Zambia

State contingent instruments can play a role in debt restructuring agreements, but they shouldn’t be a give-away to investors.  There is a compelling case for their use in Zambia—but not in Sri Lanka.

High stakes and encouraging progress in Zambia should prompt international support.

Hakainde Hichilema's win in Zambia's presidential election allays some fears of democratic decline, but his administration will inherit economic problems from incumbent President Edgar Lungu.

The backdrop to the current Zambian election cycle is far from an environment conducive to debating solutions for the serious challenges Zambians face.

Last week, when U.S. Ambassador to Zambia Daniel Foote expressed his dismay about a Zambian court ruling sentencing two men to fifteen years in prison for the crime of conducting a same-sex relationship, Zambian President Edgar Lungu was quick to take offense. He and his administration rebuked Foote, claiming that the American diplomat’s remarks were disrespectful and constituted inappropriate interference in internal affairs. In response, Ambassador Foote released a remarkable statement, that goes well beyond defending the rights of the LGBTQ community in Zambia, also noting the government’s lack of transparency regarding state corruption and the pall cast broadly over freedom of expression throughout the country. The dust-up is revealing. Lungu welcomes the chance to cast himself as a defender of Zambian values and of Christianity itself, in part because this narrative distracts from desperate efforts by Zambian civil society to protect what is left of civil and political rights in the country. For years, Lungu and his inner circle have been shrinking political space, harassing political opponents, and silencing the independent press. Now they are pressing for passage of Bill 10, a package of constitutional changes that would dramatically strengthen the power of the presidency. In the meantime, Zambia’s economic growth is anemic, government debt has soared to staggering levels, and the country is struggling to cope with drought and draconian power cuts. It’s easier to rally support for a firm hand at the top by vilifying minorities and appealing to prejudice than it is to run on the record or try to convince citizens that the country is on the right track. It’s also interesting to note that Ambassador Foote’s statement suggests that the United States’ generous record of providing foreign assistance to Zambia gives it special standing to raise concerns about Zambia’s direction. It is undoubtedly true that healthy, productive development partnerships require honesty and shared commitment, and that major assistance donors may have more leverage to press their case than others. But it is important to remember that that there is no required price of admission to defend human rights, to shed light on corruption, or to defend democracy. Governments, civil society organizations, and individuals speak out against injustice at home and abroad because they believe it is the right thing to do. Often voices in the United States and elsewhere complain about the reluctance of African leaders to condemn or even acknowledge state-sponsored abuses in their neighbors. The United States should be careful not to suggest that it’s the act of providing development assistance that gives one license to do the right thing.

This is a guest post by Jameson McBride, an intern for Energy and the Environment at the Council on Foreign Relations Africa Program. He is currently studying Political Science and Sustainable Development at Columbia University. Over the past few months, an energy crisis has been deepening in Zambia: the nation has been generating only 58 percent of its usual electrical capacity. The cause of this energy crisis, however, is not economic or political—it is drought. Like many sub-Saharan states, Zambia is heavily dependent on hydroelectricity, and recent drought has crippled the nation’s power supply. Zambia’s hydropower problems may only be a sign of things to come. Long-range models predict that climate change is likely to cause more droughts throughout much of sub-Saharan Africa. While hydropower is widely billed as sustainable due to its low emissions and high efficiency, the drought-induced Zambian energy crisis suggests that it may not be a reliable solution for African energy in a future marred by climate change. Sub-Saharan Africa is the least electrified region in the world. Nearly 600 million Africans—or three-quarters of the sub-Saharan population—lack reliable access to the grid. Finding energy solutions for Africa that are cheap, reliable, and scalable is thus a priority for the region. Hydropower has traditionally been viewed as one of the best solutions for Africa’s energy needs. After a one-time construction cost, hydroelectric dams run cheaply and produce virtually no waste. Currently, only 7 percent of Africa’s potential hydropower is harnessed, so the prospects seem tremendous. Despite concerns about dams’ impacts on local ecology, their high potential and low cost make them too attractive to ignore. Indeed, in the past few years, financial planning has begun for the massive Grand Inga Dam in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which at 42,000 MW, would be the largest hydropower plant in the world. Due to climate change, however, much of sub-Saharan Africa will experience considerably more severe and frequent drought in the coming decades. The efficiency of hydroelectric dams depends on consistent rainfall, so droughts quickly cripple energy systems that are heavily reliant on hydropower. This causes serious blackouts in the affected states: during a temporary total dam shutdown in October, Tanzania only produced 105 MW of the 870 MW normally generated. Less than 10 percent of Tanzanian households had electricity. African countries that build more hydropower are likely to be more vulnerable to climate change. Therefore, a tremendous challenge facing Africa’s energy future will be finding a cheap, scalable, and sustainable alternative to hydropower. Solar power is one possible alternative. The potential for solar generation in Africa dwarfs even that of hydropower. In addition, solar does not necessarily depend on major distribution infrastructure. Dams produce electricity in one (often remote) location, which a well-maintained grid system must then distribute to consumers. Solar panels, on the other hand, can be used on roofs or in small arrays to generate power for local consumption, without reliance on a large grid. The impact of “affordable small-scale, off-grid systems” could create an energy revolution in Africa—and one that would help the poorest most. This reasoning has already been incorporated in some development programs: under President Obama’s leadership, the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) launched the “Power Africa” program, in 2013. The program includes an explicit focus on solar initiatives and no hydro initiatives. It is hard to ignore the potential of African hydropower in the context of extreme energy scarcity. However, facing increased drought risk due to climate change, many African states will need to look beyond dams to ensure a bright future.

South Africa is much larger and more developed than its neighbors in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Economically, it dominates the entire region. Apartheid South Africa regularly intervened militarily outside its borders during the struggle against the African National Congress and other liberation movements, thereby highlighting their neighbors’ weaknesses. A consequence of South Africa’s disproportionate power and influence is that it is often resented by other Southern African nations. Occasionally this breaks out into the open. That happened in the aftermath of Margaret Thatcher’s funeral in London when, upon returning to Lusaka, Zambian vice president Guy Scott publicly compared South African president Jacob Zuma to F.W. de Klerk, the last apartheid South African head of state, according to The Guardian. But, he did not stop there. He also said South Africans are “arrogant.” Further warming to his subject, he continued: “The South Africans are very backward in terms of historical development…I hate South Africans. That’s not a fair thing to say because I like a lot of South Africans but they really think they’re the bees’ knees and actually they’ve been the cause of so much trouble in this part of the world.” He went on to say that South Africa’s blacks model themselves on white behavior now that they are in power. Saying out loud what many Africans say only after a few drinks , he continued, “I dislike South Africa for the same reason that Latin Americans dislike the United States, I think. It’s just too big and too unsubtle.” He also denounced South African membership in the BRICS, a major Zuma policy initiative: “Nobody would want to go in for a partnership with Brazil, China, India, and South Africa for Christ’s sake.” He concluded with a bouquet for Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe: “I’m sure any good African nationalist admires Mugabe.” He also said that Mugabe would like to retire from the presidency. The South African government says it is demanding an explanation for the remarks from the Zambian high commissioner in Pretoria. In contrast, Zimbabwe is playing down the incident, commenting publicly that Mugabe is “close” to Scott and Zambian president Michael Sata. Zimbabwe insists that it will not allow “the media” to shape the Zambia/Zimbabwe bilateral relationship. The immediate cause of Scott’s ire appears to have been Zuma’s maneuvering over Zimbabwe’s upcoming elections in his capacity as the Southern African Development Community (SADC) designated mediator. While Zuma is ostensibly operating with the mandate of SADC, of which Zambia is a part, in Scott’s view the South African president is trying to keep the other SADC states out. Scott is hardly a typical southern African politician. Born in 1944, he is of Anglo-Scottish origin with a degree from Oxford. However, his father was involved in anti-colonial journalism and Scott has liberation credentials. He is a fierce critic of white racism in southern Africa. He compared fellow students at a school he attended as a youth in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) as having the attitudes of the Hitler Youth. Scott, also a journalist like his father, established an important agribusiness and later served as the Zambian Minister of Agriculture. He became vice president in 2011.  

Zambia’s president Michael Sata gave a January 22 interview to London’s the Telegraph newspaper that is worth reading. This interview is the first Sata has given to the international media. (The Telegraph is often regarded as the more conservative of the UK’s quality newspapers with a national circulation.) Sata is in many ways an old line, populist politician. He was elected president of Zambia last year with a plurality of the votes, campaigning as a champion of the poor and against corruption. The election was credible, and Sata was sworn-in without opposition. Sata prides himself on his sharp tongue and appears to like the moniker ’King Cobra.’ In the interview, Sata makes it clear he has a love-hate relationship with the UK, where he was once a railway worker. "But every hour I spent on manual work, every hour I was humiliated in England or degraded has helped me, because that’s the same way other people feel in the townships here." On the other hand, as the interviewer observes, he is also looking to the West and the UK to balance Chinese influence in Zambia. His comments on Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe have also attracted attention in Harare. He called Zimbabwean opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai a "stooge," and said that constitutional reform and a reformed voters roll were not prerequisites for new elections, despite South African president Jacob Zuma’s insistence on them. The Telegraph quotes Sata as saying, "You people, the Western countries, you taught us that democracy is elections. Now somebody wants elections and you say no." Sata’s comments may reflect the solidarity he feels with Mugabe as a leader of the "liberation struggle." However, President Sata also told the Telegraph that Zambia must solve its own problems before involving itself in the problems of other countries. His comments on Zimbabwe may signal that he is not prepared to get involved in Zimbabwean political developments at present. That would be consistent with his populist orientation.