Last week the Mo Ibrahim Foundation made its annual
announcement on the Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership
and the Ibrahim Index of African
Governance.
For the
fourth in five years no recently retired president won the African leadership prize -- the world's biggest individual prize. The award carries a $5m prize
paid out over 10 years and $200,000 annually for life from then on. In addition
there is another $200,000 per year for a decade to go to good causes backed by
the winner.
Previous winners were former presidents Joachim
Chisano of Mozambique, Festo Mogae of Botswana and Pedro Pires of Cape Verde.
the To be eligible, a leader should have stepped down in the last three years,
come to power democratically and demonstrated exceptional leadership during his
mandated term.
Senior
members of the foundation said the standards are quite high and even if they
were applied to western democracies they doubt they would have a winner
annually and as such they do not foresee a lowering of the bar to have an
annual winner.
Ibrahim
is one of the continent’s few billionaires. A telecom engineer – a few patents
in the mobile phone industry hold his name, he made his pile by selling a part
of his interest in the mobile phone company Celtel, which became Zain and which
we now know as Airtel.
As an
investor on the continent the Sudanese born Ibrahim has documented his
frustration with corrupt, incompetent and obstructionist bureaucracies around
the continent and his analysis is essentially that the fish starts rotting from
the head. So if you can improve the quality of the leadership the improvements
can trickle down the ranks make his home continent a much better place.
His
foundation and the awards are his attempt to harry this progress along.
For a
politician the main measure of good leadership is if he did good by his people.
This would mean he improved the standard of living during his time, through the
policies his government pursued in creating an enabling environment for his
citizens.
The
Ibrahim Index of African Governance, ranking 52 countries according to 94
indicators grouped under safety and the rule of law, participation and human
rights, sustainable economic opportunity and human development, attempts to
create this measure.
Incidentally
this year the foundation’s index suggests that governance as measured by these
indices has improved generally on the continent, so we might see some winners
in the future from the current crop of our leaders.
This
index should be maintained and the leadership award scrapped, if only because the
leadership award is playing to the motivation of that there should be pay back
for public service, which is a wrong motivation to encourage and perpetuate.
But the
award also falls flat on its face because if the intention is to “bribe” these
men and women to relinquish power, then the $5m is a pittance compared to what
they can squirrel away during their time in office.
The
logic behind the award seems to be that many of our leaders hang on like grim
death to their positions because they know after their term of office they
cannot sustain themselves and their extended families in the manner that they
are accustomed to.
Not
only that, but that that the fear is very real that they are unemployable and
cannot run even a corner shop to save their lives.
What
happens to the US President, UK Prime Minister or German Chancellor when they
finally leave office?
To
begin with they continue to enjoy considerable benefits from the state, but
over and above this there are million dollar book deals,
several-thousand-dollars-a-pop speaking engagements and board positions on
corporations to ensure the former leaders lack for nothing. The same cannot be
said for retired leaders on our continent.
But
probably more importantly is their loss of power after they leave office. After
being in power for so long, where your word is the law, you operate above the
law and money is no object, to relinquish that is understandably a big deal. It
actually maybe more useful to pay for soon-to-retire presidents’ psychological
and financial counselling just before and after retirement to better help them
cope with seismic shift in their lives.
And
finally even the bribe takers never want to seem like they take bribes, there
is a fringe element that is absolutely shameless in their pursuit of the kick
back but they are in the minority – I think. They will take the money if you
offered it but they can’t be seen to be clamouring for it. This is probably a
lesser point as there is no guarantee that you will get the prize if you leave
office anyway.
Ibrahim’s
intentions were obviously noble, but his analysis may have been clouded by his
business background where value is assigned a monetary meaning. Politics of
course is a whole different ball game. I would like to be wrong but I fear
Ibrahim is barking up the wrong tree.
