Introduction: In today’s world, Africa no longer finds itself to be a great power. Through the exploitation of our nations by the west and the poor leadership of our governments, Africa has become dependent on the west for survival. Gone are the days when Sundjiata Keita forged the great empire of Mali, no longer are the Sudanic states the center of world trade, and an end has come to leaders like Shaka Zulu, Hendrik Witbooi, and Samori Toure, who struck fear into the hearts of the Europeans in Africa. Today, African countries all fall into the bracket of Third World countries with, in many cases, rampid starvation and malnutrition, high poverty rates, and unacceptably high infant mortality rates. The civil wars that have racked Africa since the end of colonialism have generally been in response to people feeling that there is no hope. But there is something that gives many people living in Africa hope—the stories of great empires and leaders of the past. In this essay, I would like to focus on Samori Toure, who forged an empire from the scattered Malinke peoples living in the area that encompasses parts of the modern day Northern Ivory Coast, Guinea, and Southern Mali.

But what is the significance of a leader like Samori Toure? He was indeed a cold-hearted dictator who executed hundreds if not thousands of his own people. Samori Toure did not believe in freedom of speech, expression, and, in general, the questioning of his will. In his quest to modernize his army, he raided villages and sold his enemies to the Europeans as slaves. Fighting against the French, he was not really fighting for Africans and/or the Malinke people; he was indeed fighting for the preservation of his throne and thus his power. Samori believed in Samori and did not fight for the honor of the Malinke peoples or for the oppressed peoples of West Africa as others did. But all of this is irrelevant to the many West Africans who know and hear his story. In the times in which we are living, it gives us Africans joy and hope to hear about an African leader who put fear in the heart of the Europeans, who now exploit us. In fact, Sekou Toure, the first president of Guinea, used his relation to Samori Toure to legitimate himself as a suitable president for the newly independent colony.

Samori Toure was important because he was an African leader who defeated the European colonial masters on numerous occasions before his capture. He was a master of military tactics and brilliantly organized the empire that he controlled. But more than anything else, he was, and is, a symbol. He is a symbol of defiance and strength in the face of overwhelming odds. Overwhelming odds that many African peoples find themselves in today in the face of modern day colonialism and exploitation.

Throughout colonialism and post-colonialism, Africa’s colonial masters made great efforts to hide the exploits of many of our leaders from us. African children were taught that they were monkeys with inferior intelligence to whites and that all of our great leaders such as Samori were just ruthless savages. As the renowned African historian Basil Davidson notes, “Men like al Hajj Umar appear in the European story as nothing more than wild fanatics or frantic nuisances; leaders like Samory as bloodthirsty bandits or mere adventurers. In truth, these men responded, as outstanding leaders always will, to the most profound movements of social need and thought of their time” (Davidson, 1964; pg. 268). The important part of this statement is the latter part which states that men like Samori were “outstanding leaders and responded to the social needs and thoughts of their time.” Understanding this is critical because it casts our African leaders as influential individuals, independent of Europeans. Through portions of our post-colonial history, it was still taught that the only way that an African leader was great or worthy of mention was in relation to the Europeans. So, if one was a leader like Hermanus Van Wyk, who betrayed the Nama and Herero of Namibia to the Germans, he would be portrayed as a visionary who saw the future better than the others.

Samori was a great leader in and of himself, and his opposition of and resistance to European rule enhanced this status. Furthermore, much that is said about him from some sources just does not take into consideration the context of the place and times that he was living in. The truth of the matter is, most, if not all kings, princes, and leaders of African kingdoms and empire were dictators. There was no democracy or individualism floating around during that time. Samori was a leader similar to those of Asante, Tukolor, and Dahomey. Granted, each had their own radically different styles of governance based on the situations that each found themselves in, but they were all, for better or worse, emperors and kings. But, in my mind, Samori stands in a category of his own in terms of the West African leaders who opposed the French and British influence in the latter part of the 19th century.

So when we ask the question, “Why did these leaders continue their resistance of the Europeans knowing they were overmatched?” the best answer lies with the words of A. Adu Boahen when he writes, “the issue at stake was not short-term or long-term advantages but rather the fundamental question of his land and his sovereignty” (Boahen, 1985; pg.10) Many would rather have died in the defense of their sovereignty and independence, and either, to further quote Boahen, “chose to die on the battlefield, go into voluntary flight or face exile rather than surrender their sovereignty without a struggle” (Boahen, 1985; pg.11). It is this latter part that again is the main reason why Samori is so well remembered and should continue to be from an African perspective. He embodied exactly what Boahen talked about. He would never surrender his empire, as many leaders did throughout Africa, to the Europeans without a fight. It is this defiance that gives many Africans, especially our brothers in the west; hope that they were at one time something more than savages. We are strong and powerful and we need to take our lives into our own hands, like Samori did and create a better life for our children and us.

So what will follow will be a discussion on the biography of Samori Toure before 1861 followed by the beginnings of his empire from 1861 to 1882, when he first fought the French, ending with a discussion on his resistance to the French from 1882 to his capture in 1898. In conclusion, I would like re-emphasize his importance as a great leader and talk briefly about the effect that his and other resistance movements, had on the European will to continue their oppression of Africa.

(Part II shall follow tomorrow and will discuss the Early Life and Rise of an Empire in Samori Toure’s biography.)

Why is it that so many “experts” on Africa conclude that foreign aid/investment is the key for African development. It is true that foreign investment/aid, when used appropriately, can stimulate economic growth through job creations and industrialization. However, Africa has its own wealthy elite who if they invested in their countries, would lessen the “need” for foreign aid/investment for Africa to develop. If these rich African elites were to marshal their vast resources, they could pour millions into their countries achieving the same goals as foreign aid/investment and maybe even surpassing them.

However, it must be understood that there are strong barriers preventing these wealthy elites from achieving this goal. To begin with, many of these wealthy Africans got wealthy from stealing from their countries. Many cut deals with foreign oil, diamond, and gold companies (to name a few) and actively participated in the exploitation of their country’s resources. With this money, these African elites began investing their money not in their countries but in places like France, Britain, or the US. They bought villas, stocks, and any manner of wealth holding assets outside of their birthplaces thus in a way giving the west returns on their investments in Africa as they money they poured into certain nations came back to them in this manner.

Furthermore, much of the African elite are either presently in the government or military, or where so at some point. This is problematic because many of them abused the powers of their offices and illegally profited from them. In addition to this, they have no motivation to invest in their countries because they enjoy their positions of power and influence in society. They fear investing in their people because that might upset the status quo where they are dominant in society by creating more people having income and wealth. Moreover, many foreign companies/businesses rely on this corruption of the African elite and political leaders to continue their exploitation of our resources. They will not easily allow an upsetting of this system and will make it difficult to change.

However, even though there are indeed a lot of drawbacks to trusting and relying on the African elites, there is hope. In this article it has been mentioned that most of the African elite are at this point in time not trustworthy or useful in terms of being able to properly find the incentive to invest in their countries. But there is a smaller percentage, unseen by the international as well as national communities that are in a good position to invest in their countries.

These elites need to take the lead in working together to pour money into their own country’s industries and businesses. Entrepreneurship needs to be encouraged and rewarded by government in order to develop the country. The incentive that these elites need to see is that there is huge potential for profit in their own countries by investing in them. Foreign companies and governments are not running to Africa spending billions of dollars because they are crazy, they see untapped potential and wish to make billions off of their millions in investments! Our African elite needs to see this and organize themselves and start identifying sectors of the economy that has a strong possibility for strong returns on their investments and start making moves.

But in order to create more of an incentive for these African elites to spend the money they have, government is necessary. In many countries, Namibia for example, the official rate of interest is roughly 12%. This is a problem has now investor will only take out loans and invest in projects/business ventures that yield over 12% in profits. It is very hard and rare to find any investment opportunity that yields this kind of profit in the short term or even the long term. Loans taken out at this level need very wealthy people who can take the losses that will occur on their investments. Something needs to be done to lower these interest rates in order to provide a stronger incentive for the wealthy to risk their money.

Government also needs to lower income taxes in order to encourage the upper classes to start spending and investing. With a lower income tax rate a further incentive is created for the African elite to begin investing their wealth as they now have more disposable income with which to do so. The draw back of this is that unfortunately in countries like Namibia and South Africa this upper class is taxed heavily because less than half of the population pays tax. So in my opinion government needs to find a way to get people who indeed are capable of paying taxes to start paying in order to help recoup the losses in revenue it will incur when they lower taxes on the rich.

And it is my belief that if this is done, the rich will begin investing in the country and jobs will be created. As more jobs are created more of the population will be able to be taxed which in the medium and long run is good for the country as government has more revenue! More revenue for government means more services for the population such as the building of schools, hospitals, police stations, roads and all manner of public works.

If government and the private sectors can learn to work together and can mutually assist each other in the growth of their respective nations, Africa will not need much foreign assistance in order to develop. Although this article does not speak to all of the problems facing this relationship between government and the private sector, it does tackle the key issues. Africa does not need to west, China or India in order to develop, what we need is a stronger will and desire to better ourselves and when this is achieved, we will develop beyond our wildest dreams.

November 2009 is election year in Namibia and contrary to the typical trend in Africa; it will be a peaceful and successful one. The South West Africa Peoples Organization (SWAPO) Party has the unquestioned support of the majority of the Namibian people and is the only party in Namibia that offers a good plan for progress. Most Namibians are loyal and confident in SWAPO party’s ability and determination to improve Namibia and will demonstrate so in the upcoming election.

Five years ago, a historic election took place in Namibia. The Founding President of the country, President Sam Nujoma had fulfilled the constitutional limit of two terms as President and SWAPO party had chosen Hifikepunye Pohamba to stand as the party’s candidate for President. It was a moment unprecedented in African history as there was a successful transition of power from the Founding President to his successor.

According to statistics of the election, out of 977,742 registered voters 85.2% actually turned out to vote. Hifikepunye Pohamba won 76.44% of the vote with his nearest challenger Ben Ulenga winning just 7.28%. In the elections for the National Assembly (Parliament) of Namibia SWAPO party won 75.83% of the available seats with the Congress of Democrats winning 7.27%. SWAPO won comfortably in both elections and seeing as the elections were peaceful and successful in the sense that all political parties were able to campaign freely; there is no reason to believe that SWAPO party will not have similar success in the upcoming elections.

This reality of a SWAPO landslide victory can be attributed to many factors of which a few will be highlighted here. To begin with, SWAPO party is the party that fought for and brought independence to Namibia in 1990 and thusly is still deeply respected and trusted by the Namibian people. From it’s founding in 1960 till the present SWAPO has been present in the minds of Namibians as the fighter for their rights and this is something the people value highly.

Furthermore, SWAPO party does have a comprehensive and clear plan on how to develop the country through projects such as Vision 2030 and the National Development Plan 3 to name the more important ones. There are indeed problems facing the implementations of these development plans and how to best achieve them but they are at least goals SWAPO party is trying to achieve.

In addition to this, SWAPO party is truly a national movement. Namibia has thirteen different ethnic groups and although the Ovambo tribe is slightly less than 2/3 of the population, SWAPO has support from all of the tribes. Most of the other political parties such as RDP, COD, DTA, and NUDO are formed primarily on tribal foundations and have yet to create a message that the Namibian people as a whole can rally around.

Finally, the weakness, ineffectiveness, and incompetence of the opposition parties make any of their elections to power a dream only they entertain. As mentioned before, COD, RDP, DTA and all the others have formed primarily on tribal lines rather than national lines and thus don’t appeal to the Namibian people. These parties also don’t have any plan for what they will do for the country when they get to power; all of their campaign rhetoric consists of critiquing SWAPO party but yet offering no alternative to supposed “ineffective policies”. Moreover, many of these opposition groups were founded by unhappy SWAPO members who broke from the party because they believed when independence came they should have been given higher positions of power in government or government run businesses. They didn’t form these groups to serve the Namibian people but to satisfy their own desires for power and thusly they will not gain any meaningful votes in the upcoming election.

With this as the case, coupled with SWAPO’s determination to run a strong and effective campaign, expect SWAPO to win the upcoming election. Presdent Pohamba, who is standing for re-election recently, spoke about what SWAPO had to do to ensure victory at the upcoming election and concluded his speech with these words, “We must also work harder and always consistently so that the voters can turn out in large numbers to exercise their democratic right and vote… While the track record of our Party speaks for itself, we must work to convince the populace that we can do better.” So as was stated earlier, expect SWAPO to handily win the November elections not because of corruption, voter intimidation or opposition intimidation, but because they are the party that the Namibian people wish to follow.

In a landmark case settled this week, the family of the “Ogoni 9” executed in 1995 received a US$ 15.5 million payout from Royal Dutch Shell company. The case goes back to the 1990’s in Nigeria where it was alleged that Shell had a long history of closely working with the Nigerian government to quell popular opposition to its business operations in the Niger Delta region; home of the Ogoni people.

Even though Nigeria is an oil-rich nation, environmental and human rights activists claim that oil and oil companies have brought nothing but poverty, environmental devastation and widespread incidences of severe human rights abuses to the inhabitants of the Delta. Oil spills, gas flaring and deforestation have stripped previously agricultural fertile land of its environmental resources, further impoverishing local communities by making traditional income earning activities such as small scale farming and fishing virtually impossible.

Thus, the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) was founded in 1990 to non-violently agitate against the repression and exploitation of the Ogoni people and their resources by Shell and the Nigerian government. One of the founders, noted author and playwright Ken Saro-Wiwa worked tirelessly to raise worldwide awareness of MOSOP and the plight of the Ogoni people. MOSOPs activism resulted in Saro-Wiwa’s nomination for a Nobel Prize and he was also awarded a Right Livelihood Award as well as the Goldman Prize for his environmental and human rights activism.

In early 1993, Shell requested military support to build a pipeline through Ogoni territory. Karalolo Kogbara, a local farmer who protested over the bulldozing of her crops, was the first victim of the Nigerian military’s violent eviction. She was shot by Nigerian troops and lost an arm, spurring mass agitation in the Niger Delta.

In 1994, Saro-Wiwa and other MOSOP leaders were prevented by the Nigerian military from attending a gathering to air their views. It was at this gathering where four Ogoni chiefs were murdered. The military governor promptly announced that Saro-Wiwa was responsible for the deaths, forgetting that his own troops prevented Saro-Wiwa from attending. These murders were used as a pretext to conduct raids on 60 Ogoni villages, where several hundred men suspected of MOSOP involvement were beaten and detained.

Saro-Wiwa and his co-accused henceforth known “Ogoni 9”, were thereafter tried by a tribunal for the murders of the Ogoni chiefs. The trial itself was a travesty of justice. The Ogoni 9 were denied access to due process, as well as an opportunity to appeal death sentences proclaimed on them. The Ogoni 9 were executed on November 10 1995. A month after, Shell signed an agreement with Sani Abacha’s junta to invest US$ 4 billion in a liquefied natural gas project.

On behalf of the families of the Ogoni 9, the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and EarthRights International (ERI) flanked by other human rights attorneys sued Shell for human rights violations against the Ogoni people. Amongst the plaintiff’s allegations was evidence that Shell provided monetary and logistical support to the Nigerian police, frequently calling on them for “security operations” that often just amounted to raids and terror inflicted against the Ogoni people. Other allegations of meddling in the Ogoni 9 trial emerged, where in one instance, Shell Nigeria reported to headquarters that Saro-Wiwa would be convicted.

The Shell case is by no means a unique phenomenon, where companies are sued for corporate social unaccountability. Chevron, another oil multinational has been sued by the Bowoto for gross human rights violations including extrajudicial killing and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in the Niger Delta region. The case originates in May 1998, when unarmed residents of the Niger Delta protested at Chevron’s offshore Parabe Platform, demanding that the corporation contribute more resources to the development of the impoverished oil-rich region. On May 28th, the protestors were shot and some killed by Nigerian soldiers and Chevron security personnel who were transported to the platform on Chevron-leased helicopters. Chevron is also being sued for causing the destruction of riverbeds, natural ecosystems, and contributing to extreme land erosion.

As more oil and extractive resources are being discovered, such reports of human and environmental violations are now setting a precedent. Cases of uranium workers in Namibia and gold miners in South Africa, where mining companies have been accused of not providing safe and healthy working environments, are cases in point. News reports of miners in Tanzania dying as a result of mines caving in have also been reported. The use of child labour has also been brought to light.

The recent settlement of the Ogoni 9 case further endorses the global trend towards corporate social accountability, that has pushed businesses to adopt internal codes of conduct. And this paradigm shift is not only directed at large multinational companies, even smaller businesses in Africa are under scrutiny.

The recently published Africa Competitiveness Report 2009 (ACR) arrives against the backdrop of the global economic crises whose effects are now being felt all over the Continent. Although Africa previously registered average annual growth rates of 5.9%, the global economic meltdown has meant that for 2009, GDP on the continent is expected to be below 3%.

Competitiveness of African businesses (their ability to create value) is both affected by the business environment, as well as internal factors (mainly production costs). Ultimately, profit minded businesses compete on the market on the basis of prices of their goods and services. Production costs (mostly wage related) are thus of fundamental concern when starting up or managing an enterprise, where business decisions centre on how efficiently to convert inputs into sales. The ACR is particularly useful in this respect as it analyses the direct, indirect and invisible costs African entrepreneurs’ face, with the conclusion that African firms experience higher costs as shares of sales in comparison to its most aggressive global competitor, East Asia whose operational costs are said to be almost 20% less expensive.

In terms of basic requirements for sustainable enterprise, sub-Saharan businesses face numerous challenges in accessing loans and venture capital. Efficiency enhancers such as public trust of the political class and government officials, also leave a lot to be desired. For instance, favouritism in government decision-making has been listed in Kenya as a factor that hinders local enterprise competitiveness. As far as innovation and communication goes, internet penetration rates are low in Africa compared to its Asian business rivals; and in an era where the knowledge economy is gaining more primacy, low levels of internet access in schools translates into higher training costs for employees compared to other regions.

Individual African firms in many African countries, also significantly suffer from a constraint in electricity availability as a result of a spatial terrain that impedes access to energy resources, un-affordability of energy, coupled with a regulatory environment that limits the number of investments for such technology. Even SMEs and co-operatives that venture into electricity generation and transmission through wind and solar power, are faced with a multitude of barriers from regulatory authorities and laws that give monopoly power to state corporations. In Tanzania, the quality of electricity supply has severely hindered local firm competitiveness, both regionally and throughout the continent.

High transport costs due to the poor quality of road and railway networks, also adversely affect the profitability of African enterprises. The railway that originates from Mombasa has been a sore thumb for enterprise for decades. Even recent concessions have failed to bear any fruits in terms of increased inland trade. The ACR also cites a lack of competition in the trucking industry that keeps transport costs exorbitantly high. In West and Central Africa, trucking cartels keep market prices high, both affecting consumer purchasing power as well as producer profitability. The report proposes such cartels should be abolished to promote enterprise in addition to fiscal incentives that encourage entrepreneurs to venture into the transport sector.

Cross border trade has also been an impediment to free enterprise within Africa. Exorbitant freight costs and delay prone border posts not counting the numerous police barriers speckled on Africa’s highways mean that inland trade is unattractive for new entrepreneurs.

In terms of the external business environment, the ACR reports that Africa retained the lowest global ranking in terms of its regulatory environment. Entrepreneurs face copious regulatory barriers including business startup rules, difficult registration of property requirements, a minefield of customs and excise policies, so much so that according to the ACR, the Continent stands out as a difficult location in terms of time and/ or the cost of doing business. The extent and effect of punitive corporate and value added taxation in countries such as in Kenya also act as a deterrent to business, keeping many entrepreneurs within the informal sector.

Even for technological savvy African firms keen to exploit business processing outsourcing opportunities, constraints in technological costs are involved. For those engaged in development of agri-business, the prohibitive costs from local research institutions mean that their innovative capacity also suffers. Competitive advantages such as Africa’s market size which ideally should offer vast economies of scale, are virtually wiped out by invisible costs such as corruption and security costs.

Thus, in order to remain profitable, the first cost in production to be guillotined by local firms are commonly labour related costs. Instances include the curtailment of training opportunities, not providing medical insurance in countries where it is mandatory, keeping wages at the barest minimum, resorting to unethical practices such as using child or illegal alien labour and refusing to put long-term employees on contract, amongst others. Another major social cost is environmental, where entrepreneurs face serious choices between keeping costs at a minimum as opposed to more expedient ways of processing that may cause environmental degradation. Even in African countries that have environmental bodies to monitor business activities and their environmental implications, these agencies are limited both in their capacity to detect violations, whilst environmental legislation is still nascent, and doesn’t empower them with vigorous enforcement rights.

Though these measures may pale in comparison to what the oil companies in the introduction have been charged with, they do still violate the rights of not only the people working for the enterprises; they also impact on the wider community in terms of lower income.

All businesses regardless of size, need to be aware that just as in the Ogoni 9 case, it is possible for them to be tried for corporate social unaccountability. It matters not whether the country of operation has such laws. The Ogoni case was filed under the Alien Tort Statute (1789) which gives non-US citizen the right to file lawsuits in US courts for international human rights violations. The Torture Victim Protection Act, empowers individuals to seek damages in the US for torture or extrajudicial killing, regardless of where the violations take place.

Nevertheless, business founders also need to be aware at the startup stage of the legacy they want their enterprise to have. This goes beyond a five year strategic plan. A business legacy is the impact an entrepreneur wants their venture to have 100 years from now. It matters not that Shell for instance began drilling oil in Nigeria in the 1950’s. It matters even less that the company was in existence way before then. The company will forever be linked to the case of the Ogoni 9.

African business does not operate in an isolated state, as seen by the local impact of the global financial crisis. As such, now is the time for African entrepreneurs think more long-term and in turn lobby for policies that emphasise competitiveness which will enable them to manage price shocks and economic uncertainty more competently; without having to resort to unethical measures.

Advocating for such competitiveness focussed reforms will not only promote business profitability, but will ultimately act as a catalyst for long-term growth and prosperity for Africa. Individually, we as entrepreneurs can educate ourselves and others on the importance of business integrity.

I've never thoroughly been sold on tourism being a proper industry for a developing economy. Tourists are fickle, they aren't reliable in the long term, and quite often, they're cheap bastards. I fleshed out a great number of these issues in regards to Croatia here and here. While those articles dealt to a large degree with beach tourism, they can also be applied to many other types as well where the tourism has a flash in the pan factor which can explode and then quickly burn out.

That being said, I think it is possible for tourism to exist as a "gateway economy" for a region or nation. It can work to get capital flowing in a place where it hasn't been and it can work to introduce the world at large to a place which is in turn familiarizes outsiders to the people and their customs. While this can be an annoying and childish process at times (the education of daft foreigners), it can also work to bring about the real maverick travelers that want to see the "next... '___'" before everyone else does, such as a friend I know who went surfing in Liberia.

I am a bit more tame in my travels and more than happy to let others carve a decently worn path before I get there, although it doesn't need to be a paved highway by any means. That said, I am really looking forward to somehow visiting Namibia in the near future. No, it's not because of the 18 hole golf course wrapping around the bottom of the airport runway in the capital, Windhoek (must make for wicked hook shots). It's also not because Windhoek means, "windy corner" which is probably an apt, albeit rather bland name for a town.

It's because of photos like this or this and photos of Kolmanskop as it gets eaten up by the Namib Desert. There is an emptiness and beauty to every photo I've seen of the country that has the effect of beckoning me to venture forth from my comfortable desk chair. It's a country of only two million people that's twice the size of California (where we have about 37 million currently). Just as a side note for the sake of facts and figures, Namibia gained independence from South Africa in 1990 and is the second least inhabited country in the world after Mongolia.

I was re-reminded to the draw of Namibia because of a recent article on The San Francisco Chronicle where they talk about the rise in the tourism industry there and how one can have a very nice cycling trip through the northern region. While cycling isn't my thing, I do envy their trip. This article is a good read. You should check it out if the least bit curious of the country as it only steps in stereotypes once or twice--"Namibia is safe and clean by African standards."--which is quite good for an American article on Africa.

Who I don't envy is Anthony Bourdain; at least on this trip. You can view Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5 of his trip, sampling Namibian cuisine. It's Part 4 at the 7:00 mark that's probably the roughest as Bourdain eats the business end of a warthog's lower intestine.

But all things aside, Bourdain pushes the boundaries of tourism a bit far. His experience does nothing to deter me from wanting to visit the country. Sure, many are probably scared to go as it is vast, deserted, and possibly full or lightly cooked warthog ass, but for me, it sounds just absolutely perfect.

Kwame Nkrumah wrote in his book, "Africa Must Unite", that each African country when its independence is achieved must do its utmost to develop as rapidly as possible. This is an important step on the road to achieving African unity because African countries with stronger economies are better able to control their own natural resources and if their leaders are believers in African nationalism they will link up with other African countries and further control their sources of income. In addition to this, I have been disturbed at the constant negative images that flood the western media about Africa. It is full of negative images and stories and it seems that outside of South Africa, Kenya and Egypt, there are no successful African nations. Today, I would like to focus on one such country, my own (!!), and briefly illustrate its successes while not running away from its failures.

In the south west corner of Africa, the country of Namibia sits relatively unknown to the world. In this nation of slightly over two millions souls, a new model for African development appears to have the potential of emerging. Winning independence on March 21, 1990 from Apartheid South Africa, Namibia seems to be one of the few African countries on the right track towards economic, social, and political development. Although there is still a long way to go, I believe that there are many positive signs that Namibia is showing on its road to progress.

Namibia is a country rich in natural resources and is one of the world’s leading exporters of diamonds (gem-quality), uranium, copper, and fish. Namibia also has a booming tourism industry that employs thousands of Namibians and of all the previously mentioned revenue makers for the country, offers the most potential for further growth in Namibia.

Although the presence of these natural resources has contributed greatly to Namibia’s current achievements, there is another item that was and still is vital to its success, good leadership. Under the guidance of the SWAPO (South West Africa People’s Organization) party, Namibia has managed its independence much better than other African countries. SWAPO was founded in 1960 and was the party that fought for the independence of Namibia from the Apartheid regime of South Africa. SWAPO won the 1990 elections under UN supervision and Dr. Sam Nujoma, President of the party was ascended to the Presidency.

Under the leadership of President Sam Nujoma, Namibia was set on the right path towards development and learned from the mistakes made by other newly independent African nations and avoided them.

For example, unlike other African political parties that came to power, when SWAPO won the first free and fair elections ever held in Namibia, they did not replace the white experts in the country with inexperienced Namibians. Instead, SWAPO left many whites in the previous positions they held and installed black people as their deputies and assistants so that Namibians could learn how to run certain institutions such as the water and electricity stations. This was very unpopular amongst some Namibians after independence as many still harbored a hatred for the white people who only a few months before were shamelessly exploiting and oppressing them. But the correct decision was made and because of this, there was not an immediate collapse of certain important industries and infrastructural agencies within the country. In addition, this helped heal the wounds of Apartheid in the country and promote forgiveness and reconciliation, not hatred of white people.

Furthermore, Namibia did not fall into the trap of accumulating loans from institutions like the IMF and World Bank. This problem has plagued so many other African countries but thankfully Namibia did not fall into that trap. Because of this, Namibia has a very small international debt and international organizations which are controlled by the west do not have the power to dictate how Namibia is to be run. The Namibian government as the representative of the people makes its own decisions and does not dance to the song of the west as some of our other African brothers and sisters sadly do.

Another important decision made by SWAPO was the declaration of all national resources, which includes, water, power, diamonds and uranium (to name a few), stay under national control. There can be no majority private ownership of these resources in Namibia. Government owns at least 51% of a particular industry and the private sector owns the rest. This guarantees that not too much foreign influence can be exerted over these strategic resources and it makes sure that what is produced by Namibians stays in the control of Namibians.

However, although Namibia has a lot of pluses in terms of potential for development there are many problems that face this fledging nation. Firstly, although Namibia has not fallen to the infections of corrupt government, it has fallen to the hiccups of the sometimes ignorant government. An example of this is that Namibia, over the years has tried to empower black Namibians by accelerating their promotion to positions of power. The problem with this is that some of the people put in these positions are not qualified to be ‘Minister of this’ or ‘GM of that.’ They have done honorable things in their past but what they have done has not enabled them to do what has to be done now. This has lead to some uninformed decisions in the management of some industries and ministries within the nation.

Thirdly, there is approximately a 30% HIV/AIDS prevalence rate in Namibia which has lead to the near crippling of the working population in Namibia. Because Namibia barely has two million people and our workforce is around 660,000, this death rate does hold Namibia back and is decimating an already small work-force. In order to try and counter-act this, the Namibian government spends millions of Namibian dollars for HIV/AIDS medication and prevention.

Fourthly, Namibia has a high unemployment rate of around 40% and a large discrepancy between the incomes of the rich and the poor. In conjunction with this, Namibia has a large poverty rate which has lead to an increase in crime in Namibia.

All in all, even though there are many challenges for Namibia to overcome, the potential for development is there. Moreover, Namibia has good international relations and through mutual agreement and a recognition that Namibia has potential for good economic growth, countries such as China, Denmark, South Africa and Germany, to name a few, have invested millions into helping Namibia develop. So, although Africa as a whole is possibly seen as this place where everything is bad and HIV/AIDS, poverty, civil war, and corruption reign supreme, there are countries such as Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, Mali, and others who have some of the above mentioned problems, but are fighting to solve these problems and continue on with developing their nation.