The Independent Uncensored News Views And Analysis

The Mo Ibrahim Award for excellence in African leadership has in its short lifetime become one of the world’s most talked about honours. It offers the largest cash prize of its kind with winners receiving US$5 million over ten years, followed by US$200,000 a year for life. In comparison President Obama’s Nobel award was a paltry US$1.4 million.

However, this year the prize committee has decided that none of the African leaders to have left office in the past three years are worthy of the money. That is a bold statement when you consider that the high profile trio of Nigeria’s Olusegun Obasanjo, Ghana’s John Kufour and South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki were among the eleven eligible ex-heads of state. Ibrahim himself stressed that he and his committee did not mean “disrespect” to the ignored leaders, but put yourself in their shoes and it would be hard not to feel snubbed.

And indeed the non-award is a judgement on the state of African leadership today. It says that mediocrity should not be rewarded for the sake of it, far better to maintain the integrity of the prize and wait for a truly excellent candidate next year. Certainly nobody of the calibre of Joaquim Chissano, the first winner in 2007, was available to the Kofi Annan chaired committee this time around. Some commentators have suggested that because Obasanjo and Kufour presided over relatively democratic and peaceful transitions of power they should have been rewarded as an encouragement to others. But surely this should be the minimum expectation of a good leader? To suggest that the record in office should be overlooked in favour of the manner of leaving is only to reinforce the low expectations that have dogged African politics for too long.

Of course one key question yet to be resolved is over what happens to the 2010 award. As it considers leaders who have departed in the previous 3 years it is important to ask what candidates could do to improve their chances now out of office, or will it be that only those leaving power during the next year can win the prize? There are forthcoming elections in Botswana, Cote D’Ivoire, Mozambique and Togo, amongst many others, but in many of these an incumbent will stand and win. A technicality maybe, but it may be that the foundation needs to shed more light on their criteria if they want to avoid a repeat of this year’s non award.

A more interesting discussion is to be had over whether African leaders will, or indeed should, modify their behaviour because a tycoon is willing to pay them a huge amount of money on retirement? And indeed is that money even so huge in the context of some of the continent’s more notorious heads of state? (Mobutu Sese Seko is estimated to have accumulated US$5 billion during his reign over the then Zaire).

On the first question it is probably too early to tell if anyone is actively thinking about their Ibrahim prospects while in office, but I suspect, and hope, the answer is no. The idealistic view is that leaders should be governing for the benefit of their own people and the long-term prospects of their nation, not their bank balance. Perhaps a more realistic analysis would be that there are far more reliable ways to ensure a comfortable retirement than relying on the whims of a committee of the world’s great and good, not least feathering your own nest with state assets.

On the second question the answer is a more reluctant no. The sums involved in bribery, corruption, embezzlement and old-fashioned theft clearly dwarf the prize, generous though it is. You only have to look at President Museveni’s comments in 2007 to get an inkling of how wealthy many of Africa’s leaders are: “If you are used to poor leaders, I am not one of them. You better come and visit me. I do not need money to leave power. Therefore, I cannot be a candidate.”

Of course no Ugandan would be shocked by this statement. The wealth of the first family is well known, stretching from shopping malls and hotels, to mining concessions and parastatals. They are certainly not in need of an Ibrahim pension.

Perhaps more surprising was the outspoken attack along a similar vein from the oft-lauded (not least by this magazine) Paul Kagame. “I am not worthy of that little money” he told reporters recently, “I am worthy of my value and my people. I can actually provide them that money if requested.” Pedants will point out that he at least refers to his people, however taken as a whole the answer smacks of the sort of financial arrogance that Rwanda could do without.

Messes Museveni and Kagame do, however, teach us an important lesson, which is that African leadership is not going to suddenly improve through competition for an award such as the Ibrahim. These types of top-down solutions are rarely sustainable and it would be far better for the long-term future of the prize if it stopped selling itself as an alternative to embezzlement. The Ibrahim can of course remain as an important symbol of recognition for those that have selflessly served their countries and not clung onto power, but is ultimately the citizens of African countries that have to be the drivers of change in their leaders. Andrew Mwenda recently wrote that Uganda has no citizens, only clients and supplicants. While that situation remains no amount of Mo Ibrahim’s fortune will deliver the improvements in leadership that Africa so desperately needs.

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment Preview