Bunge-Lenye-Meno-A-Parliament-with-Teeth-for-Tanzania-LAXNNAJ547

A Parliament with Teeth, for Tanzania
In development jargon, the rivalry between donors and parliament is
known as ‘parallel accountability’. The problem is becoming more
vexed as foreign aid to Africa has increased, and often confused by the
variety of methods of delivering that aid. High profile campaigns in
industrialised nations have mobilised a huge constituency in favour of
debt relief and more spending on international development. In July
2005, G8 leaders at the Gleneagles summit agreed to double aid to
Africa by 2010. Yet aid remains an experimental project and the ensuing
debate over policy is polarised. Critics argue that aid can undermine
local institutions to the point where it does more harm than good.
The implications for donors
Among the most influential evangelists for more international
development assistance to Africa, Jeffrey Sachs, a former Harvard
professor-turned-Special Adviser to the United Nations, has lobbied
vigorously on behalf of the Tanzanian government. Professor Sachs
wants donors to spend more, and to do so more consistently. He argues
that aid should favour tangible inputs such as mosquito nets and
medicines, which can be insulated from political concerns: “It is hard
to corrupt a mosquito net,” he says. For Sachs, poverty will not be
reduced until the flow of aid is stable and predictable.
“Turning the dial up or down according to how the
last election was run has not worked, and is not
going to work” – Jeffrey Sachs. 1
Among G8 nations, a consensus has emerged around the United
Nations’ Millennium Development Goals. Bilateral donors attach new
importance to ‘harmonising’ policy, often pooling funds under the
stewardship of a single ‘lead’ nation. A gamut of new tactics has been
18 1. Interviewed by Mark Ashurst. BBC World Service, October 2005.