By Moses Onyango

The implementation of the MDGs are hampered by two factors: their top-down initiation and African people’s parochial attitudes, says Moses Onyango, a lecturer in International Relations at the United States International University in Nairobi, Kenya.

According to state-centric theories in International Relations, governments derive their legitimacy from the people. Therefore, good governments will convert demands and support from the people into extractive, distributive and regulative services.

If governments fail in this endeavour, it is assumed that such governments will suffer low legitimacy.

A good government that cares about adaptability, the maintenance of its system and the welfare of its people will be affected by low legitimacy.

Such a government will respond to the needs of its people by implementing its people’s demands and thus improve its level of legitimacy from low to high. People within this context refer to those who live within a defined and legitimate boundary or territory of authority.

The United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are described as ‘‘systemic’’. They are derived from the international system level rather than the state-centric level.

The international system is described as ‘‘anarchic’’, meaning that relations are horizontal and there is no world government. Therefore governments can make commitments at the international system level to improve health care, education and eradicate poverty and then fail to live up to these commitments.

For example, commentators commonly romanticize that it is possible to implement MDGs alongside a country’s strategic development plans. The problem with this dream is that MDGs derive their legitimacy from the international system rather than the domestic environment.

The domestic environment is hierarchical and implementation is authoritative and can legally be enforced.

National governments feel obliged to implement domestic-level strategic development plans because they are pegged to low or high legitimacy levels. But, internationally, governments can afford to ignore the MDGs. They can afford to speak about them only as far as their interest of debt relief is concerned.

Within this framework, it is assumed that a government’s behaviour in the international system is rational, that it makes a cost-benefit calculation and pursues its national interest.

It is also commonly argued that with the collapse of the cold war framework and the perceived elimination of proxy wars that were constantly blamed for the underdevelopment of the third world, third world leaders would re-channel their resources in worthy directions, such as health care, education and poverty eradication.

However, the underlying source and solutions to these problems are not really addressed in this perspective. The source and solutions to these problems do not come from the international environment but are deeply embedded in the domestic environment. If this aspect is not recognised, the implementation of the MDGs will remain unfeasible.

If a government’s legitimacy is to be derived from the people, then the source and solutions to Africa’s problems must also be derived from the people. This process has to begin with an attitude change in the people.

An enlightened people can determine the kinds of needs within a domestic environment. The international system cannot determine for the people the needs, however obvious the needs may be.

The international system perspective is a top-down approach. MDGs are derived from the international system rather than the domestic environment. They are thus perceived to be foreign, however good the intentions may be.

For the MDGs to be practicable, they have to be initiated from the state-centric level. Commitment from governments is not enough. The question we should be asking ourselves is: ‘‘Are the citizens of countries aware and ready for the MDGs?’’

We should not bother ourselves with questions such as: ‘‘Will governments live up to their commitments by 2015?’’ Governments derive their legitimacy from the people and the answer to the first question will depend on people’s level of awareness.

African countries are suffering a tremendous deal. Institutions in many African countries are derived from developed countries’ institutions. This makes the whole idea of independence derisory.

For example, Kenya’s current constitution was written by ‘‘Kenyans’’ for ‘‘Kenyans’’ at Lancaster House in England. The question is whether Kenyans are aware of their rights and the extent to which the current constitution serves the interest of all Kenyans.

Parochialism is a major problem in third world countries that needs to be addressed if we are to seriously start talking about strategic plans or about developmental goals that can be implemented. This narrow interest in the local is an attitudinal problem which cannot be changed in a short period of time.