Tanzania: A Political Economy Analysis
This report provides a comprehensive political economy analysis of contemporary Tanzania. Focusing on developments since the election of John Magufuli as President, it traces the evolution of the country´s political economy. Three main developments are emphasized. First, significant efforts have been made at addressing corruption, reforming public service practice, and maximizing public revenues. Second, there has been a clear shift towards a state-led model of economic development. This reconfiguration is unfolding in an increasingly competitive political environment and in the context of long-standing symbiotic relationships between politics and business. Third, there has been an increasingly restrictive approach towards civil society. Representatives of the public have been arrested and detained, and open political gatherings have been banned. The potential impact of these changes on the political settlement are complex. Factionalism within the CCM in recent years have been characterized by repeated cases of grand corruption. Still, there has been remarkable party cohesion, related to the fact that the factions belong to a narrow elite, which with ultimately has shared interests. Effective state-led development faces several challenges. Political capacity to direct long-term developmental change has been challenged by the development of factions within the CCM. Moreover, there are limits to the state’s capacity to formulate and implement policy. Uncertainty over public finances, particularly regarding international commercial borrowing, will, in the short term at least, stymie efforts to make the public service more effective. The greater political challenge is that posed by CHADEMA. With the 2015 elections, it consolidated itself as the leading political opposition in mainland Tanzania, with stable leadership and a solid organization in much of the country. CHADEMA´s relationships with Tanzanian private-sector interests leave its supporters open to targeted actions by tax and regulatory authorities. The state´s repressive approach towards civil society reflects the level of threat perceived by the ruling elite. External issues – like shifting relationships with donors, the emergence of new international allies and financiers, and security threats from transnational groups – are more tangential to the future direction of the Tanzanian state. Their impact will depend on trajectories in the areas of political and administrative capacity, relations between capital and the state, and the levels of political and civic organization beyond the party and the state. Dialogue with development partners has remained generally poor, a decline that set in some years ago. Like other countries in the region, Tanzania is increasingly attracting investment and public debt finance from China, from emerging powers like Turkey, and from others with an investment interest in Tanzania, such as the Gulf states.
Rival priorities in the Sahel – finding the balance between security and development
The G5 Sahel initiative goes some way to make up for the lack of supranational coordination in the troubled Sahel region. If moulded in the interests of development, it could bring about positive change. But the initiative risks becoming yet another excuse to get more ‘boots on the ground’, if external stakeholders place too much emphasis on fighting terror and stopping migration.
Working Paper: Comparing the EU’s Output Effectiveness in the Cases of Afghanistan, Iraq and Mali
This part of the overall report (Deliverable 7.1) on the EU’s crisis response in Afghanistan, Iraq and Mali compares the findings of three comprehensive cases-studies. The analytical focus is on the output dimension of EU policy-making that is the output of decision-making of the policy-making machinery in Brussels. Thus, the analysis is confined to the choices and decisions made regarding the EU’s problem definitions, policy goals, strategies and instruments – both on a strategic and operational level; thus policy implementation or impact will be analysed as next steps in following project reports (D 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4).
Implications of stabilisation mandates for the use of force in UN peace operations
When United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that he will commission a review of UN peace operations during the June 2014 UN Security Council debate on ‘New trends in UN peacekeeping operations’, the main reasons he gave for why such a review was needed, was that UN peacekeeping is now routinely deployed in the midst of ongoing conflicts and, as a result has had to become more robust.[1] This trend has been exemplified by three recent UN peacekeeping mandates, namely the addition of the Forced Intervention Brigade (FIB) to the UN Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO), the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), and the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA). These three missions have been deployed amidst ongoing conflict and they have robust mandates that allow them to use force in order to achieve the missions’ mandate. What sets them apart from other UN peacekeeping missions, however, is that they have all been specifically designated as ‘stabilisation’ missions. Only one other UN peacekeeping mission has had ‘stabilisation’ in its name before, and that is the UN Stabilisation Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH). This use of the word ‘stabilisation’ in the mandates and names of these UN peacekeeping mandates seems to signal a clear departure from previous practice. What does ‘stabilisation’ mean in a UN peacekeeping context, i.e. what is the difference between a UN mission that has ‘stabilisation’ in its name and one that does not? And what are the implications for UN peacekeeping doctrine, and specifically its practices around the use of force, of this new trend towards UN stabilisation missions? In this chapter Cedric de Coning considers what stabilisation could mean in the UN peacekeeping context by analysing the mandates of MONUSCO, MINUSMA and MINUSCA, so as to identify what is different in these stabilisation mandates from other UN peacekeeping mandates. He then considers the implications of stabilisation mandates for UN peacekeeping doctrine, including especially the principles and practices around the use of force in UN peacekeeping.
Working paper on implementation of EU crisis response in Mali
This paper offers a critical review of the EUTM and EUCAP in Mali, arguing that this is another example of international interventions that may be well-intended, but that end up producing very mixed results on the ground. One reason for this is the gaps between intentions and implementation and between implementation and local reception/perceptions. Whereas the first gap points to mismatches between EU policy intentions and what effect the implementation of these policies actually have (see for example Hill 1993), the latter gap reveals the inability of an international actor to both understand how key concepts such as ‘security sector reform’ and ‘border management’ are understood on the ground as well as translating its own policies and Brussels’ developed mandate into policies that makes sense for people on the ground (Cissé, Bøås, Kvamme and Dakouo 2017).
The potential and limits of peace agreements: Colombia and Mali
In most cases, political solutions to armed conflicts are professed by a plethora of local, regional and international actors. In practice, however, durable political solutions – typically symbolised through peace agreements – are scarce. While peace agreements may be signed, political willingness, as well as the ability to implement them, is often in short supply. Hence, many peace agreements remain words on paper, not actions in the field. This is also the case in Africa, where many conflict areas see peace agreements being signed, violated and forgotten. This article examines the 2015 peace agreement in Mali and the case of the 2016 peace agreement in Colombia. The 2015 Bamako Agreement for Mali – despite hopes to end armed violence and provide a framework for peace – has had little impact on the ground and serves to illustrate some of the limitations of peace agreements. Does the commonly considered successful case of Colombia shed light on the struggling Malian peace process? This article suggests that the Colombian peace process does provide useful insights into the challenges in Mali. This is discussed in the context of what, with whom and when to negotiate. Following this analysis, some lessons learnt are identified, along with concluding remarks on how these two cases illustrate both the potential and limits of peace agreements.
The cyber frontier and digital pitfalls in the Global South
How does digitalisation lead to new kinds of global connections and disconnections in the Global South? And what are the pitfalls that accompany this development? Much of the policy literature on digitalisation and development has focused on the importance of connecting developing countries to digital networks. Good connection to digital networks may have a fundamental impact on societies, changing not only how individuals and businesses navigate, operate and seek opportunities, but also as regards relations between government and the citizenry. However, the rapid pace of this development implies that digital technologies are being put to use before good, functional regulatory mechanisms have been developed and installed. The resultant shortcomings – in state mechanisms, institutions, coordination mechanisms, private mechanisms, general awareness, public knowledge and skills – open the door to new kinds of vulnerabilities. Herein lie dangers, but also opportunities for donor/recipient country exchange. Instead of adding to the already substantial literature on the potential dividends, this article examines a less studied issue: the new societal vulnerabilities emerging from digitalisation in developing countries. While there is wide agreement about the need to bridge the gap between the connected and the disconnected, the pitfalls are many.
Franchised States and the Bureaucracy of Peace
This book examines a new type of state formation evoked by the rise of transnational rule, what Schia calls franchised states. Turning the UN into a field site and drawing on an anthropological fieldwork of the UN organization, he demonstrates how peacebuilding activities turned Liberia into an object of governing, whereby the UN, in seeking to build the state, also became the state. The sovereign state of Liberia here emerges as a franchise rather than a self-contained entity. Two implications follow: First, that international peacebuilding turns post-conflict countries into clients of the international community. Second, that “sovereignty” is no longer exclusively associated with the state: it is organized in and through specific practices of governing where a state actor is only one among a range of actors. With these findings, the book moves beyond previous work on peacebuilding by focusing on the unbundling of sovereignty. It contributes to the literature on the changing forms of sovereignty by showing the specific ways in which sovereignty is organized, packaged and enacted, often by actors working under international auspices. Others about the book: Thomas Hylland Eriksen (Professor of Social Anthropology University of Oslo, Norway): "This is a challenging and creative contribution to the anthropology of the state. By necessity basing his analysis on multisided fieldwork, Schia shows how the Liberian state is entangled in multiscalar transnational institutions, encounters, ambitions and misunderstandings. Of particular value are the concepts of "ownershipping" and "franchised state", which shed light on the vulnerability of the postcolonial state and the power exerted by non-state, supranational actors. By using these concepts Schia offers a fresh perspective on the African state and forces us to rethink the concept of sovereignty." Anette Nyqvist (Associate Professor of Social Anthropology, Stockholm University, Sweden): "With its unique insight of the bureaucratic processes at UN and in Liberia, this monograph is not just a study of peacebuilding in practice, but an innovative contribution to the anthropology of policy and to organisational anthropology. The book is essential reading for anyone interested in political anthropology and global processes of peace building." Séverine Autesserre, (Professor of Political Science, Barnard College, Columbia University, USA): "A very interesting ethnography of international intervention and state building in Liberia, with many useful insights for scholars and policymakers." Palgrave Macmillan: - Examines how peacebuilding has been turned into a series of management processes and the implications this has for the state. - Offers a fresh approach through looking at policy processes from the perspectives of both UN HQ and the case study country, Liberia. - Addresses an important gap in the literature – the gap between the operational and policymaking levels of statebuilding and peacebuilding.