Africa's wicked leadership

Few leaders, throughout history, have ever made the effort to make it to the top solely so they could spend the rest of their lives busy doing the work of their people. I can think of some who did, but those weren't wicked ones. For most of recorded history, people who wanted power wanted it for the express purpose of taking care of themselves, their families, and their friends. And, maybe even to be able to "buy" some "friends" who would be willing to take up arms for them (also known as soldiers). These leaders aren't always wicked, but these are the kind of leaders who go on to being wicked.

If one is a leader who is used to living in a certain way, one is likely able to live this way because of the power that has been assembled by whatever means one used became a leader. So, when things go bad for the country one's solution is not to live more modestly, it is to take more from what little is left from the citizenry. Sometimes force is used. Usually it is applied wickedly.

When people in the country do things that harm nobody, but the leader doesn't like it (or if the leader thinks that his/her not liking it will win even him/her more power), then the leader probably will use power to stop them, and will not think of whether it is just. That is also wicked.

You know how they say, in any country that has elections, that anyone can become president? Well, sometimes that isn't such a good thing.

What do leaders in African countries have in common?

Most of them lack empathy and compassion, no sense of direction, they have no love for their country or vague patriotism, they have no ideas of nation building, ethnic oriented, egocentric, inferiority complex, they've lost touch with modern day reality and progressive ideology, uncontrollable greed/corruption/primitive acquisition of wealth and demigods tendency. The only leaders that is proving these assumptions wrong for now is Paul Kagame of Rwanda (benevolent dictator) as they called it. Only time will tell. Continent with great potentials to be great, but lack of good governance and good leadership ruined the dreams of achieving rapid human, economic and infrastructural development

Why is Ghana so successful in comparison to majority of African countries?

Hey,

I love this question but I will be very brief. I personally love the lessons that Kwame Nkuruma left behind about leadership and living. But to your questions…

Political Stability- Ghana is the only if not best country in Africa with good democratic system of governance. I think my Country Kenya is worse cause as we speak, they have shut down 3 leading media houses.

Proper/Even Distribution of wealth- The gap between the rich and poor is not that wide comapred to other countries in Africa. In Kenya, we have '40′ billionaires and 40million beggars.

Population Distribution- You will find that work force is evenly distributed i.e the population comprises of good number of work force in Ghana which makes the country successful.

Corruption, Nepotism, Tribalism - I have never heard of such huge cases of the above problems in Ghana. Those problems makes a country very poor. Look at Uganda, Zimbabwe and my own Kenya.

Better living condtions- Friend of mine who has been to Ghana (Ashesi University) as an international student told me that, the living condtions in Ghana are better compared to us here in Kenya. They have better healthcare system, better social amenities, better roads etc etc.

Etc etc.Why is Africa so poor?

It is not poverty that needs an explanation. For most of human history, misery is what prevailed for the vast majority of people in the vast majority of places. It is only when some unusual conditions happened to prevail that the development of wealth was possible:

Stable borders. It is only when people feel secure in their property that they have an incentive to accumulate it.

Large-scale agriculture. This is needed to sustain the growth of urban centers, where labor specialization allows for the rise of a mercantile class.

Transportation infrastructure. Either roads or, before the modern age, ships to transport goods over long distances.

Africa had many issues:

Agriculture was inefficient. There were no draft animals to help in the cultivation of large fields. Everything was done by hand.

By the time Europe became strong enough to conquer, the large empires that had succeeded one another in West Africa had gone into decline, to be replaced by petty kingdoms warring against one another.

There was no tradition of long-distance navigation.

There were few roads that would have enabled long-distance commerce.

In previous centuries, the difficulty of maintaining long supply lines would have made large-scale conquest impossible. But by the 19th century, there was nothing the Africans could do. The military power of the invaders, and their ability to project it anywhere they wanted on the continent, was unparalleled.

With these handicaps, it was no surprise that, in spite of the valiant efforts of some leaders like Samori Ture the continent was inexorably conquered.

The colonial states established by the European powers were not altruistic endeavors. They existed for the following reasons:

Resource extraction and exploitation.

The establishment of markets from which cheap raw materials could be imported and to which expensive finished goods could be exported.

National glory.

True, there was a contingent of idealistic people of the Church who wanted to educate and Christianize the population, but this was a secondary endeavor. After conquest, the administrative apparatus was light, and local governors were told to fend for themselves and minimize costs.

It was only gradually, very gradually that the local population was allowed to start participating in the governance of the colonies. Inter-ethnic/inter-tribal tensions had been exacerbated the process of division and conquest. They were further exacerbated during colonial rule, as different groups vied for dominance within the colonies. These groups had no sense of kinship. They had different customs and spoke mutually unintelligible languages. The colonies in which they found themselves living were nothing but geographical expressions.

Among these groups, a local elite was groomed and trained for local leadership. In France, which saw its African dominions as indissoluble extensions of its European territory, some of these natives were invited to take seats in the national legislature. And some, like Senegal's Senghor and Ivory Coast's Boigny even got to serve as ministers of government. Naturally, when the home populations started clamoring for independence and self-determination, many of these leaders were reluctant. But they could not resist the tide and remain at the helm, and they reluctantly accepted.

In Britain's colonies, things were a bit different. There were gradualists like J. B. Danquah who was happy with a step-wise process of independence, and trouble-makers like Nkrumah, who wanted immediate independence. The optics of naked imperialism were now uglier than what they had once been. One by one, the colonies were granted their independence.

It is one thing to build a state; it is quite another thing entirely to forge a nation. The newly independent polities of Africa were largely nationless states. They were beset by a number of problems:

Low levels of literacy. This meant that these states remained reliant on their former colonizers to maintain their administrative apparatus.

What do you think the leadership of African countries is doing wrong?

Most African political leaders are good at staying in power.

They are not interested in improving their countries - maybe because they dont know how.

But they do know how patronage and corruption work.

They stick to what they know and they stay in power.

Everything flows from there.

To be fair - its not like there is a detailed and easy "how to fix a country" manual on the complex process of improving a developing country's economy

despite what the world bank tries to do

its a big task that requires dedication, wisdom, integrity and passion - and pragmatism.

That doesnt describe many people - or leaders.

They take the easy path - stay in power.Top challenges facing Africa today

May 5, 2016 Christina Boutros

Africa is the world's second-largest and second-most-populous continent. It has the youngest amongst all the continents and hosts a large diversity of ethnicities, cultures and languages.

All of these features made the continent face the hardest challenges in the world.

Poverty

Although the poverty rate in Africa has dropped in recent years, rapid population growth means that the number of people suffering poverty keeps growing: from 280 million in 1990 to an estimated 330 million in 2012.

Poor Education

More than two out of five African adults cannot read or write.

Ill Health

Health outcomes are worse in Africa than anywhere else in the world, even though life expectancy at birth has risen and chronic child malnutrition has declined since the mid-1990s.

Violence

Tolerance of domestic violence is twice as high as in the rest of the developing world. Incidents of violence against civilians are on the rise. While this litany of suffering is true throughout sub-Saharan Africa, with regard to all these measures life is particularly harsh for people living in the roughly 34% of Africa where states have collapsed to the point of irrelevance.

Hunger

Of the 20 countries in the world with the worst food and nutrition security, 19 are in Africa.

Sustainable agriculture, nutrition and food security

Inadequate investment in sustainable agriculture and significant social protection remain the major blocks to enhancing food availability. Climate change has also adversely affected many countries in Africa and compromised their ability to feed their people.

Access to financing

About 70 percent of Africans work in agriculture, but only 10% of the total portfolios of commercial banks goes to agriculture, according to the World Bank. Challenging legal and financial environments are constraining growth in African agriculture. For smallholders, especially, credit is often inaccessible or not affordable. Without appropriate financing, farmers are not only less able to invest in their operations but also much more vulnerable to market volatility and unpredictable weather.

Economic growth rate is far too low

Sub-Saharan Africa's GDP per capita (at constant 2005 prices) was $1,036.10 in 2014. At the 1.4-percent growth rate estimated for 2015, it would take Africa 50 years to double GDP per capita.

In addressing all these continental issues, the new AU will require working with several new leaders across Africa since several key elections are taking place in 2016, including Uganda, Chad, Central African Republic and Ghana. However, such changes could also offer opportunities for building on the international momentum for development and change, thus driving real growth in Africa.