Let's overthrow all the corrupt African governments and let the Church run things

[Hababi]

Seriously, there's plenty of African bishops and cardinals, you could divide up governing responsibilities between them and corruption would be cut by 95%.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0601/p06s02-woaf.html

"KAMPALA, UGANDA – Uganda - a small, poor country still best known for its infamous former dictator, Idi Amin - isn't used to being first in much. But in the 1990s, it became the first African country to substantially bring down its AIDS rate.

It has since become a darling of international donors, especially in the health sector. So no one was surprised when, in 2003, Uganda became one of the first countries to receive a multimillion-dollar grant from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.

But three years later, the phrase "Global Fund" has become synonymous with graft in Uganda. A government inquiry recently revealed that tens of millions of dollars of the country's Global Fund grants have gone missing, much of it plundered by high-ranking public officials. Through months of hearings, which began in September and concluded just a few weeks ago, a disgusted Ugandan public heard how monies meant for lifesaving AIDS drugs were spent on personal phone bills, lavish "Christmas packages," and fancy four-wheel drive vehicles.

Along with increasing an already high level of cynicism here, the scandal highlights the corrosive nature of corruption in Africa and demonstrates the difficulties donors face in giving recipient governments the autonomy needed to spend aid money efficiently while also making sure the funds are used appropriately.

Problems with Global Fund monies have surfaced recently in other countries as well. Kenya was warned by Fund officials in March to report the whereabouts of $10 million that was unaccounted for or see its grants yanked. Some Fund grants in Nigeria were recently suspended for mismanagement.

Aside from Uganda, graft in connection with Global Fund monies has not been substantiated in any of these countries. Still, the questions raised reflect a growing emphasis in international circles on combating corruption around the world, especially in Africa. A survey quoted by the African Development Bank last month put the cost of graft on the continent at $148 billion per year.

And as the West tries harder than ever before to end poverty in Africa - the Group of Eight industrialized countries (G-8) last year agreed to double aid to the continent to $50 billion annually - the Global Fund scandal in Uganda also calls into question the fashionable idea that all that's needed to promote development in poor countries is more money.

"In hindsight, maybe we were a bit naive," says Victor Bampoe, the Fund's portfolio manager for East Africa. "But I struggle to see how we would have done things differently."

The Global Fund, a Geneva-based public-private partnership set up in 2002, was to be a new transparent, efficient aid model that would avoid the politics and delays that have long hamstrung development efforts. The idea was that the Fund would be strictly a financing mechanism; decisions about how to spend the money would be decided by local players.

"There is increasing recognition that aid has to be more than putting a bunch of white doctors on a plane and telling them to hand out pills," says Bernard Rivers of AIDSPAN, a Global Fund watchdog group. But, he added, "There is a tension between efficiency and accountability."

The Global Fund is the largest single financing agency in the world to combat the three diseases. It has raised more than $5 billion from donor governments and private philanthropies, and funded programs in 131 countries.

By last August, Uganda had already received more than $45 million of the $201 million that was earmarked for the country over the course of two years when a whistle-blower cried foul. After ordering an outside audit, Fund officials suspended Uganda's grants, citing "serious mismanagement." They were restored several months later, after the government commissioned an inquiry. It also agreed to changes in how the money was being disbursed and overseen, starting with the dissolution of the office responsible for doling out the funds, the Project Management Unit, which one Fund official likened to "a piggy bank" for those with the right connections.

Judge James Ogoola, who headed the probe, called it "no less than an audit on our country's moral standing." He found that hundreds of millions of shillings had been spent on "sensitization workshops" and generous "hardship allowances" for everyone from secretaries on up. A number of organizations that received Fund money had no physical addresses, let alone any experience in the health field. Officials in the Ministry of Health also testified that they had "borrowed" Global Fund money to campaign for a referendum to change the constitution to allow President Yoweri Museveni to run for a third term.

Local AIDS groups were particularly outraged when it was revealed in April that some $22,000 had been taken from the Global Fund basket to pay the hospital bills of a former government minister.

"Uganda has received a lot of money for AIDS - probably more than people can imagine in Africa," says Rubaramira Ruranga, a well-known AIDS activist. Mr. Ruranga faulted donors and the Ugandan government for fostering a system that tolerates, if not encourages, corruption. "AIDS in this country has become an industry," he says.

Global Fund officials say that the Ugandan government has cooperated with Geneva to put in better oversight mechanisms, such as hiring an outside company to serve as a "caretaker management firm." They say that, in general, the Fund had tightened "checks and balances" everywhere. "This is an opportunity to dust ourselves off and move forward," says Mr. Bampoe.

Last week, a newly reelected Museveni announced that the three ministers implicated in the scandal would be dropped from his new cabinet. A spokesman said the President was "responding to the public mood." Charles Mubbale, a director of the Ugandan chapter of Transparency International, says it is unlikely the ministers will face any official censure in the end. The Daily Monitor, a local newspaper, called the entire inquiry an "elegant diversion" to placate donors.

Mr. Mubbale says a deeper problem is the pervasive cynicism among Africans that comes from often seeing graft rewarded rather than punished. "The hard-working person who doesn't steal ... they say he's stupid and lazy," says Mubbale. "It's become an attitude of, well, let's just wait our turn."

Really, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, etc. would be better off if the church ran their affairs, at least for a while. Give the church 20 years and those countries are thriving, non corrupt places.

[JohnXDoe]

Islamic churches, too? Because much of Africa is Islamic. This is sounding not so good...

And the church isn't capable of running crap, really. What works in one African nation will not work in all.

[Hababi]

Islamic churches, too? Because much of Africa is Islamic. This is sounding not so good...

Well forget the Islamic part, everything north of Uganda, basically. Just everything south of that.

[Smokey D]

The problem being, of course, the Church has demonstrated itself not to be one of the most saintly organisations around when it comes to corruption. Also, Africa is currently divided between Catholics and Anglicans.

Theocracies are inherently a bad idea in the same way dictatorships are a bad idea. There is no legal recourse to removing bad leaders from power.

I'd not necessarily be opposed to the various Churches taking over the social needs bit of government, though. Stuff like hospitals, welfare and clinics. The only problem being, most Churches are against all forms of contraception, even as Africa is in the grip of a population crisis and rife with AIDS.

[coheneran]

Originally Posted by Broadway Danny Rose

Seriously, there's plenty of African bishops and cardinals, you could divide up governing responsibilities between them and corruption would be cut by 95%.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0601/p06s02-woaf.html



Really, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, etc. would be better off if the church ran their affairs, at least for a while. Give the church 20 years and those countries are thriving, non corrupt places.

You're right. If the Church did a good job of Spain in the 1400s, they won't have a problem now. I mean, the Catholic Church is known for their uncorruptibillity and their hardline approach to safe sex and paedophilia.

[JohnXDoe]

It's a noble idea, but the church has had it's hands in everything for many centuries, and so far as governing they are most likely no better then something honest and secular. And I think whether it be Christian or otherwise we would eventually be looking at fanatical theocracies. Eventually. It's not worth the risk, being that the results of a few early successes may not even be sustainable.

Certainly a desperate idea for a desperate continent. Would it really help or solve anything in the bigger and broader scheme of things? Or is it simply throwing our hands in the air, giving up, and leaving it to the church?

[Hababi]

The problem being, of course, the Church has demonstrated itself not to be one of the most saintly organisations around when it comes to corruption.

The Church today, regardless of what it was 500 years ago, is one of the least corrupted bodies in the world.

Also, Africa is currently divided between Catholics and Anglicans.

Yeah but the Anglican church isn't a power in and of itself like the Catholic church. And the differences are very narrow and pedantic. Still, in Anglican regions, there could be Anglican representatives.

I'd not necessarily be opposed to the various Churches taking over the social needs bit of government, though. Stuff like hospitals, welfare and clinics. The only problem being, most Churches are against all forms of contraception, even as Africa is in the grip of a population crisis and rife with AIDS.

The bigger problem is that you operate at the mercy of thugs like Robert Mugabe. And, the aid that comes into the country, that is not directly handed out by the church, will be embezzeled. There's no way the dictators will let the church operate as it would need to to run the social programs.

[Hababi]

It's a noble idea, but the church has had it's hands in everything for many centuries, and so far as governing they are most likely no better then something honest and secular. And I think whether it be Christian or otherwise we would eventually be looking at fanatical theocracies.

Christianity has long outgrown radicalism; I really don't think there'd be any likelyhood of some radical regime that Dan Brown would imagine would ever gain any authority.

It's not worth the risk

What are you risking, really? I mean, it's not like things would get worse.

Certainly a desperate idea for a desperate continent. Would it really help or solve anything in the bigger and broader scheme of things? Or is it simply throwing our hands in the air, giving up, and leaving it to the church?

Eh call it pragmatism. You can't convince guys like Mugabe and Mswarti to govern sensibly, and if you just overthrow them and leave the country to itself, some other strongman will just take control. So, if you want to accomplish change, you need to actually involve some other organization in the governing of the countries. The church is certainly a whole lot less corrupt and more effective than the UN.

[PerpetualBurn]

Christianity has long outgrown radicalism

Lol

[coheneran]

Originally Posted by PerpetualBurn

Lol

I know, I know. Didn't we have a thread a few weeks ago about a Christian fundamentalist terrorist? And hey-ho, what about those crazy Lebanese Christians?

[Iskandar]

I have a better idea: Let's encourage the people of African nations to overthrow all the corrupt African governments and assist them in establishing modern, secular democracies.

[JohnXDoe]

Originally Posted by Broadway Danny Rose

.Eh call it pragmatism. You can't convince guys like Mugabe and Mswarti to govern sensibly, and if you just overthrow them and leave the country to itself, some other strongman will just take control. So, if you want to accomplish change, you need to actually involve some other organization in the governing of the countries. The church is certainly a whole lot less corrupt and more effective than the UN.

Perhaps. But with the situation being so volitale, who will protect the church? Who will defend the countries? Is the church in this day and age going to mount and run an army? What of defense? Are we to defend them from their neighbors? The church shouldn't run a country unless it can defend said country. Otherwise it has no basis for being involved whatsoever, IMO. It will most certainly fall under the sway of other less desirable elements. Which will bring corruption anew.

[coheneran]

Well, one of the main reasons our governments are having as little as possible to do with African politics is because the African poor make it possible for our countries' populations to exist as bourgeoisie. We could get rid of African poverty in a year if we wanted to, but we're too comfortable living as we live, and as long as we live like this, Africans can't.

[Kragen]

Originally Posted by Broadway Danny Rose

Seriously, there's plenty of African bishops and cardinals, you could divide up governing responsibilities between them and corruption would be cut by 95%.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0601/p06s02-woaf.html



Really, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, etc. would be better off if the church ran their affairs, at least for a while. Give the church 20 years and those countries are thriving, non corrupt places.

When you have stupidity to worry about - corruption doesnt seem like such a problem anymore.

[PerpetualBurn]

corruption would be cut by 95%.

Can someone post the equation for percentage corruption?

[thedeadwalk!]

Isn't it the Church that's telling them to not use condoms which is hugely contributing to the AIDS epidemic?

[rockdude4ever]

I think the AIDS epidemic is being caused more by Africans performing illicit acts that spread the disease instead of because the Church is telling them not to use condoms.

[thedeadwalk!]

Illicit acts performed without a condom.

[dislocated214]

Originally Posted by The Dropper

I have a better idea: Let's encourage the people of African nations to overthrow all the corrupt African governments and assist them in establishing modern, secular democracies.

123

[Reaganista]

hey swap church with US government and I agree