Leaders and the Arrogance of Power in Tanzania

[Zakumi]

Hello Everybody:

It's true that Tanzanian leaders are arrogant and corrupt. However, what isn't true in this argument is the supporting evidence. Tanzanian leaders aren't arrogant or corrupt because the World Bank and IMF have increased their roles in reshaping the country's economic agenda. They aren't arrogant or corrupt because the country has lost its moral compass since Nyerere left the office in 1985, or to be precisely 1992. They are arrogant and corrupt because the political system and civic institutions are deeply flawed. Fix them and you will solve the problem.

So Long,

Z-10

 

[Mchambuzi]

Hello Everybody:

It's true that Tanzanian leaders are arrogant and corrupt. However, what isn't true in this argument is the supporting evidence. Tanzanian leaders aren't arrogant or corrupt because the World Bank and IMF have increased their roles in reshaping the country's economic agenda. They aren't arrogant or corrupt because the country has lost its moral compass since Nyerere left the office in 1985, or to be precisely 1992. They are arrogant and corrupt because the political system and civic institutions are deeply flawed. Fix them and you will solve the problem.

So Long,

Z-10

I think what the author has attempted is to establish a correlation between donors' support, corrupt government, and arrogance of power; If donors continue to support corrupt regimes, why would leaders care to fix the political and civic institutions?

The author doesn't come with data but he comes with facts, especially if you read between the lines - economic growth in the past 12 years has been outstanding, poverty levels in the past 12 years have been maintained, corruption has gone off the roof, donors' support has stayed constant, and the country has been praised continuously as a model of reforms in Africa; what does that tell you?

 

[Zakumi]

I think what the author has attempted is to establish a correlation between donors' support, corrupt government, and arrogance of power; If donors continue to support corrupt regimes, why would leaders care to fix the political and civic institutions?

The author doesn't come with data but he comes with facts, especially if you read between the lines - economic growth in the past 12 years has been outstanding, poverty levels in the past 12 years have been maintained, corruption has gone off the roof, donors' support has stayed constant, and the country has been praised continuously as a model of reforms in Africa; what does that tell you?

Mchambuzi;
Twelve years ago, I would have agreed with the author. However, in the past decades the dynamics on the ground have changed. Therefore, when people discuss the characteristics of our leaders they need to take into consideration the current context; otherwise, they will be avoiding the big why.

Yes, the negative impacts of foreign aid, especially the kind of aid Tanzania receives, are enormous; whether the recipients utilize aid for good causes or not. For, aid doesn’t target the right investments; it isn’t sustainable; it makes recipients irresponsible. So I am against the use of foreign aid as a vehicle for Tanzania’s economic prosperity.

Other than aid, there are other factors which make leaders of a certain country arrogant and corrupt. Take for example the mortgaging of the country natural resources irresponsibly. The process brings easy money because the country could generate a high volume of capital in a very short period of time. However, if the leaders aren’t responsible, the process will cause negative outcomes similar to those associated with foreign aid. And, this brings me to the point of my last post.

In the last 10 years, many African countries, including ours, have posted robust economic growths. These growths have nothing to do with the roles of donor countries, WB, IMF or other financial institutions. So therefore, we don’t have reasons to give them credits or criticize them.

Africa has witnessed economic growth the continent has ever seen before because there’s a global demand for African natural resources. The problem, however, in some countries the new flow of revenues has strengthening the positions of irresponsible leaders or in our case the positions of the ruling clique.

Ask yourself if the ruling clique maintains its position through dubious deals, why should they listen to donor countries, why should they make constitution reforms, and why should they strengthening our civic institutions?

Our current leaders will only listen if we go out there demand changes. We are the only people that could reverse the trend.

 

[Dastan Kweka]

Dear Comrades,

I feel compelled to respond to some of the arguments raised. But before i do it,i suggest that we use Kiswahili.
Fortunately, i wrote a peace about Aid and corruption in Tanzania following a provocative article by Comrade Zitto (Mb). I may also speak a bit about the source of power-related arrogance in this country.


Rushwa na Misaada.

Kimsingi, kumekua na upotoshaji mkubwa kuhusu mahusiano kati ya rushwa na misaada. Wakati wa vita baridi,misaada ilikua ni silaha kubwa ya kambi mbili zilizovutana. Misaada ilitolewa kulingana na vigezo viwili, 1. Itikadi 2. Uwepo wa rasilimali. Mifano ya Congo ya Mobutu na Angola inafahamika vyema. Hata hivyo, baada ya vita baridi( 1990s), misaada iliendelea kutolewa lakini kwa vigezo `vipya`. Vigezo hivi vikiwa ni soko huria,kujenga demokrasia na haki za binadamu.

Jambo moja liko wazi katika mjadala wa misaada. Kuna misaada yenye hila(masharti ya uliberali mamboleo n.k) na kuna misaada yenye masharti yanayoingia akilini,mfano,sharti la msisitizo kuwa msaada kuhusu ununuaji wa madawa ya malaria au ARV kutumika kama ilivyokusudiwa. Kuna muonekano wa wazi kuwa, uzoefu wetu kuhusu misaada wakati wa vita baridi ndio unaochagiza fikra zetu kuhusu misaada wakati huu. Nchi yenye viongozi wenye dira na wazalendo,na hasa yenye rasilimali nyingi kama Tanzania,inayo nafasi ya kuamua msaada wa kupokea na ule usio wa kupokea. Nyerere aliwahi kusisitiza hili katika azimio la Arusha (1967), sura ya Tatu,sura ambayo ndiyo inazungumiza haja ya kujitegemea ina kifungu kinasema “Msaada ambao ni kama chombo cha kuongeza juhudi, au nyenzo ya juhudi, ni msaada ambao una manufaa. Lakini msaada unaoweza ukawa sumu ya juhudi si msaada wa kupokea bila kujuiuliza maswali.”

Ni wazi kuwa tatizo letu kubwa katika sekta ya misaada siyo rushwa bali kukosa dira. Misaada kamwe haitegemewi ifuta umasikini. Misaada inapaswa kutumika kama mtaji tuu. Umasikini utafutwa kwa jitihada na bidii za wazalendo wa nchi husika. Nyerere alilitambua hili na hata alipotangaza ujamaa na kujitegemea,aliendelea kupokea misaada chungu nzima zikiwemo scholarship za kuwasomesha wazalendo nje ya nchi kwa ajili ya kujenga uwezo kitaaluma.

Muhimili mkubwa sasa hivi wa rushwa uko katika sekta ya mali asili ie: madini,gesi,mafuta n.k. Huko ndiko MNCs zinahonga viongozi wengi wa vyama na serikali kwa ajili ya tenda mbalimbali na ulinzi dhidi ya wananchi ambao wanachachafya makampuni hayo ie: Mfano wa Barrick huko Mara. Muhimili mwingine wa Rushwa ni manunuzi ya jeshi ambayo mara nyingi yana usiri mkubwa. Huko ndiko pesa nyingi za kulipia garama za chaguzi na kuhonga wapiga kura zinakopitishiwa. Uganda kuna mfano mzuri sana dhidi ya hili hasa pale Museveni alipowahonga wabunge wamsaidie kufuta kifungu cha ukomo wa kugombea madaraka ya Urais katika katiba.

Kizingiti kikubwa katika vita dhidi ya rushwa siyo foregin aid na donors hata kidogo. Tatizo kubwa ni mifumo ya ndani ya chama na serikali ya kulindana. Kwani wala rushwa hawafahamiki? Sasa kwanini hawaadhibiwi? Kuna patronage system ambayo ndiyo inasababisha hii vita inakwama. Wenye uwezo na mamlaka ya kupamba na rushwa nao ni sehemu ya mtandao (embedded network). Hivyo nakubaliana na Zakumi kuwa,kutumia muda mwingi kulaumu misaada ni kushindwa kusoma wakati.


Please read my response to Zitto`s article on Misaada: Laana ama baraka kwetu?

Mrejesho wa Dastan KwekaKweka kwa makala ya ZittoKabwe - Misaada na madini: Laana au baraka kwetu? - wavuti.com

Mjadala uendelee,

Dastan Kweka

 

[Mchambuzi]

Zakumi,

This is per your discussion on post number 23;

Firstly, it is prudent that you face the reality that it is the International Financial Institutions (on behalf of donor countries) that rescued our Nation in early-mid 1980s as total collapse was imminent due to failures of most Ujamaa Policies; Ever since, these Sister institutions - IMF and the World Bank in particular, have been running the show socially, economically and politically via a variety of political and economic liberalization principles lectured and forced upon us; Major tools that they utilize in this context has been AID, TRADE and FDI;

Secondly, it is also important that you realize that - the tremendous economic growth experienced over the past 12 years has been the outcome of effective implementation of economic liberalization principles determined and spearheaded by the World Bank and IMF on behalf of donor countries; And this was under the third President, B.W Mkapa who definitely did an outstanding job to return discipline in the fiscal arena but also in the whole macro economic framework; You have to realize that impressive economic growth didn't come out of the blue, but it has been an outcome of consistent intervention by the International Financial Institutions - the twin sisters - IMF and World Bank who act as custodians of donor countries' interests in poor countries;

If it wasn't for their intervention, role and involvement, we wouldn't have improved productivity in agriculture which was in total shambles in the 1980 - 1985 period; We wouldn't have the capacity to export to the current extent, we wouldn't have been able to establish a conducive investment climate for FDIs that has become notorious in exploiting our natural resources, and this exploitation is mainly the reason why our economy has been growing at an amazing rate; Mind you, if the World Bank and IMF don't endorse you, no one comes to invest in your economy!!

So the bottom line is - it is the intervention by these institutions on behalf of donor countries that has enabled our economy to out perform many economies in Sub Saharan Africa, and it is in this context that we have been constantly regarded as the Jewel of Africa by donor countries; But there is a problem - this so called impressive growth has never been pro - poor growth and this is what the author in post number one has tried to establish, together with the repercussions on governance and society at large;

 

[Mchambuzi]

Dastan Kweka,

Hoja yako juu ya umuhimu wa matumizi ya kiswahili katika mijadala muhimu kama hii inasimama; Lakini tuweke ruhusa pia kwa matumizi ya maneno mengine kwa lugha ya kiingereza kwani sio kila neno la kiingereza lina maana inayoeleweka vyema katika lugha yetu ya kiswahili;

Tukirudi kwenye hoja zako kwenye bandiko namba 24, umenena masuala mengi ya msingi na muhimu, hasa juu ya AID; Nadhani unakubaliana na mimi kwamba tunaweza kuitazama AID kwa njia mbalimbali lakini mwisho wa siku ni muhimu pia tukakubaliana kwamba there is a curse in AID; hakuna taifa la Afrika (nje ya Mauritius na hii ni kwa sababu makaburu waliamua kutumia taifa hili kama their backup option) ambalo limesonga mbele kutokana na AID; Mbaya zaidi ni kwamba badala ya ku industrilize, we have been a notorious country to de-industrilize in the context of not only AID bali pia Foreign Direct Investment na TRADE, Why? Hoja yako na ile ya Mwalimu kuhusu umuhimu wa kuwa waangalifu na AID partially answers this question; Vinginevyo kama nilivyo argue elsewhere - successful countries are those that have chosen the right policies for their own reasons and see foreign AID as a complement to their own efforts rather than a bribe for undertaking tough reforms and awarding lucrative contracts to foreigners and turn HAKI Ya Mungu Kuwa Haki Ya Mzungu (our endowment in Natural Resources);

Dastan Kweka, tyrants love AID kwani it helps them remain and consolidate power; Mwandishi amejitahidi sana kujenga mahusiano baina ya arrogance of power, AID and poverty; Suala la AID halipo very transparent, hatujui lini tumekopa, kwa sababu gani na zitarudi vipi, sana sana tunasoma tu kwenye magezeti kwamba india imetoa mkopo huu, China ule, Ujerumani ule, lakini nani alifanya maamuzi, na je kulikuwa na haja ya mikopo husika? tunaendelea kufumbwa macho, na matokeo yake tunazidi kurundikiwa deni kubwa la taifa na wajukuu wetu watakuja kulipa deni ambalo kwanza, hawakukopa, lakini pili ni kwamba matumizi yake hayakuwa for investments za wao kuja kuona aidha in technological capabilities and skills relevant to the job market kwa vizazi vilivyowatangulia na kuwalea, au shule na hospitali za maana, badala yake mikopo ambayo watakuja kulipa matumizi yake watakuwa wanayaona wakitembea huko mbezi beach na kuona maghorofa ya mafisadi, magari mabovu yakiwa yamerundikana kwenye idara za ujenzi za serikali n.k, kwani most of the AID money inaenda kwenye matumizi ya kawaida kama vile procurement kununua vifaa vya serikali, magari (mashangingi), posho, n.k;

Ndio maana hakuna Rais ambae atapendelea nchi yetu iwe AID free, vinginevyo watapata wapi hela za kufisadi? watapata wapi hela za kuchomoa kwenda imarisha vyama vyao vya siasa? watapata wapi hela za kuimarisha followers wao in the crusade kunyonya rasilimali za taifa? Donors wanalijua hili lakini as long as AID inakuwa invested pia katika maeneo ambayo yanaimarisha sekta wanazotafuta, hasa ujenzi wa miundombinu kusaidia mazao ya kilimo na madini yakimbie bandarini kwa upesi, au as long as wanawazawadia lucrative contracts in oil, mining and gas, au as long as fedha za misaada (ambazo literally ni mikopo) zinatumika kuimarisha institutions muhimu za kusaidia kufacilitate the investment climate, mengine hawajali, na ndio sehemu ya hoja ya msingi ya mwandishi wa mada hii;

 

[Dastan Kweka]

Mchambuzi,

Nashukuru kwa jibu lako. Mengi tunakubaliana ila kuna jambo la msingi ambalo nilisisitiza. Nalo ni kuwa mhimili wa Rushwa,kismsingi umehama kutoka katika Misaada na kuingia katika extractive industry na military procurement. Kumbuka manuzuzi ya jeshi yana usiri mkubwa sana. Kuhama kwa mhimili huu kunatokana na kelele za donors kuhusu matumizi ya fedha. Rushwa kubwa kwa sasa inatolewa na MNCs na Organized crime syndicates na inaelekezwa kwa mamlaka zilizo madarakani na vyombo vya ulinzi na usalama kwa ajili ya kununua tenda na kuhakikishiwa usalama. Kashfa za meremeta,Buhemba n.k unazifahamu. Kwa mantiki hii hata ushawishi wa moja kwa moja wa donor unapungua. Tyrants wanapenda aid,ni kweli. Lakini Afrika imebaki na mabedui wangapi? Tanzania ina mabedui wangapi?

Mchambuzi, hakuna hoja ninayopinga kama kusema ``there is a curse in aid``. Umetaja mauritius kama nchi peke iliyoinuka kutokana na Aid. Ngoja nikuulize swali,

Hivi tunaposema tumekua na ukuaji wa uchumi unaorange 6-7% kwa karibia muongo mmoja sasa ina maana pesa ya msaada iliyotumika kugawa net na kupunguza visa vya malaria kwa mama,mtoto na mume na hivyo watu kuwa na afya na hatimae kufanya kazi haina mchango kwenye huo ukuaji? Misaada ya kugawa ARV na Condoms na hivyo kupunguza maambukizi mapya na kurefusha maisha ya waathirika huku wakipata ahueni na kufanya kazi haina mchango kwenye huo ukuaji? NGOs zinazofanya kazi nchini katika eneo la kilimo,mfano huko Lushoto ambako miradi kibao inawaingizia wananchi kipato na kuinua maisha yao haina mchango kwenye huo ukuaji? Tatizo ni kuwa watu wengi wanachukua zile argument za `cold war` wanazitumia wakati huu. Context imebadilika na mabadiliko hayo yana implications nyingi kwenye aid industry. Kina Dambisa Moyo (Dead Aid) ndio walipanda hoja ya aid curse/syndrome.

There is no such thing as aid curse,Comrade. Tatizo tumeshindwa kuwa na dira ya tunataka kufanya nini na tuchukue misaada ya aina gani. Pili,AID haitegemewi ifute umasikini. AID inapaswa kutumiwa kuwekezwa tuu. Inapaswa kutupiga jeki. Mfano AID aliyopata Nyerere aliwekeza kwenye maeneo strategic kama Elimu ya Juu,miundo mbinu n.k na ndiyo maana leo hii unao watu waliosoma bure ambao hawajui deni ambalo hii nchi inawadai.

Otherwise, Mjadala uendelee.

 

[Mchambuzi]

Mchambuzi,

Nashukuru kwa jibu lako. Mengi tunakubaliana ila kuna jambo la msingi ambalo nilisisitiza. Nalo ni kuwa mhimili wa Rushwa,kismsingi umehama kutoka katika Misaada na kuingia katika extractive industry na military procurement. Kumbuka manuzuzi ya jeshi yana usiri mkubwa sana. Kuhama kwa mhimili huu kunatokana na kelele za donors kuhusu matumizi ya fedha. Rushwa kubwa kwa sasa inatolewa na MNCs na Organized crime syndicates na inaelekezwa kwa mamlaka zilizo madarakani na vyombo vya ulinzi na usalama kwa ajili ya kununua tenda na kuhakikishiwa usalama. Kashfa za meremeta,Buhemba n.k unazifahamu. Kwa mantiki hii hata ushawishi wa moja kwa moja wa donor unapungua. Tyrants wanapenda aid,ni kweli. Lakini Afrika imebaki na mabedui wangapi? Tanzania ina mabedui wangapi?

Mchambuzi, hakuna hoja ninayopinga kama kusema ``there is a curse in aid``. Umetaja mauritius kama nchi peke iliyoinuka kutokana na Aid. Ngoja nikuulize swali,

Hivi tunaposema tumekua na ukuaji wa uchumi unaorange 6-7% kwa karibia muongo mmoja sasa ina maana pesa ya msaada iliyotumika kugawa net na kupunguza visa vya malaria kwa mama,mtoto na mume na hivyo watu kuwa na afya na hatimae kufanya kazi haina mchango kwenye huo ukuaji? Misaada ya kugawa ARV na Condoms na hivyo kupunguza maambukizi mapya na kurefusha maisha ya waathirika huku wakipata ahueni na kufanya kazi haina mchango kwenye huo ukuaji? NGOs zinazofanya kazi nchini katika eneo la kilimo,mfano huko Lushoto ambako miradi kibao inawaingizia wananchi kipato na kuinua maisha yao haina mchango kwenye huo ukuaji? Tatizo ni kuwa watu wengi wanachukua zile argument za `cold war` wanazitumia wakati huu. Context imebadilika na mabadiliko hayo yana implications nyingi kwenye aid industry. Kina Dambisa Moyo (Dead Aid) ndio walipanda hoja ya aid curse/syndrome.

There is no such thing as aid curse,Comrade. Tatizo tumeshindwa kuwa na dira ya tunataka kufanya nini na tuchukue misaada ya aina gani. Pili,AID haitegemewi ifute umasikini. AID inapaswa kutumiwa kuwekezwa tuu. Inapaswa kutupiga jeki. Mfano AID aliyopata Nyerere aliwekeza kwenye maeneo strategic kama Elimu ya Juu,miundo mbinu n.k na ndiyo maana leo hii unao watu waliosoma bure ambao hawajui deni ambalo hii nchi inawadai.

Otherwise, Mjadala uendelee.

Nakubaliana na hoja zako nyingi, ila kuna maeneo mawili ningependa kuchangia zaidi:

Kwanza ni kuhusu kasi ya kukua kwa uchumi kwa miaka kumi na mbili mfululizo ambapo tumevunja rekodi ya kuwa na wastani wa karibia 7% kwa mwaka; Nakubaliana na wewe kwamba this growth hasnt been pro - poor, na haiakisi uhalisia wa mifuko ya wananchi walio wengi kwani kwao maisha yanazidi kuwa magumu; Tumekuwa tunaaminishwa kwamba uliberali wa uchumi lengo lake ni kuweka macroeconomic fundamentals ziwe sawa halafu on the micro level, benefits will eventually trickle down; there is no such thing, it will never happen;

Pili ni kuhusu AID curse; Bila hata Moyo kuja na chapisho lake, it was still obvious kwamba kuna tatizo katika AID industry, sasa wa kuamua kuita tatizo ni curse, ni sawa tu kwani unlike wengine ambao AID imewatoa, sisi ni kama tumelaaniwa kwani AID imezidi kutuangamiza, thats the bottom line; So kama unataka kuita AID ni laana, balaa, changamoto, or whatever, the bottom line ni kwamba kuna hasara kuliko faida; Vinginevyo kuhusu matumizi ya AID wakati wa awamu ya Kwanza, nakubaliana na wewe kwamba kulikuwa na maamuzi na usimamizi mzuri wenye manufaa kwa taifa kuliko awamu zilizofuata; As a matter of fact if not principle, Tanzania ilichelewa sana kuingia katika mfumo mpya wa kuokoa mataifa maskini chini ya World Bank and IMF kwani mwalimu alijua matatizo ambayo yangekuja fuatia; na miaka michache kabla ya kufariki, hawa wakubwa walimuita Washington na kukubaliana nae kimsingi kwamba their intervention hasnt made things better for watanzania walio wengi;

Na mwisho ni kuhusu rushwa kuhamia kwenye extractive industry and military procurement, hivi haujui kwamba kuna uhusiano mkubwa sana baina ya AID industry na shughuli hizi? Hapa ndio nyumbani kwa ile argument kwamba tunapewa AID mkono wa kulia na inachukuliwa kwenye mkono wetu wa kushoto meaning kati ya masharti ya matumizi ya such AID, mbali ya kutumika to facilitate for the investment climate kama vile kuwajengea wazalishaji madini mabara bara na kupanua mabandari ili madini yaweze kufika sokoni huko nje kwa urahisi, na pia AID kutumika kuweka sawa institutions muhimu za nchi ambazo zinaondoa obstacles to FDI returns, AID pia ni inatumika tena notoriously kununua capital goods and military goods kutoka kwa nchi hizo hizo zinazotupatia AID, pay expatriates from the very same donor countries lucrative salaries and allowances and so forth;

 

[Dastan Kweka]

Mchambuzi,

Hoja yangu ya msingi ni kuwa uwezekano wa kuifanya aid ifanye kazi upo. Kama una vongozi wenye vision na wazalendo inawezekana. Ni kuwa na mpango wa maana na masharti thabiti tuu. Kwanza,hakuna kuchukua misaada inayopingana na vision husika kwa kuwa na masharti yenye hadaa. Pili,kutumia aid kwa kuwekeza katika maeneo yenye increasing return over time.

Serikali ya awamu ya kwanza ilifanya hivyo. Ikakataa misaada ya mabwana wakubwa IFM na WB maana ilijaa hadaa kisha ikachukua kutoka nchi za scandinavia na Urusi. Rasilimali tulizo nazo na kuinuka kwa China na mataifa mengine ya Asia kunatupatia alternative kama vita vya kiitikadi wakati wa Cold War vilivyotoa fursa kwa Mwalimu na hatimae kuchagua ujaamaa (ukomunisti).

Jambo la msingi la kuelewa ni kuwa Politics is a zero sum game. Kila mmoja anavutia kwake. Tunapaswa kutumia rasilimali tulizo nazo na zikatupa bargaining power katika aid. Tatizo letu kwa sasa siyo aid bali ni kukosa viongozi. Kukosa vision.

Wakati mwingine tunaweza kulaumu aid tuu. Mimi nina hakika hata tukikataa aid/au tukinyimwa kama anavyofikiri Zitto,ufisadi hautaisha maana AID siyo muhimili wake kwa sasa na pili ni wanyonge kuzidi kunyanyasika tuu. Kufikiri kuwa aid ina shida kubwa kama inavyoelezwa sasa ni kushindwa kusoma wakati. Tuache kulalamika,tutafute ufumbuzi.

Mjadala uendelee kaka.

 

[Zakumi]

Zakumi,

This is per your discussion on post number 23;

Firstly, it is prudent that you face the reality that it is the International Financial Institutions (on behalf of donor countries) that rescued our Nation in early-mid 1980s as total collapse was imminent due to failures of most Ujamaa Policies; Ever since, these Sister institutions - IMF and the World Bank in particular, have been running the show socially, economically and politically via a variety of political and economic liberalization principles lectured and forced upon us; Major tools that they utilize in this context has been AID, TRADE and FDI;

Secondly, it is also important that you realize that - the tremendous economic growth experienced over the past 12 years has been the outcome of effective implementation of economic liberalization principles determined and spearheaded by the World Bank and IMF on behalf of donor countries; And this was under the third President, B.W Mkapa who definitely did an outstanding job to return discipline in the fiscal arena but also in the whole macro economic framework; You have to realize that impressive economic growth didn't come out of the blue, but it has been an outcome of consistent intervention by the International Financial Institutions - the twin sisters - IMF and World Bank who act as custodians of donor countries' interests in poor countries;

If it wasn't for their intervention, role and involvement, we wouldn't have improved productivity in agriculture which was in total shambles in the 1980 - 1985 period; We wouldn't have the capacity to export to the current extent, we wouldn't have been able to establish a conducive investment climate for FDIs that has become notorious in exploiting our natural resources, and this exploitation is mainly the reason why our economy has been growing at an amazing rate; Mind you, if the World Bank and IMF don't endorse you, no one comes to invest in your economy!!

So the bottom line is - it is the intervention by these institutions on behalf of donor countries that has enabled our economy to out perform many economies in Sub Saharan Africa, and it is in this context that we have been constantly regarded as the Jewel of Africa by donor countries; But there is a problem - this so called impressive growth has never been pro - poor growth and this is what the author in post number one has tried to establish, together with the repercussions on governance and society at large;

Mchambuzi;

Yes they played a major role in 80s and 90s to rescue our economy. For, they were the only cool kids on the block.

Today, however, the re-emergence of China as a world economic power house has changed all of that. For example, between 2009 and 2010, the Chinese lent at least $110bn to other developing countries whereas the World Bank lent 100.3bn.

As you see sir, there are new dynamics on the ground. For example, if our leaders find very hard to work with the World Bank or the IMF, they can as well ask the Chinese who are sitting on more than $2tn in cash reserves for financial assistance.

Now let's go back to our topic at hand. If you are a leader of a mineral rich African country, you can ignore the WB and IMF and deal solely with Chinese. And, since Chinese aren't interested in internal politics of your country, you can as well be arrogant and corrupt.

 

[Mchambuzi]

Mchambuzi;

Yes they played a major role in 80s and 90s to rescue our economy. For, they were the only cool kids on the block.

Today, however, the re-emergence of China as a world economic power house has changed all of that. For example, between 2009 and 2010, the Chinese lent at least $110bn to other developing countries whereas the World Bank lent 100.3bn.

As you see sir, there are new dynamics on the ground. For example, if our leaders find very hard to work with the World Bank or the IMF, they can as well ask the Chinese who are sitting on more than $2tn in cash reserves for financial assistance.

Now let's go back to our topic at hand. If you are a leader of a mineral rich African country, you can ignore the WB and IMF and deal solely with Chinese. And, since Chinese aren't interested in internal politics of your country, you can as well be arrogant and corrupt.

I second most of your comments above; but why do you think the Chinese aren't interested in our internal politics as of now unlike the Washington consensus? Is it because the Chinese don't believe/practice neo-liberal democracy principles or there is more to it...; and why do you think the washington consensus packages together neo-liberal democracy and no-liberal economic principles in the context of Aid conditionality;

 

[Zakumi]

I second most of your comments above; but why do you think the Chinese aren't interested in our internal politics as of now unlike the Washington consensus? Is it because the Chinese don't believe/practice neo-liberal democracy principles or there is more to it...; and why do you think the washington consensus packages together neo-liberal democracy and no-liberal economic principles in the context of Aid conditionality;

Mchambuzi;

I am sorry man. Flu knocked me down for more than a week. Now concerning your queries above, let me say that there’s a limit to where the external influence, of donors or development partners, could take us. We need to play our part.

The Washington consensus isn’t a universal consensus at all. It was a prescription intended to address the hyperinflation in many Latin America economies in late 80s and early 90s. However, over the years, it has been become a recipe for economic growth and good governance in Africa. Does it work?

It doesn’t. For, Chinese and other Asian tigers have proven over the last two decades that neo-liberal democracy isn’t a prerequisite for economic growth.

 

[AshaDii]

I second most of your comments above; but why do you think the Chinese aren't interested in our internal politics as of now unlike the Washington consensus? Is it because the Chinese don't believe/practice neo-liberal democracy principles or there is more to it...; and why do you think the washington consensus packages together neo-liberal democracy and no-liberal economic principles in the context of Aid conditionality;

Mchambuzi, if you won't mind... As much as I have read Zakumi's response, would very much like to hear what you think is the reason of hio bolded part?

Mkuu Zakumi pole na flu...

 

[Mchambuzi]

AshaDii,

Thank you for bringing this up, I should have just explained then because this is a crucial matter that's worth our attention and discussion especially given the fact that Africa has become China's main economic backyard and the Chinese are progressively becoming dominant in all activates that are capital – related e.g. Financial Capital, Human Capital, Physical Capital, Natural Capital and so forth.

Chinese engagement in Africa (political and economic) has a long history as well as tradition; This tradition NOT ONLY has a close association with the political self – image of the Communist party, but also its international claim to leadership superiority vis a vis political systems under liberal democracies; In mid 1950s, China hosted an Asian – African Summit and the following principles were presented and subsequently adopted:

1. Respect to territorial integrity;
2. Rejection of aggression;
3. Non interference of other countries;
4. Equality and mutual benefits;
5. Peaceful co – existence;

Partly, these principles were manifested via a variety of projects pursued in Africa in 1960s, contrary to the wishes in Washington, for instance the TAZARA Railway Network and Urafiki Textile in Tanzania; Washington refused to finance these projects on economic and technical grounds, only to be proven wrong later by the Chinese;

Returning to the five principles adopted at the Asian – African Summit – these became the foundation of Chinese foreign policy and China consistently vaunted these principles as supreme to Western methods of political and economic engagement with the developing world.

To date, these principles remain VALID not only in precept but also in practice. The Chinese approach is increasingly being viewed as a substitute to the ‘Washington Consensus' (even though not formally); The principles have also found ground for more justification per Zakumi's assertion in post number 32, particularly that neo-liberal democracy isn't a prerequisite for economic growth and development;

Zakumi, I second your arguments on post number 32; We missed you in the discussions; Pole na Karibu sana;

 

[AshaDii]

Nakushukuru Mchambuzi... I read Zakumi hapo na kukubaliana na dhana yake kuwa "neo-liberal democracy isn't a prerequisite for economic growth" ambayo pia nakubaliana nayo.

My intent was to know if you are of the other opinion; kumbe mwisho wa siku tunakubali sote kuwa no matter tuna deal na watu wepi kwa njia zipi HAKUNA ambao tunaweza wategemea katika suala la National (Or Africa's developing nations) Economic Growth for the better.

 

[Dastan Kweka]

AshaDii, Zakumi and Mchambuzi,

Please allow me to give my insight as to why China isn`t interested in internal politics in most African countries.

Basically, Mchambuzi has given historical reasons, especially with China-Africa forum. Thus, ideological as it may be,China began offering alternatives since 1960s, funding what the west refused and indeed treating Africans as `equals`.

But imagine,with the communist-run-capitalism model that China follows,can they speak of human rights? Can they speak of democracy? The only thing that Chinese speak about and advice us is corruption. And you know how they work to stamp it out. I attended one seminar at UDSM and the main speaker was Chinese ambassador to Tanzania. Do you know what advice he gave on fighting corruption? --Death. And he added, there is no alternative.

But i read one blog-post this morning and liked it. China in Africa: The Real Story: School Construction: World Bank versus China

The author argues that Chinese aid in Africa is about soft power,Politics and Symbolism. China is not interfering in internal politics only when it comes to democracy and human rights because they dont have any lessons to offer in those areas. But not in terms of resources. When it comes to exploitation of resources,china is fully into it. Just like any other capitalist nation.

One philosopher, Slavoj Zezek,argues that Chinese capitalism will be the worst form of capitalism at its peak because it knows no `human principles`. If we real hail the Chinese model, tell me how many poor people does china have today. 480 million Chinese are poor. More than 200 million live in extreme poverty. And yet the gap between the rich and the poor is growing. That means the poor become poorer and the rich richer. That's how capitalism operates as it is driven by the principle of endless accumulation.

Anyway, china is not interfering because they don`t have lessons to offer when it comes to democracy, good governance and human rights. You only learn about growth,authoritarian-led growth.

Pamoja wadau

 

[Zakumi]

AshaDii, Zakumi and Mchambuzi,

Please allow me to give my insight as to why China isn`t interested in internal politics in most African countries.

Basically, Mchambuzi has given historical reasons, especially with China-Africa forum. Thus, ideological as it may be,China began offering alternatives since 1960s, funding what the west refused and indeed treating Africans as `equals`.

But imagine,with the communist-run-capitalism model that China follows,can they speak of human rights? Can they speak of democracy? The only thing that Chinese speak about and advice us is corruption. And you know how they work to stamp it out. I attended one seminar at UDSM and the main speaker was Chinese ambassador to Tanzania. Do you know what advice he gave on fighting corruption? --Death. And he added, there is no alternative.

But i read one blog-post this morning and liked it. China in Africa: The Real Story: School Construction: World Bank versus China

The author argues that Chinese aid in Africa is about soft power,Politics and Symbolism. China is not interfering in internal politics only when it comes to democracy and human rights because they dont have any lessons to offer in those areas. But not in terms of resources. When it comes to exploitation of resources,china is fully into it. Just like any other capitalist nation.

One philosopher, Slavoj Zezek,argues that Chinese capitalism will be the worst form of capitalism at its peak because it knows no `human principles`. If we real hail the Chinese model, tell me how many poor people does china have today. 480 million Chinese are poor. More than 200 million live in extreme poverty. And yet the gap between the rich and the poor is growing. That means the poor become poorer and the rich richer. That's how capitalism operates as it is driven by the principle of endless accumulation.

Anyway, china is not interfering because they don`t have lessons to offer when it comes to democracy, good governance and human rights. You only learn about growth,authoritarian-led growth.

Pamoja wadau

Kweka:

If the western countries had followed the same trajectory of capitalism they pursued 150 years ago, the world would have been the worst place to live. That’s a fact. However, through internal and external forces they have changed the way they do business. For example, they have envisioned and implemented various social programs which have altered the lives of many for the better. And, by doing so, they have delayed some of Karl Marx’s predictions about the fall of capitalism in the West.

Likewise, the Chinese form of capitalism wouldn’t remain in the same form throughout its existence. It will change its course in order to meet domestic and international realities. So therefore, there’s no need to argue that Chinese capitalism will be the worst form of capitalism at its peak because the rising middle class and educated elites in China wouldn’t allow that to happen.

Anyway, the point I want to emphasize is we change for the better when we try to correct our imperfections. There’s a limit where our business partners (The Chinese) and development partners (donor nations) could take us.