April, May, June, and July

Greetings friends!

I know. It's been a while. If I keep going at this rate, I'll only post 3 or 4 times this year. My apologies. It's hard for me to know what to say about my life here on the other side of the globe. Things are certainly interesting, but it's all just so different. I usually don't know where to begin. I guess I'll start with the last four months.

The Last 4 Months
A good portion of my time over the last four months has been spent teaching English at a local Mennonite church. I pivoted to this work in mid-February because my old partner was having funding problems and didn't have work for me. We picked this project because we wanted to work with the local Mennonite church and I felt that teaching English was a skill that I could offer. We are hoping that better English skills will help young people find jobs because unemployment is a big problem here. I also use the class as a chance to discuss issues, history, and change. The intention is to have a peace-building component to the class. This is easier said than done but I'm enjoying the challenge.

The class is always a combination of dedicated students, first timers, and other random stragglers. Some of them are old ladies, some are pastors, some are young students, and all struggle to speak in the past tense correctly. Despite what often feels like chaos, there is a group of students who attend regularly and seem to be improving. I usually start the class by asking people questions trying to get them to converse in English, and inevitably end up explaining some random vocab words. After that we might read an article together or look at a grammar rule. We usually end the class by singing songs in English out of a booklet that I put together. I'm hoping that the songs will help them with vocab and pronunciation.

So that takes up a few days a week. When I'm not teaching, I'm usually planning for class, working on improving my language skills, or reading. I also usually play ultimate Frisbee in the park on Saturdays. This weekly ritual was put on pause 7 weeks ago, when I got elbowed in the side and fractured one of my ribs. The pain was tolerable but slowed me down for a couple of weeks. I finally started playing Frisbee again last Saturday.

Apart from missing Frisbee, my injury also meant that I could not lift heavy objects. This was a problem because we had just entered the dry season. Water had become limited meaning we were often forced to haul 5 gallon jugs up the stairs to our 3rd floor apartment. It felt silly to be carrying the water up by hand because we have a water pump, but there is a strange politics to water during the dry season. My landlords household workers prefer that me and my roommates use less water (leaving them with more to wash the endless amount of laundry that my landlords three young children produce). The best way to limit our water use is to force us to haul it up the stairs in 5 gallon jugs.

As we get lower and lower on water, we usually become more and more nervous. We eventually go and negotiate for more water (there are many different ways). We usually get enough water to last at least a couple days, or maybe even a week or two. Then the process starts all over. Recently, my boss worked out a deal with our landlord where his household workers bring us 5 gallon jugs full of water. I was never really clear on whether we are supposed to pay them or not. They ask me for stuff, but I'm not sure whether or not that's related to water, because they have been asking me for stuff since I moved into this apartment 10 months ago.

There is an article on negotiation in Kinshasa called "the Kinshasa Bargain." (you can read the article here, the story on Les Mamans Manoeuvre is particularly interesting) Kinshasa is far away from Bukavu, but the ideas, in my experience, hold up in Bukavu. Here's a quote:

"The overwhelming material needs of Kinois transform anything with the slightest real or perceived value into a coveted consumer item. Office furniture, laboratory equipment, a fork or spoon in a restaurant, telephone cables, metal rods embedded in a cement wall, or light bulbs in a public area or a private parcel, can be the object of a Kinshasa bargain."

This quote highlights the value placed on stuff in Congo. My landlords workers often see me coming home with a bag full of stuff from the store, and beg for whatever I will give them. Apples, cookies, a piece of bread, a roll of toilet paper. I usually tell them to ask my landlord. The rent we pay for my apartment is pretty high, so it seems reasonable to me that he can take care of their needs. This has become more difficult since they have been delivering water. They usually ask for biscuits (cookies) upon delivery. A few nights ago, when I said that I didn't have any biscuits one of the girls poked her head into my room and said "just give me one book." I had to laugh. There is a large stack of books in my room, but they are mostly in English and I can't imagine what she wants with them. I have since begun paying for the water deliveries with sleeves of Oreos. So far, this seems to be an acceptable arrangement.

Negotiating over strange things is a regular part of my life in Congo. I find myself frustrated and exhausted by how much time I spend negotiating over things that in America are so easy. In America, when you want to buy something, you walk into a store or go online, compare options, and make a decision. It's more complicated here, because you never quite know where to go to buy what, and whether or not your getting a good price. The easiest way to navigate the system is to have a local friend that you can trust, but those are hard to come by. It's during negotiations that you find out who your real friends are.

The system was particularly stressful when my family came to visit in May. Negotiating the life of one Muzungu in Congo is a hassle, but negotiating the life of four Muzungu's is exhausting. The visas were the first challenge. It's very difficult and expensive for westerners to get visas in Congo, but I managed to get them through a local national park. After a long drawn out game of good cop bad cop with said national park, I was able to secure the visas in a package deal along with a day trip to hike through the jungle and see some gorillas. The whole thing cost more then I'd care to admit, but I got them in so I count it as a win. Once they were in, things got easier, but there was still a lot of negotiation over things like who we spent time with, who drove us where, and where my family stayed.

I was of course happy to do all these things because they're my family and I love them. I found a strange pleasure in seeing these two worlds collide. They were given a taste some of the challenges that I've faced since I've been here (lack of electricity and internet, bad roads, being force-fed by my host father). Overall, it was a very pleasant visit. We went to see gorillas in the jungle, ate many of my favorite foods, and they even came to chat with my English students. During one visit with local friends, we were sent home with a giant bag of fruit and a live chicken. You never know what you're going to get here.

Imagining the Congo:the stories we tell and the things that we do
I recently read a book called Imagining the Congo: The International Relations of Identity by Kevin C. Dunn. It's a meditation on representations of Congo throughout Congolese history. The way we imagine and represent Congo is important, because the region has been heavily affected over the years by policy decisions made based on these representations. The western image of Congo hasn't changed much since its creation 130 years ago. We continue to think about Congo as chaotic, savage, dark, backwards, and uncivilized. Dunn writes that "most scholars on U.S. foreign policy toward Africa argue that it is largely reactive, driven by responses to crises rather than coherent long-term strategies." It's like every time a crisis happens, we take out our stereotypes and misinterpret another situation.

Although our understanding has remained static, it has influenced western policy in various ways over the years. In the colonial era, the Belgians used this image to justify direct dominance of the region. After independence, the US used it to justify meddling in Congolese affairs. Since the 1990's, the west has used this image in order to justify non-intervention policies during times of crisis.

The Congo Free State was created in 1885 by King Leopold II, a man who only saw Congo in his imagination, never actually setting foot on what because of him would eventually be called Congolese soil. He relied on the adventurer Henry Morton Stanley to help him plot out a large piece of land connected by the many tributaries of the Congo River. Leopold needed justification for taking over this large chunk of land, so he crafted a vision of Central Africa as dark, backwards, chaotic, and in need of help. He claimed that his mission was humanitarian, meant to bring civilization and open the region up to free trade (130 years later, the region is still waiting on that promise). After convincing his fellow westerners of his good intentions, he went on to pillage the country, using whatever means necessary to make a profit. Most of this profit came from rubber extracted through forced labor. There was also ivory involved. Many Congolese people were killed.

An international movement formed in response to these atrocities known as the Red Rubber Movement. This movement included some people who actually had been to Congo, but mostly people who hadn't. Some authors regard this movement highly, but Kevin Dunn does not. By his description, the movement did not combat the negative images of Congo, but instead labeled Leopold II and Belgium as uncivilized. It was an attack by the English speaking world on a French speaking colonizer. The problem was not the colonization of Congo, but the fact that Leopold II had done a bad job. This representation was better, but still not very good for the Congolese people.

The movement led to Belgium annexing Congo as a colony in 1908. The colonial state instituted a policy they referred to as "Paternalism." They considered themselves fathers and the Congo their child. This attitude - paired with media images and exhibits of Congo as uncivilized and savage - continued into the 1950's. In 1959, a year before Congo's independence, the Belgian Minister of Colonies said, "I see these simple populations outside the large urban centers, and I feel myself more than ever the father of a family."

This is a weird representation that some might consider nice, if the Belgians had actually been good parents. The reality is that the Congolese people were still being subjugated and exploited. Belgium did improve Congolese infrastructure over these years, but didn't put much effort into elevating the people. After 52 years of Colonization, the country only had a handful of college graduates.

Many Congolese - including Patrice Lumumba - accepted the paternalism story. In his 1956 book he wrote: "Belgium's mission to the Congo is essentially a civilizing one... to introduce the ferment of political life prematurely among the ignorant and irresponsible masses in response to a craving for modernization would be to introduce the ferments of discord and dissension." The Congolese education system was controlled by Belgians so it seems reasonable that he followed this worldview. However, world order changed in 1945, and by the late 1950's that new world was catching up with Africa.

In December of 1958, Lumumba was one of 3 Congolese to attend the All-African Peoples Conference, a meeting in newly independent Ghana that included many future African leaders. The conference was his introduction to international politics. The trip changed Lumumba who was inspired to take a new pro-nationalism anti-imperialism stance. He began claiming that independence was not a gift but a right. In doing this, Lumumba was the first Congolese politician to articulate a national identity. Other party leaders focused on region or ethnicity, but Lumumba accepted this colonially constructed space, creating unity by railing against the countries collective suffering. He became the most popular Congolese politician, because his views appealed to all Congolese people. They were less appealing to the Belgians.

In June of 1960, the Congo became independent and elected Patrice Lumumba as the first Prime Minister. Relations between Lumumba and Belgium went sour almost instantly. At the independence ceremony, King Baudouin - the King of Belgium - gave a speech praising the work of his grandfather, King Leopold II. He claimed that independence was the fulfillment of his grandfathers work. Obviously, Lumumba could not accept this. He made some changes to his speech,

"Our lot was eighty years of colonial rule; our wounds are still too fresh and painful to be driven from our memory. We have known tiring labor exacted in exchange for salary which did not allow us to satisfy our hunger, to clothe and lodge ourselves decently or to raise our children like loved beings. We have known ironies, insults, blows which we had to endure morning, noon, and night because we were Negroes." 

This was the beginning of Lumumba's short and difficult relationship with the west.

A few weeks after independence, the country began to fall apart, with the south-eastern province of Katanga seceding. The Belgians encouraged the secession and provided them with military support, in efforts to protect their business ties to the mineral rich region. Lumumba, enraged by this invasion, reached out to the UN for military support. The UN called for Belgium to remove their troops and dispatched a peacekeeping force, but this did not meet the expectations of Lumumba who was hoping for military action. Unsatisfied with the UN, Lumumba sent a telegram to Moscow. It was this telegram that sealed his fate. The United States, symbol of freedom and shining city on the hill, could not allow Congo to be led by a communist sympathizer, even if he was democratically elected. The US eventually teamed up with Belgium to plant a coup d'etat and have Patrice Lumumba executed.

It might seem hypocritical for the democracy loving US to impose their values in such a way. I guess it's kind of like King Leopold and his humanitarian mission where he killed millions of people. The US rationalized their actions in a similar way to Leopold. Media images described them as backwards, savage, and uncivilized. For example, Time magazines coverage included a lot of this language. A headline from 4 months before independence said "Belgian Congo: Freedom Yes, Civilization Maybe." A reporter covering the election wrote: "most of the half-naked illiterate black voters had no idea what the candidates were talking about." President Eisenhower wrote in his 1965 memoirs that the Congolese people were "a restless and militant population in a state of gross ignorance -- even by African standards." Keven Dunn explains American motivations: "the dominate American view was that the Congolese were incapable of ruling themselves. Once such a notion was disseminated and internalized, Congolese sovereignty and independence became meaningless."  

Mobutu with the help of Belgium and the US took over and began ousting his rivals, bringing "order" back to the country. He eventually developed the same sort of savior complex that western nations had taken. No matter how bad things got (and they got pretty bad) Mobutu could always fall back on the argument that he was the only thing standing between Congo and chaos/communism. The US continued to support him until the end of the cold war in 1990, despite his disastrous human rights record. This support started to disappear now that the cold war was over.

Throughout the 1980's the US supported a number of authoritarian leaders with difficult human rights records in places like Liberia, Somalia, and DRC. Without the threat of communism, US policy in Africa became more focused on humanitarian goals along with democracy and human rights, meaning that they phased out support for these leaders, eventually plunging each country into chaos. For people who didn't know African history, it might have seemed like like Africa was inherently chaotic. Author Philip Gourevitch comments on this view in 1998,

"An alarming number of Western commentators took cynical solace in the conviction that this state of affairs was about as authentic as Africa gets. Leave the natives to their own devices, the thinking went, and - Voila! - Zaire. It is almost as if we wanted Zaire to be the Heart of Darkness; perhaps the notion suited our understanding of the natural order of nations."   

Again it is ironic. The US supported these awful leaders for years, then suddenly pulled out and started talking about human rights. Simultaneously, the US ignored responsibility claiming that this is just what happens in Africa.

For 100 years of history, the west has seen Congo as chaotic, backwards, and uncivilized. It's a conveniently shallow representation that can used for justification of both meddling and staying out of it. There is some amount of truth to these stereotypes, but it's more complicated than a few simple words. The thing I would stress the most is that Congolese people are not irrational or unintelligent. They are part of a system that despite it's many flaws makes sense. It's important to remember this, because a system that can be understood is a system that can be improved. It's a system that can be changed.

Is Congo chaotic, dark, savage, and uncivilized?
I don't really want to talk about the savage and uncivilized stereotypes. I think they're mean although maybe a little true, but then what exactly is so civilized about colonialism, or killing a democratically elected leader, or supporting a violent dictator for 32 years. I don't want to talk about that, but I do want to talk about darkness, chaos, and order.

I have a vivid memory of a discussion with a fellow American that took place a few months after I arrived in Congo. We talked about the difficulty of living in a country like this. He described it as chaos and I agreed with him.

This chaos comes from the lack of a central government. In America the government is ever present. When you turn on your tap and water comes out, that's the government. When you drive on a road, that's the government. When you turn on a light, government. The government organizes our society and provides a certain glue that holds us all together. Theoretically, the government in Congo does the same thing, but if the American government is superglue, the Congolese government is elmers. Also, there are a lot of places where the elmers hasn't been applied in 50 years. It's either falling apart of completely absent.

There is a book about how people respond to this problem in Kinshasa, called Reinventing Order in the Congo: How People Respond to State Failure in Kinshasa. The book is a collection of sociological articles about how people survive in Kinshasa without government services. There are chapters on water, food, healthcare, and education. There's also a chapter about NGO's and how they try and fail to respond to the lack of government in all of these domains. Without a central government organizing all of these services, it's like trying to reinvent the wheel (but how do you replace the wheel, you can't build a car without wheels). What has evolved is a complex system of negotiation over power and resources, based on a variety of complex identities rooted in years of conflict and oppression. This system feels rather chaotic for a Muzungu accustomed to a central organizing power.

More than any other domain, this country needs government in the security sector. There are police and the military, but they don't get paid well and corruption is rampant. They also don't have much power outside the main cities. The political system in Congo has worked like this since colonial times. The country is essentially held together by various strongmen who are kept loyal to the government in Kinshasa through patronage. A friend recently compared this situation to the way power and sovereignty worked in Europe during the middle ages. There was a time when scholars referred to this era as the dark ages.

But most scholars don't use that term anymore. They say that it's misleading. Development historians actually point to the middle ages as a time when systems essential to the success of the western economy were developed. During this time period, Middle Eastern and Asian societies would have seen Europe as uncivilized and chaotic, but this lack of central power allowed more decentralized political structures to emerge. This decentralization allowed private enterprise to grow in power, eventually becoming the back bone of western success. The development of private property rights, another central part of capitalism, is also attributed to feudal systems. The basis for western order emerged out of this chaos.

The problem with stereotypes - uncivilized, savage, chaotic, dark, backwards - is not that they're totally unfounded, but that they're shallow and don't show the whole picture. They only tell one side of the story. England went through a number of wars before the industrial revolution. I imagine that back then, nobody thought the whole world would be speaking English 500 years later. Congo certainly has the resources and size to be a major world power. With a few tweaks, this country could become a center of civilization. The problem is that people don't believe it, at least not enough to take the necessary risks. Americans didn't believe 60 years ago, not enough to give Patrice Lumumba a chance. Many Congolese don't believe it either. History has told them that their country is no good. A lot of people here think the only option is to get out. They see no future for themselves here.

Words have power. As long as people believe the DRC cannot change, they are correct. Many of the stories about DRC are full of violence and pain. I encourage you to read these articles, but don't let them fool you into thinking that's the only thing here. Don't let them fool you into thinking that there is no hope for this country.

Strange Joys
The way that our apartment is set up, I have to walk past my landlords kitchen area to leave. His household workers are almost always there, often along with his 3 young children (sometimes the neighbor kids are there too). When I walk by on the way to my English classes, I usually have my guitar because I use it in class. As I pass, they demand - in the most serious way -  that I play them a song. Never in my life has anyone responded to music with such excitement. In the last few nights, the children have been following me up the stairs, begging for me to play. I don't know if its because I'm a foreigner or maybe they just don't have YouTube, but they really get excited about even a few notes. It makes me feel good. Amidst the chaos, there is a strange and beautiful energy to this place.  

My friend and co-worker Aaron got married a couple weeks ago. It was a good chance to be together with everyone.  

Third rib down you can see the fracture. One of the nice things about Congo is that seeing the doctor and getting this x-ray only cost $30. I didn't even need an appointment. 

This is from a hike a took a few months ago. That's the Ruzizi river. It snakes across Africa and eventually ends up in the Atlantic Ocean.

Here it is up close.

Some friends

My friend Jimmy and I at a different wedding in Bukavu.

This guy performed at a local church recently. I was really impressed.

 

 This is a pretty good documentary about the region, that shows the difficult things people go through. The main guy is obviously very intelligent which makes his hopelessness all the more difficult. This attitude, particularly that the only hope for his children is to go abroad, is very common here. There are many people who believe that Congo cannot change.

This is an Angola musician. You here his music regularly on the radio. People describe this style as the classics or oldies. 

February and March

Quite a bit has happened since my last post two months ago. I've continued to wrestle with the question from my last post (why is America so much richer than Congo?), I had the pleasure of taking a few trips to Kalemie and Bujumbura, and I started a new job teaching English. 

Part I: Why is America so rich while Congo is so poor?
In my last post, I wrote about a book called Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Based on 15 years of research, the authors argue that wealth and inequality are mostly created by political institutions and the types of economic policies that they impose. Countries like the US with inclusive political and economic institutions tend to do better economically compared to countries like Congo with extractive institutions. The book is full of world history and gives an interesting perspective about how we have reached this current state.

This quote from a review of the book summarizes the idea effectively:

"The basic framework of the book is to lay out the relationship between economic institutions and political institutions. Some countries (Canada, Denmark, Japan) have "inclusive" political institutions and consequently develop "inclusive" economic institutions. When your economic institutions are inclusive, everyone gets a chance to go to school and learn, everyone has a chance to switch jobs or start a new business, and everyone has the opportunity to save and invest. But where countries have "extractive" political institutions they end up with "extractive" economic institutions. The president's wife's brother's son gets an exclusive license to import exercise machines (mostly used in hotel gyms since local people are too poor to use them) and earns a nice living do so free from competition. Eventually some eager beaver comes along and says, hey if this other guy is earning monopoly rents importing exercise machines then I'll just build some here domestically. But the eager beaver is naive. The exclusive import license isn't a coincidence, it reflects the president's wife's brother's son's privileged position in the political system. Smart hoteliers will know better than to buy from a competitor since it will only buy them regulatory trouble. Smart bankers will know that the new business is doomed and won't lend him money and even if it weren't doomed, lending him money would only buy them regulatory trouble. Eventually, the eager beaver's savvier wife will explain to him why the plan is doomed. Absent opportunity, human and physical capital stagnates and ambitious people focus their attention on climbing the ladder of corruption. Even if the President realizes that on some level he's running a counterproductively dysfunctional system, he knows that if he starts threatening the economic privileges of the people he counts on to support the regime that his own base will vanish.So that's the story. To get rich you need to either land on a bunch of oil (Qatar) or else have the kind of inclusive institutions that allow for "creative destruction" and widespread opportunity. They don't deny that countries with extractive institutions (the Soviet Union in the 1950s, China in the 2000s) can grow rapidly, but this kind of extractive growth isn't sustainable."

The book uses this notion to explain inequality today, basically saying that western countries are rich because their inclusive economic institutions promote competition and innovation. Innovation is the reason western countries are wealthy. The authors admit that this is a simplistic theory that reduces the complexity of worldwide economics, but it seems to be a good guiding principle in thinking about inequality. I've thought about this book a lot over the past two months and I think their theory is fairly solid.

A Brief History of Inequality
500 years ago, inequality was not as big as it is today. The United States did not yet exist, and England was a small, mostly unknown island. There were no smart phones and no 25 year old billionaires. A small number of elites lived in castles, but most of the world lived in conditions that we would today consider archaic.

Around this time, England started to see the roots the movement that would become the industrial revolution in the 1700s and 1800s. This revolution was driven by advances in technology that made production and life more efficient. With the printing press, it suddenly became much easier to print books. Another machine allowed for clothes to be made easier and cheaper. There were inventors all over Europe, but the political institutions in England happened to change in a way that encouraged innovation; such that it surpassed the rest of Europe.

Europe was controlled by monarchs and by the church. Both of these institutions saw technology as a threat to their power (and rightly so). The book provides many examples of technological innovation being crushed by the ruling powers. In 1583, an English priest named William Lee invented a machine that made knitting much easier. When he presented the machine to Queen Elizabeth, she refused to grant him a patent, claiming that it would deprive her subjects of work and create unemployment. He took his machine to France and received the same response. His invention was also rejected by knitters, afraid of losing their jobs. People were afraid of what economists call creative destruction. Technological advances often create change that benefits the world as a whole, but may hurt certain individuals. A modern example of this would be factory workers that lose their jobs because of globalization.

England happened to be the first country to develop a parliament, which, after many years of struggle with the king gained a significant amount of political power. In the early years, the king used his powers to grant monopolies to certain members of parliament who helped protect him; however, as other business leaders gained power in parliament, they fought for more open economic policies that gave them more opportunity. This was the first step down a path toward free institutions that eventually led to free markets and the capitalist system. People were motivated to innovate because they knew that they could become wealthy. Innovation is what has made certain countries so rich, and changed the world so dramatically in the last 500 years.

Some countries have become fairly modernized without democratic institutions. The best example is Russia, which was a world power on par with the United States for many years during the cold war. In the 1960's and 70's, some economists thought that Russia would eventually overtake the United States to become the worlds most powerful economy. Russia used state sponsored industrialization to grow their economy very quickly, by building factories and incorporating technologies to modernize their economy. This system allowed Russia to catch up to western nations, but didn't really promote innovation. People were not motivated to innovate, because whatever wealth they created would just be redistributed by the government. The Soviet Union's economy did not overtake the US eventually crashing in 1991.

Today, a lot of the great innovations come from Silicon Valley. This is also where a lot of the richest people in the world are made. Bill Gates is one living example. His current net worth is estimated at $84.5 billion. To put that in perspective, the Congolese Governments annual budget is around $5 billion. If Bill Gates wanted to, he could fund the Congolese Government for the next 10 years, out of pocket, and he would still be one of the richest people on the planet. This kind of wealth looks selfish, but the reality is that Bill Gates actions have not made the Congolese poorer. He has in fact made the Congolese, along with the rest of the world, much richer. I'm typing right now on a computer that uses a Windows 7 operating system. The explosion of technology over the last 20 years (computers, smartphones, Internet) has benefited Africa significantly. It has increased inequality, but that doesn't mean it has made people poorer. On the contrary, everyone throughout the world has benefited. 30 years ago, there were no telephones in Bukavu. Today, I can use my $90 smartphone to call my parents on Whatsapp, and it's very cheap. This is the joy of innovation.

There is also a downside to innovation. Englands newfound wealth and power allowed it colonize large portions of the world. Englands neighbor, a small country called Belgium also benefited from the industrial revolution, and decided to get in on the colonization. The King, a man named Leopold II eventually conned his way into owning a large portion of Central Africa. He created aggressively extractive institutions in order to enrich himself and his country. Although he eventually died, his curse lives on to this day, in the form of the extractive institutions he created. That's why Congo is poor today.  

African Politics and Creative Destruction
As I said before, creative destruction is one of the central ingredients of innovation. Coined by economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1943, this term describes the destruction of the old system, that inevitably comes when a new and more efficient system arises. It's the downside of competition. According to Schumpeter, creative destruction is the heart of the economy. Inclusive and competitive systems promote innovation and efficiency, but they also creates winners and losers. This is important, because people don't like to lose. When people lose a lot, they tend to get angry. It's important to remember that you're dealing with human beings when you apply economic theories to the real world.

The authors of Why Nations Fail tell an interesting story about Ghana, and what happens when you try to apply economic theories without thinking about the human element. When the country first became independent in 1957, it was led by a man named Kwame Nkrumah. Known to be extremely dedicated and very politically intelligent, he was making some strange economic choices. His policies focused on developing state industry, in a seemingly illogical and inefficient way. In one example, a footwear factory was built in the southern part of the country while hides need to make the shoes were produced 500 miles to the north. The main market for shoes was in the middle of the country. The location of the factory created a lot of unnecessary transport cost (very inefficient). It would have been much more efficient to build the shoe factory in the north. This is one of many examples. In another, the government built a mango canning factory in a part of the country where mango's don't grow.

This was all very confusing to Western economic advisers, but the purpose eventually became clear. Nkrumah needed these projects to buy political support and maintain his government. In 1969, Kofi Busia took over as president. He was an opponent of Nkrumah, but used a similar system of giving political favors to buy support. In this case, he used price controls to keep agricultural prices low, so that food prices would stay affordable for his urban constituents. The system was not sustainable, and the IMF and World Bank soon pressured him into instituting a currency evaluation. The international institutions were oblivious, but Busia was well aware of the risk he was taking. Massive riots soon led to Busia being overthrown by the military.  

We find many stories like this throughout the history of African governments. Leaders make choices that seem illogical economically, but help hold the country together politically. Perhaps the best example in Congolese history is the 1800km Inga-Shaba power line that ran from the capital, Kinshasa, to the copper-rich province of Katanga. The efficient option would have been to continue powering the mines with the local hydro-electric dams that the Belgians had already built, but that would have left local Katangans with more power over one of Congo's main sources of income. Katanga had already tried to secede once, and Mobutu was not willing to risk it again. The 1100 mile power line, that bypassed thousands of villagers without electricity, gave Mobutu the ability to turn off Katanga's power at will.

Mobutu also played the patronage game. Throughout his presidency, he used his massive fortunes to buy the allegiance of the political class, known as Les Grosses Legumes (The Big Vegetables). The economic policies of his 32-year rule were a disaster for Congo, but he did hold the country together. Congo is a country with 495 different tribes, each with their own language. In the first five years of independence there were many attempts at secession by different parts of the country (Katanga in particular). Holding the country together was no small feat.

There are a couple different ways to look at African Politics. One way is that leaders did what they had to do to for them and their countries to survive. Another way is that they were self-centered and corrupt, living in excess while their countries fell apart. Is it possible that these can both be true?

American Politics and Creative Destruction
Trumps rise is another perfect example of human emotion affecting politics and economics. Trump promised to protect Americans from the many creative destruction's created by globalization, mostly related to non Americans taking American jobs. America is one of the best examples of a country with inclusive institutions. Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson (the authors of that darn book I keep talking about) think that America is wealthy because of these institutions. Donald Trump wants to change that.

This is a quote from a broadcast last fall where Steve Bannon interviews Steven Miller (these are now two of Trump's main policy advisers.)

"BANNON: Where are we in the Trump campaign with the H-1B visas? Because we got the oligarchs down there, man, and they have got Karl Rove and literally hundreds of millions of dollars, and they are coming with one reason. And they are coming for unlimited ability to go throughout the world and have people come here and compete with kids coming out of engineering schools and IT jobs. If you are in your 40s and 50s right now, people will tell you, they haven’t had a raise in decades in IT. What was supposed to be a great career turned out not to be a great career. It’s because of these visas.


And now you got all the engineering schools full of people from South Asia and East Asia. And it’s not that I have any problem with those folks learning, but they are coming here to take these jobs. You have turned over the entire American education system — we have cut out art, we have cut out history, we have cut out music. Why have we done it? STEM, science, technology, engineering, and math. We have told every minority kid in this country, you got to excel at that. What happens? They get into graduate schools, they can’t get engineering degrees, they can’t get into graduate schools because there are all these foreign students, when they come out, they can’t get a job. And they are looking for these people like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump who talk about immigration and talk about H-1B visas to stand up for them against these oligarchs. So where are we on this?


MILLER: Well, that was brilliantly stated."

I can see Bannon's point of view. He is correct that some Americans are losing in the process of globalization. It seems like Bannon is saying that leaders, both Democrat and Republican, are betraying Americans by giving away these jobs to foreigners. These leaders are probably thinking along the same lines that I am. Although some Americans may lose out in the short term, technological innovation benefits both America and the world in the long term. But is innovation really worth betraying our fellow countrymen?

I presented this topic to my fellow Seeders last week, curious as to how they would respond. Some of them are supporters of Donald Trump. One of them, my friend Aaron, sent me a message the day after Trump won that said "Je suis content (I am happy)." His comments surprised me. He said that Bannon's ideas were selfish. He said that Jesus teaches us to be open and accepting, to offer the shirt off our back for those in need. I told him that I couldn't agree more. These are words that are hard to disagree with. I've heard them since I was a child, but I've never actually given anyone my shirt before. I don't want to walk around naked.

I wrote about this in my last post as well. There are costs to being open and inclusive. It's usually the right thing to do, but a lot of the time we don't do it. We make excuses. I do it all the time. Being closed off at times is a rule of survival in Congo. People often want something from me, usually my time or my money. I'm always scared that I'll be taken advantage of (it's happened many a time). It's easy to become defensive or closed off. I try my best to avoid it, but it's simple a fact of life. I have to take care of myself sometimes. This is a common phrase people use in Congo, justifying their complicity in corruption (je me debrouille, I take care of myself).

One important part of the inclusive institutions theory is that earth has never seen a true 100% inclusive institution. The United States government has progressively become more and more inclusive throughout it's history, but there has always been an "other." The original democracy only applied to white male land owners. After a while we added other white males, later women, and then finally African Americans and all other US citizens. Today the "other" has become a complicated issue in the US. For some it's immigrants. For others it's democrats. I've bonded with many over a mutual disdain for our current president. Can we agree that we all hate terrorists?

America is kind of in this strange existential crisis/ turning point. We're extremely divided and we're making important decisions about what we want to be as a country. A lot of the current divisions are rooted in the post-WWII years and the changes that took place in the 1960's. America started accepting a lot more immigrants around that time. We also became a lot more economically inclusive, particularly at the end of WWII. In the last election a bit less then half of America decided it is time to take care of ourselves for a few years. Is it possible that Bannon is right? Are we becoming naked? Maybe we should close ourselves off for a little while. But isn't that selfish and what about innovation?

I don't know what the future of America holds, but I do know who I am. I'm always going to try despite my failures to be more inclusive, and I'm always going to push for inclusivity, within America and throughout the world. I believe humans will always be more successful together than we are divided.  


Part II: My Daily Life
My life in Congo is exhausting and sometimes depressing, but also relentlessly interesting and occasionally inspiring in strange ways. In the past two months I've taken several trips and started a new job teaching English.

Kalemie and the Pygmy People
In February, I was privileged have the chance to travel to Kalemie, a city 300 miles south of Bukavu, on the coast of Lake Tanganika. on a mission to learn about the current Pygmy Bantu conflict that plagues this region and offer some assistance. PPR sent me on the mission along with their regional specialist Pastor Kipandula. We were also accompanied by Dr. Chris Choi, a Korean-American missionary and his friend Michael, a Congolese who speaks good English and Korean. We also had a driver named Prince and a mechanic named Jeremy who came along.

In the States, you can drive 300 miles in half a day, but it takes a lot longer in Congo because of road conditions. Our trip took three days each way, although we might have been able to do it in two if necessary. We stopped in a number of villages on the way down, to talk with the locals and learn about the current relations between the Pygmies and the Bantu. The Pygmies are believed to be the original inhabitants of Central Africa, although the Bantu (which in this case means all the other tribes) have also been in the area for centuries. Pygmies lived in the forests as hunter-gatherers for many years, but have been forced out in recent years by the governments conservation efforts. They often work for Bantu on farms or as domestic help, but do not typically own their own land or farms. This is partly due to a system that makes it very difficult for them to obtain land. A friend told me that they simply don't like farming, because they don't like to wait for the crops to grow. He said they live by the philosophy, "tomorrow will take care of itself."

There are Pygmies all over Central Africa, and you hear all sorts of rumors. A Spanish engineer once told me that there are places in north-eastern Congo where they eat Pygmies. This is probably not true, but it's hard to tell sometimes. Other stereotypes like short height seem to generally be true, although I saw one who was probably a little taller than me (maybe 5'9''). They are seen as oppressed although the leaders seem to be well off (I met one Pygmy leader who has 2 wives and 17 kids). I heard another story about some Pygmies using witchcraft to cross the border between Congo and Burundi without passports (as most are not registered with the government).

The Pygmies that I met closer to Bukavu seemed pretty normal, but the Pygmies I met in Kalemie very much fit the stereotypes. They were short, and kind of looked like pirates. A lot of them had bandannas or strange hats, and they were all armed with bows and arrows. Some of them had knives. They also wore necklaces made out of tiny liquor bottles filled with water. I was later told that these are traditional medicines, meant to protect them in battle. A lot of the armed groups in these areas believe similar things. Many of them, called Mai Mai (Water Water) claim that this medicine will turn any bullet shot at them into water.

The conflict around Kalemie is difficult and complicated. Many of the Bantu fled their homes, leaving their harvests to rot in the fields. They went to the displaced persons camps around Kalemie where they get one meal a day, and wait for a chance to return home. The lives of rural Congolese are already very difficult. Many live without power in clay huts. Some of the wealthy like the chiefs can afford a concrete house or a solar panel to power some lights, but it's still not much. Economic activities are scarce. Most people are farmers. The violence prevents the youth from going to school, the one chance they have to maybe improve their lives. It is a rather bleak situation.

Back in the city (Kalemie) people have their own problems. A local pastor (who accompanied us out to the village) shows me a big crack on the back side of his church. The building has clay walls with a sheet metal roof. The rain has eroded the dirt causing the wall to sink in. There is a pile of stone sitting in the corner, but they need concrete before they can fix the foundation. I want to make a contribution but I don't have much (money is always complicated here). The pastor shows us his home (a small shack behind the church) before feeding us a delicious meal of fish, chicken, fries, rice, fufu, and lenga lenga (boiled greens). The next day I eat a similarly delicious meal at another local pastors house. Jeremy and Prince like to tease me since they have figured out I like chicken wings. At each meal they repeat, "Jacobo anapenda mbawa" (Jacob likes chicken wings). I ate lots of chicken wings on this trip.    

Other life stuff
Life around Bukavu is good. I started teaching English at a local Mennonite Brethren church a month ago, and I'm enjoying that quite a bit. My students are a good combination of young and older people, both men and women. They all seem very excited to be learning English. It feels good to be doing something that will hopefully yield some concrete results in the next year.

I just got back from a short trip to Bujumbura, where we had a small retreat with other seeders. I got to hang with my friend Jacob Yoder, I gave a presentation about creative destruction, and I saw a hippo. It was a good time. We also had a MCC retreat here in Bukavu. Both of the retreats were relaxing and gave me a new perspective about my time here. I'm excited about everything that I will get to do and learn over the next year. 

This picture was taken in a small pygmy village outside Uvira. To the right of me, you can see Dr. Choi and Pastor Kipandula

The group with some local leaders. The guy in the red shirt is the Pygmy chief who has 2 wives and 17 children. 

Inside the hut talking with the two local leaders. That's Michael there on the left.

Meeting with Bantu villagers. The three new people are all local pastors.

Pastor Kipandula preaching while a local pymgy leader (in the chair) listens.

A couple pygmies showing off their weapons. The army guy (not a pygmy) had a big bazooka looking weapon. The guy in the orange vest is named Jonas. He is a very courageous local youth, who gave a great speech during the meeting about why they need peace.

Our driver Prince and I

Prince and Jeremy load up the vehicle

Me with a local pastor

Herders driving their cattle down the road

Everyone standing around a peace tree planted by the UN in January.

Dr. Choi has fun passing out balloons and trading hats with the locals.

One of the pygmies poses for a picture. The bottles around his neck are filled with water. They call this a traditional medicine that will protect him in battle.

Getting ready to leave.

We broke down a couple of times during the trip. It's always good to have a mechanic along when you travel long distances in Congo.

The whole Seed team, together in Bujumbura.

Me with my good friend and Donald Trump supporter Aaron Balume

Here's the hippo. It kind of looks like a rock in this picture.

Here's the hippo swimming around.

I played some songs at this showcase last week (this is actually the same room I teach English in). I didn't get any video of my performance, but here's some other dudes shredding.

The full MCC team in Eastern Congo. I'm grateful to be surrounded by these wonderful people.

Vacation, Congo, Walls, Life, Werrason, Revenge etc.

The last month has been pretty good. I was fortunate to be able to spend some time in Rwanda and Kenya over the holidays. Both of these countries are significantly more developed than Congo, so I was pleased to have access to certain amenities, like hot showers, reliable electricity, and cheap internet. I spent a few days in each place. Since then I've been in Bukavu working on various things.

Rwanda
My trip started with the 6 hour bus ride from Cyangugu (just across the border from Bukavu) to Kigali. I had to come to Kigali to fly to Kenya, because Congo doesn't have any international flights (except for one that goes to Ethiopia, for whatever reason). I was happy to spend a little time here because Kigali is a nice city. I saw the new Star Wars. I ate at a restaurant kind of like Chipotle. I went to the Genocide Museum. I even walked around at night (Kigali is really safe). It was great. After a few days here, I flew to Kenya. I was in Nairobi for 10 days, after which I few back to Kigali.

I spent New Years backpacking in Nyungwe National Park, in Rwanda. A few friends and I hiked the Congo-Nile divide trail, a 26 mile hike that took us three days. It's called the Congo-Nile divide because on one side of the trail, the rainfall goes to the Nile River, while on the other side of the trail, the water goes to the Congo River. It's a rain forest, so we got rained on a lot, but it was still a great trip.

On the third day, we visited a field and a small stream that some consider the source of the Nile. There is a lot of controversy around where the true source of the Nile is, but I choose to believe it's this spot (since that's the one I happened to visit). Discovered by the German scientist Richard Kandt, the water that falls on this field and goes into the stream eventually reaches Lake Victoria. Because this is arguable the longest tributary, it's called the source of the Nile.

Kenya
I've written before about the surreal feeling I get when I cross the border between Rwanda and Congo. This feeling was doubled when I got to Kenya. Nairobi is similar to a modern western city. There are lots of highways (the traffic is awful) and tall buildings and shopping malls. I suddenly had access to all those things I've missed over the last year like cheap internet, reliable electricity, and hot showers. Nairobi also has lots of good restaurants, so I ate pretty well. The other nice thing about Nairobi is that there are a lot of mzungus, so I don't attract quite as much attention as I do in Congo. It was nice to be able to walk down the street without everyone staring at me.

The first couple of days, I stayed at a backpackers hostel, where I met a number of interesting characters. After these few days, I moved over to Amani Gardens, a beautiful guest house that was formerly owned my Mennonite Mission Network. I stayed there with Indy Miller (an old family friend) and her friends Tarik and Laura. I also hung out a lot with my friend Johnny, who just happened to be in Kenya visiting his sister Vanessa (who used to work for MCC in Congo). I did a few tourist things, but spent most of my time just hanging out.

The Congo and it's Leaders
After the holidays, I crossed the magical boarder that changes everything, back into Congo. I walked across that crappy bridge (the nice one still isn't open, but it seems like they did some work on the crappy one), and suddenly the internet is 10 times more expensive. There are big holes in the road and the electricity comes and goes. Water comes rarely, and often only in the middle of the night. Everyone stares at me like I'm a magical alien that can fix these problems, or at least give them 500 francs (50 cents). It's good to be home.

I purchased a book in Nairobi called Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, written by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson. I'm hoping that the book will help me understand how so much can change from simply walking across a border. The authors blame these economic disparities on inclusive or exclusive economic conditions, which are created by inclusive or exclusive political structures. They describe how because of specific historical conditions, western countries were forced to adopt inclusive political and economic policies, which allowed people to profit and those societies to get richer. Basically, inclusive and business friendly conditions create wealth. Congo is most defiantly not business friendly.

The book says, "to be inclusive, economic institutions must feature secure private property, an unbiased system of law, and a provision of public services that provides a level playing field in which people can exchange and contract." (74,75) The book later goes on to name Congo as one of the best and most depressing examples of why it's extremely difficult for countries to grow under extractive policies. Since the founding of this country by King Leopold II 100 years ago, the government has primarily existed as a tool for extracting wealth. This is why there are no government services and everything is more expensive and less good. Government corruption requires the complicity of many people throughout the country, but the ultimate blame falls on bad leadership. That problem is currently being worked on, but change does not come easily.

There was supposed to be an election last year, and according to the constitution, the current president is not allowed to run for a third term. There was not an election because the governmental body responsible for organizing the election (CENI) was badly managed and did not prepare the voter database in time. Obviously, this ineptitude is far too convenient to be a coincidence. The current president has been in power for 15 years now, and he's not eager to leave. There is speculation that he is particularly worried about losing his fortune or being criminally prosecuted. His net worth is estimated at $15 billion. This number seems crazy high to me, but it's hard to know for sure. We do know, thanks to a recent Bloomberg report that him and his family members have connections to over 70 different businesses throughout Congo. Anyway you look at it, he's a billionaire in a country where two-thirds of the population lives on $1.90 per day. So people are kind of upset about the whole election not happening thing.

There were two major agreements throughout the last few months, between the Presidential Party and the Opposition. The first one was mediated by the African Union and signed last September. This agreement said that presidential elections would not occur until 2018 (Sad!). Some people considered this agreement invalid because the negotiations did not include two of the primary opposition leaders Etienne Tshisekedi and Moise Katumbi. This arm of the opposition, led by Tshisekedi, continued to threaten protests and accused the president of disrespecting the constitution. There was major concern that the country would devolve into chaos following December 19th, the day, when the president was constitutionally required to leave office.

Following December 19th, there were major protests during which at least 34 people were killed by government security forces. A number of activists were also arrested (at least 9 are still in jail). Throughout this period, a conference of catholic bishops called CENCO was mediating a second negotiation, this time including the opposition party led by Tshisekedi. These negotiations resulted in a second agreement that was signed around New Years. The second agreement says that there will be a presidential election by the end of 2017, and that the current president will not run for a third term or attempt to change the constitution. The agreement was signed by senior officials within the presidential party, but the president himself has not signed or made any type of public commitment to the agreement. There are reports that the president told catholic bishops he was committed to the deal, but obviously he is trying to create wiggle room.

It's hard to tell whether the presidential party will honor this agreement. There are still many challenges to overcome in the next year, but it is possible that if the right pressure is applied, both by the Congolese people and the International Community, we will witness the first non-violent transfer of power in Congo's history. This would be a historic moment that might change both the Congo and Africa for the better. Congo is such a large and resource rich country, that with the right leadership, it could become a major player in the future. It all depends on the willingness of leaders to cooperate over the next year. Nobody knows what will happen if the elections are not held soon.

Walls and Imagination
I just finished reading a book called The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace. The book is written by John Paul Lederach, a person who has spent many years working in areas where people are affected by violence. There is a strange contradiction within this book, that reflects a greater contradiction within the world. It emerges from a chapter titled "On the Gift of Pessimism."

This chapter focuses on conversations Lederach has had over the years, with people who live in violent places. He writes about the cautious attitude that these people tend to have. He includes a list of rules that he has often heard from people in these situations. One particular rule really stood out to me:

"To survive violence, create walls and retrench. Plan to do it for a long time. don't give your walls up easily. You will likely live to regret it." (Lederach, 54,55)

It stood out to me because it contradicts everything Lederach says in the rest of the book. Walls are all about closing yourself off, while the rest of the book is focused on opening yourself up. Lederach's method seems to be strongly focused on listening, paying attention to multiple viewpoints, and opening oneself up to the unknown. The contradiction comes down to this question; are walls/frontiers/borders good or bad?

We see this debate everywhere. The most obvious current example is Trump's promise to build a wall between Mexico and the United States. Some say we have to have borders, while others question the necessity. Another famous example is the West Bank Separation Wall between Israel and Palestine. Liberal Human Rights advocates seem to abhor these walls, but conservatives calls them necessary. Lederach seems to be saying that people who have lived through conflict would agree with the conservatives. My impression is that many Africans would agree with the conservatives as well. Walls are everywhere in Africa.

I've talked a lot already about the power of borders in Africa, but there are also many other types of walls. A lot of houses in Africa have walls around them, with razor wire or broken glass on top, to prevent burglary. Another type of barrier is this sort of tribalism that exists throughout Africa. Tribe is like family here. People are expected to lookout for other members of their group, often at the expense of other groups. The most pertinent example of this is the way government leaders tend to favor their tribe, giving them the best jobs and lots of other advantages. It can be a major problem, because less qualified people tend to find themselves in high up positions.

Another example. While I was in Nairobi, I had the chance to see my Congolese host brother who is studying architecture at the University of Nairobi. He told me that he faces challenges at the school, because he is a foreigner. He said that people are unhappy to see him doing well, and he fears that it will be hard for him to get a good internship. This is the problem from the book I mentioned before, Why Nations Fail. Africa as a whole would be better off if people were able to cooperate and compete in a healthy way, because the collective pie would get bigger. For the individual, walls may be beneficial, but collectively they hold us back. My host brother is an intelligent and hard-working young man, so it's disappointing to see him held back by these things. But then, his house in Congo has a wall around it too.

The secret is to find a healthy balance between these two sides. Walls are a necessity and have existed throughout human history, but we are also all connected, and the world as a whole will be a much better place if we remember that, and try to help each other. I like to think of liberals and conservatives as two weights, counterbalancing each other and holding the world together. Obama seems to have pushed the capacities of American Foreign Policy to a new level of openness, focused on globalism. Trumps America First Policy may turn out to be an equally large step in the other direction. This concerns me. Trumps attitude will benefit America, but will ultimately leave the rest of the world less well off.

The thesis of Lederach's book seems to be that we will ultimately need to take the risk of tearing down walls, if we are going to move forward. It pairs up well with the thesis from Why Nations Fail, which says that societies do better when they are politically and economically inclusive. But being open is scary. What if we get hurt?

Conclusions
This stuff all ties together. It feels like a rabbit hole, but I think there is a floor. I haven't finished Why Nations Fail yet, so I'm gonna have to leave this as "to be continued." I will definitely come back to the question of why Congo is so poor? For now, one more story.

This story is good news. I no longer have to wake up in the middle of the night to collect water or carry plastic jugs of water up my stairs, because my new boss installed a super cool water pump system at my apartment. This is how the world gets better. Talented individuals look at something and say, "I can make this work better." So my life got a little bit better this week. Thanks Clair, we're so happy you're here.

Anyway, here are some pictures from Kenya and Rwanda. Also, there's a little treat at the end.

Vanessa and Johnny were nice enough to invite me to visit an elephant orphanage with them. It's a place that rescues baby elephants that lost their parents for one reason or another. This guy is probably 1 or 2 years old. 

This guy was also at the orphanage. He was super friendly, so I got to touch his skin. It felt hard like rock.  

This is a tall building in Nairobi.

And this is me on top of the building.

At the national museum

Indy and I found this Chameleon while we were hiking.

That's Nairobi off in the distance.

I saw a lot of signs like this around Nairobi. I never called, but it was good to know I had the option, just in case.

Dr. Kamuna doesn't offer revenge, but he can help with family affairs, whatever that means.

We found a lot of these giant worms in Nyungwe National Park. Our guide said they're called rain worms.

This field and stream are the long sought after source of the Nile. 

Werrason is one of the most popular Congolese musicians, and Kibuisa Mpimpa is considered by many to be his best album.

There's a fantastic story about Werrason and his involvement in the Congolese "beer wars" in David Van Reybrouck's book Congo: The Epic History of a People (the book I summarized in my last post). It turns out that the entire book is available online here. Chapter 13, which features the story about Werrason is available here. The story about Werrason starts about half-way through the chapter.