In the first part of this essay, I suggested that bad leadership may not be the root of all the evils Africa is facing. Of course there is a leadership problem from all accounts, but then, I posited that this leadership issue is not the root, but somewhat of a stem, an intermediary in the whole underdevelopment process. I then supported Fred Swaniker’s theory on the weakness of the institutions throughout the continent, given that it happens to explain away many of the social phenomena we observe in Africa.

The real question then is, why are the institutions weak? Why are institutions powerful everywhere else but Africa?

The relevance of this question is found in the fact that a reasonable starting point for the construction of stronger institutions should be an understanding of the weaknesses of the existing institutions, especially their origins. In thinking about this, the first question I asked myself is where the institutions come from in the first place. Who created them? And why? How did they become weak?

The answer, I think, is to be found in the history of the continent.

Before colonization, Africa as we know it was simply a collection of autonomous hunter gatherer tribes, spread all over the place. From everything that is known, these tribes, or kingdoms as some may choose to call them, had existing structures, and institutions. Most of them were patriarchal, and ruled by kings, or chiefs. Everybody in a particular tribe spoke the same language, and had a pretty strong understanding of the culture to which they belonged. They understood what the institutions represented, what their roles were, and also, what the punishment was for not following the rules. I therefore think it is safe to assume that these institutions were pretty strong, given the strong attachment that Africans have to their culture even to this day, which is (largely) post colonial.

Then came colonization. Most of Africa was colonized by Europeans, who naturally, brought their systems of thought over to the continent. They came along with their institutions, and Africans, well, just had to accept them. Even though the institutions themselves were probably given to Africans as rule of law, I suspect that Africans would probably have still willingly, and even gladly switched from their institutions to the new systems brought to them by the Europeans because the technological progress the Europeans had must have indicated that they (the Europeans) had something really nice going for them.

So, I guess, the answer to the first question is: our institutions come from Europe, and they were created by Europeans. Africa simply adopted the systems of their colonial masters, and even when they rebelled, they still chose to keep them. Part of the reason, I suspect is because before colonization, leaders, chiefs, ruled small tribes who had similar views on everything; but then after, the new leaders had to rule nations, some which were amalgamations of more than one hundred of such tribes. The white man’s systems of thought probably made the whole thing easier to manage.

That should also explain why the institutions are weak, probably because they were not created by Africans and do not encompass the subtleties of African culture. Even more powerfully, they are not understood by Africans. And of course, what is not understood, is misused. I can’t say for sure, but I doubt that many Africans really understand what a nation is, or what a court is, or war, or even school. They will probably have some vague idea on what purpose these institutions serve, but, as to their very essence and power, that’s a different story.

Now, the last question to answer is how the problem translated from being a problem of institutions, to being one of leadership. To begin with, it is important to note that most African nations became independent because some rebel, or group of rebels, decided to fight the colonial masters, who they saw as oppressive. They made it their personal mission to free their people from these oppressive structures. It is unrealistic to think that a person with enough heart to fight a system as powerful as the colonial masters for the sake of others, even risking his or her life in the process, is simply doing so to get power and as many women as they want, for as long as possible.

Where things could have gone wrong, in my opinion, is in the short aftermath of independence, with the second generation of leaders. Here we have this guy, who has inherited all these people he doesn’t identify with on a deep level, and more importantly, all these resources and systems he doesn’t know, and cannot manage. Even worse, the people he is supposed to be leading don’t identify with him either, and know next to nothing about what it is they are supposed to be doing, or where they are headed.

The next reasonable thing to do is probably to learn from trial and error. Throw some mud to the wall and see what sticks. In the process, he probably discovers a few tricks to keep the people in submission to him, and to maintain some form of equilibrium, or at least as far as he can manage. But he also gets a feel for power and authority, and realizes that most of the population is like him: they have next to no clue what they are doing. So he learns to milk the system, and make it work in his favor… after all, they are not really his people, or are they?

So, we now have an interesting cycle. The institution makes the leader, who in turn makes the institutions, and so on. This would imply that Africa doesn’t necessarily have weak institutions, but strong ones facing the wrong direction.

Pictorially, institutions can be likened to a gun. In nations with good systems, the gun points to the leaders – the leader is accountable to the people for the decisions he makes, and the direction in which he or she leads the nation. I think that this is the whole point of democracy: a government of the people, by the people and for the people. But then, for this kind of thing to work, the average citizen should be able to think critically about issues concerning her, and take proactive corresponding action.

However, in Africa, the gun seems to be pointed in the opposite direction: towards the people. Most of the people are unable (or unwilling, when they are able) to think critically about issues concerning them (for various, albeit justifiable reasons), and even those who can, and do think about them, can only do so much to change things.

So far, most of the efforts aimed at developing Africa have been aimed at solving the first problem: training leaders for the continent. Even though this is laudable, it guarantees very little, as even the best of people can change, or loose perspective when given the kind of power that African leaders have, with as little accountability as is currently the case.

However, for any African nation to reach its potential, the “leader-institution” cycle will have to be broken at some point, most likely by some leaders, so that proper institutions can be built. Which would mean that she (the leader) will have to use her (almost) infinite power to prevent him from having more power… the thought of which is a huge gamble in itself.

The other part of the solution, is actually more complicated, and multi-faceted, as it will involve training these large numbers of people to think critically, and act proactively, and, restricting the amount of power leaders are used to.

Africa definitely has a leadership problem, but it is definitely not as simplistic as it seems to be. And, in thinking about this, I have come to realize that the problem is actually more complex than I originally thought it would be. How some of these problems would be remedied, I honestly have very little of an idea now, but statistics are changing, and for the better, which means that some good work is being done, or at least, what is being done seems to be working. Hopefully, someday, some political Einstein will come with the right solution to the rest of our problems.

Thanks to Mbu Waindim, Tonge Mabel and Augustine Annan for reading drafts of this