Who really controls post-colonial Africa?

Who really controls post-colonial Africa?

• My lessons in post-colonial injustice

• Zimbabwe on road to nowhere

• The moral vacuity of Mugabe's Obama embrace

• Bridging gap between land ownership and economic progress

• Unholy alliance forms around KMAL carcass

• Unpacking the cabinet talks stalemate

• Chanakira: the unlikely foot soldier for expropriation schemes

• A conversation on nation, nation state and nationalism

• Mbeki is victim of a culture he helped create

• Towards a new Africanm identity

• Where is Zimbabwe's Obama?

• Power sharing versus power transfer

• Business has role as change agent in Africa

• Interrogating Ownership in Africa

• Actors might change, but Zimbabwe plot stays same

• The world according to Mandela and Mugabe

• Mugabe needs incentives to reform, not sanctions

• The agenda for change post-Sharm El-Sheikh

• What is the meaning of independence?

• Has Mugabe's war bluster won it?

• Imperialism no threat to organised people

• Mugabe using language of xenophobes

• SA's BEE project intersects with xenophobia

• A Rainbow Nation without black

• A post-election conversation with Mugabe

• Doubts aside, Tsvangirai now best bet for a New Zimbabwe

• African mines remain theatres for foreign operators

• Mugabe's self-help constitutional order

• The New Zimbabwe is almost upon us

• Zimbabweans have spoken, and the message is in the detail

• Mugabe's re-election would be disaster for private enterprise

• Zimbabweans at the polls: the great debates

• Change cannot wait for Madhuku's post-election ambitions

• Voting for change in Zimbabwe

• Can an independent win in Zimbabwe? Yes he can!

• Makoni: puppet, Zanu PF agent or national hero?

• Who is behind Makoni? Please count me in!

• Obama v Billary Clinton: lessons for Africa

• If Zuma is corrupt, who isn't?

• Charamba gives civil service a very bad name

• Be the change that you want to see

• The paradox of African liberation and change

• Zimbabwe and the Jacob Zuma factor

• The EU-Africa relationship post-colonialism

• Beyond Lisbon: setting the African agenda

• Implications of Zuma winning ANC presidency

• Africa's enduring economic apartheid

• Does indigenisation threaten law of succession?

• Defining the role of the State in post-colonial Africa

• Mushore's ordeal and the Zimbabwe we want

• Does rule of law pose a threat to Africa?

• Capitalism may challenge the poor, but it gives them hope

(www.mmawere.com)
Posted to the web: 14/12/2008 18:06:37
WHO controls post-colonial Africa? As we approach the end of this remarkable year, we can only pause to think about the future of the continent at a time when the architecture of the global financial system has been shaken at its foundation.

Interests at play in each domestic economy have so far largely informed the responses to the global financial crisis. The majority of African states has adopted republican constitutions and, therefore, should ideally be controlled by citizens and yet the reality suggests otherwise.

The role of citizens in monitoring their democracies is less pronounced in post-colonial Africa as it was during colonialism, as power has tended to be concentrated in the hands of professional political actors.

Such political actors who derive their legitimacy from the universe of citizens through democratic elections have tended to operate in an opaque and non-transparent and unaccountable manner.

With few exceptions, the bureaucracies in post-colonial Africa are staffed with professionals whose educational qualifications are comparable to any developed state.

The role of citizens in making Africa more democratic has largely been undermined by the professionalisation of the post-colonial state.

The change in the control of Africa from the colonial elites to professional state actors in the post-colonial state has created a situation where state actors are not accountable for their decisions and actions.

Although the post-colonial African state is manned largely by professional elites, the drivers of African economic progress are not Africans in the main.

Actors that are domiciled outside the continent control the enterprises that control the majority of African resources.

The generally acknowledged egregious abuses of the state in Africa can be located in the fact that the trustees i.e. political actors holding tremendous power and wealth, are not accountable to the people that determine the form and shape of African democracy.

The concentration of power in a few hands raises a series of unanswered questions including: Who should monitor the state actors? How do we protect citizens from institutional abuse? Is fiduciary duty i.e. in terms of parliamentary oversight, enough to assure appropriate behavior by state actors?

The experience of many post-colonial African states has exposed the fact that citizens have no real protection against abuse by state actors. The people who control the significant resources of Africa have no interest in interfering with domestic political issues.

African political parties can hardly be described as functioning institutions with checks and balances. The disconnection between Africa’s ruling elites and citizens is not dissimilar to the disconnection between shareholders of African corporate institutions and the people who manage the enterprises.

African corporate institutions are also not accountable to their stakeholders. The rise in fiduciary capitalism that has been witnessed in many developed states in response to market failures has not been transmitted to Africa where capital markets are not generally open to the majority of the citizens.

The long-term holders of power in corporate Africa are not indigenous people and the power, if it exists, is concentrated in public and cooperative pension funds, corporate and union pension funds, mutual funds and bank trusts with individuals playing a small if not insignificant role in the power value chain.

The transition from owner founders to managerial capitalism and on to fiduciary capitalism has not been possible in post-colonial Africa principally because of the attitude towards business adopted by many African state actors.

In the absence of a critical mass of domestic economic players, the post-colonial state has had to intervene as shareholder, market corrector and referee. In the three respects, the state in post-colonial Africa has failed in providing leadership least because most of the state actors are not equipped to appreciate the dynamics of a capitalist system.

We know that many African states believe that they are not in control of their destinies. Instead of taking ownership of their future they normally choose to place blame for lack of progress in reducing the frontiers of poverty on third parties.

To the extent that black Africans are in the majority and are largely in control of the business models that serve the African consumers, it is logical to assume that its majority citizens effectively control Africa.

However, a view is strongly held that the future of Africa is not in the hands of Africans and the few that have escaped Africa and are now living and working outside the continent have not helped in changing this perception.

It would be wrong to hold the view that companies that operate in Africa notwithstanding the domicile of the holders of the shares are not African. Corporate institutions are also citizens and unfortunately many of such citizens continue to refuse identify with the environments that provide them with income.

To the extent that a bad operating environment in Africa threatens individual and corporate actors, it is remarkable that the opposition to state abuse in post-colonial Africa has largely emanated from foreign state actors and a small group of non-state actors including labor movements.

Post-colonial African state actors as feared by colonial actors are not responsible to the people who elect them to the extent that donor states have had to fill the vacuum to the long-term detriment of African democracy.

However, such intervention to the extent that African progress is directly related to donor support can hardly be considered to be interference especially when we have failed to come up with viable alternatives that advance African causes.

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