Press coverage of the African continent often highlights atrocities, paying the most attention to failed states like Somalia, genocide in Sudan, escalating insurgency threats in the Niger Delta region, and political thuggery in Zimbabwe, to name a few. However, on October 20, when Botswana’s former president Festus G. Mogae was awarded the annual Ibrahim Prize for his demonstration of excellence in African leadership, whispers of approval fluttered across the African plains. Mo Ibrahim, the Sudanese founder of the prize for Achievement in African Leadership, argues that “nothing, simply nothing, is more important for Africa than good governance,” a statement with which this blog can only concur. He told the New York Times that he hopes that prize will contribute to a lively debate about leadership in Africa, especially since almost everyone knows about Robert Mugabe while far fewer know about Festus G. Mogae. The award of this prize in Africa to an African leader highlights the undeniable fact that democratic changes, however incremental, are slowly occurring across the continent.
As noted in a previous post, the Ibrahim Index of African Governance is an assessment and ranking of 48 sub-Saharan African countries according to five general criteria: (i) safety and security; (ii) rule of law, transparency, and corruption; (iii) participation and human rights; (iv) sustainable economic opportunity; and (v) human development. Note that the index is quick to indicate that it is “based on international and locally acquired data for the 2006 year and does not reflect the myriad social, economic, and political upheavals affecting sub-Saharan Africa during 2007 and 2008.” This is an important qualification: while rigor in use of data is always sound; the fact is that indicator users tend to perceive the tools as reflective of current realities. Thus the Ibrahim index’s transparency about its data timing is welcome and should be taken into account when comparing the results to these of other indicators, including Countries at the Crossroads.
This year’s index also seems to demonstrate that size matters when examining issues of governance: most of ten best-run countries have relatively small populations. Moreover, as the Economist notes, “the resource-rich countries fill the bottom of the table” with lower scores on governance. This juxtaposition of larger against smaller countries raises the familiar questions about the effective and efficient use of resources by the larger countries, including Angola, the Congo-DRC, Chad, Kenya, Nigeria, and Sudan to construct the necessary democratic institutions to combat graft and anticorruption while establishing rule of law and giving civil liberties and public voice to their citizens. While such programs as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative have increased the pressure on resource-rich countries to harness such abundance to improved governance and equitable development, the lack of improvement is sobering.
As the 2008 Index indicates, 11 of the 16 countries covered in Countries at the Crossroads have declined in their rankings. Some of the comparisons are odd due to the differing time overlaps. For instance, the Ibrahim Index shows that Mauritania has the largest decrease in its ranking, plunging from 21st ranked in 2007 to 31st ranked in 2008. But being based on earlier data, the index does not take into account Mauritania’s brief democratic flowering, which peaked with the 2007 elections. Countries at the Crossroads 2007, conversely, showed Mauritania as sub-Saharan Africa’s largest gainer (out of a much smaller set) as the survey was published soon after Mauritania’s relatively strong balloting. Of course, now that the country has regressed, the Ibrahim rankings momentarily look appropriate. But again, the central message is that coverage periods are critical in terms of rankings.
Yet the question remains: can spotlighting the good work of African leaders (work which ideally would have been done anyway) really bring democratic changes to the continent? Probably not, or at least not on a continental scale. But if the prize helps even at the margins, citizens will benefit. In addition, much like the “MCC Effect,” an element of competition can induce policymakers to adopt a broader view. So while leaders should certainly be improving governance anyway – and proper systems of accountability are supposed to provide political incentives to do so – the Ibrahim Prize can’t hurt. In addition, if one takes a look at the recent influx of foreign leaders to the continent, Africa is clearly being courted by the world. As the Economist notes, hardly a “month has gone by without a country or group playing host to African leaders to win their favors.” Moreover, the IMF has selected Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia as stable enough countries to merit the rank of “emerging markets.” With more international attention being paid to the continent, perhaps leaders will perceive that greater benefits than previously can accrue to those who are viewed as successful leaders.
In the end, hopefully lessons about core democratic and governance principles can be learned and inculcated into the structures and institutions of African countries and the Ibrahim prize will no longer be necessary. So while some may call the Ibrahim prize a bribe or protection money to African leaders, now is the time to envisage what a stable, proposing and democratic African continent can look like and provide incentives to move countries toward achieving it. Festus G. Mogae’s work in consolidating democracy, stepping down after the end of his presidency, respecting civil liberties and the rule of law, and enacting anticorruption and transparency measures, all while fighting the AIDS pandemic, serves as one small example of the positive trends of democratic transition in Africa.
Photo Credit: Flickr user Christopher H. Fleming
