8th Day

As my first post on my web log since returning I thought it appropriate to comment on one of the first things which struck me on my recent sojourn to the dark continent, politics.

This is a subject derided or ignored by many, and even more so when visiting someone else's country. I have no wish to direct the people of the countries I have recently visited
regarding their various political situations, but I will certainly not shrink from offering my observations, breif as they were, on the situation of national governance in Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia, and the relevat lessons that I think we can learn from them.

Politics, firstly, is boring - even as the most politically active member of the GSE team, I have to admit that I was a bit bored with politics when I went overseas. And politics is tedious and boring, at least, that is, until it starts affecting you. When you leave the comforts of a developed nation and suddenly come to a place where the standards of road safety are less than what you are used to, the average income of the population is less than what you are used to, the services provided by both the government and also the private sector - be it something like communications, building standards or health care - are not what you are used to, you are compeled to ask 'Why such differences?'

Why indeed does a country like Malawi, with direct access to the third largest fresh water lake in the world, as well as numerous running creeks and rivers and underground water supplies, seem to have a tenuous handle on feeding itself as a nation from one maize crop to the next, ever dependant on the rains and how and when they fall over the course of the wet season? A number of factors constrain the ability of farmers in Malawi to develop irrigated and diversified agriculture in Malawi - I don't know of anyone who can get a business loan from one of the local banks at under 22% P/A, there is the problem of buying things from overseas that have to paid for with a weak currency (like fertiliser, tractors,deisel, irrigation equipment), then there's the area of an unskilled work force, poor road and rail networks (not only Malawi - its worse in Mozambique, through which Malawian goods have to go for export) and a lack of active support for businesses (such as being able to get engine parts in a timely fashion or getting adequate cooperation from government employees). To these things, however, it has to be said that there were many challenges facing the development of agriculture in Queensland. Malawi isn't Queensland, you may say, and you would be right - but neither are the two agriculturally developed countries to the south of Malawi, South Africa and Zimbabwe. I think from my observations I could also argue that many parts of Malawi that are under developed in terms of agriculture have more potential than some developed parts of Queensland, and aslo some parts of South Africa that I saw.

To look at those limiting factors I listed above, If you think about it the govenment in a country has a significant effect on many of these things: government borrowing and spending habits (especially whether they run continued defecits or surpluses, and how effectivelly they spend the money they get) have an impact on the inflation and interest rates, as well as the exchange rate. The state of the roads determines how quickly a business can get their product to market (and also how long it will have trucks and cars in a state of disrepare if there are a number of potholes on the roads as big as your kitchen table and one foot deep). The state of your local hospital will also have an impact on how soon an injured worker can come back to work, as well as whether someone with the skills you need for your business will be prepared to relocate to your part of the world to help your business.

In a developed country where even the socialists and the left-wing excersize 'small government', government has a large influence and effect on our everyday lives. In a country with less distractions and more basic but unfulfilled needs, the obvious just becomes that much more apparent. 30 years of a one pary dictatorship, over a populance unready for self-government, then a change to a freer but also particullary corrupt and lax leadership has not done Malawi any great favours as far as the position of its poorest and least priveliged. The wish by its politicians to be popular (and thus, re-elected) has led Malawi to support some noble but most likely impractical and even detrimental policies such as looking to the smallholder (as oposed to the commercial farmer) for food security.

Malawi, however, has made some important steps forward over the term of the current president: interest rates are down, as is inflation. Businesses are generally moving forward and there is an environment in which there is the security for people to invest, education seems to be moving forward. More needs to be done in the way of improving the health system, however, and AIDS is taking a terrible toll on the population - as well as the obvious social and humanitarian disaster of having half the adult population infected, it leaves many orphans to be looked after, less skilled workmen in the work place and less people to support the government - and hence health and education - with their taxes.

Governments cannot lead people where they don't wish to go, but they also have a duty and responsibility to make at times unpopular but neccessary decisions in the peoples best interests, and in a democracy, they must then sell these to the electorate. Government doesn't have a role in planning the minute decisions of the businesses in its country or municpality, but it certainly has a role to see that a stable and safe environment for businesses exist so that they can go about creating employment and wealth, and to see that there is a provision to look after those not able to look after themselves.

Government makes a difference. If you don't agree, just take a look at Zimbabwe.