This miserable condition cannot stand. Yet, the solution proposed by many in the West-more debt relief and aid-will not improve the situation. For nearly 50 years now, the developed world has pumped tens of billions of dollars into Africa in what represents the single largest voluntary transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. And the results?-An alarming decline in the standard of living in many states, the deterioration of much of the colonial infrastructure and recurring famines.
One could make the argument that in the long run foreign aid has killed more Africans than it has saved. Money supplied by donor countries allows Africa's corrupt, incompetent elites to maintain their hold on power without addressing economic and social reforms necessary to propel Africa forward. Why worry about the state of one's country when the West bails you out whenever a crisis occurs?
The tragic events in Ethiopia in the mid-1980s perfectly demonstrate the many pitfalls found in the developed world's approach to Africa. In 1984 the Ethiopian state found itself facing a famine of biblical proportions. Every evening Westerners found themselves bombarded by images of skeletal victims staring listlessly at cameras, too weak to swipe away the flies that crawled all over their faces. Most horrified observers attributed this tragic event to drought. In reality, the cause of the Great Ethiopian Famine, like nearly all famines in the modern era, was not an act of God, but rather, the misdeeds of the local government.
The two years prior to the famine had witnessed record harvests that should have permitted Ethiopia to weather the '84 crisis with ease. Sadly for the peasants of Tigre and Wollo, the Marxist regime of Mengistu Haile Mariam got in the way. Mengistu had two goals: crush both the Eritrean and Tigrean People's Liberation Fronts (EPLF and TPLF, respectively), as well as reform rural regions along Stalinist lines. Pursuit of the former included a brutal scorched earth campaign aimed at depriving anti-government forces of help from the local populations, while the latter called for an extensive program of collectivization. These policies wreaked havoc on the lives of many farmers, creating a precarious situation that made famine possible.
Rather than holding the Mengistu regime accountable for its part in causing the food shortages, the West began flooding Ethiopia with boatloads of food. Precious little of it ever reached the starving masses, as Mengistu took the opportunity to refill his bare military granaries. If Western aid failed to rescue hundreds of thousands of peasants, it did help preserve Mengistu. Dawit Wolde Giorgis, a high-ranking Ethiopian official who defected, lamented to The Wall Street Journal Europe in the spring of 1986: "Without this help [foreign aid] there would have been a bloody chaos which would have resulted in the removal of Mengistu and his henchmen." Thanks to the big heart of the developed world, Mengistu remained in power for nearly seven more years, slaughtering thousands upon thousands both directly and indirectly.
Examples like Mengistu's Ethiopia might lead to the conclusion that the solution to Africa's woes lies in the West's willingness to simply cut off all aid. Such an action would force Africa's leaders to face the consequences of their misrule. If they wished to maintain their positions of power, and possibly their lives, these rulers would have no choice but to embrace reform and actively curb corruption. However, the potential problems caused by this approach might prove too severe.
For starters, cutting off aid would initially worsen the plight of many Africans, raising serious moral dilemmas. Can the West just stand by and watch Africa slip into worse misery, even though the continent would end up better off in the long term? The answer is clearly no.
There also are strategic concerns. In the past, African regimes given the cold shoulder by Western donors have turned to less savory patrons. In the early '90s, an isolated Sudan cozied up to both Libya and Iran, even allowing Tehran to base soldiers on its territory. More recently, a desperate Robert Mugabe has jumped in bed with China; in exchange for guns and cash, the "Great Liberator" has opened Zimbabwe up to Chinese economic penetration.
A better solution might be to hold African leaders more accountable for the aid handed out-make it known that donated funds must be used for the construction of schools and infrastructure, not to purchase BMWs and champagne-and stipulate that rulers who continue to pilfer will face severe punishment. The British government already initiated such measures earlier this year when it banned Kenyan minister Chris Murungaru from visiting Britain. The trick now is to make the retribution even harsher by arresting corrupt officials who go abroad and ensuring that the worst offenders are dealt with appropriately. These actions will undoubtedly cause some to level accusations of neo-colonialism. No matter, given the gravity of the situation faced by Africa, such niceties as national sovereignty can take a backseat for a while.
The West also needs to ease up on its campaign of democratization in Africa. Most states on the continent do not contain either a substantial middle class or a long tradition of property rights, two prerequisites for democracy to succeed. What's more, elections cause politicians to incite tribal passions that often lead to civil unrest. For the present, Westerners should settle for ruthlessly efficient, authoritarian leaders of the Lee Kuan Yew variety who strive to drag their countries into the modern age.
Africa's journey out of its impoverished state will be neither fast nor easy. But by simply cracking down on corrupt rulers and focusing more on efficient, rather than democratic, leadership, the West can make that trip possible.
Baca can be reached at mwbaca@amherst.edu
Michael Baca has lived in both Ethiopia and South Africa and has traveled extensively throughout the African continent.