I hear that some African leaders are meeting in Botswana supposedly to look at the issue of sustainable development. In all fairness to the esteemed leaders they are unlikely to come up with any innovative ideas. They will repackage the same old tired ideas. This is not to say that they will not be trying but because their best is not good enough.
The thing is I do not believe a person who does not know about patents but who only knows about mineral exploitation is capable of moving Africa forward. Recently Microsoft paid close to a billion dollars for patents held by AOL. We are here talking of two privately owned companies, not two governments. The numbers show quite clearly the nature of the value of patents. But patents are largely useless without the raw materials that can be used to translate them into reality.
It is also a fact that without the requisite human resources the patent and the raw materials that can be used to translate the patent into reality or an economic item are useless. There is therefore a relationship between patents, raw materials and labour.
If one has regard to what is happening in the world one will see that the West provides the patents and China and the Far East provide the labour. In this scheme of things Africa has failed to see its relevance in relation to patents and Chinese and Far East labour. Africa has largely seen itself as a provider of raw materials to China and the Far East.
In the past there was convergence of patents and labour in the West. Africa at the time provided raw materials for the meeting of the patents and labour in the West to produce goods. Now we have a split between patents and labour. The patents are in the West and the labour is in China. Still Africa provides the raw materials. The West seeing that it does not have the labour has relocated the areas where patents and labour meet to China. Convergence of patents and labour takes place in China. We have a geographical relocation of the point of convergence but the underlying relationship between patents and labour is constant.
Proof of the correctness of my position that there is really a relationship between patents, labour and raw materials is borne out of China’s actions in regard to rare earth metals. On the surface it looks like China is hoarding these to ensure that production takes place inside China. The underlying thinking of China is however that they have figured out that patents are useless without raw materials. The West itself understanding that their leverage is in protection of intellectual property is putting pressure on China to respect intellectual property rights. China in order to get a relaxation of intellectual property laws relies on the rare earth metals to drive the point home.
The problem with African leaders is that they cannot think like their Western and Chinese counterparts. Until we have leaders who can think in the manner as I set out above we can have as many conferences as we like and enter into as many sustainable development agreements as we want but we will always fail.
African leaders have to realize the centrality of African raw materials to patents and labour. The West has registered a lot of patents. China has huge human resources. The issue for Africa is not about the high cost of patents or the low cost of Chinese labour. Africa must understand the relationship between Western patents and Chinese labour and how the relationship can be exploited to Africa’s gain. Selling raw materials is a primitive understanding of economics. The West must pay Africa a premium for how African resources unlock the value of patents and China and the Far East must pay a premium for how African resources unlock the value of Chinese and Far East value.
If we look at issues in the manner that I set out above we will realize that Africa is in a position to close the gap between itself and West that is based on intellectual property, and to also close the gap between itself and China and the Far East based on cheap labour. There is clearly a cost to Africa arising out of the West’s rigid protection of intellectual property. There is clearly a cost to Africa arising out of the cheap Chinese and Far East labour. A reduction of these costs will obviously free financial resources that Africa can use in its effort to develop its people.
It is pointless for Africa to be looking at the issue from only saying it has to exploit more natural resources or raw materials to generate more money for its development efforts. It is pointless for Africa to be looking at catching up with the West in terms of intellectual property. It is pointless for Africa to be looking to catch up with Chinese productivity. Africa needs China to pay more for its resources and for the West to charge it less for intellectual property. It can use its natural resources and raw materials to bargain effectively.
Recently a friend well versed in electrical and electronic engineering explained to me that batteries have a memory. If you charge it to a certain level over time this becomes its peak level. It acquires a sort of memory such that no matter how hard you try you can never charge it to a higher level. I believe most people who use cell phones have experienced this phenomenon. Inertia is the tendency of an object to stay in one place or to move in the direction that it is already moving in.
When a leader stands in front of his people and tells them that there is no money. He effectively sets a ceiling for thinking. If he repeats this statement several times he entrenches and justifies failure to be innovative. Once this level is established in his administration no amount of effort will make the administration innovative. The institutional memory and inertia will be that it is acceptable to justify failure to think on the basis that there is no money.
When you promote someone through the public service you retain some measure of institutional memory. You at the same time retain some institutional inertia. Keeping people in positions of power in the public service is therefore not a very smart move. The people cannot, no matter how many workshops you take them to, be more innovative that when they were at the lower levels of the public service. Given that a developing nation needs innovative thinking keeping people who have progressed through the ranks of the public service at the top for too long is counterproductive.
When you retain people who have served under a previous leader at the top of the public service you retain the memory and inertia of the past government. This is particularly so given that the people you retain entrench like-minded people such that by the time you leave their people continue with their type of thinking in a new administration. Continuity must never be maintained at all costs. A leader must understand that institutional memory and inertia are a drawback to new thinking. It does not matter how often the old hands proclaim to be open to new ideas. Being open to new ideas means nothing.
If one looks at the leadership of Microsoft and Apple one sees a leadership that is constantly evolving. You can see that a leadership is evolving by growth of its organization. In the private sector such growth is proven by increases in value and profits. In national governance it is shown by ability to meet the needs of the people. The statement that there is no money coming from a president is like a chief executive saying there are no profits. No shareholder will be happy to have a chief executive telling him day and night that there are no profits.
Our tendency to give credence to so called ideas coming from leaders is a form of institutional memory and inertia. Without a doubt if what I am setting our above was said by a known leader our society will accord it more weight. This memory and inertia stifles new thinking. Our habit of labeling people as either for the ruling party or the opposition is a form of appeal to institutional memory. We know that if he is a member of our party he is going to think in a particular fashion.
Surely a people who think in a predictable fashion is a very weak and vulnerable people. African leaders must be able to think in an unpredictable fashion in their dealings with the West and China. I am not suggesting that there should be no substance to their thinking. I am merely suggesting that the West and China must never be too comfortable that they can predict and rely on the ignorance of African leaders. African leaders can only achieve this if they open their ears and listen to Africans.
