CHAPTER TWELVE: Development in Africa and the Middle East

Using the Perspectives

Development in Africa and the Middle East

How can industrialized nations help bring peace and good governance to Africa? So ponders Stephen Ellis in a policy article written for Foreign Affairs. After examining efforts made by the United Nations and other international organizations to bring order and stability to the continent of Africa, he offers a couple of suggestions for Western nations to consider. First, he faults the international community for its poor understanding of failed states. Policymakers assume that all failed states have certain commonalities, so the same prescriptions and policy solutions apply to every case. Not so, Ellis argues: "A better approach to dysfunctional states in Africa would begin with a diagnosis that takes full account of their individual characters and does not assume that the same therapy will work on all of them."

1.  What perspective does this statement reflect? Why? At which level of analysis is it operating?
     

Ellis, who calls for the involvement of world and regional organizations and stresses the need for solid institutions, believes that the one-size-fits-all approach to Africa has been inefficient and ineffective. Instead, the international community ought to look to the historical institutions and unique structures that already exist in individual countries.

"One of the few hopeful developments to come out of Africa's many dysfunctional states is the way power vacuums have been spontaneously filled by new structures with deep roots in Africa's history. . . . U.N. administrators tend to ignore such networks and often spend an entire tour of duty patiently rebuilding formal new governments without noticing the alternate structures already in existence right under their noses."

"Administrators should learn to take advantage of such indigenous political institutions."

2.  This statement reflects two perspectives—which ones? Do you think that Ellis is favoring one over the other? Why or why not?
     

In his conclusion, Ellis chides developed nations for their narrow conceptions of self-interest and security. Instead of defining a country's interest merely by short-term threats, he argues that states should broaden their scope of thinking. "Westerners ask only whether Africa's problems affect their security and, learning that they do not, decide to ignore them. . . .The West should adopt a new, enlightened form of self-interest and be open to engaging in new sorts of involvement in Africa." By engaging in this "new involvement," he argues, states and organizations working to rebuild Africa can avoid the ills of colonialism and the blunders of current state-building efforts.

3.  How does Ellis suggest states should determine their self-interest? What perspective does this conceptualization implicitly reject?
     

4.  What are some potential pros and cons to relying on preexisting indigenous structures for governance? Why do you think that      international institutions continue to overlook these institutions?
     

Stephen Ellis, "How to Rebuild Africa," Foreign Affairs, Sept.-Oct. 2005.