It is our first day back from Cape Town and everyone in the class is reflective about our visit. For the third part of the course, today’s class and the next two classes are focused on learning about how development perspectives have evolved and influenced the African political economy over time. Today, we learned about different development perspectives from Rodrik (second-best thinking may be best), de Soto (property rights are key!), Acemoglu (no, institutions are key!), and Duflo (RCTs adds precision to otherwise alchemic social sciences). These perspectives have challenged the orthodox principles I once held about development. Many platitudes circulate development discourse - “urbanization stimulates growth”, “ethnic conflict stems from ancient hatreds”, “more aid is needed” - and my biggest takeaway is that I have to critically examine each orthodoxy in the context it is said. For example, urbanization may be necessary to stimulate growth, but it is not sufficient; pathological urbanization demonstrates that high urbanization rates can be an indicator of poor rural conditions rather than booming prospects in cities. The best approach, therefore, lies somewhere in the middle of what these experts prescribe.
I am enjoying reading Meredith’s book, my knowledge base regarding African contemporary politics is quickly expanding, and I can contextualize contemporary events better through my daily readings. Chapter 23, The Struggle for Democracy, describes the challenges different countries have faced in order to achieve true democracy, because the departure of colonial administration, like urbanization, is a necessary but insufficient condition for Africa’s economic takeoff. The continent has been plagued with what Meredith calls “Big Man” politics, whereby dictators have exceeded their constitutionally mandated terms and in some cases, amended the constitution itself to support their autocratic reign. The freedom fighters’ intentions in the struggle against these Big Men, however, do not appear perfectly noble, because some of them have quests for power on their own. Thus the legacy of “Big Men Democracy” continues.
It pushes me to inquire about the origins of this behavior. Why do African leaders abuse their power? My intuition tells me that it is another colonial legacy that goes untold: that due to fears of a neocolonial resurgence, either from Europeans or revolutionaries at home, autocrats prefer to hold all the power to themselves. I asked Jayed Oliver, a South African student at the University of the Western Cape, about his opinions on the matter, and he agrees. “First of all, South Africa is a unique case because it is the most developed part of the continent,” he explains, “but we also have the same problems as the rest of sub-Saharan Africa in that we have the same problems of having poor leadership.” Moreover, due to the precolonial tribalism that governed African politics before Bismarck erected artificial state lines, this new generation of leaders continue to fracture internal state politics through preferential treatment based on their tribal origins. Chapter 23 enumerates several examples of these Big Men employing crony capitalism by purchasing loyalty from subordinates, usually members of the same ethnic group as the leader. Countries like Tanzania, for example, have fared better with these issues, through their strong nationalism campaign to establish a national language and distribute public goods irrespective of ethnic origins.
I am enjoying reading Meredith’s book, my knowledge base regarding African contemporary politics is quickly expanding, and I can contextualize contemporary events better through my daily readings. Chapter 23, The Struggle for Democracy, describes the challenges different countries have faced in order to achieve true democracy, because the departure of colonial administration, like urbanization, is a necessary but insufficient condition for Africa’s economic takeoff. The continent has been plagued with what Meredith calls “Big Man” politics, whereby dictators have exceeded their constitutionally mandated terms and in some cases, amended the constitution itself to support their autocratic reign. The freedom fighters’ intentions in the struggle against these Big Men, however, do not appear perfectly noble, because some of them have quests for power on their own. Thus the legacy of “Big Men Democracy” continues.
It pushes me to inquire about the origins of this behavior. Why do African leaders abuse their power? My intuition tells me that it is another colonial legacy that goes untold: that due to fears of a neocolonial resurgence, either from Europeans or revolutionaries at home, autocrats prefer to hold all the power to themselves. I asked Jayed Oliver, a South African student at the University of the Western Cape, about his opinions on the matter, and he agrees. “First of all, South Africa is a unique case because it is the most developed part of the continent,” he explains, “but we also have the same problems as the rest of sub-Saharan Africa in that we have the same problems of having poor leadership.” Moreover, due to the precolonial tribalism that governed African politics before Bismarck erected artificial state lines, this new generation of leaders continue to fracture internal state politics through preferential treatment based on their tribal origins. Chapter 23 enumerates several examples of these Big Men employing crony capitalism by purchasing loyalty from subordinates, usually members of the same ethnic group as the leader. Countries like Tanzania, for example, have fared better with these issues, through their strong nationalism campaign to establish a national language and distribute public goods irrespective of ethnic origins.
No comments:
Post a Comment