{"title":"非洲与善治的修辞","authors":"H. Ware","doi":"10.22160/22035184/ARAS-2018-39-2/198-221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Judging by their public statements everyone in Africa is in favour of good governance: governments, public servants, business people, civil society, donors and other international organizations. There are two problems with this positive view. Firstly, there are as many different definitions of good governance as there are organisations, with the multiple verbal differences reflecting real variations in how organizations and individuals wish to see their worlds shaped. Secondly, for all of these players there are vast gaps between the rhetoric and the reality, depending on the political context, struggles over access to power and opportunities for illicit material gains. In the public shadow play, African Union (AU) and donor treaties and charters and national plans, programmes and laws rule the world. In the lived reality, daily faced by the masses, it is every one for them self and the leaders with the most followers beholden to them and the biggest Swiss bank accounts win. The cases of governance in Liberia, Mozambique, Rwanda, and Uganda are examined to explore the gap between rhetoric and reality, keeping in mind the real consequences for the forgotten villagers and slum dwellers of Africa who have never heard of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance adopted by the AU in 2007.","PeriodicalId":42732,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Review of African Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Africa and the Rhetoric of Good Governance\",\"authors\":\"H. Ware\",\"doi\":\"10.22160/22035184/ARAS-2018-39-2/198-221\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Judging by their public statements everyone in Africa is in favour of good governance: governments, public servants, business people, civil society, donors and other international organizations. There are two problems with this positive view. Firstly, there are as many different definitions of good governance as there are organisations, with the multiple verbal differences reflecting real variations in how organizations and individuals wish to see their worlds shaped. Secondly, for all of these players there are vast gaps between the rhetoric and the reality, depending on the political context, struggles over access to power and opportunities for illicit material gains. In the public shadow play, African Union (AU) and donor treaties and charters and national plans, programmes and laws rule the world. In the lived reality, daily faced by the masses, it is every one for them self and the leaders with the most followers beholden to them and the biggest Swiss bank accounts win. The cases of governance in Liberia, Mozambique, Rwanda, and Uganda are examined to explore the gap between rhetoric and reality, keeping in mind the real consequences for the forgotten villagers and slum dwellers of Africa who have never heard of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance adopted by the AU in 2007.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australasian Review of African Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australasian Review of African Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22160/22035184/ARAS-2018-39-2/198-221\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Review of African Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22160/22035184/ARAS-2018-39-2/198-221","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
Judging by their public statements everyone in Africa is in favour of good governance: governments, public servants, business people, civil society, donors and other international organizations. There are two problems with this positive view. Firstly, there are as many different definitions of good governance as there are organisations, with the multiple verbal differences reflecting real variations in how organizations and individuals wish to see their worlds shaped. Secondly, for all of these players there are vast gaps between the rhetoric and the reality, depending on the political context, struggles over access to power and opportunities for illicit material gains. In the public shadow play, African Union (AU) and donor treaties and charters and national plans, programmes and laws rule the world. In the lived reality, daily faced by the masses, it is every one for them self and the leaders with the most followers beholden to them and the biggest Swiss bank accounts win. The cases of governance in Liberia, Mozambique, Rwanda, and Uganda are examined to explore the gap between rhetoric and reality, keeping in mind the real consequences for the forgotten villagers and slum dwellers of Africa who have never heard of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance adopted by the AU in 2007.
期刊介绍:
The Australasian Review of African Studies aims to contribute to a better understanding of Africa in Australasia and the Pacific. It is published twice a year in June and December by The African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific. ARAS is a multi-disciplinary journal that seeks to provide critical, authoritative and accessible material on a range of African affairs that is interesting and readable to as broad an audience as possible, both academic and non-academic. All articles are blind peer reviewed by two independent and qualified experts in their entirety prior to publication. Each issue includes both scholarly and generalist articles, a book review section (which normally includes a lengthy review essay), short notes on contemporary African issues and events (up to 2,000 words), as well as reports on research and professional involvement in Africa, and on African university activities. What makes the Review distinctive as a professional journal is this ‘mix’ of authoritative scholarly and generalist material on critical African issues written from very different disciplinary and professional perspectives. The Review is available to all members of the African Studies Association of Australia and the Pacific as part of their membership. Membership is open to anyone interested in African affairs, and the annual subscription fee is modest. The ARAS readership intersects academic, professional, voluntary agency and public audiences and includes specialists, non-specialists and members of the growing African community in Australia. There is also now a small but growing international readership which extends to Africa, North America and the United Kingdom.