New Study on Democracy Assistance in Kenya

The Spanish think tank FRIDE (Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior) has published a series of 14 case studies of international and bilateral democracy assistance efforts under an initiative for “Revitalizing Democracy Assistance” from the World Movement for Democracy, aimed at providing advice to both donors and recipients.

The Kenya paper was prepared by Jeroen de Zeeuw of Cordaid and is quite useful–download it here.

The paper provides some detail on the amounts of Democracy and Governance support and the funding mechanisms used by the major bilateral and international donors and critical assessment of programming and methods over time.

The report makes three key points. First of all, it shows that strong fluctuations in the level of critical engagement and assistance from the international community have given a mixed message to consecutive Kenyan governments, each of which has failed to follow through initial democratic reforms due to an absence of political will. Secondly, it argues that the focus of international assistance programmes on Nairobi-based elites and specialized NGOs has come at the expense of more community-oriented, traditional civil society actors with large memberships. Finally, the report argues that the current design of aid modalities (such as basket funding) and organizational profiles of many aid agencies fall short of what is required in terms of the flexibility and political savvy needed to support democracy in Kenya today.

A few key takeaways from anonymous interviews:

We have seen that donors are paying more attention to aligning their aid with a recipient country’s ‘national agenda’. But in many countries, including Kenya, the agenda that is put forward is the government’s agenda, which is not necessarily the same as the people’s agenda. In Kenya this has resulted in the strange situation that donor money has helped the police to become more effecient and effective, not in normal policing, but in the putting down of protests, harassment of human rights defenders and extra-judicial killings of criminals and other supposed law breakers.

Regarding corruption and the lack of political will: “everybody has something on everybody. As people are afraid that if they touch one person, the situation will escalate, nothing is being done. The result is political deadlock.” As for donors, they also lack political will “because of the high level of regional instability and the ongoing war in Somalia, ‘keeping Kenya stable’ is seen as a main security priority by most international actors based in Nairobi. Donors therefore feel they cannot push the government too hard as this might alienate their Kenyan partners.”

Slovenia versus Truth, Justice and the American Way

That official was obviously part of “the blame America first crowd”.

Have you noticed that in every World Cup game since we elected Obama president the U.S. has tied? It’s Socialism, I say, Socialism!

*For World Cup fans let me commend to you “Africa United–How Football Explains Africa” on the blogroll (tied to the recent book of the same title) by Steve Bloomfield.

Karen Rothmyer insight on “Afro-optimism”, gloom and the media

Karen Rothmyer writes her latest insightful dispatch from Nairobi in the current issue of The Nation, discussing perceptions of the dire state of Africa surrounding the reporting on the status of the Millennium Development Goals against the recent Sala-i-Martin and Pinkovskiy study concluding that there is significant progress in poverty reduction.

Sitting here in Kenya, I find it hard to believe that the situation is really as grim as portrayed by the UN, the World Bank and most of the NGO crowd. OK, maybe the rapid growth of Nairobi shopping malls, complete with fake waterfalls and expensive dress shops, is mainly a middle-class phenomenon. But whenever I travel in the countryside I am equally struck by the fact that so many rural women sport stylish braids or other hair designs—a far cry from the simple head scarves of forty years ago.

So I was very excited a couple of months ago when I read a Reuters story about a new study by two academics, Xavier Sala-i-Martin, a Catalan economist who teaches at Columbia, and Maxim Pinkovskiy, an MIT doctoral student, titled “African Poverty Is Falling… Much Faster Than You Think!” In the paper, published under the auspices of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER, the sober outfit that decrees when recessions have begun and ended), the two argue that “the conventional wisdom that Africa is not reducing poverty is wrong…. In fact, since 1995, African poverty has been falling steadily.” The reductions have occurred, Sala-i-Martin and Pinkovskiy report, in all types of countries and all regions. Moreover, economic growth hasn’t benefited only the elites; inequality within countries has declined throughout the continent.

For several days after reading the Reuters piece, I checked the Internet to see how other major news organizations, especially those in the United States and Britain, would follow Reuters’s lead. Given the media’s appetite for provocative news from the world of science and health—whether on how fast the polar ice caps are melting or the value of drinking a glass of wine a day—I assumed that sooner or later everyone would want to report on this latest case of man-bites-dog. But apart from mentions in a couple of blogs and one piece in the Guardian, there was hardly a squeak. (I did find some earlier references to a possible fall in African poverty, but none so definitive or high-profile as the Sala-i-Martin and Pinkovskiy paper.)

Karen is a very perceptive observer from a long career as a reporter, and writes with a degree of care and understatement that may also reflect her experience as an editor and journalism teacher. She has a frame of reference in Kenya that goes back to the Peace Corp and she always seems to know who to talk to, so I give her thoughts on these things great weight.

Part of what is going on here really is the basic problem that too much of the information that we hear about Africa is generated through or at least influenced by a thick filter of self-interest, if nothing other than that of people looking out for their own perceived career circumstances. It’s not as if that is not the case in whatever policy area domestically in “the West”, but it may be harder to spot in regard to the state of economies in Africa.

Another factor, at least for people like me in the U.S., is the realization that most of us are relatively oblivious and complacent–so those of us who have experienced a bit of Africa do tend to want to whack people over the head a bit in hopes of generating just a bit of interest or awareness.

“Africa’s Role in a Post-G8 World”–Chatam House Report for Event in London today

Excerpts from a new Chatam House report with a strong call for a fresh approach to Africa from “the West”:

A strong diplomatic and trade engagement with Africa matters. Africa is the foundation of the global supply chain – a strategic source of almost 40 per cent of the raw materials, agriculture, fresh water and energy essential for global growth. Its rainforests play a central role in the planet’s climate. Its population of one billion are increasingly important consumers. Africa is strategically placed between time zones, continents and hemispheres. However, the overwhelmingly humanitarian interest of many Western countries and traditional partners has led to stereotyped perceptions of Africa in terms only of problems. These views are increasingly patronizing, recursive, out of touch, and a deterrent to serious business interest. Meanwhile the emerging economic powers of the G20 see Africa in terms of opportunities – as a place in which to invest, gain market share and win access to resources.
. . . . 
Development assistance has played, and will continue to play, an important role for many African countries, but economic fortunes across the continent are now diverging. This makes it less meaningful to treat Africa as a single entity in international economic negotiations. 
. . . .
Africa has never been in such a strong bargaining position in international affairs, with increasing numbers of suitors. However, African leadership is at present insufficient and the activism and vision that characterized the first few years of the twenty-first century are less in evidence now. This is dangerous because without strong, effective leadership the competition for Africa’s resources may degenerate into the kind of colonial exploitative scramble from which much of the continent has only recently begun to recover. Governance institutions in general – from national governments to regional bodies and the African Union itself – are stronger than they were, but they need to be far stronger still. 
. . . . 
Aid is a very necessary safety net, but it is not a springboard. It will ultimately deliver the development Africa needs only if it is used in support of private-sector-led growth and stability. Emerging economies are capitalizing on this. Western countries ought to benefit too; indeed it should be a strategic imperative for them. Yet thus far there is insufficient evidence that they recognize this. Most Western countries still enjoy a comparative, if diminishing, advantage over emerging powers in policy and academic understanding of Africa. Yet resources and expertise on Africa have been allowed to wither in Western governments, academia and the news media. The advantages many former colonial powers enjoyed in terms of expertise, trade links and cultural affinity are now far fewer than many policy-makers assume. Beneath the rhetoric of the importance of Africa, diplomatic and trade resources devoted to it are still being cut in many Western capitals, leading to a downward spiral of ignorance and thus marginalization in strategic awareness. Reversing this trend will require time and investment, but the rewards should be considerable. The financial crisis challenged Western claims about the superiority of the democratic and free market model. Western countries should welcome the opportunity to demonstrate the advantages, dynamism and resilience of their economies and governance systems, and export them to Africa for common benefit, in an increasingly mpetitive multipolar world. 

Gettleman reports on Somali TFG Child Soldiers–now what?

Jeffrey Gettleman’s Sunday NY Times story about child soldiers fighting on “our side” for the TFG is moving and has some “legs” in terms of popularity on the web site.

At the same time, it would appear that the U.S. administration through the Biden visit to Nairobi was intending to soften up and be more supportive of the Kenyan government because of the perceived threat to U.S. interests from Somalia. Certainly the message from the Kenyan V.P. Musyoka’s visit to Washington a few months ago was just that–the U.S. should let up in Kenya and support the Government in traditional Cold War/GWOT fashion as a bulwark against Somali and Somali-based terrorists. Jendayi Frazer herself said not long ago that Obama’s Somalia policy was substantially the same as Bush’s.

To me, the question we ought to ask is whether since the policy has been conspicuously unsuccessful in recent years we ought to do more of it because the problem is now worse, or whether we are open to adaptation.

Daily Nation says Gov’t fed misinformation on bombing: “We are surrounded by liars.”

Mutumu Mathiu, Managing Editor of the Daily Nation, explains the confusion about the facts of the grenade killings in Uhuru Park:

For every inaccurate report in the newspaper, there is a chain of people who have lied and misled the press.

An official I called told me only 24 people had been hurt. Complete disinformation. Our reporter had physically counted 75 patients.
. . . .
Finally, officials speculated that it was a home-made device, made from party crackers. This is what we told Kenyans who read our early editions.

We are surrounded by liars. The government does not hire people to give information to the media. It hires liars to mislead the media.

Update: Good writing on the context of the bombing from Jeffrey Gettleman in the NY Times.

Grenades said to cause 5 deaths at Nairobi “no” rally

The reporting on the tragedy around Sunday’s “No” rally against the new constitution in Uhuru Park has been a bit confused. Earlier BBC said the deaths were caused by a stampede and indicated that it was unclear whether there had really been an explosion or not. The AP report carried in the New York Times and elsewhere indicated an explosion, and now the latest on BBC has PM Odinga saying that the detonation of three grenades had been identified as the cause.

Raila also announced a government investigation. Hard to know to what extent the investigation will be serious, and to what extent there will be public information.

Obviously the referendum is going to be going forward in a tense environment. The latest polls, while still strongly “yes” suggest some erosion of support, and there does seem to be a sense that the issue is tightening up as various interests become clearer and swing into action both in public and behind the scenes.

Slow Post

I will be a bit delayed in giving more analysis and comment on things related to the Biden trip and other current topics due to other demands on my time with the oil spill and such. Please bear with me.

Lessons from South Mugirango?

The victory, by a huge margin, of the candidate of the now-small FORD-People party, indicates that at least in this constituency voters were not all that concerned about supporting the candidate of the national ODM leadership and campaigned for by Raila, or the PNU candidate endorsed in person by Kibaki and Kalonzo. Likewise, it clarified that ODM has split in part as has PNU.

Obviously the Political Parties Act has not yet resulted in any real clarity about party membership and stability and “coalitions”–as long as individual MPs continue to be “free agents” and party labels mean different things from one week or month to the next the effectiveness of Parliament, and its power vis-a-vis the executive, will be constrained.

The electronic reporting of voting results seems to have worked, on this one-off basis. The election was not close. We know from December 2007 what can happen when complacency sets in about the performance of an Election Commission due to limited examples of past performance, but at least the IIEC seems to have made this work.

Obviously there was plenty of misbehavior by candidates and their supporters–not too much indication that people are really sobered by the experience of 2007-08. At the same time, there was heavy security and things didn’t erupt. And, people probably got to chose their candidate at the end of the day.

Electronic Voting Reports Coming in from South Mugirango By-election

The Daily Nation story from Tom Otieno captures the flavor of elections in Kenya and is well worth a read.

Lots of interesting alliances, all keying up for the 2012 elections. The more things change, the more they stay the same–the focus is on who will be the next president which, in a way, means that the 2008 PEV “reform agenda” has failed (or was never attempted), regardless of what happens in the constitutional referendum on August 4.