INTRODUCTION 

Democracy, poverty and social exclusion are issues that have engaged the attention of donor agencies, governments, non-governmental organizations and civil society organizations (CSOs) within and outside Africa. The interest in these issues by the agencies is understandable because there cannot be meaningful sustainable development and growth without addressing problems posed by democracy, poverty and social exclusion. The promotion of democracy, the eradication of poverty (not alleviation) and social exclusion have become important development agendas which cannot be glossed over for the coming years. 

As a contribution to the continuing interest in, and debate on, democracy, poverty and social exclusion, the Development Policy Management Forum (DPMF) and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) held a workshop at Addis Ababa on 15-16 May 2000. The discussions at the workshop are the focus of this paper. 

OPENING CEREMONY 

Participants to the workshop were welcomed by Dr Abdalla Bujra, Director of the Development Policy Management Forum (DPMF). This was followed by three addresses by the following: 

• Mr James Nxumalo – Representative of the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA);

• Mr Samuel Nyambi – Resident Representative of the UNDP; and

• Dr J.A. Tesha – Representative of the OAU. 

Mr Nxumalo examined the relationship between democracy and poverty and noted that there has been movement towards democracy in Africa. He stressed that the existence of procedural democracy does not ensure responsible public administration. Consequently, a regime type (whether authoritarian or democratic) may not provide the clue to deal with poverty. He therefore called on participants to provide recommendations that will deal with poverty within the context of regime type. 

On his part, Mr Nyambi indicated that the idea of poverty has been close to the heart of many people including the UN and UNDP. Defining poverty from a human development perspective, he stressed that poverty involves denial of choices, withholding opportunities from people to lead a good life and the denial of people from basic amenities. He explained that the Copenhagen Summit recommended reduction, and not elimination of, poverty by half by 2015. This can be done if the individual sees himself/herself as part of the process of poverty reduction. In other words, the participation of people in programmes and projects is one of the major ways of poverty reduction and consequently its eradication. Since extreme poverty means loss of basic rights, he called on a rights-based approach to development. To this end, the absence of democracy, good governance and accountable systems undermine efforts to reduce poverty. Consequently, governments must pursue holistic and proactive policies and programmes to liberate the poor. Specifically, both sectoral and thematic development plans must be formulated within a certain time frame (preferable between five to ten years) with the active participation of the people themselves. He also emphasized the use of information technology to liberate the thinking of the poor. One of the problems to poverty reduction is the question of targeting; how does one determine who is poor in order to develop pro-poor policies? He called on the participants to make recommendations that will provide an action plan for the UNDP and OAU. 

Dr J. A Tesha welcomed the theme of the conference because democracy, poverty and social exclusion are issues that the Organization of African Unity (OAU) is interested in. He recounted attempts made by the OAU to promote democracy on the continent. He discussed the role of the OAU in democratization efforts in continent and noted that the absence of genuine democracy has led to conflict, poverty and social exclusion on the continent. He noted that the prevalence of conflict in the continent has hindered democracy and development. Consequently, he called for priority to be placed on the resolution of conflicts since peace and stability will lead to democracy and development. He emphasized that the 1990 Arusha African Charter on Popular Participation the 1990 OAU Charter on Fundamental Human Rights and the 1993 OAU Conflict Resolution and Prevention Charter have provided adequate institutional framework for the promotion of democracy, participation and conflict resolution and prevention. 

Although the continent has made progress in democracy and the OAU has declared elections as free and fair in 60 elections, there are nonetheless problems. They include: 

• Poor voter education and registration exercises;

• Poor infrastructural support for elections;

• Electoral influencing through monetary incentives and other means;

• Poor voting arrangements; and

• Lack of resources and logistics. 

 
DISCUSSIONS ON OPENING CEREMONY 

Discussions on the opening ceremony centred on the following issues: 

• There is the need for literature on conflict resolution;

• The need for public education so that the electorate could vote without intimidation and on issues not on personalities;

• Research based of legislature should be strengthened in order to improve policy formulation;

• People and politicians must be educated on democracy;

• Civil society organizations must spearhead the crusade to educate the citizenry and politicians;

• External actors are largely determinants of policies and programmes and yet are not accountable to the people or their governments;

• External actors have their own interests and agendas which are sometimes counterproductive to African states;

• Governments hide behind external actors when they want to implement harsh and difficult policies and programmes;

• The encouragement of democratisation of global governance, that is, African governments adopting a united front to discuss issues like debt relief and cancellation as well as conditionalities with the donor community on a one-and-one basis.
   

OVERVIEW OF THE WORKSHOP AND DEMOCRACY FORUM 

Dr Abdalla Bujra, who chaired the Overview presentation and Session I, noted that democracy is a question of participation and decision-making at all levels. What is happening is that foreign institutions have been forcing African governments to adopt programmes and measures with little or no participation from the governments. In other words, the people of Africa have not been involved in the externally driven programmes. He called for measures to redress the lack of participation of the African people in programmes aimed at poverty alleviation and reduction. Although a few researchers and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have undertaken studies linking democracy, poverty and social exclusion, they are not enough because the studies have not adequately addressed the nexus between democracy and poverty and the formulation and implementation of strategies to eliminate poverty. Consequently, he called on the participants at the workshop to come out with appropriate recommendations that will eliminate poverty and social exclusion. 

An overview of the workshop was presented by Dr Patrick Molutsi of the IDEA. He pointed out that uncomplimentary generalizations cannot be made on the impact of external actors on  Africa’s development since this will mean “throwing the baby with the bath water”. He stressed that the IDEA stands for making democracy a reality, on that will bring qualitative change in the standards of living of people in Africa. In addition, the IDEA believes that democracy cannot be promoted in a vacuum but rather with the active cooperation with regional and sub-regional groups. Hence, the IDEA’s collaboration with the DPMF to organize the workshop. 

Dr Molitsi pointed out that democracy and poverty are still major problems, although they were addressed by the Vienna Conference on Human Rights (1993), Population and Development Conference (1994) Beijing Conference (1994), Social Conference (1995) and the Conference Biodiversity and Environment (1995). These conferences have dealt with the issues of democracy, poverty and social exclusion but they have not seen democracy as a practical instrument of enhancing the lives of people. Democracy has not led to improvement in the quality of life despite elections and independent electoral commissions. In spite of elections, caste systems still exist while bureaucratic inertia and inefficiency in the provision of goods and services are still prevalent. 

The persistence of these problems goaded the IDEA and DPMF to organize the workshop to focus on four main subheadings, namely: 

• Accountable governance which focuses on how receptive and responsive are governments;

• Participation which focuses on the empowerment of people and who is participating in whose/which programmes;

• Rights and citizenship which examines the sense of belonging and identity;

• Role of external actors which examines the vulnerability or otherwise of African governments to external actors. 

Dr Molitsi emphasized that the workshop is the beginning of a long dialogue between IDEA and donors on democracy, poverty and social exclusion and called on research institutions across the continent to deal with the issues. 

SESSION  1: 15^TH MAY 2000 

Dr Said Adejumobi presented a paper on “Accountable Governance and Poverty”. He noted that some pessimists have indicated that nothing good can come out of Africa. There is what is referred to as “Africa fatigue” being experienced. This assertion is a direct challenge to African states. He stressed that an inroad to democracy can be promoted by governance. He then drew a distinction between good governance and accountable governance and concluded that accountable governance is more precise that good governance since it refers specifically to answerability and responsiveness. A historical trajectory of accountable governance shows that the current lack of accountability could be traced to the colonial period, which institutions did not promote answerability. In other words, the problem of unaccountable governance in Africa is not merely a post-colonial phnenomenon, but the “janus-face of an entrenched colonial practice”. In the promotion of accountable governance, the emphasis has been on elections, which is not enough. Donors have tended to place emphasis on the form rather than the content of elections in Africa. This should not be the case because engendering accountable governance in Africa incorporates but transcends the issue of elections. Other factors that are germane to evolving accountable governance include: 

• The revitalization and reconfiguration of the state and its institutions in Africa;

• The institutionalisation of the notion of citizenship, especially in its instrumentalist dimension;

• Democratizing political power at the local level;

• Expanding the scope of civil society activities and purging them of anti-democratic valudes; and

• Engendering a culture of peace and stability.
   

DISCUSSIONS GENERATED AFTER THE PRESENTATION OF THE PAPER 

1.      The paper is too general and fails to look at specific African experiences of success on accountable governance. In other words, there is the need to disaggregate the issues rather than generalizing since there are states in Africa which are promoting accountable governance;

2.      There is evidence of successes or achievements in the area of accountable governance. For instance, the struggles by women’s groups, trade unions and cooperatives in Zambia, South Africa and Uganda have created political space;

3.      Who is responsible for accountable governance or what tools are in place to promote accountable governance? In other words, what social forces are at play in accountable governance?

4.      The paper fails to link accountable governance to poverty and social exclusion;

5.      The paper does not identify what happens when there is no good governance?

6.      Traditional civil society organizations like labour movements, teachers unions and cooperatives (which exhibit internal democratic tendencies) have been ignored by donors and attention focused on advocacy groups (which generally lack internal democratic practices);

7.      In spite of the modest progress made in democracy and poverty alleviation, there is more room for improvement;

8.      There is a nexus between democracy and poverty. In spite of this, few people realize this. Consequently, there has been a misdirection of resources by donors.

9.      Democracy provides to a large extent the context or the enabling environment for the eradication of poverty and social exclusion;

10.  The state in Africa has not been allowed to evolve by itself. Constraints and parameters have been forced on the way to state development. For instance, in the 1960s African states were asked to follow the Westminster model. In the 1970s, states must either be capitalist or communist. In the 1980s, with the introduction of structural adjustment programmes (SAPs), there is the idea of a “shrinking state”.

11.  In spite of their weaknesses, CSOs have been at the forefront in promoting democracy and eradication of poverty;

12.  Operations of some of the external actors undermine accountability and answerability;

13.  Lack of participation does not promote accountability because most of the basic policy decisions and programmes are made outside Africa;

14.  The presidential system of government does not promote accountable governance because of power relations are skewed in favour of the executive arm vis-à-vis the legislative and judicial arms;

15.  One needs to create a new framework for government-civil society relationship because some of the governments in Africa come out of labour movements and civil society organizations;

16.  All stakeholders must be involved in promoting accountable governance and see democracy, accountable governance and stability as a continuum.
 

SESSION II: 15^TH MAY 2000 

Two papers were presented in this session. They were “Participation, Poverty and Social Exclusion” by Professor Joseph Ayee and Dr D.P. Chimanikire on “Accountable Governance and Poverty Alleviation Programmes in Zimbabwe. 

Professor Ayee’s paper on Participation, Poverty and Social Exclusion” pointed out that participation is very important to good governance, hence the interest of donors and governments in the concept. He made a distinction between horizontal, vertical and administrative processes of participation and noted that the administrative process of participation is more important than the other two varieties of participation because it focuses on interest group activities shaping administrative and policy decisions. The paper also identifies the advantages of participation. They include the following: 

• Mobilization of greater resources;

• Provision of services at less cost;

• Promotes greater better project design;

• Ensures that felt needs are served;

• Catalyst for mobilizing further local development efforts. 

Notwithstanding the merits of participation, the experience in Africa is mixed. Participation has become a political catch-word. Participation has resulted in dilemmas such as access, responsiveness, professionalism and effectiveness on the part of administrators of projects and programmes and target groups. 

A number of constraints to participation is identified. They include political, bureaucratic and socio-cultural constraints. Other constraints to participation are: 

• Reinforcement of existing inequities rather than stimulating desired system change;

• Participation takes additional time and resources to mobilize less developed communities;

• Difficulty of finding effective channels of communication through which individuals or groups at the local level can participate;

• Lack of homogeneity of interests within groups and the fundamental differences between local and national interests. 

In spite of the shortcomings, participation can be promoted by strong political and bureaucratic commitment, empowering the poor through training them to acquire managerial and technical skills, promotion of genuine devolution of power and the involvement of civil society organizations in the activities of the rural poor. 

Dr D.P. Chimanikire paper on “Accountable Governance and Poverty Alleviation Programmes in Zimbabwe” asserted that poverty in Zimbabwe is closely linked to the history of the country. The pre-independence political and socio-economic climate tended to favour whites as opposed to blacks. For instance, blacks were settled on poor quality and small portions of land whilst whites occupied vast tracts of fertile land. After independence, therefore, the major challenge that faced the government was the redressing of the inequalities of the past. This was done with the adoption of statist/welfarist policies, influenced by the socialist convictions of ZANU-PF. The measures taken, however, failed to combat poverty and redress the inequalities. The government was forced to abandon its interventionist policies in pursuit of market-oriented reform known as Economic and Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) in 1991 with very little consultation with or participation by the people, which runs counter to ESAP’s touting as a homegrown programme. Although the private sector has welcomed ESAP the labour movement has protested against it because of the untold hardship it has brought to its members. ESAP has failed to achieve its objectives for a number of reasons: 

• The concept of indigenisation is a dicey one, since the ESAP was high-jacked by a small of group of white entrepreneurs;

• The land question has not been seriously tackled which has led to the current occupation of white farms by ex-servicemen;

• Constitutional reforms have been demanded and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) have been in the forefront. 

Consequently, a Zimbabwean Millenium Economic Recovery Programme was released in February 2000 to steer the country towards restoring economic stability. The programme aims at protecting vulnerable groups and bringing stable incomes and reducing poverty among the masses. In addition, a Human Development Report has been prepared which becomes a blue-print to be followed by the government to build a consensus on political, economic and social issues.
 

DISCUSSIONS GENERATED AFTER THE PRESENTATION OF THE PAPERS 

1.      The papers are too general and fail to look at specific African experiences of success on participation. In other words, there is the need to disaggregate the issues rather than generalizing since there are states in Africa which are promoting participation;

2.      The papers should have shown evidence of participation, tracing it from the Arusha OAU Declaration on Participation in 1990, the writing of decentralization clauses in some constitutions in Africa and the national conferences held to debate constitutions in West and Central Africa. In addition, there is widespread democratisation with elections being held, the proliferation of civil society organizations (CSOs) and their activities in the creation of political space;

3.      There is evidence of successes or achievements in the area of participation. For instance, the struggles by women’s groups, trade unions and cooperatives in Zambia, South Africa and Uganda have created political space;

4.      The papers fail to link participation to poverty and social exclusion;

5.      Participation of women, youth and other institutional mechanisms have brought political and social changes in some southern African countries, for instance South Africa and Zambia;

6.      The level of political consciousness is a key in promoting participation and good governance;

7.      The papers fail to discuss the nature and level of participation in Africa. A history of participation showing whether there has been low level or non-participation would have been appropriate;

8.      Emphasize the role of political parties which are regarded as mediating force or the conveyor belt in political participation. In this connection, are political parties organized in a democratic manner and do their manifestoes aim at eradication of poverty?;

9.      Participation, if well pursued, can make a difference in reducing inequality;

10.  In a racially divided Zimbabwe, what type of constitution would promote accountability and participation and what strategies can be put in place to alleviate poverty given the land question?;

11.  Further reforming of or strengthening of the state to make it more accountable, responsive to issues of democracy, poverty and social exclusion.
 

SESSION III: 16^TH MAY 2000 

Mr Melaku Tegene of PANOS presented a paper on “Citizenship, Rights and Social Exclusion”. He traced the concept of citizenship from the Industrial Revolution and defined citizenship in global terms. He noted that citizenship in the contemporary world is on longer a national nor even a regional phenomenon since it has become global. He emphasized that the experience of human development has proved that without the active, voluntary and independent participation of civil society in the development and political processes, neither development nor democracy are possible. Popular participation on the part of civil society is the only way to eventually transform what he called “dispensable billions of the world to indispensable ones”. He, however, cautioned that civil society cannot be viable and promote development without the participation of women, who constitute the largest section of society. To him, women have been disempowered and never part of the power structures. He, therefore, called for the deconstruction of the patriarchial system and the reconstruction of the development paradigm that takes gender as its indispensable component. 

According to Mr Tegene, there is a growing awareness globally on the global nature of problems of development. For instance, Amnesty International addresses issues of human rights violation globally. Similarly, Green Peace and Friends of the Earth deal with ecological as well as environmental problems globally while the PANOS Institute deals with information and communication issues for development in a global way.  The question of citizenship and rights, he argued can only be addressed properly under the concept of good governance. In addition, he criticized the withdrawal of state subsidies in the education and health sectors as a result of structural adjustment programmes that has led to the redoubling of the burden of women as the burden of child rearing and child-care rests on their shoulders. Consequently, the expansion and globalization of the market have led to the deterioration of humane, egalitarian and democratic values which have been influenced by global cultural industry such as the Hollywood, the macho mentality, which are all on the rise.
 

DISCUSSIONS GENERATED AFTER THE PRESENTATION OF THE PAPER 

    1.   There was no attempt by the paper to place citizenship and rights in a historical African context;

2. The paper did not strike a relationship between citizenship and rights and how they impact on democracy, poverty and social exclusion;
3. The paper looked at global citizenship and not citizenship in Africa. Consequently, definition of global citizenship does not apply to the average individual in Africa;
4. The rights of citizens cannot be guaranteed when one has the crisis of the state;
5. There have been challenges to and problems of citizenship over the last decade. Citizenship is fluid as one has been experienced in Zambia and Zimbabwe. In South Africa, for instance, the influx of people from the North has been resented by the government and the indigenes;
6. Citizenship must not be assessed within the context of ethnicity, social groups, language, regionalism. Rather the recognition of the individual per se is more important than indicators of ethnicity, social groups, language and regionalism;
7. Constitutional guarantees of rights do not necessarily confer citizenship on individuals;
8. Although there are constitutional guarantees of citizenship, why is it that they have not been enforced?
9. The idea of citizenship must be traced to the Greek city states and not to the Industrial Revolution;
10. The paper should have classified civil, political, and economic rights rather than lumping them together;
11. The right of civil societies in policy formulation has been exaggerated. The experience in Africa is that civil society organizations have played a greater role in policy implementation rather than in policy formulation;
12. The paper has not dealt with specific issues of citizenship in Africa;
13. Africa’s problems are connected with global issues;
14. The proliferation of civil society organizations (CSOs) over the last century means that they have a rightful role to play in shaping policies and programmes. In Kenya, for instance, CSOs have realized their role in shaping policies and programmes since 1992.

SESSION IV: 16^TH MAY 2000 

Two presentations were made. They are:

• Dr Jacqueline Oduol on “ The Role of External Actors and Poverty:; and

• Paolo De Renzo on “Good Governance and Poverty: Some Reflections Based on UNDP’s Experience in Mozambique”. 

Dr Jackqueline Oduol’s paper on “The Role of External Actors and Poverty” prefaced her presentation by noting that democratic principles have a role to play in programmes and projects. Democratic principles provide space for ethnicity, regionalism and vulnerable groups. To her some external actors like the Department for International Development (DFID) and UNFPA not only provide technical advice and support but also provide a framework for monitoring and evaluating programmes. This notwithstanding, most external actors have received bashing as a result of their policies and programmes. Each of the actors has advantages and weaknesses. For instance, UNDP has enjoyed close relationship with the state and CSOs in Kenya. The support offered by the UNDP to the Kenyan Women’s Political Caucus Group has resulted in the creation of political space by the Group. Similarly, in Kenya, the government’s efforts aimed at fighting poverty have had to rely to a significant extent on funding provided by external actors. She emphasized that external actors are very important and they must not be solely blamed for Africa’s problems. She concluded by stating that efforts aimed at dealing with the problems of the poor in Africa require interventions that invariably require the interplay of effective decision making at the national level, the active participation of CSOs and the contribution of external actors. 

Mr Paolo de Renzo’s paper on “Good Governance and Poverty: Some Reflections Based on UNDP’s Experience in Mozambique” argued that the linkages between democracy and poverty reduction are not missing but tenuous and in need of clarification and strengthening. This is largely due to the complex nature of the processes involved. He discussed the UNDP’s “Overcoming Human Poverty Report (2000), which identifies four specific areas where attention should be focused when spelling out the ways in which governance and poverty influence each other. The areas are: 

• Elections at the national and local level which are meant to promote accountability;

• Accountability through the establishment of appropriate systems of monitoring and control that allow for a fair and transparent allocation of government resources;

• Decentralization of decision-making and of resources which provide a more enabling environment for poverty reduction; and

• Accessibility of the poor to information and communication, which will enhance people’s capacity to understand issues, to participate in public life more constructively and to create important linkages that can result in coalitions for change. 

UNDP has been involved in various areas related to assisting the government of Mozambique in the promotion of good governance based on democratic principles. For example, UNDP coordinated international support to the general elections held in 1994 and 1999 as well as the municipal elections held in 1998. Similarly, the independent media sector has been supported by UNDP/UNESCO. In the area of decentralization, UNDP has supported provincial governments by strengthening their strategic planning capacity and facilitating their linkages with district administrations through equipment and running costs. Furthermore, under its Economic Management Programme, UNDP has supported provincial and district directorates for finance and planning in order to maximize the transparency, efficiency and effectiveness in the utilization of public resources by local government units and ensure the sustainability of their efforts. 

Based on UNDP’s activities in Mozambique, de Renzo concluded that “calling governance and democracy the “missing links” in poverty reduction strategies is not quite correct. The links are clearly there, even if only as principles to be believed in. But they are often weak, invisible, or fuzzy”. This notwithstanding, he called on external actors to strengthen the linkages between good governance, democracy and poverty reduction by basing them on the following: 

• An attempt to make them more explicit;

• The adoption of more flexible procedures that allow for more flexible procedures that allow for a longer time-frame and different evaluation methods; and

• A careful analysis of local, social, cultural and political realities.
   

DISCUSSIONS GENERATED AFTER THE PRESENTATION OF THE PAPERS 

The following issues were raised during discussions on the two papers: 

1.      There is the need to disaggregate external actors since their interests, operations, agendas and modalities differ. This is because they include the Bretton Woods institutions, private agencies, bilateral and multilateral organizations, national corporations, human rights groups and multinational corporations;

2.      External actors have a role to play in democracy, poverty reduction and social exclusion. Some of them have not only provided technical assistance both have assisted CSOs in providing checks and balances. However, one should question the democratic intentions of external actors;

3.      Boundaries between external and internal actors must be clearly defined. External actors can be very decisive in creating positions for internal actors. For example, presidents and some ministers of finance can be made or unmade by some external actors;

4.      The role of some external actors in poverty reduction is questionable and complex. For instance, the activities of multinational corporations can result in environmental problems and dislocation of people;

5.      Some of the conditionalities of donors are contradictory. For instance, effective decentralization involves financial capacity and increased expenditure. This contradicts conditionality like reduced government expenditure;

6.      Some of the external actors are good in terms of their operations and interests while the interests and activities of others are counterproductive;

7.      There should be a coordination and harmonization of activities of local and external actors in order to promote democracy and poverty alleviation. These will reduce duplication and improve flexibility in programme implementation;

8.      Provision of democracy audit or a checklist of whether activities of external actors are consistent with democratic principles or in line with requirement of programmes;

9.      Some external actors have become a bridge between CSOs and the state and this must be sustained. The extent to which some external actors have brought national players to form a consensus on national issues and programmes is commendable;

10.  Transformational leaders are needed in Africa. This will not only provide ownership of policies and programmes but will also reduce the patronalizing attitude being exhibited by some of the donors;

11.  There needs to be a partnership between external actors and African states. This partnership can be fostered through dialogue and consultation between the external actors and African governments. A good partnership works in a reciprocal manner. The present disparity between the supply side and demand side should be corrected;

12.  The idea of partnership involves contractural obligations between the parties. This comes through dialogue;

13.  In spite of disparity of resources between African states and donor community, a level playing field is required in the determination of conditionalities;

14.  Northern CSOs have a great role to play in ensuring the ownership and coordination of policies and programmes;

15.  State-civil society relations must be proactive, vigorous, thrustful and meaningful to solve issues and problems of democracy and poverty;

16.  Both external and internal actors must be transparent and accountable;

17.  Democracy, poverty alleviation and eradication as well removing social exclusion must be a collective effort of all.
 

CONCLUSIONS: WORKSHOP ON DEMOCRACY, POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION 

After the sessions, participants spent time brainstorming on and identifying the main issues, policy recommendations and actors with regards to the four sub-themes of the workshop, namely: 

• Accountable governance;

• Participation;

• Citizenship and rights; and

• External actors 

The issues, policy recommendations and actors in respect of each of the sub-themes are presented in Boxes 1-4. Resources at the disposal of African states to confront the problems are set out in Box 5 while the challenges confronting African states are identified in Box 6. 

CLOSING CEREMONY 

The chairman, Dr Tesha thanked participants for the inputs made at the workshop, which to him were productive and timely. 

Dr Molutsi, on his part, was impressed with the level of commitment and devotion exhibited by the participants. He was also grateful to the paper- writers and pointed out that the criticisms made were done in good spirit. He then announced that a follow-up conference to be co-sponsored by the UNDP, will be held in Stockholm, Sweden on 8-9 June 2000. Participants at the Stockholm Conference will be selected based on regional representation. The Stockholm Conference will be a wider forum and will include politicians, civil society leaders and academics. He reiterated that the Addis Ababa workshop is the beginning of a dialogue that must take place and should involve national and regional organizations to pool together resources. This is because democracy is about freedom and participation. As a follow-up to Stockholm Conference a website will be created while a series of advocacy will be created to include all stakeholders. Dr Molutsi also hinted that the findings and recommendations of the Addis Ababa workshop and Stockholm Conference will be presented to an African Conference scheduled for September 2000. The rationale behind all these efforts is to emphasize the importance of creating space and forging an agenda. 

Finally, Dr Molutsi asked the rapporteur to send his report by Monday, 22^nd May 2000 while the paper-writers should send their revised papers by Friday, 27^th May 2000. 

In his closing remarks, Dr Bujra expressed his gratitude to Dr Patrick Molutsi and Ms Ruby Begum, all of the IDEA, for their indefatigable contribution towards the workshop. He also thanked Dr Tesha for chairing two sessions of the workshop and the participants for their attentiveness and support for DPMF programmes. 
 

CONCLUSION 

There is no doubt that the findings and recommendations of the Addis Ababa Workshop have provided the synergy between democracy, poverty and social exclusion. Moreover, the Workshop has set the tone and the agenda for the Stockholm Conference scheduled for 8-9 June 2000. Equally important are the sub-themes of accountable governance, participation, citizenship and rights and the role of external actors, which have been thorny issues on the development agenda and whose aberration, in one form or another, have sometimes resulted in the conflicts that have devastated some African countries. The hope of the participants is that Africa’s march to development and economic emancipation must be the concern of all the leaders, the governments and the citizens. Without good will, trust, rapport, hard-work and commitment from Africans themselves and, of course, the support of the well-intentioned donor community, the realization of democracy, poverty reduction and elimination as well as eradication of social exclusion will be a mirage. However, it is hoped that the optimism rather than despair for Africa’s progress and development that participants exhibited at the Addis Ababa workshop will be re-echoed in workshops and conferences on the future of the continent.

  Back to Publications page