Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Tuesday 12 April 2016

Why Zuma's ‘African way’ is at odds with the African Union's vision

Joleen Steyn Kotze, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
South Africans are mobilising against what they see as an inherently corrupt president. The international community has also joined in the clarion call for his resignation.
Corruption, state capture, and scandal lie at the core of demands for President Jacob Zuma to go. The dominant narrative is that he has acted in only his self-interest with little regard for the country.
Yet Zuma survived another impeachment motion in parliament with full support from the governing African National Congress, the party he leads.
In the midst of the mounting pressure, Zuma has urged that African problems be dealt with “in an African way”. He told supporters:
I’ll be very happy that we solve the African problems in the African way because if we solve them only legally they become too complicated. Law looks at one side only, they don’t look at any other thing … They [the courts] deal with cold facts and I was complaining [about] that, but they’re dealing with warm bodies. That’s the contradiction.
But, what exactly is the African way?
A cursory glance at the African Union’s Agenda 2063 shows the importance of institutions underpinned by principles of accountability and good governance. This entails transformed institutions and a new way of governance, accountable to the people.
Indeed, the African Union stresses that:
we recognise that a prosperous, integrated, an united Africa, based on good governance, democracy, social inclusion, respect for human rights, justice, and the rule of law are the necessary pre-conditions for a peaceful and conflict-free continent.
This recognition stems from having “learned from our past”. As a result there is a pledge to “take into account the lessons” as Africa embarks on Agenda 2063.

Africa’s seven aspirations

By signing up to Agenda 2063, African countries – including South Africa – commit to advancing socio-political and socio-economic transformation. The agenda captures seven aspirations of the African people:
  • A prosperous Africa based on inclusive growth and sustainable development;
  • An integrated continent, politically united. It should be based on the ideals of the Pan-Africanism and the vision of the African Renaissance;
  • An Africa of good governance, democracy, respect for human rights, justice, and the rule of law;
  • A peaceful and secure Africa;
  • An Africa with a strong cultural identity, common heritage, values and ethics;
  • An Africa where development is people-driven, unleashing the potential of the its women and youth; and
  • Africa as a strong, united and influential global player and partner.

Civil society demanding accountability

As civic pressure mounts for him to resign, Zuma’s stance of dealing with African problems in an African way cements notions that constitutional principles of good governance and accountability don’t always apply to African presidents. Or, if they do apply, they only do so in certain instances.
Growing civic mobilisation against Zuma demonstrates the opposite. It shows that Africans will move to hold leaders accountable when they act improperly or undermine their constitutional obligations.
There have been numerous instances of this happening across the continent. We have seen large scale mobilisation of young Africans against presidents-for-life, corruption and stalled development.
The Black Monday Movement mourns the loss of billions through corruption in Uganda. Using rhythm and rhyme Senegal’s hip hop movement, in concert with political parties and other social movements, successfully blocked a presidential third term. They mobilised people when former president Abdoulaye Wade lost touch with Senegalese aspirations.

Undermining South Africa’s leadership

Agenda 2063 commits African leaders to pursue a people-centred and transformational leadership. It demands that leaders be held accountable for failure to abide by constitutional limitations on power or for corrupt activities. It recognises that leaders who act with impunity when breaking the law become a liability to the continent’s aspirations.
If the ANC ignores the calls for Zuma’s resignation it may undermine South Africa’s leadership on the continent. It creates the idea that, if South Africa’s president can undermine the constitution with impunity, accountability and good governance may be ignored for personal political goals.
It raises questions on what basis South Africa will be able to condemn similar behaviour of other African countries. More importantly, it limits South Africa’s moral capital to advance the vision of Agenda 2063.
The Conversation

Joleen Steyn Kotze, Associate Professor of Political Science, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Sunday 27 March 2016

What the US can learn from Cuba during Obama's historic visit

obama in cuba
Not quite brothers in arm

Dnise Baden, University of Southampton


As the first US president visits Cuba in 88 years, many Americans hope that Barack Obama’s trip will lead to a normalisation of relations with Cuba, opening the Caribbean nation up to the American values of liberty, free trade and democracy. Cuba undoubtedly has its problems, as numerous articles attest. But my experience as a visitor and researcher there shows a different side to the story and there is much the capitalist world can learn from Cuba, too.
According to the UN Development Index, Cuba is ranked as “highly developed” with a life expectancy of 79.4 years – better than that of the US (79.1). It has also made notable achievements in education, infant mortality, gender and racial equality, and has low crime rates that are among the best in the world, all despite its GDP being a fraction of the US.
Cuba’s health system in particular is the envy of many and the Cuban pharmaceutical sector is punching way above its weight in terms of research, value for money, and innovation into new treatments for important diseases such as the first lung cancer vaccine. So how has Cuba pulled this off?
On a research trip to Cuba, colleagues and I talked to the top directors of BioCubaFarma, a new umbrella organisation that brings together different branches of the pharmaceutical industry. The interviews revealed a number of reasons for Cuban pharma’s success – in particular, their strategy, their values, their structure and their business model.
Strategy and values go hand in hand. The values of the Cuban revolution are solidarity, social justice and equality. Healthcare and education are key means of achieving these. As a state-owned entity, BioCubaFarma considers its shareholders to be the Cuban population so its priority is their health needs. This may sound obvious, but the same does not apply to US or European pharmaceutical companies, where the primary strategic priority is profit.

Cuba has a top notch healthcare system. EPA/Alejandro Ernesto

The pursuit of profit means there is a tendency to develop large numbers of different versions of the same drug – companies only need to demonstrate they perform better than placebo, not better than existing drugs. Time and money is poured into so-called “me too” drugs for common diseases that are suffered by those who can afford to pay for them. There are, for example, numerous similar treatments for common complaints such as acid reflux and high cholesterol.
In the US, the need gap that arises from developing these unnecessary drugs is bridged by marketing and even disease-mongering to encourage people to buy its drugs. Thus resources that could have gone into research and development into new drugs are channelled into advertising. There are also inefficiencies arising from competition as many pharmaceutical companies chase the same targets. Simply put, Cuban Pharma is punching above its weight in innovation and development of important new medical treatments simply because it has health needs, rather than profit, as its first priority.

Moving forward

The US hopes that normalising its relations with Cuba and having a stronger influence will help promote democracy and free trade. In the West, there is often the assumption that the rise of capitalism and democracy in Cuba is inevitable. Yet the pride Cubans feel for their revolutionary history and their determination not to surrender the gains they made from the revolution should not be under-estimated.
My research indicates that Cubans will be very selective in their business partners and careful about retaining sovereignty. They are unlikely to allow market forces or business interests to rule in Cuba. I also found that there was little call from Cubans themselves for a multi-party democracy in Cuba, in part because of the high level of direct public participation in policy-making.
Cubans hope desperately for an end to the trade embargo with the US and for an influx of materials they need to rebuild their beautiful but crumbling buildings. The Cuban people will also be glad to have access to a wider variety of goods in their shops. But some Cubans also fear that the US has changed its tactics but not its aim to see regime change in Cuba.

In need of repair. EPA/Jeffrey Arguedas
In need of repair. EPA/Jeffrey Arguedas

Cuba dislikes and distrusts American foreign policy, with good reason. There have been hundreds of CIA sponsored plots on Cuban leader Fidel Castro’s life, and numerous covert attempts at subversion that still continue. Yet the Cuban people and the leadership welcome open debate and interaction with American visitors and are more confident that they will convince them of the virtues of the Cuban way than vice versa.
Indeed, if efficiency is achieving more for less, then Cuba is one of the most efficient countries in the world. Cuba has been rated the only sustainable country in the world, whereas if we all consumed at the rate of the US, we would need five planets.
Despite its poverty and severe restrictions on resources due to the ongoing embargo, Cuban achievements in terms of health, education, international solidarity, culture, sport, literacy and pharmaceutical innovation rank alongside those of first world countries. So maybe we should be asking not what the US can teach Cuba, but what can they learn?
The Conversation
Denise Baden, Associate Professor in Business Ethics, University of Southampton
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Friday 18 March 2016

NIGERIA:SENATE PRESIDENT IN COURT FOR FALSE ASSET DECLARATION

Senate President Bukola Saraki has arrived the Code of Conduct Tribunal where he is facing charges of alleged false asset declaration and corruption.
Mr. Saraki's bid to thwart the trial failed after the Supreme Court ruled that the tribunal had powers and was properly constituted to hear the case against Mr. Saraki, a former governor of Kwara State.
Last Friday, the tribunal adjourned the case by a week.
The tribunal took the decision after Mr. Saraki's new lawyer, Kanu Agabi, asked the judges to rule first on the senate president's objection to the powers of the tribunal to try him.
Mr. Saraki arrived the tribunal at 9: 54 am on Friday.
His counsel, Mr. Agabi, said there were 80 lawyers on his team, saying his client would surely emerge winner in the event of a voting contest.
"We are 80 of us on this side, my lord," he said. "At some point let the matter be put to vote."
The prosecution lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs, said the defence team had served him with a notice of a motion requesting that the charge be quashed.
He said based on the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, the new application was not ripe for hearing.
Mr. Jacobs said the sections clearly state that such objection shall not be raised.

Obama tells donors to back Clinton in White House race

Hillary Clinton in Tampa, Florida, on Thursday.
Hillary Clinton in Tampa, Florida, on Thursday. Photo: Bloomberg
In unusually candid remarks, President Barack Obama privately told a group of Democratic donors Friday that Sen. Bernie Sanders is nearing the point where his campaign against Hillary Clinton will come to an end and that the party must soon come together to back her.
Obama acknowledged that Clinton is perceived to have weaknesses as a candidate and that some Democrats did not view her as authentic.
But he played down the importance of authenticity, noting that President George W. Bush whose record he ran aggressively against in 2008 was once praised for his authenticity.
Obama made the remarks after reporters had left a fundraising event in Austin, Texas, for the Democratic National Committee. The comments were described by three people in the room for the event, all of whom were granted anonymity to describe a candid moment with the president. The comments were later confirmed by a White House official.
He chose his words carefully and did not explicitly call on Sanders to depart the race, according to those in the room. Still, those in attendance said in interviews that they took his comments as a signal to Sanders that perpetuating his campaign, which is now an uphill climb, could only help the Republicans recapture the White House.
Obama's message came at a critical juncture for Sanders, who had just upset Clinton in the Michigan primary and has been trying to convince Democrats that his campaign is not over, despite Clinton's formidable lead in the delegate tally.
Obama has been careful in public to avoid disparaging Sanders, given his deeper history and relationship with Clinton. Obama also does not want to alienate the liberal voters who have flocked to Sanders.
Obama acknowledged what have emerged as the central complaints about Clinton among Democratic activists: that she is not generating enough excitement in her campaign and lacks the "authenticity" of Sanders.
Those in attendance described an urgency in Obama's tone as he suggested that Democrats needed to come together to prevent an opening for the Republicans, whose leading candidate is Donald Trump, to exploit.
Obama addressed the group four nights before Tuesday's nominating contests, in which Clinton was heavily favoured. As it happened, Clinton won at least four of the five states that voted – Missouri has yet to be called – further padding her lead in the race for delegates.
Obama indicated that he knew some people were not "excited" by Clinton's candidacy, a White House official confirmed.
But, while he stressed that he was not endorsing either candidate, and that both would make good presidents, Obama went on to lavish praise on Clinton, describing her as smart, tough and experienced, and said she would continue the work of his administration. Sanders has very publicly criticised Obama on certain policies and has called for a "political revolution."
Obama said he understood the appeal to voters of a candidate who is authentic, the official said. But he also reminded the Texas donors in the room that Bush was considered authentic when he was running for president, suggesting that being authentic did not necessarily translate into being a good president, in his view.
The Austin event was hosted by Kirk Rudy, a real estate executive, and raised money for the Democratic National Committee. Attendees paid as much as $33,400 a ticket.
Sanders is trying to reassure supporters and the public that he is still in pursuit of the presidency, despite the long odds against him. Some of his supporters have complained that the Democratic National Committee has favoured Clinton in the primary battle.
Sanders' campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, and his senior campaign adviser, Tad Devine, told reporters Wednesday afternoon they believed the Vermont senator could still make up Clinton's delegate lead. They added that Sanders expected to do very well in coming contests in Arizona, Wisconsin, Idaho, Utah, Washington and New York.
"We are literally about halfway through," Weaver said.
Devine echoed those sentiments.
"We agree we are behind, but we also think we are going to win this game," he said. "We are just not intimidated by the numbers."
Both men also said that it would be unfair to not allow voters in all states to be able to cast their ballots for Sanders and that he had the money to continue his campaign through the Democratic convention this summer.

Not continuing to run would be ‘outrageously undemocratic,’ Bernie Sanders says


Bernie Sanders acknowledged Thursday that he has “a hard fight” ahead to catch Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential race but said he is still angling to win and that it would be “outrageously undemocratic” not to continue.
“Our progressive agenda has enormous support,” the senator from Vermont said in an interview ahead of a rally planned here. “For anyone to rule us out is making a mistake.”
Sanders conducted a round of media interviews Thursday afternoon for the first time since losing all five primaries to Clinton that were on the calendar Tuesday, two of them by relatively narrow margins.
Clinton now leads Sanders among pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination, 1,139 to 825, according to a tally by the Associated Press. To catch the former secretary of state, Sanders would need to win about 58 percent of the delegates at stake in the primaries and caucuses during the second half of the race.
Sanders also lags far behind Clinton in the number of elected officials and other party leaders known as superdelegates who also have a say on the party’s nominee.
In a fundraising solicitation Wednesday, Sanders told supporters that he has “an extremely good chance” to win nearly every state that votes in the coming month, starting with Arizona, Idaho and Utah next Tuesday.
During the interview, he declined to classify any of the upcoming contests as “must-win” and said it was “hard to say” how he would fare in Arizona, the biggest prize among the three states on Tuesday.
A Merrill poll released this week showed Clinton leading Sanders in Arizona 50 percent to 24 percent with 26 percent undecided. Sanders aides have said their polling shows a much tighter race.
Clinton’s campaign, meanwhile, signaled Thursday that it intends to make a statement in Arizona.
“Bernie thinks it is the beginning of his turnaround,” Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said on Twitter. “We think we are going to win. Showdown!”
Looking beyond Tuesday, Sanders said he is heartened that “we have the largest states in the country yet to come,” adding that he is confident he can do well in delegate-rich California and New York.
“I’ve got a shot to win California, and I think we can win it big,” Sanders said, adding that some of the most progressive states in the country are on the West Coast and have yet to cast ballots.
Sanders bristled at a question about whether there were other aims he could accomplish by staying in the race, such as gaining leverage in crafting the Democratic Party platform or continuing to keep income inequality on the national agenda.
“I’ve been asked that question a hundred times, and it’s a bad question,” Sanders said. “The goal is that I get elected president of the United States.”
Sanders reiterated that he has no intention of getting out of the race before the Democratic convention in July.
“Why would you not allow half the people to vote?” he asked. “That is outrageously undemocratic.”
Sanders did allow that one “residual benefit” of his presence in the race, win or lose, is “to show the entire world that there are many millions of people who are dissatisfied with establishment, status quo politics.”
Sanders also said in the interview that he thought his overall performance on Tuesday was stronger than it has been cast by much of the media, which he said tend to focus too much on winning states rather than delegates received. Because delegates are awarded on a proportional basis, candidates can pick up considerable amounts of delegates even when they lose.
Sanders noted that while Clinton won Illinois and Missouri, the delegate counts there were nearly identical.
He also noted that he lost North Carolina to Clinton by about 14 percentage points, a smaller margin than other Southern states, where Clinton has run very strongly.
“That’s not great, but it’s better than what I thought would happen,” Sanders said.
“The biggest disappointment for me Tuesday was Ohio,” Sanders said, adding that he thought he had an outside shot of winning the state.
 Clinton prevailed by nearly 14 percentage points.

Thursday 17 March 2016

How Brazil missed its golden South-South co-operation moment

Lídia Cabral, Institute of Development Studies


Compared to China or India, Brazil is a relatively small player in development aid. Yet it has managed to make a mark in Africa and globally, especially under the leadership of charismatic Lula da Silva.
From 2003 to 2010 Lula led an unprecedented shift in the country’s foreign policy towards the global South. He also helped elevate Brazil to the status of a global player.
Back in 2010 the outlook was promising yet cautious. Brazil’s aid programme was dubbed a “global model in waiting”. Its potential was acknowledged but there were some tangible (institutional and operational) issues to address to fulfil its ambitions. But, six years on, the expectant waiting has turned into tired disillusionment.

An unrealised dream

Brazil, it seems, is vanishing from the international development cooperation scene. This is happening before it has proved its South-South promise to be more than rhetorical hype. Many may never have been convinced by the South-South euphoria. Others may regard Brazil’s premature retreat as a missed opportunity. This article sways towards the missed opportunity view.
A comeback is needed. Yet, the omens do not look favourable. For the last couple of years, Brazil has been wrestling with major economic and political turmoil at home. This has severely hampered its engagement abroad.
The country is preparing to host the Olympic Games in a few months amid concerns about overpriced infrastructures and unfitting venues. The Zika epidemic and strikes add further strain.
And then the news of Lula’s alleged connections to a mega corruption scandal. This is a major blow to the image of success that Lula had so skillfully cultivated internationally. This is now on the verge of being irremediably tainted.
The “golden age” of Brazil’s South-South cooperation that marked Lula’s years in power is over, as suggested by researcher Laura Waisbich at a recent conference on the rising powers and global development at the Institute of Development Studies in the UK.

The myth behind Brazil’s affinity with Africa

On President Dilma Rousseff’s watch Brazilian cooperation has, for the last couple of years, gradually receded to the backstage.
It is time to take stock of what happened. Several of the rhetorical claims of Brazilian cooperation need to be challenged. Brazilian actors need to be forced into a more self-critical and less self-centred attitude.
The myth of Brazil-Africa affinities based on common history, culture and racial kinship needs deconstructing. Ethnographic research by Susanne Ress, a postdoctoral researcher at Humboldt University of Berlin’s Center for Comparative and International Education, gives an account of the difficulties of striking the envisioned interaction and integration, not least because of the gap that separates Brazilians’ imaginaries of Africa and contemporary Africa. Afro-Brazilians and Africans are separated by different struggles and interests.
Also, the forthcoming work by Katia Taela, a doctoral researcher at Institute of Development Studies, exposes the myth of ‘sisterhood’ and ‘brotherhood’ by Brazilian aid workers towards their Mozambican counterparts. She also challenges claims of mutual learning.
My own research shows that Brazilian researchers working on development projects in Mozambique are able to engage fruitfully with local counterparts more because of an individual’s personal attributes and attitudes than on presumed affinities and South-South credentials.

Recipes that don’t translate

There is also the questionable claim that Brazil’s recipes can fit in African contexts.
This is particularly noticeable in agriculture. Landscape-based similarity claims have been a particularly strong feature of Brazil in Mozambique. This has led to parallels being drawn between Brazilian and African countries’ tropical geography which has justified the deployment of Brazil’s “tropical technology”.
Other parallels have been drawn. For example, the presumed relevance of Brazilian concepts such as family farming and social struggles against agribusiness and modernisation.
Yet when they arrive in Africa, Brazilian imaginaries, technology, policy templates and political struggles land in a different context. They get reinterpreted and often reconfigured.
The impact of Brazilian cooperation on the lives of those it was supposed to benefit has yet to be assessed. In the meantime, its impact on local politics and state-society interactions has already been significant.
Natacha Bruna, a researcher from Observatório do Meio Rural, a Mozambican NGO, shared a critical view of Brazilian cooperation’s footprint in her country. It shows how ProSAVANA – a trilateral initiative between the governments of Brazil, Japan and Mozambique – is regarded as a threat to local communities.

But there is still potential

Yet, there are many exciting elements in the Brazilian development trajectory that deserve being more effectively incorporated into international development cooperation. These include policy interventions that tackle different development challenges in an integrated fashion. Examples include:
  • The Bolsa Família, a conditional cash-transfers programme that tackles income poverty as well as education and health issues.
  • The practice of the “industrial-health complex” whereby local health care industries are supported to develop national health systems.
  • The More Food programme that aims to boost the farming machinery industry, while raising family farmers’ productivity, increasing food production, and keeping youth in rural areas.
The problem is that these complex policy experiences have been tremendously simplified into transferable recipes where only certain components get through.
Take agriculture. Agribusiness clusters, family farming mechanisation, peasant farming resistance, agroecological systems are all part of the mix. Yet they don’t arrive with the same weight in Africa. A predisposition towards modernisation and Green Revolution-type of interventions is also a factor. The Africa version of the More Food programme, for example, has largely promoted four-wheel tractors, overshadowing alternatives such as small-scale mechanisation solutions. This is an area where Brazil has plenty of experience that has apparently failed to permeate development cooperation.
So, yes, Brazilian cooperation has disappointed in many ways and its brand is under stress. But let’s not prematurely dismiss Brazil from international development cooperation on the basis of its exuberant rhetoric and sloppy performance. Brazilian actors have a meaningful role to play in sharing the country’s rich and complex experiences.
The challenge, of course, is avoiding ready-made recipes, marketed as tropical silver bullets, and focusing more on processes or ways of developing policies that suit local contexts. This approach is less amenable to quick wins and requires the sort of enduring engagement on the ground that Brazil is still far from delivering. And so the waiting continues.
The Conversation

Lídia Cabral, Doctoral researcher, Institute of Development Studies
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Sunday 13 March 2016

Why Buhari should stop wasting his/our time

DELE SOBOWALE
Why Buhari should stop wasting his/our time
“The culprits will not go unpunished. I have been Military Governor, Petroleum Minister, Military Head of State and headed the Petroleum Trust Fund. Never have I heard the words “Budget padding”.” – President Buhari, February 23, 2016, in Abuja.
It is one of the axioms of management carved on stone by the management guru Peter Drucker, that nothing is more wasteful than doing diligently what should not be done at all – especially when the step to be taken is based on anger – which might not even be justified. Reading that statement credited to Buhari again, one is immediately struck with the irony involved in the historical precedents the President cited. Budgets by military governments at Federal and State levels were never debated nor were they passed to another body to approve. So, if there was padding, nobody would ever know.
A budget passed in secrecy and not subject to verification by anybody cannot be compared to one that is in the public domain. So, if that is the basis of Buhari’s anger, he might as well forget it. It is like comparing what happened in smoke-filled rooms, presided over by a powerful mafia, with what happens in an ordinary board room in which the directors were free to query the Chairman. There is simply no comparison.
Furthermore, the President needs to be very careful about who he has in mind as “culprits” – because when the entire 2016 budget process is analysed, he might discover like Pogo, the cartoon mascot in America, who declared, “We have found the enemy; and he is us.” Strictly speaking, there is no way any fair inquiry into the snafu (Situation Normal All Fouled Up) enveloping the 2016 budget would fail to indict some highly placed individuals in the Presidency as well – as this article will demonstrate before we are through.
Buhari might find himself embarrassed twice. He had declared his embarrassment with respect to the “padding” of the budget. He might soon discover that the real culprits are not the hapless civil servants he thought were responsible, but that the seeds of “padding” were sown by some of those he brought into government with him.
More to the point; it is hoped that Buhari realizes that he heads a democratic government, and the sooner he forgets about those halcyon days, marvelous, that is for an autocrat, the better. In a democracy, any allegation against any individual, even by the President, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt especially if punishment is imposed. His threat to punish people must be accompanied by the promise to operate under the rule of law in imposing the punishment.
And, he should never forget that those punished have recourse to the courts to protect themselves. It is mostly because Buhari might be heading for the quick-sand of governance that this piece is being written to warn him about the dangers ahead – if he pursues the ego-satisfying quest for punishment instead of, for instance, reprimand.
One needs not be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, to appreciate the fact that Buhari’s case against any prospective “culprit” had been severely damaged by the utterances of two of his Ministers – the Ministers for Finance and Information. On December 21, 2015, Mrs Adeosun had declared, categorically, that, “There can be no padding of budget when revenues are so thin…”. While Lai Mohammed, on February 20, 2016, was emphatic that the budget was not padded. Let’s give him the floor. “A lot has been said about the budget. Let me tell you that nobody can ever accuse the government of padding any budget.
The total of all Ministries put together has not exceeded N6.08 trillion that was submitted. It is factually incorrect to say the budget was padded.” If Buhari punishes anybody on account of “padded budget” and the individual(s) head for the courts, our President will be courting embarrassment for the third time on the same subject. Correction please, it should be fourth time. The first occurred when he had to eat humble pie and apologise to the nation about the mix-up on “missing/replaced budget”. To be candid, Buhari is seeking to prolong a matter which it is in his interest to bury as soon as possible.
However, if there is still any doubt in the President’s mind about forgetting the matter and face more important issues, there are two more related events which place the blame for the mess right in the Executive branch – especially, the Presidency.
Vice-President Osinbajo had achieved great things in some areas – particularly, law and education. But, even the V-P, an old Igbobi College student, must be noble enough to admit that budget preparation is not one of them. Put in charge of the economy, in the absence of a cabinet, for five whole months, the Professor committed the first blunder which set the ball rolling for the fiasco that followed. In a paper titled “The economy– where we are today”, delivered at a retreat which ended on November 6, 2016, he announced that the Federal Government was working on the 2016 budget which would be between N7 and N8 trillion. Given that the 2015 budget was N4.4 trillion that meant an increase of 59 to 82 per cent increase. That was startling enough. But, the 2015 budget had derailed on account of declining crude oil prices. Financial and budget experts were looking at N3.6 trillion revenue for 2015. Thus the VP’s announcement amounted to 94 to 122 per cent increase over expected 2015 performance. It was scandalous – especially as the price of crude continued going down and the average for the current year was known to be heading for a figure lower than that of 2015. In the end, the budget presented was N6.08 trillion – still 69 per cent higher than the actual for 2015. Certainly based on advice, but Osinbajo inadvertently unleashed the series of mistakes serving as the inducement for padding — if ever there was one.
SAY GOODBYE TO FREE MONEY – SAI BABA.
“This largesse, N5,000 for the unemployed, I have got a slightly different priority. I would rather do the infrastructure, the schools and boost agriculture.” Buhari, February 29, 2016, PUNCH, page 1.
Three weeks ago, in my column on Monday, I had carpeted Mr Laolu Akande, Senior Special Assistant to the VP, who had paid glowing tribute to Buhari for budgeting N500 billion for a salad bowl of free money to be given out. The ill-advised and ill-planned set of programmes were called the “most revolutionary by any President in history” by unnamed “economic historians” who must have a poor grasp of economics. Thank God commonsense is returning to Aso Rock.
Now that Buhari has dumped the nonsense, what will the propagandists have to say? That Buhari is now wrong? They dare not….

Why are political experts mostly men? Women also know stuff

Emily Beaulieu, University of Kentucky and Kathleen Searles, Louisiana State University


With the rise of Republican candidate Donald Trump, the demise of establishment candidates and a nomination contest between a self-proclaimed socialist and a woman, this election has delivered many surprises. Political scientists have often been called to weigh in.
Such conversations are critical as they enable academics to communicate the science of politics and add to the public discourse. However, in our experience, women academics have been often missing in these conversations.
This observation is consistent with other data in media representation: only 26 percent of guests on the Sunday morning talk shows were women in 2013, and men were 3.4 times more likely to be quoted on the front page of The New York Times.
Is this simply because there are fewer women faculty in political science, particularly in the more advanced professorial ranks?
As women faculty in the discipline, we don’t believe this is the reason. Rather, a combination of “implicit gender biases” whereby women’s lack of expertise is often simply assumed, and “network effects,” which can inadvertently exclude women who do not share the same networks as individuals charged with finding experts, may lay the foundation for women’s absence in expert discussions. And ultimately, this can lead to a skewed perception of experts as men.

Gender gap in political science

Beyond the number of women faculty, other obstacles prevent women from being called upon to serve as experts within the profession and beyond.
Research shows that women in political science do not attain tenure and other promotions at the same rates as men, even when controlling for multiple relevant factors.
More recent data show women are underrepresented in the top journals in the discipline. For example, even though women earn 40 percent of the Ph.D.s in political science, they author only 16 percent of articles published in the American Political Science Review, the discipline’s premier publication outlet.





Are women missing on expert panels? CSIS 
| Center for Strategic & International Studies, CC BY-NC-SA

There is also a gap in perceived and actual influence in the discipline. A survey of international relations (IR) faculty revealed only two women included in the “top 25” IR scholars in the past 20 years, consistent with work finding women are underrepresented on a list of the 400 most cited political scientists. More analysis indicates that IR journal articles authored by women are cited 20 percent less than articles by men.
Other research on IR journals reports further gendered citation patterns – male-authored articles and mixed-gender authorship produce bibliographies that are 9-11 percent women authors, while female-authored articles’ bibliographies contain upwards of 21 percent women authors.
Women’s careers are impacted in multiple other ways as well.
Women do more “low-status” service work than men such as advising students, serving on committees and producing ad hoc reports. Women face “gender devaluation” when they hold leadership positions such as section head for a professional meeting, where the status of a position is downplayed as mostly secretarial. They are also at a clear disadvantage in terms of student evaluations of teaching. For example, women spend more time with students outside of class but receive ratings for accessibility equivalent to those of male faculty. All of this additional time equates to time away from research.
In other words, women academics face inherent biases in this profession, which have important implications for perceptions of expertise. Furthermore, conforming to stereotypical expectations of being nurturing undercuts a woman’s ability to be perceived as an expert.

A website is born

Such implicit bias can be cyclical – the less people see women as experts, the less they imagine that women can hold expertise.
It seems inadequate to laugh off the all-male panel or “manel” as it has come to be called, or grumble about mansplaining whereby men position themselves as experts, explaining things to women, often in ways that are condescending or patronizing.
So, what can we do about it?
About three weeks ago a number of women in the discipline received an email from Samara Klar, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Arizona. She shared frustration over recent news articles and symposia featuring zero women political scientists. An idea was born:
Let’s crowdsource a website of women academics in political science to make it easier to find women experts.
From this was born a website, #WomenAlsoKnowStuff, which offers an accessible database of women experts in political science.


Within a few hours of launching the site, the response was so overwhelming it became evident a team was needed. An editorial board was quickly formed to oversee the development of the website. It was clear we had identified a need for women in academia broadly as requests to be listed on the site poured in from women in various fields all over the world. Journalists and other political scientists also wrote to indicate how they were using it to identify experts, cites, and expand their networks.
Some weeks later, the board, of which we are part, is grappling with the implications of the website’s success. It is currently engaged in planning, fundraising and publicity efforts to oversee the website’s growth and to prolong and ultimately measure its impact.

What’s the evidence

Several programs have been developed in the past to address gender gaps in political science and academia, such as Journeys in World Politics, Visions in Methodology (VIM) and the CeMent program in Economics. These programs bring women together in small conferences to offer research mentorship and networking opportunities.
These programs were found to be effective when their impact was measured after a few years. For example, five years after the first group of women attended a CeMent conference, women were found to have an average of 0.4 more major grants and three additional publications. Their probability of publication in a top outlet increased 25 percent.
Similarly, a survey of women who had participated in VIM conferences (which promote the use of statistics and experiments by women in political science) revealed VIM participants to be better networked and more productive, both in terms of publications and submission to top journals, compared to men and women who had not attended a conference.
These programs suggest short-term interventions can have broad effects, namely, disrupting mostly male networks helps to amplify the voices of women.
#WomenAlsoKnowStuff hopes to build on this work. The programs described described above have important effects, which could make gradual changes in who gets perceived as expert, but we see our website as a more disruptive change. We hope that this would have an impact on promotion, tenure and citation, which over time may shift perceptions of who the experts are.
Waiting for women to gradually accrue more status and influence in the profession is not sufficient. Our goal – the success of which we plan to evaluate systematically – is for #WomenAlsoKnowStuff to amplify the voices of women in political science.
The Conversation
Emily Beaulieu, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Kentucky and Kathleen Searles, Assistant Professor of Political Communication, Louisiana State University
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Friday 11 March 2016

DO — OR DIE IN MIAMI? GOP Rivals Hit Issues, Not Each Other at Start of Last Debate before Florida Primary


FoxNews.com
Donald Trump and his three Republican presidential rivals held their personal fire Thursday night during their last debate before next Tuesday's Florida primary, but they did battle on the best way to save Social Security -- with Trump breaking from his competition by saying he'd leave it alone despite warnings it would run out of money in two decades.
“I will do everything in my power not to touch Social Security,” Trump said at the debate in Miami, where Social Security is a huge issue. He said he’d instead get rid of waste, fraud and abuse – including by ensuring the government bids out contracts.
Marco Rubio, though, said the country has to “deal with it.”
“You’re still going to have hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit that you’re going to have to make up,” he said, calling for gradually raising the retirement age to 70.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz echoed that call, saying the program is “careening toward insolvency.”
“We need to see political courage to take this on and save and strengthen Social Security,” he said. 
Ohio Gov. John Kasich also called for changes, though not necessarily to the retirement age.
The usual fireworks were substituted with substance, though, at the start of the Republican debate, as the candidates discussed their proposals for trade, immigration and education.
Trump even remarked on the subdued tone: “So far I cannot believe how civil it’s been up here.”
Trump, refraining so far from attacking his rivals, openly discussed his plan to hit pause on green cards.
“I would say a minimum of one year, maybe two years,” Trump said.
He also criticized the controversial H-1B visa program, acknowledging he uses it as a businessman but saying it’s “bad for workers.”
Florida Sen. Rubio defended the program but said some companies are violating the law by using the visas to replace American workers with foreign workers. At a time when trade deals have come under fire in both the GOP and Democratic races, Rubio also spoke out in favor of “good trade deals.”
“If it is a free and fair trade deal, we can compete against anyone in the world,” he said.
But Texas Sen. Cruz said American workers right now are “losing out” on some of these agreements.
“We need to negotiate trade deals protecting American workers first, not the corporate boardroom,” he said. On education, Cruz also called Common Core a “disaster” that he would end on the first day in office.
Trump kicked off the Republican debate in Florida with a message to the so-called “Republican establishment,” effectively telling them to get on board with his campaign.
The Republican front-runner started his opening statement by claiming his campaign is bringing in Democrats, independents and others in huge numbers to the polls.
“The Republican establishment, or whatever you want to call it, should embrace what’s happening,” he said, addressing tension between his campaign and senior GOP leaders. “We are going to beat the Democrats.”
The candidates faced off at the CNN-hosted debate in Miami ahead of next week’s critical primaries in five states – including the valuable contests in Ohio and Florida, where the winner of each will take home all delegates at stake.

Thursday 10 March 2016

Nigeria: Should Jacob Zuma Have Been Welcome?

OPINION

By Timawus Mathias

President Jacob Zuma just like Thabo Mbeki before him are familiar with Nigeria, particularly Lagos and Abuja. The two statesmen were their country's representatives in Nigeria in the early 70s when Nigeria led the world in the fight against apartheid and the eventual liberation of South Africa, with every citizen making a contribution in cash and kind. Yet Jacob Zuma's return to Nigeria this week is that of a colonial master, come to see the extent to which his country's expertise buoyed by the colonial experience has held a firm choking hold on the Nigerian economy.
From Banking to Oil and Gas, media, entertainment, tele-communications, aviation, tourism, fast foods, property, retail and to the arts, over 120 South African companies thrive in businesses in Nigeria, taking advantage of a lacking in management capacity, corruption and outright indiscipline and unpatriotic nature of the Nigerian citizenry, engage in sharp practice to aid the pillage of the nation's economy with impunity.
The South African brand is distinct. Laws you dare not break in the South African business climate, appear nonexistent in Nigeria, where as it seemed, you can get away with anything. South African companies in Nigeria meanwhile, enjoy bogus tax heavens, yet dodge and evade taxes through the wide open loopholes that abound over and above what palm greasing of greedy Nigerian officials could offer. The South African flagships Multichoice and the GSM Carrier MTN though Nigerian registered companies, operate obnoxious foreign exchange repatriation practices detrimental to the Nigerian economy. Bulk of earnings from DSTV the satellite TV giant, operates the highest tariff in a policy that charges clients whether they watch or not. Together with MTN the sister GSM conglomerate, sales are repatriated through all ways and means that require scrutiny more now. To imagine that for years, the scratch recharge card was imported alone tells you how much damage was possible under the guise.
Watching from a far thus, many Nigerians who recall with nostalgia how their country embraced the war against apartheid, and now only to be economically colonised by the "liberated" South Africa, albeit by proxy, can not have been enthused by Zuma's late hour visit.
Until President Muhammadu Buhari took charge in Abuja, South Africa had impounded over $10m ferried in a private jet to that country, ostensibly to pay for an order of military ordinances and hardware, but clearly in contravention of that country's currency control laws. South Africa held on to the cash but let the criminals return to Nigeria, probably in hope that more dollars would come from where this cache originated. This was at a critical time when Nigeria was prosecuting and losing a war to a home-grown insurgency. Was this not a time for South Africa to have reciprocated the counter apartheid gestures of Nigeria and her people? The government took an aloof stance and mercenaries cashed in to further make the counter insurgency effort, a business opportunity for South Africa. President Jacob Zuma all unpatronising, was disrespectful of President Goodluck Jonathan and indeed part caused the latter's failure to win a reelection bid in which progress in the war against Boko Haram was crucial.
Then suddenly for no apparent reason, Nigerians in South Africa suffered xenophobic attacks that claimed their lives and their properties. Thriving ordinary Nigerian traders and menial work migrants were targeted and annihilated while Jacob Zuma did not warm up to returning a hospitality of many years that he had savoured in Lagos and Abuja in the 70s. That Zuma came now is mainly because the MTN, a South African concern is in some bad, and has a case to answer, having flouted the simple process requiring by law, that SIM cards it was selling be registered, even as a crucial counter insurgency step! By failing to do so, the company afforded insurgents untraceable communication and prolonged the counter effort. This was criminal negligence that undermined the security of Nigeria. The Nigerian Communications Commission last year slapped a $3.9bn fine on MTN Nigeria after the mobile network failed to disconnect five million SIM cards it had failed to register. MTN has argued that the fine is too high, but Nigerians feel that gains it had made on those five millions lines ought to shore up for the fine. Since that sanction, MTN clients have noticed a rise in frivolous debit and charges on airtime and data, and suspect that in effect, MTN has fleeced Nigerians to even profiteer on the sanction.
Elsewhere, Etisalat is in court with MTN over the latter's purchase of Nigerian internet provider Visafone Communications, a purchase Etisalat is worried, was not transparent and could create a dominant data services market player in Nigeria, harming competition.
If President Muhammadu Buhari lifts his carpet, he might find swept underneath it, that the same MTN and Stanbic IBTC, a South African banking interest have been embroiled in a reported $8b Money Laundering Scandal in which it was alleged that MTN made illegal remittances to several Directors and Share Holders in safe havens abroad, hurting the economy badly, we now find.
South African companies are also currently embroiled in not so clean practices as Nigeria struggles to meet the June 2017 new deadline for Nigeria's Digital Switch Over (DSO), compromising many local competitors who have taken to the courts to secure redress. Jacob Zuma needs to be told. MTN must pay that fine. Nigerian businesses in South Africa should expect retaliatory sanctions and brace up as well. South Africa is the new unwelcome colonial master. But Nigeria let it happen.


Wednesday 2 March 2016

BIAFRA: Pope Francis urges dialogue, negotiation.


SOURCE : VANGUARD NEWS
POPE FRANCIS


The Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, yesterday, released the text of the Catholic Pontiff, Pope Francis address to thousands of IPOB members who gathered last Sunday at the Vatican City for the weekly Angelus, saying the Pope has cautioned their oppressors, the Nigerian government and its military and their agents to repent and stop killing Biafra agitators or face the wrath of God that will be catastrophic. The text of the Catholic Pontiff address which was made available to Vanguard by the IPOB Media and Publicity Officer, Mr. Emma Powerful, disclosed that the Pope advised the Biafra agitators and the crowd that gathered at St Peter’s Square from the balcony of the Apostolic Palace to be patient in all they are doing, that God’s patience towards their oppressors is without limit but the time to end their oppression is now.

 IPOB quoted the Pontiff to have said that “it is never too late to convert an oppressor to change from his evil activities, including murderous activities, but it is urgent, it is now, let them begin today to change from their oppression and killing of innocent people through all sorts of violent means, including the jack boot of the military.” According to the pro Biafra group, the Pope spoke on “invincible patience,” explaining how God’s “unyielding concern for sinners” should provoke patience in us, asking if we have thought of God’s patience. “Have you thought of His unyielding concern for sinners, how this should provoke patience among people, including governments, instead of killing people on slightest provocation or no provocation at all, let alone people who are protesting against unfair treatments or for something they feel is their right?” IPOB said the Pope told them that God does not permit tragedies to punish sins but rather, that Jesus uses warnings that sinners will perish if they do not repent, adding that if the oppressors of peaceful agitators like the Biafra agitators in Nigeria fail to repent, the wrath of God will be catastrophic against them. The Pontiff according to IPOB, welcomed the need to firmly and unreservedly focus on negotiations and dialogue between governments and agitators all over the world including Biafra agitators and the government of Nigeria, like it was done in Syria which has brought the current ceasefire in the country, involving government and rebel forces. “I invite all to pray so that this window of opportunity can give relief to the suffering people and agitators and encourage the necessary humanitarian aid, and open the way to dialogue and much desired peace” he said.

 Planned deportation

In another development, the Movement for the Actualization of Sovereign State of Biafra, MASSOB, has condemned the plan by the Norwegian government to illegally deport Lotachukwu Okolie, the detained leader of pro Biafra agitators in Norway and his counterpart Onyedikachi Ani, also detained, who is married to a Norwegian and has a child with her, and other Biafra activists in the country. According to a statement by the leader of MASSOB, Mr. Uchenna Madu, a plan is allegedly being hatched to deal with Biafra agitating groups. The statement read: “Norway and Nigeria have already perfected plans of deporting them through chartered cargo airplane from Belgium, to transport them to Lagos on March 9, 2016. The information we have is that the Norwegian government have struck a deal with Nigerian Immigrations Service, in Lagos to accept all the deportees and bypass the embassy which knows about their pro Biafra activities but cooked up lies against them and consider them threat to Nigeria security, which means they will be eliminated on arrival.

 No to falsehood

Worried by all the rumours making the rounds on the issue of Biafra, the umbrella body of Igbo Socio-Cultural organisations, Ohanaeze Ndigbo has denied meeting with President Muhammadu Buhari on agitation for Republic of Biafra and warned proponents of Radio Biafra to desist from airing falsehood because ‘’he who goes to equity must come with clean hands.’’ The apex Igbo group gave the warning following Radio Biafra reports that Ohanaeze had aborted the actualisation of Biafra as a country, that some white people from America held a meeting with Ndigbo through Ohanaeze with the intent of delivering a United Nation’s Certificate of Recognition and Independence of the Republic of Biafra. Describing the claims as a ruse, Ohanaeze Secretary General, Dr. Joe Nwaorgu, in a statement, said the reports were distortions of the visit of the new United States Consul-General in Nigeria, John Bray and his team to the South-East, during which they had a meeting with Ohanaeze at Nike Lake Hotel, Enugu. Noting that the visit was part of Bray’s familiarisation tour of the country, Nwaorgu said the consul-general ‘’had meetings with the governors in the various states and in Enugu, the headquarters of Ohanaeze, he had a meeting with us on Igbo perception of Nigeria.” This meeting is what has been distorted to be ‘some white men from America came to give Biafrans independence. Of course, this cannot be the process of granting anybody independence.’’ Insisting that Ohanaeze Youth Leader, Mr. Ikechukwu Isiguzoro, was not at the meeting contrary to reports and that Ohanaeze has never had any meeting with President Buhari on Biafra, the group restated its call for the unconditional release of detained Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mr Nnamdi Kanu. While appealing to Igbo youths to be analytical in their utterances and cautious in their actions, Nwaorgu urged the Radio Biafra people to investigate their stories before airing, adding that ‘’the US Consul-General had been to other zones of the country before arriving the South-East and their youth never misread the visit.’’

MY AD 2