An article by Charles Onyango-Obbo in the Daily Nation last week contained an interesting discussion of the relationship between donor dependence and political instability. The theory was that some African countries are aid-dependent and would suffer severely if foreign aid was cut off, whereas others were resource-poor but almost self-sufficient. Leaders of countries in the aid-dependent category could afford to be undemocratic because those leaders did not depend on the support of anyone in their country. On the other hand, leaders of countries which raised most of their own revenues had to be more sensitive to various local interests, so they were less likely to have rigged elections.
Another theory was that the leaders of resource-rich countries (oil, diamonds, etc), could avoid the necessity of public accountability simply by seizing control of the revenue streams associated with the resources, so that such countries were more prone to political instability than countries with less valuable resources, in which wealth is more evenly spread and therefore not so easily controlled.
However, recent events in Kenya have called these theories into question. Kenya raises most of its own revenue and does not possess high-value natural resources, so it shouldn’t be a venue for rigged elections. The writer concludes that the answer lies in “identity politics”, in which representation is far more important to Africans than governmental effectiveness. Africans will not object to a government that is ineffective, but will react violently if they feel that there are not enough people from their tribe in positions of power.