From Public- Private Partnership (3P) to Public-Private-Civil Society Partnership (3P + CS)

This article was released by Sidwaya (a local Newspaper) as of Friday, September 5th- 7th, 2008 in reaction to the above entitled article published by PARECAP, an NGO that has been striving to strengthen the partnership between public, private and civil society sectors in Burkina Faso since April 2007.

I am a citizen interested in the public life of my country. So, I read with great curiosity your article entitled “Public- Private Partnership (3P) to Public-Private-Civil Society Partnership (3P + CS)” that appeared in Le Pays no 4173 as of Friday, August 1th - 3th, 2008.

I guess no one questions, today, the need for a dynamic partnership between the public, private and civil society sectors in the pursuit of sustainable (harmonious) development in Burkina Faso. The Gordian knot, however, is as highlighted in your article how to form the basis of such a partnership. In other words, the question is how to work out the contents of such a “tripartite agreement”.

The right path may be to start by spelling out each actor’s role in the partnership. The public sector, I agree, should endeavour to set up an enabling environment for social and economic development through regulations and long- term investments. It is also true that the primary role of the private sector is to create wealth for current and future generations.

But I didn’t see very clearly what role civil society should play in the interface when you mentioned that “its work in social promotion and economic growth is outstanding”. If that is related to its involvement in the implementation of various development projects (these are activities it carries out as an independent entity), I think we should yearn for a stronger civil society in the interface.

Indeed, in addition to assisting the public and private sectors in the management of public affairs and creation of wealth, civil society should seek to reinforce its role in the institutional and systemic reforms of our country. It should act as an alert and control system over governmental action and private sector projects. More to the point, it should be the watchdog that ensures the public and private sectors keep up their commitments.

This enhanced role should be understood and accepted by all actors in the interface, for if it is necessary for the government to intervene in the private sector when it no longer produces expected economic outcomes, it is similarly important for civil society to intervene for the very same reason or when the government itself is facing any failure. In short, the role of civil society should be strengthened in the interface.

It would be a major asset for good governance in Burkina Faso, which is a prerequisite for sustainable development.

Moreover, I am afraid that your proposed thematic approach will not be effective to achieving concrete development outcomes although discussions between stakeholders are essential to put in place such an interface. The reason is that, in Burkina, we are always keen to deliver honeyed promises and exalted speeches without any follow up on our commitments.

That is why many discussion platforms are useless as reports are deemed to sink into oblivion very rapidly. In a reliable democratic governance system, I think that the public and private sectors should help civil society in building its capacities to evaluate public and non-government policies so as to strengthen its role in the interface.

I don’t think the three actors should meet regularly only because a discussion platform does exist. Instead, they should meet when it is necessary, that is, when one or two parties have concrete propositions to make to the other party. Finally, the interface may further develop itself through tightened collaboration in service delivery areas such as education, health, agriculture, and information and communication technology.

That’s my understanding of effective public-private-civil society partnership.

DU PARTENARIAT PUBLIC-PRIVE (3P) AU PARTENARIAT PUBLIC-PRIVE-SOCIETE CIVILE (3P+SC)

Cet article est paru dans Sidwaya du vendredi 5 au 7 septembre 2008 en reponse a l'article ci -dessus titre publie par le PARECAP, une ONG qui oeuvre au renforcement du partenariat entre le public, le prive et la societe civile au Burkina Faso depuis Avril 2007.

Je suis un citoyen intéressé à la vie publique de mon pays et c'est avec curiosité que j'ai lu votre article intitulé ''Du partenariat Public-Prive (3P) au Partenariat Public-Prive-Société Civile (3P +SC)'' paru dans Le Pays no 4173 du vendredi 1er au dimanche 03 Aout 2008.

Nul ne peut aujourd'hui questionner la nécessité d'un partenariat dynamique entre les secteurs public, prive et la société civile pour l'atteinte d'un développement durable (harmonieux) au Burkina Faso. Le nœud gordien est, comme vous l'avez souligné, comment asseoir les bases d'un tel partenariat. En d'autres termes, quel contenu faut-il donner à un tel ''accord'' tripartite?

C'est bien de commencer par situer les rôles de chaque acteur. Le secteur public, j'en conviens, doit veiller à l'instauration d'un environnement propice au développement économique et social à travers les lois et réglementations et les investissements à long terme. Il est vrai aussi que le rôle premier du secteur privé est la création de richesses destinées aux générations présentes et futures.

Mais je n'ai pas bien saisi l'essence du rôle que vous avez attribué à la société civile dans l'interface quant vous dites que ''son travail dans la promotion sociale et le développement économique est bien remarquable''. Si cela a trait à ce qu'elle fait déjà dans la mise en œuvre des divers projets de développement (ce sont des activités qu'elle mène en tant qu’entité autonome), je crois qu'il faut lui donner un rôle plus consistant dans l'interface.

En effet, en plus d'accompagner les secteurs public et privé dans le fonctionnement de l'Etat et la création des richesses, la société civile doit, à mon sens, renforcer son rôle dans la reforme systémique et institutionnelle de notre pays. Elle doit agir comme un système d'alerte et de contrôle de l'action gouvernementale et du secteur privé. Elle doit être une sorte de watchdog (chien de garde en anglais) pour veiller au respect des engagements des secteurs public et privé.

Ce rôle doit être compris et accepté de tous dans l'interface. Car, s'il est nécessaire que le gouvernement intervienne dans le secteur privé lorsque celui-ci ne produit plus les résultats économiques escomptés, il est tout autant utile que la société civile intervienne pour signaler un problème pour la même cause ou lorsqu'il y a échec gouvernemental quelque part. En clair, un rôle plus élargi de la société civile est à envisagé dans l'interface.

Ce serait un atout majeur pour la bonne gouvernance au Burkina Faso, gage d'un développement durable.

Par ailleurs, bien que les concertations soient essentielles pour la mise en place d'une telle interface, je crains que l'approche thématique dont vous proposez ne soit réellement efficace pour atteindre des résultats concrets en matière de développement. Au Burkina, nous aimons les discours exaltants sans suite et les promesses mielleuses.

C'est pourquoi beaucoup de plateformes de discussions ne servent pas leurs causes car les rapports sont vite tombés dans les oubliettes. Je crois que dans un jeu démocratique sincère, les secteurs public et privé se doivent de soutenir la société civile dans le développement de ses capacités en matière d'évaluation des politiques publiques et/ou non gouvernementales afin qu'elle puisse mieux jouer son rôle.

Il ne s'agit donc pas de se réunir parce qu'un cadre de concertation existe mais il faut provoquer le dialogue chaque fois que cela est nécessaire; c'est - à- dire si une ou deux parties ont des propositions concrètes à faire à l'autre. Du reste, l'interface peut se nourrir d'une coopération plus renforcée entre les trois secteurs pour assurer une meilleure prestation de services dans les domaines tels que l'éducation, la santé, l'agriculture, et les techniques de l'information et de la communication.

Voilà mon entendement d'un Partenariat Public-Prive-Société Civile efficace.

France’s selective immigration policy and brain drain in Africa

The original version in French of this article was posted on 27 November, 2008

One of the most current controversial policies in France is that on “immigration and integration” initiated by former French Minister of Interior, Nicolas Sarkozy, and adopted by French parliament in May 2006. Even this morning, I was listening to RFI (Radio France Internationale), which was broadcasting a very lively debate over the issue.

Not surprisingly, most people in Africa and within French civil society tend to condemn this “selective immigration” policy that aims at easing the process of obtaining residency permits for very skilful African migrants such as artists, intellectuals, sportsmen, and businessmen (read article in French), while making it cumbersome for those without a potential to create some value added in France to get such precious documents.

Note that I am referring to Africans and not to foreigners in general because it is likely that Africans are the main targets of this immigration and integration law and not Indians, Chinese, Eastern Europeans ...who encounter fewer difficulties to socialise in France. The evidence is that France is now asking African countries to sign its agreement on “concerted immigration” in order to facilitate the deportation of undocumented Africans to their respective home countries. Hence, this easy conclusion: France will no longer welcome any African trying to escape from poverty and deprivation in his/her country, only the elite please!

As ever, African leaders failed to predict this decision by French government. It is only when the policy is in place that they set out to react by arguing against its fairness and by accusing France of intending to empty Africa’s skilled labour force. I suspect that most African leaders are yet to overcome their pains and bad memories from slavery and forced labour during the colonial period. Of course, I agree that parts of their arguments against the policy are right but let’s not deceive ourselves. What Nicolas Sarkozy is proposing to African leaders is nothing but a deal. And that reminds me of my Finance lecturer’s one favoured quotes: “In business, there is no such thing as a win–win contract; I win and you lose”. France always wins its agreements with Africa.

However, I’d like to acknowledge the ability of France to recognise that some Africans should be compensated for their skills. Africa itself seems not to be aware of its own potential. In most African countries, distinguished scholars are treated as they were insane, researchers are not listened to, technicians are underemployed, exceptional artists and sportsmen are exploited by their greedy managers, and clientelism is the rule in business. In short, there is no room for merit in Africa’s current social and economic environment.

The brain drain issue indicates, in my view, a state of bad governance in the source country. A State severely hit by brain drain phenomenon is inefficient in its human resources management. Poverty is rarely the main cause as poverty alone does not account for the lack of opportunities in a country. India is a case in point. For many years, India has seen its skilled workers fled to Great Britain and United States but this tendency was reverted when the country started to implement sound structural reforms that have sustained its ongoing growth.

As long as Africa does not succeed in setting up competitive and stable economic and social environment, many of its children will continue to value their skills in France or elsewhere. I guess African leaders should count on themselves to address many challenges for the future.