Good governance vs Ubuntu

“Good corporate governance is a source of competitive advantage” (Dave Malcolmson, Head of Nepad Division for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, ASCCI AGM and Conference 2006).

Bang! There was nothing particularly peculiar or lucid about this statement, but I had been thinking about competition from various angles and this statement seemed to bring it all together, somehow.

I started off last week by thinking that if governments were forced to see themselves as a business that their administrations would be run better. However, for this competition is needed, the kind of competition that makes governments miraculously perform 4 to 5 years worth of work in the 6 weeks prior to elections.

For administrations to be ‘scared’, there needs to be spare capacity in the form of strong opposition potential that is all too eager to capitalise on the previous administration’s failures.

True, a general lack of capacity on the continent could sometimes mean that the posts are filled with slightly less capable individuals, and this may work against efforts to encourage officials, but looking at global politics today it is safe to assume that some ‘incapables’ slip through the rug and float to the top from time-to-time anyway. So perhaps capacity isn’t really the problem at all, and besides, competition will help develop capacity.

The next step is that administrations need to be encouraged. Zambia’s president saying that his country is the preferred African destination for FDI gives an incentive for other African administrations to try harder. Because good governance is a source of competitive advantage (i.e. corruption is not efficient), the desire to be number 1 can play an important role in keeping administrations clean, or at least cleaner.

The other reality is that as governments become more and more proud of what they have achieved, they begin to brag about these achievements. Mauritius’s claim to be looking into a low tax competitive economy may be one of many strategies that is already available today, but they are only ‘available’ because governments boasted about them.

The other part of becoming more competitive is that underperforming countries become somewhat embarrassed by their ‘figures’ and tend to try to go on a diet, but only end up shedding a few zeros. Zimbabwe’s cosmetic cover-up hasn’t helped anyone, but it does show that the government is becoming a little uncomfortable with the predicament of trading in billions and trillions for bread. While the negative publicity of the contentment is often unwarranted, embarrassing a few governments might help fill the accountability gap.

’Ubuntu’ certainly has its place, but right now what Africa needs to some hard-faced competition, the kind that will allow the continent to do 100 years worth of work in 5.