Many have hailed the recent vote for independence by South Sudan from their Northern Arab neighbors after many years of bloody struggle. To some, it represents a fresh start for a people so repressed and impoverished, their poverty makes the rest of Africa look good. The people of South Sudan deserve their freedom; after decades of battling the North in a bloody civil war that led to the death of at least 2 million, freedom was the minimum achievable objective. They deserve it, but it is just the beginning.
See, the euphoria of freedom spreading across the land of Nubia is quite similar to the same feeling that spread across East and West Africa in those epochal years of 60s. New nations were being born nearly every other month. From Nigeria to Congo, Africa was coming of age…or so it seemed. Not so again. Today, Africa is a land overflowing with sorrow, tears, blood and poverty. The continent is many steps behind the level of development left behind by the colonial masters when they fled our land; more so that many are longing for those days. We simply replaced external masters with domestic ones.
Will South Sudan suffer the same fate? This is not a simple question. On the surface of it, South Sudan has what it takes to succeed. It is small; it has a small population; it is resource rich and seems to have a semblance of democratic rule. Or wait a minute…maybe not so. Why do countries become failing states? Why are most African states in an unending trap of poverty? Does South Sudan fit the model?
Quite interestingly, the reasons have been well researched and the answers are public record. In Paul Collier’s book: the Bottom Billion
–Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It, a hypothesis on the reasons why Africa plus (the bottom billion countries) were failing was enunciated by the academic whose life’s work have been centered around Africa. Collier identified four reasons (or traps) why poverty is somewhat written into the future of these countries.
They were the conflict trap (countries that are caught up in a pre-crisis or post-crisis trap of conflicts, civil wars and coups which makes development impossible); the natural resource trap (countries that discovered natural resources too early, too soon are cursed with corruption, civil wars, and economic nightmare of Dutch disease); bad governance (no check and balances in the face of high electoral competition mixed with poor capacity, low level of education breeds an inept political class that is rent seeking and sit tight; high electoral competition only worsen the problem in the presence of natural resource rents or aid)and the trap of being landlocked- especially with bad neighbors (countries that have no sea access depend on their underdeveloped neighbors for development and market access)
Reading through the four traps enunciated above seems like dissecting the present condition of South Sudan at independence. The young country faces a seemingly tough task in trying to escape the four traps: some of which they may already be in by virtue of their very existence.
It is clear the young country of South Sudan will have to grapple with the complexities of a post-conflict society. The society is highly militarized with little or no opportunities for the young. Education levels are poor and the Diaspora is hardly returning to lend capacity to a state set up to fail in the absence of skilled labor. There is still simmering ethnic tensions below the unified front presented against the common enemy, so the state is really sitting on a tinder box waiting to explode. The only way out of the jam for the government in power to avoid a post-independence conflict of coups and civil wars that nearly every African country experienced is to spend mindlessly on defense – which takes away crucial money from development. This foments trap number one.
Trap number two is even more ominous for South Sudan. The country is sitting on a tidy deposit of oil and other resources which the Chinese and Western firms will soon be competing for; or already are. The city of Juba will be awash with bribe monies, directed at corrupting the government and destroying the society and economy. Dutch disease will ensure the country’s exports other than oil are too expensive and cannot compete. Oil will crowd out other productive sectors, which in turn will perpetuate unemployment and disenchantment which makes civil war and/or coup even more likely.
As if these were not bad enough, trap number three is lurking at the corner. The tendency for a poorly educated leadership cadre filled with political jobbers seeking their own will be to respond to the challenges of trap number one and number two with random policies designed to appease a narrow group and hold on to power. This makes for bad governance. Of course, the opposition will also rev up (with natural resource money from South Sudan’s oil deposit being the prize) and high electioneering only results in poor priorities and misallocation of resources. Elections are never equal to democracy; and rigging becomes the rule. The opposition left on the outside of resource allocation, looting and misappropriation of course start seeking alternatives. Did I hear anyone say, trap number one?
Trap number four is seemingly unavoidable. It is intrinsic to Southern Soudan, and most African nations. Landlocked in a bad neighborhood means you depend on your neighbor’s infrastructure to get your goods to sea and to the world even if you avoid trap one through three. The idea is that your economic destiny is not entirely in your own hands. Switzerland is landlocked, but it is in a pretty nice zone. It in fact depends on her neighbors to generate a market for what she produces (or does not).
South Sudan has the unfortunate fortune of being in a very bad neighborhood. Filled with mismanaged economies (Kenya), former enemies (Northern Sudan) or countries in one conflict or another (Chad, Ethiopia, Uganda, Central African Republic and Democratic Republic of Congo), sorrow seem to surround her. These countries either have a failed infrastructure or none at all. Even if Juba is able to diversify her economy, how will she get her goods to the global market and prosper?
So how can South Sudan get out of the seeming jam she finds herself? Well, may be the solution is in what her current crop of leaders do and what incentives the international community put in place to make them act right. The fate of any nation to be locked in the traps defined described previously or break loose of them is usually to a large degree dependent on the pioneer leadership. Far as it may be from our minds now, United States of America without the crop of visionary leaders like Washington, Adams, Madison and Jefferson may well be a hell hole based on two or more traps previously described.
The first task of the pioneer leaders like the founding fathers of the United States will be to design a durable constitution that is designed to tackle the traps described above. Such constitution may put a lid on issues such a sit-tight rulers (term limit political offices), unbridled power (by guaranteeing free press and judiciary- and minority rights) and high stake electioneering (encourage public funded two parties system for instance). Putting these in place will reduce the likelihood of slipping back into conflict.
They won’t be able to do it by themselves, because they simply lack capacity to do so, hence they may choose to borrow a leaf from Botswana: import them from other African nations. Professors, intellectuals, judges, lawyers and many other professionals that are crucial to establishing lawful society, with the necessary checks and balances may need to be imported to put a lid on absolute power that may corrupt absolutely.
If the pioneer leadership is not sit-tight or dictatorial, then the chance that internal schism will blow up into another conflict is significantly reduced. Such leadership without the pressure of high stakes politics can also focus on development and prioritize the right things; including the expansion of the economic base beyond natural resources and importation of needed capacity. This in turn will lead to a prosperous South Sudan that is less dependent on oil, and less attractive to rebels and coup plotters. A prosperous South Sudan is more likely to positively influence her neighbors, than the reverse is the case. See how fixing bad governance break Paul Collier’s traps?
While it took the magnanimity of George Washington to avoid a royal presidency; it may take a written constitution enforced by external peer pressure to make South Sudan get it right. Otherwise, the Mugabe example stands as a testimony to how pioneer leaders overstay their welcome and allow the other traps become manifest.
Just before we celebrate the birth of another beggar nation, let us help her help herself by offering the support necessary to make her a successful nation many decades from today: by insisting the pioneer leaders at Juba get it right from the get go. Do I hear someone say peer review mechanism or better still a court to try Juba leaders if they fail to deliver on the dream?
