| The best Zimbabwe news site on the world wide web |  |
| NEWS |
| FORUMS |
| NEWS ANALYSIS |
| READERS' FORUM |
Business has a role as change agent in post-colonial Africa
By Mutumwa
D. Mawere
(www.mmawere.com)
AFTER 52 years, it must be accepted that the promise of a prosperous
and dynamic continent that independence was expected to bring about
remains elusive.
The construction of a post-colonial order was premised on the belief
that restoring political power to the majority through a constitutional
democratic order was in and out of itself a necessary and sufficient
condition for economic and social transformation.
Business was perceived to be closely aligned to the colonial state and,
therefore, in the construction of a post-colonial state, the role of
business in influencing the direction, rate, characteristics and consequences
of physical innovations as they develop, events, activities, people
by virtue of control over resources, particularly property; cultural
values, habits, institutions such as family, work life, and buying habits
of individuals, shape of the legal and constitutional order of post-colonial
Africa was and is treated with mistrust.
While there was consensus at independence that politics has a dominant
role in post-colonial Africa there was no consensus on what role business
should play in advancing the interests of change and progress in reducing
the frontiers of poverty.
The founding fathers of post-colonial Africa shared a common belief
that activity in the political and not economic sphere should be the
primary force for change and from this, change was expected to automatically
radiate into other spheres of human endeavour.
In the colonial state, political and business power was in the same
hands whereas in the post-colonial state, political power is theoretically
vested in the holders of sovereignty i.e. citizens while business power
remains predominantly in white hands.
There is considerable debate on whether business power that remains
outside the control of indigenous Africans is adequately checked and
balanced for the public good.
Views about the role of business and political power in post-colonial
Africa cover a wide spectrum but there are basically two opposing positions.
On one side is the theory which holds that in as much as business was
pre-eminent in the colonial state that is blamed for contributing to
African poverty primarily because of its control over the continent’s
resources, the post-colonial state should be dominated by political
power.
It is argued that business power was and remains both excessive and
inadequately checked in post-colonial Africa . The self interest of
corporations that are in the main foreign controlled is then deemed
to be harmful to the general welfare of the continent calling for state
intervention.
On the other side is the theory that holds that the organisation of
the colonial state was such that business power was exercised in an
environment in which institutions such as markets, government, labour
unions (white), advocacy groups, and public opinion had great influence
and power.
Business power was counter-balanced, restricted, controlled and subject
to defeat through market forces whereas political power in post-colonial
Africa is not easily subject to defeat because of lack of market-based
pluralism.
In post-colonial Africa, ambivalence still exists against business power
as an instrument of change in Africa .
The role of corporate citizens in building institutions that underpinned
the colonial state remains underappreciated but when the colonial state
is properly contextualised it becomes self evident that companies in
ascending industries changed African societies by altering all three
of their primary elements – ideas, institutions and material things.
This effect is visible in the stories of dominant companies that have
African origins like: De Beers, Anglo American Corporation, Impala Platinum,
Old Mutual, Sanlam, Anglovaal; Rembrandt, JCI, Goldfields, Billiton,
Sasol, Iscor (now Mittal), and many others.
It is not accidental that most of the key corporate drivers of African
change originated from South Africa and the post apartheid era has seen
the expanded role of South Africa ’s corporate sector in the continent’s
economic transformation. The role of white Africans in both the colonial
and post-colonial eras has to be understood in its proper context if
the continent’s development possibilities are to be fully exploited.
It is important to ask the question: “What kind of Africa do we
want?” so as to properly locate business and political power in
a developmental Africa .
The cumulative power of business in Africa is not as massive as it is
in developed states and only South Africa has a significant industrial,
mining, financial, and agricultural corporate base.
Business power is ordinarily a more dependable and irrepressible shaping
force of the destiny of any society than changes brought about purely
from the exercise of political power.
The use of power whether political or economic in changing human societies;
cannot be overstated.
There are many sources of power, including wealth, position, knowledge,
law, arms, status, and charisma. However, power in post-colonial Africa
as it was during the colonial era is unevenly distributed and there
appears to be no mechanism to control it for wider benefit.
The mechanisms used by the post-colonial state are as imperfect as they
were during the colonial state and these include governments, laws,
police, cultural values and public opinion.
The promise of multiple and competing formations of power in the post-colonial
era to check and balance each other for public good has unfortunately
not materialised not because of an imperialist conspiracy but rather
the inherent inability of Africa’s founding fathers to properly
understand the utility of business power as an ally in the fight against
poverty.
Business power is the force behind an act by a company, industry or
sector. Post-colonial African founding fathers should have known that
the greater this force, the more the action creates change or influences
the actions of other entities in society.
To the extent that the basic origin of business power is a grant of
authority from society to convert resources efficiently into needed
goods and services, it should have been self evident that a social contract
was required in order to energise business to take necessary actions
from which profit can be generated.
The existence of a social contract in the post-colonial order ought
to legitimise business power by giving it a moral basis. Regrettably
in most African economies, business is regarded as an enemy of development
and more emphasis is placed on the state as an engine of growth and
development.
Legitimacy is the rightful use of power. The power of a government or
a corporation is legitimate when it is exercised in keeping with the
agreed upon contract.
For governments, the opposite of legitimacy is tyranny commonly defined
as the “exercise of power beyond right”.
Many African governments and corporations breach the social contract
when they violate social values, endanger the public or act illegally.
Business or political power is legitimate when it is used for the common
good.
In the construction of a post-colonial Africa, it is evident that the
absence of a social contract distorts the basis on which legitimacy
can be measured.
It is common cause that corporate and political actions can have an
impact on society in the sense that visible and immediate changes are
caused by business and political power.
However, the experience in post-colonial Africa has shown that political
power is not a reliable agent for change. Rather corporations expand
and contract, hire and fire, make and sell products while African politicians
build a business model on intimidation, force, and illegitimacy.
It is instructive that victims of the colonial state inherited a functioning
state but immediately after independence citizens find themselves unable
to control the post-colonial state. The state in country after country
is seamlessly converted into a “monster”.
On a deeper level, the laws of post-colonial Africa – including
constitutional, civil and criminal laws – have not been shaped
by the consequences of economic activity rather by the consequences
of political expediency. On the surface, African politicians acquire
through state control, formidable resources that intimidate opponents
as well as corporate actors.
Corporate Africa, to the extent that it remains controlled on visible
racial grounds, has not been able to influence meaningfully the economic,
cultural, technological, political, and institutional transformation
of post-colonial Africa and yet without a dynamic business sector, the
continent will remain condemned to poverty.
Mutumwa
Mawere's weekly column is published on New Zimbabwe.com every Monday.
You can contact him at: mmawere@global.co.za
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS
ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com
All material copyright newzimbabwe.com
Material may be published or reproduced in any form with appropriate credit to this website