H.E. Nana Akufo-Addo, Ghanaian President says,” We cannot continue to make policy for ourselves, in our region, in our continent on the basis of the support the Europe Union gives us. Our responsibility is to charter a path which is about how we can develop our nations ourselves.”

It has slowly become an African tradition where we see other people out of Africa as our source of help and that they are the only ones who can save us from our troubles. Let’s go back a bit and try to examine this. In 1906, Pixxlie Kaisaka Kaseme talked about the regeneration of Africa. An Africa that had the brand of slavery and had been fully colonized. It may seem that slavery might not have been just physical but to some point mental. 

We cannot continue relying solely on external interventions for our issues and problems. We can easily solve the problems we have by simply speaking them out and finding lasting solutions. But we may not forget that some of the things that make us not solve certain problems because of the corrupt political systems we have in place that day in and day out try to shush people who talk of anything.

Focusing on community-driven solutions rather than more individual solutions - People in communities possess knowledge and resources that can help us in the development of a better Africa. Recently, companies like Google have opened branches in Africa and this clearly shows that we have the brains just that we don’t want to utilize our own and feel they might rise to the top before us.  This will slowly help us take ownership of decisions we make from people who understand the communities.

To empower local voices in African Development we really need to have more thought-provoking leaders who are ready to listen to their own people. We need to empower such leaders to rise to power and at least take their place in society. With such leaders, we can easily implement change and have more voices being open and speaking out. The only challenge we have with that is the amount of corruption and deceit that goes on in the corridors of justice in our courts, and parliament and the amount of intimidation from existing leaders. 

Promotion of grassroots organizations that can help empower young people who can be thoughtful leaders can be a very effective way to empower African Development. If those organizations are provided with access to information they can really go a long way. Everyone should be allowed credible and real-time information that will help them make sound decisions.

In the long run, there is a need to hold every decision maker accountable to the rule of law because most of what we have to deal with are corrupt leaders who know they are being taken no-where even after they commit multiple crimes. The rule of law should make everyone from the poor to the rich accountable. 

Finally, empowering local voices in African development will definitely provide a greater likelihood of sustainable and contextually relevant solutions being implemented. This will be the beginning of communities taking ownership of their own development and strengthening community bonds that will lead to impactful opportunities and outcomes. 

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Hi Kuiyaki, after spending 2 months in Uganda last year and working at the World Food Programme, I'm very sympathetic to this opinion and believe it has potential. Is there any work you're doing to advance such approaches, or any groups you'd point to? Thanks

Hello Luke, 

Sorry for replying to this really late. I am currently not working on any of the ideas that I have highlighted but we have been having discussions on them with a few friends but we have not yet actioned them. I do not mind discussing them with you and maybe in future working on sth. 

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
I wanted to share a small but important challenge I've encountered as a student engaging with Effective Altruism from a lower-income country (Nigeria), and invite thoughts or suggestions from the community. Recently, I tried to make a one-time donation to one of the EA-aligned charities listed on the Giving What We Can platform. However, I discovered that I could not donate an amount less than $5. While this might seem like a minor limit for many, for someone like me — a student without a steady income or job, $5 is a significant amount. To provide some context: According to Numbeo, the average monthly income of a Nigerian worker is around $130–$150, and students often rely on even less — sometimes just $20–$50 per month for all expenses. For many students here, having $5 "lying around" isn't common at all; it could represent a week's worth of meals or transportation. I personally want to make small, one-time donations whenever I can, rather than commit to a recurring pledge like the 10% Giving What We Can pledge, which isn't feasible for me right now. I also want to encourage members of my local EA group, who are in similar financial situations, to practice giving through small but meaningful donations. In light of this, I would like to: * Recommend that Giving What We Can (and similar platforms) consider allowing smaller minimum donation amounts to make giving more accessible to students and people in lower-income countries. * Suggest that more organizations be added to the platform, to give donors a wider range of causes they can support with their small contributions. Uncertainties: * Are there alternative platforms or methods that allow very small one-time donations to EA-aligned charities? * Is there a reason behind the $5 minimum that I'm unaware of, and could it be adjusted to be more inclusive? I strongly believe that cultivating a habit of giving, even with small amounts, helps build a long-term culture of altruism — and it would