Guided Democracy: Any Lessons from Rwanda?

By John A. Akec



Several months ago, a friend kindly forwarded me an article by Sarah Boseley describing how Rwanda continues to thrive as a prosperous and a leading 'model' African nation, barely sixteen years after the genocide (Rwanda: Kagame stands firm. Rights? Yes, but put food on the table first, guardian.co.uk, May 28, 2010).

More often than not, prosperity is seen as a natural dividend of democratic governance, except that it cannot be said about Rwanda and other countries like South Korea, Singapore, Syria, and China, to count but a few.



As Sarah Boseley discovered, one does not go to Kigali to hunt for a model democratic idol in the same way the Britons don’t go to Scotland for sunshine:

"Democracy is good music but you need somebody with ears to listen to that music... Tell me about a family who spend the whole night looking at each other and wondering whether they will have something to eat. Are they thinking about anything else?" President Paul Kigame asks Sarah Boseley.

Kagame then questioned the wisdom of adopting the Westminster-type democracy as model for Rwanda.



Paul Kigame is not alone in this. Libya's Muamer El Gaddafi was once on record: "What Africans need is not democracy but schools, hospitals, and bore wells for clean drinking water."

This cynical view of democracy is reinforced by one definition of democracy from an African perspective, anonymously expressed tongue in cheek:

"Democracy is a Western luxury which a poor uneducated African cannot afford."

Rwandan economy is largely agrarian (employing 90% of population), a GDP per capita of $ 1,000 (based on purchasing power parity) and an economy growing at a rate 4.7% and which places Rwanda ahead of countries such as Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Democratic Republic of Congo with respective per capita of $ 200, $ 700, $ 900, $ 600, $ 300; while falling closely behind better off African nations such as Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya, and Sudan with GDP per capita (purchasing power parity) of $ 1,300, $ 1,400, 1,600, and $ 2,300 respectively (CIA Facts Book, 2010).


All this achievement is against a backdrop of troubled history of ethnic violence and genocide in which nearly a third of Tutsi minority population of Rwanda lost their lives in 1994. This was followed by accusations of gross human rights violation by Tutsi's dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) and its allies in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DCR) against native Congolese and dissident Hutus, and the pillage of DCR's resources in form of illegal mining of diamonds and Coltan (short for columbite-tantalite, a metallic ore used in manufacture of components of mobile phones and consumer electronics products).

This year, Rwanda's ranked in World Press Freedom Index as the third worst African country that oppresses freedom of press (169th) (ahead of Somalia, 161st ) and only beaten by Eritrea (178th) and Sudan (172nd). It got to this unenviable position through the closure of a major opposition newspaper, murder of Umuvugizi newspaper deputy editor, Jean-Leonard, and refusal to allow the registration of a political party and house arrest of its Hutu leader ahead of presidential election in August 2010.

And the fact that Paul Kagame (a Tutsi) was re-elected in August 2010 for a second seven-year term (2010 to 2017) by a large margin of 93% against his rivals in a country where Hutus form 84% of population and Tutsis 14% is itself an African miracle if the elections were truly free and fair. This huge margin could either be a good thing (an enlightened majority voting into the office a member of a minor group, an African and world's rarity); or a bad thing (an oppressive minority rule manipulating election outcomes for its own good, a more likely possibility).

While Kagame regime keeps the IMF, investors and donor community sweet, we know little about how the composition of Rwanda government is representative of its ethnic groups, especially how the majority Hutus are given a fair representation. Now, someone may ask: is it the foreigners alone who point out these issues?

Getting away from this microscopic view of Rwanda and focusing the at big picture of the impressive economic performance so far, and counting on the quasi-democratic countries such as Singapore and South Korea (that is, assuming that good standard of living for an average citizens is better than free talk for all), we wonder if this sort of model can work for Sudan or South Sudan.

Some of the questions we might like to ask may include the following:
Is a benevolent dictatorship with elements of democracy a
solid path to democracy?

Is there a form of democracy which is more appropriate for
Sudan than Western-type democracy?

As Kagame implies, is the strong president model of South Korea and Singapore a proper blend and better choice for Sudan? What about Obama's warning that Africa does not need strongmen but strong institutions?

Will it lead to democracy or will it lead to malevolent dictatorship?
How can the path be assured? What role can church play as a custodian of democracy and a voice for the voiceless within such setting? How could a strong church influence the path? In the past a strong church as not always been servant-leader
oriented.

We may also ask: what is important? To be allowed to express your opinion freely, vote for party of your choice? Or entrust all your rights to self-selected, self-righteous individuals?

Putting it in other way: why is Western type democracy not a fix for African political and governance needs bearing in mind, according to Winston Churchill, that "… democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"?

Space will not allow to critically examine why there is a common belief (not amongst Africans alone but Europeans as well) that democracy is a European luxury which poor, largely uneducated African nations cannot afford. Here is a partial answer.

It took Europe centuries to develop democracy and embed its core values in its traditions and cultures by fighting hard against aristocracy, absolute monarchies, and church restrictions on freedom of thought. Much of democratic foundation in Europe and Americas is traceable to 17th and 18th Century Enlightenment Movement. This movement promoted the ideas of reason, freedom of thought, and democracy as central values of a [civilized] society on which the legitimacy and authority should be derived. Enlightenment was later defined by the German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant, as right to use one's own intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment):

"Enlightenment is man’s leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another. Such immaturity is self-caused if it is not caused by lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another."

The importance of using human reason and intelligence is also reflected by Voltaire statement: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

In other words, if you believe what is nonsense, you will be engaged in very nonsensical activities or deeds. This is an inherent criticism of church's orthodoxy at the time which restricted freedom of religious thought thus harming scientific thoughts that attempted to explore big questions in relation to nature of God and the origin of universe (refer to works to Kepler, Galileo, Isaac Newton and others).

The effect of Enlightenment Movement, among others was the call for enlightened reorganization of the society (through collectively agreed laws and regulations, for example). This is what we might describe in today's jargon as informed decision-making, the rule of law, and knowledge economy.

If we have to understand why Western European democracy is unfit for Africa it is partly because the notion of democracy is far deeper than the superficial notion that it is merely forming political parties and contesting free and fair elections.

If the voters lack conviction as to why they are voting for this party and not that party, and if it is nothing other than a well informed/enlightened choice, then democracy is highly compromised. In other words, if democracy has to succeed in Africa, and Sudan, it must be accompanied, if not preceded by Africa's own version of Enlightenment Movement.

However, enlightenment cannot come about without education and allowing the freedom of thought (or fighting for it). It also goes without saying that the reference to education in this context transcends the usual narrow meaning of ability to read and write, and hold an academic qualification in a specialised field, but to also encompass what Mosses Mendelssohn (a Jewish philosopher) described as education in ability to use reason [fruitfully].

To help us further in our understanding of enlightenment's role in democratic practice, one may refer to Henry Louis Mencken, an influential American Journalist fiction writer in 1920's who defined of democracy as "…the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

Add to it, the Aristotelian view of democracy as the system of government that empowers the poor more than the rich because the poor in any society are the majority and that the will of the majority must prevail.

Now in Sudan and Africa in general, the majority of the citizens are not just poor, but uneducated. This squares the vicious circle: the self-selected ruling elite will have no way of influencing things should they follow the principle of majority rule. The elite therefore must craft other clever means (including use of force and subversion of justice) in order to control political power while providing the masses with what they need most – food and clean drinking water. This, in my opinion, is core strategy of the guided democracy – some of which may lead to birth of benevolent dictatorship and others to malevolent dictatorship.

The Singaporean version of guided democracy, which is the model that aspires Paul Kagame (as it one time did aspire Isaias Afewerki in his early years in power) has ensured that People's Action Party (PAP) dominated by ethnic Chinese controls the power since 1959 to this date. This was achieved not just by controlling the media (by closing down independent newspapers and radios) but by also by controlling the electoral process and erecting social systems (such as housing) and administrative structures that make it impossible for other minority groups such as Malay, Indians, or Eurasians to form their own viable parties.

In this context, elections and other democratic institutions (such as parliaments) are merely means to obtain legitimacy. Unlike other guided democracies, PAP uses legal action to persecute its opposition, as opposed to locking up of opposition figures by security forces as happens in Rwanda (this was perhaps why the move to prosecute South Africa Zuma's ahead of presidential elections led to accusations of election manipulation and abuse of power against the sitting former president, Thabo Mbeki, which subsequently led to his impeachment).

Back to Rwanda's model, we do not fail to notice that Paul Kagame's regime suffers from Wolf-preacher syndrome that afflicts all quasi-democratic systems: in one moment the leader is preaching democracy and in the next moment he is a roaring lion ready to devour anyone who tries to practice democracy. For instance, compare the earlier views by Kigame about democracy and an excerpt from his foreword on his party website (http://www.rpfinkotanyi.org/foreword):

"We struggle for democracy because we have no doubt that it is the only proven method of good leadership that gives citizens say in their own affairs and enables them to participate in the governance of their country. It gives them an opportunity to elect leaders of their choice, to check on their performance and to participate in decision-making."

His actions, though, say he believes none of all he has just said.

Thus, while agreeing that Western European model lacks the supportive environment in which to thrive in Africa (such as an enlightened society that enthrones values of reason, free speech, rationalism, and informed-decision making at individual and collective level), it is also hard to accept the Wolf-preacher model of Singapore, Syria, Rwanda and the likes. Each nation must therefore create its own conditions for its own version of democracy to in order thrive. Moreover, we must bear in mind that rarely can any nation this day and age find its way to the future without the interference by big business and the vested interests of the global powers.

The next question is how can we bring about an African version of enlightenment movement? This is a subject for an essay for another time. Suffice to say that the church should teach and encourage the citizens to practice those values on which democracy may rest (honesty, fairness, reason, accepting defeat etc); and that the political parties begin to practice what they preach: that is, apply the democratic principles within the party. Europe's Enlightenment Movement owes much to Freemasons in putting those principles in practice. The African Church, political parties, and civil society organisations can play the same role.

Are there signs that African Age of Enlightenment is about to materialise? Yes, there is plenty of evidence that such enlightenment movement is just around the corner, if it is not already here. When we become interested in ideas, it means we have caught the virus, so much for our own good.

To Confederate or not to Confederate is a Matter of Strategy

By John A. Akec


Success in anything, in my view, is determined by getting our goals right from the outset and then adopting the best strategy we can muster in order to attain the goals. Get any of the two elements wrong, and we are doomed to failure.

Strategy is loosely defined as a means to a goal. It is not an end in itself. To get to a goal, one needs to devise a winning strategy and then employ best feasible tactics that operationalize the planned strategy. Oftentimes, the uncanny fails to the see the distinction between strategy, tactics, and goal. Tragically still, mistaking a strategy for a goal or deploying the wrong strategy to pursue a goal is still very commonplace.

This partly explains the recent negative reaction in quite significant quarters in South Sudan to the proposal by a number of political commentators and later AU mediators that SPLM and NCP should consider tabling confederation as one of post referendum options in the bipartisan negotiations on post-referendum arrangements. According to such misconceived views, confederation equals unity and therefore equals bondage. And in the like manner, they try to make us believe that secession equals freedom. And this, in essence is confusing a strategy with the goal.

Those who know the history of the struggle of the people of South Sudan will recall how hundreds of combatants needlessly lost their lives when fight broke out in 1983 in Bilpham in Ethiopia between the forces of "separation" and forces of "unity" in the SPLM and Anya Nya II, as we were told later. Looking back in retrospect, it should be abundantly clear that the bloody confrontation was really a power struggle dressed up in form of differences over goals and strategies.

So what is the goal of the struggle of people of South Sudan? The goal was and still is for South Sudanese to live in their own country as free citizens with equal rights and dignity as the rest of Sudanese. One of the quotations attributed to Fr. Saturnino Lohure, one of founders of Anya Movement in Southern Sudan, goes as follows:

" The South has no intention of separating from the North, for had that been the case nothing on earth would have prevented the demand for separation. The South will at any moment separate from the North if and when the North so decides, directly or indirectly, through political, social and economic subjection of the South" – 1958 speech in the occasion of opening of Sudan second Parliament.

Reading Fr. Saturnino correctly, I would like to argue that the goal of the struggle waged by the South is to achieve a reasonable level of political, social, and economic equality with North Sudan, and not secession as such. Secession is one of strategies adopted by the protracted struggle to achieve freedom.

Put in another way, the goal is to have a country where no one is discriminated against on the basis of religion, tribe, ethnicity, or social standing. The goal, in the words of Dr. John Garang, is to have Sudan "where no body is above me, and I am above nobody." And if I must borrow the Afro-American expression, it is basically a Sudan "where nobody is gona carry nobody!"

Give me such a Sudan, and I will see no reason to wage war on anyone nor do I see need for seeking to break away. This is not to say we have attained such a Sudan of equality.

While we may disagree and fight over the best strategies and tactics that will enable us to achieve our goal of being free citizens with full dignity; it remains that unity, separation, independence, confederation, and similar terminologies that fill our daily political vocabulary are nothing but means to an end: freedom. They are not goals in themselves. Some strategies are better than others. Some strategies are winning, others are self-defeating.

Believing that all political activists worth their salt and who currently fill our political scene are genuinely fighting to advance the noble cause of liberating ourselves from yoke of oppression, each according to how they perceive it, would it not be more constructive if we were to see our differences of opinion in the right perspective, as opposed to resorting to derogatory categorisations that are patronising as they wrongly portray the arguments as those of 'heroes' versus 'traitors'; 'mentally liberated versus mentally enslaved'; or light heartedly if you prefer: as 'monks versus demons'?

Such dichotomies are divisive and block all the avenues to creative thinking and constructive dialogue as we examine the post-referendum options which South Sudan can pursue if the outcome of scheduled referendum in 2011 is secession. This is because it is the most likely outcome, gauging the current mood of the South.


And because no two countries are exactly the same, every people must chart their way to a free future by crafting winning strategies that are drawn from their very unique geopolitical environment and the political landscape on which the battle for freedom is waged. Namely, the terrain determines the type of weaponry and ammunition deployed at the front.

And while we may agree that voting for secession is one of the smartest choices South Sudan can make in January 2011, we may differ over what course of action that follows the secession vote. And here is the departure from the conventional thinking.

For South to really protect its interests (economic, political, and social), it can enter into strategic partnership with the North in form of renewable confederation between two sovereign states. What falls under confederal government and what goes under sovereign will be the subject of further debate and deliberations, provided we all agree in principle that confederation following a successful secession vote is a smart strategy for the South. Some of my previous suggestions included a rotating presidency, fighting crime, monetary union, open border trade. The rights of citizens of the South and North include freedom of movement, settlement, ownership, and employment in the two sovereign states. Institutions of high education such as universities can also come under confederation for example in the next 10 years and be reviewed after 5 years.

One of great advantages of confederation is that it will allow for a smoother transition for the South to build its institutions on solid ground without the distractions of social and economic upheavals it may find itself in should it opt for immediate severing of all political and economic links with the North. It will also appease the unionists in the North and South as it leaves the door ajar for future reunification of Sudan on voluntary and new basis if and when the peoples of the two confedral states feel ready for it. While ceasing full control of its oil resources, South should render a good share of its oil revenues to the North (this is cheaper and smarter way than spending billions of dollars on expensive arm race in order to fight or scare the North!).

This article cannot close without pointing out that South Sudan, if it really aims to be free in the right sense of the word, should desist from temptation of paying the North, its perceived oppressor, with same coin. Such approach will blind the South from identifying its interests (or mutual interests with the North to be specific).

Besides, politics of hate and vendetta has never been and will never be the tools of a successful liberation struggle to which we all aspire. All successful liberation struggles do acknowledge and condemn the evils of the repression (past or current) without the slightest reservation, and fight to transform this oppressive reality into free and more humane future for all concerned without any exceptions.

This should be the guiding ideology for South Sudan in all its quests to redeem itself from current and past oppressive reality.

Angels and Devils: We Need Them Both

By John A. Akec

A world which is conflict free, where everything is perfect, where everyone will not err or disagree with the Pope, where we will all tow the mainstream line (wherever it might lead, for better or for worst) will be a boring one indeed. In fact, it will cease to be called the world as we know it.

Have you wondered why God let the devil goes loose on the world? Why was Job so severely tested despite his faith in the living God? Would it not been nice if the entire world had same religion, same culture, same race, and same colour of the skin? Why are other rich and others poor? Why others are generous and some are mean?

I always wonder why South Sudanese shun diversity of opinion in politics? Is that part of our backwardness? And what are these guys who have always been on the side of truth (as they see it)? The conformist who never wrong footed any leader whether wrong or right? Those ideal citizens who who always paid their taxes in full to the last penny and never stole a cent from public purse, if we can find them, that is?! And what about the non-conformists who come when asked to go, and go when asked to come, and sit up when the instruction is to sit down and, shout when the time is to shut up? Could'nt we do without them telling us the speck in our eyes and us telling them of the plank in their eyes?

Tell me how you would define an angel if you have not seen the devil? How would you define faith in a world free of temptation? How would you define white without knowing what black is? How would know darkness if you have not been in the light? How would you define sufficiency if you had not experienced want?

I would like to say that diversity of opinion, fortunes, cultures, outlook, etc etc makes for a healthy world.


Yes, different opinions, different outlooks, different strategies of solving a difficult problem should be welcome. All this diversity is what makes our world an exciting place and make out of us a more tolerant, creative and prosperous society…

It is our ability to detect the room for improvement in anything (be that our pet project or what have you)that motivates us to look for ways to perfect it (we could never perfect anything, but we can make it more better).

Monks, we also need devils to check up our faith and help us clean our teeth! Angels and demons --- we need them both.

Just a thought.

Invitation to Dialogue: A Call for Renewable Confederation in Post 2011 Sudan

By John A. Akec

"Where there is no vision, the people perish"
- Proverbs 29:18
"We do not know what will happen in January 2011." I have heard this statement repeatedly said by a considerable number of fellow South Sudanese who hold positions of significant prominence in the government. This comment is also fast becoming the default resignation answer given by most government bureaucrats when confronted with issues whose resolution would call for some amount of long term view that transcends January 2011 Sudan. This is when South Sudanese are going to vote to choose between remaining in united Sudan and opting for an independent sovereign country of their own. Many of us are guilty of this ambivalence. It is nothing short of burying heads in the sand. We are becoming a nation of 40 million ostriches (minus the children who know nothing of our perilous history). That is, no one wants to say the truth or face up to inescapable reality.

No matter how hard-sounding or how bitter this reality may taste, it unequivocally says that South Sudanese are going to overwhelmingly vote for independence in the referendum scheduled early next year. This is evident from many opinion polls.

Besides, there are countless grounds on which this prediction can be defended. That being the case, I would like to first acknowledge that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed in Kenya in January 2005 was a great Sudanese achievement that stopped bloodshed caused by the Africa' longest and most deadly civil conflict; brought relative stability to the country; restored some rights to the aggrieved Sudanese parties/citizens in South Sudan, South Blue Nile, and Nuba Mountains; devolved power throughout the country; allowed Sudanese from different cultural and religious backgrounds to work as equals in close proximity for five years; and permitted a first multiparty election in 24 years to take place last April 2010, among others.

However, despite promising Sudanese with long awaited change of political system, making unity attractive for all the Sudanese, and transforming the country democratically, CPA has somewhat fallen short of achieving those ideals. With respect to democratic transformation, the multiparty elections could not be described as completely free or fair as the more resourced ruling parties (NCP and SPLM) emerged with the lion share; that a number of national security laws have not been repealed and continue to pose threat to basic freedoms and freedom of press and media.

With respect to making unity attractive, 5 years is too short a time to build trust between parties that have fought each other for over half a century, that old habits would typically die hard, and there bound to exist within the political establishment a considerable number of spoilers who are constantly dreaming up ways to undoing the positive progress brought about by the CPA in all aspects of our political life; that the huge socio-economic gaps between the North and South which resulted from half a century of political and cultural marginalisation and inequality could not be closed over night. And most important of all, the great majority of South Sudanese (including the most optimistic unionists) would not miss this opportunity to exercise the right for self-determination to choose between voluntary union and complete independence that is guaranteed and supported by the international community.

In this atmosphere of mistrust and uncertain future fraught with unquantifiable risks, the better option of the two choices is independence because it is the only option that can be peacefully reversed anytime the Sudanese feel they are ready to reunite under new voluntary terms. On the other hand, choosing unity and trying to opt out later is only possible through violence and use of force.

Voices in both the North and South Sudan have been calling for "good neighbourliness" in post 2011 Sudan. Yet nothing much has been articulated about how this good neighbourliness would look like, or what institutions need be formed to act as the custodians of this peaceful coexistence across the borders of the two Sudans that will soon emerge.

Egypt has expressed the need to allow a 10-year transition, while Eritrea and South Africa have called for the delay of the referendum to a later date. A new NGO with membership of artists, academics, and civil society organisations has been launched from University of Ahfad for Women to advocate for unity vote in the referendum. The dominant political parties, NCP and SPLM, have pledged to collaborate to make unity attractive. All these are well meant intentions, and yet are unlikely to do much to avert the independence vote, nor do they provide clear vision on the shape or model of good neighbourliness that will serve the interests of two parts of Sudan. The best we can say to describe the state of the affairs regarding the future of North-South relationships in post referendum era is 'chaotic and incoherent.' The lack of vision about North-South relations in post referendum period cannot go on indefinitely.

And in humble contribution to shaping of this vision, the writer of this article would like to invite all the Sudanese to air their views on feasibility of adopting confederation to manage the North-South relationship when South votes for independence.

According to this vision, both South and North will be free to organise their foreign policy, security, and economic planning as would happen for all sovereign states. The current council of states and national legislative assemblies will have their life extended (funded by Confederation to 4 years) and functions of certain national commissions will be modified to support confederal government. There will be a Northern Chamber, where Khartoum government can discuss issues concerning the North. The merits of a monetary union should be carefully studied and given a serious consideration in this debate. The management and sharing of comment assets and regulating trade should be managed by the confederation whose president rotates every 6 months between the South and North. Citizens from both Northern and Southern states will be free to move freely and enjoy the full rights of the citizenship (education, medical treatment, right to buy and sell property) in two Sudans. Both Sudans should device tariffs that will not put any side at disadvantage and maximise the accrued benefits for all. Fighting crime and managing security across the borders is carried by confederal government in collaboration with the two sovereign states. This confederal arrangement will constantly be improved and renewed every 4 years (equivalent to life of legislative assemblies) and the renewal should be voluntary (each side can opt out at the end of 4 years should it feel there are good reasons to quit).

The two sovereign will constantly strive to widen the circle of "common good" so that in not too distant future, all the boundaries and governments will be rendered artificial and irrelevant like it is happening between countries of European Union.

By giving this post referendum arrangement a trial, I am certain that if we do not hit the sky, we will hit the tree. In all cases, we all stand to gain.

South Sudan: Circumventing the curse of petro-wealth (Part 2) - The Norwegian Experience

By John A. Akec

In the first installment of this article (The Citizen, Tuesday May 25, 2010, Vol. 5, Issue 144), the author contended that wealth generated through the extraction and export of petroleum resources is a double edged sword. On the one hand, it provides those countries with guaranteed income to use to fund vital infrastructural projects and other services such as provision of health and education services, and development of sources of clean drinking water. One the other hand, it has the potential of harming the long-term economic sustainability of the country that depends on oil revenues entirely to fund everything. It does so by killing innovation, creating a nation of wealth consumers as opposed to a nation of wealth and technology producers.

And because of usual rise in government expenditure that comes about as a result of unrealistic expectations, the government of an oil exporting country will be tempted to borrow heavily using its oil reserves as collateral. When things don’t work out as predicted, as they usually do when oil prices fall and the interest rates rise at the same time, the leadership (or rather the government) of the heavily indebted country finds itself unable to service the debt and hence falls prey to the whims of the powerful global lending institutions of the last resort such the IMF and the World Bank, and eventually looses control of its economic decision-making as they are forced by the lending institutions to cut back on public spending in order to service their debt as a condition for debt relief or condition for approval of further borrowing.

As a consequence of imposed conditions for borrowing, the countries concerned get impoverished and their economies begin to decline, thereby setting the scene for social and political upheavals. The list of countries that suffered this fate includes Ecuador, Indonesia, and Nigeria (where 80% of oil wealth currently benefits only 1% of the population) (refer to presentation by Kristine Kendel: Should Timor-Leste Go into Debt? Lessons from Oil-Export Dependent Countries; La'o Hamutuk Public Meeting, April 2010).


Enough of grandfather's scary bed-side fairy tales; tell us more about success stories; I can hear some of my readers say…

Fair enough. Here are some good stories - the experiences of Norway and those of a number of countries in MENA region (namely, Middle East and North Africa).

June 12th, 1968 was a landmark date for Norway and the world. On that day, a promising oil well was struck by Philips in the North Sea on the shores of Norway. More discoveries followed and shortly after, Norway made it into the list of oil exporting countries, where it currently ranks as world's top seventh oil exporting nation, with production rate hovering around 2.5 million barrel per day. While oil exports make up 50 percent of Norwegian exports, the income from oil forms just a little over 30 percent of the GDP. With a total GDP of $ 280 billion, Norway exports goods worth $ 122 billion, and imports goods worth $ 64 billion. This is a healthy balance of trade. Moreover, Norway's current account surplus stands at $ 54 billion (that is the net income that remains in the country). Unemployment was at 3.2 percent in 2009 during the global economic downturn.

Beside oil, Norway exports natural gas, electricity, wheat, potatoes, pork, barley, fish, beef, milk, metals, chemicals, textiles, pulp and paper products, and ship-building equipment, among others.

This is all well, but how Norway does it? All this is exposed in a book by Farouk Al-Kasim entitled " Managing Petroleum Resources: The Norwegian Model in a Broad Perspective", Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, UK, 2006.

The writer is an oil expert of Iraqi origin who was an insider, having spent 4 decades working for companies and government institutions involved with the development and management of oil resources in Norway. From what Al-Kasim wrote, it is apparent that there was no one single solution which could be seen as a panacea for all the challenges posed by sustainable exploitation of petroleum resources. Yet, most prominent in the Norwegian government strategy was the exercise of good governance in the management of petroleum resources throughout the three main stages of oil resource development: upstream and downstream operations, and utilization of oil windfalls (revenues).

Broadly speaking, the Norwegian government had set specific goals to be achieved through the pursuit of good governance at each of the three stages. In upstream stage (exploration, drilling, and transportation of crude oil), the goals included the establishment of policies that are in line with national economic and developmental plans and devising of the optimal policies for development of oil infrastructure, protection of environment and improving the operating efficiency in oil fields.

Second, the goals of downstream or value adding stage (refining of crude oil to produce fuel and other by-products), include identification of local and international markets and adoption of best approaches to marketing of petroleum products; formation of institutions responsible for supervision and marketing of the oil and its byproducts, use of oil and gas products for local consumption, creation of local industries that use oil products as raw materials, and creation of employment opportunities for Norwegians in oil sector and associated industries.

Finally, the goals of utilization of windfall include collection of data and carrying out of detailed and most truthful analysis of all the components of oil accounts to ensure that Norway is getting its legal entitlement of the income in order to safeguard the national interests (let us be reminded of the unsettling findings of Global Witness in regards to Sudan oil accounts); putting in place development plans that encompass all the economic and social sectors and utilization of parts of revenue to create industries and innovation companies that would benefit future generations; formation of special fund for implementation of sustainable development initiatives; and formation of a bigger reserve fund whose aim is to protect national economy against fluctuations in oil prices, or for use in emergencies and serving future generations.

Four decades on, the results are there for all to see. There are no records that anyone in Norway lives below poverty line and the country runs a mixed of free market economy and social welfare capitalism where the gaps between the rich and the poor are narrow. Today, almost all the income from oil is invested in external accounts where it generates interest.

Another bright example of what good management of oil resources can do is that a number of MENA (Middle East and North African) oil-exporting countries were able to use their reserve fund to absorb the shocks of global economic crisis of 2008-2009. These countries include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Oman, Libya, Algeria, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. All with exception of Dubai were able to weather the world economic downturn successfully.

Overall, good management of petroleum resources in South Sudan would demand learning all the above lessons and avoiding bad ones. In particular, South Sudan must try to live within its means while making most of what it got and avoid the temptation of borrowing against untapped reserves as a means to speeding up the wheel of economic development. The enactment of necessary legislation is also a must.

And finally, let us be reminded that good intentions or good policies alone will not see the light of day by the way of implementation unless very capable cadres are recruited and trained in order to faithfully carry out this extreme national duty on our behalf.

South Sudan: Circumventing the curse of petro-wealth (Part 1)

By John A. Akec

South Sudan already enjoys substantial autonomy in its decision-making even before the conduct of referendum scheduled for January 2011. And should its citizen opt for complete independence from the North, more responsibility will fall on its government to think of best ways to create a prosperous and stable new country.

In fact, it takes more proactive energy and creative planning to prepare for an independent South Sudan than it would require for existence within a united Sudan. A new nation may choose to begin where others had started; or start where others have ended. The advantage of the latter over the former is that successful modi operandi can be emulated, and bad ones avoided.

As any politician worth his salt would tell you, the goals of any national political system are to have a stable and peaceful country; where the citizens can easily access education and training opportunities; where clean drinking water is easily available and health services within reach; where great majority of the citizens can engage in rewarding and meaningful employment that is capable of providing their families with essential needs in terms of accommodation, food, and clothing; where people are free to do business, move from one place to another without any impediments, live in freedom from fear of persecution, enjoy freedom of thought, worship, and self-expression; where values of hard work and innovation are cultivated, cherished, and rewarded.

As is apparent, the goals of a political system are myriad and varied, so are the means and the strategies to attaining them. At the centre of strategies at disposal of any government are its economic policies. The economic policies of a nation attempt to answer some very fundamental questions: how to create wealth and how to distribute and spend it?

Countries with natural resources such diamond or oil are fortunate enough to have access to sources of easy money. At the face of it, it would seem like a huge economic advantage for these countries as their governments can utilize such income to build vital economic infrastructure, hire foreign labour, and buy know-how. Oil in particular is known as a lucrative income generator for the countries that have it.

However, oil is also known to harm long term sustainability of the economies that depend on it. It kills innovation at home, provides no incentive to collect taxes, ties government’s spending to fluctuating global prices of petroleum products, creates national parasitic industries that depend solely on governments hand out in form of subsidies or government orders at non-competitive prices in order to survive, turn the beneficiaries into consumers of wealth and know-how, as opposed to being producers of wealth and technology. It distorts rural economy that depends on agriculture, animal production, and husbandry.

Petro-wealth also creates unrealistic expectations while sharpening the urge to spend money without putting anything aside for the rainy day. Way back in 1960s, an Abu Dhabi’s shiekh, Shakhbut ibn Sultan, was concerned about the influence of new petro-wealth on the way of life of his people. Rather than allowed it to be spent, he decided to hide the money from oil proceeds under his bed and later relocated it to the bank when moth began to eat it, saying: "I am a Bedou (nomad). All my people are Bedou. We are accustomed to living with a camel or a goat in the desert. If we spend the money, it is going to ruin my people, and they are not going to like it." However, all the forces of vested interests ganged up against him, and he was consequently overthrown in 1966 (please refer to Daniel Pipes's article: The Curse of Oil Wealth, Middle East Forum, July 1981).

Modern-day political analysts view the action of Shikh Ibn Sultan, as progressive and far sighted. Unfortunately, he was up against the forces of short-sightedness and get-rich-quick that were far beyond his capability.

Today, the chances of an enlightened policy-making have never been so greater so that the nations led by the wise can do without gravitating towards the black-hole of dependency on petro-wealth from which it is going to be hard to emerge once suck into its bosom.

South Sudan is a living proof of what high dependency on oil revenues can do to an economy. In the last five years, establishing a system to collect taxes has been slow. Development of other means of income has not started. We imported everything from chicken, to tomato, to razor, to toilet rolls from Uganda and Kenya; and exported nothing to them. We sent our children to Uganda and Kenya for their education, and rushed there ourselves when not feeling well to buy the medical services from these countries or travel further afield in quest for medical treatment. 70% of South Sudan income was paid out as salaries in the public sector, while getting nothing back by the of way economic output.

We have become perfect consumers with immense talent to sink billions of dollars on intangible goods. Many of our folks, including one-time hard-working entrepreneurs, have abandoned their erstwhile vacations and flocked to Juba where they queued up at Ministry of Finance to gain access to free-money that is guaranteed once a paper-contract has been signed by the minister. The values of hard work and risk taking which is the core of any sustainable business and entrepreneurship have been binned.

For the last five years, great majority of government officials and top civil servants have taken expensive hotels as their permanent abode, paying a bill of $200 per night. There is almost a total dependence on foreigners in vital economic sectors that requires skills that can be easily acquired nationally yet remained beyond our reach. Easy money, easy goes.

In North Sudan, the deterioration of Gezira Scheme which once formed the backbone of Sudan economy is a living testimony to high dependence on oil revenue. Agriculture as a whole has been neglected since petro-dollars began to flow into the coffin of our central government. Central Sudan which used to be the high ground of development and progress is now falling behind the new areas in extreme North that have benefited from white elephant projects built by money borrowed against future oil income.

No doubt, we all recognise that we are digging a deep grave for our economy and our future as a viable nation by relying on oil which now forms more than 90% of our national income. That figure has to change by developing alternative sources such as agriculture and animal resources, and development of light manufacturing industries, communications and ICT sectors, and service and retail sectors. This should be in such a way as to increase government revenue in terms of corporation tax and personal income tax.

In order to promote and develop the above economic sectors, investment in education and training should be pursued with more vigor than it currently is. Doing so will cut down on the addictive dependency on imported labour, skills, and know-how. This will imply opening up vocational training centres across South Sudan, strengthening universities by pumping more money into the sector to improve living standards of the faculty and staff and to halt the increasing trends to leave education and migrate to NGOs and governmental sectors where pay is more lucrative; building laboratories, libraries, lecture halls, and funding research that will have direct socio-economic impact.

Part two of this article (next week) will look at how a minority of oil-producing countries have managed to successfully tame the evil of petro-wealth away from impacting their economies and their way of life.

To be continued.

Doleib Hill Crisis: The House of Celebrations and House of Funerals Cannot Live Next to Each Other

By John A. Akec

“We must go back [in history] in order to go forward [to the future]” – Dr. John Garang de Mabior, Naivash, Kenya, 2005.

Big fires start small. Mishandling a disused match can create an inferno in a dry bush that goes on to engulf thousands of acres of land in deadly flames. This eventually puts many lives and property at risk some hundreds of miles away from the scene of the original incident. The history of our world is awash with countless examples from which the wise should learn priceless lessons so as to avoid creating perilous situations, needlessly out of teacup storms.

For instance, on 28 July 1914, Archduke Frank Ferdinand, heir to Austrian-Hungarian throne (composed by then of Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia), and his wife Sophie Ferdinand were driving in their car from a town hall reception while on a formal visit to Sarajevo (in the modern day Yugoslavia); when a Serb nationalist, Gavrilo Princip, shot them dead at point blank range. Ferdinand assassination in Sarajevo set Europe on the road of diplomatic crisis that eventually let to the outbreak of World War I by the end of July of same year. The war lasted four years from 1914 to 1918 and claimed over 16 million lives and wounded 21 others across the world. A year later on (1919), the Treaty of Versailles was concluded that laid the blueprints for free Europe and peaceful world. And because some of signatories did not wholeheartedly embrace the resolutions of Treaty of Versailles, lessons of WW I were lost, and another deadly war, the World War II, had to be fought one more time from 1932 to 1945; leading to another 50 million civilian and 25 million soldiers' deaths.

In fact, we do not need to look farther afield than having a glance at our own backyard for lessons in history. On 17th August 1955, Satarino Oliu, Emilio Tafeng, Ali Ghabtala and others from Equatorian Cop, rebelled in Torit in Southern Sudan and let to the killing of 261 northern Sudanese (including women and children), and 75 Southerners. The rebellion was sparked by an order to move the Equatorian Cop to the North in an atmosphere of great mistrust, a few months before Sudan declared its independence on first January 1956. The rebellion was considered by Sudan’s rulers as a mere security issue and believed they had crashed it at the bud.

However, the Torit mutiny, as we can all testify, was the real mother of all other mutinies that followed in the South afterwards. The small fires (call them the off springs of Torit if you like) along the way included Akobo mutiny in 1974 led by surgeon Bol Kur; Wau Mutiny led by Captain Aguet in Feb 1976, and Bor Mutiny led by Major Kerybino Kuanyin Bol. These were small fires with that eventually let to catastrophic long term consequences to the nation and people caught in them.

Looking back in retrospect, these mutinies represented the tip of an iceberg, and the keys that turned the lock of the floodgate.

This is a rather windy introduction to the incident on 30th April 2010 in Doleib Hill military barrack in Upper Nile State, close to border with Jonglei State in Southern Sudan. It involved the exchange of gun fire between of SPLA forces, some of whom were said to be loyal to George Athor. A score of people were killed and others wounded. Implicated in the incident was the well regarded former SPLA high ranking officer, Maj. General George Athor Deng who was contesting gubernatorial seat for Jonglei State as an independent candidate, but was declared a loser by the National Election Commission. The military spoke person stated that the attack was unprovoked, and that it was instigated by Major General George Athor. On his part, General Athor denied direct involvement, but admitted that those involved were SPLA officers and soldiers who had resisted orders to arrest him. Claims and counter claims. What version should we believe?

Worryingly still, initial announcements to resolve the unfortunate conflict peacefully and amicably between George Athor and his supporters on one the hand, and the South Sudan government had come to a dead end. The conflict has escalated, and claimed more lives in recent days, while the diplomatic tone has begun to give way to hawkish language that will do nothing to alley our fears that we are being driven into the old beaten path from which we had emerged after concluding of Naivasha agreement in 2005. The spirit of Naivasha agreement ought to rebuke us by reminding us that war and violence are futile ways of settling any difference, large or small. The spirit of Naivash should guide us all, as individuals and as authorities.

Yes, the election conduct has left much to be desired. The playing field was not that leveled to all. Some parties had better resources than others. But regarding where we came from, it is a great achievement. And so, like many before me, I would like to warmly congratulate General Kiir Mayardit for his re-election. Congratulations also go to those who won. And for those who lost, let them remember that they will sill have another chance in future to win and to shine. Those who are not satisfied with the results should follow peaceful means to redress their complaints. Yet we must not tolerate the house of celebration to live side by side with the house of mourning. We would like all to celebrate in their own way.

Therefore, we cannot stand idle while this conflict spirals out of control. We must use peaceful means to resolve it. We must also address the root causes of the problem. The government of the day thought they crashed Torit Mutiny only to be proven wrong by the events of history. Major Aguet who rebelled in Wau after killing colleagues including General Emmanuel Abor Nhial was eventually tracked down in Central African Republic, brought back and executed. But did his executioners ask why he did it what he did? Or was Aguet’s mutiny the last? Of course, it was not the last. Numeri thought he crashed Bor Mutiny. Again the events that followed Bor Mutiny recounted a different tale.

The parties involved in this conflict (GOSS and General Athor and his colleagues) should resort to third parties to mediate and to uncover all facts behind this unfortunate incident. AU, friends of Sudan, Sudan peace partners, men and women of good will should intervene. Church leaders and leaders of civil society should raise their voices in respect to this developing situation for the good of the country. Let truth, justice, human rights, freedom for all, and reconciliation be our guide and our sole motivator while we seek acceptable resolution for Doleib Hill crisis.

We have a very rich experience by the way of what violence can bring on a nation. We have lost more than 2 million lives in civil conflict to fight for our freedom. The lessons and mistakes of the past (whether committed by us or by others) are for us to learn from in order to craft a brighter future for ourselves and for our children.

These invaluable lessons of history must not be thrown away.