Permit me a brief break from the debacles of the Middle East to highlight an interesting action in support of African development.
In a move that nearly triples the world's richest earned cash prize, Egyptian cell phone entrepeneur Mo Ibrahim (currently based in the UK) will award $5 million to the African leader who leaves power with the best record of democratic governance. The contest will rate governance in 53 African nations each year and will grant winning leaders not only $5 million in cash over ten years, but then also $200,000 per year for life. The prize is aimed at decreasing corruption and autocracy in Africa, and has endorsements from President Clinton and Nelson Mandela, among others.
The idea is that many African leaders cling to power because were they to depart peacefully, they would go from kings to relative paupers:
The award will go to African heads of state who deliver security, health, education and economic development to their constituents. In an interview with the Financial Times newspaper, Mr Ibrahim, 60, said leaders had no life after office. "Suddenly all the mansions, cars, food, wine is withdrawn. Some find it difficult to rent a house in the capital. That incites corruption; it incites people to cling to power. "The prize will offer essentially good people, who may be wavering, the chance to opt for the good life after office," said Mr Ibrahim.
I think this is a great idea. First of all, it incentivizes good behavior, which is generally a good thing. Second, it draws attention to the fact that corruption is the most significant political barrier to African development (the most significant overall, of course, being AIDS), and third, it seems to provide a way to do what it actually sets out to do: The lifetime yearly salary helps prevent leaders from being democratic but then using the prize money to establish autocracy, it creates an unbelievable opportunity for positive press for struggling nations, which could ultimately help with foreign investment and development, and it helps point out that monetary aid has its limits, especially when being filtered through stunningly corrupt governments.
I'm all for sending aid to developing nations. In fact, I'm generally for sending aid to anybody who will use it in a constructive way, or help and/or like the U.S., or any combination thereof. Am I especially happy to essentially use bribery to achieve what should be a basic right and value? No. But much of the aid money to Africa is grossly misused, and nobody is happy having their tax dollars go to the leaders of predatory autocracies, so anything creative, interesting, and potentially beneficial -- especially when it comes out of the pocket of a wealthy individual -- gets my vote of support.
I'm not saying it's a silver bullet, of course, but it seems like the kind of creative initiative that doesn't have much downside and has, as Hubie Brown would say, tremendous upside potential.
