Development

africa: Taking a firm stance against NEPAD

Paper presented at the African Civil Society Meeting on the Occasion of the II Conference of the Heads of State and Government of the African Union

2003-07-17, Issue 119

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/development/16447

Printer friendly version

"Even though some of NEPAD's stated goals may be well intentioned, the development vision and economic measures that it puts across for the realizations of these goals are either flawed in that they do not reflect the problems affecting Africans in general and workers in particular or makes heavy reliance on past discredited IMF, World Bank programmes. As a result, NEPAD in its present form does not and will not contribute to making Africa a better place for the average worker. It does not explicitly recognize the role of the worker in development; neither does it explicitly uphold the rights of the worker throughout its deliberations. It relies on the assumption that NEPAD's benefit to the worker can only come through indirect "trickle down" effects. This has not worked in the past (under IMF, World Bank programmes) and there is no reason to expect that it will work now."

Taking a firm stance against NEPAD







By Thomas DEVE



Paper presented at the African Civil Society Meeting on the Occasion of the II Conference of the Heads of State and Government of the African Union

Maputo - Mozambique

27 June - 2 July 2003






























Context

The ascendancy of neo-liberalism through globalisation triggered unprecedented interest within Civil Society in development models that African governments have adopted in their respective states and also others they have endorsed in regional and continental bodies. But the greatest challenge on the continental level has been around the New Economic Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), a programme that was nurtured within the framework of the African Union, a pan African body whose vision is rooted in the 1960s anti colonial-struggles and quest for African Unity.



NEPAD Outline

Conceived and developed by a core group of African leaders, NEPAD describes itself as a 'comprehensive integrated development plan that addresses key social, economic and political priorities for the continent'. The Final programme integrated the New African Initiative which was a merger of the Millennium recovery Plan (MAP) and the OMEGA plan for Africa's economic recovery.



NEPAD argues that globalisation will provide Africa with opportunities to grow economically and achieve unprecedented poverty reduction.



African heads of state committed to NEPAD see it as a pledge based on a common vision and a firm and shared conviction, that they have a pressing duty to eradicate poverty and to place their countries, both individually and collectively, on a path of sustainable growth and development, and at the same time to participate actively in the world economy and body politic.



The Programme document further notes that NEPAD is anchored on the determination of Africans to extricate themselves and the continent from the malaise of underdevelopment and exclusion in a globalising world.



It includes a commitment by African leaders to African people and the international community to place Africa on a path of sustainable growth, accelerating the integration of the continent into the global economy.



It calls on the rest of the world to partner Africa in its development based on Africa's own agenda and programme of action.



Ownership of NEPAD

The launch of the African Union in South Africa (July 2003) raised a lot of questions around the ownership of NEPAD and the exact meaning of what the heads of State thought of it as a concrete expression of Africa's desire to develop in a new environment that seeks new partnerships with peoples of Africa and western powers that have traditionally provided Africa with development assistance mainly in the form of loans and grants.







Civil society and NEPAD

African civil society which historically has been marginalised by the African states in the arena of policy formulation found itself engaging the programme at a moment when governments were seeking the sector's support in endorsing it as a truly African initiative that could be marketed to donors outside the continent. This gesture by African heads of state prompted civil society to give a very impressive response on a Pan-African level, but with little or no grounding in the various nation states.



This was achieved through professional network discussions in workshops and seminars resulting in a plethora of statements and publications too numerous to recount for this presentation but suffice it to say that, all expressed disgust with the lack of broad-based consultation and NEPAD's top-down, one-size-fits-all approach.



This argument was to reverberate throughout Africa.



Unfortunately, this led to a situation where most citizens found themselves digesting the articulate critiques of NEPAD that left them with no intention to familiarise themselves with the actual pronouncements made in the document.



An on-going MWENGO-initiated survey on the state of NEPAD in Eastern and Southern Africa notes that the lack of consultation has remained a thorny issue that has forced civil society to pursue the programme largely in negative terms.



Civil society ideologues have repeatedly harped on NEPAD's admission that it will be successful "...only if it is owned by the African peoples united in their diversity," (paragraph 51, page 13).



A number in Zambia for example, hailed its spirit of appealing to the African people for support, but still stressed that no one from their Government has gone out of their way to challenge their critical engagement of NEPAD, let alone mobilise them to support sections they agree with.



This action and failure by African leaders and their representatives to move on this front, has its roots in the fact that while some sections of the document allude to the importance of popular participation, others try to justify the top-down approach taken, contending that: "...We believe that while African leaders derive their mandates from their people, it is their role to articulate these plans and lead the processes of implementation on behalf of their people," (paragraph 47, page 11).



Thus, NEPAD reduces the role of civil society as follows: "We are, therefore, asking the African peoples to take up the challenge of mobilising in support of the implementation of this initiative by setting up, at all levels, structures for organisation, mobilisation and action," (paragraph 56, page 13).



The role of civil society is reduced to one of merely supporting the initiative. In this regard, NEPAD takes a highly (and discredited) paternalistic approach to its people.

By choosing this top-down approach, NEPAD ignores lessons from past strategies. Even the World Bank and IMF, masters of the top-down Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs), have come around to accept that ownership of development strategies by people is critical to their success, and hence late in 1999, they adopted the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), which are supposed to be government-led, but people-driven. (The PRSPs do have their own shortcomings, but that is not the subject of our current discussion, suffice to say they are there because of the realisation by the IMF and World Bank of the inadequacies of top-down, one-size-fits-all approaches.)



This position and critique is well developed in South Africa, Mauritius, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Namibia, Uganda, Kenya and Uganda.



Its proponents spelt out that the African governments adopted the African Charter on Popular Participation at Arusha (Tanzania) in 1990 as the continent's operational framework. It is therefore unfortunate that NEPAD violates a key principle of popular participation, adopted by African governments themselves.



On the continental level, this view was reiterated in the Addis Ababa, January 2003 African Social Forum and popularised at the global level during the Porto Alegre, World Social summit where the African delegates stated that NEPAD is based on the discredited neo-liberal approach which promotes free markets and free trade.



NEPAD seeks to integrate Africa into the global world on the basis of free markets and free trade. NEPAD enjoins African countries to implement '...far reaching reforms and programmes,' (paragraph 23, page 6), without elaborating on what these entail. In development discourse, such a reference refers to SAPs.



This is confirmed in the following paragraph (24) which argues that the SAPs implemented in the 1980s provided only a partial solution: "...they promoted reforms that tended to remove serious price distortions, but gave inadequate attention to the provision of social services," (page 6). The analytical part of NEPAD observed that the current phase of globalisation undermines African recovery and development, and yet the proposed solution is steeped in further integrating Africa into a faulty world economy, without addressing its inequalities and injustices.



Civil society points out repeatedly that African governments are short-changing citizens whenever they talk of partnership in NEPAD. They argue that the concept of 'Partnership', a cornerstone of NEPAD, is outward rather than inward oriented.



The new partnership is with the Northern development partners, and not African civil society.



NEPAD states clearly that the programme is "...a call for a new relationship between Africa and the international community, especially the highly industrialised countries, to overcome the development chasm that has widened over centuries of unequal relations," (paragraph 8, page 2). It makes it plain that: "...the programme is a new framework of interaction with the rest of the world, including the industrialised countries and multilateral organisations," (paragraph 48, page 11).



While African leaders have been at the forefront in criticising the World Bank and IMF for promoting top-down, one-size-fits-all SAPs, they are guilty of the same sin in developing and promoting a top-down, one-size-fits-all NEPAD.



A meeting which was held recently in Arusha, Tanzania and attended by more than twenty people from Eastern and Southern Africa, which sought to sensitize participants on the importance of the East African Community, found itself debating the issue of partnership.



The participants felt that the EAC was promoting a vision rooted in the controversial neo-liberal approach and had not articulated the role of civil society except that of the private sector which they felt was being touted as an engine of the growth. One irate participant equated the EAC to a little NEPAD secretariat as he could not comprehend the complimentarily of the institution's visions after it had been pointed out that these organs had not met officially to see how they could work together. This coincidence of vision is an issue East Africans will have to interrogate when they discuss the role of regional economic blocs in the promotion of continental economic programmes espoused under NEPAD.



The meeting also highlighted the need to harmonise visions in the areas of peace and security as it was pointed out that the East African region and the horn of Africa were using IGAD to pursue peace initiatives in that area.



One other initiative worth noting for the NEPAD engagement was the Kenya series of public talks held in March under the theme "Our World Is not for Sale" and "Another Africa is possible". Showcasing Yash Tandon, a Zimbabwean-based anti-globalisation activist as the lead discussant, Kenyans from all walks of life debated the various themes arising out of NEPAD and most of the remarks from this town and gown format of meeting pointed to another rejection of NEPAD.



The Ugandans who also engaged Yash Tandon as one of the lead discussants took the Kenya line, but the levels of enthusiasm were not the same.



In the course of the year 2002, Deniva a network of indigenous voluntary associations well known for their advocacy around home grown and people centred paradigms, policies and strategies pledged to mount a series of activities to ensure that Ugandans understand NEPAD.



As late as December 2002, participants at a Consumer Education Trust of Uganda meeting still lamented the lack of knowledge on NEPAD among the country's citizens. At this meeting, participants felt that the government had directed civil society's energy into PRSPs leaving very little room for a more concerted effort to understand the dynamics of NEPAD.



As we speak, another initiative has been put in place in Uganda to raise the challenges posed by NEPAD, but the modus operandi for the implementation is still yet to be availed.



In past civil society engagements, the efforts were directed at critiquing rather than adopting NEPAD. These were largely led by academia or fairly radical sections of civil society who see NEPAD as a subtle continuation of the neo-liberal agenda but seemingly giving the initiative to the African elite to take forward.



The government has been challenged to embark on a vigorous and coherent public campaign to educate the public on the objectives of NEPAD and solicit their participation



Moreover, there hasn't been an identified champion with the necessary resources within civil society to take the expanded public dialogue forward. The NGO Forum has been sighted and currently seems the best placed to carry this agenda forward.



It has been argued that infact there may be need for a two-track approach where at one level we are taking to the public the minimum agenda where it may be easy to have consensus and actually make some discernable progress including trying to attain greater transparency and accountability between policy makers (particularly those involved in NEPAD) and the public. At the other level, a more restricted discussion on conceptual issues, developing a vision and reaching a consensus on how the continent can be actually transformed and the implications of NEPAD on the broader development agenda i.e. another track should focus on the more fundamental issues that NEPAD and other approaches raise about Africa's development.



Ugandan Civil society is proposing that broad based public dialogue between the citizenry, civil society, politicians and government technocrats and legislators could more profitably focus on the minimum agenda. And that if these aspects are not separated, public meetings, dialogue on NEPAD end up generating more heat than light.



Mauritian civil society has stuck to its March 2002 position tabulated in the Common Declaration adopted by NGOs, CBOs, trade unions, women's, youth, planters, fishermen, education & research organisations which was structured as a twelve point document.

They noted that NEPAD has not been subjected to any democratic debate neither in Mauritius nor in any African countries.



1. NEPAD is rather a project being steered through by an African elite in conjunction with the World Bank, the World Economic Forum and the G8.

2. NEPAD is based on the assumption that the present corporate-led globalisation represents progress for humanity. This is not the case at all.

3. NEPAD contains many of the contested conditionalities of the IMF/WB; such as the Structural Adjustment Program, the neo-liberal economic policies and the cuts on social spending that have largely contributed to aggravate poverty in Africa.

4. NEPAD is proposing a development strategy that threatens the economic and social rights of the African people and may lead to the re-colonisation of Africa by multinational companies.

5. NEPAD is making an economic projection of 7% growth, which seems unrealistic under the present context of globalisation.

They concluded by calling on all African organisations, whether trade unions, social, women's, youth or peasants' organisations, as well as academics, to take a firm stand against the NEPAD.



The government was told that "Given that there has not been any democratic debate on NEPAD and given that the NEPAD contains serious threats to our people, we call on the Mauritian government NOT to go ahead with the presentation of NEPAD in the coming G8 meeting and its launch in July 2002."



Indicators in Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland point to a very underdeveloped discourse on NEPAD. While the exact cause has not been established, it is important to note some sections of civil society in these respective countries have engaged NEPAD via the Johannesburg Earth Summit procedures and parallel meetings which were put in place last year during the preparations for the launch of the African Union.



The position that was dominant during the processes highlighted that members of civil society who met all over Africa prior to the launch of the African Union and subsequently, in Port Shepstone on the eve of the launch, clearly rejected NEPAD after analysing it in the context of the struggles for development and emancipation.



That was a very bold position when one considered the fact that in terms of publicity, African media and conventional wisdom had led many to believe that NEPAD was going to be the issue in Durban, notwithstanding the fact that the legitimacy of this programme was inextricably fused with the successful transformation of the OAU to the African Union.



In the African civil society declaration on NEPAD whose clarion call was "We do not accept NEPAD!! Africa is not for sale", social movements, trade unions, youth and women's organisations, faith based organisations, academics, NGOs and other popular civil society organisations unequivocally stated that they will continue to build popular movements at national, continental and international levels against neo-liberal economic globalisation, and against the world trade Organisation as the main institutional force driving globalisation.



What was ignored?

The NEPAD document was seen as having ignored the thinking embodied in The 1980 Lagos Plan of Action, 1991 Abuja Treaty, the 1989 alternative Framework to Structural Adjustment Programmes (AAF-SAAP), the African charter for popular participation and development (Arusha charter, 1990) and the 1994 Cairo Agenda.

These constituted efforts by Africans to resolve the continent's crises without placing emphasis on resources from the west.



Strategic thinking and agenda setting

This was a very important gesture in terms of strategic thinking and agenda setting.

But most importantly, they highlighted the fact that NEPAD seemed to ignore the fact that African states have been undermined as social providers and vehicles of development particularly under the tutelage of the World Bank.



Their position was a declaration of war on NEPAD as they called on the African people to mobilise for a developmental participatory state responsive to people's needs and aspirations.



It was also reiterated that there was need to build popular and democratic movements that can hold African states accountable to their responsibilities.



In short, Africa needed a very strong state whose capacity in terms of delivering social services would remain unwavering and perhaps be stronger than what has remained in the aftermath of the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs).



Who endorsed NEPAD?

Heads of states were not unanimous in their endorsement of NEPAD.

Some ridiculed its assumed dependency on western mobilized financial resources which they strongly resented because of the conditionalities that they impose on the recipient states with the most stringent being applied by the IMF and the World Bank. Bilateral financial arrangements have often benefited the donor and only strengthened the capacity of the recipient to efficiently deliver goods and services deemed strategic for the donor nation or organisation. As a result, it was very difficult for Presidents Mbeki, Obassanjo and Wade, the triumvirate often associated with NEPAD to go back home and proudly pronounce that NEPAD was as purely home grown as was the other institution the African Union they had just launched.



Point of Engagement

NEPAD had serious weaknesses and it is these that we should use to push for further democratisation of the African state and an increased role for civil society to shape and influence any policies that are deemed a panacea for developing Africa and eradicating the ever increasing poverty levels the majority of the continent's citizens face and are subjected to.



There is the issue of NEPAD accepting the fundamentals of the neo-liberal project and gender-blind SAPs paradigm which has been largely responsible for the deepening of the African crises, including the feminisation of poverty.



Arguments vs NEPAD

It is interesting to note that some of the states that questioned the NEPAD philosophy used the arguments that had been refined in civil society forums.

This gesture in turn confused many activists who were to be seen in the corridors of the Durban African Union summit rubbing shoulders with government bureaucrats and promising to go out and popularise NEPAD.



There is nothing wrong with entertaining state officials and promising to work with them.



The challenge for us is to impress upon them that NEPAD will not create the kind of partnerships envisaged by the masses in whose name civil society is calling on governments to consult, act and then be held accountable.



The AU

Those who are not yet familiar with AU structures will find it instructive that some of the organs the new organisation seeks to operationalise are directly associated with NEPAD proposals.



These relate to peace and security, gender equity and equality and the controversial peer review system, an instrument that will hopefully constitute a barometer for measuring a state's adherence to democracy, human rights and adherence to the rule of law.

These core values have been ignored by many governments in the past but at this stage it is not easy to evade them as Africa is busy exploring ways and means of achieving meaningful peace and security which goes beyond the absence of conflict as a common denominator for all to prosper.



The AU was marked by unprecedented political will and civil society has new and unlimited opportunities to engage their governments on the basis of the rhetoric and relative openness that characterised Durban.



With or without NEPAD, these expectations are not out of place because in the constitutive Act of the AU, sections of Article 3 binds the union to promote democratic principles and institutions, popular participation and good governance; promote and protect human and people's rights in accordance with the African charter on Human and Peoples' rights and other human rights instruments.



Where does that leave Civil Society?

Be that as it may, civil society should not the miss the AU omnibus in carving out more space to discourse on Africa's development path.



It is out of this realisation that we are currently initiating and participating in a regional initiative to build capacity within civil society organisations to engage once again with the African Union and revisit our views and articulations of NEPAD that have developed in the past year.



We are arguing that the official launch of the African Union (AU) in July 2002 has provided African civil society with unlimited opportunities to engage national governments on the controversial aspects surrounding the much talked about New Economic Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD).



Guided by the MWENGO Economic Policy Project mission statement:

To contribute to people-cantered policy changes for the economic transformation of Africa through social mobilization and a vision rooted in the quest for an economic order founded on justice equity and sustainable development, we seek to build a critical mass of civil society organisations in the region to advocate for people-centred economic policies and programmes, and to foster collaboration between NGOs, the media, academics, faith-based organisations, unions and various social movements to reverse the marginalisation of citizens from policy and decision making in the different areas of economic policy and governance in the region.



To effectively do this, a country's citizens should be availed with knowledge and information which when accessed can help them make informed choices.



We propose to consolidate our campaign aimed at equipping society with basic knowledge of the Constitutive Act of the African Union in general and focus more on why civil society has repeatedly affirmed that NEPAD was a neo-liberal sell-out programme.



It is also proposed that advocacy and lobbying opportunities that might arise during the implementation of the campaign must be undertaken, bearing in mind that some civil society organizations agreed to engage with the issues raised in NEPAD as part of their broad struggles against the neo-liberal agenda imposed by the IFIs and the WTO.



Our discourse located in the AU discussions will be about understanding the national, regional and global economy and Africa's places within it.



Armed with a common tool for engendering broad public participation in debating and setting economic policy, the campaign should promote a framework for revealing the structural causes of economic and social problems.



We will seek to challenge destructive myths, to create positive policy alternatives, and to enhance community/neighbourhood alternatives.



Given the abundance of primary and secondary material in existence on NEPAD so far, the campaign should be a process of sharing specific economic, political and social analysis and information with various groups in accessible, participatory ways.



Beyond the seminar and workshops and even this meeting, the campaign must be designed in such a way that it will develop tools to make complex ideas understandable and to uncover systemic issues behind what we observe.



Civil Society and social movements all over Africa should recommit themselves to

- starting a process of public information and debate on NEPAD, by explaining the programme and presenting the responses from different quarters on the programme

- dialogue between citizens, civil society, government officials, politicians and legislators about NEPAD

- greater accountability between policy makers (particularly those involved in the NEPAD process) and the public

- clarity at the country level about the implications of NEPAD and development of a broader national position



We have one product "Grappling with the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD): The Debate in Namibia" prepared by Barney Karuuombe, of the Labour resource and research Institute (LaRRI), that can be circulated to those who are interested in the above initiative.



Conclusions

Our intentions are also shared by other civic organisations and we see it fit to conclude using some of their words.



The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions argues that the major issues that civil society organizations, workers and trade unions alike, are grappling with or are trying to understand include the issue of whether the NEPAD project can be "made to work for the poor in light of such inherent inconsistencies.



The intentions of NEPAD are noble only in so far as they claim to be an initiative in which African leaders have played a part. It however falls far short from rescuing the African masses from the poverty grip.

Even though some of NEPAD's stated goals may be well intentioned, the development vision and economic measures that it puts across for the realizations of these goals are either flawed in that they do not reflect the problems affecting Africans in general and workers in particular or makes heavy reliance on past discredited IMF, World Bank programmes. As a result, NEPAD in its present form does not and will not contribute to making Africa a better place for the average worker. It does not explicitly recognize the role of the worker in development; neither does it explicitly uphold the rights of the worker throughout its deliberations. It relies on the assumption that NEPAD's benefit to the worker can only come through indirect "trickle down" effects. This has not worked in the past (under IMF, World Bank programmes) and there is no reason to expect that it will work now.
The assumptions of NEPAD and other policy initiatives therefore need to be challenged, in order to adopt a more people-cantered, transformative framework. The elements of this people-cantered vision to development are located within the context of the workers and civil society's experience with globalization in Africa and elsewhere. The way forward then, is for NEPAD to turn to these people, understand the lessons learnt and then move.



Our World is not for Sale!!

Another Africa is Possible!!

Thomas Deve (Thomas@mwengo.org.zw) is the EPP Project manager at MWENGO.

↑ back to top