2018: Managing the pace of change in Africa – the year ahead
The success of African governments is increasingly defined by their ability to manage the pace of social and political change. Africa’s burgeoning youth populations are flocking to the cities, embracing new forms of communications and media, and vocally demanding greater accountability from their governments.
Young and aspirational societies are above all hungry for jobs, but they also expect better public services and more evident social justice. This tide of expectation from the grassroots makes change inevitable. But while governments cannot stop it, they can still shape the pace and direction of change.
The African continent today is characterised by two types of nations – those led by reform-minded governments with the political will to deliver on their development strategy and overseeing robust growth driven by their private sectors; and those that resort to window-dressing efforts at reform while clinging to power through a reliance on patronage. In 2018, I anticipate more bumps in the road for African leaders who fail to respond to the clamouring of their young populations. But I also see the emergence of a new generation of leadership, like ours in Botswana, which has grown responsive to the needs and expectations of its citizens.
The new administrations of Cyril Ramaphosa in South Africa, Joao Lourenco in Angola, and Emmerson Mnangagwa in Zimbabwe, while facing notable political and economic challenges, will all strike a more reformist and accountable tone than their predecessors in 2018. I anticipate Ramaphosa will make bold cabinet selections in South Africa to reassure the capital markets, step back from some of President Jacob Zuma’s more controversial recent populist policy interventions, and importantly, push for investigations into some of the alleged graft which has rocked South African politics in recent years.
This will not be an easy task, such is the divided nature of his party and the fragile state of the economy. But he will look to assert his authority and strike a note of change, while upholding aspects of the ANC’s radical economic transformation agenda, which remains so critical to South Africa’s long-term socio-economic rebalancing post-apartheid.
Lourenco is also making waves in Angola as he seeks to assert his authority over the state apparatus and dilute the lingering influence of the dos Santos family, who have dominated Angolan politics for the last three decades. From his new position of growing strength, I anticipate that Lourenco’s reforms will move beyond personnel changes to actually tackle some of the monopolies that thrive in Angola’s heavily politicised business landscape. It remains to be seen however, whether such actions constitute part of a coherent development agenda, or whether they are simply a means of wrestling control of key patronage structures from one faction to another.
In those countries where leaders have sought to push back and resist the forces of change, political risks will increase, as was evidenced recently in Zimbabwe. In perhaps the most prominent example of this dynamic, President Joseph Kabila’s dance around the international community in the DRC will continue to fuel a political and security crisis in 2018 that carries risks of escalation. Kabila will continue to play to the gallery on his commitment to elections, but I see this as a means to detract from his entrenchment in power. This dynamic will continue to foment unrest and violence as the country limps along to an inevitable transition.
Between populism and pragmatism
Linked to this same demographic pressure for reform and progress, governments are having to make tough decisions on how they run their economies, make policy and fund their development plans. With commodity prices still somewhat subdued, donor streams proving unreliable, and China taking a more restrained approach to the continent, in the last two-to-three years African governments have been forced to place a greater focus on economic diversification, debt-raising, fiscal reform, and efforts to broaden the tax base.
Such reforms are much-needed to strengthen the macro-economic sustainability of many countries. But they also carry structural risks, and notable opportunities and risks for business, which need to be carefully evaluated. With regards to structural risk, IMF chief Christine Lagarde in December 2017 sounded the warning bell over resurgent public debt levels in Africa, with external debt in particular vulnerable to foreign currency appreciation noting the likelihood of further interest hikes in the US and Euro-area this year.
After a swathe of debt write-offs in the 2000s with the launch of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) in 1996, African debt is again on the rise, with many governments using commercial and conditional borrowing to plug persistent fiscal and budgetary gaps. On a positive note, unlike in previous debt cycles, much of the focus of recent borrowing has been to fund capital spending on infrastructure and developmental projects.
However, many governments have also proven either reluctant or unable to trim the public wage bill, cut back on subsidies and reduce wastage in the system by pioneering robust public-sector reform. This has proven evident in the challenging IMF negotiations around concessional reforms to enable extended credit facilities in countries like Mozambique and Zambia.
While 2018 is unlikely to be the year when the tide turns on African debt, we expect this issue to come increasingly into focus with several bond issuances nearing maturity, and the long-term sustainability of debt in countries like Guinea, Ghana and Kenya being called into question. Fortunately, African governments appear more engaged with the IMF and other lenders than they were during the stubborn debt crises of the 1980s.
But public-sector reforms will prove a bitter pill to swallow, and with governments under pressure to maintain spending and preserve jobs, the debt mountain is more likely to swell than deflate. This issue could well come back to bite, and donors are unlikely to countenance a second bailout along the lines of HIPC, underlining the long-term structural risks this presents if spending is not contained.
On the other hand, the move towards economic diversification – particularly in resource dependent economies – presents huge opportunities to business. These range from reforms and incentives to open untapped or under-productive sectors like mining and agriculture, to the launch of Special Economic Zones or ring-fenced industrial parks like the export-oriented manufacturing hubs being developed in Zambia or Ethiopia. Such moves are unlocking significant potential for both companies and government, with an aligned benefit from wealth and jobs creation, and increased fiscal contributions.
Yet in other areas, fiscal reforms and efforts to broaden the tax base come with risks for business. Internal revenue generation in Africa is lamentably low due to a combination of poor checks and systems, high levels of informality in the economy, low tax rates, and corruption. The drive to address this issue forms an important step to build more sustainable economies.
Yet while improving tax collection systems and broadening the tax base to capture untaxed areas is likely to be a positive move, we are also likely to see a struggle play out between the need for pragmatic fiscal management and the desire to secure easy populist wins which carry political capital. In particular, where tax authorities target the low-hanging fruit of existing tax payers to drive up tax collection, this is likely to carry risks to business and in some instances, have a detrimental effect on economic activity.
In 2018, we are likely to see hikes in excise taxes on consumer goods that are seen to carry health and environmental impact – notably drinks, plastics and tobacco products – and the telecoms sector will also face similar pressures as a perceived cash-cow for government. While environmental and health issues will be used as the rationale, often the real driver of fiscal change will be short-term revenue-raising requirements. And while the foot has been taken off the pedal in terms of resource nationalism in the extractives sector after a wave of fiscal and regulatory reform in the last decade, tax and regulatory enforcement – including stringent sanctions for non-compliance – is likely to remain a feature for this strategic sector, where local content and beneficiation will be the primary government focus.
Businesses will need to be alert to these risks, which can originate domestically or result from contagion stemming from ‘influencer markets’ like South Africa which wield significant regional influence. While the risk of contagion from the more radical forms of policy that has been pursued in recent years in countries like Zimbabwe or even Tanzania is limited by the realities of the political-economy in other markets, tax and regulatory pressures are likely to become a growing challenge for business, requiring robust and proactive engagement to manage the impact on operations and the bottom line.
Marcus Courage, CEO of Africa Practice Group, a pan-African strategy and communications consultancy with offices in London, Gaborone and six other African capitals. www.africapractice. com
You may like
The case for Botswana to ratify the ACDEG
The Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) is the most comprehensive dataset measuring African governance performance through a wide range of 81 indicators under the categories of Security & Rule of law, Participation, Rights & Inclusion, Foundations of Economic Opportunity, and Human Development. It employs scores, expressed out of 100, which quantify a countryâ€™s performance for each governance measure and ranks, out of 54, in relation to the 54 African countries.
The 2022 IIAG Overall Governance score is 68.1 and ranks Botswana at number 5 in Africa. In 2019 Botswana was ranked 2nd with an overall score of 73.3. That is a sharp decline. The best-performing countries are Mauritius, Seychelles, Tunisia, and Cabo Verde, in that order. A glance at the categories shows that Botswana is in third place in Africa on the Security and Rule of law; ninth in the Participation, Rights & Inclusion Category â€“ indicating a shrinking participatory environment; eighth for Foundations of Economic Opportunity category; and fifth in the Human Development category.
The 2022 IIAG comes to a sweeping conclusion: Governments are less accountable and transparent in 2021 than at any time over the last ten years; Higher GDP does not necessarily indicate better governance; rule of law has weakened in the last five years; Democratic backsliding in Africa has accelerated since 2018; Major restrictions on freedom of association and assembly since 2012. Botswana is no exception to these conclusions. In fact, a look at the 10-year trend shows a major challenge. While Botswana remains in the top 5 of the best-performing countries in Africa, there are signs of decline, especially in the categories of Human Development and Security & Rule of law.
I start with this picture to show that Botswana is no longer the poster child for democracy, good governance, and commitment to the rule of law that it once was. In fact, to use the term used in the IIAG, Botswana is experiencing a â€śdemocratic backsliding.â€ť
The 2021 Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI) had Botswana at 55/ 100, the lowest ever score recorded by Botswana dethroning Botswana as Africaâ€™s least corrupt country to a distant third place, where it was in 2019 with a CPI of 61/100. (A score closer to zero denotes the worst corrupt and a score closer to 100 indicates the least corrupt country). The concern here is that while other African states are advancing in their transparency and accountability indexes, Botswana is backsliding.
The Transitional National Development Plan lists participatory democracy, the rule of law, transparency, and accountability, as key â€śdeliverables,â€ť if you may call those deliverables. If indeed Botswana is committed to these principles, she must ratify the African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance (ACDEG).
The African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance is the African Union’s principal policy document for advancing democratic governance in African Union member states. The ACDEG embodies the continentâ€™s commitment to a democratic agenda and set the standards upon which countries agreed to be held accountable. The Charter was adopted in 2007 and came into force a decade ago, in 2012.
Article 2 of the Charter details its objectives among others as to a) Promote adherence, by each State Party, to the universal values and principles of democracy and respect for human rights; b) Promote and protect the independence of the judiciary; c) Promote the establishment of the necessary conditions to foster citizen participation, transparency, access to information, freedom of the press and accountability in the management of public affairs; d) Promote gender balance and equality in the governance and development processes.
The Charter emphasizes certain principles through which member states must uphold: Citizen Participation, Accountable Institutions, Respect for Human Rights, Adherence to the principles of the Rule of Law, Respect for the supremacy of the constitution and constitutional order, Entrenchment of democratic Principles, Separation of Powers, Respect for the Judiciary, Independence and impartiality of electoral bodies, best practice in the management of elections. These are among the top issues that Batswana have been calling for, that they be entrenched in the new Constitution.
The ACDEG is a revolutionary document. Article 3 of the ACDEG, sets guidance on the principles that must guide the implementation of the Charter among them: Effective participation of citizens in democratic and development processes and in the governance of public affairs; Promotion of a system of government that is representative; Holding of regular, transparent, free and fair elections; Separation of powers; Promotion of gender equality in public and private institutions and others.
Batswana have been calling for laws that make it mandatory for citizen participation in public affairs, more so, such calls have been amplified in the just-ended â€śconsultative processâ€ť into the review of the Constitution of Botswana. Many scholars, academics, and Batswana, in general, have consistently made calls for a constitution that provides for clear separation of powers to prevent concentration of power in one branch, in Botswanaâ€™s case, the Executive, and provide for effective checks and balances. Other countries, like Kenya, have laws that promote gender equality in public and private institutions inscribed in their constitutions. The ACDEG could be a useful advocacy tool for the promotion of gender equality.
Perhaps more relevant to Botswanaâ€™s situation now is Article 10 of the Charter. Given how the constitutional review process unfolded, the numerous procedural mistakes and omissions, the lack of genuine consultations, the Charter principles could have provided a direction, if Botswana was party to the Charter. â€śState Parties shall ensure that the process of amendment or revision of their constitution reposes on national consensus, obtained, if need be, through referendum,â€ť reads part of Article 10, giving clear clarity, that the Constitution belong to the people.
With the African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance in hand, ratified, and also given the many shortfalls in the current constitution, Batswana can have a tool in hand, not only to hold the government accountable but also a tool for measuring aspirations and shortfalls of our governance institutional framework.
Botswana has not signed, nor has it acceded or ratified the ACDEG. The time to ratify the ACDEG is now. Our Movement, Motheo O Mosha Society, with support from the Democracy Works Foundation and The Charter Project Africa, will run a campaign to promote, popularise and advocate for the ratification of the Charter (#RatifytheCharter Campaign). The initiative is co-founded by the European Union. The Campaign is implemented with the support of our sister organizations: Global Shapers Community â€“ Gaborone Hub, #FamilyMeetingBW, Botswana Center for Public Integrity, Black Roots Organization, Economic Development Forum, Molao-Matters, WoTech Foundation, University of Botswana Political Science Society, Young Minds Africa and Branding Akosua.
Ratifying the Charter would reaffirm Botswanaâ€™s commitment to upholding strong democratic values, and respect for constitutionalism, and promote the rule of law and political accountability. Join us in calling the Government of Botswana to #RatifyTheCharter.
*Morena MONGANJA is the Chairperson of Motheo O Mosha society; a grassroots movement advocating for a new Constitution for Botswana. Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org or WhatsApp 77 469 362.
The Taiwan Question: China ramps up military exercises to rebuff US provocations
US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan has violated the One-China policy, and caused the escalation of tensions across the Taiwan Strait. Experts and political observers across the spectra agree that Pelosi’s actions and subsequent pronouncements by US President Joe Biden gave impetus to an already simmering tension in the Taiwan Strait, provoking China to strengthen its legitimate hold on the Taiwan Strait waters, which the US and Taiwan deem as ‘international waters’.
Pelosi’s visit to China’s Taiwan region has been heavily criticised across the globe, with China arguing that this is a serious violation of the one-China principle and the provisions of the three China-US Joint Communiqués. In response to this reckless move which seriously undermined China’s sovereignty, and interfered in China’s internal affairs, the expectation is for China to give a firm response. Pelosi visit violated the commitments made by the U.S. side, and seriously jeopardized peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.
To give context to China’s position over Taiwan region, the history behind gives us perspective. It is also important to note that the history between China and Taiwan is well documented and the US has always recognized it.
The People’s Republic of China recognises Taiwan as its territory. It has always been the case even before the Nationalist Republic of China government fled to the previously Japanese-ruled Island after losing the civil war on the mainland in 1949. According to literature that threat was contained for decades — first with a military alliance between the US and the ROC on Taiwan, and after Washington switched diplomatic recognition to the PRC in 1979 by the US One China policy, which acknowledges Beijing’s position that Taiwan is part of One China. Effectively, Taiwan’s administration was transferred to the Republic of China from Japan after the Second World War in 1945, along with the split between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) as a consequence of the Chinese Civil War. Disregarding this history, as the US is attempting to do, will surely initiate some defence reaction on the side of China to affirm its sovereignty.
However, this history was undermined since Taiwan claimed to democratise in the 1990s and China has grown ever more belligerent. Furthermore, it is well documented that the Biden administration, following the Trump presidency, has made subtle changes in the way it deals with Taipei, such as loosening restrictions on US officials meeting Taiwanese officials – this should make China uneasy. And while the White House continues to say it does not support Taiwanese independence, Biden’s words and actions are parallel to this pledge because he has warned China that the US would intervene militarily if China attacked Taiwan – another statement that has provoked China.
Pelosi, in her private space, would know that her actions amount to provocation of China. This act of aggression by the USA seriously undermines the virtues of sovereignty and territorial integrity which has a huge potential to destabilize not only the Taiwan Strait but the whole of the Asia- Pacific region. The Americans know very well that their provocative behavior is deliberately invoking the spirit of separatism masqueraded as “Taiwan independence”. The US is misled to think that by supporting separatism of Taiwan from China that would give them an edge over China in a geopolitics. This is what one Chinese diplomat said this week: “The critical point is if every country put their One-China policy into practice with sincerity, with no compromise, is going to guarantee the peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.” Therefore, it was in the wake of US House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, that China, in a natural response revealed plans for unprecedented military exercises near the island, prompting fears of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait and the entire Asia-Pacific region. The world community must promote and foster peace, this may be achieved when international laws are respected. It may also happen when nations respect the sovereignty of another. China may be in a better space because it is well capacitated to stake its territorial integrity, what about a small nation, if this happens to it?
As to why military exercises by Beijing; it is an expected response because China was provoked by the actions of Pelosi. To fortify this position, Chinese President, Xi signed a legal basis for China’s People’s Liberation Army to “safeguard China’s national sovereignty, security and development interests”. The legal basis will also allow military missions around disaster relief, humanitarian aid and peacekeeping. In addition the legal changes would allow troops to “prevent spillover effects of regional instabilities from affecting China, secure vital transport routes for strategic materials like oil, or safeguard China’s overseas investments, projects and personnel. It then follows that President Xi’s administration cannot afford to look weak under a US provocation. President Xi must protector China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, of which Taiwan is a central part.” Beijing is very clear on One-China Policy, and expects all world players to recognize and respect it.
The People’s Liberation Army has made it clear that it has firepower that covers all of Taiwan, and it can strike wherever it wants. This sentiments have been attributed to Zhang Junshe, a researcher at the PLA Navy Research Institute. Zheng further said, “We got really close to Taiwan. We encircled Taiwan. And we demonstrated that we can effectively stop intervention by foreign forces.” This is a strong reaction from China to warn the US against provocation and violation of the One-China Policy.
Beijing’s military exercises will certainly shake Taiwan’s confidence in the sources of its economic and political survival. The potential for an effective blockade threatens the air and shipping routes that support Taiwan’s central role in global technology supply chains. Should a humanitarian situation arise in Taiwan, the blame would squarely be on the US.
As China’s military exercises along the Taiwan Strait progress and grow, it remains that the decision by Nancy Pelosi to visit China’s Taiwan region gravely undermined peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, and sent a wrong signal to “Taiwan independence” separatist forces. This then speaks to international conventions, as the UN Secretary-General António Guterres explicitly stressed that the UN remains committed to the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758. The centerpiece is the one-China principle, namely, there is but one China in the world, the government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China, and Taiwan is a part of China. It must be noted that the US and the US-led NATO countries have selectively applied international law, this has been going on unabated. There is a plethora of actions that have collapsed several states after they were attacked under the pretext of the so-called possession of weapons of mass destruction illuminating them as threats – and sometimes even without any valid reason. to blatantly launch military strikes and even unleash wars on sovereign countrie
Internal party-democracy under pressure
British novelist, W. Somerset Maugham once opined: “If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too.”
The truism in these words cannot be underestimated, especially when contextualizing against the political developments in Botswana. We have become a nation that does not value democracy, yet nothing represent freedom more than democracy. In fact, we desire, and value winning power or clinging to power more than anything else, even if it harms the democratic credentials of our political institutions. This is happening across political parties — ruling and opposition.
As far as democracy is concerned, we are regressing. We are becoming worse-off than we were in the past. If not arrested, Botswana will lose its status as among few democratic nations in the Africa. Ironically, Botswana was the first country in Africa to embrace democracy, and has held elections every five years without fail since independence.
We were once viewed as the shining example of Africa. Those accolades are not worth it any more. Young democracies such as South Africa, with strong institutions, deserves to be exalted. Botswana has lost faith in democracy, and we will pay a price for it. It is a slippery slope to dictatorship, which will bring among other excess, assault on civil liberties and human rights violations.
Former President, Festus Mogae once stated that Botswana’s democracy will only become authentic, when a different party, other than the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) wins elections, and when the President of such party is not from Serowe.
Although many may not publicly care to admit, Mogae’s assertion is true. BDP has over the years projected itself as a dyed-in-the-wool proponent of democracy, but the moment its stay in power became threatened and uncertain, it started behaving in a manner that is at variance with democratic values. This has been happening over the years now, and the situation is getting worse by the day.
Recently, the BDP party leadership has been preaching compromise and consensus candidates for 2024 general elections. Essentially, the leadership has lost faith in the Bulela Ditswe dispensation, which has been used to selected party candidates for council and parliament since 2003. The leadership is discouraging democracy because they believe primary elections threaten party unity. It is a strange assertion indeed.
Bulela Ditswe was an enrichment of internal party democracy in the sense that it replaced the previous method of selection of candidates known as Committee of 18, in which a branch committee made of 18 people endorsed the representatives. While it is true that political contest can divide, the ruling party should be investing in political education and strengthening in its primary elections processes. Democracy does not come cheap or easy, but it is valuable.
Any unity that we desire so much at the expense of democracy is not true unity. Like W. Somerset Maugham said, democracy would be lost in the process, and ultimately, even the unity that was desired would eventually be lost too. Any solution that sacrifice democracy would not bring any results in the long run, except misery.
We have seen that also in opposition ranks. The Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) recently indicated that its incumbent Members of Parliament (MPs) should not be challenged for their seats. While BDP is sacrificing democracy to stay in power, UDC is sacrificing democracy to win power. It is a scary reality given the fact that both parties – ruling and opposition — have embraced this position and believe democracy is the hindrance to their political ambitions.
These current reality points to one thing; our political parties have lost faith in democracy. They desire power more than, the purpose of power itself. It is also a crisis of leadership across the political divide, where we have seen dissenting views being met with persecution. We have seen perverting of political process endorsed by those in echelons of power to manipulate political outcomes in their favour.
Democracy should not be optional, it should be mandatory. Any leader proposing curtailing of democracy should be viewed with suspicion, and his adventures should be rejected before it is too late. Members of political parties, as subscribers of democracy, should collectively rise to the occasion to save their democracy from self-interest that is becoming prevalent among Botswana political parties.
The so-called compromise candidates, only benefits the leadership because it creates comforts for them. But for members, and for the nation, it is causing damage by reversing the gains that have been made over the years. We should reject leaders who only preach democracy in word, but are hesitant to practice it.