Unrest in Tanzania Shows That Development-Centered Authoritarianism Has Run its Course

I still remember all the praises that veteran development professionals showered on Paul Kagame. It was 2015, and I was landing in Tanzania for my work at the One Acre Fund, an American microfinance NGO. The Rwandan president was the darling of Western donors, creating a country of political stability, clean streets, and a transparent welcome for foreign investors in a neighborhood often characterized by opaque shakedown, hidden costs of doing business, and unpredictable, sudden changes in policymaking that risk leaving people, assets, and money stranded.

As donor money and development folks poured into Rwanda while bypassing everyone else, others decided to learn from Kagame, even as Kagame was facing increased criticisms both at home and abroad for the political heavyhandedness that created everything donors loved about Rwanda. "Stability" became the keyword for political dynasts in Uganda and Tanzania, where political parties established by rebels who fought against European colonizers and generals overthrowing dictators in coups suddenly started preaching the harm of sudden changes. 

For a while, the formula worked. The nexus of the one-party state, pliant military officers benefiting from increased security budgets, and policies that encouraged foreign investments led to high GDP growth. The Rwandan model of keeping the bureaucracy honest and the opposition muzzled seemed to have produced real benefits in the form of new development and infrastructure projects, with the political elite easily dismissing human rights concerns by pointing out how millions were being pulled out of poverty. Catch-up growth in Africa finally seemed to take off.

How quickly the wheels fall off this speeding train. Tanzania, still one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, was recently hit with dramatic post-election violence in which thousands of young street protestors were allegedly shot by law enforcement. There was a legitimate reason for them to take to the streets. After all, the ruling CCM party took no chances in securing the win, banning all opposition and arresting their leaders. As expected, the opposition called on its supporters to publicly oppose the blatant authoritarianism.

Yet, the past success of the Rwandan model was precisely because of the heavy-handed authoritarianism that the CCM employed. The few thugs taking to the streets were supposed to be selfish and irrational, too willing to succumb to the anger of the moment stemming from fake news spread by foreigners and their own ignorance, that they'd inadvertently sacrifice the bigger picture of national development that benefits the vast majority. The narrative made sense as long as the majority agreed with the authorities and saw the thugs as the real enemies of the nation.

What happened in Tanzania in the past days is an outright repudiation that national development, in itself, no longer satisfies an ever-increasing chunk of Africa's still youthful population. The foreigners are indeed investing, the economies are growing, and the streets are cleaner and more orderly. But those positive externalities, many have increasingly come to realize, have not shown themselves as correlative with the benefits of the individual. They waited for a richer country and its elites to enrich the common people, but the trickling down has not happened.

The African youths' violent marches into the streets are also a slap in the face for Western donors. There is no doubt that the political elites' welcome and policymaking stability are necessary ingredients for investments. But there is no guarantee that investments, in their limited breadth and depth, can spread their benefits sufficiently quickly among rapidly growing populations that start from a dismally low base when it comes to both economic and human capital. Development takes time, but impatience can be overwhelming when a few people enrich themselves first with no plans to help the rest.

It is easy to call for fair elections and the release of all political prisoners. But if political forces are fed on and shaped by anger at inequality and unfulfilled promises of uneven developments, having opposition parties come into power may just replace one set of elites with another. Rather than taking the easy route of praising or condemning a few political leaders, perhaps it is time to buckle down and really think about the intricate and complicated tasks of governance. Millions of honest bureaucrats, and perhaps even common people, can do much better at spreading the fruits of GDP growth.