Last week, former Namibia President Hifikepunye Pohamba became the fourth African leader to be awarded the Mo Ibrahim Achievement in African Leadership Prize, a prize which is currently the world’s most valuable individual award considering that a laureate receives a US$5 million award paid over 10 years, and US$200,000 annually for life thereafter.

Three other leaders have won this prize. They are former Mozambique President Joaquim Chissano, ex-Botswana leader Festus Mogae, and Cape Verde’s Pedro Verona Pires. In 2007, the late Nelson Mandela was made an honorary laureate. To qualify for this award, a former head of state or government must have left office in the last three years, have been democratically elected, have demonstrated exceptional leadership, and, last but not least, have served their constitutionally mandated term.  

The prize, which has been awarded four times but equally gone unclaimed another four, was established in 2007 by Dr Mohamed Ibrahim, a Sudanese-British telecommunications entrepreneur, in an effort to encourage African leaders to dedicate their time in office to transcending challenges in their respective countries, mainly by improving the standards of living of their people. By extension, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation believes that the award has the potential to change perceptions of African leadership mainly because it highlights exceptional role models within the continent.  

What is more, it is reasonable to understand why proponents of the award believe that aside from the obvious need to recognise individuals when credit is due, the Mo Ibrahim Prize has the potential to draw much needed attention on the role of good governance in improving the standards of living in many households within the continent, and I concur. In fact, earlier this year, I wrote in this paper insisting that good governance can become the bedrock of sustainable development so long as its principles are applied effectively within institutions.

Additionally, I stressed that generally speaking, people are more likely to have confidence in a government when the decision-making process is transparent and there are mechanisms in place to hold decision-makers accountable.

In practical terms, however, many African governments have struggled to register a number of good governance doctrines such as accountability, transparency, the rule of law, control of corruption, and the efficient delivery of public services, which has led several scholars, including Acemoglu and Robinson, to observe that it is precisely this reason why poverty has remained largely prevalent in Africa.

In view of this, it is easy to see why Dr Mo Ibrahim has been praised, and deservedly so, for his role in advancing principles of good governance on the continent as well as for dedicating a portion of his own wealth to this cause. The Sudan-born billionaire has indeed played his part immensely.

But even so, having recognised and appreciated the philanthropic ideals of Dr Ibrahim in attempting to advance principles of good governance and the agenda of development on the African continent, I find myself asking; in the first place, should there be any other financial incentives beyond the obvious domestic remuneration for a head of state or government to know that good governance is necessary and that its principles should be applied?

You see, much as I commend the efforts to incentivise leaders in relation to performance pay, I find myself thinking that the Mo Ibrahim Prize does more harm than good. Forgive me for being so sceptical, but here are my reasons;

Firstly, I believe that the prize can potentially be viewed as a bribe for leaders to do their job, something that in many ways contradicts good governance. I mean; imagine a scenario where we would routinely find ourselves needing to offer financial incentives to a customs officer, a policeman, a judge, or a local authority administrator to do their job! Would this be equally acceptable or is it a matter of calling it a bribe for the lower ranks and an incentive for those at the top of government? You decide.

Secondly, if it is assumed that financial incentives have the potential to motivate heads of state or government to do their jobs, by the same token, you can argue that the money provided to incentivise our leaders cannot be compared to the potential returns that those corrupt among them can acquire through vices such as capital flight, corruption, and so on. Therefore, a US$5 million pot is unlikely to sway an already corrupt leader into doing well, or for that matter influence a good leader who already had good intentions.

Thirdly, contrary to the argument that the prize has the potential to change perceptions of African leadership by showcasing exceptional role models from the continent, it is my belief that since the award has been awarded four times but also gone unclaimed another four, the amount unclaimed can be used to form the opinion that within that period there were no exceptional leaders on the continent, which is untrue. The fact that a claimant has to have left office serves to ignore the role of some incumbents who are doing great things for their people.

As a final point, you would be completely mistaken to assume that governance malpractices are exclusive to the African continent. In fact, Europe has some of the most corrupt nations in the world. In 2014, for instance, an EU Commission report established that corruption costs the EU economy a staggering 120 billion Euros annually, and that "the extent of the problem in Europe is breath-taking.” Looking ahead, it is important to realise that in both these continents, good governance principles cannot emerge and be sustained by incentivising leaders beyond what they are entitled to, but by investing in institutions that will uphold these principles for generations to come.

junior.mutabazi@yahoo.co.uk