No True Renaissance Without a Strong State
Dr. Enas Mohamed Ahmed
Countries emerging from war often face a fundamental dilemma: how to rebuild and reconstruct. Questions like, where does reconstruction begin? And how can development be achieved?
In Sudan, we endured years of wars here and there, which exhausted our country, crippled our economy, and thwarted all attempts at economic reform. Then came the latest war, making the challenge even greater, the crisis deeper, and the internal and external threats more numerous.
We agree that the foundation for revival after the ordeal of war lies in organization, planning, and a national vision. Then, geopolitical circumstances can be used to guide these efforts toward the goal of rebuilding the state and combating corruption and nepotism.
Let’s begin, for example, with the Han River model (South Korea). After emerging from the Korean War in 1953, South Korea was a weary and exhausted nation, dependent on aid and assistance. It lacked a strong economy and resources, and its people lived in illiteracy and ignorance, facing a bleak reality and an uncertain future. No solutions seemed imminent. However, thanks to sound planning, genuine national will, combating corruption and nepotism, and investing resources scientifically, South Korea, within six decades, overcame the obstacles of chaos and destruction to become one of the world’s strongest industrial economies.
This transformation was not the result of a miracle, but rather the result of sound economic planning that directed development towards specific sectors where it could succeed.
It established an alliance between major companies (the State-Chaebol Alliance). These companies were not independent entities, nor were they purely government-owned enterprises. Instead, they were economic partners committed to achieving strategic economic development goals set by the state according to its long-term development plans. In return, these companies received government support conditional on specific performance, in the form of long-term loans, guarantees, exemptions, and access to new markets, even outside the country. Then, in 1997, the situation evolved further with reforms that enhanced transparency and global competitiveness, dismantled bureaucracy, and established a strong administrative apparatus based solely on competence, not loyalty. This apparatus was responsible for implementing government plans despite changes in the policies of successive administrations.
Another example is Taiwan, which adopted a model based on smart partnerships between the state and competitive markets that innovate, manufacture, and export. The third experience is that of Rwanda, which emerged from a civil war and genocide in 1994, leaving it on the brink of collapse. However, within three decades, it overcame economic and political turmoil to become one of the fastest-growing economies in Africa. It sought to establish an economy based on innovation and technological development, not solely on agriculture and livestock. Rwanda utilized transitional justice through the Gacaca Courts to forge a social contract and national reconciliation, establishing the concept of citizenship as the cornerstone of state-building. This has made it one of the least corrupt and least nepotistic African nations. Rwanda recognized that development is not merely about resources, but also about the state’s ability to combat corruption, manage resources effectively, and steer the economy towards sound investment practices.
These three experiences may differ in their timeframes, continental contexts, and the specific circumstances of each conflict, but they all demonstrate that progress begins with effective national strategic plans, the optimal utilization of all available resources, and well-regulated institutions grounded in the rule of law and committed to combating corruption, which is the primary enemy of development.
Economic development is also linked to a country’s characteristics, its resources and wealth, and its ability to develop and utilize them in global markets. A country cannot simply imitate another; it can only follow the right steps toward progress and implement a comprehensive package of development measures.
The first step toward recovery is formulating a social contract and initiating a national dialogue across all sectors to determine how to revitalize the country, safeguarding it against political instability and facilitating its transition from war and crisis to reconstruction and development.
Furthermore, there is a need for international or regional agreements related to reconstruction, infrastructure development, energy resource development, and addressing the environmental damage caused by war. These agreements should focus on assessing the damage and determining how to compensate for it. Countries emerging from war face two choices: either to reproduce a fragile development model that is unsustainable and returns them to the cycle of poverty, or to transform the recovery phase into an opportunity to build a robust economy, foster development, ensure justice, and promote effective social dialogue on solid foundations. This can serve as a platform for launching a radical and positive transformation that will uplift the nation.
Peace does not begin with the cessation of hostilities; it begins when people feel they have a chance to rebuild their lives and futures.