Caught between NEPAD and neo-liberalism: Human security in Africa's renaissance strategy

239 Chapter 10 Caught Between NEPAD and Neo-Liberalism: Human Security in Africa’s Renaissance Strategy Kwame Boafo-Arthur Introduction The poor state ofAfrica’s economies, which has led to the appalling standard of living for the majority of the people, has engaged the minds of policy makers and other stakeholders for some time. Several attempts have been made by way of improved modes of governance and economic reforms to tackle Africa’s development crisis; but to date there has been no appreciable improvement in the situation, for a number of reasons. These include corruption in high places, poor political leadership, fluctuating terms of trade, inadequate investments, and poor management methods. Some of the continent-wide measures that have been adopted over the years are the Lagos Plan of Action for the Economic Development of Africa (1980–2000) and the Final Act of Lagos (1980); Africa’s Priority Programme for Economic Recovery (APPER, 1986–1990), which was later converted into the United Nations Programme of Action for Africa’s Economic Recovery and Development (UN-PAAERD, 1986); the African Alternative Framework to Structural Adjustment for Socio-Economic Recovery and Transformation (AAF-SAP, 1989); the African Charter for Popular Participation for Development (1990); and the United Nations New Agenda for the Development of Africa in the 1990s (UN-NADAF, 1991). Those among these that were Africa-initiated development strategies were either opposed or undermined by the Bretton Woods institutions (BWIs), and finally abandoned. “Africans were thus impeded from exercising the basic and fundamental right to make decisions about their future” (Adedeji 2002). The impact of this opposition toAfrica-initiated economic reforms programs 240 Globalized Africa was devastating; it deflated the commitment by African leaders to pursue their own development agenda, led to excessive dependence on external sources of financial support, and undermined the legitimacy of governments. Instead of such internally crafted reform programs, the BWIs imposed their own development strategies – the structural adjustment programs whose overall effects on Africa’s development have been less than salutary. In the midst of several policyfailures and the continued pursuit of austerity measures prescribed through structural adjustment programs, the majority of Africans have been going through harsh social and economic experiences – their living conditions continue to deteriorate, with many of them living in abject poverty; conflict and other forms of internal strife have become rampant, compounding the severe material conditions they have to contend with; and their right to human security has been flagrantly violated. The latest development paradigm, which is a strategyfor achieving sustainable development in the 21st century, is the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). NEPAD was adopted by African leaders at the July 2001 Lusaka Summit. It provides an African-initiated and driven framework for interaction with the rest of the world with the long-term vision of eradicating poverty. Like earlier development paradigms, NEPAD is also acclaimed as an indigenousAfrican-initiated development strategy. This time, however, the BWIs and the G8 have endorsed NEPAD as an appropriate development strategy and made a financial commitment to it. This endorsement notwithstanding, the pertinent question is whether NEPAD can succeed where earlier African initiated development paradigms failed. Does NEPAD fully address the issues embedded in human security, for instance? In what ways can NEPAD be strengthened to tackle the multiple developmental sclerosis of Africa? These and many allied concerns engage my attention in this chapter. It is argued that though the vision ofAfrican leaders, as embodied in NEPAD, is well intentioned, the ideological underpinnings of the approach to resource mobilization and the economic governance initiative do not depart from the well-known neo-liberal approach to managing African economies that has 241 been in vogue since the 1980s. The neo-liberal approach, as implemented in Africa, has not conferred lasting developmental benefits. Rather, the human securityconcerns of the people have become a casualty. UnlessAfrican leaders mix the neo-liberal approach with a policy of state intervention in the development processes, the human security needs of their citizens will be jeopardized. In other words, to ensure the realization of human security a development paradigm, which is people-centered and driven by a careful mix of the market and state, is an imperative. Brief Overview of NEPAD The purpose of NEPAD is to set “an agenda for the renewal of the continent” (Par. 47 of NEPAD, 2001: 11) in order “to eradicate poverty in Africa and to place African countries, both individually and collectively, on a path of sustainable growth and development” (Par. 67 of...

Source: UG