Mozambique is the latest favourite of the international community, following in the footsteps of disgraced Uganda which held the position in the 80s and 90s. Tajudeen Abdul Raheem scrapes away the veneer of growth rates and donor funding to look at issues of governance and accountability. He concludes with news about the African Monitor, launched this week to monitor whether development promises are being kept by both donor and recipient nations.

If you read anything about Mozambique today and the 'tremendous progress' the country is supposed to be making, one cannot help recollecting similar rave reviews and reports about Uganda in the late 1980s through the 1990s. The statistics are very familiar: over 6% growth rate, expanding opportunities for business, IMF/World Bank ideology, a confident middle class, and an environment open to foreign investment, INGOs and Donors.

In the case of Uganda there was also identification with 'A Strong Man' who is considered an 'enlightened' or 'benevolent' dictator. Of course the ovation for Uganda is no longer as enthusiastic as it used to be. This is not only due to the economic limitations of macro economic rejuvenation in a dependent economy but also the limits of political tolerance between the ruling party/clique and president on the one hand and their erstwhile and over indulgent foreign supporters. In some senses Museveni has become the tail trying to wag the dog or in another sense a beggar who cannot accept the ultimate loss of sovereignty stemming from an economy that is too much dependent on outside forces and support.

So it was with Uganda in mind that I arrived in Maputo last week. There are no doubts about the visible signs of a country in some kind of rebirth after a painful history of armed conflict largely the result of regional destabilization of neighboring apartheid South Africa and the immoral logic of the cold war. Many new buildings are going up and old ones being rehabilitated.

There are more than twenty big donor agencies and organizations in the country who are basically the engine of the new growth. It is a reward for successful peaceful settlement of the war against RENAMO, ideological capitulation or pragmatic realignment away from the former Stalinist model and endorsement for the political leadership.

But as in Uganda this support came with costs that increase everyday. One, it is not sustainable that a country be so dependent on foreigners through both direct budget support and resources for its capital development. Two, such endorsement comes with political consequences that often lead to collisions in the future, especially after a period of stabilization. Those who pay the piper will want to call the tune eventually. Also the growth may not guarantee any long lasting development.

Speaking to some of the officials of the key government ministries, the story is similar to what many people in financial and economic ministries in many African countries will recognize. Just take the example of the time that the government of Mozambique spends on a twice-yearly review with donors. Each round takes 45 days each, which means 90 days in the year. This means that the working year is actually reduced, so what time is spent by government officials on actually working to deliver services to their own people? Those who are condemned to these endless missions and evaluations know that as a consequence of these meetings more meetings and missions are generated. In a way development becomes paper-driven. No wonder the 'miraculous' average growth rates bandied about often mean nothing to the vast population condemned to eke out their living in the 'micro' level.

Many African governments as a result of their collective political failure and mismanagement of the resources of the continent have made themselves supervisors for foreign interests and are now conditioned to be accountable to donors and Western agencies. They are often too scared or intimidated to resist unless when their narrow political interests (like continuing stay in power) are concerned. Yet donor demands and interventions are collectively undermining the capacity of our governments and peoples. Even our largely foreign sponsored NGOs (increasingly substituted for civil society) are also more accountable to their funders than the people they serve. Many of the so called opposition politicians spend more time complaining, whining and pining to foreign (and usually Western ) diplomats and other aid officials than organising to politically challenge misruling governments.

Our governments sign up to international commitments like the Millennium Development Goals in addition to mountains of other Intra African protocols or agreements like NEPAD and the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) without expecting to fulfill them.

Not a few Africans are fed up with this situation but too many of us agonise instead of organising. But Njongonkulu Ndungane, the Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, following in the tradition of activist priests like his predecessor, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, is hoping to reverse the trend of governance without accountability both on the continent and internationally. And he is challenging other Africans to join him. On Wednesday 3 May, after almost a year of consultations across the continent among civil society, NGOs, governments, International agencies and multilateral institutions, he launched the African Monitor. The mission is to make sure that African governments and non African governments meet up to the commitments they have made under various instruments, chiefly the MDGs, NEPAD, G8, etc.

It is a very daunting task. However because Ndungane has a wide constituency of faith based groups (not limited to Christians or Anglicans but involving other faiths)and also due to the existence of so many groups working (often in isolation) across the continent, the African Monitor may actually provide a useful service in building bridges of activism and policy engagement and ensure accountability through high level advocacy backed by grass roots activism.

As I have argued elsewhere, Africa does not need new commitments or promises, just a fulfillment of old ones we made to ourselves and made by others. While our governments are used to being formally accountable to outsiders, the African Monitor hopes to make them accountable to their own peoples and also monitor the accountability of others to us. In a way it may operationalise one of the few good things in the APRM, the principle of 'mutual accountability' between us and those who claim to be our 'international partners'. As the South African vice president observed in her conclusion at the workshop that preceded the launch, even the monitors need to be watched.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to