Common sense at the World Bank

Now that Zimbabwe's fair and balanced elections are over, with the long-domineering Zanu-PF party capturing two-thirds of the parliamentary seats through intimidation and ballot-stuffing, President Robert Mugabe can rest easy, enabled with the power to unilaterally alter his country's constitution to his liking. High on the list of priorities for Mugabe will be installing his successor before the next presidential elections in 2008, thus ensuring that Comrade Bob's command-and-control legacy survives after his exit from formal politics. Ignoring for the moment those bothersome "facts" of widespread disease, famine and human rights abuses, all is well is Happy Harare.

Yet as Mugabe drifts off to sleep tonight clutching his tattered copy of Stalin's Leninism, he is bound to hear the faint, lupine footsteps of a new animal stalking the international scene -- unfamiliar sounds to a literal freedom-fighter so accustomed to manipulating others to get his way.

"Who makes that noisy pitter-patter? Is it the starving children outside? Is it the pain-ridden AIDS victims seeking more medicine? Is the opposition complaining again about my totalitarian rule?" Alas, Bob, it is none of the above.

Time to wake up and say hello to Paul Wolfowitz, new head of your favorite watering hole, the World Bank.

Wolfowitz' confirmation to lead the world's largest aid organization may have been met with considerable controversy, particularly regarding his close ties to the current Bush administration, but he is arguably just the nightmare needed to jolt Zimbabwe's government back in line with minimally acceptable standards of development.

For too long Mugabe has played a cat-and-mouse game with the World Bank and other agencies, rejecting offers of assistance one day while calling for more loans the next. The supply of food is routinely used as a political weapon to pressure the international community to act in "Zimbabwe's best interests," which for Mugabe means staving off his citizens' hunger long enough to prevent an all-out revolution while making sure his cronies remain well-fed and lavishly comfortable.

As of last February, the World Bank has lent Zimbabwe $1.35 billion for various projects, most of which have had zero impact as the country plummets toward total collapse. One can only wonder how much of that money is stashed in Zanu-PF bank accounts, particularly given Mugabe's recent construction of a $7 million home and his near-annual purchases of fleets of new Mercedes (Mugabe has officially earned less than $1 million in his 25 years as president).

As Allan Meltzer recently noted in The Wall Street Journal, part of the blame for such dishonest behavior goes to the World Bank's internal organization, which has in the past rewarded liberal lending policies and diminished responsibility for failed loan projects. The hard-line, sometimes inflexible administrative attitudes of Wolfowitz that have previously landed him in trouble may bring the much needed centralization of authority required for dealing with Mugabe-esque regimes.

More importantly, however, Wolfowitz's strategic experiences in foreign policy and democracy-building objectives, as well as his espoused commitment to poverty-reduction, will likely add a new dimension to the bank that emphasizes the primacy of good governance as a requisite for development in the poorest countries of the world. Coupling monetary assistance to the rule of law subverts the abilities of corrupt governments to exploit politically neutral lending agencies and ties financial credit to institutional credibility. Zimbabwe is a perfect case in point, in which the risk of failure for any bank loans can be entirely predicated upon the presence or absence of Mugabe's government.

Still, it is always better to start with the carrot before proceeding to the stick. A good first step for Wolfowitz would be to wipe Mugabe's slate clean one last time, forgiving Zimbabwe of its debt and restarting lending that has been inactive due to arrears, offering strict monitored-performance loans to begin rebuilding its basic infrastructures and economic capacities. Stubborn, highly visible pressure from Wolfowitz in particular should unremittingly link the outcomes of these loans directly to Mugabe, forcing him to accept accountability for his actions and signaling to Zimbabwean citizens that his culpability cannot be shoved aside.

Wolfowitz should also provide incentives to rein in the myriad of NGOs and other country-specific aid programs under the umbrella of the World Bank, thereby consolidating the power of the development community under one house and preventing Mugabe from seeking other avenues to procure help. In this manner temporary "Band-Aid" solutions become impossible for evasive governments and effecting real reforms becomes acutely inevitable. In the process, opposition political parties will gain strength and a tolerable democracy might eventually follow.

In the end, the message from Wolfowitz must be the same as that for which he has been criticized so much in the past -- "It's our way or no way." Let's hope Mugabe is listening.

Jason Lott is a first-year student in the School of Medicine from Anniston, Ala. Whole Lotta Love appears on Mondays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.