African leaders face off in a political beauty contest

The World Bank’s Africa Development Indicators does not make news, partly because you really have to look for it on the Bank’s site.

I spent a lot of time thinking through the 2010 Indicators when it came out early this year. Soon, it started doing a belly dance right before my years, because it told a very exciting, though unintended, story.

For example, I concluded that if you want to marry an educated African woman, then go wife-hunting in the Seychelles.

If you want to hire one to work for you, go to Burundi. And if you want to find a woman MP easily, then head to Rwanda. If you want to see a railway line, go to South Africa – avoid Uganda.

Your child has the best chance of enrolling for primary school in Sao Tome and Principe. And if you want to have sex where you can find contraceptives to avoid pregnancy, then go to Mauritius.

When I posted it on my blog, it generated a very lively discussion. I decided that I would develop a personal index that would try to rate African leaders on a range of issues that are usually not used in most international surveys.

In addition, I would listen to and read up on a lot of African news, and also form a rating on the basis of my very subjective and unscientific conclusions. Because I don’t want people to take this seriously, I decided I would call it the “ The Wacky Obbo Index of African Leaders.”

So it is really a mixed bag. Mauritius has world class access to water, contraceptives, but is beaten in adult literacy by Zimbabwe, which is otherwise thought of as a basket case. And the differences between it and Somalia, are wider than the differences between several Asian countries and Somalia.

If you look at the Freedom House Index, for example, a country like Rwanda performs poorly. It is also rated as having among the worst press freedom records in Africa. However, it leads Africa – and the world — in areas like reafforestation in several environmental reports, and in giving women a role in politics.

Also while Rwanda, and Ethiopia, are nowhere near the top in democracy rankings, and they are thought not to hold truly free elections, their populations have the highest trust in government institutions.

In the case of Rwanda, in the latest World Values Survey, the trust levels are way up with the likes of Norway and Denmark at more than 90 per cent!

Then you come to a country like Kenya, which has poor corruption ratings, had a botched election in December 2007 which ended in the worst post-election violence in its history, and has been declared a “failed state” by Foreign Policy magazine.

However, at the August 4 constitution referendum, it emerged with easily the most efficiently organised vote in Africa (and indeed the world) ever. The first results arrived at the electoral commission’s headquarters in a record seven minutes from the closure of the polls!

So a country that just two years ago had been written off, has a new constitution with an American-style guarantee of the freedom of the media.

Article 34 of the new Constitution guarantees the freedom of electronic, print and any other kind of media. It specifically prohibits the government from interference with or penalising any broadcast, production or dissemination of  information by any media operator. (Very few constitutions anywhere are that generous).

So, in Africa, a country’s good performance varies wildly, and a winner in one area, is a loser in another. A “failed state” today, is a trail-blazing one tomorrow.

This makes any attempt to definitely determine the best, the good, the average, the mediocre, the bad, and the appalling of African leaders very difficult and messy, if you decide to look at every big man’s individual action and policy initiative on its own merit.

So, after five months, the only thing one can confidently offer if you take in so much information and data, is a wacky index.

This one ranks leaders how close the life expectancy, literacy, education and living standards of their people are to those of emerging economies elsewhere in the world.

It also looks look at their record on the environment, corruption, and delivering social services, and how imaginative their visions of the future are.

It takes on the relative level of the rule of law, how frequently they hold elections, how much they allow civil society to operate, and how women are treated, and the general level of crime in their cities.

At a wider level, it considered the leaders’ commitment to globalisation; so it looks at investment in IT, mobile phones, contribution to peace keeping forces, and generosity towards refugees and exiles.

Finally, it factored in what we publicly know about their personal integrity and character.

To debate this index and to suggest your own, go to www.theeastafrican.co.ke and www.africareview.com