Essential The Africa the Media Doesn't Tell You About

Yehuda

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
30,535
Reputation
10,740
Daps
123,131
The #EndSARS Movement Must Challenge Inequality to Survive

end-sars-4-1304x400.jpg


by Annie Olaloku-Teriba
@annie_etc_
25 October 2020


20 October 2020 will go down as the darkest day in Nigeria’s history. As a crowd of young Nigerians sat at the Lekki toll gate in Lagos, waving the flag and singing the national anthem, military vehicles blocked both exits and opened fire.

Camped out as part of the #EndSARS movement, which calls for an end to the brutality of Nigeria’s notorious police unit, the Special Anti-Robbery Squad, or SARS, the protestors were seeking to build a country which fulfils the promise “to build a nation where peace and justice shall reign”. Instead, dozens were murdered in cold blood. In a country that spent the majority of its formal independence under military rule, this violence was certainly not exceptional, but under the microscope of a globally trending movement, the brazenness of such a move signalled the utter contempt in which the Nigerian state holds its people.

The events leading up to this atrocity, and the others which have ensued, have only served to deepen the irrevocable blows to the fabric of Nigerian society that have occured over the last three weeks.

Black Tuesday.

At 11.49 am on 20 October, governor Sanwo-Olu of Lagos took to social media to announce that a 24-hour curfew would commence at 4 pm. Three minutes after the curfew began, protesters at the toll gate posted in confusion as men claiming to be from the government moved to remove CCTV cameras in the area. At 5 pm the only light offered by the billboard above the toll gate was cut, blinding protestors staging a peaceful sit-in. An hour later, protesters went live on Instagram as the military opened fire. If not for the power of social media, these events would not be known – over 130,000 people watched user @DJSwitch_’s livestream of the events. Images of dead bodies, overrun hospital wards, ambulances being turned away flooded social media feeds – all time-stamped and verified by a movement that has had to be on guard against the rapid spread of misinformation.



Such misinformation abounded the following day, when Lagos governor Sanwo-Olu addressed the state, claiming that nobody had died at the Lekki toll gate. In his speech, he brazenly suggested that the actions of those security officials who opened fire had been in response to violence from a movement ‘hijacked’ by criminal elements. Why, if this was simply an overzealous response to protester violence, did agents of the state open fire on protesters at a site which had no previous reports of disruption? Later Sanwo-Olu claimed the events were a result of forces beyond his control. By the time president Buhari finally addressed the nation, he didn’t even bother to mention the massacre.

Still, people continued to demand answers. The mounting pressure led governor Sanwo-Olu to backtrack, claiming the massacre was as a result of “forces beyond our direct control [who] moved to make dark notes in our history”. As politician after politician came out to pass the buck, the Nigerian people were asked to believe either that the military is beyond the control of the state, or that there are civilian forces within Nigeria who can commit such an atrocity with impunity. The chilling fact is that both scenarios are not only possible but probable.

One thing is clear though: the massacre at Lekki toll gate was a direct attack on the right to protest, and the fallout should provide key lessons for the nascent movement and its supporters. By the time Sanwo-Olu announced his curfew, prominent fissures in the movement had already started to develop. Segalink, a Twitter personality and campaigner, publicly broke with what many saw as his brainchild, claiming that #EndSARS had morphed from legitimate grievances into an attempted insurrection.



If #EndSars was a coalition of the middle class, working class and lumpen youth, we were already seeing the first cracks.

A nation divided.

The message that #EndSARS is a fight for survival has been at the heart of the movement since it first began. What that survival means, however, is dependent on class and status. If the famous Nigerian faces who gave their two cents to the international press are to be believed, SARS specifically terrorises the wealthy – or “fresh”. Indeed, while many acknowledged the underlying conditions that led to the unrest – a lack of basic provision from the government, no safety net, no water, no electricity – the battle was ultimately presented as one waged by Nigeria’s wealthy, who claimed they faced police brutality as a result of class resentment.

But as the protests spread outside wealthier areas such as Lekki and Abuja, a completely different narrative emerged; one which showed that the brutality of the state was felt most acutely by the country’s poorest: those who don’t have the connections to scare off an officer; who don’t have the resources or platforms to pursue accountability; who can be disappeared and their families bullied into silence.

The consequences of the Nigeria rampant inequality were revealed in the remaining days of Sanwo-Olu’s initial 96-hour lockdown. Given a chance to upend, if only for a short time, the strict socioeconomic hierarchy, the underclasses who remained on the streets focused on desecrating symbols of power and injustice, which had previously been untouchable to them. The protesters raided the palace of the Oba [King] of Lagos, making away with his ceremonial staff, his shoes and dollars they found in a coffin. They burned the homes of wealthy Lagosians. They broke into and emptied a warehouse where Covid-19 palliatives, which the government claimed they had distributed months ago, were hidden.



Of course, the truth of the matter is that the Lagos they burned and ransacked was one in which they had no stake. Branded touts and thugs by the state and prominent #EndSARS protestors, few seemed interested in understanding the depths of destitution which would drive people, en masse, to set fire to their own city; their violence had seemingly made their motivations irrelevant. For months, millions had fallen further into poverty under a Covid-19 lockdown with little to no support from the government and obscene food price inflation brought on by its decision to sharply increase fuel prices in the middle of an economic crisis. But as Lagos burned, they discovered the abundance needlessly hidden in plain sight.



I have one regret in my attempts to shed light on the struggles of the #EndSARS movement: I implicitly accepted the distinction that was made between peaceful and violent protests – between the pacifism of the affluent Lekki and the self-defence of the poorer Mushin – as one of moral legitimacy.

But such judgments are futile, I now realise, given that it was these poor communities who bore the brunt of the state’s initial attempts at crackdown – the water cannon, the firing into crowds, the mass arrests and disappearances. It was they who lived the consequences of the dogmatic idea that only the state can use violence, even as that violence is used so egregiously against its own citizenry.

In the words of Seun Kuti, these communities can’t “leave oppression, comot [remove] SARS” because the impunity of the police is inextricably tied to the impunity of the wealthy. For that reason, no project to curtail the brutality of the police can sidestep the redistribution of wealth and power. It is obvious, however, that some would like to stop short of tackling the latter.



A fairer Nigeria.

Time and time again, the Nigerian state has proven it cannot be entrusted with the welfare of its people. Politicians have gleefully embraced opportunities to put profit before people, hoarding not only the vast wealth of the oil-producing state, but even the scraps donated to the very poorest in the country.

It is now clear that, if the movement is to survive the government’s violent threats and attacks, #EndSARS must take seriously the task of transforming Nigerian society as a whole. Such a task will likely cost the movement some supporters – it goes without saying that for some endorsement ends when it threatens their comfortable place within Nigeria’s unjust system.

Regardless, if the bloodshed is to have meaning, and the martyrs the government have made are to be honoured, those committed to a better and fairer Nigeria must forge ahead.

Annie Olaloku-Teriba is an independent researcher based in London, working on legacies of empire and the complex histories of race.

The #EndSARS Movement Must Challenge Inequality to Survive
 

loyola llothta

☭☭☭
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
35,064
Reputation
6,991
Daps
80,028
Reppin
BaBylon
Gates Foundation Doubles Down on Misinformation Campaign at Cornell as African Leaders Call for Agroecology
Posted on Oct 1 2020 - 6:21pm by Sustainable Pulse




The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded another $10 million last week to the controversial Cornell Alliance for Science, a communications campaign housed at Cornell that trains fellows in Africa and elsewhere to promote and defend genetically engineered foods, crops and agrichemicals. The new grant brings BMGF grants to the group to $22 million, USRTK reported Wednesday.

bill-gates-640x363.jpg

Source: USRTK

The PR investment comes at a time when the Gates Foundation is under fire for spending billions of dollars on agricultural development schemes in Africa that critics say are entrenching farming methods that benefit corporations over people.

Faith leaders appeal to Gates Foundation
On September 10, faith leaders in Africa posted an open letter to the Gates Foundation asking it to reassess its grant-making strategies for Africa.

“While we are grateful to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for its commitment to overcoming food insecurity, and acknowledging the humanitarian and infrastructural aid provided to the governments of our continent, we write out of grave concern that the Gates Foundation’s support for the expansion of intensive industrial scale agriculture is deepening the humanitarian crisis,” says the sign-on letter coordinated by the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI).

The letter cites the Gates-led Alliance for a Green Revolution (AGRA) for its “highly problematic” support of commercial seed systems controlled by large companies, its support of restructuring seed laws to protect certified seeds and criminalize non-certified seed, and its support of seed dealers who offer narrow advice about corporate products over much-needed public sector extension services.

“We appeal to the Gates Foundation and AGRA to stop promoting failed technologies and outdated extension methods and start listening to the farmers who are developing appropriate solutions for their contexts,” the faith leaders said.

Despite billions of dollars spent and 14 years of promises, AGRA has failed to achieve its goals of reducing poverty and raising incomes for small farmers, according to a July report False Promises. The research was conducted by a coalition of African and German groups and includes data from a recent white paper published by Tufts Global Development and Environment Institute.

The Gates Foundation has not yet responded to requests for comment for this article but said in an earlier email, “We support organisations like AGRA because they partner with countries to help them implement the priorities and policies contained in their national agricultural development strategies.”

Disappearing promises of the green revolution
Launched in 2006 by the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations, AGRA has long promised to double yields and incomes for 30 million farming households in Africa by 2020. But the group quietly removed those goals from its website sometime in the past year. AGRA’s Chief of Staff Andrew Cox said via email that the group has not reduced his ambition but is refining its approaches and its thinking about metrics. He said AGRA will do a full evaluation on its results next year.

AGRA declined to provide data or answer substantive questions from researchers of the False Promises report, its authors say. Representatives from BIBA Kenya, PELUM Zambia and HOMEF Nigeria sent a letter to Cox Sept. 7 asking for a response to their research findings. Cox responded Sept. 15 with what one researcher described as “basically three pages of PR.”

“African farmers deserve a substantive response from AGRA,” said the letter to Cox from Anne Maina, Mutketoi Wamunyima and Ngimmo Bassay. “So do AGRA’s public sector donors, who would seem to be getting a very poor return on their investments. African governments also need to provide a clear accounting for the impacts of their own budget outlays that support Green Revolution programs.”

African governments spend about $1 billion per year on subsidies to support commercial seeds and agrichemicals. Despite the large investments in agricultural productivity gains, hunger has increased thirty percent during the AGRA years, according to the False Promises report.

Gates Foundation investments have a significant influence on how food systems are shaped in Africa, according to a June report from the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES). The group reported that billions of dollars in Gates Foundation grants have incentivized industrial agriculture in Africa and held back investments in more sustainable, equitable food systems.

“BMGF looks for quick, tangible returns on investment, and thus favours targeted, technological solutions,” IPES said.

Local producers and short food chains
The Gates Foundation agricultural development approach of building markets for larger-scale, high-input commodity crops puts it at odds with emerging thinking about how to best deal with the volatile conditions caused by the twin crises of climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic.

In September, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization said it is essential to build more resilient local food systems as the pandemic “has put local food systems at risk of disruptions along the entire food chain.” The report documents pandemic-related challenges and lessons from a global survey conducted in April and May that drew 860 responses.

“The clear message is that, in order to cope with shocks such as COVID-19, cities with suitable socio-economic and agroclimatic conditions should adopt policies and programmes to empower local producers to grow food, and promote short food chains to enable urban citizens to access food products,” the report concluded. “Cities have to diversify their food supplies and food sources, reinforcing local sources where possible, but without shutting off national and global supplies.”

As the pandemic threatens farming communities already struggling with climate change, Africa is at a crossroads, wrote Million Belay, coordinator of the African Food Sovereignty Alliance, and Timothy Wise, lead researcher of the Tufts analysis of AGRA, in a Sept. 23 op-ed. “Will its people and their governments continue trying to replicate industrial farming models promoted by developed countries? Or will they move boldly into the uncertain future, embracing ecological agriculture?”

Belay and Wise described some good news from recent research; “two of the three AGRA countries that have reduced both the number and share of undernourished people – Ethiopia and Mali – have done so in part due to policies that support ecological agriculture.”

The biggest success story, Mali, saw hunger drop from 14% to 5% since 2006. According to a case study in the False Promises report, “progress came not because of AGRA but because the government and farmers’ organizations actively resisted its implementation,” Belay and Wise wrote, pointing to land and seed laws that guarantee farmers’ rights to choose their crops and farming practices, and government programs that promote not just maize but a wide variety of food crops.

“It’s time for African governments to step back from the failing Green Revolution and chart a new food system that respects local cultures and communities by promoting low-cost, low-input ecological agriculture,” they wrote.
Link:

Gates Foundation Doubles Down on Misinformation Campaign at Cornell as African Leaders Call for Agroecology - Sustainable Pulse
 

loyola llothta

☭☭☭
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
35,064
Reputation
6,991
Daps
80,028
Reppin
BaBylon
Doubling down on PR efforts

Against this backdrop, the Gates Foundation is doubling down on its investment in the Cornell Alliance for Science (CAS), a public relations campaign launched in 2014 with a Gates grant and promises to “depolarize the debate” around GMOs. With the new $10 million, CAS plans to widen its focus “to counter conspiracy theories and disinformation campaigns that hinder progress in climate change, synthetic biology, agricultural innovations and other key issues.”

But CAS has become a polarizing force and a source of misinformation as it trains fellows around the world to promote and lobby for genetically engineered crops in their home countries, many of them in Africa.

Numerous academics, food groups and policy experts have called out the inaccurate and misleading messaging of CAS and its messengers. Community groups working to regulate pesticides and biosafety have accused CAS of using bully tactics in Hawaii and exploiting farmers in Africa in its aggressive promotional and lobby campaigns.

A July 30 article by Mark Lynas, a Cornell visiting fellow who works for CAS, illuminates the controversy over the group’s messaging. Citing a recent meta-analysis on conservation agriculture, Lynas claimed, “agro-ecology risks harming the poor and worsening gender equality in Africa.” His analysis was widely panned by experts in the field.

Marc Corbeels, the agronomist who authored the meta-analysis, said Lynas made “sweeping generalizations” about his work. Other academics described Lynas’ article as “really flawed,” “deeply unserious,” “demagogic and non-scientific,” an erroneous conflation that jumps to “wild conclusions,” and “an embarrassment for someone who wants to claim to be scientific.”

The article should be retracted, said Marci Branski, a former USDA climate change specialist and Marcus Taylor, a political ecologist at Queen’s University.

Debate over agroecology heats up
The controversy resurfaced this week over a webinar CAS is hosting Thursday Oct. 1 on the topic of agroecology. Citing concerns that the Cornell-based group is “not serious enough to engage in an open, unbiased” debate, two food-system experts withdrew from the webinar earlier this week.

The two scientists said they agreed to participate in the webinar after seeing each other’s names among the panelists; “that was enough for both of us to trust also the organization behind the event,” wrote Pablo Tittonell, PhD, Principal Research Scientist in Argentina’s National Council for Science and Technology (CONICET) and Sieglinde Snapp, PhD, Professor of Soils and Cropping Systems Ecology at Michigan State University, to panel moderator Joan Conrow, editor of CAS.

“But reading some of the blogs and opinion pieces issued by the Alliance, the publications by other panelists, learning about the biased and uninformed claims against agroecology, the ideologically charged push for certain technologies, etc. we came to the conclusion that this venue is not serious enough to engage in an open, unbiased, constructive and, most importantly, well informed scientific debate,” Tittonell and Snapp wrote to Conrow.

“We therefore withdraw from this debate.” Conrow has not responded to requests for comment.

The webinar will go forward with Nassib Mugwanya, a 2015 CAS global leadership fellow and doctoral student at North Carolina State University, who has also been accused of making unfair attacks on agroecology. In a 2019 article for the Breakthrough Institute, Mugwanya argued, “traditional agricultural practices can’t transform African agriculture.”

The article reflects typical biotech industry messaging: presenting GMO crops as the “pro-science” position while painting “alternative forms of agricultural development as ‘anti-science,’ groundless and harmful,” according to an analysis by the Seattle-based Community Alliance for Global Justice.

“Particularly notable in the article,” the group noted, “are strong usages of metaphors (e.g., agroecology likened to handcuffs), generalizations, omissions of information and a number of factual inaccuracies.”

With Tittonell and Snapp off the roster at Thursday’s webinar, Mugwanya will be joined by Pamela Ronald, a professor of plant pathology at the University of California, Davis, who has ties to pesticide industry front groups, and Frédéric Baudron, senior scientist at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), a Gates Foundation-funded group.

Asking for a ‘fair fight’
Mariam Mayet, executive director of the African Centre for Biodiversity, sees the ramped up PR campaigns as “evidence of desperation” that they “just cannot get it right on the continent.”

Her group has for years been documenting “the efforts to spread the Green Revolution in Africa, and the dead-ends it will lead to: declining soil health, loss of agricultural biodiversity, loss of farmer sovereignty, and locking of African farmers into a system that is not designed for their benefit, but for the profits of mostly Northern multinational corporations.”

The Cornell Alliance for Science should be reigned in, Mayet said in an August webinar about the Gates Foundation’s influence in Africa, “because of the misinformation (and) the way that they are extremely disingenuous and untruthful.” She asked, “Why don’t you engage in a fair fight with us?”

Link:

Gates Foundation Doubles Down on Misinformation Campaign at Cornell as African Leaders Call for Agroecology - Sustainable Pulse
 

staticshock

Veteran
Joined
Apr 15, 2017
Messages
38,817
Reputation
5,405
Daps
165,530
Reppin
Atlanta



how do y’all feel about this?
Ethiopia could become a power with the dam they’re building, but it could hurt Egypt
 

CopiousX

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
11,565
Reputation
3,437
Daps
56,090
VisualPolitik back with their fukk shyt agenda again. look at this hit piece put out on Tanzania



Tanzanians going in

There is absolutely nothing wrong with breh’s policies. In fact, his actions are 100% in the spirit of the original first president, Nyeri’s policies. The elimination of corruption, the stabilization of the state through the single party (like China has done) , and free schooling is straight out of the 60s playbook. The cacs and Asians are genuinely surprised that Tanzania’s president is holding their exploitative feet to the fire. :mjlol:







I know it will never make headlines on the other boards, but his fine on that mining company may very well have been the first national, unabashed, and brazen attempt at reparations for the continent.:ehh:






Of course, he still must deal with the economic failures and international opposition that their first president Nyeri faced( mugabe too, if we keeping it 100%). His next plan will most likely be direct import substitution which seemed to be the original sticking point of 60s policy.




@MischievousMonkey, @loyola llothta, and @Premeditated , y’all are always so well imformed, and usually add great value to these discussions.:salute: I would love to hear your thoughts on if (or how) Magufuli can overcome his upcoming challenges. If the powers that be(:mjpls:) follow their usual strategies, there will be an impending forex shortage as the IMF, WorldBank, Etc stop there currency drip into Tanzania. Furthermore, if Magufuli attempts import substitution; there will be a shortage of forex from the importation of industrial equipment (to facilitate local production). These issues may then be compounded by the need to pay skilled professionals(usually foreign) to train natives in heavy industry, agrarian production, and tech sectors. Do you guys see a way out for Tanzania? Or perhaps an alternative path?
 

Yehuda

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
30,535
Reputation
10,740
Daps
123,131
The Ominous Rise of African Financial Centres: The Case of Mauritius

By ROAPE - December 1, 2020
By Pritish Behuria


d1835fbacc8ee3128fa53969c838528d.jpg

Featured Photograph: ‘Keeping off the rain’ – Colourful umbrellas at Caudan Waterfront Mall, Port Louis, Mauritius (Martin Falbisoner, 9 September 2015).

Pritish Behuria writes how Mauritius has long impressed observers. In July this year, the country was officially categorised as a high-income country. Yet alongside impressive growth, Mauritius’ financial sector has developed into a globally renowned low-tax jurisdiction.

The Mauritian response to several urgent challenges, Covid-19 or the oil spill, over the past few months has drawn global praise. Observers have begun to call for other countries to learn from Mauritius, as part of a welcome call to encourage and highlight the impressive implementation of policies in the Global South. Mauritius, of course, has long impressed observers. In July this year, Mauritius was officially categorised as a high-income country. Alongside impressive growth, successive governments have been committed to retaining a welfare state with impressive social spending for decades.

As there are increasing calls to emulate Mauritius, it is worth analysing how the country’s meteoric rise was achieved. At independence, James Meade, who later won the Nobel Prize, famously argued that prospects for development in Mauritius were bleak. Mauritius’ problems appeared insurmountable: the country was sugar-dependent, ethnically diverse and densely populated. Meade predicted a population boom, with no prospect for job creation. It appeared Mauritius was headed into disaster.

The Defiance of Mauritian Growth

Mauritius defied Meade’s pessimistic predictions. Since then, much ink has been spilled evaluating the determinants of the Mauritian miracle. Early Mauritian governments successfully committed to diversifying its economy, despite sugar enjoying preferential access to European markets. The government also made successful investments in tourism and industry (including textiles and garments). Mauritians enjoyed the fruits of their own mini-industrial revolution while also retaining the political freedom of voting in multi-party elections. Mauritius was the ultimate ‘democratic developmental state’, a term aspirationally applied by so many African governments to legitimise less-democratic systems of rule.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, political analysis of Mauritius growth showed how wealthy Franco-Mauritian sugar planters, who controlled much of the wealth, gave up political power to the majority population (of South-Asian descent from varied backgrounds), who arrived as indentured labourers in the country. Geographical isolation and threat of internal revolt combined to commit a new ruling political-economic elite to developing pillars of economic transformation: sugar, tourism and industry. However, in analysing Mauritius’ growth success, there is relatively limited attention (aside from some passing mentions) of the most important pillar (and dark side) of Mauritius’ growth success: the offshore financial sector.

The Unstoppable Rise of African Financial Centres

Late development requires governments to position their economies in relation to the global political economy to reduce their economic subordination to industrialised countries while diversifying their sources of revenue. Most African countries have now liberalised their financial sectors to varying degrees and invited foreign capital into their domestic commercial banking sectors. East Asian countries retained national ownership of their financial sectors, as they industrialised. Instead, many African countries first liberalised their economies, with some choosing to re-shape their financial sectors to increasingly present themselves as financial hubs. Many African countries have adopted global financial standards (like Basel), which were not intended for them. Even OECD countries have resisted adopting them.

Reforming financial sectors to become a hub is often accompanied by signing double taxation avoidance agreements (DTAAs). Through DTAAs, governments promise to reduce taxes to an extent that invites investors to base their companies in their countries rather than in their home countries or in the countries they wish to invest. This comes with the promise of reduced taxes in comparison to the tax rates prevailing in their home countries. Countries including Ghana, Kenya and Rwanda have increasingly pursued such strategies while others like Botswana and Morocco have had these in place for much longer. As the pandemic exposes the unreliability of some services-based growth (like tourism), it is likely that offshore strategies (which provide a source for foreign exchange for cash-strapped countries) will appear more attractive.

Offshore in Mauritius

Mauritius’ example on the continent is dangerously alluring. The evolution of Mauritius’ financial sector into a globally renowned low-tax jurisdiction occurred because of the government’s strategic engagements with the global financial sector at opportune moments. In the 1980s, the government began establishing the infrastructure required for supporting its financial sector strategies. Since the Indian economy was still ‘closed’ to the outside world, the Indian government approached the Mauritian government to establish a DTAA to provide a channel for foreign investments into India. According to some key government officials, Mauritius was actually more intrigued by the potential of South African capital in the 1980s, with the end of apartheid likely to result in an influx of capital. However, after India liberalised its economy in the 1990s, the Mauritian government, aided by British lawyers, established the legal systems to signal that Mauritius was a secure base for potential investments into India. The influx of capital to India was enormous, as were the revenues for Mauritius: Between 1994 to 2017, 37% of FDI into India came from Mauritius, as well as 27% of all foreign portfolio investment from 2001 to 2016. The India segment of Mauritius’ offshore financial sector remains the most significant source of revenues for Mauritius and has been infamous for examples of ‘round tripping’ . There have also been examples of equally nefarious activity among Indian and African nationals (but the net is much wider than that).

Mauritius’ offshore financial centre has had a seismic effect on Mauritian political economy. There is the enormous foreign exchange that comes with being an offshore financial centre, which is the envy of any low-income non-oil producing country. The growth of offshore finance has led to what many observers highlight as a democratisation of wealth in the country. Historically, the wealthiest Mauritians comprised the descendants of Franco-Mauritian sugar plantation owners, which now take the form of large Franco-Mauritian Conglomerates that dominate the economy today. Some Mauritians of South Asian descent can also count themselves as the richest Mauritians. The growth of the financial sector contributed to a rising middle class (including lawyers, accountants and bankers) employed around it.

However, there have been significant domestic dangers associated with Mauritius’ offshore success. Despite its social spending, Mauritius remains an extremely unequal society, as well as ethnically segregated. The growing value of real estate and its services-based development trajectory created new opportunities for a burgeoning middle-class. However, the decline of its industrial sector has contributed to few opportunities for secure employment for others. Mauritius’ development path has also historically depended on the government’s strategic use of preferential treaties with others. Whether it was markets for Mauritian sugar or the DTAA with India, the vulnerability of Mauritian dependent development had contributed to the government’s sustained commitment to new areas for economic diversification. However, over the past decade, the government has not sustained this commitment to diversification. Attention to capitalising on an ocean economy has so far been slow and less-intensive than previous diversification attempts.

Learning from Mauritius?

The Mauritian response to Covid has drawn increasing calls for others to learn from Mauritius. There is clearly much to learn from Mauritius. But with all calls for emulating others, we must be clear how supposed ‘models’ of development are emulated. Often, these models are misunderstood, selectively appropriated or presented incorrectly. We are all too familiar with how Western countries have presented their own past of economic transformation in the ‘Do as I say’ of market-led development rather than ‘Do what we did’ of state-led structural transformation.

Similarly, the World Bank misinterpreted East Asian development as being based on market-led policies and presented this version around the world. Within African countries, a call to emulate Singapore or Rwanda has been likened to emulation of their authoritarian characteristics rather than the realities of how economic growth has been sustained. Mauritius has actually actively advised governments consistently over the past few decades on various aspects of its development: from special economic zones to high-value, low-quantity tourism. Equally though, Mauritius’ offshore financial centre has drawn attention.

As the pandemic rumbles on and treasuries dry up, some service-based strategies like tourism seem increasingly misdirected but other services sectors (despite the global scrutiny) like offshore finance may appear to be a potential source of revenues. But even considering the negative effects such strategies have in addressing global inequalities, governments should consider the negative domestic inequalities that may ensue if such strategies are pursued. Offshore financial sectors foster external dependence. Additionally, double taxation treaties and the construction of new regulatory authorities is difficult and not even enough. Mauritius remains at the low-end of offshore financial sectors. Most financial evasion continues to be driven by industrialised countries in Europe or East Asia, with stronger capacities to protect evasion. As the search for foreign exchange drives economies to develop offshore financial sectors, it is worth remembering that few strategies of sustained transformation have occurred through radical attempts at financialisation.

The Ominous Rise of African Financial Centres: The Case of Mauritius
 

MischievousMonkey

Gor bu dëgër
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
18,526
Reputation
7,471
Daps
91,369
There is absolutely nothing wrong with breh’s policies. In fact, his actions are 100% in the spirit of the original first president, Nyeri’s policies. The elimination of corruption, the stabilization of the state through the single party (like China has done) , and free schooling is straight out of the 60s playbook. The cacs and Asians are genuinely surprised that Tanzania’s president is holding their exploitative feet to the fire. :mjlol:







I know it will never make headlines on the other boards, but his fine on that mining company may very well have been the first national, unabashed, and brazen attempt at reparations for the continent.:ehh:






Of course, he still must deal with the economic failures and international opposition that their first president Nyeri faced( mugabe too, if we keeping it 100%). His next plan will most likely be direct import substitution which seemed to be the original sticking point of 60s policy.




@MischievousMonkey, @loyola llothta, and @Premeditated , y’all are always so well imformed, and usually add great value to these discussions.:salute: I would love to hear your thoughts on if (or how) Magufuli can overcome his upcoming challenges. If the powers that be(:mjpls:) follow their usual strategies, there will be an impending forex shortage as the IMF, WorldBank, Etc stop there currency drip into Tanzania. Furthermore, if Magufuli attempts import substitution; there will be a shortage of forex from the importation of industrial equipment (to facilitate local production). These issues may then be compounded by the need to pay skilled professionals(usually foreign) to train natives in heavy industry, agrarian production, and tech sectors. Do you guys see a way out for Tanzania? Or perhaps an alternative path?
I appreciate that brother. I'm not active on this forum anymore but it's cool to see you and others holding it down.

Regarding Tanzania I must say I'm not following closely its situation. My perception is that for import substitution to work, you still need wheat to grind, meaning that the goal is to be implemented in global supply chains so as to accumulate knowledge and progressively level up.

In this perspective, protectionnism isn't necessarily a bad thing since it would push foreign companies to open subsidiaries in Tanzania, allowing for the technological and knowledge transfer to happen.

But if investors are as shook as they pretend in that video, then you're kinda shooting yourself in the foot... Now I don't know how true what they said was, and we know how they do.

Another thing is that tech transfers are very badly negotiated in Africa in general, or at least that's my perception. Chinese bring their own engineers and employees to do the work. So how big of a loss are we really talking about here? My philosophy has always been that as long as the agricultural sector is thriving and people can eat we're good. No need to pursue mindless industrialization especially when our most basic needs are not met.

Better access to education would actually work well in the sense of an import substitution strategy since it is a prerequisite for technological and knowledge transfer. So I like that from Tanzania. Just have to plug that brain drain by providing opportunities to those coming out with diplomas.

I think Magufuli needs to keep on strengthening relationships with China and non-Western entities, while being a solid negotiator, and he'll be straight. The word of the West isn't the end all and be all of the ordeal. If China sees interesting opportunities it will jump it. On us to step up and defend our interests.



Democracy is overrated but I know even less about how Magufuli operates in this regard, so I'll stay quiet on this one.
 
Top