INVESTIGATING WAYS OF ENSURING THAT AFRICA’S NEW DEVELOPMENT AGENDA
SUCCEEDS: EXPLORING THE ROLE DEVELOPMENT WORKERS (INTELLECTUALS)
COULD PLAY.
ZAMIKHAYA MASETI
POLICY ANALYST: POLITICAL ECONOMY, DEVELOPMENT BANK OF SOUTHERN AFRICA,
POLICY BUSINESS UNIT, MIDRAND, JOHANNESBURG
zamikhayam@dbsa.org
PAPER TO BE PRESENTED AT THE BI-WEEKLY MEETING OF THE KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT CLUSTER FEBRUARY 2003,
JANUARY 30, 2004
ABSTRACT.
The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) is not the first attempt designed at
solving Africa’s socio-economic ills. African leaders have made series of heroic efforts to craft
their own indigenous development paradigms. The Lagos Plan of Action (LPA) for Economic
Development of Africa was the first initiative of its kind and was followed by a series of similar
initiatives. Unfortunately, only minimal or no progress at all was noted, as all those initiatives
collapsed. Some scholars, academics and political economists strongly believe that the Bretton
Woods Institutions (i.e. IMF and the World Bank) were responsible for the failure of Africa’s
development agenda through the impeding policies which accompanied the financial aid that they
gave to the post-colonial African states. The post –colonial states in Africa emerged from the
tutelage of colonialism and faced huge socio-economic difficulties as a result.
Firstly, the paper will unpack the new development agenda, what it is and what it means in
general. It will also be important to look at who is determining and defining this agenda. The
significance of the new development agenda becomes very critical as well. What socio-economic
impact will this new agenda have on the lives of the ordinary people? Secondly, the paper will
attempt to investigate ways of ensuring that Africa’s new development agenda becomes a
success story and that the problems of yester-years do not go unreported. The paper will also
look at the previous initiatives that were unsuccessful and propose new approaches. Thirdly, the
paper will locate the role intellectuals, particularly knowledge workers could play in ensuring the
new development agenda succeeds.
INTRODUCTION.
“Our continent is involved in a historic process aimed at achieving its renaissance. This means
that we have to eradicate the results of a legacy of half a millennium of slavery, colonialism and
the neo-colonial misrule of the independence…So we can defeat the challenge of poverty and
underdevelopment that confronts Africans everywhere” Thabo Mbeki
The African continent did not take full advantage of political and economic renewal that came
about as a result of protracted anti-colonial and imperialist struggles in the late 1950’s and
1960’s.
The anti-colonial and imperialist struggles gathered a momentum, which was
unsustainable in a post-colonial era. Irrespective of the fact that most of the African countries got
their independence in the late 50’s and 60’s, there still was no notable change or alteration in the
economic relations between the newly independent African states and countries from the
developed world. The center and periphery dichotomy continued to be characteristic of the
relationship between the African continent and the developed world. It is within this context that
neo-colonialism became a dominant factor, which characterized the nature and content of postcolonial African states.
The late President of Ghana Kwame Nkrumah in explaining the essence and logic of neocolonialism argues that:
“The State, which is subject to it, is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of
international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed
from outside. The methods and form of this direction can take various shapes. For example, in
an extreme case the troops of the imperial power may garrison the territory of the neo-colonial
and control the government of it. More often, however, neo-colonialist control is exercised
through economic or monetary means”.
He further argues:
“The result of neo-colonialism is that foreign capital is used for exploitation rather than for the
development of the less developed parts of the world. Investment under neo-colonialism
increases rather than decreases the gap between the rich and the poor countries of the world.
The colonial masters paved ways for the Multinational Corporations to pillage Africa’s mineral and
marine resources. The post-colonial state was reduced to the status of a manager of the
economic zones on behalf of these predatory MNC’s (Multinational Corporations) who acted as
agents of imperialism”.
It becomes clear then, that; it could not have been easy for post colonial Africa to have a clear
development agenda under these abnormal circumstances as discussed above. The colonial
legacy and neo-colonialism combined together made things extremely difficult for the African
leaders to deliver on their pre- independence promises of a better life for all. There is a lot that
has said and written about Africa’s socio-economic ills and failures. It is therefore not our
intention to re-invent the wheel and echo what has already been said. What is important to note
is that the literature on the socio-economic ills of the African continent does help a lot in locating
and putting one’s perspective in its proper historical and theoretical context.
Clearly, the agenda of colonial masters surpassed the progressive agenda of postcolonial African
states. The colonial masters stage-managed the development of Africa during the colonial era
hence it was easy for them to advance successfully their own agenda even after independence.
Walter Rodney (1976:223 –311) traces a direct correlation between the development of Europe
and the underdevelopment of Africa. According to him Europe developed by heavily exploiting
Africa’s economic resources and by limiting or rather denying Africans basic services including
access to education.
The neo-colonial legacy continues to haunt Africa and most of the problems that she is
experiencing today find their logical, roots and explanation from it. This legacy has to be
overcome in one way or the other; an alternative to the status quo has to be found. Once the
alternative has been found, each and every citizen in Africa should embrace it and make sure that
it succeeds in all respects. Both Nkrumah (1971) and Rodney (1976) have been able to shed
some light on the causes and reasons that made it virtually impossible for Africa to effectively
utilized the moment of political liberation in order to usher in a moment of social and economic
emancipation. The socio-economic-political turmoil that is engulfing Zimbabwe today is the
classical example of what these renowned African scholars are trying to highlight.
This article seeks to explore whether these new development paradigms and initiatives in Africa
really constitute what many intellectuals describe as “Africa’s New Development Agenda” or not.
If it is, will it usher in a moment of social and economic emancipation? Previously, development
agendas in the African continent have not been successful due to the debt crisis,
mismanagement, corruption etc. This article will go beyond such debates and try to answer the
most critical questions which beg some answers: Whose development have we been talking
about in Africa? Whose development needs is this development agenda trying to address? Who
defined and shaped that development agenda, the ruled or the rulers? If the development
agenda that we are talking about is to succeed, we need to honestly and genuinely answer all
these critical questions so that we do not repeat the problems of yesteryears.
Unfortunately the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) has not been welcomed
with roses and enthusiasm especially by the civil society movement in Africa since its inception in
2002. It has been a subject of scathing criticism. There however are a few people who always
rise to the defence of NEPAD. The majority of these are in government and the diplomatic
community, people who are optimistic and see who a light at the end of the tunnel, they are
rearing behind the programme. We have to deliberate on the reasons why the NEPAD
programme continues to receive such a lukewarm welcome from the civil society. The
programme has not been immune to criticism. Intellectuals and individuals from various
ideological and theoretical persuasions, neo-liberals, and conservative attack it. Radical scholars
also, always find a reason to attack or they feel they have a bone to chew with the NEPAD
programme.
The NEPAD programme is not in anyway a product which emerged out of a popular mass
participation hence it is suffering from the sustained scathing attacks. Of late, there has been a
disturbing trend of apathy and sense of disengagement, which is permeating through the civil
society movement and the intellectual community especially around the NEPAD programme. The
Central Executive Committee of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) made
the following remarks on the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD):
“The CEC believed that the transformation of Africa could only happen if it is driven by its people.
There was a strong feeling that the NEPAD plan has been developed only through discussion
between governments and business organizations, leaving the people far behind”.
This is the gap, which has not yet been bridged by the African leaders who are at the center of
driving NEPAD. It is crucial for them to take the people with if they really want to see this
programme succeeding. The civil society is one critical force, which should be mobilized and
canvassed so that it can give NEPAD the support it deserves.
The principal success of NEPAD lies on how it is viewed and supported by the people of the
African continent. Jimi Odesina4 has this to say:
“There are palpably different responses of civil society organization to AU vis-`a- Vis NEPAD. For
the latter, it has been one of suspicion and / or hostility”.
This paper will deal with this suspicion at a later stage and focus its attention particularly on the
role of universities as centers of knowledge.
THE POINT OF DEPARTURE: MBEKI’S AFRICAN RENAISSANCE.
The New Agenda for African’s Development came as a result of the President of the Republic of
South Africa Mr. Thabo Mbeki’s dream of the African Renaissance. He echoed the message of
Africa’s renewal and rebirth in the corridors of power, in local, regional, continental and
international state functions, meetings and seminars. He started this when his was still the
Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa six years ago.
This is the point some intellectuals would like to dispute but the point is that it is Mbeki who
popularized the concept of the African Renaissance in the late nineties. He emphasized Africa’s
political, economic and cultural renewal. In outlining his vision Mbeki5 made the following
remarks:
“In popular and academic historical discourse, the concept of renaissance refers to a period in the
15th and 16th century, largely in Europe, when social motion underwent qualitative and
quantitative transformation. The salient elements of this transformation were contained, inter alia,
in the following developments:
1 Scientific advances in the technology and bio-chemistry,
2 Voyages of exploration around the world.
3 Enormous proliferation of sea trade,
4 The inventions which enhanced the operation of the printing industry,
5 The dawn of the era of the freedom of thought and the accumulation of knowledge as
well as the flowering of arts. The two questions, which spring to mind, are what really
constituted the content of that renaissance? What were its main motive forces? As we
enter the 21st century we have to pose similar questions about the possibility of our own
renewal”.
It is clear from the above extract that Mbeki6 defined and shaped what we refer to in this article as
“The New Development Agenda”. It would be interesting to know how Mbeki responds to the two
critical questions that he poses towards the end of this extract. Of critical importance, is a clear
understanding of the conceptual and theoretical basis of this new agenda, especially to the
students of African development studies and political economy?
Mbeki7 answered these questions in the following manner:
“The raison detre for a renaissance in the African continent is the need to empower African
peoples to deliver themselves from the legacy of colonialism and neo-liberalism and to constitute
themselves on the global stage as equal and respected contributors to as well as beneficiaries of
all the achievements of human civilization, this renaissance should empower it to help the world
rediscover the oneness of the human race. One of the most fundamental elements which
constitute the content of this renewal is the construction of a growing and sustainable economy
capable of assimilating the best characteristics, contribute to and take advantage of the real flows
of economic activities around the world”.
Mbeki8 is quoted at length here for purposes of a fruitful discussion and elimination of possible
misunderstanding on the historical, theoretical and conceptual basis of Africa’s New Development
Agenda.
What is more disturbing is that the scathing criticism that is often leveled against this new agenda
lacks the strong theoretical and conceptual basis from which it springs.
This is not to suggest that criticism against this agenda is invalid, but more often than not, some
critics tend to be dismissive just for the sake of be dismissive and opt for disengagement, a point
that will be dealt with at a later stage in this article. Of critical importance is the question of the
main motive forces that Mbeki9 earlier raised in his paper. He argues that the unionized new
proletariat class, which is increasingly cutting a role in the market place of economic ownership,
should constitute the main motive forces of renewal in the African continent. According to him the
emerging large urban middle class comprising of the unionized workers, teachers, intellectuals,
nurses traders, artisans, civil servants, and the larger section of the middle class should also
constitute the main motive forces of the African renewal. (Mbeki 1997: 7-8).
My view is that Mbeki did not adequately address the question of leadership when he was
identifying the social classes, which should constitute the main motive forces. In any struggle for
fundamental socio-economic transformation there is a particular class that leads and determines
the content and character of a particular phase in that struggle. The problem with Mbeki is that
he turns to club all these social classes into one basket and avoids, may be unintentionally to
address and resolve the leadership question. The one who leads is the one who defines and
shapes the agenda in a particular epoch. Mbeki leaves behind the peasantry as one of the main
forces, which should constitute the main motives behind his dream of the African Renaissance.
This is a very serious omission indeed. One cannot really talk of fundamental socio-economic
transformation without mentioned the peasants.
There is no meaningful agricultural
transformation or development that can take place without the involvement of the peasants. They
also occupy a very important and critical role in society especially in Africa where they constitute
the largest sector of the population. It is estimated that eighty per cent of the African population
leaves in the rural areas.
One of the main challenges, especially for those who are at the center of driving Africa’s new
development agenda is the reconfiguration and reconstitution of social classes which constitute
the main motive forces behind this agenda. Each and every social class should be engaged in
such a way that it clearly understands its significance, role and position in the new agenda. It will
also be important to address the question of leadership. This matter needs to be resolved and
clarified so as to ascertain whether the status quo would remain as it is or it would change for the
better. If it is to change all the people of the African continent need to know and understand that
ultimately they would be at the centre of driving the new agenda.
What that means therefore is that the African leadership should be ready for and opened to the
new form of intellectual engage on some of these critical issues. We all need to work for the
revival of the African continent as equals and each one’s contribution should be valued and
acknowledged.
What should be mentioned is that Mbeki received an overwhelming and unwavering support for
his vision of the African renewal from many African Heads of State and Prime Ministers in the
continent. Through his tireless and relentless efforts he even managed to bring on board and get
support of some respected world leaders for his vision. To mention the view we can count the
formers President of the United State of America Mr. Bill Clinton, his deputy Mr. Al Gore, the
Prime Minister of Britain Mr. Tony Blair, the Australian Prime Minister Mr. John Howard, the
French President Mr. Jacque Chiraz. The list is endless. Mbeki’s strategy, which actually paid off
in the ultimate end, was to make sure that he attends each and every conference or meeting
where African and world leaders would gather and this provided him with an opportunity to market
his grand plan and engage leaders on his grand plan. He also made sure that he attends the
World Economic Forum every year where world business leaders gather every beginning of the
year. His state visits also provided him with a great opportunity to engage various nations
throughout the world.
During his address to the United Nations University in 1998 Mbeki10 told a story of the continent
whose history and development was always distorted and undermined by the missioners and all
those who came as explorers in an attempt to discovery Africa. He quotes extensively from the
writing of the Roman Pliny, the elder who wrote about Africa:
“Of the Ethiopians there are divers forms and kinds of men. Some there are towards the east
that have neither nose nor nostrils, but the face all-full. Others that have no upper lip, they are
without tongues, and they speak by signs, and they have but a little hole to take their breath at, by
which they drink with an oaten straw…a part of Afrikke be people called Pteomphane, for their
king they have a dog, at whose fancy they are governed…and the people called Anthropophagi,
which we call cannibals, live with human flesh. The Cinamolgi, their heads are almost like to
heads of dogs…. Blemmy is a people so called; they have no heads, but hide their mouths and
their eyes in their breasts”11
Now that we have traversed the twentieth century we still have to project a new and good image
of the African continent, an image of a better Africa that can confidently and proudly compete for
its rightful position in the human universe. If we do not discard such images of savagery that
attend the African continent, Mbeki12 warns that:
“Some who harbour the view that as Africans we are a peculiar species of humanity pose the
challenge: How dare they speak of an African Renaissance? After all in the context of the
evolution of the European peoples, when we speak of the Renaissance, we speak of advances in
science and technology, voyages of discovery across the oceans, a revolution in printing and an
attendant spread, development and flowering of knowledge and blossoming of the arts. And so
the question must arise about how we- who, in a millennium, only managed to advance from
cannibalism to a “blood-dimmed tide” of savages who still slaughter countless innocents with
machetes…how do we hope to emulate the great achievements of the earlier Renaissance of the
Europe of the 15th and 16th centuries?”
What is more encouraging is the perseverance in which Mbeki 13 has patiently pursued his dream
of the African renaissance. During his inaugural speech as the second president of the
democratic South Africa he said:
“Recorded history and the material things that time left behind also speaks of Africa’s historic
contribution to the universe of philosophy, the natural sciences, human settlement and
organization and the creative arts. Being certain that not always were we the children of the
abyss, we will do what we have to do to achieve our own Renaissance. We trust that what we
will do will not only better our own condition as a people, but will also make a contribution,
however small, to the success of Africa’s Renaissance, towards the identification of the century
ahead of us as the African Century”.
MBEKI’S RENAISSANCE COMES UNDER FIRE.
Mbeki’s dream of the African Renaissance did not escape criticism like any other philosophical
vision that is put forward by a visionary. His vision came under serious attack from a number of
quarters, particularly the intellectuals. It has been argued that the notion of the African
renaissance was not people driven only the elite were driving this supposedly popular project. As
a result of this ordinary people who did not have access to tertiary education find it extremely
difficult to relate with the concept of the African renaissance. In South Africa for instance the
African National Congress whose leader is President Thabo Mbeki did not drive a massive
political education campaign aimed at educating its membership.
Only government officials, members of parliament and business leaders could articulate the
African renaissance given their proximity to the corridors of power and President Thabo Mbeki as
the Head of State. The ordinary peasant in the countryside or an ordinary hawker in the streets
of Johannesburg or Cape Town does not understand the content of the African renaissance.
What is also interesting about Mbeki’s renaissance is that it dislodged politically the political
organizations that espoused exclusively to the Pan-Africanist Philosophy; his first victim in South
Africa was the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC), one of the leading liberation movements in the
country. His African renaissance has a non-racial content and the term African is given a
meaning, which is totally different from that of the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC).
Some intellectuals also argued that Mbeki’s African renaissance lacks some originality as he was
rehashing a concept that has been around for centuries. In advancing such a similar charge
Sipho Seepe14 wrote:
“Mbeki’s conceptualization of the African renaissance is also interesting. When the phase was
first coined, sycophantic praise singers were quick to proclaim Mbeki the father of the African
Renaissance. It is encouraging to note that a belated realization that the concept of an African
renaissance has been with us for hundred years. These concepts and aspirations have been
articulated on various platforms by many African leaders, including WEB du Bois, Kwame
Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere and our own Mangaliso Sobukwe and Steve Bantu Biko. The late
articulation of this renaissance has tended emphasize anti-corruption, avoidance of ethnic
conflicts and democratic governance, which is well and good. But its weakness is to suggest that
the problems faced by the continent are African- inspired. It also fails to interrogate the role of the
Western superpowers and colonial powers in fomenting conflicts in the continent, for instance US
foreign policy in Angola, Mozambique, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Tanzania. It also
fails to highlight the role played by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in
deepening the crisis on the continent. It is precisely for this reason that some scholars have
argued that South Africa’s articulation of the African renaissance is a poorer and distorted version
of earlier formulations”.
Anthony Holiday15 challenged Mbeki immediately after he delivered his inaugural address in 1999
and provides a philosophical critique of the African renaissance.
He wrote:
“He might start by reminding himself that, whatever else Africa might have added to the human
store, the idea of history, as we now understand it was not an African invention. History,
conceived of as a form of social explanation, was a fruit, not of some venerable phase in Africa’s
past, but of the European Enlightenment and can be said to have begun in 1776 with the
publication of the first volume of Gibbons’ Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It follows that
Africans, before the onset of European colonization, while they were unrivalled storytellers, were
not historians. The point is some importance, because, if and when we succeed in recovering the
heritage of ancient Africa, we will do using intellectual tools that originated elsewhere, unless we
somehow manage to re-invent the concept of history. The idea of a quintessential African past,
an experience of Africa that is African to the core is, I suspect, a superstitious myth, the pursuit of
which has, in any case, little to do with politics in the 21st century.”
The intellectual onslaught against Mbeki’s renaissance continued seemingly unabated, Fantu
Cheru16 wrote:
“ It is too early to tell whether Mbeki’s vision of the African renaissance is a specifically South
African hegemonic project or whether it truly captures the sentiments of the majority of Africans.
Clearly, Thabo Mbeki’s African Renaissance is the expression of desire, need and hope rather
than a plan for the future. Indeed, this might be the most disquieting facet of the so-called
renaissance: the absence of any coherent, continent-wide agenda or framework for change. And
if one closely follows the neo-liberal model being implemented by the ANC government, Mbeki’s
vision of the ‘African Renaissance’ is more in line with the much discredited neo-liberal project of
the ‘Washington Consensus’ than what the idea actually implies.”
The concept of the African renaissance created another atmosphere within the ranks of the
broader liberation movement in South Africa. Eddy Maloka17 wrote about these dynamics in the
South African liberation movement:
“…Some comrades who regard themselves as the Left see ‘African Renaissance’ as a right-wing
ploy within our movement. Not only is ‘African Renaissance’ perceived as a misleading, classblind concept, the Left is also concerned with ‘African Renaissance’ as a movement of the African
petty bourgeoisie interested in advancing its own class agenda. Some members of the nonAfrican national groups are also concerned with ‘African Renaissance’, which is perceived as an
Africanist movement to marginalize the Coloureds, Indians and Whites as minorities within the
Alliance.”
What the critics of Mbeki’s ‘African Renaissance’ fail to understand is that he managed to put
Africa on top of the global political – economic agenda. The African continent was referred to as
the continent in despair by leading economists and experts in the field of economic development.
The period of the 1980s and 1990s were characterized as the ‘lost development decades’ for
Africa and Mbeki came towards the end of 1990s and re-affirmed Africa. We do not think that
Mbeki ever claimed to have or possess the monopoly of over the term African Renaissance. He
did more than his predecessors did in marketing and popularizing the African Renaissance and
also in re-affirming Africa. Mbeki18 went to an extent of declaring 2000 as the year of the dawn of
the African Century.
He declared:
“…We should ourselves as a continent, launch the African Century and therefore observe that
year as the Year for the Beginning of the African Century. Therefore, the question we must
answer is-what tasks face our movement and people as we prepare for the commencement of
the African Century. The first-ever Pan African Congress was held in London one hundred years
ago, in the year 1900. At this historic Congress, which brought together Africans from the African
continent, the United States and the Caribbean, the determination and clarion call was made: The
problem of the 20th Century is the problem of the colour line! The twentieth century has
experienced many problems. These have included two world wars, the crime against humanity
committed against the Jewish people by Nazi Germany, the genocidal killings in Rwanda and
Burundi and the ravages brought about by colonialism, apartheid and neocolonialism.
Today, each and every leader in the world recognizes the present political leadership in the
African continent. It can also be said that the African Renaissance as espoused by Mbeki laid the
solid foundation for Africa’s New Development Agenda. Mbeki is correct, we still need to
overcome and deal effectively with the national question especially in Southern Africa (particularly
in South Africa and Zimbabwe) as part of Africa’s New Development Agenda. The problem of the
colour line, which was identified during the 20th century, is still dogging the peoples of Africa even
today. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the African renaissance being considered as
one of the building blocks of the new agenda that we are talking about in the African continent,
what is more critical is the solidification and enhancement of this vision as we move into the 21 st
Century.
ENGAGE OR DISENGAGE? : AN INTELLECTUAL DILEMMA.
The scathing criticism leveled against Africa’s development agenda threw knowledge workers
and the entire intellectual community into the deep sea of confusion. Clearly, they faced a very
serious intellectual dilemma. They were not sure whether to engage and or disengage;
unfortunately they chose the latter and continued to treat the new development agenda with
pessimism and with some degree of suspicion. Dani Nabudere had this to say about the NEPAD:
” African civil society and the African communities in general must insist that African recovery that
is advocated by NEPAD cannot be realized under the existing global conditions. We must,
therefore, challenge the idea that global economic integration in its present form and content is
“inevitable” nor even “desirable” for all communities in the same way….To hope that the rich will
cancel debts, increase direct foreign investment in Africa, which dislocates their monopoly, and
change market rules to give more “market access to African products, which are in any case
underpaid, as NEPAD presupposes is to deceive oneself”.
He concludes his argument by stating the following:
“We have argued here that there is a real problem with the NEPAD in the way it has been
projected as a “new partnership” that can enable the African continent to recovery from the
malaise resulting from its multiple crises. We have demonstrated that the NEPAD lacks
legitimacy in that the document was worked out without extensive consultations with the civil
society and the communities most affected by the global economic system. Even some African
leaders claim that they do not understand the NEPAD because those leaders who have been
pushing the document to be accepted by the donor community did not consult them. In short,
there was no consensus even among the African leaders on this document. In this regard, civil
society was also entirely ignored and their input disregarded.
The argument that Nabudere is putting forward raises more questions than answers. He leaves
the reader of his paper with an impression that Africa’s new development agenda was hastily
developed to meet the requirements of the donor community. The second impression is that the
NEPAD was just a begging bowel which the African leaders aimed at carrying it around asking for
donations. For purposes of this discussion we need to briefly reflect on what motivated the
African leaders to develop the NEPAD programme.
The NEPAD Annual Report 2002 gives us the following explanation regarding the origins of the
new development agenda:
“The idea of a new agenda and programme for the regeneration of Africa had its genesis at the
OAU Extraordinary Summit held in Sirte, Libya, during September 1999. It emerged in the
context of deliberations on Africa’s external debt, when the Summit mandated President Mbeki
and President Bouteflika to engage Africa’s creditors on the total cancellation of Africa’s external
debt. African leaders had reached the conclusion that that unless these debts were cancelled,
African countries would not be able to move forward. They would not be able to address poverty
as a significant portion of government revenues had to be used to service debt. They would not
be able to access more capital for development as they were over-borrowed and would not be
able to attract private sector investment due to the high risk associated with high indebtedness.”
It is clear from the above statement that the African Renaissance and the New Partnership for
Africa’s Development constitute Africa’s new development agenda. This agenda as explained by
the above-mentioned report was a direct response to the new global order, which is mainly
dominated by the neo-liberal forces. In one way or the other, Africa had to redefine its role and at
the same time fight for its rightful place in this relatively hostile arena.
The African continent is the most marginalized and all efforts had to be made by Africans
themselves to end its marginalization. African leaders had to act collectively and dispel the notion
of ‘a hopeless continent’ or ‘failed’ states.
My main quarrel with Nabudere and company is that they are still locked in the old revolutionary
rhetoric and turn a blind eye to the realities and challenges facing the African continent. There is
nothing sinister in engaging directly Africa’s creditors. We have seen the anti –globalization
waging international protests and calling for the cancellation of debt that is owned by the
developing countries to the IMF and the World Bank. The African leaders through the NEPAD
programme shifted the battle from the streets to the boardrooms. There is nothing fundamentally
wrong and sinister with that approach.
I agree fully with the problem of non-consultation but that does not necessarily mean that this
development agenda lacks credibility due to the fact that the civil society movement did not have
its voice when the agenda was formulated. The critical question that we must all ask and attempt
to answer at the same time is: How best can we make sure that we correct the wrongs of the
past and start moving forward as the people of African. My view is that the unending criticism of
the NEPAD and the entire development agenda is nit going to take us anywhere closer to the real
development of the African continent.
Another problem with the critics of the new agenda is that they have failed dismally to suggest an
alternative approach to the current development agenda for the African continent. One of the
critical questions which need some concrete answers is: How should the African leaders have
responded to the global challenges and the continued marginalization of the African continent,
especially after the end of the Cold War. The unipolar world, in which we leave in, compels
nation states to compete for the centre stage in the global political –economic arena.
There is also a dire need to continue to engage foreign investors who continue to view the African
continent in a very negative way. Most foreign investors still use the basket case scenario in
making investment decisions about Africa, in their minds Africa continues to be an investment risk
precisely because of political instability which results from the civil strife and conflicts. Samson
Muradzikwa alerts us to the following realities:
“ It goes without saying that there is a very high real or perceived state of political and policy
uncertainty in Africa. Civil wars, military regimes and undemocratic dispensations, expropriation,
and government/ administrative intervention over economic decisions have significantly magnified
the risk of conducting business on the continent. Conflict in Africa has reinforced perceptions of
an unstable and unsafe continent with inescapable ethnic cleavages and tribalism…indeed such
high occurrences of civil strife and unrest, feed into the political risk of doing business in Africa.
Quantifying the direct and indirect costs of conflict in Africa provides a telling story”.
It is therefore not wise for the intellectuals to continue firing at the NEPAD programme without
coming up with the new approaches that will enhance and enrich the process.
This is not to suggest that scholars should not engage in enriching intellectual debate but to
advance utopian and unrealistic arguments will not take us anywhere. Therefore the time for the
intellectual to cease fire is now. We need to focus our energies on making sure that this new
development agenda succeeds.
The current political –economic conjuncture demands that intellectuals should critically and
seriously engage with the development paradigms. The problem is that this unending criticism of
the NEPAD unintentionally leads to the feeling of disengagement. The intellectuals have to
engage in a full scale with all these processes. It is my considered view that the main objective of
the new agenda is very progressive and no one can argue the opposite.
It seeks to eradicate poverty in Africa and to place African countries, both individually and
collectively, on a path of sustainable growth and development and hopes to end the
marginalization of Africa in the globalisation process. (NEPAD: 2001). Who can quarrel with this
sound and noble objective?
The world leaders have hailed the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) as a
programme that will take Africa out of the murky waters. The people of Africa waged heroic
struggles against colonialism and slavery and finally towards the late fifties and early sixties a
numbers of African states won their independence during this period. Most scholars and
historians describe this period as the decade of the African liberation. But unfortunately, the
decade of liberation did not bring about economic liberation to the African people. The continent
reeled from one crisis to the other and military dictators sprang all over. This made it extremely
impossible for the real development to take off the ground.
WILL THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT AGENDA SUCCED?
The main challenge for all the African people is to make sure that the new development agenda
succeeds. We have to pull all the stops to make sure that this does become a reality. If we do
not succeed in making our dreams come true, the world will laugh at us and will never take us
serious again. It is therefore incumbent upon all the African people, particularly development
analysts, workers and activists to assist in devising means and ways that would ensure that the
centre holds. The critical question that we need to answer is: How is the new development
agenda going to succeeds. Many African development workers have a tendency to evade this
question whenever it confronts them. The history of African development speaks for itself, it has
no good record of successful development and this makes some to conclude that the NEPAD will
also face similar problems that have befallen other development agendas.
Adebayo Adedeji (2003:35 – 36) points to some of the difficulties the previous development
initiatives in the African continent had to face:
“…every attempt that has been made by Africans to forge their future and to craft their future and
to craft their own indigenous development strategies and policies has been pooh-poohed by the
international financial institutions (IFIs) with the support, or at least the connivance, of the donor
community. While Africans leaders can be faulted in many ways, they have made a series of
heroic efforts since the early 1970s to craft their own indigenous development in the light of their
own perceptions. Five landmark strategies, which together provide the continent’s preferred
development agenda, emerged in the 1980s and early 1990s. These are:
1. The Lagos Plan of Action (LPA) for Economic Development of Africa, 1980 – 2000, and
the Final Act of Lagos (1980).
2. Africa’s Priority Programme for Economic Recovery 1986 – 1990 (APPER) which was
later converted into the United Nations Programme of Action for Africa’s Economic
Recovery and Development (UN-PAAERD) 1986.
3. The African Alternative Framework to Structural Adjustment Programme for SocioEconomic Recovery and Transformation (AAF-SAP) 1989.
4. The African Charter for Popular Participation for Development (1990).
5. The United Nations New Agenda for the Development of Africa in the 1990s (UN-NADF)
1991. Unfortunately, all these were opposed, undermined and jettisoned by the Bretton
Woods institutions and Africans were thus impeded from exercising the basic and
fundamental right to make decisions about their future. This denial would have been
ameliorated if African leaders had shown the commitment to carry out their own
development agenda. But given their excessive external dependence, their narrow
political base and their perennial failure to put their money where their mouth is, the
implementation of these plans suffer from benign neglect...”
Olusegun Adekayo (2003: 2-3) in his paper entitled “Psychopaths in power: the collapse of the
African dream in a play of giants” argues that the main problem which often resulted to the
collapse of the African dream of a better life for all, is the African leaders’ obsession with power, a
seductive drive that breeds moral corruption, dictatorship, delusions, economic distortions and
ruination, megalomania, perversion and desecration of all that is good in African tradition.
He further argues that this problem leads to the evaporation of all dreams of greatness,
nationalism, liberation from colonial thraldom, disease, ignorance and poverty, and of panAfricanism in the heady days of independence celebrations.
Olusegun Adekayo (2003: 2-3) acknowledges the fact that military dictators have been removed
from office but further argues that:
“The ravages of their misrule and profligacy are still felt by the beleaguered peoples of their
respective countries, as the economies remain in the doldrums and ethnic conflicts generated by
suspicion of political marginalisation and military coups continue to cause confusion and social
upheaval and destabilise the polity”.
The points which have been raised by both Adedeji (2003) and Adekayo (2003) in their
arguments are relevant and need serious intellectual engagement. The critical question that
arises from the above analysis is: Having failed to implement successfully the five landmark
strategies, how confident are we that the new development will succeed? What is clear from the
above analysis is that the road from the Lagos Plan of Action to the New Partnership for Africa’s
Development (NEPAD) has not been an easy one.
The problems and difficulties, which made it impossible for other development paradigms to be
implemented, are still with around and might show their heads with the intention to threaten the
future. One might ask whether there are any guarantees that the new development agenda will
successfully escape the problems of yesteryears.
For instance, the problems of hunger and destitution are still haunting the African continent and
poverty is becoming more organised as a result all policy interventions aimed at uprooting or
alleviating it seem to be inadequate or less effective. Maybe our determination; vigour,
perseverance and bravery, will make us; overcome all these problems including the social decay,
which continues to engulf the African continent.
The advantage that we have now in the continent is that our leaders are too determined in
creating a better and prosperous Africa for all the inhabitants. The African leaders are fully
behind the new development agenda and they speak with one voice. In all the meetings of the
multilateral institutions they always do their best in promoting the NEPAD. As a result of these
efforts the new development is agenda is supported by many countries in the developed world,
including the G8 countries. In view of all this one can boldly say that the NEPAD is the most
appropriate response to globalisation. The process of globalisation was, among other things
going to intensify economic and political marginalisation of the African continent. My opinion is
therefore that the NEPAD is indeed Africa’s appropriate response to globalisation.
The African continent through NEPAD and the African Union (AU) is beginning to find African
solutions to the African problems. The African leaders are determined to ensure that they stop
the laughter, and no one in the world will continue laughing at the continent.
There is also a
need to ensure that the Trade World Organisation is fundamentally transformed and able to
accommodate Africa and the entire developing world in its agenda. The obsession of the African
leaders with power that Adekayo (2003) highlighted in paper as the main problem will definitely
be something of the past. The African continent is slowly but surely moving towards embracing
the principle of multi-partisim and good governance.
The African Peer Review Mechanism will finally yield some results. The case in point is the
manner in which the African Union has handled the Liberian situation. We witnessed with our
eyes when Charles Taylor boarded the Nigerian plane leaving the country of his own birth going
into exile.
Something has to be done to ensure that the problems which hindered the implementation of the
landmark strategies that Adedeji is talking about are eliminated. There is also a need to conduct
a clinical probe and research to these problems so that they are not repeated again as we move
towards the implementation of the new development agenda. This is the task development
workers should take and provide alternative solutions to the policy makers and African leaders
who are politically responsible for the new development agenda.
The new development agenda will succeed only if we continue to engage with its content,
problematise the issues, engage vigorously in debates and point at what is good or bad, what can
work or cannot work. Intellectuals, development workers and analysts alike are better placed to
conduct a thorough -going review and appraisal of the new development agenda given their
strategic location and resources at their disposal. The success of the new development agenda
lies on the extent in which the organs of the civil society are involved and how they collective
embrace it.
For purposes of this discussion, it would be important to unbundled the civil society and focus on
each sector and closely interrogate the role each sector can play in ensuring that indeed this
agenda becomes a success. The first point of call would be the institutions of higher learning. As
indicated earlier on in the document, there is a lot of research that needs to be done particularly
around the African Union (AU) and NEPAD.
Addressing the student during his official visit in China, President Thabo Mbeki (2001:177) had
this to say on the role universities can play:
“Universities are centers of knowledge and their mere existence is knowledge and their primary
task and objective is to broaden, widen and move the frontiers of knowledge and narrow the
space and scope of ignorance”.
Delivering another address at Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland during an official visit,
President Mbeki made the following remarks about the important role of the university:
“A university such as this one is like a torch that illuminates the dark corners of our existence that
we always strive to discover, so that humanity can understand itself better. As humanity grapples
with myriad of challenges of ensuring that our common habitat, the Earth, is indeed a humane
place for all, we always see the role of centres of excellence such as the Glasgow Caledonian
University as light keepers that assist us to clear the mists as we navigate through our chosen
paths.”
The African universities should indeed rise up to the challenge and widen the frontiers of
knowledge particularly on the NEPAD and the African Union. Clearly, African universities need to
begin to develop strategies that would attract and mobilize ordinary Africans behind the NEPAD
programme.
They must also begin to forge partnerships and engage in exchange programmes with countries
from the developing and developed countries around research and information technology. It is
through these kinds of collaborations and exchanges that the new development agenda will
succeed. There is also a need to launch an extensive intellectual engagement programme
whose aim should be to involve the entire intellectual community. African governments should try
to conduct a massive education programme aimed at educating the masses of our and this can
be done in partnership with private sector organizations and other state related institutions.
If the masses of our people understanding the meaning and content of the new development
agenda they will be able to understand and defend it. The trade union movement which
represents mainly the employed and organized employees needs to be taken on board so that
they can better engage with the new agenda especially in economic area which directly affect
them.
EXPLORING THE ROLE INTELLECTUALS COULD PLAY.
In the previous discussion we quoted President Thabo Mbeki saying that a university is like a
torch that illuminates the dark corners. This discussion will focus attention on the real motive
forces behind the illuminating torches, in other words, the torch bearers. The critical question that
we must all ask: In the African continent do we have such torch bearers and what specific role
are they playing? For purposes of this discussion we will use the term “intellectual(s)”, describe
the term and the responsibilities that go with it. The assumption is that knowledge workers and
development workers fit this category, as the definition of the term itself confirms. According to
the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1995:707 – 708) an intellectual is a person possessing a highly
developed intellect.
Edward Said (1994: 3-4) adds another dimension to the above definition:
“All men are intellectuals, but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals. Intellectual
function in society can be divided into two types: first, traditional intellectuals such as teachers,
priests, and administrators who continue to do the same thing from generation to generation, and
second, organic intellectuals are directly connected to classes or enterprises that used
intellectuals to organise interests, gain more power, get more control. Organic intellectuals are
actively involved in society, that is, they constantly struggle to change minds and expand
markets, unlike teachers and priests, who seem more or less to remain in place, doing the same
kind of work year in year out, organic intellectuals, are always on the move, on the make”.
The analysis of intellectuals as provided by Edward Said (1994) is indeed very insightful and
interesting. It also helps us to be in a position to identify the kind of intellectuals that will be
suitable to carry the mammoth task of deepening and consolidating the new development
agenda. Clearly, the African continent needs organic intellectuals. My view is that Africa’s
success lies on the support that it gets from the organic intellectuals, who will always engage
critically with issues. The main challenge facing the African continent and the entire developing
world is to defeat the neo-liberal philosophy which is dominant in our institutions.
Neo-liberal scholars continue to encourage the African states to cut severely on social
expenditure, call for a minimalist role of the state. My view is that African states need to continue
providing ordinary people with the basic services. There is no way that the states can back off
given the numerous development challenges that are still faced by the African continent.
For this new development agenda to succeed intellectuals in the African continent need to
engage in a sustained and protracted struggle to change the mind of those who are convinced
that it will never work. Some believe that the African Union (AU) will not be different from its
predecessor the Organisation of the African Union. There is a need to overcome Afro-pessimism
and bring hope to those who lost hope and this task can only be executed by organic
intellectuals. Intellectuals in the African continent should champion the massive education of the
masses of our people, especially about the NEPAD and its significance to their lives.
This continent also needs intellectuals who can assist in finding sound and scientific solutions to
the socio-economic problems that are bedevilling our democracy. African intellectuals need to get
out of their comfort zones, lead national debates and play a key role in the consolidation and
implementation of NEPAD and other initiatives that are important to the continental agenda. In the
light of globalisation we need to marshal all our intellectual forces so that they come up with a
creative alternative perspective to the present global economic order.
African intellectuals must continue to engage, constructively of course, with the New Partnership
for Africa’s Development, so that the proposals that they put forward can be considered and
accepted by our leaders. We need to go back to the days of the Dependency Theory Debate
which was led and championed by the internationally acclaimed development analyst Immanuel
Wallerstein. Another radical development analyst Samir Amin’s advance very strongly his
Delinking Thesis, which called for a radical departure from the world economic system. Sanusha
Naidu (2003:12) had this to say as she was reflecting on the same moments:
“During the economic crisis in the 1970s many Africans development analysts called for Africa’s
delinking from the global economy. They argued that it was the dependency relationship
between African states and their former colonies, which was the cause of Africa’s
underdevelopment and depressed national economies. The onset of the oil crisis in the 1970s
and its structural impact confirmed this assertion and made the case for self reliance even more
compelling. Seemingly, African leaders, feeling that the African economic condition had to be
addressed, met in Monrovia in July in 1979 to discuss and examine the economic problems
facing the continent and to take concrete decisions to address the situation. Amongst some of
the historic decisions, was to the call for a collective self-reliance in the economic and social
domain within the context of a New International Economic Order.”
Following what Naidu (2003) has just said, African development analysts and knowledge workers
need to tell us whether the centre and periphery dichotomy which characterised the relationship
between Africa and the developed world, is still an issue that we must worry about, as it was the
case in the 1970s. If the status quo has not changed, will it therefore be possible for Africa’s new
development agenda to succeed and move forward as expected. Is there anything that can be
done to change the form and content of the relationship between Africa and the developing world
within the context of NEPAD?
African intellectuals also need to interrogate very close the collapse of the WTO talks in Cancun,
Mexico last year and tell us what the implications of those failed talks are particularly on the
NEPAD. Again what does this say about our economic relationship with the countries of the
North? If the international trading field continues to be uneven, can we really be realistic when
we talk of fair and free trade? It is about time that intellectuals in the African continent start
carrying the torch and illuminate the way ahead of us as we navigate through the murky waters.
They need to start making and stating their cases now, even if their voices are heard or listened
to after five or ten years from now. There should not allow themselves to watch alongside the
road as spectators when their beloved continent is burning and her children are desperately
calling for their help. It is through interventions like these that the new development agenda will
be able to see the light of the day.
CONCLUSION.
The purpose of this paper was to investigate ways and means that can be put in place to ensure
that Africa’s new development agenda succeeds. In so doing, the role development analysts,
knowledge workers and the entire intellectual community can play in the consolidation and
advancement of the new agenda was thoroughly explored. For readers to have a clear
understanding of the subject under discussion, an attempt was made to clarify the meaning and
content of the new development agenda. After extensive reading and research we finally came to
the conclusion the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and the African
Renaissance constitute this new development agenda. The paper has managed to do that by
putting this agenda its proper historical, philosophical and theoretical context by premising the
debate and discussion on President Thabo Mbeki’s vision of the African Renaissance.
The paper has noted with sadness and disappointment the manner in which this agenda has
been widely received by the civil society movement in the African. The blistering attacks that
characterised the discussion on the NEPAD in the African continent were not, in view helpful at
all. Some scholars went to the extent of labelling Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo as the new
champions of neo-liberalism in Africa. There have been very serious omissions and mistakes
that have been committed when the new development agenda was conceptualised.
The civil society movement in the African continent was not consulted and as a result of that the
entire process is viewed as a top down and therefore lacks credibility. My view is that the civil
society movement should not allow a situation where it is relegated to the level of a spectator
moaning and winning from along the road-side. The intellectual community in its entirety should
stand up and carry confidently the illuminating torch and show us the danger zones as we
navigate on this chosen path. The best thing to do is to fight the beast inside the belly.
The concerns that the civil society movement, and the intellectual community have, are indeed
very genuine and all efforts should be made to ensure that each an every organ of the civil
society is on board. However, there is overwhelming support for this new development agenda in
the continent and the world despite all these problems. A clear consensus also exists on how
political integration in the African continent should be carried out and changes that the African
Union (AU) should introduce so that it can be in a position to take forward the new challenges. In
concluding and closing the discussion, the paper would like to make the following
recommendation: All knowledge institutions and centres of knowledge (universities) should
launch the massive intellectual engagement programme whose aim and objective should be to
take Africa’s new development to the populace, change the mindset, and overcome Afropessimism.
REFERENCES.
Adedeji, A, (2002) “From the Lagos Plan of Action to the New Partnership for Africa’s
Development and from the Final Act of Lagos to the Constitutive Act: Wither Africa?” in Anyang’
Nyong’o, P, Ghirmazion,A & Lamba, D,(eds), New Partnership for Africa’s Development –
NEPAD: A New Path?, Heinrich Bool Foundation, Nairobi, Kenya.
Adekayo, O, (2003) “Psychopaths in power: the collapse of the African dream in a play of
giants”, paper presented at the 30th anniversary of CODESRIA, CODESRIA, Dakar, Senegal.
African National Congress – January 8 Statement, (2000) “2000 year of the dawn of the
African century.” Mayibuye Publications, Marshalltown, Johannesburg.
Concise Oxford Dictionary – Ninth Edition, (1995) “Intellectual”, (eds) Della Thompson,
Clarendon Press, USA.
Cosatu, (2002) “Executive Committee Report” Cosatu, Johannesburg.
Cheru, F, (2002) African Renaissance: Roadmaps to the challenge of globalization, Zed
Books Ltd, New York, USA.
Holiday, A, (1999) “Mbeki’s muddled metaphors obscure the road forward,” Saturday Argus,
Saturday Argus, Cape Town.
Mavimbela, V, (1997) “The African Renaissance: a workable dream” in South Africa and
Africa: Reflections on the African Renaissance, FGD Occasional Paper No17, The Foundation
for Global Dialogue, Braamfontein, South Africa.
Maloka, E, (1997) “The African Renaissance: Reactionary?” in the African CommunistJournal of the South African Communist Party, No.147, Third Quarter, Umanyano Publication,
Braamfontein, South Africa.
Mbeki, T, (1998) Africa- the time has come, selected speech, Tafelberg & Mafube, Cape
Town.
________ (1998) The African Renaissance: South Africa and the World, The United Nations
University, UNU Headquarters, Tokyo.
_______ (2001) Mahube- The Dawning of The Dawn- Speeches, Lectures & Tributes,
Skotaville Media, Braamfontein, Johannesburg.
________ (2001) Speech delivered at Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland, The
Presidency, Pretoria, South Africa.
________ (2001) Speech delivered at the University of Hong Kong, China, The Presidency,
Pretoria, South Africa.
________ (2001) Speech delivered at Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, The Presidency,
Pretoria, South Africa.
Muradzikwa, S, (2003) “Foreign direct investment and risk in Africa” paper presented at the
DBSA Development Report 2003 Workshop, Midrand, Johannesburg.
Nabudere, D, (2003) “Towards A New Model of Production – An Alternative to NEPAD”
paper presented at UNISA, Pretoria, South Africa.
Naidu, S, (2003) “Financing Africa’s Development: Enhancing the role of Private Finance,
paper presented at the DBSA Development Report 2003 Workshop, Midrand, Johannesburg.
NEPAD, (2001) The New Partnership for Africa’s Development Document, Interlink Print,
Johannesburg
NEPAD, (2003) 2003 Annual Report - Towards Claiming the 21st Century, NEPAD
Secretariat, Midrand, Johannesburg.
Nkrumah, K, (1965) Neo-colonialism- The Last Stage of Imperialism, Panaf Books Ltd,
London.
Odesani, J, (2002) “ Presentation made during the meting of the African experts organised
by Africa Institute of South Africa, AISA, Pretoria, South Africa.
Reader, J, (1997) A Biography of the Continent, Hamish Hamilton, London.
Rodney, W, (1976) How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Bogle-L’Ouverture Publications &
Tanzania Publishing House, London & Dar es Salaam.
Said, EW, (1994) Representation of the Intellectual – The 1993 Reith Lectures, Vintage,
London.
Seepe, S (1999) “No new ideas from SA” Sowetan Newspaper, Sowetan, Johannesburg.