Obama and Democracy in Africa

In his historic speech to Ghana's parliament today, President Barack Obama put democracy and good governance at the front and center of Africa's future and America's hope for it. That is just where it needs to be. Obama could not have been more eloquent or forthright in identifying bad governance -- corruption, lawlessness, abuse of human rights, and purely superficial deference to democratic norms -- as the bane of Africa's quest for development and dignity.

Of course, the point was forcefully made from the start in Obama's choice of Ghana for his visit to sub-Saharan Africa as president. Ghana is not immune from the ills of corruption and misuse of power that plague the continent, but among the continent's sizeable countries, it has gone the furthest in achieving a reasonably liberal democracy, with repeated free and fair elections, media freedom, a pluralistic civil society, and responsible governance. And it has generated significant economic progress and significant new flows of international development assistance (and to some extent investment) as a result.

The Accra speech was historic in a number of respects. No American president has ever spoken so candidly on African soil about the real roots of Africa's development malaise, which lie in the "big man" syndrome of patronage-drenched ethnic politics, contempt for the rule of law, and wanton abuse of human rights. Perhaps only an American president whose African grandfather felt the brunt of racist European imperialism could say to Africa as frankly as Obama did that--more than half a century after decolonization--the core problem is not the colonial legacy but what Africans themselves have done and failed to do with the hopes and dreams they carried into dependence. The speech was a clarion call for Africans to assume personal and national responsibility for their own futures, and I suspect it will leave an especially deep impact on young Africans, whom Obama addressed directly and inspirationally as only he can.

This is not the first time that Obama has spoken eloquently abroad about the importance of democracy, human rights, and good governance. It formed an important, if secondary, theme of his Cairo speech last month, when, in seeking to build a new bridge of partnership and understanding with Muslims around the world, he challenged the legitimacy and sustainability of oppressive regimes, with language that resonated powerfully among Arab publics who want democratic change. It was a major element of his speech this past week to the New Economic School in Moscow. Even though that speech again had another purpose--to help "reset" the American relationship with Russia on fresh foundations of mutual respect and shared interests--it also affirmed the "universal values" of freedom of speech, press, and assembly, the rule of law and competitive elections.

In fact, the succession of messages defining to the world what his administration stands for began with his historic public speech in Prague's Hradcany Square on April 5. Mainly, that address unfolded a broad vision and commitment to work for a world free of nuclear weapons, but it began with a passionate tribute to "the courage of those who stood up and took risks to say that freedom is a right for all people, no matter what side of a wall they live on, and no matter what they look like."

During his campaign and in his young presidency, Obama has spoken repeatedly and passionately of how the "arc of history" bends in the long run toward freedom. But there is also an arc across these speeches that is, no doubt surprisingly to some of his Republican and conservative critics, committing his Administration to support, encourage, and work for the advance of freedom around the world. Clearly, it will not take the same moralistic and grandiose tone that George W. Bush often assumed. Nor will it be so openly confrontational; Obama has taken pains repeatedly to stress that he does not wish to "lecture" to other countries. But for these reasons, it could also prove more effective.

In the months ahead lies the next and more difficult challenge. In several prominent speeches and now most explicitly in Accra, Obama has renewed the American commitment to support democratic values and institutions around the world. In Accra, he has gone at least as far as Bush did to identify the inextricable link between sustainable development and responsible, transparent, law-based governance. Further, he has pledged to increase American assistance to the individuals, organizations, and governmental institutions that fight corruption and build good governance. It is a truism--but nevertheless true--that his historic speeches will ultimately be judged by his success in delivering on these commitments.

Some obvious steps would help to move the policy forward. First, it is going to require more money for democracy and governance assistance, and for generating the incentives for countries to institutionalize more transparent and accountable governance. This is a tough thing to do in hard economic times, but it is essential if Obama's rhetorical commitments are to be taken seriously. Direct democracy and governance assistance programs require only a small percentage of the record $49 billion just appropriated by the House for diplomacy and development. But the budgets for the National Endowment for Democracy and for democracy and governance programs of the U.S. Agency for International Development can be incrementally increased. It is a welcome development that the House voted a modest increase in assistance for one of George W. Bush's signature aid programs, the independent Millennium Challenge Account (MCA). But it is important that the relative independence of the Millennium Challenge Corporation and its innovative, incentive-based approach to encouraging good governance be preserved.

Second, Obama must name a new Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development as soon as possible. Development specialists had hoped that the early naming of a high-profile, vigorous leader would energize and symbolize an elevation of the development function within American foreign policy. Instead, USAID has been drifting, uncertain and to some extent demoralized, in the absence of a new leader and a clarified role.

Third, new allocations of development assistance to countries, in Africa and around the world, must continue to be reformed to reflect their relative levels of commitment to good governance, not just through the MCA but in the overall development assistance budget of USAID. The United States and other donor agencies in Europe and Japan, not to mention the World Bank and other international donors, still pour far too much money into the coffers of governments that are wasting and stealing the aid. One can only admire Obama's commitment to substantially increasing U.S. development assistance over time, as well as his visionary and urgently needed push at the recent G8 summit, for a new international assistance to improve food security in poor nations. But if Obama takes seriously his own message in Accra--that better governance is the key to development in Africa--then aid programs must find better ways to link the two, and to leverage the former in order to advance the latter.

Finally, the new Administration needs to designate a high-ranking official who will have overall authority to craft its strategies and coordinate its programs to support democratic development around the world. This could either take the form of "dual-hatting" an existing official at the National Security Council in this role (as was the case in the Bush Administration), or naming a new special coordinator for democracy programs. In the end, policy implementation comes down to people and lines of authority. Designating a high-level NSC official to coordinate the Administration's efforts to advance democracy and good governance would show that Obama is serious about joining with African peoples--and others around the world still mired in poverty and bad governance--to become, in his words in Accra, "partners in building the capacity for transformational change."

Comments

[vippy]

Obama said to end the corruption in Africa! How about ending the corruption in the USA. Who is calling the kettle black here?

[arvay]

Much of what Obama said is true, but needs to be put into historical perspective.

Africa resembles Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire -- not exactly the same -- there are no exact historical parallels -- but I think there's an overall similarity. European colonialism and Roman occupation both undermined local cultures and when their "order" was removed, chaos ensued. During the European "dark ages" people from other civilizations took note of the relative barbarism of Europe -- the court of Charlemagne was laughable village compared to Baghdad and Damascus.

So it makes sense that it will take time for African nations to sort things out. European colonialism was objectively much more damaging than the Romanizing of much of Europe. Nations such as Ghana are pointing the way, but the rest of the world should provide help. This isn't charity -- in our interconnected world, conflict and disease spread and affect us all.

Dropping agricultural tariffs would help a lot, but I'm not optimistic that European and American agriculture lobbies can be defeated. But that would give many African farmers a wider market, and nations could begin to climb out of reliance on selling raw materials.

I was very disappointed by Obama's defense of this new African military "command" we're assembling. Now we're going to insert our military into African conflicts? Assist Ethiopia's periodic moves into Somalia? Don't we EVER learn from past mistakes?

[Cockacola]

Well said!

[arvay]

thank you

[Bec-Hamilton]

You can get reactions of staffers at the African Union here in Addis at: http://bechamilton.com/?p=1012

One theme was articulated by an AU Commission staffer who said: “Coming from a person we completely respect and admire, it was worrying to see the whitewashing of our past. The role of the West in our difficulties must be understood. That doesn’t mean we will just sit back and blame them, but we must understand the legacy it has had.”

Another summed up a number of people's concerns saying: “The hot issue not on the table was the US subsidies to agricultural industries . . . but we know the power of special interest groups in Washington.”

[ArcEnCiel]

Obama's speech was flawed, after bowing to the saudis who behead people every Friday, and praising Mubarak in Cairo who is anything but a democrat, it was painful to watch him lecture africans. After all, all the "strong men" in power in Africa have western backing aside Mugabe who has recently fallen out of grace and Al Bashir of Sudan and just maybe,the Eritrean president. It is also untrue that most african countries have been indepent for more than half a century. Who toppled Lumumba? Who ever did it is responsible for the boodshed in the African great lake region. Obama apologise every where but in Africa and to Africans; makes one wonder...

Why do we have to send aid to africans? Why can't we just trade with them if we really care about them?

[CEPHALUS]

I see others trying to give a suggestion as to what should be done to address these problems, what you do? talk thrash, is that all that inside your head?

[Tayo]

Excellent, thank you!

[Mark Mack]

Non-Democratic development cannot simply be blamed on bad governance, corruption, lawlessness, abuse of human rights, and purely superficial deference to democratic norms. If that was the case then the history of Democracy has been formed by "non-democratic development." As everywhere, and as in Africa, the real roots of malaise is collusive with Education, Religion and Psychological Development in denotation to modernism. I suggest you read: 1) The next Einstein and the expressway churches, By Damola Awoyokun , 2) Einstein And The People Of Faith, By Jude Fashagba ,and finally 3) How religion is under developing Nigeria, By Rotimi Babatunde

All three short be effective articels can be found here.
http://www.ghanacommunity.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t8889.html

[jeanrenoir]

Having raised himself to the most powerful office in the world with his hard work, self-discipline, and character, Obama is uniquely qualified to tell it like it is in Africa, as he has in the troubled black urban neighborhoods of America. White American politicians, except for subtle and not-so-subtle racists, have had a hard time speaking honestly about poor black America and Africa, for fear of seeming "racist" if they honestly spoke about the very serious failings of black urban America and sub-Saharan African governments. Obama's done a great service to poor blacks in America, and to sub-Saharan Africa's future progress, in honestly addressing the ways in which poor blacks, and sub-Saharan African nations, are the ones primarily responsible for the mess they are in, and for their own futures. Obama has shown the way out of black morasses in America and Africa with his own example, as an individual and a political leader.

[buttonz]

I am happy to hear the commitment to aiding Africa, let's hope he keeps to his word. There is another matter that needs attention as well. African security. While Africa is doing far better in this respect than it was in the 1990's we need to do something about Sudan and Somalia. While the Darfur genocide is stymied the people there still need protection. We need another No-Fly Zone that prevented Iraqi troops from slaughtering the Kurds. Not to mention it will make it safer for aid agencies to operate. Next is Somalia, this is a tough one and may in fact need an Afghan style occupation but the troubles of Somalia are spreading to its neighbors and not to mention that as Al Qaeda is finally being crushed in Afghanistan and Pakistan simultaneously it is growing in Somalia. The last thing we need is a reason to go in there because its troubles have spread all the way to us.

[nogurunomethodnoteacher]

We cannot be the world's policeman. We can't occupy or create no-fly zones everywhere something bad is occurring. But we can get back to an art form the previous administration disdained: effective diplomacy. It's time to speak softly with the big stick again. Simply waving the big stick over our heads and yelling a lot isn't going to work.

Obama understands all nations first and foremost want their sovereignty and uniqueness recognized. He doesn't bully or threaten. But he doesn't cede moral high ground either.

[catrst]

I think that the underlying principles that were emphasized among all campaign volunteers are what comprise the world wide approach being used by the president; respect, empowerment and inclusion. I'll never forget coming upon a website during the campaign that posted the supportive comments from people all over the world even places like Iran. It helped me work harder in our rural and not particularly progressive county here in the midwest.