True,colonialism never left us with any good choice,even the periods that
followed,the big promises of transfer of capital proved to be just a bluff,to
entertain cold war rethorics and nothing else.Even though we can agree that we
just cant blaim it all on colonialism for our economic problems,it is very
clear that its inpact continues to be a big budden on us.Had it been that the
aids that were promissed came in the manner of Marshal Plan,that is to say
with good intention and commitment to development of the African economy,we
might have better results to show today.True,our leaders have to be blaim for
not paving their own way,out of the political and economic realities of the
time, but instead subjected themselves to the dictates of the Cold War.Basil
Davidson told a friend of mine that it tok "America almost 400 years to be
what it is today"and yes it has not taken any African State 100 years yet.But
this is no excuse,but I am of another opinion that with the political
developments that are taken place in the continent there are still hopes for
the future.
In my opinion,any economic development policy for the Gambia must be in a
position to answer certain questions.What would economic growth be for us,what
is the meaning for us,does it mean accumulation of more and more capital,and
for who ?Are we ,at this stage of our development interested in economic
growth or do we need an economic policy that is offensive in poverty
ellevation so as to lay the grounds for econopmic prosperity/growth.Economic
growth does it lead to poverty allivation in most cases it does not,this is
true.Take the USA which for the past years have been enjoying economic
growth,whiles the rich are getting richer,the poor is not only getting poorer
but increasing in number.Or take a Scandinavian country like Norway,perhaps
the only European country with a budget surpluss for the pass years.The
economic growth that has been registered in this country is not only partly
due to the oil prices that they are enjoying,but also all the efforts that the
government have been doing in the interest of private capital,the
result,increasing poverty among ordinary Norwegian,even though they are not as
poor as the American poor and the rich getting richer.It is much more easier
for a country to register economic growth than ellevate poorverty,which ,even
in the short or long term will have to affect the overrole political and
economic situation.Take Ghana as an example,it was at one time the shining
star of international financial institutions,that Ghana was on the right way,
it was enjoying eceonomic growth,there was massive privitation in the country
etc in accordance with the dictates of inetrnational finance.,but the fact of
the matter in Ghana was that economic poverty was increasing among ordinary
Ghnanians,whiles the rich was getting richer.Then came Uganda with the same
story.The reason for saying all these things is my feeling that the
involvement of the State in economic activities which is almost now an
economic tabo,is one of the greatest challenge that African states must have
to face.Not only as policy makers but real actors.True,it will not be of any
good if the power that is ,is not commiited to national development.The result
will then be producing rich people who have access to the riches of the nation
through their affiliation.
Yes State intervetion has become a tabo,but we know that the economics of
Europe did not develope without having the state involving deeply.In France
the banks have been state own,In Britain Transport etc have been state own,In
Scandinavia,almost evrything was state control,until things start to take a
final about turn,thanks to the strategic offensive of international/national
capital.The State in Europe has palyed the most vital role in the development
of western capital,it did so by not only providing capital but played a
central role in the accumulation of capital,offcourse it is a general
knowledge that profit must always come if growth is to be accounted for.The
withdrawal of western states from direct participation in economic activities
is much more of ideological commitment than only reasons of the desire to
balance the budget,which they even finding difficult evryday, and provide
comsummers with alternatives.The arguement against State participation in
economic activities have been among other things,that all that it creats is an
inefficient and corrupt bureaucrats,lack of compitition and little or no
choice for the the comsumers.Not only in Europe,but even in Africa,we have
seen the State selling properties and at the same time providing capital for
the byers with tax money and even bail them out in times of difficulties with
tax monies.
True,state participation can creat corrupt and ineffiecent bureaucracy,as was
in the former soviet Union and that it can creat little choice for the
consummers.But the day to day merger of the big companies is also enough
evidence that the intention is among other things to be the only supplier in
the market,this will also leave the consummers with very little or no choice.A
committed state to national development will not be corrupt,it will make sure
that economic benifits comes to meet the demands of the citizens.
We have become so much convience that without capital investment from outside
we will not be able to register economic development.But we have to have at
the back of our mind that there are many examples that this is not true.When
Mexico was trying her lucks and open wide its gate,capital from all over the
world were to get an impass into that market,but the moment they sense
trouble they withdraw almost everything they have in that country.The same
thing happened in Asia.What this shows is that these international
capital,have no interest in the country they are investing,all they care is if
what they invetst in that country is bringing profit to them and more and
more profit.This is why if a company employing hundres of people in the
Gambia,finds out that they could get more profit in Senegal they would not
think twice before they move to Senegal,without taking any trouble of thinking
of all those who will be left unemploy and their families.This is happening
all over the world and constantly.What happened to the Swedish Volvo,what
happened to the German Wolwagen ect,ect ? Now why do we need these
capital,when we know that they are not loyal and could leave us in deep
economic and thus political crisis at any time?And that whiles they are
there,great part of the returns are never put to the benifits of our country.
Gambia is no exception !Why should we not nationalise our fishing industry?Why
not our forestry ?Why should we not nationalise our Banks,why should we not
nationalise our tourist industry ?etc,etc.We have examples to show,Gamtel is
an example.Even if we are to allow international capital to be involved in our
industries why cant we say to them yes you are welcome providing that we owe
55% or more of the shares.What will this result to ?In such a case when we
register economic growth it will not only be the rich getting richer but that
the state will have more to invest in other aspect of our economy,say the
industrilisation of our agricultural sector or on the citizens.There is
nothing that says that this is not possible,it is only international finance
capital that is telling us we have no right to do so,that this is primitive,if
we dont no loans !!!Offcourse to defy inernational capital will mean paying a
heavy price and or commit suicide.But You can see that it is no moral problem
to give loan to Ethopia and then encourage them to buy modern jet
fighters,whiles awaiting that over 5 million of its citizens will soon face
starvation,as long as Ethopia is paying back and bying weapons from them all
is well and fine.We should now fined out what would happen to us,if we defy
international capital and chooce our own way to economic development.Will it
be more serious than the present situation,when our farmers are not able to
sell their groundnuts,when school drop outs because of finacial deficulties is
not getting better,when we dont have papers to print our birth
certificates,when the drug problems in our hospitals are not getting better ?
Although with this regime and the politicians it might be difficult.With the
rampant curruption,with MPS hiding behind close doors demanding for more
pay,it will need a leadership that is prepared to sacrifice,show an example.In
my opinion we need to make a choice and we must make this chioce if we must
move forward in this mellenium.
This choice must be a nationalistic economic policy.We must be brave enough to
close our doors and set the rules to begine with.Yes regional economic
realationship will be very important,espicially when we arrive at the stage of
expantion.The Senegambian issue was named.The confideration was oppossed for
two major reasons both in Senegal and the Gambia.On the Gambian side,the
opposition to the confideration by ordinary Gambians was more political than
economical.From the side of Gambians with capital,the opposition was more
economical than political.The Gambian capital owners were well awear of the
simple economic fact that the Senegalise capital was bigger and more
sophisticated.That an open door economic policy for the two would mean suicide
for the Gambian capital.It was no accident or political reason when Senegal
shorts her doors when regional economic interest turned in favour of Gambian
capital owners,who have no industry but only cash and could import from any
where in Asia and re-export to Senegal bitting the home made product in
Senegal at prices.The situation would have been different in a
confideration,since internal produced goods would be protected by
state/confideral policys,which will then be in the interest of Senegal and at
the expence of Gambia.There is no illulution in the fact that Gambian capital
would hardly be able to compite with capital from Senegal.It would have been
worst today as the economic situation in the two countries stands at this very
present moment.The level of economic development between the African countries
will have a lot to say in any future open door economic relationship.It is not
only enough that we are Africans or that we are sharing bourders.I dont think
that the European Union is opening up membership to European countries only if
they meet certain economic requirements for no reason.The admosphere of
creating equal compitition,control inflation and unemployment and present
acceptable state budjet(for a period of years) that is not over loaded with
State subcidies among other things are a precondition for membership.I
believed that any economic open door policy within the African countries will
first have to meet certain condition,operate on visible conditions or else one
or the other will feel cheatet.
How then will we get into the markets of other countries when our is too
protective.In the first place our interest will be to staisfy the home market
and leave the rest with the greediness of international capital.We will never
be able to produce all that we need but we will be capable of providing
services or producing goods that will be needed out side of the Gambian
boundary.
Countries that have had protective economic policys did much more better for
their citizens in general than countries who have surrendered their economic
activities and policys in the hands of lobbyist and speculators.The open door
policy of internation Finance is to leave our economies at mercy of
speculators,this is greatest problem of our economies and this is what we must
say no to.
For Freedom
Saiks
Hi Musa and Sidi,
Thanks for your perspective on the above captioned topic.
As usual Musa, you have given the discussion another
dimension, namely that of regional integration and
cooperation. As Sidi said we should look at the bigger
picture. We have to maintain good relations with our
neighbors as that enhances political stability, especially
in our troubled region. I wholeheartedly support economic
integration in Africa. Infact in recognition of this, some
African governments have fully fledged ministries that are
responsible for economic integration and my discussion
with Sidi touched on this issue briefly.
You see Musa, until we as Africans realize that our nations
as microstates are at a severe disadvantage in dealing with
the rest of the world, our problems will continue. The
United States would not have been the richest economy in
the world if all the states were independent entities. With
the exception of maybe Nigeria and South Africa, our small
microstates do not possess the needed human and physical
capacities that are typical for development and we always
negotiate from very weak bargaining position. In today's
global village, size matters. This is evident evedyday in
the mergers and acquisitions that are taking place in the
financial sector, the media and entertainments, the
pharmaceutical industries ect.
I was one of those who gave a lukewarm reception to the
idea of limiting our attention to just Gambia and Senegal.
My position is that we have to approach integration in
Africa from a sub-regional perspective, i.e. ECOWAS, East
African Community, South African Development Community and
the Arab Maghreb Union. These sub regional groups can be
the calalyst to facilitate economic integration in
Africa. The EU, USA, Canada and Mexico other subregional
organization are actively pursuing integration of their
economies. As usual in Africa we are lagging behind. I
don't think that the industrial countries would be engaged
in cooperation if there are no benefits to be derived. The
last time we discussed this issue, some people were
confusing the idea of economic integration and a united
states of Africa, which should not be the preoccupation of
African countries at this stage of our development
progressing.
As you said Musa, African countries have been trying for
the past 30 year to solve our economic woes independently
of our neighbors and the results are evident for all to
see. Isn't it time a different approach is taken. We all
face the same common denominator - deprivation. Is this not
the same problem confronting the ordinary man in panchang
anglais and panchang francais despite the imaginary border.
It's about time African microstates act together in
articulating our shared interest and resources.
All this rests on political leadership. Is is not enough to
proclaim support for economic integration and then engage
in programs that are not consistent. A recent posting
about Uganda, was on the president saying the the
international institutions, thinks he is a small boy in
dictating how much he has to spend on the military. Here we
go again, Ugandans are dying of poverty and here you have a
president wanting to spend a larger share of "aid" money
for that matter on the military. Recently in the news the
British government, who came to power on the pretext of
having an "ethical" foreign policy are selling mig
jets spare parts to Zimbabwe running into millions of £s.
Zimbabwe is among the countries worse affected by aids. For
goodness sake african leaders, why spend money on mig
fighter jets when you have pressing problems on health and
education. Who is the enemy - our own African brothers and
sisters in DRC and kabila - what a shame.
basil
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:46:03 -0500 Musa Jeng
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Basil, Thanks again for such a brilliant piece, bit I think we should also
adopt
> bold intiatives like economic intergration with neighboring senegal and
> Cassamance.
>
> Not too long ago , Dr. Saine floated another idea, a Senegambian reunion.
The
> general reaction on the Gambia-L was indifference; either most of us cannot
see
> the possibility of such a re-union, and some of us believe that Gambia has
> everything to loose. Another compelling possibility is that the Eighties
> confederation attempt left us with disillusionment to the idea.
>
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go
> > to the Gambia-L > Web interface at:
> > http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html >
> > >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ----------------------
> > B.M.Jones
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> > Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
B.M.Jones
[log in to unmask]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
