Democracy in Africa is in Retreat



It is election time in Uganda, and the main opposition candidate has pulled on his bulletproof vest. In recent months, Bobi Wine, the rap singer turned presidential aspirant, has survived arrests, beatings and what he alleges were two assassination attempts as bullets strafed his vehicle.

Mr Wine has good reason to be afraid in the run-up to January’s presidential contest. Two years ago, his driver was shot dead in what he alleges was a botched attempt on his own life. And last month, as his supporters came out to cheer him, scores were gunned down by security forces.

Mr Wine, whose real name is Robert Kyagulanyi, was four years old when President Yoweri Museveni came to power after overthrowing another dictator.

Thirty-four years later, Mr Wine and Mr Museveni represent two opposing sides — the street and the palace — in a continent where democracy has taken a battering but where the thirst for democratic representation remains strong.

At 38, Mr Wine — who styles himself the “ghetto president” after his tough upbringing in a Kampala slum — symbolises the street: a frustrated, underemployed youth in a continent where the median age is below 20.

At 76, Mr Museveni represents an entrenched and ageing political royalty, skilled in the art of economic extraction and the brutal mechanics of clinging on to power. If leaders like Mr Museveni are the immovable object, then challengers like Mr Wine are the unstoppable force.

The result is likely to be more and more confrontations across the continent in which ordinary people, frustrated with crooked elections, demand change. The contents of Mr Wine’s political platform are vague.

More than specific policies, he represents the smouldering rage of an urban youth that has retained a faith in democracy as the best way out of poverty.

“Young Ugandans feel like they are first-world brains trapped in a third-world country,” Mr Wine told CNN this month.

“They want to live their full potential.” Surveys by Afrobarometer, a pan-African polling organisation, show that Africans express consistent support for multi-party democracy, direct elections of their leaders and, above all, presidential term limits.

In a 2019 survey of more than 30 African countries, three-quarters of respondents said they wanted open and fair elections.

More than in Asia, where some autocracies have delivered economic success, most Africans persist in the belief that democracy is the surest path to development, says Emmanuel Gyimah-Boadi, Afrobarometer’s co-founder.

After years of gaining ground after the fall of the Berlin Wall, democracy in Africa is in retreat. Leaders like Mr Museveni have grown adept at manipulating democratic norms to deliver the appearance of democracy without its content.

In Burundi, Guinea, Ivory Coast and many other countries, leaders have engaged in constitutional chicanery to extend term limits.

Former soldiers have donned democratic robes. Chidi Odinkalu, senior manager for Africa at the Open Society Foundations, reckons there are 21 former military men in power in Africa — including Angola, Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda, Sudan, South Sudan and Zimbabwe.

In Mali this year, soldiers moved straight into the presidential palace, without bothering to pass the ballot box. International condemnation of even naked power grabs has been muted. “Donald Trump has made dictatorship hip again,” says Mr Gyimah-Boadi.

He hopes the needle may shift back under the US president-elect Joe Biden. Still, African governments are less reliant on western donors, who at least made some pretence of linking aid with respect for democratic norms.

Instead, until Covid at least, they have borrowed from eurobond markets for whom prompt repayment is more important than credible elections. Money has flowed, too, from the Gulf and the Middle East. For 20 years, one-party China has been the biggest lender of all.

“The model of authoritarian developmentalism has come from China,” says Mr Odinkalu. “And it comes with a spigot of Chinese money.” If external pressure to democratise has waned, pressure from the street has intensified.

Mr Wine represents a civic pushback in a continent where ordinary people continue to make the case for liberal values.

In Sudan, the 30-year dictatorship of Omar al-Bashir ended in 2019 after millions took to the streets to demand his exit.

This February, Malawi’s constitutional court annulled the results of the 2019 “Tipp-Ex election” after months of mass protests in which tens of thousands poured on to the streets to denounce a fraudulent poll.

The election was rerun and the incumbent ejected. The streets of Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, have also been in flames as mass protests erupted against police brutality.

The echoes of their “EndSars movement” — named for a brutal unit of the Nigerian police force — has hash-tagged around the continent.

For a constitutional democracy to “survive and flourish”, says John Mukum Mbaku, senior non-resident fellow at Brookings, it must have both a “robust and politically active public” and “political elites dedicated to maintaining the country’s constitutional institutions”.

The clamour from the street is loud and clear. But few in the palaces appear to be listening.

Follow David Pilling with myFT and on Twitter

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Building A Better Normal: Inclusive And Green Economies



When I saluted friends and colleagues at the beginning of last year and extended New Year wishes for a great start into the “Golden Twenties”, I was making reference to the 1920s in Germany, more broadly referred to in the western world as the “Roaring Twenties”. This was a time of profound societal, cultural and economic advances following World War I and the 1918 flu pandemic. The ground-breaking transformations of that decade were made possible by the evolution of liberal values and the power of modern technology.

A century later, when I said, “Happy New Year”, I had no idea that 2020 would go down in history as the year of lockdowns, recession and mass unemployment. Since then, there is hardly a country or person on the planet who has not been affected by this crisis.

Early into the COVID-19 outbreak, global opinion leaders were quick to define events as the “new normal”, signaling that the return of daily life and circumstances would never be the same again. Such language reflects the human need to deal with absolute unknowns by regaining at least some control and – most importantly – hope when insecurity was at its peak. From here, we moved quickly towards focusing on the opportunities presented by the crisis with regulators, corporate decisionmakers and strategists committing to “building back better”. Declaring that the crisis should not be wasted became a mainstay in agenda-setting language, allowing the concept of a reset to suddenly become popular.

But how can financial policymakers and regulators leverage the potential gains in front of us to manage or cushion the unintended consequences of a crisis in a concrete, practical and feasible way?

Despite existing opportunities, the economic and social realities we are living in are highly problematic. As the pandemic generates shockwave after shockwave, we must not forget those at the bottom of the economic pyramid who are a hospital bill away from falling into poverty and for whom the economic slowdown means less income and mounting debt. Vulnerable groups are rapidly increasing in number with neither solid safety net to fall back on nor financial resilience.

Silver lining of opportunities

COVID-19 has already been a major setback for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the economic crisis that has been developing alongside the ongoing health emergency is not only intensifying existing inequalities in the developed world, but also threatening to set back decades of economic growth and poverty reduction in emerging and developing economies.

In the short term, growth contraction will be most severe in the developed world. In the medium and long term, the COVID-19 impact will be much more critical for emerging and developing economies.

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), countries such as the Philippines, India, Mexico, Argentina and Nigeria are at the top of the list of most affected countries with growth projected to shrink by up to 13 percent until 2025. IMF forecasts that declining economic growth will further reduce household incomes of the most vulnerable segments, such as women and less-skilled workers, who are disproportionately represented in the informal economic sector and currently face the brunt of the negative impact of the pandemic. As a result, the gains made in financial, economic and social inclusion we have seen over the last years are at risk.

Furthermore, national and international political processes and decision-making mechanisms remain complex, while trends towards isolationism and nationalism that emerged before the crisis do not seem easily reversed. This was also indicated in the way that COVID-19 was handled by decisionmakers in different regions around the world.

However, what we have learned and achieved over the past decade gives us hope and belief that we can master the outcomes of this crisis. These lessons should be preserved and not wasted, providing a silver lining of opportunities to tame any negative effects on our hard-won gains in inclusion.

Global convergence on financial inclusion

First, one of the most relevant lessons from the 2007-2008 financial crisis was that financial inclusion is among the few practical solutions that can have a substantive impact in strengthening the economic resilience of vulnerable groups and catalyzing economic recovery. We learned that even a simple financial service, such as a mobile money account, can make a huge difference in a poor person’s life.

Over the past decade, financial inclusion has moved into the mainstream of growth and employment, monetary and financial stability, and financial integrity. Global convergence in this space has brought a shared understanding that financial inclusion embraces the provision of safe, sound and sustainable financial services for all. It also includes cutting-edge financial technology (FinTech) policy and regulatory solutions. Resonating with both developing and developed countries alike and breaking traditional distinctions across jurisdictions around the globe, these solutions and policies are designed to respond to major, emerging, public policy challenges such as cybersecurity, systems interdependencies, consumer data management and effective consumer protection.

Although the crisis brought about by the pandemic is different from the global financial crisis, it provides relevant background and experiences for a smart design of policy and regulatory responses. This knowledge could mitigate the immediate, negative socio-economic outcomes of the crisis and facilitate a smooth recovery of hard-hit economies by reinforcing sustainable financial inclusion initiatives.


Second, we have learned about innovative policies that allow for and accelerate technological leapfrogging. Emerging markets have shown that deploying technology in a transformative manner permits the rapid emergence of mobile money and digital payments ecosystems beyond conventional banking. For example, Ghana increased the ownership of mobile money accounts (age 15+) to 40 percent in 2017 from 13 percent in 2014. During the same period, female (15+) mobile money account ownership increased to 34 percent from 12 percent.The advancing digital payments infrastructure enabled effective policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis. The use of digital payment and electronic money significantly increased after the outbreak and during the lockdown. Within a year, between October 2019 and October 2020, the total value of mobile money transactions has almost doubled from USD $5.3 billion to USD $10.2 billion.

In Ghana, enabling regulatory approaches have facilitated transformative growth that is technology neutral and gender sensitive through a risk-based approach to licensing and supervision of new financial technologies in the market. These are guided by principles of interoperability and proportionality through Bank of Ghana’s active engagement with the commercial banks, mobile money operators, and wider stakeholder groups. This is just one of the many examples from the developing world that we have learned from on how leapfrogging works in practice.

Development policy

Third, in recent years, trends have moved towards peer learning, country ownership and tailored adoption of policies and away from traditional and expensive expert-led technical assistance modes of development cooperation. Strong country ownership has been exemplified in the more than 50 developing and emerging countries which, since 2012, have adopted national financial inclusion strategies.

With this trend making an impact in many jurisdictions at relatively low cost, multilateral development bodies have recognized this demand and adapted their support to developing countries. Development partners have also realized that they cannot do everything on their own as effectively and cost-efficiently as required. Consequently, win-win partnerships that leverage the unique strengths of all institutions involved are increasingly prioritized.

The pandemic has accelerated this shift. With developments moving so fast, there is an urgent need to understand policy responses from other jurisdictions in real time, opening further opportunities for a bottom-up cooperation model based on peer learning, friendly peer pressure and peer understanding. Former geographical, economic and political patterns, such as north or south, rich or poor countries and developed or developing economies, do not properly reflect reality anymore. The future will bring new coalitions as knowledge and its practical application is scattered in pockets around the globe, and what will be needed is a mechanism to bring it to the surface to be shared for the benefit of all.

Empowering emerging and developing countries toward new growth trajectories does not always and necessarily require huge pots of development finance. Infrastructure finance deployed by multilateral institutions and development banks is indeed important. It is country-owned, demand-driven approaches that secure and maintain the political will needed to implement inclusive growth policies toward which developing economies contribute significant resources of their own.

A good example is AFI’s Inclusive Green Finance workstream. With relatively small investment, we currently have policymaking institutions from 44 developing and emerging economies working together to leverage linkages between financial inclusion, green finance and emerging technologies. The political will is there, paving the way for important policy innovations by financial regulators for a recovery that is both inclusive and green. This is essential given that climate change will be a source of future shocks that will require the building of financial resilience, especially for those at the bottom of the pyramid.

Most importantly, the workstream gives voice to a vital group of stakeholders – both in terms of countries and type of institutions – within the broader global climate change debate. Its innovative policy approaches are balancing financial inclusion and sustainable growth and enabling pathways for development financing and private sector investment to be deployed wisely and cost-efficiently.

Inclusive and Green New Economy for resilient future

I am happy to refer once again to the wise words of Governor Benjamin Diokno from the Central Bank of the Philippines who, when the pandemic hit, explained that we should “prepare for a ‘new economy’, not a ‘new normal’, which is an oxymoron”. I looked up the meaning of “oxymoron” and found that it is a figure of speech in which two opposite ideas are joined to create an effect.

Considering our lessons outlined above, which are a public good, the notion of a “new economy” should be built around the experiences of the many countries that have recognized and understood the need for and have worked on financial and social inclusion over the past decade. Groups disproportionately affected by exclusion, such as women, youth and forcibly displaced persons, should be the focus when emergency and recovery responses are brought underway. Financial inclusion after COVID-19 can unlock and further drive economic participation among women and youth and enable transformative opportunities while leaving no one and their small business behind.

This crisis also offers opportunities to incorporate inclusive green finance into a recovery ushering in the dawn of a ‘new economy’ that is green, resilient and socially inclusive. Building resilience for future crises and risks, such as climate change, can be achieved by investing in low-carbon economies and in the well-being of the most vulnerable. This would enable a just transition that does not come at the expense of those at the base of the economic pyramid. COVID-19 can, therefore, be instrumental in revitalizing the crucial role of the SDGs to overcome the impact of the crisis on marginalized groups.

Finally, the future of financial inclusion and a broader recovery will continue to be shaped by technology. Emerging regulatory and policy frameworks suggest that there is scope for more innovation in the digital finance space, built on effective digital financial literacy solutions for existing customers such as the elderly and newly included groups, like women and youth. Regulators must ensure that new and arising risks are used in responsible, safe and sustainable ways that break down barriers and empower the marginalized and the excluded.

If we agree that further exclusion is not an option and move inclusivity to the core of our thinking and practice, we will be empowered to achieve a “normal” that may not be “new” but will be “better” than what we have been used to due to a solid foundation in the lessons we have learned in past years. We might even be in the position to make a humble contribution to what the second post-pandemic “Roaring Twenties” will be referred to in the history books of the future. However, unlike its predecessor a century ago – which partly contributed to the Great Depression –, the decade ahead of us might show more awareness of shared global challenges and address the disadvantage and inequality of the excluded.

Continue Reading


Did Isaac Newton Have A PHD?



No, Isaac Newton never received a PhD, nor any other doctorate. As was the case of the vast majority of English academics before the 20th century, his highest qualification was a Master of Arts (MA) degree.

And, even today, an MA from Oxford or Cambridge implies no further study or work beyond the Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree.

The BA turns into an MA provided only that seven years have passed since the person first matriculated as a student.

For a very long time, the normal route to an academic career in England was to complete the BA degree (which entailed three or four years of study, followed by the passing of comprehensive final examinations) brilliantly enough to be rewarded with a college fellowship.

That meant that one could continue to live at the college and collect a stipend, provided only that one didn’t marry and wasn’t convicted of a felony. The more intellectually enterprising individuals could then advance to a tutorship, lectureship, readership, and perhaps finally to a professorship (which is, even today, a rank held by few academics at Oxford or Cambridge).

The English universities did grant some doctorates, but only to very senior academics, usually clergymen. The current system of further specialized study after the bachelor’s degree, followed by the preparation and defense of a dissertation containing original research and leading to a PhD, was introduced in the University of Berlin in 1810 and it wasn’t adopted in Britain until the 1920s.

For a while after the research PhD was adopted by British universities in the 20th century, it was regarded as downmarket, being essentially a means by which someone who hadn’t been sufficiently brilliant to obtain a fellowship after completing the BA might have another shot at establishing an academic career.

Newton matriculated at Trinity College, Cambridge in June of 1661. He was originally a “subsizar”, meaning that he had to act as a servant to wealthier students, in exchange for a reduction in his fees.

In 1664 he earned a scholarship that provided him with living expenses for another four years, until he received his MA.

In April of 1667 he was elected as fellow of Trinity College, meaning that he could stay there as long as he wished.

In 1669, Newton was chosen to succeed Isaac Barrow as the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics. Newton was only 26 years old and had yet to publish anything, but Barrow knew him to be a mathematical genius and had recommended him for the post.

This wasn’t unusual at a time when the academic career wasn’t intrinsically tied to publication, or even to research in the modern sense.

This article was first published in the Quora.

Continue Reading


Impact Of COVID-19 on Future Immigration For ‘Low- Skilled Migrants’



We have all witnessed how much COVID-19 has changed the world. Simultaneously, the UK comes close to the Brexit transition period’s closing stages when its connection with Europe
will change ceaselessly.

It is high time the government took an internal look at the economic impact and lessons learned from the pandemic to reassess its proposed changes to the
country’s immigration structure.

The conservatives’ leadership election movement promoted an original point’s based system to take effect in 2021, January.

They assured the British public that there would be no route for “low-skilled migrants” (persons coming to the UK to do jobs that do not entail a-level common understanding).

Instead, they would raise the issued number of youth mobility scheme visas from 10,000 to 20,000.

On the other hand, the home office has been operating a guide itinerant agricultural worker plan, which would permit 10,000 migrant workers to move towards the UK to work on farms. Is the question, are these policies fit for a post-COVID-19 planet?

As the COVID-19 pandemic began, there was an instant outcry from farmers who depend on itinerant workers to guarantee a harvest for all their crops.

The UK relies on almost 80,000 itinerant undeveloped migrants to come to the country annually and work on the harvest. A huge percentage of those workers come from Europe.

The farmers’ biggest worry was that the workers would be incapable or indisposed to move to the UK to work due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The farmers’ worry sparked a movement nationwide to hire local workers. Millions of British citizens are not working and on the government’s furlough scheme making the labour force readily available in the UK.

Unfortunately, the job requires skills, and only a few British citizens have applied for the vocations.

The government needs to look at the numbers and reconsider whether the policy of confining “low-skilled migrants” from entering the UK in a post-Brexit world is still appropriate.

The idea was to give those jobs to local British workers, but even with millions unemployed, the farming business cannot employ local employees.

This work line will continue to depend on migrant workers, and the country needs t to be more accommodating to them.

If the 20,000 workers who came to the UK on the youth mobility scheme took seasonal jobs as agricultural workers and the home office gave visas to all the 10,000 seasonal workers, the industry’s workforce would still be less by a whole 50%.

The government needs to make better decisions before the issues that arose this year reappear in 2021.

The interruption to supply chains and closed borders due to the pandemic will most likely result in other organizations turning to technology, artificial intelligence, and automation, impending lousy news for migrants. The act will reduce or even eliminate the need for human workers in the industries.

Mostly the robot care workers are deployed to do the ‘hard jobs’ doing away with physically demanding jobs filled by migrants.

With GPS technology help, it is possible to use robots in exactitude agriculture to harvest and weed control.

The economic contribution of indispensable workers in low-wage jobs has been less prominent in public debates about migration than other potentially unconstructive impacts
such as effects on wages or civic money matters. If that changes, it could lead to more open immigration policies.

Suppose the COVID- 19 pandemic affects the public finances negatively. In that case, it will present more support for an immigration policy that focuses on
high skills considering the necessitate to clear the large accrued debt.

Despite the new restrictions and barriers, global migration may increasingly go back into the
silhouette, particularly in economies with weak law and health structures. In such cases, human traffickers and smugglers take over to take advantage of the desperation.

When the pandemic is over, restrictive border rules, mainly in countries with the government pursuing hard-line migration policies, might be hard to undo.

However, they will have to change how
they view migrant workers who contribute a lot to their economies.

Our wish is that the pandemic will call for better security of migrants and value low-skilled workers as significant
contributors to their economic accomplishment and sustainability.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Enter ad code here
Advertisement Enter ad code here