As Malawi nears 50 years as
an independent nation, serious questions are being asked on how free the nation
is in implementing its own economic social and political policies with minimum
or no intervention of foreign elements, especially the British, who colonized
the county for almost a century.
In this special report, I
take the acceptable burden in analyzing and highlighting the country’s position
in the international community and whether the colonizer’s departure five
decades ago automatically meant the strings were detached.
Recalling our past
It came as a Fools Day joke
when on April 1, 1960, British Colonial Secretary, Ian Macleod, ordered the
release of nationalist Kamuzu Banda who had been confined to Gweru Prison in Zimbabwe (then Southern
Rhodesia).
The indigenous community
breathed a sigh of relief upon realization that time had come for Nyasaland to part ways with the British rulers who had
dominated the country’s administrative and political spectrum for close to a
century.
Elsewhere, the British had
also colonized numerous African countries which were also demanding their
self-rule during the same period as Nyasaland.
Africans were rapidly itching
to run the affairs of their own countries.
The painful reality of losing
something they valued most dawned on the colonists, most of which were
Europeans.
However, the colonizers were
very cautious on their exit strategy, a thing many African leaders overlooked.
The effects of that tactic can be seen in the affairs of modern Africa.
Analysts have pointed out
several factors that prove the cunning nature of colonizers; a behavior of not
letting go the cow they milked for over a century.
One of the strategies used
was interfering with the political fibre of the colonized territories.
No wonder, it is believed
that Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah,
was overthrown with the help of British and America’s intelligence elements.
His sin was that he was seen
as the icon of the nationalist movement across the continent and that he was
almost unlocking the clue on how Africa would use her resources to enhance her
development.
Nkrumah’s humiliation created
paranoia among a breed of African leaders. The message was clear; the
colonizers might have left the territory but were hiding somewhere observing
the affairs of Africans.
In trying to address the
problem of unnecessary coup d'état, leaders restructured the political
societies and limited civil freedoms. That was the birth of dictatorships
across the continent.
Even Nkrumah had become a
dictator before he was overthrown; he understood the mind of the colonizer
better than many leaders.
Kamuzu was a scholar in
Nkrumah’s political school of thought such that many of his political
tendencies were a copy of Ghana’s
social strata starting from the one party system, Young Pioneers, Youth League
and the requirement for all citizens to be members of the ruling party.
In trying to impose
indiscriminate membership, all citizens were supposed to buy party membership
cards. All these mechanisms were meant to instill fear in the citizens who
might have had intentions to overthrow the regime.
The plan worked for several
decades as leaders held a firm grip on power with minimal or suppressed
dissent.
Even though Nkrumah had
become a dictator before he was overthrown; he understood the mind of the
colonizer better than many African leaders.
Concurrently, the peak of Kamuzu’s dictatorship came with a number
of factors on the international front attached to it.
The Cold War between US and Russia brought
a defined division between world states which were forced to side with either
of the two giants.
Kamuzu played his cards
cleverly such that he found himself operating on the border of capitalism and
socialism without many problems.
Since physically vacating the
mineral rich lands, colonists have managed to maintain their footprint on the
continent.
Sovereignty in the African
context has come with so many strings attached to it.
In making sure that Africa remains encapsulated in imperialist ideals several
mechanisms have been used. These are the economy, trade and commerce, education
and to an extent; religion.
…too many economic strings
attached
The reconstruction of the
world economy soon after World War II did not favour Africa
which at that time was going through an independence wave.
Unfortunately, several
economies such as South Korea,
Germany, Norway and Finland got a blessing through the
Marshall Plan which heavily industrialized these countries.
Ironically, it was during the
same period that Ghana’s
president, Nkrumah, drafted a massive plan to industrialize his country. His
proposals to construct a $70 million dollar hydro-electric dam were shunned
while twice the same amount was being channeled to individual projects in South Korea and Malaysia.
After Nkrumah’s demise, his
nationalist cronies across the continent became powerless at the hands of the colonizers
hence they had to follow economic policies designed by Westerners.
Policies that were put in
place solely to deal with the tremors of World War II have defined the world
economy up to this day.
Institutions such as
International Monetary Fund, World Bank and United Nations have become the core
of world affairs in political, economic and social aspects.
However, these institutions
have been blamed by poorer countries who view them as separatist in nature. No
wonder, the world has been systematically divided into many blocs such as First
World (Rich nations) Middle placed economies and Third
World (poor countries).
Worrying to many critical
observers is the fact that not much has been done to flatten the structure so
as to move many poor economies into the middle bracket. This is where animosity
between African countries and the developed world creeps in.
The functioning of these
multilateral financial institutions leaves inadequate breathing space for small
economies like Malawi.
It is rare for Malawi to
develop or roll out economic policies without first seeking advice and
intervention of the IMF and World Bank thus all the three regimes have forcibly
been obliged to work hand in hand with the two institutions.
One contentious area between
the country’s leadership and the two Bretton Woods institutions has been that
of Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) which call for privatization of
public institutions and a cut in government’s spending on farm subsidies.
This phenomenon affected the
regime of Bakili Muluzi under whose leadership many public entities were shed
off to private owners hence creating massive retrenchments, adding to the
already saturated unemployed base.
It was during this time that
companies such as Shire Bus Lines, David Whitehead and Sons, Malawi Post and
Telecommunications Limited, Import and Export, Chipiku, Maldeco, Grain and
Milling Company, Malawi Pharmacies Limited, Portland Cement, Malawi Book
Service, Malawi Dairy Industries, Cold Storage, National Seed Company, Oil
Company of Malawi and Commercial Bank.
One entity that had public
sympathy in the privatization process was Agricultural and Development
Marketing Corporation (ADMARC) and the deal was put on hold. Instead, the
agro-bent institution was commercialized.
The wave also caught big
establishments like metal fabricators Brown and Clapperton (B & C) who
wound up business and pushed hundreds of low income earners into the
unemployment pit.
Critics have
pointed out that the anomaly with the conditionalities attached to IMF and
World Bank loans to poor countries retard social stability and hence inhibit
the intended goals and lead to an increase in poverty in recipient countries.
The IMF sometimes advocates "austerity
programmes," increasing taxes even when the economy is weak, in order to generate
government revenue.
These policies were criticized by Joseph E. Stiglitz, former chief economist and Senior Vice President at
the World Bank, in his book Globalization and
Its Discontents
He argued that by converting to a more Monetarist approach,
the IMF no longer had a valid purpose and that though it was not participating
in a conspiracy; it was reflecting the interests and ideology of the Western
financial community.
Several world leaders like
Venezuelan Hugo Chavez have
dubbed both the IMF
and World Bank as "the tools of the empire" that "serve the interests
of the North".
Another well defined
conspiracy about the intentions of the West in denying Africa
total independence is how the two Bretton Woods institutions are structured.
Historically
the IMF's managing director has been European and the president of the World Bank has been from the United States. The First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, the second-in-command, has traditionally been (and is today) an American.
One of the strongest criticisms of the World Bank has been the way
in which it is governed. While the World Bank represents 186 countries, it is
run by a small number of economically powerful countries. These countries
choose the leadership and senior management of the World Bank, and so their
interests dominate the bank.
Additionally,
the Bank President has always been a US
citizen nominated by the United
States, the largest shareholder in the bank.
The two
institutions have also been accused of being used by the rich nations to
advocate for free market policies whereby the laws of supply and demand are the
final- if not only determinants- on how world trade should be handled.
This is in total
contrast to what the rich club did when their economies were young as most
third world countries.
Writing in New African magazine, Osei Boateng
reports that Britain
with the help of its kings protected their textile industry against foreign
imports for years. The same protectionism was used by economies such as America, Japan,
Russia, Germany, South
Korea, Malaysia,
France, Singapore and Taiwan among others.
In contemporary
affairs, China,
which has become the world’s fastest growing economy, is still jealously
protecting its industries against foreign competition. Despite outcries from America and Europe,
the Eastern giant has proved that free market policies are not ideal for small
economies.
Whether the West
can allow African economies to protect their resources by adding value to them,
is an issue for another day.
Mutharika also has on several
occasions defied Western calls for him to phase out the Fertilize and Farm
Input Subsidy programme which has become bedrock for the country’s food surplus
in years passed.
His defiance was on cards
again recently when the issue of independence and Western policies took a
dizzying turn as he sent packing the British High Commissioner, Fergus Cochrane-Dyet,
for remarking negatively on his political personality.
Soon after the decision was
made, a cloud of uncertainty hang over the minds of government critics who
anticipated the British wrath which would in turn affect the general
population.
Britain supplements almost 40 percent of Malawi’s annual
budget on top of other development interventions.
Mutharika, however, remained
defiant and insisted that donor help should not replace sovereignty and respect
for domestic authority.
Only time will tell whether
the former president’s outbursts were meaningful in a situation where the country is
still operating on a Western platform in almost all facets of social order.
Caught in the pangs of United Nations
Malawi’s affiliation to the United Nations has been minimal
in the way world affairs have been set to operate.
It is only on rare occasions
where Malawi
has aired out her own voice in the chambers of the UN.
For example, at one UN
General Assembly several years ago, Mutharika advocated for the
admission of Taiwan
into the world body. This was before Malawi
switched diplomatic ties from Taiwan
to Mainland China.
The late president has also
advocated for the inclusion of Kosovo into the UN though he has not taken the
issue on a larger forum as was the case with the Taiwan matter.
On the reverse, the New York based institution has also proved a thorn in Malawi’s
political flesh.
Recently, the country’s civil
society resorted to finding solace in international bodies, African Union and
United Nations where they reported human rights abuses.
In contrast, it is rare or
non existent to see a European or American civil society group reporting its
government to the United Nations. No wonder the bureaucracy at the UN is that
the US
bulldozes its policies and agenda just because it is one of the largest
contributors to the institution.
Patriotic observers have said
that by becoming crybabies in the slightest human rights abuse, Malawi’s civil
society unknowingly expose the sovereignty of their states, deeming them
incapable of handling their own affairs amicably.
One wonders whether the
essence of domesticity is respected by how the UN handles its affairs.
Furthermore, Malawi-with her
African contingent- has surely been at the peripheral of things at the
institution, mainly due to her poor financial standing. Ten powerful nations
(no African nation here) provide 73 percent of funding to the UN while the
remaining 182 members only cover the 27 percent.
Though Africa
has voiced herself out through African Union, her decisions have been
overridden by the powerful wave of Western influence.
No wonder, the Ivorian
political deadlock was only put to rest when the UN and France took things in
their own hands to force Laurent Gbagbo out of power. This happened some months
after the AU- under Mutharika’s chairmanship – had failed to put things in
order.
Thus far, one wonders whether
the decision in 1945 to establish the UN was founded on the basis of an
intention of continued domination of weaker states.
In that vein some branches
within the UN have become dominated with super powers, for example the UN
Security Council which still denies Africa any chance of vetoing its decisions,
save for sympathy from Russia and China who use their permanent membership in
trifling the selfish interests of America, Britain and inland European powers.
One of the United Nations’
eight Millennium Development Goals (MDG)s is that there should be a global
partnership in development. The policy is found wanting in the wake of Western
dominance on economic, social and political issues, making the partnership a
pendulum stuck on one end.
Former UN Secretary General,
Kofi Annan, a Ghanaian national, planned to initiate some reforms in how the
organisation is run but his efforts faded into obscurity up until he finished
his tenure in 2007.
Annan is the best witness on
how the West can bypass the UN when it wants to serve its interests. Without
the legitimate mandate of the organisation, the US
invaded Iraq
and toppled Saddam Hussein under the guise of getting rid of weapons of mass
destruction.
In the lifeline of the UN,
over 80 colonies have attained independence but only just. The West still have
other ways of determining the social, economic and political fabric of these so
called independent nations.
Surely, independence has had
its own setbacks in the face of foreign intervention in domestic policies.
…learn it my way or you are
ignorant
The African education system
has for many decades operated on Western syllabus so the continent’s human
resource at any given point has been well-indoctrinated with foreign knowledge.
It seems late with the advent
of globalization as a scapegoat for dominance. Some have queried why
globalization should still have the West dominating the affairs of Africa instead of the system operating on equal leverage?
One weapon used to colonize
Africans’ minds is the imparting of foreign languages mainly English and
French. Take a cardboard and make a map of Africa,
carefully cut out the countries that use the two as their official languages,
and see what you remain with.
Technically, it is the West
that has trained Malawian lawyers, economists, journalists, bankers. The
resultant effect has become a determinant to the way life rolls on in Malawian
society.
No wonder our lawyers put on
regalia in a way many Malawians fail to understand and the etiquette of our own
parliamentary proceedings seem foreign to most Malawians even though the issues
discussed have a direct bearing on their lives.
One area which seems
irreversible is that Africa can not get rid of
Western knowledge from their academic fabric.
Education came on the same
boats with religion by the early missionaries who established first
conventional schools. Sandwiched between Western education and religion, Africa had no chance to remain authentic.
In the spirit of
globalization, whenever the education system is being restructured it has to be
tallied with foreign standards to ensure desirable and acceptable quality.
Upon realization that all
fundamental institutions and social order are always attached to Western way of
life, there is little proof to show that Malawi is totally sovereign; by the
way, no country is.
No comments:
Post a Comment