Africa, for most people in the West, is an undifferentiated mess, a cruel and poor land where time stands still — or even flies backwards. But President Bush’s visit to the continent shows that his Administration is aware that things are changing in Africa; that there is a second-generation democratic revolution which, properly handled, holds out considerable promise both for the continent and for the West.
No one doubts that the era of African independence inaugurated in the 1960s was largely disastrous. The early promise of democracy was quickly betrayed by kleptocratic elites, one-party states and military dictators. Economies shrank, civil order collapsed and life expectancy fell. Within a generation most older Africans could be heard bitterly regretting the end of colonialism which, whatever its other faults, had provided order and progress. This was true not only under British and French rule but even under the Portuguese: if you look at Mozambique, for example, you find that per capita income and life expectancy peaked in 1973, the last year of Lisbon’s rule.
Even more frustrating to Westerners who had backed the cause of African independence was the peculiar mix of attitudes that dogged the thinking of Africa’s elites. On the one hand, they stole everything that wasn’t nailed down and quite a lot that was. Simultaneously, they denounced the West and argued that everything that had gone wrong in Africa was the fault of Western colonialism, capitalism or apartheid. The answer, they claimed, was for the West to provide more loans, aid and investment — most of which they frittered or spirited away.
Over the past few years, however, it has become clear that a few African states, slowly growing in number, are pulling themselves clear of the wreckage. The first two to do so were Mauritius and Botswana which settled down immediately to multiparty democracy and liberal economic policies. Mauritius has not only held regular free elections, but has grown at 5 per cent to 6 per cent a year since its independence in 1968. The small island nation has shown great entrepreneurial drive in growing from a sugar-based economy to develop tourism and textiles and now financial services. It has achieved the same economic level as Greece or Portugal and seen economic inequalities diminish rapidly as it has done so.
Botswana’s achievement has been even more striking. From a start as one of the 20 poorest countries on earth at independence in 1966, the same combination of multiparty democracy and sane economic policies have given Botswana the world’s highest economic growth rate — 7 per cent a year, comfortably ahead of Singapore (6.2 per cent) and South Korea (6.1 per cent), despite the country’s suffering the world’s worst HIV rate. Botswana has sent endless teams to learn from Mauritius and it is also moving hard into tourism and financial services. It has set its sights on achieving a European level of income by 2016, 50 years after independence. Not surprisingly, Botswana has had the world’s most bullish stock market over the past two years.
Both Mauritius (1.2 million inhabitants) and Botswana (1.75 million) are small, but in the past few years several middle-size states have joined them in the liberal-democratic camp – Mali (11 million), Senegal (11 million), Ghana (20 million) and Uganda (25 million).
Mali, which held its first democratic elections in 1992, saw President Konare step down voluntarily last year, the succession going to Amadou Toure. Although still desperately poor ($840 GDP per capita), it has been growing steadily at 5 per cent a year since 1996. Senegal, which is almost twice as rich, has shown a similar growth rate since 1995 and in 2000 saw the ruling party defeated and retire gracefully from power to enable the liberal Abdoulaye Wade to become President.
Uganda has been ruled by President Museveni since 1986 — and his adoption of liberal economic policies has seen the economy grow at an average 5 per cent a year since then. Museveni, who has weathered two democratic presidential elections, lets opposition parties exist but not campaign. Nonetheless, there is no doubt as to his achievement: much of the damage done by Milton Obote and Idi Amin has been repaired and the HIV rate is now down to 6.1 per cent: 15 years ago it was the continent’s highest.
Finally, Ghana joined this new liberal group in 2000 with the election of President Kuofor; his predecessor, Jerry Rawlings, having been constitutionally disbarred from standing yet again. In its first year the Kuofor Government saw economic growth at 3 per cent but it is hoped that its liberal reforms will see that speed up. Ghana already has a per capita GDP of $1,980, a lowish (4 per cent) HIV rate and crucially, in a region fraught with violence, it enjoys peace, law and order. Already a building boom is in evidence in Accra as Ghanaian expatriates rush to invest in homes, for Ghana is now a country people want to return to.
Any visit by Mr Bush to Africa has to include South Africa and oil-producing Nigeria. The conventional wisdom is that his trip is all about oil. The US already derives one fifth of its oil from Africa and is hoping to increase that to a quarter, but in fact the claim is facile. While no one doubts America’s wish to reduce its dependence on supplies from the Middle East, nor the probability that there is a great deal more African oil to be discovered, the figures show that the US will depend mainly on the Middle East for as long as oil matters.
But it is no accident that Mr Bush will also visit Botswana, Uganda and Senegal. The message is clear: the US wishes to signal its support for the second-generation democrats and clearly wishes to see that group expand. This is even more important to the strategic interests of the United States than oil. For in the post-9/11 world three facts stand out. First, failed states — of which Africa has many — are a breeding ground for terrorism. Secondly, the US is short of friends in the UN General Assembly – nearly a third of whose members are Africans. And thirdly, these new African liberal leaders are America’s natural allies not just because they are free-market democrats, but also because they are fed up with the old mantras that have held sway in Africa. Thus President Wade of Senegal happily scandalised his fellow leaders by describing the Organisation of African Unity as a mutual support club for ageing dictators while President Mogae of Botswana has broken ranks to declare that the problems of Zimbabwe derive from rank bad governance.
Much of Africa remains mired in an older rhetoric. Currently, for example, President Mbeki of South Africa is making great play with the notion that the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy is blighting Africa’s growth. The CAP is certainly noxious, but the reason Zimbabwe, say, is no longer exporting food is because President Mugabe has destroyed its agriculture and the reason there is famine in Malawi is because the Government has stolen and sold off the grain reserves. In fact, some African farmers — mainly whites — export flowers and vegetables very profitably to Europe. Those, like Mr Mbeki, locked in the old rhetoric of victimhood, will continue to berate the West for all Africa’s woes, but the new liberals are more flexible and self-reliant in their thinking. For it is now clear that South Africa’s liberation from apartheid was the last of the old independence era. Increasingly, the liberals will be the pace-setters.
The old picture of Africa as an undifferentiated sea of misery is outdated. To be sure, the successes are fragile and need encouragement. But increasingly the continent will be divided between winners and losers and the success of the liberals will set up strong emulatory currents in the loser states. Mr Mbeki is propping up Mr Mugabe’s embattled regime financially and politically because he fears that it will slip into the liberal camp if Mr Mugabe falls.
But this is precisely why Mr Bush is so firm in his belief that it is time for tyrants such as Mr Mugabe and Charles Taylor of Liberia to go. Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, has spoken warmly of the support he’s had from President Kibaki’s Kenya as well as from the other African liberals. This is what makes tomorrow’s talks between Mr Bush and Mr Mbeki so significant, for just as Mr Bush is willing to put large funds behind a breakthrough to liberal democracy in a Zimbabwe under Mr Tsvangirai, Mr Mbeki is doing all he can to hold it in the old — now discredited — “liberation movement” camp.
Join the Debate on this article at comment@thetimes.co.uk
