Mobiles, media, and mass messaging in African politics

Within wider debates on the private sector's role in providing, protecting or respecting public goods such as safety and security, non-state media can have special responsibilities.

 

Last week I began preparing notes for a part in the EU Eurojust programme's network on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, whose next meeting will consider the jurisprudence and practicalities around the potential liability of business entities and owners for complicity in, contribution to, or commission of the most grave international crimes.

 

Most attention focuses on classic scenarios such as a firm that provides lethal gas used in a death camp (IG Farben company's Zyklon-B gas in Nazi Germany). Colonial and post-colonial Africa yield some examples albeit ones that mainly have a less obvious chain of causation or imputed intention to profit from crimes against humanity.

 

The role of the media and telecoms sectors is less often considered, although a notable African exception is the role of a privately-owned local radio station in broadcasting hate-speech and incitement in Rwanda in the lead-up to that country's 1994 genocide. More recently, this year's Kenya elections witnessed a wave of efforts to prevent a repeat of the inflammatory private broadcasts and publications that occurred around the 2007-8 election-related serious ethnic violence. Across West Africa in the last decade, a flowering of non-state newspapers and talk-back radio has fuelled greater free political communication but has also witnessed private media houses acting as platforms for ethnic baiting and stereotyping of a sort that can have very serious consequences.

 

Such situations call for state regulation of private media self-regulation to constrain the production of harmful content well before it constitutes or contributes to the sort of conduct that raises the interest of prosecutors in The Hague. The inherent limits on freedom of expression and the normative weight of prohibitions on incitement to grave crimes mean that such situations raise merely obvious duties -- and not really any dilemmas -- for private media or telecoms outfits (although on-line self-publication raises particular challenges for internet service provider firms).

 

A somewhat different situation for media and telecoms firms around Africa involves not mass crimes or their precursors but the many ways in which commercial provision of communications services comes head to head with electoral or protest politics, mundane or menacing. It is where the pressure for self-censorship or altered operations comes from the state bureaucracy in a context where democratic principles and public order are both potentially directly at stake.

 

It is one thing if a valid law requires, for example, that in the interests of public order a private mobile phone service provider not enable political parties to send mass multi-recipient text (SMS) messages around election time. The issue becomes whether that law is reasonable and of general, impartial application. If not (for instance, if used by the state to suppress the voice of its political opposition or to monitor its communications), the telecoms company may need to make difficult calculations, including balancing its relationship with the government with its reputation or its principals' own principles.

 

In many cases, there may be no formal regulatory basis for state officials to request phone, media or social media firms to constrain their output or their customers' usage. Instead, implicit in such requests is a threat, for instance of non-renewal of broadcast or service provider licences in future. Where politics and business intersect in hard cases, it is far easier for armchair commentators to counsel firms to take a path of principled pragmatism than to have to actually walk it.

 

This week sees controversial elections in Zimbabwe to end the 2008-9 power-sharing arrangement. Homegrown independent mobile phone firm Econet has come under considerable pressure to agree to block mass SMS-sending by organisational users. Ostensibly, the request is premised on a need to preserve public order (Kenya took similar steps ahead of its 2013 election). Some argue that the net effect in the Zimbabwe / Econet case will be to favour one party over another. The firm has reportedly and perhaps understandably obliged.

 

Indeed, these Zimbabwe elections are showcasing more generally the evolving role of mobile and internet (and mobile internet) technologies in African electoral politics -- even if the vast majority of voters across the continent still appear to rely on radio for the bulk of their political self-education.

 

In addition to traditional media (a new private independent TV station recently began broadcasting into Zimbabwe from South Africa, via satellite), the country is experiencing new phenomena such as the 'Baba Jukwa' Facebook character who purports to disclose, from within the ruling party, its many intrigues; Google Africa has launched a one-stop Zimbabwe election hub site collating news and other stories; website votewatch263.org is attempting to mimic Kenyan 'crowdsourcing' experiences by providing a space for individuals to report issues related to the conduct of campaigning and voting; the Econet SMS measure is a first for the country even if state monitoring of communications there is not.

 

Democratic aspirations and political competition will continue to stimulate innovation in the use of mobile and internet technologies across the continent -- sometimes the innovation will come from pro-democracy groups, and sometimes from incumbent regimes (or indeed rebel or other armed groups who in Africa have taken a strong liking to platforms like Twitter).

 

By choice or circumstance, private sector providers will put or find themselves at the heart of this trend.

 

Jo

 

'Africapitalism': doing good by doing well

That corporations and individuals can 'do well while doing good' seems pretty obvious.

It is nevertheless a notion and neat catch-phrase central to new approaches to the role that business should play in society, or perhaps to what should count as a 21st Century definition of 'success' in business. Such approaches are variously described as progressive capitalism, stakeholder capitalism, creating shared value, triple bottom line (people-planet-profit), and so on.

Implicit in the idea of 'doing well while doing good' would seem to be that businesses make efforts to have a net pro-social impact. It connotes moderating / improving their social, enviro and governance footprint, and suggests both supplementing core business activities with explicit social contributions, as well as directing those core activities towards registering a wider range of impacts than the traditional 'bottom line'.

It is interpreted, of course, to contrast with Milton Friedman's retort that a business has no social responsibilities other than to seek profit: on this view, businesses do good (improve social conditions) when they do well, but their only responsibilities, as such, are to their shareholders, employees, tax-collectors and regulators. In any event the latter relationships mainly involve legal duties, not mere 'responsibilities'.

The idea of 'doing well by doing good' is perhaps a bit distinct, at least conceptually. It connotes a firm that prospers materially as a direct result of its pro-social contributions: improving its brand through philanthropic outreach, or attracting the best talent by developing a reputation for great social awareness, and so on.

Then there is the notion of 'doing good by doing well...'.

The latter appears to be the essence of 'Africapitalism' -- renewed discussion of which in last week's Gaurdian prompted this post.

Nigerian banker Tony Elumelu promotes Africapitalism as the (unquestionably sound) idea that Africa's development should be African-led; it should focus not on aid or government actions but on developing conditions conducive to free enterprise; government's role should be minimal and facilitative -- because by unleashing entrepreneurial spirit and commercial potential, African countries will inevitably improve the developmental conditions of all in society; business has a commercial interest in doing good (building more peaceful, healthy, educated, prosperous societies) because this creates conditions in which business may prosper further. The commercial incentive to do well can foster all manner of innovations that might make life for many Africans easier, more secure, less exclusive; more gender equal.

The focus should be on removing obstacles to African-driven free enterprise and profit-making, Elumelu suggests, because this will "touch" society in transformative ways not achievable under present conditions. By enabling Africans to do well, much social good will result.

There is much that is appealing, to my mind, about this approach. Elumelu reiterates the much-heard (and somewhat true) refrain that Africa need not mimic other societies but can leapfrog others' experiences and development stages, so as to develop its own variety of socially-embedded and communally-conscious capitalism ... in essence, a sort of Ubuntu Inc.

Yet Elumelu will know that Africa is not a blank slate. For every 'leapfrog' opportunity is a 'lag' effect from past and existing patterns of relations between business, government and society. Pervasive features of its various countries' political economy militate against any automatic 'trickling down' effect from the success of some; these bottlenecks cannot simply be dismissed by referring to Africans' greater propensity for familial and communal sharing as the basis for what will perforce emerge, organically, as a more benign capitalism. Income inequality in Africa's fastest growing economies is growing, not narrowing, for instance.

Elumelu is not Friedman reincarnated, nor is he just Africa's Michael Porter. The debate he has led this decade is a much-needed one; it is hard to argue against the reform thrust he proposes, given the myriad obstacles to building a successful business in many African settings. A more dynamic, capable, bigger, richer locally-owned private sector promises jobs, promotes pride in Africa's self-upliftment, and would give African governments the revenue sources to deliver better services and social support. The current momentum behind looking to the private sector for a lead creates many opportunities simultaneously to tackle development and sustainability challenges afresh.

Yet calls for reforms to free up profit-making opportunities and minimise predatory rent-seeking are not new. Perhaps a more interesting practical debate is how the local private sector (assisted by donors and foreign firms, where appropriate) can help build state capacity to tax and distribute fairly and transparently. Philanthropy is one thing, but absent such capacity and will by the state, doing very well in Africa will not do most people much good.

Jo

See some related posts: after this year's African 'Davos' (here); taxation and corporate responsibility in Africa (here); and last week's post on business and development in Africa (here).

See a recent Elumelu speech and his thoughts in more detail (here and here).

The US, China and investing in Africa's development

This week Nigeria's president is in China, and last week the US president ended a week-long Africa trip.

Both the Obama visit and the China-in-Africa story raise questions about maximising the sustainable development benefits of prevailing high levels of foreign commercial interest in Africa, while mitigating any harmful inherent or incidental effects.

The last decade's growth in the quantity of foreign investment, trade, loan financing and other commercial interest in Africa has not always been matched by its quality.

By 'quality' I refer to developmental indicators that lie behind high headline GDP growth rates: foreign investment has not necessarily decreased inequality or insecurity, nor necessarily increased inclusivity, institutional capacity, or the integrity of governance processes (one could list other metrics, but I ran out of words beginning with 'i'...).

Such presumed links between investment-related growth and multi-indicator developmental gains require measurement and research; one aspect that requires more data is whether there are, in fact, relevant qualitative differences (seen from the perspective of Africa's inclusive and sustainable development) between investment from OECD and non-OECD countries.

The China-in-Africa story of course has myriad dimensions. This blog's interest is the business-government-society nexus: there is scope for further empirical research on the nature and efficacy of Beijing's current attempts to regulate the social, environmental and governance (ESG) impact of both state-owned and quasi- or non-state Chinese commercial initiatives and businesses in Africa.

A related question is whether -- and in what ways -- the ESG impact of Chinese firms (or funded projects) is materially different from US, EU, Japanese or other OECD firms (or indeed those from the BRICS, Gulf and other regions). It is often assumed that Western firms' ESG performance in Africa is bound to be superior because of their greater exposure (especially if listed) to regulatory and reputational pressures at home; it is also assumed and that this exposure constrains Western firms' commercial performance (competitiveness) relative to firms hailing from countries that pay less attention to how their companies behave abroad.

Statements by senior US officials reminding Africans to be wary of 'new' (Chinese and other) partners play off or play into such assumptions. They may be well-founded, and indeed they are assumptions that inform some of my previous posts (for example, here) on home-state regulation as an issue in strategic competition for access to African resources.

Such assumptions have an intuitively sound ring to them. However, they are largely working assumptions, sometimes laced with presumptions about the relative moral high ground of Western firms that might not be borne out by facts; if we are to be honest, more research is thus needed on whether there is any clear categorical connection between the national origin of a firm (sometimes, with globalised commodity firms for instance, a rather artificial linking) and its inclination to engage in social investment or to refrain from doing harm. Do we know in fact whether Canadian firms operating in Africa invariably have a superior net ESG impact and corporate responsibility profile than Chinese ones?

Turning to the Obama visit, it highlights the significance of a related trend relevant to this blog's subject-matter:

Policymakers For development/aid policy types in the West, austerity is catalysing a re-think about both 'the private sector's development role' (the role of the private sector in helping meet development goals) and 'private sector development' (the role of development agencies in developing local private commercial activity and/or improving the investment climate, not for its own sake but as a means to achieving traditional development goals).

Private sector For their part, firms are seeing African developmental needs and aspirations as a source of opportunity. Perhaps the biggest 'i'-word in contemporary Africa -- whether viewed as a matter of human development or from the (narrower) perspective of investment risk/opportunity -- is 'infrastructure'. Deficits in 'hard' infrastructure such as ports, roads, rail, electricity deter investment, but also represent an investment opportunity, either to meet pent-up local demand or to facilitate access to exportable natural resource opportunities. It is an issue closely tied to the China-in-Africa phenomenon. Obama's visit announced the 'Power Africa' initiative to fund US engagement in improving electricity generation and distribution on the continent.

There are reasons for some scepticism about the nexus between private commercial ventures and pro-development outcomes. Investors cannot and should not displace government obligations. But much of the scepticism goes too far; there is surely far more reason for those interested in African development to see tremendous opportunities for harnessing the self-interest of firms (and the strategic competition of superpowers) in pursuit of pro-social development goals.

Ultimately, too, debates over whether US or Chinese investors are more socially responsible and responsive in Africa can often miss the point, as I've argued elsewhere. The question is not so much the source of foreign interest, but the capacity and willingness of recipient African governments to ensure that private gain is not at the expense of the public interest.

Jo

ps - my first blogpost reflected on the difficulty of talking simplistically about 'the private sector' including where state-owned firms are increasingly active across Africa: here.