by Halif Sarki, a graduate Student at University of South Africa
The Mo-Ibrahim prize for good governance on the African continent has not been awarded this year as the Prize Committee could not reportedly “select a winner”. The Ibrahim prize is awarded after a ‘thorough’ examination, by the Prize Committee, of the prospective candidates through the microscope of an array of criteria including being democratically elected; serving within constitutional limits; and having left office in the last three years. Other key criterion includes the candidate’s contribution towards peace, security and development; and the promotion of democratic values and institutions. Does this then mean that good African leaders are hard to come by? Even more critical, what are the implications for freedom and the rule of law in Africa?
The question on everyone’s lips when the prize could not be attributed this year was obviously, ‘why?’ thus entrenching the feeling that there must be a few former presidents on the African continent who objectively deserve the illustrious distinction. From the top of the head one could nominate, as potential laureates, former South African President Thabo Mbeki or former Ghanaian President John Kufuor or even former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo for their commendable achievements in their respective countries and in Africa at large. Some would add to those three the likes of Ahmed Tejan Kabbah from Sierra Leone or Mathieu Kerekou from Benin. All five potential candidates seem to meet the preliminary criteria as they were all democratically elected; all served within constitutional term limits; and all left power in the last three years. So what is to be understood in the non-attribution of the prize this year? The ‘why’ question still lingers even weeks after the decision was announced as there has not been an official explanation given.
Since the exhaustive list of criteria used by the Prize Committee remains elusive, one cannot fully and accurately analyse the selection of a particular candidate or, in this instance, the selection of no candidate. This, however, should not undermine the integrity or objectiveness of the committee but rather encourage the latter to maintain its purportedly high standards for assessing African leaders.
Yet, I will argue that the selection criteria should be weighed against the structural and systemic challenges faced by African leaders, and the consistent democratic progress on the continent since the early 1990s. In that case one would certainly have to recognise that leadership in Africa has substantially improved and that such improvements should be acknowledged. If still no suitable candidate, then one could humbly suggest that the selection be widened to include civil society and other non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as well as individuals whose efforts undeniably contribute to the socio-economic development of the African continent. The recent granting of the Right livelihood award or more commonly known as the Alternative Nobel to the Congolese Rene Ngongo of Greenpeace prize is one such example. The award in itself demonstrates that no one prize can fully satisfy the need to reward the many individuals who contribute to development. Furthermore, it demonstrates that there are Africans, not only Presidents, capable of good leadership.
Africa still has a long way to go and positive efforts along the road should be acknowledged rather than painting the whole continent with the same brush of failure. For a continent faced with many challenges, the call for good leadership remains critical in all sectors. Whilst Presidents are the head, we cannot deny the importance of the rest of the body. Those answering the call for good leadership must be acknowledged beyond the state houses.
4 comments:
i agree with you Halif, the glass is better seen as half full than half empty! however, i do have a problem with extending the award to NGO's and other actors thus creating an alternative African Nobel as you put it. But i think we already have several awards that honour the work of different actors involved in nation building in their respective countries. I think the Mo Ibrahim Prize SHOULD remain exclusively for the African presidents. Why am I saying this?
I think the African presidency has been stripped or has stripped itself of its dignity for far too long. The African state houses and parliaments have become the bussiness of those with nothing better to do. While the dedicated choose to invest their energies in the less beaurocratic work of the private sector. But these individuals in non-govermental organizations are frustrated today as they were in the 1970s because if governance at the highest level is not democratic then despite their well meaning efforts nothing will change. As Dambisa Moyo in "Dead Aid" has argued public goods in Africa are provided by the private sector. It is important to put the spotlight back on the leadership at the very top. Because if leaders feel that they are replaceable, meaning the work they do can always be done by an NGO, then why bother do it? Its a continent of 54 countries, surely the lack of a winner this year does not mean we are doomed!
Yes progress has been made, but we still lack presidents who will stand against their peers who continuously violate human rights. Even myself I was counting Mbeki and Kufuor in the league but after thorough analysis leading their countries GREAT. Then looking at the Zimbabwe situation Mbeki should have at least spoken against Mugabe and al-Bashir without fear or favor. As for Kufuor as soon as he was out HIS severance package was out of this world without acknowledging the state of the economy in his own backyard.
The Kibaki's did not help when they stole the elections in Kenya in the broad daylight and rewarded his cronies with high profile positions. The Anti-Corruption Commission who was paid $34000 per month in the continent was terrible judgment. The prize should definitely remain exclusively for the leadership in the state houses. Presidents need to represent their countries with honor and integrity...valuing transparency and accountability to the core.
I absolutely agree with the exclusivity of the prize as Kazi and Skhu have already mentioned, and I think rather than seeing the decision to not award the prize as a sign of "the deteriorating quality of leadership in Africa" we should rather applaud the selection committee for their dedication to upholding the high standards and for maintaining the credibility and integrity of the prize.
However, I also believe that 'an alternative Mo Ibrahim' is a good idea. It does not necessarily have to come from Mo Ibrahim, but I believe we can draw from the thorough examination and standards set by the foundation to select capable individuals.
I am a bit skeptical about NGO's. Not to say that their work is less important, or that they are not worthy of the prize, however we might find ourselves taking the prize away from the continent.
Additionally, whilst I do not agree with Mo Ibrahim that some African leaders stick to power as they are afraid of the poverty they might face if out of office, I do agree with him that we do need to not only recognize good leadership, but to reward it.
Right on Bose...NGOs??? Yes let us reward those leaders of "unimpeachable integrity and wisdom"...Just like my hero Former Chief Justice Pius Langa who throughout his career kept his inherent and coherent dignity. With all the overnight wealth those jokers annex while in office poverty is an exaggeration...
Post a Comment