaos and general uncertainty of that period. Under the Rawlings regime, there was a deliberate attempt to drive out those who were most likely to oppose the regime or resist the political oppression and corruption of the era.

Ask any political exile and the answer you get is that they have no reason to leave for good. While in exile, he would campaign for political reform and democratic v change to create the environment for their return home. Getting exiles to return therefore requires significant political change as it happened in Ghana after the defeat of the National Democratic Congress regime. Historically, political exiles have played a significant role in democratic change in many Africa countries.

Two prominent leaders of Ghana, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah and the late Professor Abrefa Busia studied in the US and the United Kingdom, and were profoundly influenced by the debates about democracy from two differing political perspectives. Dr. Kwaem Nkrumah was influenced by the emerging pan African, and his association with other political exiles like RLC James influenced his radical thinking greatly. The late Dr. Kamuzu Banda lived in Ghana and was influennced by the emerging independence movement in Ghana, and later returned to campaign for the liberation of Malawi. In the same way, Zimbabwe’s  radical leader, Robert Mugabe studied in Ghana, where he met his wife and was influenced by  the ideas of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah.

While not describing themselves as “exiles”, they were nonetheless living outside the boundaries of the countries they sought to influence. This includes Jomo Kenyatta, Obafeimi Awolowo, Kwame Nkrumah, Kamuzu Banda, Kenneth Kaunda and Robert Mugabe. The leadership of the African National Congress of South Africa would qualify for this categorisation.

In the early 1980s, political exiles living in the United Kingdom, led by  the late Professor Mohammed Babu, played a leading role in mobilising Diaspora based African to campaign for the end of military dictatorships ad an end to one-party rule in Africa, and for a return to multi-party democracy. London in the 1980s was the bastion of anti-dictatorship struggles with almost every African country represented in the political circuits. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the repression initiated by  Mengisthu  and his Marxist Derg regime in Ethiopia in the 1980s drove hundreds of thousands of professionals, students, businessmen and women,  and generally every Ethiopian who has the means t lave did so. Some of these exiles who settled in London, the United States and other parts f the world,  helped to fund and organise the armed opposition that toppled Mengistu Haile Mariam in 1991.  Somali went through a similar phase spanning the time of Siad Barre to the time of his death and the breakout of the civil war.

In the 1980s, Ghanaian exile movements included the United Revolutionary Front, the Democratic Alliance of Ghana, the Ghana Democratic Movement, and several others. Most of these represented mainstream political parties like the Convention Peoples Party, and the Busia Danquah fraternity. The current leadership of he NP government includes prominent people who were then in exile. Honourable J. H. Mensah, General Hamidu, and several others top this list. Others like Major Boake Djan also played a leading role in mobilising exile movement for the restoration f democracy in Ghana.

Nowhere is the role of the exile movement more exemplified than South Africa under the white-minority apartheid regime. The fall of apartheid in South Africa was hugely influenced by the contribution of leading South African exiles from both the African national Congress (ANC) and the Pan African Congress (PAC). Leading exiles like Thabo Mbeki, now president, spent years in exile. Africans driven abroad by political repression, economic hardship and lack of academic freedom, often return to agitate for progressive political and social change. Exiles from Kenya, Ghana, Togo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Bukina Fasso, and many other countries have played and continue to play this role.

Since politics is a major cause of exile, political changes can also causes  many exiles to return home to take off from where they left. The end of the brutal Rawlings dictatorship brought many Ghanaian exiles and émigrés back home. The same situation applied in South Africa after the fall of the apartheid regime, the defeat of Daniel Arap Moi in Kenya in 2003, the fall of the Sani Abachi dictatorship in Nigeria. The end of apartheid brought South African exiles home in droves. 

The role of exile based organisations and intellectuals in moulding internal democratic processes are as old as history itself. History is replete with examples of exiled groups and intellectuals working to promote constitution making and democratisation processes. Academics and intellectuals who had lived in the Diaspora led the independence movement in Africa.

In some countries such as Rwanda, Uganda, Namibia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Sudan, former exiles have returned to play significant roles in their own countries. The list above would indicate a certain trend in this, i.e., where the internal opposition is armed, the role of the exile movement becomes central to their own post liberation role. However, in countries such as Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana, where opposition has mostly been peaceful the outcome has been different. It has not been so easy.

  

Exile movements in the Diaspora do not always have the same ideological or political orientation. It is also possible for one country to have several political groups divided mainly by ideology and sometimes ethnicity (e.g., Ghana and Nigeria).The congregation of these groups in the UK, mainly London, meant that networking became inevitable, especially, when some of these groups began to realise that the governments were exploiting their own internal divisions.

Another factor, which influenced these groups, was the international solidarity from various European groups and progressive individuals, especially in the UK. For example the Committee for the release of Political Prisoners in Kenya was  formed to campaign for the release of  Ngugi W’athiongo, and for greater freedom against what was then characterised as “the Arap Moi dictatorship”. This group campaigned against the Moi dictatorship and for the release of political prisoners in Kenya.

It is not an exaggeration to state that at some point, these groups became the only viable platforms for campaigning against one party dictatorships and for constitutional reform in some African countries. Kenya’s Mwakenya and the Nigerian democratic movement under the Abacha dictatorship are examples.   For example, in the 1980s, the Rawlings regime went through a period of severe political repression characterised by executions, detentions of opponents without trial, and general intimidation of the population. The only avenue to express dissent and to campaign for a return to democratic rule was through the opposition movements based in London, namely the left wing United Revolutionary Front (URF) and the right wing Campaign for Democracy in Ghana.

Ugandans, Cameroonians, Gambians, Sudanese, Ethiopians, etc. also did the same for their cause in London. These groups published propaganda materials, contributed cash and in some few cases, arm to their groups at home. They also linked up with human rights groups in Europe such as Africa Watch, the Africa Research & Information Bureau (ARIB), Amnesty International to campaign for the release of political prisoners.

Undoubtedly, the activities of these organisations and individuals contributed greatly to changing perceptions about the nature of these regimes and bolstered the activities of opposition groups in the home country.  The talk of the second liberation, third revolution, which would sweep away one-party dictatorships and their military counterparts, were born of this exile revolution.

It is this aspect of African history, and contribution to democracy that has yet to be debated, documented and studied. The exile movement remains in the UK, but its relevance is waning as most African governments take the constitutional road to democracy. This project seeks to discuss the role of exile movements in the democratisation process, and provide an avenue to examine the continuing role of these movements in the democratisation process.

While exile groups may contribute to Constitutionalism and the democratic process, they may also present some moral dilemmas. There is always a political contestation between exile groups based in the Diaspora and internal opposition groups. The main question for this being whether these groups really represent the national interest  (different contestations of the national interests based on class, ideology and the programme of a political movement).

 The Centre for Community Development Initiative’s “Exiles and Democratisation” Project has been looking at the role of these movements in African politics. Funded by the Ford Foundation, the project works with exile based political groups and individuals to examine in detail, the role that these movements have played and continued to play in African politics. Ultimately, it will fill a missing chapter in Africa’s quest for genuine democratic rule based on Constitutionalism and democratic reform.  

© Zaya YeeboApril 2005                      

Rawlings: A Threat to Democracy June 12, 2007

Rawlings: A threat to Democracy?   

Since he was voted out of power, Rawlings has dominated the news, sparking fears and anxiety that the old coup maker has similar plans. Taking swipes at the Kuffour government seems to be his main past time activity since he is unemployed. The question people are asking in secret is this – is he capable of another coup? This writer believes that the issues are far more complex, but no so  destabilising. It is quite unusual for a head of state whose party has lost an election, to continue to hound the incumbent in the way that Jerry Rawlings continues to hound his successor, President John Agyekum Kuffour.  But what is of concern to Ghanaians is the extent to which Rawlings’ constant outbursts posses a real threat to national security. To put it bluntly, does Rawlings constitute a present danger to the NPP government and the country? To answer this question requires a brief detour into the Rawlings record while in office. From the days of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council – AFRC (June – September 1979) to the Provisional National Defence Council (1982 – 2000), Rawlings has always presented himself as an ordinary person seeking to make life better for the ordinary Ghanaian. This is where most people were deceived into thinking that Rawlings differed from other past leaders in Ghanaian history.   In the AFRC/PNDC eras, Rawlings presented himself as champion of the masses, as an ordinary  person, one of the mmoborowa, by associating himself with the ordinary people and with radical political groups, youth leaders, workers, farmers, and anyone with a cause worth exploiting. But his own life style, which is completely out of this earth, speaks differently. He neither likes ordinary people, nor lives like them. Infact, he detests poor people. BUT, he has an aversion to exploiting the plight of poor people for his own inordinate ambitions. Rawlings is like a leech, sticking to the backside of ordinary people, exploiting their anxieties, their fears, their genuine problems, for his own goals.  Let us go back to 1979 – 1981 when Rawlings had been discharged from the armed forces by the Hilla Limann administration. He (Rawlings) made the University of Ghana his main home. Conniving, plotting, scheming, cheating and screaming his way to the minds of unionised Legon workers, the TUC (Trades Union Congress- Ghana), students, and members of the June Four Movement (JFM). Indeed anyone who felt disaffected by the inability of the Hilla Limann administration to deal with mounting social and economic problems and the resulting hardships. The seeds of the December 31^st coup and consequent events in Ghana, should be viewed from this angle. To what extent is Rawlings genuine in his attachment to popular causes?   History will decide whether the  Rawlings record is worth the paper it is written on. But as someone closely associated with Rawlings and the PNDC is the 1980s, I can deliver my own verdict. Contrary to what the foreign and local supporters of Rawlings would have us believe, the Rawlings record in Ghanaian politics is abysmal and indeed negative. As a leader, Rawlings sought to build a country based on brute force in which he brutalised anyone who disagreed with him. As  the Secretary of Youth and Sports in 1982, I was at the receiving end of this brutality when he personally invaded my house and arrested friends and colleagues, no reason was given. Rawlings brutalised his own vice President, and numerous others in government.  Under both the PNDC and NDC regimes, Rawlings spread the poison of dishonesty, deceit, corruption, dishonour and mistrust in government. Under him, the moral fabric of Ghana was destroyed beyond repair. Kuffour and the NPP inherited a country beholden to the IMF and the World Bank, who had for  several years, destabilised Ghana under the deceitful  notion of economic stability. Of course, the NPP is not complaining about that, they are only peeved that Rawlings stole their economic policies.  For a person with such abysmal record, decency would have dictated that Rawlings, having lost the election, should respect the electoral right of Ghanaians and  keep an arms length from intervening on every single issue. He should as  mark of respect and decorum, give President Kuffour the respect he deserves as President. But  never in Ghanaian history has this nation been treated to such a display of spite  and thwarted ambitions cloaked altruistic concern for the poor and mmoborowa.  Is it too much to ask Rawlings to give his successor an opportunity to try his hands at repairing some of the damage, even though we all know how humanly impossible a  task that is. That has not happened. What is Rawlings after?  In the minds of some young Ghanaians, there is a seductive but illusory notion that Rawlings the autocrat is better than Kuffour the liberal democrat. In some academic circles, the African ones included, the erratic, self serving leadership of Rawlings which resulted in several conflicts, and a state rife with patronage, corruption and incompetence and kalabule, is still preferable. To them, I say, you can have him. It is not difficult to imagine that in his own mind, Rawlings has ambitions of  returning to power, with the masses once again hailing the Juniour  Jesus (he refuses to hear the cry of Junior Judas). Rawlings is helped in this day-dreaming by his fellow travellers, those for whom power and affluence would have been a day dream, if they had not turned a revolutionary experiment into one gigantic national fraud and swindle. Another group helping Rawling are the African intellectuals and their cabal of Africa-American opportunists who continue to praise the Rawlings era. These people and their institutions are adept at trying to keep the Rawlings agenda alive, to what purpose, no one knows. However, we can be sure of one thing.  That Rawlings will not rest until he has tried his destabilising tactics to discredit Kuffour as he did to the late President Hilla Limann. I am no sympathiser of the NPP but dare I say that Kuffour is proving, to be better at managing the neo-colonial economy better than Rawlings ever did. I can hear howls of protests at this. But I stand to correction. In terms of economic policy, there is hardly any difference between the two. The difference is only inn terms of personal integrity. Even here, I dare say President Kuffour is miles ahead. But most important of all, Rawlings refusal to accept the inevitable truth – that he no longer runs the show in Ghana is the main problem. Rawlings has not been able to wean himself form  his toxic addiction to power and peoples adoration. But every show must end. So to what extent is Rawlings a threat to democracy and our stability as a nation? Not much. At best, and on his own, Rawlings is only an irritant. Ghana  today is a far cry from 1981 when some of us were willing tools in the soiled and shaky hands of Rawlings and his tribal cabal. The Africa of today is quite different from that of 1979/1981. The global situation is radically different as well. Today, coups are frowned upon, at least by Ghanaians. I do not see a situation in which Ghanaians will hail a coup – they never did in the past, be it 24^th February 1966 or 31^st December 1981. I also do not believe that the “orange” and “velvet” revolutions of Eastern Europe can be so easily replicated in Ghana or Africa overnight. At any rate, most Ghanaians would like to give the NPP and Kuffour a chance to prove their case. However, he (Rawlings) posses a danger in one regard. Being the populist demagogue that he is, Rawlings has the tendency to hijack others peoples causes, exploit them, and rip these causes apart for his own selfish ends. Economic problems, ethnic tensions in the North, a restive youth population, Northern fears about Akan (Ashanti) domination, concerns about the rising cost of the 50^th Anniversary celebrations, you name it. These represent a potent and toxic cocktail  of grievances that Rawlings needs to serve his addiction, and to convince his foreign praise singers. Certainly, Rawlings would exploit all or any of these for his own ends, and in the process, destroy all hopes of the NDC making an electoral come-back.  Without other people and their causes, without people fighting for him, Rawlings would be a naked emperor. He has neither the courage, nor the intellectual acumen to act on his own. He relies on raw passion, and people with grievances (real or imagined), to do his dirty work for him. In the PNDC era,  dedicated soldiers like Major Courage Quarshigah (now Minister of Health), Captain Baba Awuni, and and Sgt Akata-Pore, among others who did his fighting for him. How did Rawlings reward his colleagues and friends who risked life and limb to save him during the AFRC and PNDC periods?  The graveyards are littered with the bones of people who once stood by him,  and thought he had honourable motives. It will take people of extraordinary naivety to do the same today. After all, where are all those young soldiers who fought  to bring him to power in 1979 and 1981? Most of them ended up as victims of gruesome murders and summary executions (without trial). I can name several but this is not the place. How come he has fallen out with almost all those he worked with in the AFRC and the original PNDC eras? What does that say about him? None of this is new since I have detailed them in my book – “the Struggle for Popular Power.” History, it is said, repeats itself, first as a farce, and second as a tragedy. We have had enough tragic moments in Ghana’s history. It is time to jettison the false prophet – Rawlings and his clique of nation wreckers, and begin to enjoy the uninterrupted peace and dawn broadcasts favoured by coup makers. Ghanaians want to live in peace within the Parliamentary democratic system (with all its weaknesses) we have chosen as a people.  Ghanaians want to live enjoy the global respect that Nkrumah acquired for us, and to let our children, women and youth live in peace and harmony with one another. Is that too much to ask? Conflict in the North, and other destabilising factors can only lead to the sort of confusion which demagogues like Rawlings thrive on. Ghana may not be a perfect democracy, but the alternative Rawlings offers could be worse.  But before you despair, and think that all is lost, let me say that these are comic moments. There is a saying that  every market  has a madman. So perhaps, this is Ghana’s moment. Who can begrudge us?    

This article first appeared in the Ghanaian Oracle, May 2007

Zaya Yeebo© theghanaianoracle

RIP Fathia Nkrumah June 8, 2007

Ghana’s original first lady died this week. The Egyptian wife of Ghanas first president, she was a woman of great honour and respect, she did not abuse her office for personal gain, and was a good example, unlike others who have come after her.

Book of condolence

How the Aid Industry Promotes Poverty June 8, 2007

 A  new book, “The White man’s Burden” by professor of Economics at New York University, and a former employee of the World Bank argues that international development aid has become part of the problem of global poverty and not the solution. Care International, one of the global leaders of the aid industry, has also released a report, ‘Living on the Edge of Emergency — An Agenda for Change’ which also argues that “More than 120-million Africans face starvation because much of the £3-billion ($5,6-billion) in aid spent each year to help them is wasted.”  According to Care International, “aid arrives too late, is targeted at the wrong things and is usually only a short term measure that doesn’t tackle the root cause of hunger…It is a disgrace that money is still given too late and for such short periods, then spent on the wrong things to truly fight emergencies … There is no excuse, when by spending money more intelligently, we can bring an end to all but the most unpredictable food crises” said Geoffrey Dennis, CARE’s chief executive.  The statistics are quite disturbing. In the last 50 years, more than $2.3 trillion has been spent as development aid. So why are African children dying for lack of medicine costing less than $2?  There are those who insist that contrary to the facts, history is not the cause of our poverty, but I am not one of them. Colonialism, neo-colonialism and now, globalisation, are the causes of this disturbing trend. The problem is that any attempts to take an independent path, free of this aid strings that tie us into other people cesspits, is always frowned upon by our new crop of leaders, and sabotaged by the international system led by the United States.   Why has aid not helped to transform African economies? Why is it that the more aid a country gets, the more impoverished the people become. I ask these questions as someone which has worked in the aid industry for over 30 years. My first job after my post graduate studies was at the Upper Regional Agricultural Development Programme (URADEP), a World Bank-DFID programme for farmers in the Upper east region. Does anybody in the region remember FASCOM? In essence, we go back to the question posed by William Easterly in his book: that, “the West’s efforts to aid have done so much ill and so little good.” He gives examples like the Millennium Development Goals  (MDGs) whose stated goal is to halve word poverty by 2015.  However, his conclusions, are as porous as his attempts to be radical. It is true that the aid industry is full of grandiose policies and costly, and sometimes ineffectual  campaigns like the MDGs, but what do they actually achieve? One of such western liberal projects is the Millennium Villages idea. What does this mean? In essence, what  some western practitioners do is to plagiarise African initiatives, redress them in grandiose terms, sell them to donors, and make them sound as though this will solve the world’s problems. In the end, they don’t. Western NGOs, like their state-led development organisations,   refuse to learn from their mistakes. Donor-led initiatives have a very short life span – they begin and end with donor money. When the funding comes to an end, the project dies with it. Secondly, in the last 20 years in Africa, development aid has been limited to workshops, workshops and workshops, led by the new NGO elites. Most of this has no practical relevance to poverty reduction. African NGOs are not blame. The priorities for aid and donor support are set in Washington, London, The Hague, and other western capitals. Africans are only invited to consultation meetings where what is discussed hardly features in the final reports. This is because aid is tied to the foreign policy interests of western donor nations.   Organisations which call themselves non-governmental, receive more than 80%of their funding from the state: UK government, the US State Department, or the Danish Foreign Ministry, etc, etc. So even though some western NGOs may pretend to be ‘non-governmental’, they are governmental in practice. The Oxfams, Care International, International Rescue Committees, etc, etc, are closer to their governments than most African NGOs will ever be. Yet, I have been in meetings where African NGOs are derided and patronised by the their international counterparts because these African NGOs are supposedly close to their governments. At any rate, what is wrong with being close to a government? Look at the priorities of most donor organisations, and you will not fail to notice that building schools, health centres, day care centres,  or social centres do not top the list of their priorities. Since September 11, US aid has tended to favour organisations working to eliminate ‘terrorism’, but what about the causes of terrorism? What this implies is that western donors have the money, and they together with their cohorts, dictate how this money is spent. Governments such as that of the NPP follow suit, and behave as though poverty is not the reason why they sign the Millennium Challenge Accounts. If this is the case, northern Ghana will receive more than 60%of this grant, but what has happened?    

Scramble for Africa June 8, 2007

 Africa has once again become the theatre of struggle between the various world powers. How different is this from the scramble  for Africa in the 19^th-century? Africa has once again become a vital strategic arena for contest between the great powers – the United States, France, the United Kingdom, China, and to a lesser extent, India. This has once again raised the spectre of Africa becoming a proxy for other peoples wars and conflicts. In the era of the cold war, Africa became the theatre for conflict between the communists regimes of the east led by the Soviet Union and, and the capitalist regimes of the West led by the United States. How beneficial is this to the long suffering people of Africa? The doubting Thomas’s in Africa will see this as a red herring. They will argue that Africa has nothing to attract the supper powers.  In fact some academics in the US have argued that they do not need Africa. They were wrong. Africa is home to very strategic minerals, and has some of the largest deposits of these natural resources: timber, diamonds, gold, bauxite, and coltan. Of all these oil stands out as the most well known natural resource for which countries like the United States will go to war for. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is about oil. Nothing more.  Oil has become so important that there is intense competition between states and western multi nationals to  secure access to this important resource. According to the UN World Investment Report, foreign direct investment (FDI) flows are concentrated in oil, mining and gas. Eights of the world’s oil producing countries are in Africa: Nigeria, Sudan, Algeria, Chad, Egypt and Equatorial Guinea, Congo-Braziville and Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Sudan and Nigeria alone attracted 48% of  Africa’s investment flows.  The United States, ever the highest oil consuming nation, has said it will protect its interests to ensure that oil flow is not interrupted. The US is therefore intersected in Africa for this reason. It needs an alternative to the problematic areas of the Middle East, where US hegemony is under threat from anti-occupation forces in Iraq, and radical regimes in Iran and elsewhere. In Latin America, the US is facing similar problems from the radical Chavez regime in Venezuela. As its problems mount, the US is turning to Africa. At the moment, West Africa supplies 12% of the crude oil needs of the US. America’s own national intelligence Council predicts that this will rise to 25% by 2015. How can America protect its oil source? Apart from the US, France the United kingdom are also increasing their investments in Africa. France has huge investments in Francophone countries such as Gabon, Cameroon and Chad. while the UK also supports its former  colonies.  Apart form oil, Africa exports timber to Europe and china. The American forest and paper Association estimates that. Ghana is a major exporter of timber. Liberia, Cameroon, and Gabon are also on the list as major exporters of timber.   Military basesElsewhere in this edition, we carry an analysis of the concerns expressed by some Ghanaians that the US is planning a military base in Ghana. Both the US and the Ghanaian governments have denied this. But credible evidence points to the fact that is the US is to secure its interest in West Africa, it will need a military base. In February 2007, the US set up an African Command (Africom). The US has established bases and signed access agreements with 5 African countries, including Ghana, Gabon, Senegal, Mali and Namibia.   

Recolonising Africa June 8, 2007

Recolonsing Africa. Watch up for an update.