Africa's most prominent leaders have proclaimed the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) as the strategy which will bring about the long-awaited African Renaissance.1 As suggested by its title, NEPAD is concerned with bringing about Africa's development. But what does NEPAD take development to be? The concept ‘development’ is vague and has been used to refer to a diversity of projects and processes. Consequently NEPAD cannot be comprehensively assessed without clarification regarding what NEPAD takes development to be. This article provides such clarification by teasing out the assumptions NEPAD makes with regard to the idea of development. These assumptions are examined and problematised with the aim of being able to critically evaluate the NEPAD project.
Notwithstanding the vagueness of the concept ‘development’, it is possible to identify key aspects of the concept. ‘Development’, however described, suggests change from a lesser to a more desirable state. Theorists writing about development use the concept to indicate positive change, improvement or amelioration. Implicit in the concept is the idea of an undesirable starting place (or at the very least a lessdesirable starting place), a process of improvement, and a desired destination.2Thus, if NEPAD aims to bring about Africa's development, it must describe what is understands to be the undesirable starting place from which Africa must move away, and also conceive of a destination towards which Africa ought to be headed, and a strategy to reach this destination. While these three aspects may not be explicitly identified by NEPAD, all three are implicit in NEPAD, as in any other fairly comprehensive development strategy, and a careful analysis of NEPAD can reveal them and thereby reveal what NEPAD takes development to be. In this article
I will analyse NEPAD by looking at some of the assumptions that NEPAD makes with regard to the three aspects mentioned above. Rather than attempting to comprehensively analyse every assumption made in NEPAD with regard to development in the space of so few pages, I will make some comments which will hopefully stimulate further discussion about NEPAD's understanding of development. The comments on NEPAD are also generalisable to several other development strategies as many other strategies make similar assumptions to those made in NEPAD, and so it is hoped that the comments made here will also have broader relevance.
Africa's undesirable starting place
NEPAD aims to transform Africa's current situation, which it views as undesirable, into a more favourable one. NEPAD's introduction highlights some of the aspects of Africa's current situation which are viewed as undesirable by NEPAD's architects, giving special attention to the problems of poverty, ‘backwardness’ or ‘underdevelopment’, marginalisation, and a lack of African control over Africa's destiny. The terms ‘backwardness’ and ‘underdevelopment’, which appear in NEPAD's introduction, have several connotations which make their use in NEPAD problematic. The term ‘backwardness’ calls to mind modernisation theory which understands development to be a natural linear process through which all societies progress, throwing off ‘backwardness’ and tradition as modernity is embraced. The term ‘underdevelopment’ on the other hand, is reminiscent of dependency theory which sees the ‘Third World’ as being in a state of ‘underdevelopment’ as a consequence of the ‘developed’ world's exploitation of it. NEPAD not only uses terms from these sets of theories, but also borrows extensively from both modernisation and dependency theory, leading Pretorius and Patel (2002) to say that NEPAD ‘uses an eclectic combination of modernisation and dependency theory as its theoretical framework’.
What are the implications of borrowing from these two theories when discussing Africa's development? The terms ‘backwardness’ and ‘underdevelopment’ and the theoretical frameworks they evoke imply a single direction of progress towards a universally desirable state: that of being ‘advanced’ or ‘developed’. Although modernisation and dependency theories differ in significant ways, both theories are universalistic in so far as they understand there to be a single desirable future for all humanity. Furthermore, the characteristics of the desirable future posited by these two theories do not differ that significantly. Nederveen Pieterse (1991:15) argues that because both theories assume that development is at its most advanced in the industrialised world, they are ‘variations on a theme’, despite their apparent differences. Gu¨lalp (1998:957) concurs pointing out that both theories are concerned with achieving economic and technological development, and Manzo (1991:12) contends that although dependency theory provides an insightful criticism of several aspects modernisation theory, its critique is limited because it retains the West as the model of what it means to be ‘developed’. Both theories consider the industrialised, technologically advanced nations to be ‘developed’, and both consider industrialisation and technologically advancement as desirable. Thus, despite the fact that dependency theory is a critical response to modernisation theory, the desirable future envisaged by dependency theory is not radically different to that envisaged by modernisation theory. NEPAD's borrowing from modernisation and dependency theories implies an acceptance of these theories’ assumption that there is a single desirable future for all humanity, and that some societies (the industrialised, ‘advanced’, ‘developed’ societies) are closer to realising this future than others. NEPAD's acceptance of this assumption is not only evidenced by its borrowing of several terms and themes from modernisation and dependency theories, but is also evident in the frequent references made in the NEPAD document to the idea of a single global civilisation with a universal project of progress. Africa's role in this project of progress is seen in NEPAD as having been limited so for, leading emphasis to be placed on the importance of positioning Africa ‘on a pedestal of equal partnership in advancing human civilisation’. NEPAD's architects clearly assume that there is a single project of progress directed towards a universally desirable future, and that the leaders of this project are the industrialised nations. Two possible concerns about this assumption can be raised. Firstly, NEPAD does not consider the possibility of there being several different, but equally desirable futures for the various societies of the world. NEPAD accepts the universalism of modernisation and dependency theories and assumes that Africa can be said to be behind the industrialised nations on a universal path. The possibility of Africa being on a different path heading in an altogether different direction is not considered. Secondly, NEPAD's assumption that the ‘developed’ or ‘advanced’ societies are leading the way towards a universally desirable future can be questioned. While this assumption is certainly not unusual, the image of the West leading the rest towards the best possible future has become tarnished to such an extent that this assumption can be called into question. Several thinkers have pointed out that the Western path to development has had numerous negative consequences including ecological destruction, social polarisation, loss of diversity, the marginalisation of alternative ways of seeing and doing, alienation, and ethical bankruptcy;3 and thus that we should not be so quick to assume the West to be leading the way to a universally desirable future. NEPAD does not consider the possibility that Africa may not need to ‘catch up’ to the ‘developed’ societies, but rather to join progressive groups in other parts of the world in suggesting alternative directions towards alternative futures.
NEPAD's conception of what it is that makes Africa's current situation undesirable is impoverished by the assumptions discussed above. There is a suggestion that what makes Africa's current situation undesirable is that fact that it is ‘backward’ in relation to other regions, and therefore that the way forward, and thus the way to develop, involves trying to emulate what these more ‘advanced’ regions have already done in order to become more like them.
In addition to depicting Africa's current situation as undesirable due to Africa's poverty, ‘backwardness’ and ‘underdevelopment’, NEPAD describes Africa as being marginalised. This marginalisation is explained as being a result of Africa's poor integration into the global economy. Critics of NEPAD agree that Africa has been marginalised, but dispute NEPAD's linking of marginalisation with poor integration into the globalisation process. Nabudere (2002) argues that Africa's marginalisation is a consequence of exploitation within the global economy, rather than of exclusion from it. Bond (2002a) makes a similar point, saying that ‘marginalisation occurred not because of a lack of integration but because of too muchof the wrong sort’ (emphasis in original) and Saul (2002) remarks that exclusion from the globalisation process is not the problem, rather globalisation itself is a problematic process that has frequently aggravated poverty.
Indeed, even NEPAD concedes that the globalisation process has been disadvantageous to Africa, admitting that ‘[i]n the absence of fair and just global rules, globalisation has increased the ability of the strong to advance to the detriment of the weak…’. Nevertheless, NEPAD insists that ‘the advantages of an effectively managed integration present the best prospects for future economic prosperity and poverty reduction’. Why and how this conclusion is reached is not clear.
A further characteristic of Africa's undesirable present situation, according to NEPAD, is the lack of control that Africans have had over Africa's destiny. NEPAD suggests that Africans have thus far capitulated to the will of others and to unfavourable circumstances, leading NEPAD to call on Africans to put an end to this situation by becoming ‘masters [sic] of their own destiny’ and ‘architects of their own sustained upliftment’. The notion that Africans should assess the African situation and, using their own expertise and experience decide on a way forward for Africa, is commendable. It is a pity that later sections of NEPAD appear to compromise this idea of Africans determining their own destiny by emphasising a peculiar type of partnership which undermines NEPAD's call for Africans to determine Africa's destiny.4
Africa's desirable destination
It is vital that some understanding of the kind of future which NEPAD is aiming to bring about is sought, as one can only decide whether or not to endorse NEPAD once one has decided whether or not one believes that the future which NEPAD aims to bring about is indeed a desirable one. Before deciding upon a strategy for the development of Africa, it is surely advisable that time and careful thought be dedicated to discovering exactly what condition such a strategy should be aiming to bring about. One must be clear about one's goals before one plots progress towards them. Not to do so would be like setting out on a journey to Thabazimbi without first determining exactly where Thabazimbi is and exactly why one is keen to visit it. No one would set about planning such a journey by discussing what mode of transport to use, and at which speed to travel before having decided where exactly one is headed, and why one would like to go there.
NEPAD, like many development programmes, does not articulate a clear and detailed vision of the future that it aims to bring about, but rather focuses on 'strategies for development’. NEPAD makes mention of goals and objectives, but there is no over-arching description of the kind of future NEPAD is ultimately trying to bring about. Furthermore, it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between what NEPAD views as necessary in order to reach the desirable destination, and what NEPAD sees as part ofthe desirable destination. For example, NEPAD names the achievement of a seven per cent Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate per annum for the next fifteen years as its primary goal, but surely economic growth is a means rather than a goal? What is the growth for? Is it good in and of itself regardless of how it is acquired and how it changes society? What is to happen once the fifteen years are completed? NEPAD does not answer questions like this with regard to its stated goal of economic growth, nor does it address similar questions with regard to its other stated goals and objectives.
It is difficult to assess NEPAD's vision of a desirable destination for Africa, as NEPAD does not clearly distinguish between its means and ends nor does it give a detailed description of this destination. However, by examining some assumptions made throughout the NEPAD document, a description of the desirable destination which is suggested by these assumptions can be revealed and examined. Because many of NEPAD's stated goals and objectives sound more like means than ends, a critical assessment of them will not provide a clear idea of NEPAD's vision of a desirable future for Africa. In order to try to provide some idea of this future, this section will therefore attempt to tease out some implicit assumptions NEPAD makes with regard to the future it sees as desirable for Africa, rather than systematically analysing each of NEPAD's stated goals and objectives.
Neo-liberal economics & NEPAD's vision of Africa's Future
One of the most common criticisms levelled against NEPAD is that it follows a neoliberal agenda.5 The implications of following such an agenda will be discussed in more detail when discussing NEPAD's strategy for reaching the desirable destination, but what is important in this section of the article is to determine what vision of the future is implied by the acceptance of a neo-liberal orientation.
Slater (1993:97-99) argues that neo-liberal economic ideology, like all economic ideologies, suggests a particular conception of the individual, in this case that of ‘market man': a consumer who displays apathy towards public matters and cynicism regarding politics. Preston (1996:22) points out that the neo-liberal perspective (or liberal market perspective, to use Preston's terminology) invokes a model of people as consumers acting according to selfish desires. While neoliberalism may not explicitly promote a particular vision of the future, its understanding of human nature places limitations on the kind of future that can be visualised by a neo-liberal economic strategy. A vision of the future based upon a neo-liberal understanding of human nature is limited in that it cannot allow for human beings to transcend their selfish natures and act altruistically. Furthermore, neo-liberal economics views the market as being able to best provide for the pursuit of interests, thus suggesting that human beings do not have significant interests outside those which can be satisfied through the consumption of goods provided by the market. As a result, the ideal future, as envisaged by neo-liberalism, would be one in which individuals were as free as possible to pursue their own interests, these interests being defined as of such a nature that the market can satisfy them. A neoliberal economic ideology is thus not conducive to the flourishing of a vision of an ideal future which includes behaviour aimed at something other than the pursuit of selfish interests, or a future in which needs which cannot conceivably be met by the market (such as the need for meaning, God, love and joy) are also met. Moreover, neoliberalism has been associated with the rise of the New Right (Brohman, 1995:135-136). Neo-liberalism's rootedness in the political conservatism of the New Right leads it to inhibit radical change in any form, and therefore makes it unfavourable to the envisaging of an ideal future radically different from the present.
It is not possible here to provide a comprehensive critique of the kind of ideal future implicit in a neo-liberal economic orientation. However, the limitations which neoliberalism appears to place on the flourishing of a vision of a desirable future radically different from any currently existing situation, allow for one to question the suitability of such an orientation for a project aiming at Africa's development. Africa, surely, requires a project which will allow for radical change, rather than one that will only make a few slight alterations to the current state of affairs. After years of failed development strategies in Africa, surely it cannot be denied that a development strategy for Africa must be one which involves a creative envisaging of a radically different future. NEPAD's choice of neo-liberalism as its ideological orientation prevents it from providing this much-needed imaginative vision for Africa's future.
Copycat development
An analysis of the NEPAD document reveals that much of NEPAD's strategy for development is based upon the identification of differences between the ‘developed’ world and Africa, and the planning of ways to eliminate these differences. NEPAD frequently uses the term ‘bridging the gap’ and related terms, such as ‘catching up’ and ‘overcoming chasms’, when discussing Africa's development. The use of terms such as these suggests that NEPAD accepts the ‘developed’ regions as a model for Africa's development, and believes that Africa's development will occur through the reduction of differences between the ‘developed’ world and Africa. This kind of thinking is also reflected in sections of NEPAD where the characteristics of the ‘developed’ world (such as extensive telecommunications networks and widespread access to advanced technology) are held up as goals for Africa.
NEPAD's enthusiasm for ‘catching up’ to the ‘developed’ world suggests that NEPAD likens development to (at the very least partial) assimilation with the ‘developed’ world. Africa is not to identify its own desired destination and chart its own path towards this future, but is rather to follow eagerly in the footsteps of the ‘advanced’ societies, emulating them and rejoicing as Africa becomes more similar to them. This kind of thinking has implications both for discussions of NEPAD's desired destination and NEPAD's chosen strategy for reaching the destination. It seems that NEPAD frequently views contemporary life in the ‘developed’ world as a model for the kind of future towards which Africa should strive, and the emulation of the ‘developed’ societies as a strategy for development. This is deeply problematic in a strategy that claims to be part of the African Renaissance project, as NEPAD does in the beginning of Section IV. Thabo Mbeki and several other promoters of NEPAD have given powerful speeches proclaiming an African Renaissance and declaring an end to the era during which Africans were made to feel ashamed to be African. How can such African leaders declare an African Renaissance and then inform Africans that the new Africa whose birth they are proclaiming, is indeed not very African at all? In fact, the process of rebirth involves celebrating assimilation with other parts of the world. Admittedly, the idea of ‘African-ness’ is a disputed one and the question of which kind of changes are consistent with remaining ‘African’ and which not, is very difficult to resolve. However, NEPAD does not engage with questions such as these and does not recognise the possible ambiguity between declaring an African Renaissance and then suggesting that the Renaissance will be achieved through the emulation of the West.
The strategy for reaching the desirable destination
NEPAD may be short on vision, but it certainly does not lack strategy. Most of the NEPAD document consists of a Programme of Action: the strategy for achieving sustainable development in the 21 st century. It is in this lengthy section that NEPAD's choice of a path from Africa's undesirable starting place to Africa's desirable destination is revealed. When discussing NEPAD's development strategy, it is necessary to probe into this Programme of Action, as well as to investigate the implications of NEPAD's continued emphasis on the importance of partnership in its strategy for development.
Neo-liberal economics & African support for NEPAD
As mentioned earlier, a commonly voiced objection to NEPAD regards its neo-liberal economic orientation. The limitations that neo-liberalism places upon the visualisation of an ideal future are discussed in the previous section which argues that NEPAD's acceptance of a neo-liberal economic orientation is problematic because of the way in which it narrows the scope for envisaging a radically different future. While this may be so, most of the critics condemning NEPAD for its adoption of a neo-liberal orientation are not concerned with the implications of such an orientation in terms of NEPAD's visualisation of the future, but rather object to NEPAD's neo-liberal economic orientation because they doubt that a neo-liberal strategy will indeed bring about Africa's development. Many critics do not believe that neo-liberal strategies for development bring about the changes they promise. Such critics say that instead of developing Africa, neo-liberal strategies worsen poverty, increase unemployment, aggravate economic and gender inequities, result in deprivation of basic needs and erosion of basic human rights, exacerbate debt and repeat the disastrous consequences of Structural Adjustment Programmes.6 Thus NEPAD's choice of a neo-liberal economic orientation is not only problematic because of the kind of future implied by such an orientation, but also because there is much scepticism regarding whether or not a neo-liberal strategy can achieve what it claims to be able to achieve. Africans are perhaps especially sceptical of neo-liberal strategies as Africans have already experienced the failure of neo-liberal strategies such as the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) proposed by the International Monetary Fund as strategies for Africa's development during the 1980s. NEPAD does not address the concerns of critics of neo-liberal economic strategies, nor provide an adequate defence of its choice of economic orientation.
Furthermore, NEPAD claims that it ‘will be successful only if it is owned by the African peoples united in their diversity'; thereby admitting that widespread African support is vital for NEPAD's success. Thus even if NEPAD's promoters are convinced that a neo-liberal strategy is most likely to bring about Africa's development (despite widespread scepticism amongst Africans), they are still obliged to take into account the questions and criticisms given by the many Africans who are reluctant to support NEPAD because of its neo-liberal orientation, if they are committed to gaining widespread African support.
A peculiar partnership
As suggested by its title, NEPAD proposes that a new partnership be forged in order to further Africa's development. The NEPAD document makes it clear that the partnership it suggests is not, as some may have thought, a partnership between the various African states, but rather a partnership of Africa with the rest of the world, especially the industrialised world. Section VI of NEPAD, entitled A New Global Partnership, speaks of the role which must be played by the industrialised or developed states and by multilateral organisations, who are jointly described as Africa's ‘development partners’. It seems that NEPAD's partnership is to involve Africa being partnered by the region of the world generally referred to as the West.
A few concerns can be raised about the decision to develop Africa in partnership with the West. A first concern is that NEPAD's chosen partner for Africa has a chequered history with regard to its relations with the African continent. There has been considerable variation in the relations between Africa and the West over the last few centuries. Different eras have seen different relations, and different countries and institutions of the West have varied in the nature of their relations with Africa, with relations between the two regions more often than not being characterised by exploitation of Africa by the West. While it may be unfair to assume, on the basis of past experiences, that the West is necessarily a bad partner for Africa's development; it certainly cannot be assumed that all Western countries and institutions are helpful well-intentioned partners eager to further Africa's development. NEPAD does not provide an adequate explanation as to why the West has been chosen as Africa's development partner, and why it is believed that such a partnership will benefit Africa.
A second concern relates to the argument NEPAD uses in attempting to convince the West to join this partnership. NEPAD's appeal to the West to partner Africa is focused on the suggestion that Africa's development will be in the West's own interest. NEPAD argues that if Africa becomes developed, the West will benefit because Africa is an expanding market for Western producers and because Africa could provide great opportunities for investment. Furthermore, a developed Africa, according to NEPAD, would contribute to world science, technology and culture, which would benefit all humanity. On the other hand, argues NEPAD, if Africa does not develop it will become a threat to global security and stability. Thus, the West should help Africa develop because ultimately this will be favourable to the West, as well as to Africa. Two comments can be made regarding this whole argument. Firstly, the picture NEPAD paints of Africa's vast and growing market and its increasing ability to consume Western products is both inaccurate and deeply problematic. Is Africa's market a vast and growing one which will be able to consume more and more products? Bond (2002b) prefers to describe the African market as ‘tiny and stagnant’. And even if the African market is growing or would grow under conditions brought about by NEPAD, can it really be desirable to transform Africa into a market for manufactured goods from other parts of the world? Dladla (1997) warns against Africans being valued only because of their ‘ability to absorb and popularise foreign ideas, trinkets and junk’ and Bond (2002b) says that NEPAD should condemn the importation of Western ‘junk culture and luxury goods’ because Africa's scarce hard currency should be devoted towards meeting basic needs. It could be argued that Africa is not a rapidly expanding market for Western goods, and that indeed it should not become one.
Secondly, this whole section appeals to the idea that in doing ‘good business’ one does ‘good deeds’ and, reciprocally, that in doing ‘good deeds’ one does ‘good business’. This argument has been articulated in various ways within both the liberal and Keynesian economic traditions, but Latouche (1993:77-78) notes that such arguments place economic justifications for doing ‘good deeds’ alongside moral justifications, which ultimately make moral justifications redundant. NEPAD avoids calling on the West to partner Africa because this is ‘the right thing to do’, but rather relies on the argument that partnering Africa will be to the economic benefit of the West. In other words NEPAD presents economic rather than moral justifications for trying to get the West to join this partnership. The implication of this is that if it can be shown that in fact ‘good deeds’ do not appear to be ‘good business’ (for example, that giving development assistance and debt relief to Africa does not result in economic benefits for the West), then the West is quite justified in ceasing to do any ‘good deeds’. If the West is being told to invest in Africa because such investment will work to the West's own benefit, then it is only obligated to assist Africa to the extent to which it is indeed in the West's interest. Thus NEPAD's idea of partnership rests on the shaky premise that Western aid and debt relief work to the benefit of both the West and Africa.
A further concern regarding the idea of partnership, is that given the voluntary nature of the partnership, how are the partners to be held to their commitments? NEPAD's authors estimate that about $64 billion per annum will be needed and that most of this will have to come from outside Africa. In Section VI of NEPAD a summary of what is needed from the West is given. The long list of ‘responsibilities and obligations’ of the West given in this Section, includes increasing debt relief, increasing Overseas Development Assistance to 0.7 per cent of each developed state's Gross National Product and ensuring more equitable trade terms for African countries. It is very likely that several Western countries will absolutely refuse to meet these obligations - and what will NEPAD's promoters do then? What sanctions does Africa have to ensure that these obligations are met? And why should the West meet its obligations if it believes that NEPAD's leaders are not upholding their commitment to encouraging ‘good governance’ and ‘sound economic management’ in Africa? These are crucial questions which must be addressed by those proclaiming NEPAD as the solution to Africa's problems.
A final concern relates to the nature of this partnership. NEPAD's authors make powerful statements regarding how Africa must rise up and take control of its own destiny. Africans are exhorted to no longer be the ‘wards of benevolent guardians’ and are told to become the ‘architects of their own sustained upliftment’. Such comments suggest that whereas Africa has been conditioned by circumstances, and whereas Africans have had their destinies controlled by others, the time has come for Africans to take hold of Africa's destiny and to determine Africa's future. However, in the context of the NEPAD document as a whole, NEPAD's partnership clause appears to be a request for a powerful and wealthy partner to help Africa become more like that powerful and wealthy partner. One of the criticisms given of NEPAD is that it is the latest version of the ‘age-old begging bowl’ as its focus is upon asking wealthy nations for generous financial assistance.7 A beggar is not the same as a partner, and the relationship between a beggar and a potential donor is very different from the relationship between two partners. NEPAD can be marketed as a viable project requiring a partner rather than a donor, but NEPAD's dependence upon Western financial aid, makes it difficult for NEPAD to be rid completely of the image of Africa as the beggar and the West as a reluctant potential donor. This disempowering image haunts NEPAD and casts doubt upon the idea that NEPAD indeed transforms the relationship between the West and Africa from one of donor and recipient to one of equal partners. Furthermore, when the appeal for money is related to the desire to become more like the donor of the money, the idea of Africa and the West being equal partners seems even less likely. A relationship between two parties in which one party provides the model for what the other party would like to become, and in which the first party also provides the means to enable the second party to achieve its goal of becoming like the first party, could accurately be described as a mentor-pupil, parent-child or guardian-ward relationship, but to describe such a relationship as a partnership is misleading.
An unimaginative & ambiguous project
Having completed an investigation into what NEPAD takes as undesirable about Africa's current situation, what it views as the desirable destination towards which the process of development should take Africa, and the strategy it proposes to reach this destination; it is possible now to evaluate NEPAD's understanding of development, and to make some conclusions regarding the NEPAD project as a whole.
NEPAD sees several characteristics of Africa's current situation as undesirable. While some such characteristics, like poverty and marginalisation, are fairly uncontroversial, NEPAD's labelling of Africa as ‘backward’ and ‘underdeveloped’, its borrowing from modernisation and dependency theories, and its linking of Africa's marginalisation to a lack of integration into the global economy are problematic.
NEPAD's visualisation of a desirable future for Africa (and thus a destination towards which the process of development ought to be directed) is limited and unimaginative. Very little of the NEPAD document is dedicated to a discussion of NEPAD's goals and objectives, and the few goals and objectives mentioned are unclear as it is not evident why NEPAD views these ‘goals’ as ends rather than means towards ends. NEPAD's choice of a neo-liberal economic orientation prevents it from envisaging a radically different future for Africa and thus prevents NEPAD from being an imaginative project with new insights and visions for the future. Furthermore, NEPAD's suggestion that development will be achieved through the emulation of the ‘advanced’ societies fits uncomfortably with its claims in other parts that NEPAD will realise the African Renaissance and thereby allow Africans to be proud to be African. The future aspired to by Africans cannot be both a copy of the current Western situation and the outcome of an African Renaissance.
NEPAD's strategy for development has already received much criticism because of its neo-liberal economic orientation. Critics are sceptical that a strategy rooted in such an orientation can truly bring about the changes it promises. NEPAD's conception of a ‘new partnership’ as the way to achieve development is also deeply flawed. The choice of partner, the argument given to attract the partner and the suggested nature of the partnership are all problematic, and make NEPAD's strategy for achieving development ambiguous in that while NEPAD insists on Africans taking control of Africa's destiny, it also proposes a partnership that appears to involve considerable dependence upon the goodwill of the West.
Thus the NEPAD project can be said to be lacking in imagination and courage. It says little new, lacks creative vision, and for the most part sounds like it was written to convince Western donors to increase their investments in Africa, rather than to inspire Africans to work towards the realisation of a different and better Africa. Furthermore the NEPAD document is filled with ambiguities - it calls for African ownership and then suggests a partnership that compromises this ownership, it claims to be able to bring about and African Renaissance but appears to encourage African emulation of the West.
NEPAD: Inspiring alternatives
The analysis above provides many reasons to feel discouraged by the proclamation of NEPAD as the strategy for African renewal. However, the picture is not as gloomy as it may seem. The NEPAD process has been a high profile one and as a result NEPAD has received much attention from civil society and academics. Those who find the proclamation of NEPAD disappointing, may find many of the responses to NEPAD emerging from civil society and academia more encouraging.
The reponse from civil society has been divided. Some civil society groups have embraced opportunities to engage with NEPAD, others are more cautious in their engagement with NEPAD, and then there have also been those who have chosen to remain outside the NEPAD process altogether. Civil society comments on NEPAD range from uncritical support to absolute rejection, with many comments falling somewhere in between.8 Academics too seem divided on NEPAD, although few seem to endorse it fully. The responses emerging from academia range from those which support NEPAD's general stance, but have some reservations about aspects of the document or of the process through which the document emerged; to those who see little good in NEPAD.9
Those who find aspects of the NEPAD document and process discouraging, may wonder about how best to respond to NEPAD. Is the best stance one of cautious engagement or is it better to come out and condemn NEPAD altogether? Should a recognition of NEPAD's flaws be followed by a denouncing of the process as a whole, or should it be followed by a stance of critical engagement with NEPAD? A recent analysis of NEPAD by John Loxley (2003:127) reveals NEPAD to be deeply flawed, but concludes:
NEPAD does offer, however, the possibility of more genuinely African solutions emerging from its process … It is for this reason that many organs of civil society in Africa, while being very cautious and critical about it, have not rejected it out of hand. And it is for this reason alone that it may be worth supporting. For possibilities to be translated into realities, NEPAD will have to become a more open, consultative process and the programme will need reformulating and refining …
Indeed, if there are signs that engagement with NEPAD may result in changes and improvements to NEPAD, then there are good reasons to engage critically with NEPAD rather than to reject it outright. It may have been out of hope that critical engagement with NEPAD could allow an improved document to emerge, that some civil society groups, while finding NEPAD deeply problematic, chose not to denounce it absolutely. And this stance may have been the most prudent one when NEPAD first appeared. However, now that two years have passed since the emergence of this document, it is necessary to ask if critical engagement with NEPAD has indeed been fruitful.
Civil society was finally afforded the official opportunity to take part in the NEPAD process when the NEPAD secretariat decided to hold several civil society forums, the first of which took place in Dakar in April 2002, followed by further meetings in Elmina, Libreville, Accra and Maputo.10 These meetings appear to be designed to be occasions for civil society organisations to receive information from the NEPAD secretariat as well as advice on how they can best be involved in the implementation of NEPAD. There is nothing to suggest that one of the reasons for holding the meetings was to give civil society organisations an opportunity to voice their concerns about NEPAD, and to have these concerns attended to by members of the NEPAD Secretariat. Consider the three objectives given for the Elmina meeting:
[to] strengthen the capacity of civil society institutions in Africa to enhance their appreciation of NEPAD;
[to] improve participation and empowerment of civil society institutions in the NEPAD process and
[to] empower civil society organizations to contribute to and monitor the implementation process of NEPAD.
The meetings aim to provide opportunities for the NEPAD Secretariat to disperse information about NEPAD and to urge increased support for NEPAD without any acknowledgement of the legitimacy of many of the concerns raised by civil society organisations about the NEPAD document and process. There is little evidence of any eagerness on behalf of NEPAD architects to learn from civil society, although there is a definite expectation that civil society learn from the promoters of NEPAD.
Comments made in response to civil society criticism of NEPAD by South African president Thabo Mbeki, one of the leaders most involved in advancing NEPAD, are illustrative. He recently criticised civil society for being ill-informed about NEPAD and commented sharply that they should ‘come forward and ask what they can do’ rather than criticising (Stoppard, 2002). It seems that civil society organisations have been assigned a role in the implementation of NEPAD, while having been excluded from the process through which NEPAD was formulated, and while not being afforded the opportunity to suggest ways in which NEPAD may be improved, or to advocate an alternative strategy.
The NEPAD Secretariat's decision to hold civil society forums on NEPAD can be commended, and, if the format and objectives of these forums had been different, it could be argued that the best route for critics of NEPAD would be to continue to engage with NEPAD through such forums in the hope that such engagement could lead to the emergence of better projects aimed at African renewal. However, so far it does not seem that the NEPAD process is becoming the more open and consultative process that Loxley (2003:127) indicates it needs to become in order to allow engagement with NEPAD to be fruitful. The continued reluctance of NEPAD's architects to seriously consider and try to address criticism of NEPAD suggests that alternatives may more easily emerge from outside the NEPAD process rather than from engagement with the NEPAD process. Hope remains that from outside the NEPAD process, from those who are providing critical commentary on NEPAD, something positive may emerge. Perhaps the best feature of NEPAD is its ability to stimulate discussion. Debate on NEPAD has renewed discussion about development in Africa. Various civil society groups are being united in their opposition to NEPAD or to aspects of NEPAD, and it can be hoped that this kind of collaboration will assist in bringing alternative strategies for development to the fore. It is still to early to see whether or not this is happening, but it is not foolish to hope that something positive may emerge from debates among those groups which are critically debating NEPAD and alternatives to NEPAD.
Conclusion
Calls for an African Renaissance made by prominent politicians during the last few years of the 20th century inspired hope in many Africans that the renewal of Africa may soon occur. NEPAD emerged out of calls for an African Renaissance and was marketed as being the strategy which would bring about Africa's long-awaited renewal by establishing a new partnership for Africa's development. In order to understand what NEPAD means when it promises to bring about Africa's development, NEPAD's assumptions about what is undesirable about Africa's present, what a desirable future would look like, and how to bring about this desirable future, have been investigated by this article. The scrutinisation and questioning of these assumptions reveals the inadequacy of NEPAD's understanding of development, showing this understanding to be ambiguous and unimaginative.
In many parts of the world there appears to be consensus that, as suggested by Fukuyama (1989), the ‘End of History’ is upon us: the best way in which to live has been discovered, and all alternative possibilities have been exhausted. It seems unlikely that alternatives to the prevailing political and economic ideologies in the West are to gain much support in the Western world in the immediate future. However, Africa is fertile soil for the flourishing of alternatives. The failure of Western economic and political systems in Africa has led many Africans to doubt the universal validity and desirability of such systems. In addition, it seems that Africans (or at least some Africans), unlike people from many other regions of the world, are willing to admit the undesirability of their current situation and to advocate the need for substantial change on their continent. This gives hope that Africa may be the birthplace of alternative ideas about the best ways to conduct politics and economics, and the best kind of future to which to aspire. Thus while many may feel disheartened by the emergence of NEPAD, the critical responses to NEPAD given by a diversity of African groups and individuals, indicate that there is hope that the African continent will indeed see the dawning of a new era - an era which encourages the cultivation of alternative visions of a better future, and the charting of alternatives paths to realise such visions.