Building a strong bureaucracy not tied to one leader is essential to a successful democracy. With a strong bureaucracy power can be transferred from one leader to the next.
Good advice and I agree wholeheartedly. The "strong man" phenomenon (rarely a woman, who is almost always democratic, if it is) has emerged as the post-colonial model for governance in most cases. Disturbing signs of it are emerging even in the rich countries, which should know better and learn from history. Institutions in the LMICs (except interior ministries and the military) are kept intentionally weak and on a short leash, corruptly handed out as favors to trusted allies for further enrichment, and run like little fiefdoms. But the building of institutions is greatly preferable to the tacit and overt support of dictators by OECD countries. "He may be a dictator, but at least he's MY dictator." Foreign aid agencies, foundations, NGOs, UN specialized agencies, the World Bank, etc. should implement a long-term institution-building program that focuses on institutional design, principles, implementation and targeted support. I know I am mixing national and international governmental and NGO/private foundation roles here, but they should each play a part in some overarching institution-building program and be coordinated. The strong men will object, but the program could be tied to foreign aid funding to have some teeth. At the same time, the roles of the military and intelligence services in the OECD countries should also be lessened and better coordinated with the civilian actors. This also would be consistent with the hand up, not the hand out, thereby decreasing the opportunities for the inevitable theft.
I suppose this is correct. However I think it is also important to have realistic expectations and recognize that sometimes difficult circumstances call for unpleasant measures. Kagame took a country where a million people had just been hacked to death by their neighbors and turned it into one of the most safe and prosperous in Africa, and all I read about him is criticism.
They’re doing pretty well. Botswana remains one of the most stable countries on the Continent. They recently opposed an AU decision to grant observer’s status to Israel, citing and reiterating their support to the Palestinian people. A rare move.
Just be on record, it was a *wrong* move. Not that it detracts from Botswana's success in other areas, but why is it not weird that you should cite this, of all things, as evidence?
Because it shows Botswana’s independence vis a vis the AU, an institution that’s increasingly known as shielding its member states from accountability. And that’s regardless of whether it’s a positive or negative move.
Botswana’s democratic credentials have been characterized by successive presidential transitions from Masire to Mogae to Khama, and more recently, to Masisi creating an impression of a vibrant and self- reproducing democracy. This said, there have been increasing allegations of corruption and erosion of checks and balances especially re- the judiciary….
I was in Botswana 3 years ago and it was reputed to be doing quite well at that time. I don't know how the health concerns and the decrease in tourism over the past 1.5 years has affected it, however.
Building a strong bureaucracy not tied to one leader is essential to a successful democracy. With a strong bureaucracy power can be transferred from one leader to the next.
Good advice and I agree wholeheartedly. The "strong man" phenomenon (rarely a woman, who is almost always democratic, if it is) has emerged as the post-colonial model for governance in most cases. Disturbing signs of it are emerging even in the rich countries, which should know better and learn from history. Institutions in the LMICs (except interior ministries and the military) are kept intentionally weak and on a short leash, corruptly handed out as favors to trusted allies for further enrichment, and run like little fiefdoms. But the building of institutions is greatly preferable to the tacit and overt support of dictators by OECD countries. "He may be a dictator, but at least he's MY dictator." Foreign aid agencies, foundations, NGOs, UN specialized agencies, the World Bank, etc. should implement a long-term institution-building program that focuses on institutional design, principles, implementation and targeted support. I know I am mixing national and international governmental and NGO/private foundation roles here, but they should each play a part in some overarching institution-building program and be coordinated. The strong men will object, but the program could be tied to foreign aid funding to have some teeth. At the same time, the roles of the military and intelligence services in the OECD countries should also be lessened and better coordinated with the civilian actors. This also would be consistent with the hand up, not the hand out, thereby decreasing the opportunities for the inevitable theft.
I suppose this is correct. However I think it is also important to have realistic expectations and recognize that sometimes difficult circumstances call for unpleasant measures. Kagame took a country where a million people had just been hacked to death by their neighbors and turned it into one of the most safe and prosperous in Africa, and all I read about him is criticism.
Hindsight is 20/20.
Not that I know that much about it, but I've heard some good things about Botswana. How are they doing?
They’re doing pretty well. Botswana remains one of the most stable countries on the Continent. They recently opposed an AU decision to grant observer’s status to Israel, citing and reiterating their support to the Palestinian people. A rare move.
Just be on record, it was a *wrong* move. Not that it detracts from Botswana's success in other areas, but why is it not weird that you should cite this, of all things, as evidence?
Because it shows Botswana’s independence vis a vis the AU, an institution that’s increasingly known as shielding its member states from accountability. And that’s regardless of whether it’s a positive or negative move.
Good answer. Thank you.
It really is bizarre that’s what you choose to mention.
What are they doing right?
Botswana’s democratic credentials have been characterized by successive presidential transitions from Masire to Mogae to Khama, and more recently, to Masisi creating an impression of a vibrant and self- reproducing democracy. This said, there have been increasing allegations of corruption and erosion of checks and balances especially re- the judiciary….
I was in Botswana 3 years ago and it was reputed to be doing quite well at that time. I don't know how the health concerns and the decrease in tourism over the past 1.5 years has affected it, however.