The few would not rule the many

In most countries today, citizens elect representatives to make laws on their behalf. This indirect democracy was made with the idea that the representatives would be responsible for the majority's interests while protecting minority rights. Indirect democracy and neo-liberal economic model are cousins, and both continue to dominate the development narrative globally. With neo-liberal model, GDP is king, countries have deregulated, loosened capital controls, cut corporate taxes, and liberalized labour markets. The neo-liberal order is seen as blood transfusion necessary to keep economies of developing countries alive and connected to the sources of life called capital. Indirect democracy is providing an enabling environment for the neo-liberal project. Interest groups (such as corporate elites) would not have to change the minds of all people, but just a few representatives. As such, there is growth in extractive business models in developing countries that do not benefit ordinary people, but instead fuel inequalities and discontent among citizens. The eruption of popular anger and pro-democracy uprisings dubbed "Arab Spring" that tossed many countries' politics especially in North Africa and Middle East starting 2011, was rooted in the failure of the neo-liberal model. The Arab Spring remains a wake-up call for the government policymakers and corporate elites of developing countries. As inequality grows, majority of the citizens have been pushed to the bottom; worsening their leverage in the power relationship vis-a-vis the government policymakers and corporate elites. While weak and disadvantaged, poor citizens still have capacities to resist. With the support of international aid, many government policymakers (cum corporate elites) in developing countries have managed to manipulate their citizens' anger. These government policymakers deliberately eschew to understand and address the root cause of their citizens' discontent, partly because they are acting on orders from the sources of capital, and partly because under representative democracy, these policymakers see government as a short term project (not worth the trouble of looking far ahead).

Foreign direct investment is good for Africa but...

Foreign direct investment (FDI) into Africa is burgeoning and it is espoused as a panacea to unlock Africa's development. To effectively benefit from this FDI, African countries need to address three key structural impediments to development.

First, economically, at independence, many African countries inherited infrastructure that was developed for and suited to colonial trade (corridors of extraction). This meant railroads to ports, for export of raw materials to the colonial home countries. The infrastructure was not relevant for development of local industry and intra-African trade.

Second, politically, national boundaries were created based on natural resource sharing without due regards to ethnic boundaries that existed. This has contributed to challenge of nation state building and resultant flagility and conflicts in many African countries.

Third, institutionally, the laws and regulations of colonial administrators most of which were inherited by African leaders as a pact for independence agreements, were to a large extent, anti-African. For example, the statutory laws and institutional set up for land administration did not allow and favour,respectively,  Africans to hold title to land on which they settled. The same was for business registration by African entrepreneurs.

These are fundamental structural hurdles that need to be addressed. To do that, there is need for long term planning that can be sustained beyond tenure of office of the seating president. The questions are, 'who' will sustain it and shield it from interest groups that are benefiting from the current status quo?