|
|
Mo Ibrahim African
leadership prize does some damage
E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Ghanadot
For two years, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation has failed to deliver a
winner. Is it because relative good leadership is so rare in
Africa or is the impasse a product of a different agenda?
"Many leaders of sub-Saharan African countries come from poor
backgrounds and are tempted to hang on to power for fear that
poverty is what awaits them when they give up the levers of
power,” as reported by the BBC.
And with that rationale, the award was started in 2006; indeed,
for the very good reason of remedying the curse of prolonged
leadership in Africa and to re-brand Africa less in the image of
the Mugabes, the Abachas and the Idi Amins.
The prize offers a generous reward: “$5m (£3.1m) to former
leaders who have promoted good governance, with $200,000
(£123,000) per year for the rest of their lives,” according to
the BBC.
Since its foundation, two leaders have benefited from the award;
Botswana's former President Festus Mogae and Joaquim Chissano,
Mozambique's former president, both after two successful terms
in Office.
In 2009, Ghana’s John Kufuor, South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki, and
Nigeria's Olusegun Obasanjo, after leaving office, qualified for
that year's prize consideration.
John Kufuor and Obasanjo had two successful full terms. Thabo
Mbeki, however, was forced out of office short of his full two
terms. There has since been question about his inclusion in the
qualification process.
However, one is compelled to wonder what was forcefully
different from the presidency of John Kufuor who failed to
receive the award and Mogae or Chissano who received the award.
If the message was to encourage presidents “from poor
backgrounds” who would otherwise be tempted “to hang on to power
for fear that poverty is what awaits them when they give up the
levers of power,” then the consequence of failure to give the
award to either Kufuor or Obasanjo should be considered. After
all, this impasse has its own converse message: Were they not
good enough?
At this point, the intent of the award becomes confusing; What
interest does it serve to tell the world that Africa has not
been able to produce a good leader for two consecutive years?
Is it still
to improve leadership on the continent or more so to increase the influence of Mo
Ibrahim within the global community?
In 1998, Mo Ibrahim founded Celtel, a tele-communications
company which he sold in 2005 to MTC of Kuwait for $3.4bn, the
most lucrative business transaction ever in Africa. Is the prize
then a stunt to improve more business chances for him on the
continent?
Some may not understand how publicity stunts work. Sir Richard
Branson can embark on high risk adventures in floating balloons
and still promote the fortunes of Virgin, his company. Mo Ibrahim, not toying with his life
but with good intent in mind, can increase his business chances
in the same manner.
However, and as observed so far, rewards from his foundation
have not been constant for Africa or the nominees, at least for
two years.
Kufuor, Obasanjo and Mbeki as leaders were good and even
excellent; in relative terms, far better than the majority
preceding them. But the award is Mo Ibrahim’s to give, the
reputation for good governance is Africa’s to keep, burnish or
lose and the joy the recipient’s to receive.
Seen in the above light, withholding the award for two years
does more damage to the continent’s image than the good the
intended re-branding could have accomplished during the same
time period.
The withholding casts aspersion on Africa in the sense that for
two years she has not been able to produce a single, relative,
worthy leader; a notion that also prompts a chuckle and a resulting image
at the same time of the same old hag that can't produce quality leaders.
But, pity the three leaders (Obasanjo, Mbeki, Kufuor) first.
They probably did their best under the circumstances. However, they
would have to endure the humiliation. They have been found wanting by
the Mo Ibrahim Foundation.
Meanwhile, the Foundation's reputation does not suffer.
Its inability to produce a leader is no problem. It's Africa's
fault. The perception of the Foundation's benevolence remains
positive even though she did not spend a penny on the prize for two years.
And the search for the next good leader, who apparently will be hard
to find, continues, but for how long?
The Mo foundation will not say why Obassanjo, Kufuor, and Mbeki
were not good enough. A statement on why can help future
aspirants. The statement is needed, considering Mo Ibrahim’s own words for
re-branding Africa:
"Two or three terrible tyrants,” may exist in 53 countries in
Africa, but “Corruption exists everywhere. … We have to have a
balanced view of governance," he said to the BBC in October
2009.
The
implication is we should seek to improve quality leadership in
Africa gradually.
Presidents in Africa are super-powerful when in office. Once
out, their power diminishes exponentially. Hostile successors
would make sure to limit their power and influence. The process is called
PHD (the pull him down syndrome).
Withholding
the award from a nominee, just out of office, could be seen as a
concession to a successor regime that may be hostile to
the idea for partisan reasons.
However, the message that “The world's most valuable individual prize is
not being awarded for a second year because no-one is deemed
worthy..” is one that gives the continent a black eye; more so
because it resonates. It highlights the paucity of good leadership in
Africa. To prevent more damage, there ought to be a
different approach now; a different philosophy if you will, for
awarding the prize.
This new approach should require the broadening of
good presidential samples on the continent. Instead of
some abstracts, consider the qualification for the award in relative terms.
Grant it to the best in the bunch and allow future competition
to do the clean up.
In this sense, there will always be a winner each year, even if
it means reducing the size of the prize in accordance to merit;
while allowing simultaneously miscreants on the leadership scene
to covet and envy the winners of the prestigious prize, year in
and year out.
E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Publisher
www.ghanadot.com,
Washington, DC,
June 15, 2010.
Permission to publish: Please feel free to publish or
reproduce, with credits, unedited. If posted at a website,
email a copy of the web page to
publisher@ghanadot.com . Or
don't publish at all.
|
