Joel Netshitenzhe
Presentation: Robben Island 'School on Leadership'
21 September 2002
From
liberation to integration: The role of NEPAD
I should start
off by thanking the organisers for the opportunity to share ideas
with part of the doyen of the leadership of our country and our
region. In a sense, the colleagues and friends assembled here constitute
one of the most appropriate fora to reflect on challenges of Africa's
recovery.
It's in the
nature of our history that "jailbirds" and their associates
constitute the core of the leadership to drive programmes of change.
What can "civilisation" do!
In examining
the ideas that should underpin Africa's reconstruction and development,
the critical questions that should engage our minds are: what is
the methodological base that should inform our approach to the issue
of the African Renaissance and NEPAD; what is the motivation behind
the motivation for these programmes!
These questions
are crucial because we face the danger of so immersing ourselves
in technical detail and processes that we can lose sight of the
historicism of the NEPAD intervention: its deep roots in the belly
of Africa's and indeed South Africa's self-interest. Unfortunately,
the obsession with form rather than content seems to inform most
of the "left critique" of NEPAD peddled in the media.
We shall come
back to a number of these questions later.
Defining
the challenges
First, let us
examine the main challenges that attach to the concept of the African
Renaissance and the NEPAD programme.
In doing so
we need to state the obvious: it is not an act of African patriotism
nor is it a matter of choice that Africans should breath "African
air", produce and consume African products and subsist on African
soil. African neighbours will fight, migrate, love and hate one
another, and compete. They shall also put on dashikis and other
African attire.
But all these
do not constitute the promotion of an African Renaissance, or the
implementation of NEPAD.
In the same
vein, everything that African governments do, individually and collectively,
is African and not necessarily a special act of Renaissance.
It is important
to assert this especially in South Africa, obvious as it may be,
because a tendency does play itself out among us that, when we negotiate
trade agreements, visit Africa countries or co-operate in monitoring
the weather, we are tempted to declare, NEPAD is alive and well,
long live the African Renaissance. Thus we miss a critical premise,
which is that a special, conscious, extraordinary and systematic
effort is required to attain, in the long term, a continental renaissance.
This is what NEPAD sets out to do.
But why do we
believe that the possibility exists for NEPAD to yield extraordinary
results? What is it in the objective environment that gives us the
confidence that Africa can blaze out along a new trail?
The starting
point in all this is that what we are dealing with is pursuit of
the ideals of the people of the continent. The programme for Africa's
renewal is not a beauty contest on the catwalks of Paris, London
or New York: it's about the interests of the ordinary African man,
woman and child in Dakar, Abuja, Tshwane, Polokwane, Khartoum and
Harare. Democracy, macro-economic stability and sustainable socio-economic
programmes are in the profound self-interest of Africa's people.
The location of these principles at the heart of NEPAD is not aimed
at pleasing anyone else, but Africa's people themselves, first and
foremost.
The second principle
is that NEPAD proceeds from the premise that, for the continent
to realise her potential, it must pool its sovereignty. To muster
the power of such collective sovereignty will demand sacrifice of
part of the sovereignty of individual African nations. The Peer
Review Mechanism is an element of this: the willingness to be monitored,
assessed and judged on political and economic governance by Africans
other than one's own compatriots.
The third principle
is that NEPAD requires a recognition that the centripetal (or uniting)
tendencies will have to overwhelm the centrifugal (or dividing)
tendencies that have characterised intra- and inter-state relations
across the continent in the past decades.
The fourth principle
is that, for NEPAD to succeed, there should be a deliberate effort
on the part of the continent to identify its comparative advantages.
In other words, we should clearly and unambiguously answer the question:
what is it that Africa uniquely possesses; what is it that should
influence an investor, for instance, to stay in Africa or to come
to the continent instead of investing in China, Singapore or Chile!
In other words,
while the history of colonialism, the sentiment for reparations
and empathy are important driving forces, the cold reality that
Africa's leaders and peoples create in global perceptions should
be one in which Africa's superiority in certain niche areas is convincingly
demonstrated.
Having asserted
these basic principles, let us return to the question: why are we
confident that the continent is at the confluence of circumstances
that make NEPAD a necessary and attainable proposition!
Combination
of circumstances for renewal
NEPAD stands
no chance of succeeding if it is merely an ideal in the heads of
an intelligent and discerning leadership. My submission is that
this idea has the potential to become a material force - Presidents
Mbeki, Obasanjo, Bouteflika and other are timely instruments of
Africa's history - because a set of circumstances have emerged over
the past decade which make for a continental shift in mindset and
praxis.
The first of
these conditions is the stage of development of the world economy.
Just over 150 years ago, Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, describing
the capitalist mode of production and its international manifestation,
said (in the Communist Manifesto):
"The need
of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie
over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere,
settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere".
"In place
of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we
have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of
nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production.
The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property.
National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more
impossible... [This system] compels all nations, on the pain of
extinction, to adopt the bourgeoisie mode of production; it compels
them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e.,
to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world
after its own image."
This, many would
argue, could be an apt description of the global economic system
today. However, there a few qualitatively new elements in the system,
which underline that it would be in the interest of the world to
partner Africa in her new endeavours,
The first of
these is the character of world economic relations, a system which
Professor Manuel Castells describes as one that operates as a unit
in real time on a planetary scale.
So, firstly,
unlike before, information and communications technology and the
nature of global public communication constrain unbridled colonialism
and neo-colonialism. It is becoming obvious to all and sundry that
dangerous diseases know no borders; TV brings into the world's living
rooms patent inequality and poverty; economic meltdowns in one region
of the globe impact on all economies. Societies everywhere are waking
up to the fact that underdevelopment anywhere in the world threatens
to pull everyone down. Thus, more than ever before, mass pressures
on governments to act against poverty and underdevelopment are heavier
than at any other time in history.
Secondly, unlike
in 1848 when the Manifesto was published, we have entered a stage
in the development of capitalist production in which productivity
in developed countries outstrips consumption. This underpins the
drive for export markets and for establishing enterprises outside
the developed centres, i.e. for these enterprises to follow rather
than just import cheap factor inputs.
Thirdly, a unique
trait of the current period is the new politico-ideological environment
occasioned by the end of the Cold War. If in the past, the dictates
of geo-politics helped justify installation and sustenance of Mobutu-type
regimes, this is less so today. Related to this is the fact that
democracy and human rights (themselves gains of human civilisation),
rather than some woolly concept of "western civilisation",
constitute the foundation stone of acceptable global conduct, at
least in the public domain. Attached to this is the emergence of
new forms of civil organisation and expression, challenging the
rapacious licence of the market.
These then are
some of the critical elements of the global situation which contribute
to the set of circumstances making African renewal both possible
and necessary. Added to this are four important factors on the African
continent itself.
The first of
these is the liberation of South Africa which has not only released
huge potential for African renewal; but also engendered on the continent
the self-confidence of self-criticism. While a decade ago and before
that, Africa correctly placed the attainment of political liberation
in Southern Africa at the top of its agenda and often ignored some
of its own weaknesses in a single-minded pursuit of this objective;
today it is called upon to define itself in its own image rather
than as against an immediate political enemy.
The second factor
is the growing self-assertion of African peoples in pursuit of democracy
and people-centred development. Though still fledgling, the political
movements of African peoples are taking shape, with more and more
states embracing democratic forms of government; and organs of civil
society are starting to take shape.
The third factor
is the possibility deriving ironically from Africa's underdevelopment,
that the continent is one region of the globe with the potential
for exponential growth. While the developed world is approaching
near-saturation and can only have pedestrian rates of GDP growth,
Africa is largely untapped. Its low teledensity, weak road, rail
and other infrastructure and its abundant natural resources create
possibilities for massive economic growth. This affords African
governments and economies opportunities for partnership with the
private sector, with the latter assured huge returns, and the former
attaining development of industries and productive forces generally
as well as employment and skills transfer.
Lastly and related
to the above is the possibility for exponential growth of an Africa
middle class: with profound intellectual capacity to enhance human
civilisation in general, with skills that would improve productivity
of enterprises set up by local and foreign investors, with enormous
buying power and so on.
Critical
areas of focus
If these are
the basic prerequisites that make the beginnings of continental
renewal possible, necessary and timely, what then should be the
areas of focus in these early stages?
In answering
this question, we need to remind ourselves that we are dealing with
a continent at the lowest rung of human development. The fundamental
area of focus of NEPAD should therefore be the development of Africa's
productive forces. This means rapid industrialisation; human resource
preservation and development including education, health, information
and communications technology; measures to stem the outflow of capital
(dividends, disinvestments and capital export by Africans themselves,
debt repayments and so on); ensuring access to markets including
for agricultural goods; and concurrently enlarging Africa's aggregate
demand through greater employment and the development of Africa's
middle strata and entrepreneurial class.
Combined, these
are the categories of issues that constitute NEPAD's socio-economic
programme.
Their implementation
however will demand requisite political and economic governance
capacity. Industrial renewal and social development can hardly get
off the ground, let alone be sustained, without an environment of
political legitimacy, macroeconomic stability and jurisprudential
certainty. In other words, Africa has to eliminate undue continental
and country risks that inhibit productive investment by Africans
and foreign investors alike. Above all, it is in the interest of
Africa's peoples that these conditions should be attained.
Among the most
urgent challenges with regard to governance, is the need to address
the brittleness of the African state.
On the extreme
end of the scale are states where contending forces have spectacularly
attained their own common ruin, as in Somalia. There is currently
the situation in Cote d'Vouire where 750 soldiers resisting demobilisation
are now precipitating the collapse of a government and the state
as such. Then there are instances such as Zimbabwe where unsustainable
policies of anti-colonial change have resulted in a crisis of governance.
Another manifestation
of the brittleness of the African state is the absence of some kind
of "partially-revolving doors" that would guarantee a
certain level of dignity and security to those who leave office.
In Zambia for instance, there was the experience of President Kenneth
Kaunda when he left office: where unwittingly, a message was transmitted
that it was safer to cling to power if one were not to face harassment
and hounding in retirement. Indeed, there may be real issues that
need to be pursued with those who leave office if they have done
wrong things, as the current Zambian government would argue is the
case in respect of former President Chiluba. But in general terms,
ensuring some dignity and security to former heads of state, where
such is deserved, is a critical requirement to eliminate the brittleness
of the African state.
Many an African
state is also weakened by internal and cross-border conflict. The
renewal of most of the continent is definitely conditional upon
ending these conflicts. But to do so requires that the root causes
are dispassionately identified and eliminated. And a common thread
that emerges is that, whatever the precise forces behind them, these
conflicts are a specific form of accumulation of wealth - means
of economic plunder by formal and informal armies - in a state that
lacks authority. This is one of the issues that require specific
focus.
Eliminating
the brittleness of the African state requires, above all, the consolidation
of its legitimacy. This means ensuring popular participation, democracy
and human rights and legitimate, inclusive institutions to which
all can pay allegiance. Related to this is the organisation and
mobilisation of Africa's people in legitimate political parties,
organs of civil society, including trade unions, women's organisations,
and an organised African intelligentsia and entrepreneurial class.
In brief, a critical condition for the continent's renewal is the
existence of an effective, confident and assertive legitimising
identity.
Briefly and
concretely, all these critical areas of focus are reflected in the
structures attached to the African Union, mobilisation of African
funders of NEPAD projects, the mobilisation of world resources through
the UN (WSSD and Millennium Declaration), continuing engagement
with the G8 and the Bretton Woods institutions, and the concrete
partnerships being identified in projects pertaining to health,
agriculture, energy, infrastructure, ICT and market access.
Critique
of the NEPAD critique
Having said
all this, a question will naturally arise as to whether there can
be any real substance in these ideals given the logic of neo-liberal
globalisation! What with the erosion of sovereignty of nation-states
generally; the pummelling especially of small open economies irrespective
of whether or not they meet minimum standards of good economic governance;
latest manifestations, in a unipolar world, of unilateralism and
gun-boat diplomacy of the pax Americana kind; arrogance of subsidies
in the US and EU in spite of global protests…
The answer is:
the objective and subjective issues raised above - on why Africa's
renewal is possible and necessary - reflect a rational, optimistic
and revolutionary approach that any genuine left methodology and
agenda should pursue. The immediate outcome of these efforts may
not reflect the ultimate objectives of some of the left forces,
who may seek a socialist Africa!
But there are
no short-cuts. In assessing the relevance or otherwise of NEPAD,
a number of important issues need to be kept in mind.
For a start,
we should reiterate that the logic of NEPAD is first and foremost
about the pursuit of the interests of Africa's poor.
Secondly, history
demonstrates that the starting point in fashioning any civilisation
should be the development of productive forces, with due consideration
to how this impacts on the aggregate human condition.
Further, it
is my contention that reference to state-led development, as a universal
principle applicable everywhere and at all times, can in fact be
self-defeating in instances where the state is itself weak and commands
no resources. As such, developing the state's capacity, in the first
instance, to take charge of a nation-state and secondly to manage
partnerships with those who have the capital to help develop productive
forces, is the most critical challenge of the moment. In such partnerships,
the relationship will be one of unity and struggle, co-operation
and contestation.
In effect, the
implementation of the objectives of NEPAD would set in motion the
emergence of truly democratic and popular polities on the continent,
premised on economic development that improves the human condition.
In other words, NEPAD is a basis for a Continental Democratic Revolution,
inasmuch as we argue in South Africa that the Reconstruction and
Development Programme (RDP) is a basis for the consummation of a
National Democratic Revolution.
One would therefore
argue that, while civil society should expect and demand consultation,
while much in both the content and the form of NEPAD can and should
be improved, the approach that the left adopts towards this programme
should be to work for these on-going improvements while helping
to create conditions for NEPAD's realisation.
This is the
essence of the resolutions that have been adopted by the Organisation
of African Trade Union Unity (OATUU) and recent forums of the African
intelligentsia. For, a critique that is dismissive and aimed practically
at undermining NEPAD is in fact not only bad "left politics"
but also plays into the hands of those who wish to perpetuate Africa's
underdevelopment.
Let me conclude
by addressing the critique that the focus on NEPAD on the part of
South Africa's leaders is escapism (from South Africa's own problems).
The central response here is that NEPAD is not merely a matter of
African patriotism nor some ephemeral love for the continent, but
it is impelled by profound South African self-interest. How so?
South Africa
shall never be an island of prosperity in a sea of poverty. Even
Europe and North America, distant as they may be from underdeveloped
areas of the world, are unable to build dykes high enough to stop
the waves of osmosis of all the negative things that attach to underdevelopment:
uncontrolled migration, disease, cross-border criminality and lately
manifestations of passionate hatred reflected in acts of terrorism.
Further, a growing
aggregate demand in Africa is critical for South Africa's own industrial
development. One instance in this regard is the observation by some
of how, for instance, South Africa's capacity to produce agricultural
implements has diminished with open trade, because of a small market
and lack of economies of scale. If Africa were to develop its agriculture
as envisaged in NEPAD, what implications would this have for such
industries in South Africa and other parts of the continent - with
division of labour and rational exploitation of comparative advantage
across the continent? How would such an approach in other economic
sectors help ensure that industrialisation is shared for the common
good?
It should also
be asserted that South Africa has its own medium- and long-term
needs in respect of such resources as water and energy: and the
potential presented by such marvels as a the Congo River Basin not
only present opportunities for South Africa, but will help create
mutual dependencies that are crucial for true integration.
Lastly, one
can venture to assert that we shall never be able to build a truly
South African nation outside of our African identity. South Africa
needs the infusion of the experience, the cultural depth, the native
African intellect that is in abundance on the continent or in the
Diaspora, and many other attributes that will help us forge an African
nation on the southern tip of the continent.
In summary,
if as it reconstructs itself, South Africa does not contribute to
the efforts of other Africans to pull themselves up into a new era
of rapid development - if it does not help strengthen the positive
forces on the continent - then the negative gravitational pull will
prevail, drawing everyone down into the mire of conflict and growing
poverty.
This then is
the challenge for this leadership assembled on Robben Island for
this educational workshop; it is a challenge for all of Africa's
leaders, be they in the arts, politics, natural sciences, religion,
sports and other areas of endeavour. That challenge is national,
but the context of its expression and its success is regional, continental
and global.
That is our
mission as we start the journey - as we gear ourselves for the long
haul!
Joel Netshitenzhe
CEO: Government Communications (GCIS) and Head: Policy Unit (PCAS)
in The Presidency
Issued by GCIS
top
|
