African Leaders are saboteurs of development

By Lord Aikins Adusei

It is a waste of time to argue that there is anything remarkable or worth emulating about the brand of leadership that is seen in Africa. Throughout Africa not a single country has been able to deliver its people from poverty, malnutrition and diseases. Almost all countries in Africa South of the Sahara are facing deep poverty and that includes resource rich counties like Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Senegal, Gabon, Cameroon, Ghana, and even South Africa.

Everywhere in the world whenever the word Africa is mentioned four words come to mind: poverty, hunger, wars and diseases. Apart from Botswana where the leaders have relatively been able to use their resources to advance the development of their people, the rest of Africa is nothing but misery. Misery in sense that the average African is hardly able to live one-third of the comfort that a citizen of the global north (US, Canada and Europe) is able to enjoy in his/her lifetime. Apart from the corrupt politicians, dictators and their cronies who live in luxury, the rest of the population have to survive the harsh realities of the African economy on less than two dollars a day.

Why is black Africa so different? Any time the question of poverty is raised black African leaders are quick to point to colonialism and slavery. But it is a fact that the era in which everything is blamed on colonialism and slavery is past and gone. India, South Korea, Malaysia, Hong Kong were all colonised yet they have been able to shake themselves of what Damisa Moyo terms the 'four apocalypse of hunger, disease, war and poverty'.

A visit to rural parts of Ghana shows that very little has changed economically since independence more than 50 years ago. In spite of the availablity of tractors and other advanced farming technologies that can be employed to increase productivity, farmers in Ghana still cultivate and harvest their crops with cutlasses and hoes, tools their forefathers used before they were colonised. The situation in Niger, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Togo, Benin is not different from that of Ghana. The extreme poverty and deprivation in countries in the Horn of Africa region and Ethiopia in particular continue to baffle economists and development thinkers after so much aid money has been poured into that region to no avail as politicians divert aid money into their own private bank accounts.

Any major study about why Africa is so different from the rest of the world points to the kind of leadership that exist in Africa. The leaders in Africa love power and will do anything to get it: rigging elections, organizing thugs to cause mayhem and violence, refusing to step down when their term of office end. The likes are Mwai Kibaki of Kenya, Mamadou Tandja of Niger and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe who employed violence and intimidation against members of opposition parties after loosing elections.

The leaders love to be worshipped and served as kings even though they claim to be servants of the people. They love to live in fine palaces, drive in convoys, attend state functions, deliver long speeches yet do not raise a finger to fight poverty and deprivation that are so common in their countries.

African politicians and traditional leaders and those in control of economic and political affairs are always interested in titles and the financial rewards that go with their office not the responsibilities attached to the office. Ghana's current President is a Law Professor but he seems to have no clue on how to move his country forward. He is surrounded by others with academic titles similar to his but the ministries, departments and the sectors they head have not changed since they took office earliear this year.

Malawi's president holds a doctorate degree but his country is no different from that of Togo, DRC or Gabon which are all being governed poorly by children of former dictators and thieves who took decades to mismanage their countries' economies and resources. Nigeria's current president has been titled "the first graduate president of Nigeria" but Nigeria with all its oil revenue and human resource is still steep in poverty, sometimes not even finding enough petrol to feed her economy despite being the biggest oil producer in Africa.

This contrasts the president of Brazil, Lula Da Silva who used to be a shoe shine boy and street vendor but is increasingly turning his country into economic power house thereby steering his country into economic independence and freedom . Where did Yar' Dua leave his thinking cap when he became president or what did he graduated from? I want to know because I still wonder why they are not applying what they learnt in school to free their countries from the international disgrace and weakness that have come to be associated with the continent. A poor Cuban seeking to leave her communist country said she "would be prepared to go anywhere except Africa". When asked why she said "how can I jump out of a frying pan into fire?". Meaning she cannot leave a bad situation in Cuba and get into a worse one in Africa.

In a conversation with a female Professor in Stockholm, Sweden about the poverty situation in Africa she asked angrily "well the leadership in Gabon claim to have used the huge oil revenue for infrastructure investment but is that the reality on the ground?" She continued, "Democratic Republic of Congo is a mess, Angola, Congo and Equatorial Guinea are an eyesore and as for Nigeria well I reserve my comment".

The monumental failures on the part of African leaders has given birth to the phrase 'Africa South of the Sahara' and the leaders seem to be happy with that phrase. Black African leaders have accepted the phrase with all the negative connotations it carries without reacting to challenge it. The phrase in its proper sense refers to a part of Africa which does not count in global politics; a toddler in everything important in the world, a backward part of the continent that continues to stand still while the rest of humanity is moving forward both technologically and scientifically. Africa whose people live in darkness despite 365 days of sunshine and availability of solar technology to convert the sunshine into solar energy.

It means Africa which is so poor in economic, social and political sense despite being rich in natural resources and hard working people: an Africa which is so poorly governed, whose leaders are corrupt and lack the capacity to plan and to initiate any programme of development on their own without being told to do so or helped by outsiders.

Africa where infrastructure decay is a norm, where rural life is nothing but a condemnation to abject poverty, hopelessness, misery and frustration.

Africa where ethnicity and tribalism are exploited by corrupt dictators and opportunists bringing a wave of negative tendencies of cronyism, nepotism, corruption and conflicts in its trail. Africa where politicians are happy to exploit the ignorance and illiteracy that have enslaved and prevented its people from taking their rightful place in the world community of continents.

Africa that has not learnt anything from its colonial experience and whose leaders continue to dance to the tune of Western and Chinese rhythm to their own peril; Africa which can be and is being recolonised by China and its rival competitors in Europe and North America through their multinational corporations. (Have you heard of Africom)? Africa whose leaders can be bought by multinational corporations with some few thousand dollars and allow multinational corporations to plunder their resources without any accountability.

Africa which is both economically and politically fragmented, have no common foreign policy, and no economic, immigration and agricultural policies and whose leaders see no wisdom in unity and are without a mouth in world affairs.

Africa which is so militarily weak and technologically paralysed to defend itself against external forces, their ideologies, philosophies and cultural pollution.

Africa whose leadership are morally bankrupt to criticise one another. Africa whose leaders have great ideas about how to rig and win elections, kill journalists, stifle press freedom, freedom of speech and association but have not the slightest idea as to how to fight chronic poverty. Africa whose leaders prefer to steal from their countries and bank their loot in foreign countries instead of using the money to build roads, hospitals, railway tracks, irrigation facilities, schools, electricity, housing and other social and economic infrastructures for the development and benefit of their own people. Africa where natural resources are a curse rather than a blessing.

Africa where an illiterate soldier with a gun in hand can easily become a president of a country tomorrow. Examples are Yahyah Jammeh of Gambia, Moussa Camara of Guinea, Gaddafi of Libya, Joseph Kabila of DRC, Mamadou Tandja of Niger, Museveni of Uganda, Mohamed Ould Abdelaziz of Mauritania, Al Bashir of Sudan, Francois Bozize of Central African Republic, Jerry Rawlings of Ghana, Valentine Strasser of Sierra Leone, Sergeant Doe of Liberia, and Kolingba and Jean-Bedel Bokasa of Central African Republic.

Egypt a purely desert country and a member of 'Africa north of the Sahara' recently sent food aid to Uganda, a country rich in minerals, soil, natural lakes, rivers but whose leaders see no wisdom in employing irrigation technology that could be used to increase food production to reduce hunger.

Africa which continues to beg for and depend on foreign aid despite sitting on huge natural wealth an act that defies any economic wisdom. Africa which continues to depend heavily on natural resource exploitation as the main economic activity without diversification despite the dangers of such economic approach to development.

Africa where women are treated as second class citizens, denied political representation and are coerced and used as sex objects and commodities by those in power. Africa where child bearing is a matter of life and death, where pregnant mothers die of preventable causes of deaths; where so many children die before they reach the age of five; where child labour and child poverty are the norm, and where both rural and urban children grow without proper education, healthcare, food, shelter, clothing and without future or hope.

Africa where economic hardship put people on death roll and cut short young bright lives. Africa where there is no mortgage, safety net for the poor and the aged and where owning a house or a car can be as daunting as climbing Everest. That is the true meaning of 'Africa South of the Sahara' which the leaders have accepted without a fight.

Most of these leaders make annual pilgrimage to London, Washington, Tokyo, Berlin, Beijing and see the infrastructures and the living standards of the people in these countries yet nothing pricks them to help their countries to do the same. When they are sick they are quick to take the next available plane to America, Europe or north Africa for treatment but forget to build the same hospitals and other institutions and infrastructures for the good of their countries. After blaming their monumental failures on colonialism and slavery they have now found a new scape goat: climate change and with it they can continue with their decades of inaction without having to lose anything.

Yoweri Museveni seems to be okay living in his palace enjoying almost three decades of his loot of Ugandan resources with his family and cronies. Obiang Nguema and his circle of friends live in their mansions surrounded by bodyguards yet the only 600, 000 people in his oil rich country live in 18th century conditions and likewise Sassou Nguesso of Congo-Brazzaville and Dos Santos of Angola .

The black African leader will accept bribe from companies and interest groups to stop implementing policies, programmes and projects that could help alleviate poverty in his country. the failure of Omar Bongo of Gabon to make his country the Switzerland of Africa can largely be linked to the hundreds of millions of dollars he received as bribe from Elf which allowed the company to loot Gabon's oil proceeds.

It is sad despite being the continent's biggest oil exporter Nigeria does not have a well developed petro-chemical industry and has to import most of her oil products abroad. How come Cameroon is so poor when the country exports oil every day? How come Equatorial Guinea is so poor when it is the third biggest oil exporting nation in Africa?

How come Angola is mired in deep poverty when oil revenues bring the country billions of dollars annually? How come Nigerians live in 18th century environment when oil proceeds flow into the country every day? The answer is the leaders. They are corrupt, power hungry, arrogant, ignorant, illiterate and visionless buffoons, who can neither think out of the box or understand what it means to be president, prime minister, senator, MP, councillor, Assemblyman, or a chief and who prey on the ignorance and powerlessness of their people to stay in power while amassing wealth at the expense of their countries. Chief among them is Yahyah Jammeh a murderer, blood sucker, sometimes a president, sometimes HIV/AIDS healer who makes a mockery of himself and the seat of the presidency in The Gambia and who like the rest of his colleagues in Guinea, Guinea Bissau, CAR, Ethiopia, Burkina Fasso, Niger, Mauritania and Ivory Coast cannot devise plans to steer their countries out of economic predicament.

They are what Ghanaians call 'Konongo kaya' which literally means saboteurs who will not raise a finger to do anything to help their countries and yet will not allow others to do it. Saboteurs whose continuous stay in power is the cause of Africa's woes and underdevelopment.If you happen to be in economic or business class and economic or development regions is discussed you will be surprised to know how Africa is bypassed several times even though it is strategically located at the centre of the globe. The discussion moves from North America to Europe to South East Asia then back to Latin America and to the Middle East without the mention of Africa. All these the leaders do not seem to worry about it. They are not bothered because they no know they are the cause, the saboteurs and enimies of Africa's development.

Black African leaders must put on their thinking caps. It is very disheartening to see women, and children die of starvation in many parts of Africa. At least we know these leaders don't care but at least they should give the people the chance they need to initiate their own development. I hope that some of the many advice I have offered will be adhered to by the leaders so that Africa can also take her rightful position in the world community of nations.

IMF, World Bank & Lending Institutions: Agents Promoting Poverty or Development? By Lord Aikins Adusei

According to The World Bank, it is, “a vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the world. We are not a bank in the common sense. We are made up of two unique development institutions owned by 184 member countries—the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA). Each institution plays a different but supportive role in our mission of global poverty reduction and the improvement of living standards. The IBRD focuses on middle income and creditworthy poor countries, while IDA focuses on the poorest countries in the world. Together we provide low-interest loans, interest-free credit and grants to developing countries for education, health, infrastructure, communications and many other purposes."

The above statement of claim taken from the World Bank website contains half truth. Yes it is true that in theory the World Bank would like to reduce global poverty but in practice it is the opposite. The fact still remains that both the Bank and the IMF have done very little to help the world´s poor rather their condition has been worsened by the past and present behaviour of the Banks. There is little evidence to back the claim of both institutions that they are a vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries. The World Bank may be a vital source of financial assistance to the corrupt regimes in these poor countries and not to the poor. There is no evidence to suggest that the poor people from third world countries have benefited from loans given to their governments. At best what the Bank and IMF have helped the poor countries to do is to build up massive debts that they may never be able to pay.

Third World countries including the whole of Africa have incurred trillions of dollars in debts through loans contracted from the Bank, IMF and Western governments which the people who now wallow in utter poverty, never benefited. Most of these conditional loans were either stolen or used to service debts already owned by these poor countries. Part of the loans were also used to pay foreign expatriates supplied to the poor countries by IMF, World Bank as ´technical experts´ but whose contribution is the result of poverty seen in the third world. Again the loans were used to prop up corrupt regimes who diverted the funds to their private bank accounts in Switzerland, France, Britain, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg and Austria among others.

In 2006 for example, developing countries owed $3.7-trillion in odious debt, servicing more than $570-billion per annum. An analysis by economist James Henry revealed that more than $1-trillion worth of loans "disappeared into corruption-ridden projects or was simply stolen outright". Out of this debt Africa owes $200 billion and uses $14 billion annually to service it, money that could be used to provide education, healthcare other basic needs for  the people. The over $200 billion that African countries owe to foreign creditors represents a crippling load that undermines economic and social progress. The all Africa Churches Conference says this debt and its servicing represent "a new form of slavery, as vicious as the slave trade".

The servicing of such massive debts has brought untold and worsening economic hardships to the poor as third world governments have been forced to freeze investments in education, health, transport, agriculture, housing, sanitation and other vital infrastructures. Evidence of this hardship are chronic poverty, malnutrition, diseases, starvation, hunger, decaying and inadequate infrastructures and economic failures seen everywhere in the developing world. The sad aspect of these debts servicing is that the current generation who are paying for it never requested it nor benefited from it in anyway. The debts were incurred at a time when these countries did not even need loans yet World Bank, IMF and Western governments encouraged them to go for it.

Africa Action a Not for Profit Organisation says, "The albatross of illegitimate debt diverts money directly from spending on health care, education and other important needs. While most people in Africa live on less than $2 per day, African countries are forced to spend almost $14 billion each year servicing old, illegitimate debts to rich country governments and their institutions, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Over the past two decades, African countries have paid out more in debt service to foreign creditors than they have received in development assistance or in new loans. Much of Africa's foreign debt is illegitimate in nature, having been incurred by unrepresentative and despotic regimes, mainly during the era of Cold War patronage. Loans were made to corrupt leaders who used the money for their own personal gain, often with the full knowledge and support of lenders. These loans did not benefit Africa's people. More generally, many Africans question the notion of an African "debt" to the U.S. and European countries after centuries of exploitation. They ask, "Who really owes whom?"Yet, despite the social and economic costs of this massive outflow of resources from the world's poorest region, the wealthy creditors of Africa's debts continue to insist these debts be repaid." Source www.africaaction.org /campaign_new /debt.php

Joseph Hanlon of Jubilee Research UK gives details to what happened to monies loaned to Mobutu of former Zaire now DR.Congo. He says: "Much of poor country debt is related to the Cold War, when both sides pushed money at their supporters. Zaire's ruler, Mobutu Sese Seko, was one of the world's most corrupt leaders and it was for his government that the word kleptocracy was first coined. Mobutu became one of the world's richest men, with a personal fortune estimated at more than $10 billion owning palaces in Europe and Zaire. But the West saw Mobutu as a loyal ally in the Cold War (in part for his support of the US, in its backing for UNITA in Angola). In 1978 the IMF appointed their own man, Edwin Blumenthal, to a key post in Zaire´s central bank. He resigned two years later, complaining of "sordid and pernicious corruption" that was so serious that "there is no chance, I repeat no chance, that Zaire's numerous creditors will ever recover their loans." And look what happened after this report.

Shortly after Blumenthal's report to the IMF, it gave Zaire the largest ever loan given to an African country. When Blumenthal wrote his report, Zaire's debt was $5 billion; by the time Mobutu was overthrown and died in 1998, the debt was over $13 billion. In the six years after Blumenthal's report, the IMF lent Zaire $600 million and the World Bank $650 million. In those six years Western governments lent Mobutu nearly $3 billion.

About 50% of the $13-billion was stolen and deposited in Western Banks notably Switzerland and France while the rest was wasted on white elephant projects that never solved the poverty problem in the country. Today majority of Congolese live on less than a dollar a day while hundreds of millions of dollars are paid to the IMF and World Bank every year as fees for loans taken and stolen by Mobutu.

In another classic example, the World Bank lent Indonesia a total of US$30 billion in the course of General Suharto's three decades of rule. In 1998, World Bank resident staff in Indonesia estimated that: "at least 20-30 per cent of GOI [Government of Indonesia] development budget funds are diverted through informal payments to GOI staff and politicians, and there is no basis to claim a smaller 'leakage' for Bank projects as our controls have little practical effect on the methods generally used". That means by the Bank's own account that up to US$9 billion of World Bank loans to Indonesia were wasted through corruption and that World Bank staff knew it. And they did absolutely nothing to stop the corruption. Today the poor people of Indonesia are still paying for the billions of dollars wasted before the eyes of IMF.

In Philippines during the regime of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, the Bank and IMF were absolutely aware of the fact that most loans to Philippines were transferred into the bank accounts of Ferdinand Marcos and his generals; nevertheless they considered it as a necessary bribe for paying the political staff in power in order to ensure the acceleration of the neoliberal counter reform. As a result World Bank lent Marcos $400m in 1980; $251m in 1982 and $600m in 1983 and Marcos deposited the money in his accounts in Switzerland. So far the Philipinos are still paying for the policies of the Bank and IMF.

Dr. Susan Hawley author of  Exporting Corruption has written extensively about how loans taken and diverted into private banks by Ferdinand Marcos have gruesomely affected Philippines´ development and her quest to reduce poverty. She says: "The US company, Westinghouse won a contract in the early 1970s to build the Bataan nuclear plant in the Philippines. It was alleged that Westinghouse gave President Ferdinand Marcos US$80 million in kickbacks. The plant cost $2.3 billion three times the price of a comparable plant built by the same company in Korea. Filipino taxpayers have spent $1.2 billion servicing the plant's debts even though the plant has never produced a single watt of electricity because it was built at the foot of a volcano near several earthquake faultlines. The Philippine government is still paying $170,000 a day in interest on the loans taken out to finance the nuclear plant and will continue to do so up to the year 2018. A Philippino Treasurer Leonor Briones recently commented on the loans: "It is a terrible burden which never fails to elicit feelings of rage, anger and frustration in me. We're talking of money that should have gone to basic services like schools and hospitals". Source: Dr. Susan Hawley.

Patricia Adams, executive director of Probe International, in her book Odious Debts estimates the Philippino dictator, Ferdinand Marcos, and his wife Imelda, pocketed literally one-third of the Philippines' entire borrowing – much of it in the form of kickbacks and commissions on aid and loan-funded projects. His personal wealth when he was overthrown was $10 billion. Source: Jubileeresearch.org.

The behaviour of the two Banks and other lending institutions to prop up corrupt regimes explains why after 50 years of loans there has not been any appreciable reduction in poverty levels world wide and especially in Africa. As I said the best the two Bretton Woods institutions have done is to help the poor countries to build massive debts and increase poverty. Today majority of the 945 million Africans (70%) live on less than two dollars a day meanwhile hundreds of billions of dollars have been loaned to their corrupt leaders and there is nothing to show for it.

James Wolfensohn, Ex-World Bank President seems to disagree and says: "As a public institution we are accountable for helping our borrowers to see that the money allocated under Bank-financed operations is being spent on what it should be spent on and that our borrowers are getting good value for what is being spent". But how does Wolfensohn reconcile his statement with reports regarding loans to dictators in Africa, Asia and South America that produced nothing but poverty? The question is has the billions of loans and aid to third world countries change anything for the poor people in those countries? Can Wolfensohn say with empirical evidence that countries that have borrowed money from the Bank got value for the money? I do not think so. There is no evidence to suggest that IMF and World Bank even made the effort to ensure the people benefited from the loans and there is no evidence to prove that both institutions made effort to recover the money from Mobutu, Suharto, Marcos, or the Banks in Switzerland after it became obvious the dictators had stashed the money in foreign Banks. The two mega banks did not make any effort because they knew future generations cannot afford to refuse to pay as that will be a stain on their credit worthiness. But how fair is it to ask people to pay for things they or their country never benefited?

Instead of being agents of growth, development and helping to fight poverty, what the two institutions and their western political masters have done so far is to entrench poverty, diseases, hunger, starvation and malnutrition in these poor voiceless countries. The pressure on the poor countries to meet their debt obligations has forced many of them to use scarce resources to service these debts to the detriment of their economies and their peoples. If indeed the Bank and the IMF are committed to reducing poverty why would they loan money to corrupt regimes or refuse to take responsibility for the failures of their own policies and actions? Why would they help poor countries to build massive debts only to wash their hands off the debt? And why should poor Africans, Asians and Latinos be made to pay the odious and illegitimate loans that they never benefited? Why should poor African and third world countries be made to take responsibility for the failures of IMF and the Bank´s ill conceived policies that have brought misery and untold hardships to the poor? Who should take responsibility for these odious and illegitimate debts is it the Bank who loaned out of negligence and without due diligence or the people who never benefited?

To ask these poor countries to continue to pay these debts is not only unfair but morally not justified. Poor countries should stop paying these odious and illegitimate debs unless the IMF and the World Bank can prove that the people benefited from it. World Bank and IMF were wilful accomplices to the loot, corruption and mismanagement that took place during Mobutu, Suharto, Marcos, Lansana Conte regimes and which are being repeated by the corrupt regimes of Obiang Nguema, Denis Sassou Nguesso, Gaddafi, Hosni Mubarak, Omar Bongo, Obiang Nguema and Blaise Campore. If lending institutions fail to demand proper accountability from these corrupt rulers then it would be unlawful and improper to ask future generations to pay for the sins of their rulers.

 When consultants Morgan Grenfell urged against the sale of the Uganda Commercial Bank, the World Bank and IMF insisted the sale go ahead. Sold to a Malaysian engineering consortium linked to the brother of the Ugandan president, the bank had to be re-nationalised in 1998 "after running into trouble giving out millions of dollars worth of dubious loans". According to the head of Uganda's privatisation unit, "When [the sale of Uganda Commercial Bank] went bad", the World Bank "disappeared off the radar screen" and refused to take any responsibility for it. Source: greenleft.org.au

Apart from their support for corrupt regimes, the Bank and IMF prescriptive policies have also played a huge role in entrenching poverty in the third world. Worth mentioning are the structural adjustment programme and trade liberalisation which were sold to the poor countries by these financial institutions and supported by the western economic saboteurs. The fact is that the SAP and trade liberalisation among others were ill formulated, implemented and monitored with the results that countries that embraced them have all lived to regret.

The SAP forced onto poor third world countries by the Bank and the IMF forced their governments to abandon their support for the public sector with serious devastating consequences to the health, education and agric sectors. The withdrawal of farm subsidies in particular made it difficult for farmers to produce to support local consumption or compete with their rich Western counterparts who receive billions of dollars of government subsidies every year. The unrests and disturbances over food shortages and high food prices that occurred in Egypt, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Mauritania, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia and Sierra Leone in 2008 were the direct result of the Bank and IMF bitter pills prescribed to these poor countries.

Trade liberalisation required the poor countries to privatise or close down certain companies, opening up the economy to foreign goods, reforming economic policy, liberalising labour market, eliminating subsidies, and environmental regulations, eliminating set prices for producers and consumers, increasing exports, cutting government expenditures and giving foreign multinationals free hands to do as they wish often to the detriment of the countries concerned. The cost of trade liberalisation to third world countries is estimated to be $300-billion.

The sad aspect of this exercise is that almost all the companies that were sold went to foreigners and cronies of corrupt government officials and the proceeds stolen or used to service debts already owned by these poor nations. This policy also led to closure of a number of factories, and decline in agriculture output that were sources of livelihoods to hundreds of millions of families. The mention of this retrenchment exercise always brings painful memories to millions who lost their jobs and had to live a life of squalor without any help or whatsoever from their governments.

Also the Bank and the IMF tax and trade policies towards these poor countries always put them at a disadvantage positions when dealing with multinational corporations. Many poor countries are forced to grant tax concessions to multinational corporations as a favour for investing in the third world economies. These concessions include instituting secrete memorandums of agreement, subsidies to foreign corporations and massive tax concessions (such as income tax, usage fees, property tax) which are the primary source of revenue for export-oriented developing countries.

How do you fight poverty when rich companies are made to pay close to nothing for raping countries of their natural resources? Why wouldn´t poverty increase and people die of starvation, hunger and diseases when money meant for development are used to service debts for which the people never benefited?

In an article by Khadija Sharife entitled Capital Flight: Gingerbread Havens, Cannibalised Economies she wrote: "The IMF and World Bank tax policies towards the developing world is very lethal especially where the poor are now caught in tax brackets, courtesy of the IMF and World Bank´s structural adjustment programmes (SAP), instituting policies ranging from tax holidays to the privatisation of state services, carving out huge slices of natural capital at corporate auctions. Africa has collectively lost more than $600-billion in capital flight, excluding other mechanisms of flight such as ecological debt (globally estimated at a potential $1.8-trillion per annum). Thus with the support and collusion of IMF and the Bank, poor countries are loosing billions of dollars in revenue to rich multinational corporations.

The unflinching support that the Bank and the IMF give to multinational corporations against the wishes of third world governments is another reason why poverty is still rampant in Africa and elsewhere. For example, in 1998 the Pakistani anti-corruption agency investigated over 20 Western companies for paying kickbacks to Benazir Bhutto's government for public contracts to provide electricity. Six of the companies later confessed to offering bribes. Instead of receiving support from Britain, France, the US, IMF, World Bank and other Western governments they were told to quash the investigation on the grounds that investors would shy away from Pakistan. The IMF even made a package of loans conditional on the government dropping the charges against the companies involved. Source:www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=51975. In the end Pakistan had no choice but to stop the investigations.

It is on record that about 45% of all World Bank project contracts go to multinationals in the US, Germany and Britain why? Why not companies in these poor countries where the projects take place and who finally end up paying for the projects?

But it is not surprising that these multinational financial institutions behave the way they did. Both institutions only acknowledged in 1996 the role corruption plays in entrenching poverty after more than 50 years in existence. Why did they continue to loan to the dictators after mounting evidence that they were looting the loans? Why did it take World Bank 50 years to recognise the devastating impact corruption was having on the world´s poor? Could it be that both institutions are corrupt themselves?

Dr. Jeffrey Winters of Northwestern University says, "The World Bank has participated mostly passively in the corruption of roughly $100 billion of its loan funds intended for development." Other experts estimate that between 5 percent and 25 percent of the $525 billion that the World Bank has lent since 1946 has been misused. This is equivalent to between $26 billion and $130 billion. Even if corruption is at the low end of estimates, millions of people living in poverty have lost opportunities to improve their health, education, and economic condition".

And Sen. Richard G. Lugar speaking about corruption in the World Bank and its impact in fighting poverty said, "Corruption thwarts development efforts in many ways. Bribes can influence important World Bank decisions on projects and on contractors. Misuse of funds can inflate project costs; deny needed assistance to the poor, and cause projects to fail. Stolen money may prop up dictatorships and finance human rights abuses. Moreover, when developing countries lose development bank funds through corruption, the taxpayers in those poor countries are still obligated to repay the development banks. So, not only are the impoverished cheated out of development benefits, they are left to repay the resulting debts to the banks."

In fact, allegations of corruption at the Bretton Woods institutions are as old as the institutions themselves. In 1994, marking the 50th anniversary of its creation at Bretton Woods, South End Press released "50 Years is Enough: The Case Against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund," edited by Kevin Danaher. The book details official Bank and IMF reports that reveal the same kind of corruption and embezzlement back then. In addition, it revealed different types of corruption, for instance, "Beyond the wasted money and the environmental devastation, there was an even more sinister side to the Bank during the McNamara years: the World Bank's predilection for increasing support to military regimes that tortured and murdered their subjects, sometimes immediately after the violent overthrow of more democratic governments.

In 1979, Senator James Abourezk (D-South Dakota) denounced the bank on the Senate floor, noting that the Bank was increasing 'loans to four newly repressive governments [Chile, Uruguay, Argentina and the Philippines] twice as fast as all others.' He noted that 15 of the world's most repressive governments would receive a third of all World Bank loan commitments in 1979, and that Congress and the Carter administration had cut off bilateral aid to four of the 15 --Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Ethiopia -- for flagrant human rights violations. He blasted the Bank's 'excessive secretiveness' and reminded his colleagues that 'we vote the money, yet we do not know where it goes." There is no doubt the money was stolen by the corrupt government officials and dictators who received the money. But the sad thing is that the Bank and IMF have failed to take responsibility for their actions pushing the blame on the poor countries and their poor people who never benefited from it.

Fifty years of loans to the world´s poor and fifty years of extreme poverty and odious debt among the world´s poor. It is as if the World Bank has guided these countries into poverty rather than fight poverty. Can we say these mega financial institutions are truly there to help the world´s poor fight poverty or they serve a higher authority whose aim is to keep the world´s poor in debt and in poverty as Jenkins pointed out is his book 'The Confessions of Economic Hit Man'? That is in reality do the Bank and IMF promote poverty or development?

By Lord Aikins Adusei

The Author is a political activist and anti-corruption campaigner.

Fulfilling Africa’s Economic Dreams

Part I: Africa Must Achieve Political Stability First Before Economic Development

The greatest threat to the economic development of Africa is political instability. Political stability is the foundation of economic development; it is the magic bullet and the magnet that holds all other activities in a country together; and provides the avenue for investment, job creation and raise the necessary revenue needed to fight poverty and diseases. Economic development thrives well in atmosphere of peace and tranquillity.

Since independence many of the countries in Africa have known only wars, coups, dictatorships and violence. This cycle of political instabilities has established the continent as a no go area for investors. Africa scores badly among investors as a place where the risk of investment is high and where businesses are done contrary to norm. Such concerns are largely informed by the anarchy in Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Northern Uganda, Guinea, Mauritania and the dictatorships in Gabon, Libya, Equatorial Guinea, Zimbabwe and many other places.

It is also informed by the violence in Kenya, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and the tensions in Ivory Coast. Such instabilities, wars and election violence seen in Africa are the major reasons why investors shy away from the continent; capital flight is high and the confidence of those with investment in the continent continue to wane. At the moment about $150b leave the continent annually due in part to the political stalemate in Sudan, Chad, DRC, Niger Delta, Northern Uganda, and the Great Lake Region.

The chaos, confusion and violence that always characterise elections create an atmosphere that only work to isolate the continent as attractive destination for investment and are the reasons why the continent is seen as the most expensive place in the world to do business. All these instabilities do not help the image of the continent and is a factor why endemic poverty is rampant.

Therefore to ensure investor confidence, promote and sustain economic development and growth, there should be a complete political stability in the whole of the continent. Without political stability it is impossible to achieve any economic development and fight poverty. It is a fact that you cannot rebuild your house while it is still in flames and so African countries must ensure they get stability first before talking about economic development. How do you construct roads in war zones or build a factory in militarised territories? Political stability is the homework African countries must do in order to achieve economic development. Establishing political stability through democratic processes is the magic bullet needed to defeat poverty.

To achieve political stability there are a number of tough decisions Africans must make. First the leadership in the continent must realise that instability anywhere is a threat to stability everywhere and cooperation from all the leaders is what is needed to defeat the instabilities. Therefore they must work together and coordinate to eliminate all those factors that act as magnet to engineer and fuel the instabilities.

Tyrannical rule, civil wars, and military adventurism must give way to democratic governance. It is the only way that can bring stability to the continent and prepare her for the economic development that has eluded her peoples for decades. Political stability is highly compatible with economic development; a disruption of one is a disruption of the other. Democratic governance is the political path Africa must chart if it is to prepare itself for economic development and social progress in this 21st Century and beyond.

This therefore calls for an end to dictatorial rule in all parts of the continent especially in Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Congo, Libya, Egypt and Zimbabwe where few people, their families and cronies have hijacked their countries and taken the people hostage. All undemocratic leaders and tyrants must be made to understand that the days of unchecked and unaccounted power and despotic rule are over. The current situation where Gaddafi, an absolute dictator is calling for a federal Africa is totally unacceptable. The only acceptable way is for all leaders including Gaddafi, Obiang Nguema, and Blaise Campore to make themselves available for elections if they wish to serve the people and I mean serve the people not to be served by the people. All leaders in the continent must be reminded that they do not own their countries and the resources in them. The claim by Mugabe that “Zimbabwe is mine” should be condemned unequivocally.

The stability also calls for an end to all civil conflicts, military interventions and armed rebellious currently seen in Sudan, Uganda, DRC, Guinea, Mauritania, Chad, Nigeria and Ivory Coast. Use must be made of the few Africa role models in the continent like Joachim Chissano, Kofi Annan and Desmond Tutu to mediate to bring an end to the conflicts in Darfur, Somalia, Northern Uganda, DRC and all the troubled parts of the continent. All parties including individuals and groups with grievances must be encouraged to seek redress from the court instead of rushing to take up arms.

The leaders must realise that the current state of political unrest in Africa is in nobody’s interest not governments, opposition parties or the people and that is the more reason why democratic reforms must be spearheaded in countries where people have fewer political rights and cannot democratically change their leaders. People must be given the chance to elect their own leaders.

There should be a level playing field for the ruling governments and opposition parties so as to avoid allegations of vote rigging that are major cause of instabilities and violence in Ivory Coast, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Somalia among others. To ensure this there should be financial support to political parties and all parties must have unrestricted access to the state media. Again election observers must be allowed without any restriction to observe elections and make their own assessments without pressure from any quarters.

The AU and the sub regional bodies such as ECOWAS, SADC, EADC, COMESA, AMU and ECCA have a major role to play in ensuring the stability. The AU leaders must be reminded that instability anywhere is a threat to stability everywhere. The days where few individuals take over power and do what they like without the AU or sub-regional bodies saying or doing anything must end. Therefore, the Charters of AU and sub regional bodies should be implemented to the letter and all those who violate the charters should be punished severely. All clauses that limit the bodies from criticising or having greater role to play in times of crisis should be removed. 

The democratic countries in the continent should work closely together and encourage the less democratic ones to adopt reforms with the aim that Africa stands to gain more from being democratic than being under dictatorships and civil conflicts. Therefore all nations must be encouraged to ratify and implement the New Partnership for Africa Development (NEPAD) charter.

In addition each country should have a constitution that caps or stipulates a fixed term of office for political office holders and that fixed term should be adhered to even if a candidate is a messiah. The current situation in Algeria and Tunisia where both presidents have changed the constitution in order to run for a third term of office and in Nigeria where Olusegun Obasanjo tried unsuccessfully to run for a third term is very unfortunate and must be discouraged at all a cost for it is such actions by African rulers that have brought wars, coups and mayhem to however a peaceful people. Such actions only fuel corruption, nepotism, cronyism, abuse of power and mistrust between the ruling and opposition parties and serve as breeding ground for coups, civil unrest and political instabilities.

Even though the number of armed conflicts has gone down compared to a decade ago, the continent is still prone to instabilities and giving such a political climate, it is obvious that political stability will not be possible without an African Military High Command with powers to respond to crisis, emergencies and to crash any rebellion, arms insurgence that may show its ugly head in the Africa political scene. The establishment of AMHC should however be done on condition that all leaders will submit themselves to the rigour of elections and allow their people to choose whoever they want to lead them without intimidation, threats or whatsoever.

Tyrannical rule and military regimes are highly incompatible with the establishment AMHC and therefore all effort must be made to ensure that the wishes of the people are respected and that leaders are not forced onto the people unnecessary. Already the Southern Africa Development Community has created what they call SADC Brigade and it is beginning to make impact in the region which is encouraging.

The Pan-Africa Parliament should be fully resourced to deal with issues affecting the continent more importantly corruption, poverty, environmental degradation and political instabilities. Laws enacted by parliament must be binding on all members and countries that frown on the laws must be severely sanctioned.

The Africa Court of Justice must be made the highest in the continent with powers to settle disputes between and within countries. It must be a court of last resort in the continent and its ruling must be respected.

Africans cannot build a just society without a strong media and contribution of civil society organisations. The media, civil society organisations must be allowed to operate freely without fear of intimidation or attack and under no circumstances should a media house, NGO, and CBO be barred from operating in a country. Therefore in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea and in many other countries where the media and NGOs have been banned, the governments involved must be forced by the AU to let them in.

Western political and business leaders must stop doing business with all the dictators, and coup makers the likes of Bongo, Obiang Nguema, Gaddafi, Mugabe and all those who have used undemocratic means to hold on to power. Sanctions and embargo targeting these leaders (not their people) should be enforced so as to force them to loose their grip on power. Western and Asia defence companies and contractors who illegally and irresponsibly ship arms to the continent to fuel the conflict and create instabilities for their own selfish interests must be identified and barred from doing any business in the continent.

A democratic Africa free from tyrants, coups, civil wars is the single most important ingredient necessary for attaining economic development because it is an undisputable fact that development thrives in atmosphere of peace and tranquillity not hostilities, instabilities and tyrannical rule. There is no way Gaddafi who doubles as Chairman of AU and head of state of Libya could advice Mugabe or Mwai Kibaki to accept election defeat when he (Gaddafi) has been a dictator for 39 years. There is no way Omar Bongo could advice Obiang Nguema when Bongo is the longest ruling head of state in the world. For Gaddafi and Bongo to offer any genuine advice they must relinquish power and allow free and fair elections to take place. Tyrannical rule, civil wars, and military adventurism must give way to democratic governance. It is the only way that can bring stability to the continent and prepare her for the economic development that has eluded her peoples for decades. Political stability is highly compatible with economic development; a disruption of one is a disruption of the other. This is the political path Africa must chart if it is to prepare itself for economic development and social progress in this 21st Century and beyond.

By Lord Aikins Adusei

The Author is a Political Activist and Anti Corruption Campaigner. He blogs at www.iloveafrica2.blogspot.com

Where are Africa’s Political Role Models?

Since Abraham Lincoln became the role model for President Barack Obama, I wonder which African politician President Obama could have picked as a role model if he had run as a candidate in any African country. Currently there are about 53 presidents and prime ministers whose countries form the Africa Union. It should therefore not be difficult to find role models among such a large contingent of leaders.

A google search for possible role model candidates led to Mobutu Sese Seku, Sani Abacha, Iddi Amin Dada, Gnassingbe Eyadema of Togo, Samuel Doe of Liberia, Charles Taylor, Emperor Jean-Bedel Bokassa of Central Africa, Ibrahim Babangida, Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, Lansana Conte of Guinea, Museveni- Uganda, Milton Obote of Uganda, Bakili Muluzi, Laurent Kabila, Kwame Nkrumah, Jerry John Rawlings, Blaise Campore, Arap Moi, Hosni Mubarak, Omar Al Bashir, Gaddafi, Omar Bongo, Obiang Nguema, Sassou Nguesso, Eduardo dos Santos, Francois Bozize of Central Africa, Yahya Jammeh of Gambia, Iddriss Deby of Chad, Valentine Strasser of Sierra Leone,  Mwai Kibaki, Mengistu Haile Mariam and Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia.

After a careful examination and analysis of their record President Obama may find it difficult to settle for any of the above. The reason is that almost all of them have been accused of embezzling hundreds of millions of dollars belonging to their poor countries. Again all of them have demonstrated poor leadership, political immaturity, are insensitive to the plight of the people and have shown no understanding of issues affecting the people including fighting poverty.

Additionally, nearly all of them established one party dictatorship; killed, imprisoned or exiled their opponents; aggressively destroyed press freedom, freedom of speech and association; banned their opponents from contesting elections; kept their people in perpetual poverty while living opulence and extravagant lifestyles.   

Furthermore, virtually all of them were or are dictators who have committed human rights abuses against their countrymen including murder, torture and force imprisonment. Besides, almost all of them were or are military or rebel leaders who illegally ceased power through the barrel of the gun and subjected their people to inhuman treatment including torture, extrajudicial killings and murder. Those who came to power through the ballot box have become anti-democrats and the International Criminal Court is seeking to put a number of them on trial for human right abuses and war crimes.

Moreover, a good number of them have spent decades in power and are unwilling to relinquish it despite their huge failures seen in the form of poverty, diseases, homelessness and wars. Example Omar Bongo of Gabon has ruled for 42 years, Gaddafi of Libya 39 years; Dos Santos and Sassou Nguesso 30 years each; Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea and Robert Mugabe 28 years each, Hosni Mubarak 27 years, Paul Biya of Cameroon 26 years, Yoweri Museveni of Uganda 23 years, Omar Al Bashir of Sudan 20 years, Iddriss Derby of Chad 18 years, Yahya Jammeh of Gambia 14 years.

What is more, despite years in office none has been able to build a successful economy for their people. Despite receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in loans and grants from the IMF, the World Bank, USA, Japan, China and European nations; and also receiving trillions of dollars in revenue from oil, gas, gold, diamond, timber, copper, coltan not a single one of them was able or has been able to put their economies on the level equal to that of the Asia Tigers or even the smallest economy in the European Union. Out of the 53 countries making the Africa Union only one was invited to take part in the G20 Summit that ended in April 2009. Their failure to eradicate poverty has prompted questions as to whether Africans can ever build a prosperous society devoid of abject poverty, blatant official corruption, mismanagement and tyrannical rule.

The Who is Who of Africa’s corruption ranking feature Mobutu at the top. He is followed closely by Sani Abacha of Nigeria, Omar Bongo, Eyadema, Hosni Mubarak, Denis Sassou Nguesso, Eduardo Dos Santos, Obiang Nguema, Lansana Conte, Arap Moi, Gaddafi, Ibrahim Babangida of Nigeria, Blaise Campore of Burkina Faso, Museveni of Uganda, Paul Biya of Cameroon, Jerry Rawlings of Ghana, Charles Taylor of Liberia, Iddriss Deby of Chad, Bakili Muluzi -Malawi, Frederick Chiluba of Zambia, Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia and Jacob Zuma of South Africa. There are many whose corruption status has not yet been determined. Among them are Joseph Kabila, Paul Kagame, Robert Mugabe, Kenneth Kaunda, Francois Bozize, Yahya Jammeh of Gambia and a host of others.

Corruption, malfeasance, tyranny, mismanagement, nepotism, cronyism, human rights abuse, incompetence and media censorship run through almost all the countries in Africa.

Ghana became the first territory south of the Sahara to gain independence in 1957. In 1966 the army ousted Nkrumah who had ushered in a one party state and was on his way to become a dictator. Nkrumah introduced the Prevention Detention Act in which his political opponents were arrested, tortured and imprisoned without trial. Others were murdered and those who had the chance to flee sought asylum in foreign countries. One coup in 1979 and a second one in 1981 brought Jerry Rawlings to power who spared no effort to annihilate his perceived opponents. He ruled till 1992 when he changed his military uniform into civilian and ruled for another 8 years. Jerry Rawlings, the longest ruling tyrant in Ghana killed all the former heads of state by firing squad leaving only Dr. Limann who lived a miserable life till his death. His administration was largely corrupt and marred by nepotism. He is discredited for sowing the seed of tribal animosities in the country especially between the Akans and the Ewes. In 2000 after 19 years in power and under pressure from the West and the people, Rawlings unwillingly handed over power to an opposition government when his party the National Democratic Congress lost the elections to the New Patriotic Party.  The Fourth Republican Constitution drawn up by his regime has a lot of clauses that make him unanswerable to the abuses committed during his regime.

Since independence in 1960 Gabon had known only two leaders. Leone Mba who was elected president in 1961 and ruled till his death in 1967 and was succeeded by Omar Bongo who has since ruled the oil rich but socially and economically impoverished nation for 42 years. He is widely seen as one of the wealthiest and most corrupt rulers in the world. Bongo was a subject of French police investigation that uncovered that he owned at least 33 luxury properties. In February 2009 his nine bank accounts were frozen by a French court. He was implicated in the trial of former Elf Aquitaine executives for accepting bribes to the tune of $40m annually in exchange for oil concessions. A US Senate report of 1997 accused him of spending $100m annually mainly from his Gabon coffers. A US Senate inquiry in 1999 revealed that the giant Citibank held private accounts for Bongo who transferred US$100 million, into it. French News Papers including Le Monde have uncovered about 59 properties owned by him and his family including one bought in 2007 at the cost of 18.8 million Euros. He was sued by Transparency International for stealing Gabon’s resources.

Jomo Kenyatta became Kenya’s leader at independence in 1963 and ruled till 1978. As usual Kenyatta’s Kenya Africa National Union (KANU) was made the only official political party which controlled Kenya for four decades. Kenyatta was replaced by Daniel Arap Moi who also ruled till 2002. Moi’s 24 year reign was a dictatorship marred by official corruption and nepotism. He was accused in a report by Kroll International of having banked £1b in foreign banks. He and his family are known to own several properties in Britain and Australia among others. He avoided prosecution for corruption in 2003. Mwai Kibaki who succeeded Moi in 2002 faced a re-election battle which was marred by violence. He has been accused of sheltering Moi and his cronies and not doing enough to fight corruption which cost Kenya at least $1b a year.

Since independence in 1958 Guinea has known only two leaders Sekou Toure who ruled from independence till his death in 1984 and Lansana Conte who seized power in a coup in the year Sekou Toure died. Conte ruled from1984 till his death in 2008. He is seen as one thee most corrupt leaders ever to have ruled an African state. He has been accused of pocketing 70% of all revenues coming from the sale of bauxite in Guinea. A dictator for a quarter of a century he can only be remembered for bringing poverty, misery, deprivation and cronyism to Guinea. After his death army officers led by Capt. Moussa Camara have also seized power and there is little sign that the poverty stricken country will ever taste democracy.

The presidency of Equatorial Guinea has been dominated by two men from the same family since independence from Spain in 1968. Mr Obiang Nguema the current president overthrew his uncle, President Francisco Nguema, in 1979, had him tried and executed. Since taking power Obiang Nguema has presided over a corrupt government. He has curtailed rights and freedoms of his people; allows no opposing views and has dealt mercilessly with the media. Human rights abuses in his fiefdom are widespread and head of the opposition is in exile. Many of the 600,000 inhabitants of his country live in poverty despite billions of dollars of revenue from oil. He and five other corrupt leaders were sued by Transparency International over allegations of corruption and embezzlement.

In Uganda after independence in 1962 and short period of democratic governance the country became a hot bed for coups and counter coups that saw Milton Obote toppled twice; Iddi Amin becoming life president; invasion by Tanzania and a civil war that brought Colonel Yoweri Museveni into power in 1986. Museveni has since ruled till today, he has been in power for 23 years. Like many of his contemporaries his government is very popular in promoting corruption, nepotism and cronyism. Museveni’s government is nothing more than an oligarchy. In Uganda Museveni is the president; his wife Janet Keinembabazi Kataha Museveni is the First Lady, MP and a Minister; his son Major Muhoozi Kainerugaba is an army commander of his elite group and a possible successor of Museveni. Museveni’s younger brother, Caleb Akandwanaho, is senior presidential advisor on defence. His daughter Natasha Karugire is private secretary to the president. He has vehemently resisted all calls to introduce democratic reforms in Uganda.

In South Africa after the brutal regime of the apartheid government came to an end, Nelson Mandela took over and successfully handed power to Mbeki after just one term in office. However, Mbeki was forced out office in September 2008 after a bitter power struggle with Zuma. Mbeki refused to embark on campaign to curb the menace of HIV/AIDS which killed several people under his watch. Crimes of all categories have increased and it seems the nation is slowly joining the rest of the continent as a poor developing country. Jacob Zuma who is likely to become President is embroiled in corruption allegations and a rape case against him was dismissed by the court. His reputation has been badly damaged by the rape and corruption charges brought against him.

In Zambia, Kenneth Kaunda ruled from 1964 the year of independence till 1991 a total of 27 years. He embarked on one party rule that barred opposition parties from actively engaging in politics. Despite being a major copper producer, Zambia under Kaunda’s watch slipped from being a potential economic power house into one of the poorest countries in the world. He was accused of corruption by Chiluba’s government and spent a few time in jail. His major contribution was to the independence struggles of South Africa and Zimbabwe but he is most remembered for failing to use the huge mineral wealth to better the lot of Zambians. His successor Fredrick Chiluba is battling corruption allegations and parliament has voted to remove his immunity. A High Court in Britain ruled in 2007 that Chiluba and four of his aides conspired to rob Zambia $46m. The elections that brought Rupiah Banda, the current president into power were decried by the opposition as not free and fair.

In Tanzania, Julius Nyerere ruled as the sole leader of the country from independence in 1962 till his retirement in 1985. Under his leadership all political parties were outlawed except the Party of the Revolution which happened to be his party. His social and economic programmes (ujamaa) were a total failure he is however credited for deposing Iddi Amin. Since he left office the country has chalked a lot of successes in the field of democracy and governance and the economy is showing signs of growth. Ex-President Benjamin Mkapa who became president in 1995 successfully transferred power to Jakaya Kikwete in 2005 after 10 years as head of government.

Burkina Faso formerly Upper Volta got her independence from France in 1960. Six years later the army as it has always been were in power. A series of coups in the 1980s saw Thomas Sankara taking over power in 1983 but he too was ousted in 1987 by Blaise Campore who was a close. Campore has since ruled the country as his personal fiefdom he has been in power for 22 years. He is one of the Corrupt Five who were sued by Transparency International for having amassed wealth at the expense his poor people majority of whom live on a dollar a day in this semi-arid country.

In Tunisia, Ben Ali has changed the constitution of the country in order to run for third term in office. In Algeria, Abdelaziz Bouteflika has won a third term after using the rubber stamp parliament to change the constitution of the state. He has been battling fundamentalists who were denied election victory in the 1990s. In Togo, after the assassination of the country’s first elected president in 1963, Gnassingbe Eyadema took power in a bloodless coup in 1967 and ruled till his death in February, 2005 after 38 years as head of state. His son Faure Gnassingbe was quickly installed as president by the army but international outcry resulted in an election in April 2005 which the army said Faure won 66%.

In Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Libya, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya and Chad the norm has been corruption, mismanagement, election violence, torture, dictatorship, murder, imprisonment of political opponents and the use of security forces against the people. In Africa and the rest of the world the names Mobutu Sese Seku, Sani Abacha, Omar Bongo, Denis Nguesso and Dos Santos are synonymous to blatant corruption, nepotism, cronyism, murder, incompetence and mismanagement. The word Kleptocracy was first coined to describe the nature of Mobutu’s government which was nothing but a government of thieves.

However despite the negativities there are some few shining examples. Botswana, Africa’s most successful economy is also the continent’s only true democratic country where multi-party democracy has been in place since independence in 1966. It is the least corrupt country in Africa and has a good human rights record. It is the only country in the continent where the leaders have used revenue from the natural resources mostly diamond to benefit the people. It is the world's largest producer of diamonds and the trade has transformed it into a middle-income nation. The current president Seretse Khama Ian Khama came to power in 2008.

Gaining her independence from South Africa in 1990, Namibia has joined the community of democratic nations after Sam Nujoma handed over power to his chosen nominee Hifikepunye Pohamba, after three terms as president. Like Botswana the leadership of Namibia are using revenue from diamond to improve the wellbeing of the people. In Benin an independent candidate won the presidency and in Liberia Johnson Sirleaf, a woman has become president the first in history of the continent.

Nelson Mandela is the only ex-president to have willingly stepped down as president after just one term in office. He is a Nobel Peace Laureate, a statesman, a freedom fighter and a hero not only in South Africa but also around the world. He has a monument erected in his honour by the government of Britain. Another respected personality in Africa is Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu who is also a Nobel Peace Laureate, a Statesman, peace activist and powerful anti apartheid campaigner.

The last of the possible role models is Kofi Annan, a former UN Secretary General who has recently being playing a leading role as a peace mediator and a critique of political corruption and anti-democratic governance in Africa. Since Tutu and Annan are not politicians and therefore out of the political equation, Obama will have no choice but to scream with the question, “Where are Africa’s political role models?”

By Lord Aikins Adusei

Political Activist and Anti-Corruption Campaigner