The Systemic Nature Of African Paradox:Institutional And Leadership Factors

A paradox is a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.In the context of African countries,when we say that they are very rich with a lot of natural resources but also very poor considering their human development Index,that is a the African Paradox.Based on selected cases of Burundi,the Democratic Republic of Congo,Zimbabwe and Mauritius Island,this study analyses the problem of the systemic nature of the African Paradox.The selected cases demonstrate how in the post colonial era,multiple external and internal factor constitute systemic hindrances to the development of these countries.The study sought to discover-and discovered-what strategy could be used to mitigate or possibly terminate the problem analyzed.That strategy focuses on two important factors:good(selfless)leadership and inclusive institutions.The two factors explain the relative difference found in the trajectories of the four cases analyzed.The study is innovative as it looks at the problem of the African paradox from a systemic perspective;therefore solution ought to be systemic as well.The systems of neopatrimonialism and neocolonialism have been thoroughly analyzed,show how their different components work together to produce the problem of the African paradox.The strategy this study found in good(selfless)leadership and inclusive institutions are meant to effectively deal with those systems.Like in many other African countries,leaders that led to the formal independence,Patrice Lumumba for the DRC and Louis Rwagasore for Burundi,were destabilized and ultimately eliminated through assassination by foreign powers and their local and international agents.This led to the rise of new form of colonization,indirect,informal,operating in a mafia style,therefore more dangerous than the formal colonization.It is neocolonial system.After elimination of nationalist and Panafricanist leaders,and actively combating their nationalist ideas and policies,foreign control became much stronger in collaboration with local leaders(stooges,proteges)elevated to power by the same foreign powers.These leaders served mostly interests of foreign powers that helped them to capture the state machinery.They were called proteges and they would remain in power,receiving financial assistance and military protection as long as their foreign support lasted.These proteges would use the state machinery for their self enrichment,status and power.This is the neopatrimonial system.The interplay between the neocolonial system and neopatrimonial system led to what is known now as the African Paradox,that is a continent that is naturally very rich,endowed with a lot of natural resources but displays high poverty rate considering the human development indexes.The cases of Burundi and the DRC served to illustrate this situation.The cases of Zimbabwe and Mauritius served to elaborate even further how the two systems of neocolonialism and neopatrimonialism undermined the development of these two nations as well.The Zimbabwean case was selected as it points out how the foreign domination continued even after the formal independence by maintaining the means of production into foreign hands,mainly from the former colonial power.The efforts to correct that continued domination were hampered by both external and internal factors such as crippling sanctions imposed by western powers onto key sectors of the economy and states officials on one hand;and on the other hand the use of state institutions by the ruling elite to enrich themselves.In Mauritius Island case,the study found that the relative proper institutional arrangements and selfless leadership helped the Island Nation to adapt better than other cases analysed to the hostile international environment and built internal stability and development.In Conclusion,the study found that while neopatrimonial rulers the study describes in the analysed cases practiced policies that repressed the mass in order to dominate them,to exploit them and ultimately keep political power;the strategy to elevate and promote citizens would be at the heart of the shift from the extractive institutions to the more inclusive ones.The combination of such institutions and good leadership that underpins the relative progress of the Mauritius Island compared to the other cases remains the same winning strategy the study strived to find.The strategy can be announced as"Elevate in order to Collectively Prosper"(ECP).It constitute the exact opposite strategy practiced of "repress to dominate" found in the neocolonial and neopatrimonial setting described in the cases this study has analysed.