No you African’t – Review: Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places

Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places
By Paul Collier
The Bodley Head Ltd
ISBN 9781847920217

What is it about Africa that turns otherwise right-thinking people into unwitting apologists for neo-colonialism?

The latest addition to the bookshelves already groaning under the weight of tomes about the apparently unmitigated disaster that is modern Africa is Paul Collier’s ‘Wars, Guns and Votes’. Collier is head of the Centre for African Economies at Oxford University, a credential that at least indicates he is more concerned with addressing Africa’s economic problems than indulging in shallow moralising about the violence and corruption supposedly embedded in the continent’s culture. However, while Collier’s economic expertise may be impeccable, his vision of politics and sovereignty appears to be naive and unhelpful.

Collier proposes a potential solution to Africa’s problems that promises to dramatically lower the levels of corruption and poverty in the continent’s more benighted countries. Most of us would welcome the debate, given that most foreign-led solutions such as direct aid, NGO work and economic sanctions, seem to have met with limited success – if they worked at all. Surely it’s time for an all-encompassing answer, says Collier, a dramatic gesture that will shape up the sub-Saharan world and improve life for countless millions? In theory yes, but what Collier proposes is both morally objectionable and practically unfeasible.

The solution, it appears, is to deny African nations the right to true sovereignty and, simultaneously, write a charter for more Western-led wars. Mirroring the rhetoric of politicians and NGOs, Collier suggests that Western powers should directly intervene and demand that African nations sign contracts that promise corruption-free “governance”, fair and free elections and equal rights for all. Whichever government enters into the contract will be seen by the Western contract-issuers as the legitimate government, and if that government is overthrown by a rival movement or popular revolution Western powers will, under the terms of the contract, have the right to protect the original government through “armed intervention”, otherwise known as invasion.

Collier is undoubtedly an expert on African affairs but this makes his conclusions even more surprising. Comments about African corruption and vicious dictators are common dinner-party fare. Although located in genuine concern for the people of Africa, these kinds of ideas do Africans a disservice.

Collier marshals many statistics and numbers to prove the effectiveness of this solution, arguing that civil war costs the continent billions and keeps it mired in chaotic poverty. This is no doubt true, but all the statistics in the world will not make his solution morally viable.

What’s worse, Collier’s extreme solution is likely to be seen as lilly-livered, not going far enough. One book reviewer remarked that Collier has too much faith in African governments to respond “rationally” and accept this proposal. Instead, “nationalist pride…and “racial” resentments stand in the way.” This is truly mind-boggling. Surely it is entirely rational to object to a contract being imposed on one’s country that reduces it from being a sovereign nation to a powerless international protectorate. To denigrate this type of response as the result of ‘nationalist’ feeling, implying a triumph of emotionality over reason, is thoroughly insulting, and is the kind of denigration that is especially targeted at Africans.

Leaving aside the moral objections, a foreign-led solution is also not very practical. There are 47 states on the African continent, and a high proportion of these states are experiencing extreme poverty, civil strife or both. Should Western powers deploy troops to every single one of these nations? Would the troops come from individual countries, or from UN peacekeeping forces? On whose mandate?

To invade a foreign country you need more than so-called “peacekeepers”, so advocating international protection amounts to call for national armies to step in. Where are all these troops going to come from, with such a large number of British and American troops still tied up in those other “interventionist” success stories, Iraq and Afghanistan? Would the US and the EU co-operate on such missions or, more realistically, would the more powerful states take matters into their own hands?

It is a sad indictment of the state of affairs in Africa today that so many experts seem to feel compelled to propose illiberal and interventionist solutions to its problems. It would be simplistic to blame this on Western neo-colonial paternalism alone, not least because many African experts come to similar conclusions. Any commentary on Africa must take into the account the fact that so many experts, who have spent time on the continent and know its history intimately, come away with the same bleak message. But that still doesn’t deny the fact that for too many Western commentators, the old cliché of of Africans being incapable of running their own affairs lingers on.

The truth is, aggressive intervention is simply unlikely to work would and cause more problems than it would solve. US string-pulling heavily exacerbated the conflict in Rwanda, though that fact is played down nowadays. Similarly, proxy battles of the Cold War helped destabilise many nascent African nations from the 1960s onwards. Perhaps these countries would have sank into corruption anyway, but the indirect involvement of self-interested Western powers, particularly the US, cannot be brushed under the carpet. Even those who want to abandon Africa to its supposed self-destruction could not do so, as no country, or indeed continent, exists in isolation in a world of globalised trade, whatever the official rhetoric is.

Africa experts should not let their despair blind them to such a degree that they can seriously countenance bringing large parts of an entire continent under some kind of 21st-century ‘humanitarian’ empire. Such an idea is as much of an offence to democracy and self-government as any corrupt regime.

Saner voices have called for the reorganisation of the continent as a federal union. This would allow for greater co-operation and utilisation of abundant natural resources, and crucially, pave the way for a proper infrastructure – transport, electricity, industry and construction – but any decision on the future of Africa must be taken by Africans alone.

Some argue that defending African sovereignty plays into the hands of the Mugabes of this world. That argument misses the point. Dictators destroy nations, no doubt, and Africa has had more than its fair share of tinpot regimes, but it is essential to defend the principle of self-determination because without it no country, or nation, or federation can ever take its place among equals. The lesson of imperialism is that any country, in Africa, Europe or elsewhere must succeed or fail on its own terms, not those dictated from on-high.

Africa may look very different in fifty years time, it is still in a period of transition, but the day African leaders agree to a contract of the kind proposed by Collier, they will be signing themselves up to the continent’s next great disaster.

Buy ‘Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places’ from forth‘s Amazon store