| |
Viewpoint
Letters to the editor
World trade: Emerging markets join forces
12/2003 |
|
Letters to the editor
[ Africa – Hope alone is not enough!
D+C 2003:10 ]
Debate restarted
My appreciation for the Focus issue on Africa. The varied aspects it addresses contribute
to revive the (new?) debate on development in Africa – and they fit very well two events which we shall offer during the Winter term at the University of Hildesheim.
Dr. Jos Schnurer, Hildesheim
Not fair
Congratulations on the excellent Focus issue on Africa. Not only the overview article but also the country case studies are very well-founded and balanced. In particular, the article by Gero Erdmann does away with some cherished prejudices against Africa, such as the allegation that there are no democrats there.
Unfortunately, some terms and headlines reflect the old Afro-pessimism. For instance, it is true that Erdmann notes that the number of the “free” states, that is, the liberal democracies (such as Ghana), have risen from two to 11 (on the basis of the strict classification of Freedom House). But then he writes: “Flourishing or 'true' democracies have not emerged in Africa so far.” I have heard of “flourishing landscapes”, but I have not yet come across flourishing democracies in political science literature. By what criteria does a “flourishing” or “true” democracy differ from a “liberal democracy”?
The height of enduring cultivation of a negative image of Africa, however, is attained by Reinold E. Thiel in his Editorial. Since the increase in the number of the “free” states in Africa cannot be denied, he simply declares liberal democracies (Erdmann) to be “illiberal democracies”. This term, used by the President of Freedom House in his article ‘The Decline of Illiberal Democracy’ (Journal of Democracy 10/1,1999), however, relates precisely not to the category “free”, but to the hybrid regimes, to “facade democracies” of the category “partly free”. Countries which according to Freedom House are given the mark “free” (Botswana, Ghana, Mauritius, South Africa), have not only held elections, but also are well out in front according to international standards (a total of 40 criteria ) with regard to the implementation of political human rights and civil freedoms. (Of 18 Middle East countries, only one is categorised as “free”.) It is really not fair simply to put African countries intuitively into one's own categories (non-flourishing, illiberal) .
“Only realism can help Africa”, writes Thiel. True, but Africa will also not be helped by the arbitrary invention or distortion of terms. Africa's image among the German public is already so bad – not entirely without reason – that one does not need to make it worse by denigrating encouraging developments as well.
Prof. Peter Waller, Berlin
On the drip-feed of the rich
The situation of Black Africa will not improve fundamentally in the future if two things do not happen. First, the Africans must recognise and act upon the fact that in coping with the future it is up to themselves what their heads and hands achieve – not us. Second, we must behave accordingly, more consistently than before. Too many of the leading African politicians do not give the impression that they have grasped this and taken it to heart. The immodest way they come across is symbolic and would seem to suggest this supposition. For instance, the attitude with which they, chauffeured in black limousines, turn up at international conferences as representatives of the poorest of the poor countries says a lot. “Demand”, not “serve”, seems to be the motto.
Nothing needs to be said about their political achievements. Apart from the ruling class, seen as a whole much more and more thorough and more reliable work must be done in Africa. Otherwise, no functioning state will be organised, and there will be no industry capable of exports in which foreign companies will invest.
The predominant development-impeding attitude in Africa is reinforced by the prevailing redistribution mentality in the northern Third World scene (“The rich give to the poor”). As noble as this stance may be, its impact is disastrous because it has an added paralyzing effect upon the insufficient efforts of the Africans, makes their outstretched hand a permanent condition and diminishes their dignity. That their pride does not rebel against that shows how far the degree of deformation of their awareness has already come. When was there ever such a situation that an entire continent – without the prospect of an end to it – depended on the drip-feed of the better-off international community.
Our public debate on debt relief is determined largely by notions of redistribution, blind to the realisation that redistribution perpetuates shortcomings. Redistribution exonerates corrupt governments and turns entire nations into beggars. Those who advocate redistribution are the worst enemies of the poor. True, the Africans' repeated demand for compensation for the crimes of the colonial era and slavery can be justified in moral terms. But for Africa it would be a disaster, just as much as every report on new discoveries of mineral resources is bad news because such finds lead to more corruption and bloodshed.
If we do not make use of what the Africans can and are obliged to do, we look down on them because we do not take them seriously. Pointing out their responsibility to them by no means frees us from our joint responsibility and our duty to provide appropriate assistance.
Kurt Gerhardt, Bonn
|
