In my previous three posts I have made three claims.
2. Development aid can be detrimental to mechanisms of accountability.
These claims are part of my ongoing research on the way information and communication technologies (ICTs) can be applied in strengthening democracy in Africa. To give this field of research a name and to gather these claims within one idiom, I use the term ICT4Accountability. My contributions to this blog will describe and uncover the definition of ICT4Accountability and suggest methods to apply it for practical use within Africa in general and Uganda specifically.
ICT4Accountability aims to arm citizens of African states with potent knowledge and provide them with a platform for debate to put this knowledge to use. In order to talk about civil engagement however, it is imperative to build on a strong analysis of actual civil society in Africa and their relationship with elites. To do this, I will draw upon an already existing and highly acclaimed framework designed by a team of leading academics who collaboratively wrote a policy research paper for the Worldbank. In this paper, economic and political processes in developing countries are described according to the Recorded Human History (RHH) framework designed by Professor Douglass North et al.. This framework deals with the inability of some poor nations to develop into strong democratic states and gives a more realistic understanding of the way ‘elites’ in developing countries behave and how the power structure is different from developed nations.
1993 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics laureate Douglass C. North describes the ‘Limited Access Society (LAO) as a society that is ultimately based on personal ties. Elite coalitions instill order by acquiring rents (income), which are distributed among them to stabilize their base while the mass of the population has limited or no access to property rights and political power. To ensure stability among the elite, it is imperative that access to the markets and politics is denied to people outside the elite. If more parties would gain access to a substantial component of the market or politics, different power blocks might emerge which would result in a struggle at the top. Struggle is not in the interest of the political elites; in a peaceful environment it is easier for the elite to benefit from the fruits of corruption and to exploit economic opportunities. If rents are depleted without satisfying all members of the elite, struggle within power blocks may challenge the states monopoly on violence which can result in armed conflicts.
A good example of elite struggles resulting in violence are the riots which occured after the 2007 elections in Kenya. When Raila Odinga challenged sitting President Mwai Kibaki, Kenya plunged into a violent crisis which had serious impact on the economy. Struggle at the top resulted in ethnic struggle on the ground as tribesman supporting the candidates started attacking each other. During this period of violence elites witnessed how their rents deminished and decided that a power sharing deal between Odinga and Kibaki would be in the best interest for all of them.
To summarize; in order to prevent conflict within the elite circle, access to political and economic power is denied to non-elites. Limited access is created for political purposes, monopolizing rents creates political security and prevents disorder.
The point I want to make in this post is that the immense class difference in African states should be handled with care because the barrier between rich and poor prevents internal struggle within the elite circles. Trying to diminish the class difference between the elites and the rest of the people is potentially dangerous and therefore very difficult to accomplish when done with disregard of the underlying relationships among elites. A very gradual effort should be made in deconstructing the class difference without creating to much instability in the elite circles.
In the next post I will describe how limited access mechanisms among elites affect African societies and how development aid and dubious Chinese investments are strengthening the grip of elites. In the meantime you might want to read the full article on the Limited Access Society:
North, Wallis, Webb, Weingast, Limited access orders in the developing world: a new approach to the problems of development. (Washington: The World Bank, 2007) Download full paper on: http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/4359.html .
I think your ‘theory’ needs a bit more elaboration. You say you want to “arm citizens of African states with potent knowledge and provide them with a platform for debate to put this knowledge to use” and that “in order to prevent conflict within the elite circle, access to political and economic power should be denied to non-elites”?
Those seem to me to be two things that are irreconcilable. As for the class difference etc.: I think the point of the authors of the paper is not to argue that those rent-seeking oligarchies are ‘good’, but rather that the problem is the economy based on rent-seeking, dependent again on oligarchy and tribalism.
It would make sense imho to try to break through those dynamics by “arming the citizens of African states with information and communication devices” as you want to do, but than what you would do is actually trying to give citizens access to power, not denying it to them.
Hi Stefan,
Thank you for your attention to this post. The problem is that the post was already published on the site before I was finished with it! I don’t know how this happened but I can fully understand the inconsistency of the argument when reading my Un-finished post. I totally agree that political and economical power should NOT be denied to non-elites. The thing is, in practice it IS denied. My point is that in trying to provide economic and political access to non-elites, NGO’s, press and development partners should take notice of the effects their effort can have on the stability of the country. A full-blown frontal media attack on sitting elites or sanctions that will radically turnover the status quo can result in struggle and violence (examples to be found in Zimbabwe, Kenya etc). Can you agree on this point with me?
I’m always very suspicious of people claiming ‘full-blown frontal media attacks’. If chatter in the international press can throw a country into civil war than I say the problem is within the country and not the press. Because how to prevent ‘media attacks’? With censorship? (I guess you’d ask for self-censorship)
And what do you want to do with NGOs accused of ‘destabilizing’ a country, let’s say because they helped organise political prisoner self-help groups? (how to measure ‘destabilization’ anyway?) Forbid them? I don’t like this way of arguing and disagree.
You try to simply shift responsibilities away from the failing local elites and blame media and NGOs for the problems those actually try to uncover or struggle against. You try to cover up the problem by blaming those for it who are part of the solution, great work.
I think Wouter just wants to make clear that NGO’s should take the local situation into account when trying to find solutions. He isn’t saying that NGO’s should stop their efforts to diminish the class difference but that “A very gradual effort should be made in deconstructing the class difference without creating to much instability in the elite circles”.
I’m happy that Hanna does understand what I am trying to say here. ‘Civil war is development in reverse’, this is a quote from Professor Paul Collier. Although I also would like to see social change and the empowerment of civilians in these African countries, You cannot go around the facts that these countries are built on a rich minority (the elite).
Stefan: “If chatter in the international press can throw a country into civil war than I say the problem is within the country and not the press. Because how to prevent ‘media attacks’?”
The point is, whether it is a problem with the country or a problem with the local/international press is not important. The thing that counts most is that there is no civil war. Although some westerners have a blind faith in press freedom, some cases of free expression can lead to violence. Think of radiostations in Rwanda during the genocide as an extreme example and any form of ‘Tribalism’ as a mild example. Remember that African borders were made by western colonial powers and that within every country a lot of diffrent interst groups/ kingdoms/ Tribes/ clans operate. The nation states are fragile because of these diffrent identities. Elites provide stability within this fragility. The way forward is to empower civil society in a way that takes these points into account. Furthermore, NGO’s will probably not even get close to affecting this elite when they try to empower civil society (they wish), their efforts will likely just be in vain if they do not take the local elite into account.
Maybe we should all try to be a bit more humble when discussing development in foreign countries we don’t know so much about..
@stefan: Have you ever been in Africa?
@Wouter
I’ve never been to Sub-Saharan Africa, is that relevant? I’m a social scientist though and an activist.
And you clearly didn’t get my point, because as I see it, you are “in the Ivory Tower” and you are the one who isn’t humble enough. You hit on the single fact that African states are ‘elite centred’ in your research and completely pull it out of all context, be this global connections or moral implications, to give questionable advise that you obviously also didn’t think through. (esp. when your sole advice is simply “to be careful” -duh!- take your own advise than please)
I disagree with your assessment that ‘elites provide stability within this fragility’. The behaviour of the elites is a large part of the problem (and this is what the World Bank research paper shows that you linked to) it is exactly that the elites do not care (and are in the position to do so) beyond their own interests and the future of the society and rather focus on maximum rent-exploitation (for the world market) on the cost of the whole society, they are creating and reproducing the “fragility” by f.e. using tribalism to advance their power interests, that is true for Kenia as Zimbabwe. After a while of the system running like that it’s certainly too fragile and breaks down - at this point you jump in and blame those who indeed often in a futile effort try to be part of a solution.
You gave the example of Ruanda: it were parts of the elites that organised the genocide, using ‘identities’ largely imposed by the colonizers as well as their monopoly on information channels. Identities however are nothing fixed or natural but politics as well (also in Europe, remember ‘the Jews’ or ask th!nker Mircza Softic about former Yugoslavia). Without proper safeguards (like a Free Press f.e.) of course those conflicts escalate to violence, esp. if there are no repercussions to fear because everybody looks the other way when people are murdered (f.e. for criticising the elites or the ‘elite centred society’) because the public in the West is told by callous ‘social scientists’ that ‘this is how Africans roll’ and ‘its anyway the medias fault or the NGOs’ because ‘we shouldn’t intervene in their squabbles’, welcome to Hotel Ruanda.
That’s not social science btw. that’s using the language of social sciences for problem denial and advancing prejudices.
So don’t get me wrong I’m not saying to “not take the local elite in account” (who in his right mind does that actually?), on the contrary, this local elite esp. when it is so powerful as described, needs, just like all those in power everywhere, to be monitored and controlled and forced to share it and to use it responsibly- best by its citizens and if they are powerless and downtrodden by those showing solidarity with them. I don’t see a feasible alternative to that, and I don’t think you either, but if you do please tell.
Hey Stefan, when I say we should all be a bit more humble, it seems obvious that I include myself. Don’t let it get to you..
You seem to be convinced that we have a diffrent perspective on the way democracy should function, the truth is, we have the same perspective only I have given it a bit more thought than you. Of course citizens should monitor their leaders and leaders should be held accountable by the people they lead.. However; and that is the point I am making, it is difficult to simply say ‘the people’ if this group is built up of diverse groups that have diffrent interests. Without a central power, the different groups that make up ‘the people’ could end up fighting each other. This should be avoided at all times and therefore the ‘Ivory Towers’ should be carefully deconstructed. Maybe you should read the post again..