The Mo Ibrahim Prize and its Implications for Africa`s Leadership and Democracy
The announcement last Monday that the Mo‐Ibrahim Prize for good governance in Africa would not be awarded this year came as a surprise to many observers. When announcing the decision, former Botswana President Ketumile Masire – also member of the Award Committee for the Mo‐Ibrahim Foundation – stated that the prize committee ‘could not select a winner’.
Halif Sarki, intern, African Security Analysis Programme, Pretoria Office
The announcement last Monday that the Mo‐Ibrahim
Prize for good governance in Africa would not be awarded this year came
as a surprise to many observers. When announcing the decision, former
Botswana President Ketumile Masire – also member of the Award Committee
for the Mo‐Ibrahim Foundation – stated that the prize committee ‘could
not select a winner’.
The Mo Ibrahim Prize is a distinguished award that
honours excellent leadership in
Africa. Dr Mo Ibrahim, successful businessman and founder of the
mobile telephone company Celtel, established the Award in 2006. The
Prize is awarded annually by the Mo Ibrahim Foundation to an African
leader that meets four main criteria: a) be a democratically elected
Head of State or Government; b) having served within the
constitutional limits; c) left office at the end of this; and d)
having done so in the last
three years. The prize package, which is reportedly categorised as
the largest annual
individual annual award in the world, consists of a sizable US$5
million over ten
years, with an additional US$200,000 yearly for life.
Eligible candidates are scrutinised by the Prize Committee comprising
internationally respected African and non‐African figures. They include the former
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Anan (Chair), former OAU Secretary General
Salim Ahmed Salim, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
Mohamed Elbaradei, and the former Finnish and Irish presidents, Marti Ahtisaari
and Mary Robinson. The various achievements of the candidate in areas of peace,
security and development, and the promotion of democracy and democratic
institutions and processes also impact on the selection process.
Given that many possible candidates spring to mind that might be said to meet these
main requirements, one could only reasonably ask why the committee could not
find a suitable laureate. Over the last three years, Africa has witnessed the exit from
power of Mathieu Kerekou in Benin (2006), Ahmad Tejan Kabbah in Sierra Leone
(2007), Olusegun Obasanjo in Nigeria (2007), Thabo Mbeki in South Africa (2008)
and John Kufuor in Ghana (2008). While some of those did things that somehow
tinted their standing, this is not the case for all of them. Moreover, what are the
possible implications and impact of not awarding the leadership prize?
Initially, the main purpose of the prize was revisited in the discussions as to
whether African leaders need this type of incentive in order to encourage more of
them to leave power and not manipulate constitutions in order to hang onto power.
The question was also asked whether the prize is contributing to foster
democratisation on the continent. It was argued that the Ibrahim Prize is an African
owned initiative that aims at encouraging good governance on the continent as well
as promoting qualitative leadership in Africa.
But this has to be weighed against the systemic and structural realities faced by
African leaders. It could be argued that some good leaders may fail to deliver on
their election promises in terms of development, not because of lack of willingness
but of lack of adequate resources.
As to why the prize was not awarded this year despite numerous ‘eligible’
recipients, despite the presence of the aforementioned leaders, it was acknowledged
that there are limitations for proper analysis since the specific details pertaining to
the reasons why no “winner” could be selected have not been stated by the Prize
Committee. It is therefore hard to establish rationally the exclusion of one candidate
or another. But the non‐attribution of the prize could serve as a wake up call to
leaders to compete for international recognition.It could also have implications for the African continent as regards the
perceptions about the progress of democratic rule on the continent. This could point
to a receding democracy on the continent. It was acknowledged that recent trends of
unconstitutional changes of government (e.g. Mauritania, Madagascar and Guinea)
have tainted the image of Africa. But one should refrain from painting the continent
with the same pessimistic brush. Africa has made significant progress towards
democratic rule in the past few decades. There are signs of democratic components
across the continent. Although some leaders constantly try to cling to power, they
do this through ‘democratic’ avenues by manipulating democratic institutions. This
is a significant move from the total disregard of the democratic institutions and
processes that existed in the Cold War era. It was noted that when focused on what
is “present” rather than what is “missing” in Africa in terms of features of
democracy, one cannot but conclude that there have been good progress, although
still should of the ideal situation.
Moving forward, and while not criticising the current criteria, it was suggested that
the prize be more inclusive to encompass civil society organisations and individuals
who actively work towards the socio‐economic and political development of the
continent. This bottom up approach could serve more efficiently in the
entrenchment and appropriation of democratic institutions and processes. The
withholding of the award should be an opportunity for a critical evaluation of the
state of democracy and leadership on the African continent in view of identifying
and addressing the various setbacks that hinder the democratisation process. Some
of these setbacks include the independence of the judiciary, the management of
national resources and even the nature of electoral systems and the role ‘weakness’
of the opposition.
