Did blood save Obama from Scrutiny?
written by Sadiq Abdirahman , July 13, 2009

Nope. I think both former Presidents Bush and Clinton got the same reception in their travels to the Continent. President Bush has actually done more in his AIDS initiative for African than any other president in recent past. We will have to wait and see if President Obama’s vision will include real policy changes for Africa.

Comments from Facebook on ‘African Blood’ Saved Obama From Scrutiny in Ghana
written by the editors , July 13, 2009

Hey Okong\'o,
Below are comments cut and paste from our Facebook profile. In bold are the initials of the authors.

SLLA: None of those very good points negate anything that Obama said on this trip. Obama did not suppress opposition or position himself as a perfect leader to not be questioned. So perhaps the lack of questioning in favor of celebration is not his fault?

Obama did not pit African countries against each other. How many countries could he visit at once, and no matter what country he visited, no matter how many he visited, the complaint would be of those he didn\'t visit and in what order he visited them. A better question here is why some would grab that chance to pit their nations against others, when clearly they have (and have taken) so many other chances.

It is sad that his visit to Cape Coast didn\'t provoke as much reflection, a sense of unity, and a deeper perspective.

AJ: Mimi niliskia alibonga poa sana...sio kama wangoso...duuuuuuuu, alisema juu a kilimo na investments in kilimo instead of AIDS, ama?

WM: I think Obama\'s speech proved the alienation that America had put Africa through will ease under his leadership..Africans,let\'s do our part and shun corruption and quit dreaming of what Obama can do for us,he has African blood but is the American president

NB: @Okongo... Snap. if i hadn\'t see your pict Id\'ve thought u r! How dare u day that its because of his African blood that we forgave him his trespasses? Y would we do to obama what we do to all our tribesmates and clansmates when they attain office? I mean for crying out loud he is black. BLACK! He\'s one of us. He\'ll help us COZ he is BLACK. just like all those we vote into office help us. or will help us. they just haven\'t gotten round to it yet. How dare u say he can\'t understand Africa? he is AFRICAN! He has a deep understanding of Africa, its people, its languages, kenyans, Luos, even Kiboswa and my personal problems. Y? COZ HE\'S BLACK, AFRICAN & his dad\'s from Alego which is only a few miles from my shaggs; we\'re practically cousins. He didn\'t pick kenya coz he didnt want to show that he was a nepotist and he loves us best. thats all! How dare you say he sold guns? America is a pure capitalist country and government has no business in business. its not his fault we like war? How...

AJ: NB, r u reading my mind?1oo% ...Please share some more......

MWK: Could Africa learn to stop ALWAYS finding fault in every wise word.......If your brother tells you with love, you have a problem... then get rid of the problem and then complain of the mode of communication!!

And from Twitter: @kenyaimagine Valid argument, though Obama can\'t solve Africa\'s problems, he can/will inspire Africans to think & act differently. Period.

More as we receive them.
the editors

Aid not trade! Yes we can!
written by NB , July 13, 2009

@ AJ... i know sarcasm is the lowest form of humor but sometimes its the most effective form of communication. i could go on forever. Glad we think alike. Great minds sometimes do HAW HAW HAW!
@Okongo again... if the world embraced the mantra of trade not aid to africa we WOULD have something to sell. Dude do you know how much a cow is subsidised in Japan, Or a corn growing farmer in USA? even if we just sold maize and milk, we'd be in good shape. compared to the japanese cows that is. they earn $6000 a year just to chew cud!

MWK... u got it!
written by NB , July 13, 2009

brother? from where? OH i see. Its coz he's Black! obama Black, me Black, We family! i get it. sorry. my thoughts exactly.

spot on
written by pndiangui , July 13, 2009

Okongo I couldn't agree more.

That we could be duped to believe about the visit to Ghana being about Democracy rather than about Oil and AFRICOM justifies Okongo's aurgument that the lack of deeper scrutiny on the real objective of this trip lies in our binded view of Obama as 'one of our own'.

Flawed Arguments
written by carmob , July 13, 2009

In writing your article, one senses an effort in trying too hard. It is poorly conceived, if not flawed in its logic, and lacking in facts.

First, as a journalist, your endeavor to establish in advance that Obama comes from your home country is juvenile, to say the least, but also typical of systemic inferiority in part/some Africans - that this raises you up a notch in your credibility as a critic of Obama. The same inferiority that led most countries to question 'why not them', when Obama announced his visit to Ghana, as you ably put it yourself. Reminds me of the Whitehouse press conferences where some journalists try to be hard on the president, not for the substance of it, but so they may seem that they are not 'in bed with him' as the conservatives put it. It bespeaks to your person as opposed to the one you are critiquing or the audience you are writing for.

That aside, some of the points you raised have an element of importance in them, but it is your certitude in their explanation that renders one to think that you either do not understand their gist, or you haven't given thorough thought to their implications.

Much as Obama, first and foremost, and rightly so, represents American interests, the authority with which he spoke of Africa, its promise and what bedevils it, cannot be equated with George Bush's.

However, let's start with your lede. In part you say, "...Africans exempted their son’s plan for the continent from the tough questions it warranted". You do understand, or have by now realized that this was not a press conference? Or a public forum where ordinary Ghanaian citizen could ask president Obama questions? To insinuate that this was a probability and no one took up the challenge in misleading.

You say, "..."democratic commitment” is an American buzz phrase we have heard many times..." As a western educated (as if that matters with a mind like yours) you seem to be cynical of the idea of democracy. Democracy does hold the same underlying ideals regardless of where it is being practiced. Having gone through some of your articles from the past, I have read countless times where you decry African leadership for their lack of commitment to democratic ideals. So this comes off as hypocrisy when you circumvent and call "democratic commitment" a buzz phrase.
In another paragraph you write, "...by avoiding other African countries, isn’t Obama continuing America’s “old” policies of pitting nations against each other?" How do you qualify this statement? By Obama choosing to visit one nation as opposed to 53 of them he is pitting them rest against each other? Is your logic that each nation was entitled to his visit but one nation talked him out? I am yet to come to grips with your reasoning in this.

You continue, "And, isn’t it stereotypical to slap the “corrupt” label on all African leaders?" This are words that you can eat...from your past writings you have intimated as such. However, I did not read anywhere where Obama labeled all African leaders as corrupt, but pointed out that corruption is one of the ills that characterize African leadership. That's far from calling everyone corrupt.Besides, if 90 percent of the leaders are corrupt, what difference does it make if one says African leadership is corrupt? just saying.

Here is an interesting one, .."it takes more than a couple of brief visits to Africa to understand the continent". One, is this meant as a dismissal of the little he does understand? how much do you understand the conflict in Sudan or Sierra Leone by virtue of being African? I guess the answer could be either a whole lot, because you have read about it, watched it on the TV, talked to some folks from these parts of the continent, and I would certainly believe Obama has had even much information regarding the same situations than you might, or absolutely nothing since you have never visited any of this regions. By the way, is it my assumption that perhaps he has visited more African countries than you have...yet you would claim to understand African problems better than he does? Two, are you assigning obligation to president Obama? Far as I know, he doesn't have a responsibility in that regard. Visiting any foreign country is a prerogative of the president and should not be looked at as some form of indebtedness to these countries.

You assert, ..."we mention colonialism for the sake of practicality; that we want the West to understand that a continent brutalized and looted for centuries cannot turn around in 50 years." Then you go on to bring in "where America was 50 years after independence. In this regard, your writing and reasoning bespoke much of the African mentality that has muddied the thinking of African citizen. That we always have to rationalize things linearly - with the logic that, perhaps 200 years down the line, Africa could be a superpower both economically and militarily in the ilk of the US. The colonial excuse is the one used in many an occasion by the current leadership in Africa to get back at the west for pointing out that they are doing enough for their people. Why was Zimbabwe better off in 1980 when got rid of the colonialist than it is 29 years later? Because the colonialist went away with the resources? Surprisingly, you negate your own argument by stating, "but rather than ask this son of Africa to look at history, we let him spit the same Western rhetoric that implies that any African who utters the word “colonialism” wants Africa to wait 200 years for a strong “democratic commitment.”

You cite Obama as saying,“Africa is not the crude caricature of a continent at war,” and in the same breath you rip Obama for pushing for AFRICOM...now, I might have my reasons for not wanting a military base in Africa. But how does that statement by Obama and the push for AFRICOM contradict? I appreciate the complexity of the thought, but to allude to the establishment of AFRICOM as an affirmation that Obama sees Africa as a war zone is far from its potency. AFRICOM has other issues at heart...not the ones you impute here.

You foolishly point out that, "...we let him continue to push the same flawed, condescending idea that every African is in dire need of water, food and medicine. “And that’s why,” he said, “my administration has committed $63 billion to meet these challenges.”" The majority of Africans are need of one or the other of the things you pointed out. Simply because you happen to be an African who knows a couple of other Africans who are not in need these things does not invalidate the larger point that Obama was making. And he did not say every African in his address. In your essay/article you ask for what he would do. When he provides details and numbers you come down on him.

You state, "...that Africans lack education, when in fact the continent is full of highly educated people capable of solving Africa’s problems." This statement is layered with a multitude of pathetic concepts. One, it is a fact that most Africans lack education - get your facts straight. Two, those who have been highly educated and capable of solving Africa's problems are not in Africa...case in point, you - think again about what you are talking about. Three, Obama did not generalize all Africans as lacking education - read/listen to the man's address, if you did, do it again.

Towards the end you say, ""...what Africans need is an end to the policies that allow multinationals to bribe governments to let them to continue stripping the continent of its wealth." These are policies that only Africans can conceive and implement, not Obama or the US.

The one that I love most is the second last paragraph, "...bama say that America “will put more resources in the hands of those who need it,” even though we know that most of that aid will end up in the hands of our not-so-democratically-committed African-born sons." Not-so-democratically-committed? Not even in quotes? Did you just acknowledge that democratic commitment is not a buzz word?

That you are just looking to prove yourself as a journalist is evident and comes out conspicuously so much so as to look pitiful...there is no there there.

N/B: And so you have food for thought...during his first term, Obama can't be seen to be too involved with Africa more than is politically sustainable. One of the reasons I was/is sure he would never visit Kenya in his first term. As a journalist, you should have been able to discern this by now. And much as he would like to do much for Africa, he should not seem to be either high handed or too preoccupied with it.

Much as Okongo might have gotten some wrong ...
written by pndiangui , July 14, 2009

Carmob, I disagree with your statement on Zimbabwe ; "Why was Zimbabwe better off in 1980 when got rid of the colonialist than it is 29 years later?"

It depends on how we define being 'well off'. I do not think that the flawed land distribution policy was sustainable and neither do I think that Zimbabweans even though their country seen in the light of the 'african basket' we 'real well offness' in the early 80's than they are now taking into account other important dimensions of measuring a citizen's 'well offnes'.

Carmob,stop idol worship
written by wanyeki , July 14, 2009

Carmob,came off your high horse,are you obama's press secretary, speech writer or what?.It's people like you who will never see anything bad from obama .Stop this Idol worship.Actually i listened to him because i had nothing else to do other wise the guy is just to egoistic for my liking, no matter Rev.Jesse Jackson had said that Obama likes talking down on blacks.

You know i actually don't care whether he comes to Kenya or not,like Moi would have put it ,haitaongeza sufuria za ugali.

I actually don't see why Kenya's or even Africans have to waste their time with Obama,we should be looking for market outside of America and west to have meaningful development.

Carmob,african's are educated unless off course you and obama's definition of education is the number of people with degrees.

pndiangui...on Okongo's article
written by carmob , July 14, 2009

I can understand your sentiments about land distribution and I do concur that it was unfairly done...but when we look at the general economic outlook. You cannot seriously say that at 95% unemployment, the lowest GDP growth of any independent state, 80 sextillion (right, that's 10 raised to the power of 21!)% inflation - the next highest is Ethiopia at 41% - that Zimbabwe by any measures, whether the ordinary citizen now has 1000 acres of land each, is an indication of well-offness. There can be no way to make this sound right...and I presume that most people would rather be under the colonialist (the devil) than under Mugabe (a hero of much of the 80's).

On Okongo's article...on his site he says that I didn't understand his article's main point. But rather I had a problem with his presentation - tone, fractured arguments and trying too much to sound serious at the expense of critical inquiry into the significance of Obama's visit, address and commitment to Africa. For all we know he is just like Bush. But all the points Okongo's raises, plus his heading, become void when you look back to other presidents' visits...Obama was saved from tough questions because of bloodline...what saved Clinton or Bush? As far as I know no one asked Bush tough questions. Was he blood-related to Africa? And then again, from whom do these questions come from? It was not a press conference. Okongo's commentary would have served much purpose if it looked at the details provided to educate or inform his readers on why he begs to discount the president...not insinuate on impracticalities at the best, and condescend to his fellow (ordinary) Africans that they are not doing nearly enough as he...he is the journalist, he has a forum, he can raise the questions.

Wanyeki, on the contrary...
written by carmob , July 14, 2009

I don't know how to put this...I was not defending Obama, his trip, his intent...I pointed out how Okongo's article was flawed in its logic. I don't have anything for or against Obama. I just want a reasoned analysis on issues. As I pointed out to pndiangui, Okongo's presentation begs for a response in the wake of dwindling journalistic standards. The points he raised were either self-contradictory, misconceived or utterly ridiculous. His tone came off as condescending to his fellow Africans - who don't know as much as he. He is a journalist, he should be critical without the overconfidence with which he wrote his article. I am his audience and I respond to what I take.

As for your thoughts about me and high horses, I am sorry you have that impression of me. But there's nothing disheartens me than someone that is in denial. You cannot cite Moi (especially that very quote) as your authority in dismissing someone...that to me is a low point in any discourse.

For the part of education...I don't know where you come from or how you measure the number of people educated (hard numbers as opposed to percentage?), but I would like for you to do your research - hoping that your feelings will not come in the way - and determine whether it is sufficient to say that most Africans are educated as compared to other continents.

buzzwords
written by trrrr , July 14, 2009

Carmob,
First, I do not agree with everything Okongo writes, but you could try and not take this so personally. Okongo's point ought to be clear to everyone, it is hypocritical of Obama and the USA to be asking for democracy when Obama's first visit to Africa (forget the racist sub-Saharan definition) was to Egypt. There's few less democratic places on the planet. Why does Mubarak get treated better than other tyrants?

Many people would be uncomfortable with a black President addressing Africa as though it was some unified whole. You clearly are not one of them. Can you imagine Obama going to Spain and addressing the whole of Europe from there, or to Sri Lanka to address Asia?

Africans like you, and all those cheering Obama on, are likely racists, doing so merely because he shares a melanin enhancement with you.

For me, Obama made a fool of himself when he claimed his father's career suffered because of tribalism and nepotism. Philandering drunk who cannot take care of his children, suddenly a victim of tribalism. And in the same speech, an exhortation that each one be responsible to and for himself. So do not blame the West, just find someone from another tribe to blame?

trrrr...nothing personal here
written by carmob , July 14, 2009

trrrr,

First, I did not respond to Okongo's article on the basis of his treatment of Obama or Obama's message, but on its substantive merits. So there's nothing personal there. The irony is that in wanting to seem tough, the weaknesses of the author became apparent in his writing.

Two, from your post, you allude to Obama's hypocrisy in choosing to visit Egypt first as opposed to anywhere else in Africa...isn't this observation on your part based on a sense of entitlement? That had he visited south of the Sahara, perhaps it would have attested to his authenticity as someone that thinks well of Africa? In doing certain things the way it does them, the US administration has it's interests at heart first and foremost, and I acknowledge that in all respects, but to think that he visited Egypt because he cares about Mubarak any more than he does Kibaki or Mugabe is to lose sight of the big picture.

Three, you say, "...many people would be uncomfortable with a black President addressing Africa as though it was some unified whole..." I take exception to your use of "black president". That's an admission, at the least, to the nature of the workings of your mind...that you have expectations from Obama simply coz he is black, yet in the next paragraph you accuse me of cheering him on because he is black as I. At the same time, it is a well known fact that Africa is always treated as a block, perhaps with the exception of South Africa. That did no start with Obama, and it would be hypocritical of you to suddenly notice that now.

Four, you point that Africans who cheer on Obama are racist... that's one of the most irrational observations I have come across. But I won't delve into it.

As for Obama making himself a fool of himself for his reference to his father's career suffering because of nepotism and/or tribalism...that rest in the ears/eyes of the beholder. If you saw it that way, I won't take that away from you.

Again, I have my take on Obama's message, but my critique of Okongo's article is/was not to implore him to embrace Obama's message, but rather on the content of the article itself, and the tone of his writing. You don't have to be cynical to make a point. And a journalist is supposed to be skeptical.

I love it!
written by jaya wardene , July 15, 2009

Great arguments here and nice to see the contributions from Pndiangui Carmob and Trrrrr.

During the historic inauguration of our president it would have been considered as tabooo, blasphemy even to talk as you all now are talking. This is Kenyaimagine where we think the unthinkable and I am learning day by day that Mister Obama perhaps is not, after all, the best thing since sliced bread.

To paraphrase Wanyeki: enough of this idle worship already!

reservations about Obama have always been there on this platform
written by pndiangui , July 15, 2009

Whether those reservations were expressed in any of the edited or unedited material on this platform is something I haven't taken time to research on. I on myself was sceptical about how he would handle Middle East but I was proved wrong...he actually surpassed my expectations of him; he did score a B from my view.
However, his lack of understanding in handling of African issues hasn't surprised me an iota, it is just who he is , a product of a system that believes in wholesale democracy shoved down the throat with the prescription coming through from Washington. That will not change even for a man who would want us to believe of him having some above average knowledge than the past American President about the land of his forefathers.
His utterances on what made Korea and Singapore successful smells of utter ignorance through flawed correlations rather than insightful categorisations backed up by facts on the circumstances that resulted into success. For example, the allocation of loans by the state to develop the famous chaebols, the likes of Hyundai or Samsung was riddled with corruption and smart protectionism driven by a fairly dictatorial regime. I do not think Singapore was short of high handedness either. Now this is against the wholesale ‘democratic ideals' Obama might want to correlate by those States root-cause to success. We all know what has been happening in Fiji with the adoption of Westminster models of democracy and we also know what has been happening in Rwanda. I do not want to wrongfully correlate either, but my point is that the medicine Obama wants to wholesale about democracy just won't work to bring about change in various African countries. In fact I see it delaying the changes that need to happen and this has also been exemplified in our own country with the activism on freedom and human rights that does nothing than bleeding irresponsible civil service and the media. Innovation in Governance YES, this what Rwanda has been working on, Wholesale democratic governance the American way as a sure win? Well I do not think so.

camrob
written by trrrr , July 15, 2009

Hello,
My point about Egypt was simple. Let me try again. Egypt is not by any stretch a democratic country. North Korea at least has communes where people pretend to vote. Egypt is a tyranny, where even blogging can be punished by a very insecure aging Pharaoh who will soon be succeeded by his son.

Egypt also happens to be in Africa. See a map.

Now sillies all over the place say Ghana was chosen because of its democratic, a, b, c. But then why was Egypt chosen? And does this then not show hypocrisy and double standards?

I am not going to agree with Ndiangui that Obama is ignorant. he is just a charlatan. Pointing at the example of South Korea juxtaposed against Kenya is really misguided, especially in a discussion about corruption and state meddling.

I bring up Obama's blackness, only to make the point that a black public figure, should of all people, be particularly aware of such generalisations and stereotyping, and that it would not have cost him much to work against them. Sure, be cold and harsh, but don't sell us this silliness.

Listening to Obama, I was reminded of the oft-published untruth about the difference between China and the West. That China does not care for human rights, while the West does. Then I saw Obama bowing his head to the Saudi monarch, one of the most backward, maniacal regimes anywhere. Ah, it is only a game they play.

On the other hand,
I'd like to laud Obama for asking African individuals, and sub-state players to take charge, to stop blaming the West but to take charge, not just in politics but also in culture and economics. This will often mean, like someone suggests above, that we prefer new cultural and political ties, over the traditional ones.

Obama is not for Africa
written by Amina , July 16, 2009

I don't particularly like to comment on politics, but I just read a very interesting article that agrees with most of the folks who don't see Obama as the African solution and that are calling him out on his rhetoric on Africa.

Andrew Mwenda calls out Obama on his "trash talk" and tells him that lecturing Africans is part of the problem. He goes on to say:

Even so, Obama said nothing new. He assumes that African countries have been mismanaged because leaders on the continent are bad men who make cold hearted choices. His solution is thus to extend moral pleas for them to rule better. Yet it is not the individual behavior of Africa's rulers that demands our closest attention, destructive as that behavior may be. It is the structure of incentives those leaders confront -- incentives that help determine the choices they make.

On democracy in Africa and that comparison to South Korea that Obama likes so much he says:

Obama assumes that the fundamental challenge facing Africa is the lack of democracy and the checks and balances that come with it. But how does he explain why authoritarian Rwanda fights corruption and delivers public services to its citizens much better than its democratic neighbor, Uganda? In fact, the Ugandan brand of democracy has spawned corruption and incompetence more than it has helped combat them. The country's ethnic politics makes patronage and corruption more electorally profitable than delivering services.

Obama's preferred models of successful development, Singapore and South Korea, were not democratic when they rose to prominence. His proposals on ending corruption -- "forensic accounting, automating services strengthening hot lines and protecting whistle-blowers" -- are technocratic in nature. But the real challenge is how to give Africa's rulers a vested interest in fighting corruption. In most of Africa today, corruption is the way the system works -- not the way it fails.

AM HAPPY
written by wanyeki , July 16, 2009

Now,i can see the kenya imagine that has gone back to discussing issues with such clarity and vigour,i like it this way.Keep it up

On the issue of Obama asking Africans to stop blaming the west,my take ,it is always easy for someone from the west to tell us to stop blaming them,but the fact of the matter is we just can't blame the west enough for the following reasons;-

1.Majority of guns and bullets that we are using to kill each other are manufactured by them and sold to us to kill each other.IOf they want they can stop the sale of these guns because they have export authorities.
2. The mineral resources that we depleate so that we can get money to pay for guns is sold to the west.They can stop these from getting to their markets if they cared.
3.The billion of dollars stolen from our public coffers by our leaders is stached in western banks.They can send back to our banks all this money if they cared.
4.West has stolen even the least propety rights from us eg kiondo,kikoi.Need i explain this ?
5.They prescribed to us structural adjustiment policies that failed
and we still have to repay the money they gave us to implement these policies that failed .They can cancell all these debts if they cared.
6.Knowing as they know that most of financial aid given to countries that they had no confidence in its leadership went into leaders pockects,they still want the poor people from those countries to repay the money given ,even though they know where that money is.'in western banks'.They can get the money and repay themselves if they cared.
7. They want us to open our market while they have heavilly subsidised their production especially in agriculture where african has comparative advantage.They can remove subsidies if they cared.
8.They colonised us and put our people in concentration camps etc. They should just apologise if they cared
9.They sat down somewhere in barlin and drew the map of africa,as they scrappled for africans resources.These irrational boundaries
seperated people who would otherwise have belonged to one nationality and forced others who had nothing in common to live in one state,this has be the root cause of our conflicts.

Just look at trade imbalances and tell me why we should not blame the west.Obama is not the right person to tell africans not to blame the west,It is like a civil servant telling you not to blame the government for poor road network when you are a faithful tax payer,even if that civil servant was right,the fact that it is he or she saying it,it actually makes you not to see the point he or she is trying to make.If mandela start telling Africans to stop blaming the west for their woes,people might listen and start taking stock of the reasons he or any other african leader for that matter would have to issue such a statement but not a MZUNGU because that is who Obama is ,A Mzungu, born,educated and socialised.

spellcheck
written by trrr , July 16, 2009

Wanyeki,
Sometimes, facts can be paralysing. It matters little what Obama's motivations are, the wisdom of looking to fix our problems ourselves, this self-reliance is the real example we need to draw from Singapore, Malaysia, China, etc.

This is not to say we ought not to work with the West on solutions to problems like climate change, unfair trade barriers, migration, arms (Obama's government is now pouring a load of more effective more deadly weapons into the Somali cauldron),etc. What I mean is that the existence of the evil West as a bogeyman kills the spirit of enterprise, it delays progress because we can always point at a cruel world, and see insurmountable obstacles where the Asians are seeing opportunities.

Of course the comparison with South Korea, etc is misplaced when mentioned in the context of governance, but we must ask ourselves how these countries did it, and seek to emulate their example.

Anyone care to compare South Korea and Kenya in 1900, or even in 1800, or maybe to compare England in 1400 to South Korea then?

...
written by wanyeki , July 16, 2009

Trrr
I agree that we have to learn to fix our problems ourselves,all
i am saying is that Obama need not to have come to Africa just to say that because we already know that ,so he was not saying anything new,infact Mwai Kibaki in his first term did alot towards that direction by strengthening Kenya's basic economic fundamentals
thaa is how for example milk farmers were able to start earning
from their cows,etc. Kagame is doing it,etc. So why did Obama really come to africa.

wanyeki
written by mkosakabila , July 16, 2009

I had expected that his having "African blood" would have pushed Obama to cite some of the successes, wherever they are, whatever they might be, at whatever scale, and mention what his government in partnership with African govts plans to do to bring those to scale even as he highlighted the barriers. It had been my hope that the Obama presidency would herald a new discourse and conversation with regard to Africa. I remain hopeful.

Now we are talkig - Innovating in governance
written by pndiangui , July 17, 2009

Wanyeki and Trrr,

Yes now we are talking. The flawed categorisations of direct correlations of 'democracy' as known to Americans and Economic growth are flawed. And African leaders need not to take this so they can create unresponsive governance models but I am of the view the notion of governance needs to be separated with the fact that 'democracy' as known to Americans has to be a key ingredient of a governance system that produces results. And results in form of catalysing change in mind and did to that of self-reliance. When we have American form of democracy, being used by populists to engineer chaos against genuine business people by the majority 'poor' because they are accused of 'stealing from us' , and Amy Chua has documented this very well, then we are using American Democracy to perpetuate dependency. That's when we need to think through where we are as a society and what form of transformation we require only then can we categorise correctly the elements of 'democratic' governance that we should take on as a tool to transform our people. We even need to ask the question of elections , whether they matter and if they do how we should conduct them.

stephen gowans
written by james wainaina , July 21, 2009

Has a thorough critique of Obama's speech on his blog here.

Corruption, Obama argues, and not the legacy of colonialism, has also held Africa back. There must, he insists, be “concrete solutions to corruption like forensic accounting, automating services, strengthening hot lines and protecting whistle-blowers to advance transparency and accountability.”

These measures are desirable. But spectacular corruption in Indonesia, Italy, Japan, south Korea, Taiwan and China didn’t hold these countries back. The critical issue in development isn’t whether corruption happens, but whether the dirty money stays in the country. Mobutu took stolen money out of Zaire, wrecking the Zairian economy. But massive corruption and economic growth can co-exist, if the dirty money is invested in the expansion of the country’s productive assets.

Moreover, corruption is more a consequence, and less a cause, of underdevelopment. Poor countries, because they’re poor, pay meager salaries to government officials. This increases the likelihood officials will stoop to corruption to pad their paltry incomes. And limited government budgets mean there are few resources to prevent graft.

Also,

There are two other egregious misconceptions that Obama articulated in his Accra speech: (1) That “the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade…” and (2) that “African-Americans…have thrived in every sector of (US) society.”

The decline in Zimbabwe’s economy since 2000 is attributed by US officials to Robert Mugabe’s mismanagement, an explanation amplified by the Western media and treated by both the media and Western publics as indisputable. The year 2000 marked the beginning of Zimbabwe’s fast track land redistribution program. The goal of the program was to reclaim prized agricultural land stolen by force by European settlers. The land was to be redistributed to indigenous farmers. And it has been. Zimbabwe has democratized land ownership patterns, distributing land previously owned by 4,000 farmers, mostly of British origin, to 300,000 previously landless families, of African origin.

In more sophisticated analyses, the root cause of Zimbabwe’s economic difficulties is understood to lie in the disruption of agriculture caused by land reform. According to this analysis, had the Mugabe government not pressed ahead with its aggressive land reform program and settled for the sedate, glacial affair that characterized land redistribution prior to 2000 — and which has marked agrarian reform elsewhere on the continent — Zimbabwe would not be in the straitened circumstances it finds itself today.

Until 2000, land reform moved at a snail’s pace. As part of a negotiated settlement with Britain, the independence movement agreed to a willing buyer-willing seller arrangement, whereby land could only be acquired for redistribution if the owner wanted to sell. This restriction was to remain in effect for the first 10 years of independence. Since most farmers of European origin were unwilling to sell, little land was available to redistribute.

Eventually Harare was free to expropriate land from farmers who didn’t want to sell. Britain had agreed to help compensate expropriated farmers but renounced the agreement, denying it was ever under any obligation to fund land reform. Since Harare didn’t have the funds to pay for the land it needed for redistribution, it had two choices: Carry on as is, with land redistribution proceeding at a glacial pace, or expropriate the land and demand that expropriated farmers seek compensation from London, which after all, was ultimately responsible for the theft of the land and had promised to underwrite the land reform program. The Mugabe government chose the later course, setting off alarm bells in Western capitals. Mugabe couldn’t be allowed to get away with uncompensated expropriation of productive property.

...
written by wanyeki , July 23, 2009

Wainaina,
It is true that corruption per say does not lead to underdevelopment.I have always said that the west take Africans for fools by preaching to us fallacies because they know that there are local NGO who are willing to sing whichever song they start.Removal of money from the local market slows down development more than anything else,because you won't have enough money by the banks to loan to individuals for local investment,hence no employment creation and everything else becomes obvious.

One would think that there is no corruption in America and other western countries,in most of these countries money changes hand after the work is done,however whether money is given before or after ,it is still corruption.

You know when OBAMA talked of his cousins in Kenya not getting jobs without giving a bribe,he made me wonder,whether he expected that now that he is the president of USA, all his cousins will automatically get jobs in Kenya even those who are not qualified,what a joker.Why can't he tell us where his cousin went for interview and could not get employed because they did not give a bribe.

Stop the chest thumbing
written by Elijah , July 23, 2009

Using the KI platform, we see a few apologists for dictators in Africa revelling in a rejoinder of where Obama should be going in Africa, what he should be doing etc. That Obama chose to go to Ghana does not mean that Rwanda or Botswana are not good models.That visit was important though and symbolic and it is therefore understandable why keen observers like Okong'o and Ndiangui are disgruntled, their star has chosen not to fly the flag (Kenyan) which would have given some political mileage to the much maligned leadership in Kenya especially.
My assumption is that Obama is a keen observer of Africa (Kenya included), and his choice of Egypt and Ghana as the first countries to visit and deliver key American policy statements is further affirmation that he is keen to see change and 'business as usual' will not work.
And lastly, I am one of those that believe that Obama's legacy and Presidency should and will impact Africa positively, and he is well on his way to fulfilling my wish.