Inside Europe’s savior complex

Those who give aid insist on a series of reforms that seek to turn the local state into a replica of the donor country and local elites into cadres of the new catechism of “good governance”. Here they demand recipient governments adopt particular institutions as in Western countries: separation of powers by having an independent judiciary and parliament; a multiparty system of government; certain procurement, trade and investment laws; a free press, etc. Today institutions have emerged that give scores on being a good student – the World Bank Doing Business Index, the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index etc.  But the aim and effect of these reforms is largely to displace existing, or stifle the development of, local capital in favour multinational capital.

Like under colonial rule, the aim of foreign aid is not so much to develop the local economy as to open it for takeover by multinational capital. The spokespersons of these foreign interests: presidents, legislators, NGO activists, local business interests (largely commission agents that make money connecting multinational firms to local business opportunities, Marxists used to call them compradors), bureaucrats, pundits and journalists etc. dominate public policy debates and are feted in western capitals.

This local coalition defends foreign financial assistance, foreign direct investment and other forms of intrusion into Africa’s sovereignty such as promotion of human rights, democracy, and the ICC as international justice the cures of our ills. They make these arguments even though none of them can quote a single country that developed through foreign aid or foreign direct investment.

The aid industry is backed by billions of dollars in development spending. Its international and local agents form the most powerful voice on public policy. This is what makes foreign aid a difficult movement to fight, but it is hardly the only one. The use of the word “aid” appeals to our human sentiment for charity – who would say helping feed a hungry village, vaccinating a vulnerable community or educating the poor is a bad thing?

True some of the things foreign aid does help individuals and communities. But such charity is not the stimulant of development. This issue was raised by one of the panelists who claimed that Germany today is developed because it was assisted by the United States through the Marshal Plan – a huge financial aid program by America to Western Europe after World War Two.

The Marshal Plan funds were not given for the development of Germany. By 1945, Germany was the most industrialised country in Europe manufacturing cars, planes, tanks etc. and leading in nuclear, missile and rockets research. Indeed, it had higher manufacturing per capita than the USA. Its people’s norms, values, habits and mentalities were of an advanced capitalist society. World War Two destroyed physical infrastructure, not the skills – technical and organisational – that were already embedded in its people.  An injection of money in such a society would stimulate rapid recovery from the effects of war.

The African countries that receive international aid are still peasant societies with high levels of inter and intra community mistrust, low levels of the diffusion of technology and capitalist norms, values, habits and mentalities have not yet penetrated the social consciousness of the vast majority of people. Even if foreign aid was well intentioned – and it often is not – its effects cannot be like those of the Marshal Plan on Germany because of these differences.

****