|
|
|
NEPAD: Thinking out of the box, Dr. John F.E. Ohiorhenuan, September 2003
|
|
Introduction
"Africa is beyond bemoaning the past for its problems. The task of undoing that past is ours, with the support of those willing to join us in a continental renewal. We have a new generation of leaders who know that we must take responsibility for our own destiny, that we will uplift ourselves only by our own efforts in partnership with those who wish us well."
|
|
- Nelson Mandela
|
The contemporary context of development management has an objective and a subjective dimension (Ohiorhenuan 2002). Objectively, the context is defined by the phenomenon of globalization, manifest in the deepening of economic linkages among the stronger national economies and a tendency towards the marginalization of the weaker ones. In terms of policy responses, globalization is circumscribing the mediative role of the state in social and economic processes and changing the rules of the game governing the relevance and efficacy of economic policy instruments.
Subjectively, the contemporary context is one of broad consensus on what development should entail. In part, the Millennium Development Goals encapsulate this subjective apprehension of the desiderata of development. Less universally perceived, but at least as important as the goals and targets of development, are the requirements of successful development. While there is no globally accepted codification of these requirements of successful development, there is a considerable convergence of opinion that that development requires ownership, good governance, opportunism and improvisation(Ohiorhenuan 2000)
It is perhaps because so much seems to be known today about the development process that NEPAD is couched in such grand terms. Its proponents and champions have rather grand in their promotion and commentators have in general tended to be equally sweeping in their criticisms. It is against this background that I have chosen to press the need to "think outside the box" about NEPAD; to approach it in less ambitious, more pragmatic terms.
Partly because of its evolutionary trajectory, NEPAD comes across as trying to be all things to all people. A "comprehensive integrated plan that addresses key social, economic and political priorities for the continent" is, in my view, too grand a project. It is such claims that elicit the radical critique that NEPAD is merely warmed-over neo-liberalism. We must go beyond giving a dog a bad name in order to hang it.
In the spirit of a more nuanced approach and, considering my time limitations, this presentation raises some practical questions around five themes which may be critical for the future of NEPAD. First, I look at the issue of authority in the roles of NEPAD versus the African Union (AU). Second, I address the recurrent question that NEPAD was not based on a consultative process. Third I deal with the related question of ownership in relation particularly to the G-8. Fourth, I look at the tension between ambition and capacity in NEPAD. Fifth, I examine the Africa Peer Review Mechanism as an area where all these questions converge.
|
|
