Reflections On The 4th Non-Award Of The Mo Ibrahim Prize For Achievement In African Leadership

The failure of the Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership adjudicating committee to announce a winner for the award in 2013 last Monday once again cast the global spotlight on the issue of leadership in Africa. As usual, it did so in a negative sense.

This is the fourth time the multimillion dollar award, intended to celebrate excellence in African leadership, has been left unclaimed since its establishment in 2006, having previously not been awarded in 2009, 2010 and 2012.

Eponymously named after its sole benefactor Mo Ibrahim — a British-born, London-based, Sudanese telecom tycoon and philanthropist, who is also an ardent promoter of good governance and leadership in Africa — the Ibrahim Prize comprise of an initial cash amount of $5m spread over ten years, plus another $200,000 each year for life, all given to the winner. A further $200,000 is made available annually to be used to support a cause of the winner's choosing.

This generous package is specifically doled out to a former African head of state or government who: has left office within the past three years; was democratically elected; served his constitutionally-mandated term; and demonstrated exceptional leadership, which is interpreted as developing their country, lifting their people out of poverty, and paving the way for sustainable and equitable prosperity.

Its previous laureates include: Joaquim Alberto Chissano of Mozambique (2007); Festus Gontebanye Mogae of Botswana (2008); and Pedro de Verona Rodrigues Pires of Cape Verde (2011). Apart from these, two other notable Africans — Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu — who, despite not meeting the prize's strict criteria, were nevertheless deemed fit to merit special recognition for their exceptional leadership achievements by the London-based Mo Ibrahim Foundation set up to manage the awards, which also produces an annual comprehensive scorecard of governance in Africa's 52 nations. Nelson Mandela was made an honorary laureate during the inaugural award in 2007 for his outstanding leadership track record and long struggle against injustice, apartheid to be specific. For Desmond Tutu, it was his lifelong commitment to 'speaking truth to power' that earned him a one-off $1m dollar cash prize from the Foundation in 2012.

Considering the amount involved, the Ibrahim Prize is by far the most attractive gifts any ex-head of state in the world could dream of having; it, in fact, dwarfs the amount given to the winner of the most prestigious, but not uncontroversial, global leadership award: the Noble Peace Prize, making it the world's biggest individual prize. But having so far found only three former African heads of state worthy to receive this “noble” award in its 6-year history, the Ibrahim Prize has already garnered the reputation of being elusive.

And the failure of the awarding body to name a winner for the prize this year has attracted a barrage of criticisms, criticisms which have come from both within and outside the continent.

For some, this decision sends a wrong signal about Africa to the outside world — the signal that Africa is inundated with selfish leaders who care less about their people other than their personal comfort, thereby reinforcing, rather helping to reverse, old prejudices about Africans, which incidentally constitutes one of those perceptions the award seeks to change.

Others, including Simon Allison, a former Mo Ibrahim Foundation staff, are of the view that the award's criteria is simply too restrictive, in that it overlooks other potentially qualified candidates such as distinguished diplomats, elder statesmen, governors and civil servants; and unrealistic, considering the low turnover of African presidents, in relation to the three year remit of the award. It has even been alleged that the years of dryness is simply because the high amount involved is impossible for Mo Ibrahim to dish out annually, a conspiracy theory of some sort.

However, there have been calls for reforms to be made to the award's eligibility requirements, to allow many more Africans — including non-politicians who have exhibited exceptional leadership — to be considered for it as a means of encouraging more acts of good leadership on the continent.

But in an interview with several media outlets following the prize committees' announcement of its decision not to award the prize this year, Mo Ibrahim has defended every aspect of the prize, insisting that the four years of bareness is testament to the credibility of the prize, and to the failure of African leaders to demonstrate the kind of leadership they are looking for. He's also justified his decision not to enlarge the award's original remit to include non-former heads of state in response to criticisms regarding its limited scope, remarking that the Ibrahim Prize is a special brand which was created with a very specific purpose and target group in mind: African presidents as tools of change.

Many, however, seem less satisfied with Mr. Ibrahim's responses. Considering the public nature of the prize, I think it's legitimate for the African public to have a say in its architecture, in order to ensure that it continues to receive the needed public support it requires, before it loses its public appeal, a direction it frankly seems to be inching towards now.

The Key Question
But the salient question we need to ask is: should the Ibrahim Prize simply be reformed because fewer African heads of state qualify for it or that it is missing out on the true exceptional leaders on the continent? In other words, is the problem the narrow (or even wrong) scope of the award or the general scarcity of good leaders in Africa?

To offer my opinion on the issue, I have chosen to look at the three key aspects of the Ibrahim Prize and examine their relevancy: purpose of the award; effectiveness of the award package; and relevance of the selection criteria.

Purpose Of The Award
As per the information provided on the Mo Ibrahim Foundation website, the overarching goal of the Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership is to celebrate excellence in African leadership by: recognizing and celebrating African leaders who have transformed their nations; highlighting exceptional role models for the continent; and ensuring that Africa continues to benefit from the experience and expertise of its exceptional leaders, by enabling them to continue in other public roles on the continent.

From the above, it is sufficiently clear that Mo Ibrahim's focus is the apex of political governance in Africa. For a continent that has for decades endured the consequences of bad political leadership — poverty, disease, famine, conflict, illiteracy, etc — attributed to greed, sheer incompetence and visionlessness among its political class — the idea of nurturing and inspiring the spirit of selfless leadership in Africa by recognizing those heads of state who make serving their people the epitome of their calling rather than oppressing or robbing them, as has been the norm in the past, is certainly a laudable one.

As many African pundits have argued over the years, the problem of underdevelopment in Africa is largely that of poor leadership, and that solving Africa's leadership 'crisis' is key to lifting the continent out its development quagmire. And given the huge expectations that that attend the position of presidency in Africa, as well as the unfretted powers African heads of state enjoy compared to their Western counterparts, which gives them ample opportunity to positively affect the lives of their people and help tackle the many setbacks to Africa's socio-economic take-off, it is probably not surprising that Mo Ibrahim has decided to devote his attention, resources and influence to improve upon the area of governance and leadership in Africa, culminating in the establishment of this special award for (ex-) presidents, which is again a commendable initiative.

Excessive Political Focus
At the same time, however, focusing exclusively on political leadership in Africa in general and presidents in particular raises a number of problems, not least three. First, it gives the impression that the problem of leadership in Africa is purely or predominantly political, which isn't true necessarily. As every African would readily attest to, the problem of leadership in Africa transcends the political sphere, permeating all segments of the African society. In fact, its starting point is the home, where attitudes are formed, values are taught and behavior, right or wrong, is modelled. Absentee fathers, broken homes, irresponsible parenting and wrong education are all to blame for Africa's leadership predicaments. Therefore, any effort at encouraging good leadership in Africa should include tackling the root causes of the problem, and not only focus at the top of the social or political ladder, which is more or less symptomatic of the scale of the problem.

Secondly, contrary to the implicit assumption that the major obstacles to transformational leadership in Africa are faced by ambitious politicians seeking to improve upon the lot of their people, which an exclusive focus on politicians connotes, the real impediments to good leadership and change are encountered by ordinary Africans with great ideas: the recent graduate or diasporan African who, for love of their country, chooses to return home to contribute to national development — whether by setting up a business, school or even presenting a proposal to reform the way something is done in their country, be it the system of education or the running of public service — only to be frustrated because of their lack of political clout, or systemic inefficiencies, or even because of other people's jealousy or unfounded fear of seeing someone become more successful than them; the competent, hard-working civil servant or head of department who gets undermined or removed from office due to their perceived political affiliation or because people are unwillingness to put up with the new requirements demanded by a change being introduced by that person to improve upon the efficiency or accountability of their office or organization.

I can share countless stories — of ordinary African citizens, from one country to another, whose attempt to bring change were or are being obstructed incidentally by politicians — to buttress the point being made here, that the hurdles to transformative leadership in African are mostly faced not by Africa's powerful and oft-short-sighted political elites, but by the powerless and visionary African citizens who desire change, which leads me to my third problem with the exclusive political orientation of the Ibrahim Prize: the impression that the real heroes or role models of selfless and exemplary leadership in Africa can only be found among the political class.

This cannot simply be true! As I have just pointed out above, the initiators of change or records of excellent leadership in Africa do not often come from its always-talking-but-do-nothing or little bunch of selfish politicians; they instead come from the extraordinary efforts and determination of ordinary Africans, whose accomplishments are often overshadowed by political scandals and other negative happenings on the continent, the sort of things that attract international headlines.

The True Heroes of African Leadership
For me, these are the heroes of good leadership in Africa: those, who, in spite of the mammoth challenges they face, including personal ones, have been able to achieve something great for their nation or people they serve. The may be businessmen, teachers, educationists, entrepreneurs, religious leaders or social activists.

Included in this list are the likes of Dr. Frimpong-Boateng, the first local Ghanaian heart surgeon who returned to his homeland after completing his studies in Germany to set up the country's first and only cardiothoracic centre in 1992, committing his personal savings into it; Pastor Mensah Otabil — founder and general overseer of the International Central Gospel Church in Ghana, who overcame personal adversity to establish Ghana's first and largest private university, Central University College, in 1997 and inspired many young Ghanaians to great heights in business and other spheres of life; Patrick Awuah Jr,, who abandoned his lucrative career as a former program manager at Microsoft to found Ashesi University, Ghana's first private liberal arts college; and 27-year old Dr. Ola Orekunrin, a UK-born and educated Nigerian, who recently set up West Africa's first air ambulance service, Flying Doctors Nigeria, in 2010, following the tragic loss of her sister few years back.

These — and many more Africans like them, some of whom I know nothing about, who have made great a difference in the lives of their fellow citizens, giving hope, opportunity or justice to many of the continent's destitute masses — are, for me, the true role models on the continent. They're the embodiment of excellence, selflessness, discipline, integrity and ingenuity required in exceptional leadership.

And these are the ones who ought to be celebrated internationally, whose untold stories ought to be told for the whole world to hear, who ought to be supported to transmit their skills, knowledge and experience into Africa's next generation of leaders.

Off course, I don't mean to say that African politicians, or heads of state for that matter, do not — or cannot — play any meaningful role in the wellbeing of their country or people. They do and can, although, considering the vast amount of resources, power and opportunities at their disposal, which none of those achievers I've mentioned above had, most African leaders do little.

Emerging New Breed of African Politicians: Reformers or Revolutionaries?

Despite the abysmal performance of most African leaders, the fact that three former presidents on the continent, each of whom achieved something extraordinary for their country, have already received the Ibrahim Prize in its six-year history is also a testament to the fact that a new generation of politicians is rising in Africa, a generation that is smarter, more educated, less dictatorial, less brutal and less corrupt.

Apart from the prize winners, others such as John Evans Atta Mills of Ghana, who passed away last year before completing his first term in office, and his predecessor John Agyekum Kufuor, Nigeria's Obasanjo, and Tanzania's Benjamin Mpaka, as well as a number of incumbent African presidents who did — or have — not won the prize, nevertheless represent a new generation of leaders emerging in Africa.

These crop of leaders were (or are) democratically freely and fairly elected, generally have respect the constitution, respect human rights, tolerate opposition voices, preside over liberal economic policies, and typically don't exceed their constitutionally mandated limits — obvious qualities which were missing in their predecessor generation: the likes of Mobuto Sese Seko, Idi Amin, Eyadema, Mohammed Gadhafi and their surviving remnants — the strongmen denounced by Obama in his famous July 11, 2009 speech to Africans in Accra.

Yet, compared to some of the continent's first post-independence generation of leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere and Jomo Kenyatta, the pioneers of pan-Africanism who articulated a compelling self-sufficient economic agenda and unified political vision for Africa, rightly founded on an unwavering faith in the Blackman's ability, but wrongly shaped by flawed Marxist philosophy, the current generation of African leaders are uninspiring and unexceptional.

At best, they're reformist, but Nkrumah and his compatriots were simply revolutionary! And this is the kind of visionary leadership Africa needs in order to win itself from the cycle of dependency, conflict and disease that have ravaged the continent for years, and to transform its economy, society and people, to claim the 21st century as its own. In short, we need a new generation of strongmen, strongmen who are strong-willed and focused but also have faith in the rule of law, accountability, and democratic governance.

Effectiveness of Award Package
Now to the package itself, $5m along with its related fringe benefits, is certainly very attractive, as I have pointed out already. And so I have no qualms with the amount involved, especially considering the fact that many ex-African heads of state don't get treated with the dignity they deserve, especially when succeeded by an opposition government, which some argue contributes to the high degree of kleptocracy in the continent, although this situation is changing today, with many nations drawing up better retirement packages for their former leaders, regardless of their political affiliation.

The only critical question to ask here is how effective is the prospect of receiving this package in changing the behaviour of sitting African heads of state, both the good and the bad? My view is, for the bad ones, it has no effect! This is because, as Sophie Mcbain has argued, "$5m may be the world's biggest cash prize, but it's pocket money for the average kleptomaniac dictator", which is to say that it pales in comparison to what Africa's corrupt despots like Gadhafi or Sani Abacha amassed for themselves while in power. Therefore, $5m is not enough a bait to lure Africa's autocrats to give up their grip on power or implement democratic reforms.

Even for the good ones, it is difficult to assert that they will be motivated to carry out the needed reforms solely on the basis of getting this bonus after retirement, as Mo Ibrahim would like us to believe. I think that just like the bad ones, their good conscience is what will guide them to act good or bad, not necessarily because of the prospect of receiving this particular award after leaving office, although I may be wrong. If anything at all, receiving the award while in office may do a better job at that.

Relevance of Criteria
Now to the last issue of who can qualify for the Ibrahim Prize, which, as we know or have seen, is former heads of state who have left office within the past three years of the award, having democratic credentials and exceptional leadership record. The democratic requirement is absolutely critical, although I suppose the emphasis is on credible elections, rather than merely satisfying the election ritual, whether bogus or cleanly-organized — a condition some have suggested disqualified Kenya's Moi Kebaki, whose 2007 re-election was embroiled in electoral despites which led to widespread violence, from being given the award this year.

Having already made the case for the award to be extended to non-political leaders in Africa who have demonstrated excellent leadership, including civil servants and statesmen, I will therefore restrict myself here to commenting on the rationale of limiting the award to only former heads of state, not current presidents or even politicians of lower rank.

Sitting Vs Former Heads of State
In his interview with Al Jazeera last Monday, Mo Ibrahim clearly made the case for focusing his award on African heads of state — the logic being that, as people with enormous power, African presidents have the greatest opportunity to affect the lives of their people in a more direct way than any other individual for that matter. That I completely concur with.

However, he's yet to justify why he's chosen to focus solely on ex-leaders, and not incumbents. A re-examination of the award's purpose statement however provides some clues about the reason for this decision, which is to tap into the experience, knowledge and skills of Africa's exceptional past leaders, who, in Mo Ibrahim's view, are currently being underutilized, for the benefit of the entire continent.

This would be a great idea, if that was really the case. But the fact remains that Africa's good former heads of state — the very ones who are likely to be considered for the Ibrahim award — get occupied with international appointments, whether as a peace envoy for the UN or as an AU ambassador to another African country, or they get engaged with some other global initiatives, soon after leaving office. As a matter of fact, even the not-too-good ones get some international assignment to do.

So the notion that the award is intended to celebrate and put to good use the expertise of excellent African former presidents because they're under-celebrated and underutilized is partially true, despite my not opposing the idea in principle.

But the main issue here is which is more effective: giving the award to siting heads of state or past heads of state? My own view is that giving the Ibrahim Prize to sitting presidents might do a better job in motivating them to do a great job whilst in power than when they have left office. This is because once they have left office, they have limited ability as to what they can do, compared to when were in office. The other issue is, as experience has shown, not all African heads of state live to see their third year after leaving office, and given that the prize is not awarded posthumously, it makes even more sense to me for it to be extended to current heads of state.

The Issue of Timing
It is also not clear why the award's time frame is three years post-presidency. This, as Mr. Allison pointed out, seriously restricts the pool of candidates that can be considered for the award each year, in light of Africa's low annual presidential turnover, linked to infrequent elections and high incumbent retention rates, whether genuine or manipulated. Knowing all these realities, one would have thought that the award givers would make it open-ended, so that all past leaders, regardless of when they left office, can be considered for it.

The added advantage with this option is that equally good candidates who aren't able to win the award due to stiff competition, as Mo Ibrahim himself is already predicting will occur in the near future, can have the opportunity to be reconsidered in future rounds, without being disqualified merely on the basis of having exceeded the three year deadline. Besides, making the award time open-ended will allow those leaders who may have 'wrongfully' been accused of wrongdoing while in office, which might prevent the award committee from considering them, the time to 'clear' their name.

Presidents Vs Other Lower-Rank Politicians: The Case of Babatunde Fashola, A Rising Political Star in Nigeria and Africa

My last item of concern is the Ibrahim Prize's exclusion of other African politicians: parliamentarians, ministers, governors, etc. Off course, the reason for this decision has repeatedly been made clear and needs no repetition. But at time when many lower-rank politicians in Africa, even with their relatively limited resources and power, are outshining their heads of state, wouldn't it simply be prudent for Mo Ibrahim to celebrate these heroes, even if he chooses to restrict his award to politicians?

One such African politician who fits this category is Babatunde Fashola, governor of Lagos. Visionary, corruption-free, action-oriented, focused, and resolute, Mr. Fashola has taken on one of the toughest jobs in Africa: governing one of Africa's (then rung-down) megacities, Lagos.

Yet under four years, many of Lagos's ills — crime, filth, dilapidated infrastructure and notorious traffic jams which it was known for — were brought under control through innovative approaches. And today, thanks to the able leadership of the same person, Lagos is regaining its lost glory; in fact, it's on foot to attaining a far greater glory: a model global megacity in Africa.

Given the opportunity to assess them, many Nigerians, especially those in Lagos, would rank Governor Fashola above their president Goodluck Jonathan, evidenced by the incessant calls for the him to seek a presidential bid after completing his second term in office in 2015. In fact, in my own view, Governor Fashola is the only current African politician I deem fit to receive the Mo Ibrahim Prize.

Mr. Fashola is an example of the new breed of politicians I hinted above which Africa currently needs. They may not be overly ideological like Kwame Nkrumah, charismatic as Jerry Rawlings, or even as educated as Robert Mugabe. And they needn't be! Practicality, pragmatism and action are what is required of them, not excellent speeches, empty promises and mere rhetoric, which have left Africa marking time, while other regions take giant leaps.

A Final Note
Wrapping up my rather unexpectedly long reflection, I'd say that the Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership is a good and timely initiative for Africa. However, its narrow focus on past heads of state with no more than three years of post-presidency is ill-conceived.

It is now time for the prize givers to extend it to all Africans who have demonstrated outstanding leadership and service to their country and people, be they politicians or not. Apart from showing to the rest of the world the rich breadth and stories of good leadership in Africa, including non-politicians in the list of people to be considered for the prize will also provide Africa's vast youthful population, often vulnerable to the corrupting influence of divisionary politics, with alternative role models who can truly inspire and let them know, among other things, that they need not become politicians or presidents for that matter to be able to make a difference in the lives of others, or for their extraordinary sacrifices and hard work to be recognized.

About Author
* Komiete Tetteh is a Ghana citizen currently based in Vancouver, Canada.

Mo Ibrahim