*The article appeared in The Daily Times, The Nation on Sunday and The Nation Newspapers in May 2011Malawi is embarrassingly poor. Almost 50 years after independence, we still cannot finance our own health, nutrition and education needs. That is why we need all the friends we can get. Having more friends, seeking help, taking advice and learning from them does not make us less sovereign. And no, it does not make our leaders less mortal either.The so called rapid economic growth that has occurred in the last 5 or so years seems to be getting to our heads, making us think we can survive on our own. But obviously, that growth is only good for the economics text books. It is superficial. It means nothing to the ordinary Malawian. We cannot import fuel. We have no electricity two thirds of the time. Civil servants go 90 days without pay. Our social indicators are still appalling.
Indeed, amid the litany of economic achievements of the recent past, the country is still not able to pay for 40 percent of its annual budget. Our lifeline comes from overseas donors who cover that ghastly hole in our budget. The bulk of that donor aid comes from the British. Yes, the same British people that we are now spiting and kicking out, have historically and traditionally been the largest donor to our poor nation.The people of Britain send over £90 million a year to Malawi in bilateral aid. About 40 percent of this goes to the health sector, keeping our nurses incentivised and preventing them from quitting due to poor working conditions. A further 25 percent keeps the education sector going, creating the much needed human capital accumulation that is needed for the county’s development. The balance goes towards governance, including anti-corruption and police reforms.
We know that the British support may not be purely altruistic. Indeed, like all other donors, geopolitical interests may be their major driving force. But countries like Malawi, who are minnows in global politics (remember how we miserably failed to sell Taiwan in the UN?), need not worry about donor’s hegemonic intents. Aid is never value-free anyway.
While other bilateral donors have recoiled, and even closed shop, at the slightest misuse of their aid, Britain has been very tolerant and patient with us. We abused their tax money to buy 39 Mercedes limousines in 2000. They simply cautioned us. We again wasted their £9 million on a luxury jet for the president. They again simply reprimanded us reasonably. It is therefore unimaginable that we could throw out the British simply because they have raised a concern, like every sane person would wish to do right now, that the president is “becoming ever more autocratic and intolerant of criticism.”Our leaders seem to be overly, and dangerously, obsessed with our new courtship with China. We need to recall that Zimbabwe had the same unfortunate obsession. China never saved Zimbabwe. China never replaced Zimbabwe’s bona-fide donors. Apart from Mugabe’s 25-bedroom mansion and the imposing ZANU-PF head office in Harare, what is there to show for Zimbabwe’s romance with China? Nothing!
I am not suggesting that Malawi abandons China, or that the ties are ill-conceived. This is only a caution not to be too carried away by the personal benefits that our political elite may be cultivating from the relationship with China. It is well observed that while most of our traditional donors have been supporting the social sector in areas such as water, health, agricultural subsidy and education, China has ventured into patronage seeking investments such as a university on the president’s farm, hotels, parliament buildings and stadiums.
The Chinese approach is obviously not pro-poor. It is arguably elitist. It benefits the political elite in Malawi and the business elite of China. The British, American, European and Canadian support has been pro-poor. They are a better evil. We need to sustain those friendships for the sake of the poor. Arrogance and impunity will only satisfy our leader’s egos, but will derail our resolve for progress.
We need to understand that taxpayers from donor countries are not keen on subsidising economic and political mismanagement. Their representatives in Malawi therefore have every right to point out where things are going wrong, without fear of being labelled persona non grata or being bullied out of the country.
Mr. William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, is right: “It is a worrying sign that the Malawian government is expending its energies in this way, rather than focusing on the real and substantial challenges facing it, including the need for improved governance.”
Daniel Msonda
MALAWI
Mundus MAPP-DPP Alumnus 2010
0 comments:
Post a Comment