What are the best ways to lead anti-democratic states to development?

In many states in sub-Saharan Africa, governments are anti-democratic and obstruct development. These states are not dysfunctional, as donors often believe. They simply function according to a different logic: continuing in power is more important to leaders than developing their nations. Donors should therefore focus on understanding the socio-economic and political systems in these states and the logic that drives policy making.

Inrecent years it has become clear how difficult it is to build democratic,accountable states in sub-Saharan Africa. Many African nations, sinceindependence, have developed into neopatrimonial states that are controlled bya network of powerful individuals. Research from the Overseas DevelopmentInstitute, in the UK, seeks to understand the logic of power in suchneopatrimonial states.

Theauthor asks how donors can help create the political will for development inthese countries when politicians spend most of their energy on staying inpower. Donor money has been poured into under-resourcedservices, but this only helps sustain the governments. Furthermore, aid can bediverted from the state budget, increasing the control of the elite.

Donors need to understand that it can takegenerations for a country to develop. They should support the historical forcesthat will eventually lead these countries to development.

The study finds that in neopatrimonialstates:

• Real power and decisionsabout resources are made by ‘big men’, who are linked by informal networks thatexist outside the state structure.
• Decisions follow a logic of personal interest rather than national progress.Development and governance are subordinated to the overriding goal of gainingand retaining power.
• Communities remain highlyreliant on patrons. When the state is unable to provide services consistentlythe system of back-door connections to goods and services also benefits thoseat the bottom and weakens their demand for change.
• Elections are centred onpersonalities – individuals and their historical connections – rather than onvoting records, platforms or principles.
• Governments are unresponsiveto their citizens, attempt to crush civil society organisations and control theprivate media.
• Parliaments are weak and, attheir worst, corrupt Members of Parliament will change laws that allow presidentsto win elections beyond the statutory term.

The study argues that donors should understandthe political context of a country. They should design programmes thatsimultaneously encourage positive social change and reform state institutions.The study recommends that donors:

• design programmes to addressthe causes of poor governance and state fragility
• address weaknesses inparliaments, judiciaries and corruption commissions, paying attention to thepolitical networking and operation of each institution
• help poor and voicelessgroups organise themselves to demand services, state accountability and theirhuman rights
• find ways to strengthen theindependent media
• support civil societyorganisations that monitor and report on government spending and promote their participationin decision-making
• publicise political andeconomic research on the way neopatrimonial statesfunction
• support truth commissions and ‘history projects’ and publicise their findings; support regulatorycommissions such as the African Commission for Human and People’s Rights.