At the core of international politics lies a persistent tension: are great powers primarily guardians of order or maximizers of advantage? The modern state system, especially since 1945, has been structured around strategic dominance—military deterrence, economic leverage, technological supremacy, and geopolitical positioning. Relational accountability, by contrast, demands that powerful actors accept responsibility for how their actions affect weaker states and the broader global community. It requires constraint, reciprocity, and moral transparency. The critical question is not whether relational accountability is ethically desirable. It is whether great powers—given structural incentives—would rationally accept it over dominance. 1. The Logic of Strategic Dominance Great powers operate within an anarchic international system. There is no global sovereign capable of enforcing universal rules. Institutions such as the United Nations exist, but enforcement ultimately depends...

  The debate over democracy in developing regions is often framed incorrectly. The issue is not whether democracy is desirable, but whether its institutional form must mirror Western liberal models to be legitimate. Can democracy be rooted in local histories, cultural norms, and social structures rather than externally defined templates? The answer is yes—but doing so requires conceptual clarity about what democracy fundamentally is, and what elements are adaptable versus universal. At its core, democracy is not a specific institutional blueprint. It is a governing principle built on political participation, accountability, legitimacy through consent, and constraints on arbitrary power. The mechanisms through which those principles are implemented—parliaments, electoral systems, courts, decentralization frameworks—are institutional technologies. Technologies can be adapted. 1. Democracy as Principle vs. Democracy as Template Many post-colonial states inherited constitutional sy...

  Electric vehicles (EVs) are widely portrayed as the technology that will finally break humanity’s dependence on oil. Governments announce future bans on petrol cars, automakers commit billions to electrification, and climate discourse increasingly frames EVs as the moral and practical successor to internal combustion engines. In this narrative, oil fades into irrelevance while clean electricity powers a sustainable future. Yet when examined beyond slogans and sales charts, the claim that EVs mark “the end of oil” becomes far less certain. What emerges instead is a more complex reality: EVs may reduce direct oil consumption in transport, but they do not eliminate energy dependence. In many respects, they rebrand it—shifting dependence from oil wells to mines, refineries, power grids, and geopolitical chokepoints that are often less visible but no less consequential. 1. Oil Is More Than Fuel The idea that EVs will end oil dependence assumes oil is primarily a transport fuel. I...

For decades, African leaders, economists, and development experts have envisioned a future where the continent is no longer a supplier of raw materials but a hub of industrial power. Africa’s abundant resources, growing population, and youthful workforce provide the raw potential for such a transformation. But one crucial question remains: Can Africa achieve real industrial independence without investing in machine tools? The short answer is no . Without machine tools — the foundation of manufacturing — Africa’s industrial dreams risk remaining aspirational. The machine tool industry is often called the “mother of all industries” because it makes the machines that produce everything else. Without it, African economies cannot fully move up the value chain, cannot build sovereign industries, and cannot break free from dependence on imports. This article explores why machine tools are indispensable for Africa’s industrial independence, what happens without them, and what a path forward...

Here’s a comprehensive, evidence-anchored analysis of how Rwanda’s manufacturing sector competes regionally —especially against peers like Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Uganda —structured around performance metrics, systemic advantages and weaknesses, and broader structural context across the East African Community (EAC). 1. Manufacturing Scale & Value Added: Rwanda vs Peers Absolute Scale Rwanda’s manufacturing sector is small in absolute terms compared to regional peers. According to regional data, manufacturing value-added (MVA) figures from recent years show: Kenya leads the EAC by a significant margin, with MVA around $5.4 billion . Tanzania follows with about $3 billion . Uganda’s MVA is roughly $2.1 billion . Rwanda trails these countries with approximately $402 million . Burundi sits below Rwanda at $204 million. Implication: On sheer manufacturing output, Rwanda remains smaller and less diversified than Kenya and Tanzania, reflective of its s...

Over the past two decades, Ethiopia’s economic story has been defined by infrastructure-driven growth . Massive public investments in roads, railways, power generation, industrial parks, and urban development propelled the country to some of the highest growth rates in the developing world. This strategy was not accidental; it reflected a deliberate state-led effort to overcome historical deficits in connectivity, energy access, and basic economic infrastructure. However, infrastructure accumulation alone does not guarantee sustained development. Growth driven primarily by capital formation and public spending inevitably confronts diminishing returns if it is not followed by improvements in total factor productivity (TFP) —the efficiency with which labor, capital, and technology are used. Ethiopia now stands at this inflection point. The question is no longer whether infrastructure was necessary, but whether the economy can shift toward productivity-driven growth that raises incomes,...