The interview with Prof Issa Shivji is in many respects straight outright which, is what I think, lacks within the African leadership as they dine and wine around diplomatic polemics while the ordinary people suffer from the outcome of indecision by its leadership. The comment by Prof Shivji sends strong signals that Africans are intelligent and know exactly where problems emanate: "….It is African leaders who like poodles dance to the tune; the African people in their villages have little time to engage in such dances." Might I add that not only do villagers not have time but will not be given the chance to meet, let alone to attend to some of the arenas when Africa is openly sold to the G8 markets and mortgaged.

Basically the Professor was making a comment on the hopes Africa may entertain, if any, on the forthcoming G8 summit in Scotland. The title under which it appeared in Pambazuka News was as given above and adopted by me for this critique. The title of this brief expose is therefore to the credit of the Pambazuka editor.

What really could come out of the G8 summit which African leaders can keep hoping about without learning to look unto themselves and their peoples? Again, I find the comment of Prof Shivji quite intriguing if not a ridicule to African leadership: "Isn't it a cruel irony that a leader of a country that followed Bush into destroying a developing country (Iraq) and that has increased its arms sales to Africa fourfold in the last four years should be spearheading the fight against African poverty. If this is not cynicism, what is it?"

The Professor eludes Africa's leadership problem to lack of vision and failure to distinguish between the devil and his messenger which ultimately always ends up with the same mission, which is, aid with unbearable interest rates and strict conditions which cripple efficiency. Coupled with rampant growth in unethical accounting practices that beset African political governance, the G8 is never willing to provide expertise to help put packages to fruition and induct their African counterparts to carry on with continuity. It also could be argued in contrast that the G8 would not dare do anything like continuity assurance for fear that they may be labeled with the same brand that is historically remembered as imperialism.

If for over two decades the imperial empire was able to show cases of shining independent former colonies which they had supervised that may put most of the vocal African voices to silence. The G8 suffers from the same problems she accuses African leadership of - 'talk without action' because of corruption. The G8 s corruption is of being very imperialistic in nature and behaviour, finding joy in babying a child for ever and not allowing him/her to grow into maturity to take her/his own decisions. While it is true that leadership has ordinarily become corrupt on the African continent, the G8 unless otherwise, should design financial assistance packages based on partnership rather than on a slave-master plan which yokes someone into everlasting debt because the repayments plus interest rates are far too high.

But why though, does African political leadership spend more money on guns and why too does the G8 partnership not impose sanctions on the sale of ams to less developed nations who are recipients of development loans? If the G8 are able to address limitation of arms manufacture by those countries and companies, why not talk of tying the world into a similar protocol on buying of arms by the less developed; so that resources are spent on humanitarian and infrastructure for democratic development? As a practical business man I have found that the G8 work favourable terms among themselves, while adopting different protocols that cripple African capacity to deliver.

Having been colonial masters of Africa, many in the G8 owe Africa much and should either play ball straight or just stop covering by arranging another ploy to watch Africa go deeper into debt and the crisis of failing to feed herself. I believe that the propensity for corruption has grown as an emulation of world leadership who have manipulated situations to fit their economic gains.

I suppose the honest position is to say to Africa, you will not get better from getting loans but will improve from your will power to control and use efficiently the little you have and bargain for bigger gains on an efficiently managed economy.