International Affairs Journal at UC Davis - Moral Politics and Africa

Home

IAJ International Update

Sub-Saharan Africa

Moral Politics and Africa

Written by Rohit Jain

Sunday, 17 June 2007

Whenever I sit down to write about the Sub-Saharan region in Africa, I begin to imagine vivid images of hungry children, disease burdened communities, deforestation, and rampant poverty. In 2006 the United Nations compiled a list of 50 of the world’s most poverty stricken nations, and found that 34 of those countries were located in Africa. For a single region to harbor such a disproportionate number of the world’s poor is surely unjust, but it has had the quality of eluding any simple explanation from both economists and political scientists.

What is most striking about the situation in Africa is the almost endemic nature of the poverty that has gripped the continent for almost two centuries. Professor Jeffrey Sachs points out that if one measures the average income gap between Africa and Western Europe, the difference has widened from a ratio of 3 to 1 prevailing in the 1820’s to almost 20 to 1 in 1990. Further, the average income in Africa has increased from about $400 per year in 1820 to only $1200 per year in 1990, while the average income in Europe has increased from roughly $1200 per year to close to $24,000 per year in the same time period. It is evident that for almost two centuries economic growth in the Western hemisphere and economic growth on the African continent have been on divergent paths.

Showing the facts is not at all the same as understanding the facts. Sachs has argued that central to this income disparity between the West and Africa is the role of geography. He states, “Virtually all the rich countries are in the temperate belts and virtually all of the tropics are poor.” The link between geography and poverty is strengthened by the fact that many of the diseases that exist in the tropics are not found in other temperate regions around the world. Sachs further points out that agricultural productivity has been found to be lower in tropical regions due to infertile soil and lack of proper irrigation. This coupled with the fact that close to 70% of the poor in Africa reside in the agricultural sector should point to climate and natural resource degradation as important reasons why many in Africa are still poor.

Given such a morose picture of causality underlying the endemic poverty in Africa, it should be no wonder that policy implications remain rather disheartening. For the sake of argument and with the assumption that policy makers are looking to improve the plight of millions of their fellow human beings, let us turn to another framework in which to analyze the failure of response by many Western nations. What has remained the dominant paradigm in much of international diplomacy and political theory has been correctly identified by political theorist Charles Beitz as an international skepticism of morality. He forcefully argues that such skepticism is founded on two premises that accept a Hobbesian picture of the world and applies a kind of Social Darwinism to the international arena. To look outside the box of Realist politics and consider moral principles as a driving force behind international politics might have beneficial results that lead to higher standards of living and higher economic growth for many of the world’s poor. If, instead of the Hans Morgenthau analysis of anarchic systems in the international domain, we were to adopt a Rawlsian principle of justice that considers the progress of a nation as dependent on the condition of the least advantaged in its society, we might find moral justification for radically shifting international policy towards poverty reduction in Africa.

What is missing from most international agreements is the political will power of many of the world’s most strongest nations, as a mere pittance of their GDP is actually contributed to fight disease and help the poor. Consider the United States: despite claims of a tripling of aid to Africa under the Bush Administration, the Brookings Institute reports that total aid to Africa still only totals close to $3.2 billion, 53% of which is reserved for emergency food aid and does not aid in efforts to establish sustainable development. What continues to play a fundamental role in deciding which policies are pursued is the notion of rational self-interest, which remains elusive of any kind of moral interpretation. If politics is removed from this domain and notions of justice, equality, and fairness find acceptance among the international community, we may be fortunate enough to live to see the reduction of poverty in Africa by means of international diplomacy.

Sources:

Beitz, Charles, Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton 1979

http://www.prosi.net.mu/mag98/356sept/sachs356.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Africa

http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/rice/20050627.htm