At the heart of sub-Saharan Africa’s development and industrial helplessness is the unwillingness of its political and economic leaders to prioritise and galvanise its abundant human resources to master the science of indigenously designing and manufacturing the modern mechanical equipment and material goods required for her growth and sustainable development.

By Napoleon Esemudje

Prior to his assumption of political office, Boris Johnson, the soon to be former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, was a pugnacious journalist with a scathing pen. In a 2002 article published in the Spectator, a venerable British weekly magazine nearly as old as empire, Mr. Johnson scripted a robust defence of British Colonial rule in Africa. His pen, dripping with copious phrases of patronising reasons wrapped in viscous sarcasm, described life in twenty-first century Uganda, the East African country that gained political independence from the United Kingdom in 1962, thus: 

“Everywhere the people glide by, rather slowly, on big black bicycles. They are all imported: even now, the Ugandans can’t make their own bikes. In 1956 Ghana had a bigger GDP than Malaysia, and Egypt and South Korea were economically on a par. Can you really blame colonialism for the subsequent divergence in performance? The Malaysians have air-conditioning and computers; 90 per cent of Ugandans live in Stone Age conditions — round mud huts with a fireplace dug in the floor and raffia mats for beds and a life-expectancy of 42.”

A slap or a nudge?

As an African, and more specifically as a Ugandan, the reader may feel a tad uncomfortable and perhaps indignant at Mr. Johnson’s unsparing scrutiny of the country’s seeming productive impotence. But before retorting with the well-worn argument of underhand neo-colonial entrapment, let’s take a moment to reflect on the second sentence in that paragraph. Could it be true that Uganda, in the four plus decades post-independence (at the time Mr. Johnson wrote his broadsiding article), has not managed to develop the technical competence or capacity to indigenously manufacture bicycles that the Ugandan people need? Or is this the outcome of an unimaginative choice of taking the quick and easy route of importation that’s more rewarding for the country’s profiteering political and economic elites? Historical evidence clearly argues against the former.

Historical weakness

Like other pre-modern societies, pre-colonial Africans were adept at forging metals such as iron and bronze to make exquisite cultural artefacts, weapons and tools to meet the demands of their local environment. A lot of these, particularly the former, are still made in varying forms across the continent. They offer historical evidence that the African is as capable as any other at indigenous innovation and creativity. What is also true is that Africa has fallen far behind in scientific and technological innovation as scientific thought, logic and practice languishes at the fringes of culture.

However, it is more likely, that at the heart of sub-Saharan Africa’s development and industrial helplessness is the unwillingness of its political and economic leaders to prioritise and galvanise its abundant human resources to master the science of indigenously designing and manufacturing the modern mechanical equipment and material goods required for her growth and sustainable development. For whether they are bicycles, televisions, light bulbs, computer hardware, vehicles and a varied multitude of modern mechanical equipment or machineries of all kinds, there is a mystifying overdependence on foreign imports and non-African expatriates to provide manufactured goods and technical services. This is as true for Uganda as it is for practically all countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

A handcuffed giant

Take Nigeria for instance, currently Africa’s largest economy and with over 200 million people, the country with the largest nationals of black people in the world. Nigeria should be for Africa and black people all over the world, what China, Japan and India represents for the people of East and South Asia; i.e. a highly productive global economic powerhouse. But more than 60 years after it gained political independence, and with over 50,000 registered engineers (over 100,000 if unregistered members are included) and well over 100 universities and technical colleges; Nigeria’s dependence on the importation of foreign manufactured goods (especially machineries and electronic appliances) and related technical expertise remains chronically at stratospheric levels.

READ ALSO: Walking the tightrope: Party interest or personal ambition

Agony of being a black man (1)

Agony of being a black man (2)

Even the infrastructural symbols of its nationhood, from roads to bridges, and rail tracks, airports to stadiums and even high-rise building projects etc. are predominantly built by foreign firms wholly owned or technically led by Europeans, Asians and increasingly, Middle Easterners. Indeed, local engineers complain of limited patronage and collaboration from the government and it is often the case that few local companies can win significant government contracts for major construction projects without aligning with a foreign technical partner or at least an expatriate listed on their technical team.

Lax enforcement of regulations undermine local capacity

Some have argued, (with tangible examples of abandoned projects), that local companies without foreign technical partners are often unprofessional in their conduct and do not adhere to the delivery time and quality standards required for prime projects. A contrary response and one that could be a correlating fact as much as it is causative, is that government institutions and regulatory bodies have routinely failed to enforce the required building codes, construction standards and contract payment terms where local engineering firms are concerned.

Only the rigorous enforcement of such standards or contract terms, including timely and appropriate sanctions for infractions will compel local firms to eventually develop the culture of technical integrity, reliability and credibility like their foreign counterparts who are guided by strict rules established in their home countries. No local engineering firm or engineering professional will cut corners, build substandard or abandon a project if consequent prosecution and penalty is certain.

Without effective regulatory oversight and engagement, most local firms and engineers will not develop or deploy the indigenous capacity that the country needs. Unfortunately, it is this lack of a deliberate, sustained and focused engagement with local firms and their capacity that has undermined all previous attempts at Nigeria’s industrial productivity. Depending on foreign engineering firms or local firms with foreign technical experts to execute national projects may offer quick and expedient political returns. But it is ultimately a self-limiting and self-defeating strategy for sustained national development and security.

Turning international trade to intentional trade

However, this is not a case for further indigenisation of the industrial enterprise. Nigeria, like many African countries, needs all the foreign technical support and investments it can get. It should also be acknowledged that beyond the obvious benefits of foreign direct investments, indigenisation without local capacity is the economic equivalent of cutting your nose to spite your face. Still, the country must adopt an intentional and methodical approach to ensure that its collaboration with global trade partners’ results more in the local production of machineries and value added manufactured goods. With a significantly large market, Nigeria can push for the joint development or local manufacturing of some parts of its major machinery imports. Opportunities abound for this.

In recent years, the country embarked on a massive railway modernisation programme and has spent hundreds of millions of dollars importing locomotives, coaches and building or upgrading rail tracks. A valid case could have been made for some of these coaches to be built in Nigeria as part of the contract terms. The same is true for many other types of machinery imported into Nigeria from low-end consumer electronics to high-end vehicles, shipping vessels and aircrafts. Such joint development approaches are well established in countries like China and India amongst others. Sadly, aside the valiant efforts of a few private entrepreneurs to establish local assembly plants, successive Nigerian governments have practically abandoned the import-substitution, industrialisation strategy of their post-independence predecessors. A situation made worse by the lack of meaningful support (even at the signalling level) for locally made goods by public authorities.

Official vehicles for national development

A good example is the near zero utilisation of locally made or assembled vehicles by senior public officers – a practice that was common in Nigeria until the mid-1980s. Indeed, this was one of the factors that likely contributed to the collapse of Peugeot Automobile Nigeria (PAN), once Nigeria’s leading assembly plant. Incidentally, the use of local brands as official vehicles of public officers is a standard practice across the world and the essential value of this practice is beyond national pride. It signals and promotes to the rest of the world the advance technical capacity of the home country.

A snapshot of the world’s leading economies confirms this. The official vehicle of the German Chancellor is a German made Mercedes Benz. The official vehicle of the Japanese Prime Minister is a Japanese made Toyota Century. The British Prime Minister’s official vehicle is a British made Range Rover. The official vehicle of the United States President is an American made Cadillac while that of the Russian President is a Russian made Aurus Senat. That of the Chinese President is the Chinese made Honqi L5. The same is true for countries such as Italy (Lancia Flaminia) and South Korea (Hyudai Nexo). The Indian Prime Minister’s official vehicle consists of the Range Rover (manufactured in the United Kingdom but with significant Indian ownership) as well as other locally made vehicles in its escort train. In Malaysia, the public officials are required by law to use the locally produced Proton brand of vehicles, which is Malaysia’s ‘national brand’ for official local travels. 

Make machines for independence

It is true that numerous considerations determine the official vehicle of government leaders; the critical elements of which are comfort, safety and security concerns. However, when a country is determined and serious about developing a local vehicle industry, the government typically engages with local manufacturers to agree on minimum but credible security and quality specifications for the local brands including those to be used by state officials. Such engagement and guidelines spur meaningful efforts by local manufacturers to enhance their capacity and capabilities to produce high quality vehicles.

This way, government leaders can signal to their fellow citizens and the global markets that if their locally made automobile is good enough for the country’s number one citizen, then it is good enough for the world. This, as in many other cases, is indicative of the fundamental role of leadership in promoting and enabling national industrial development. The alternative is more of the same situation, where as we edge on to a full century after the end of colonial rule, Nigeria and other African countries remain tied to foreign imports the same way their colonized forebears were tied to European goods. And like unweaned children that have refused to grow to full adulthood, there can never be true independence for Africa until Africa is industrialised enough to make the machines that it needs.

• Napoleon Esemudje, a consultant, lives in Lagos, Nigeria