We elect thieves, PLO Lumumba

"We elect thieves. We elect hyenas to take care of goats, and when the goats are consumed, we wonder why," said PLO Lumumba—whose full name is Patrick Loch Otieno Lumumba—a Kenyan lawyer, professor of public law, anti-corruption campaigner, and prominent Pan-Africanist speaker. He is best known for his powerful speeches on African self-reliance, governance, and the decolonization of African institutions. Voters (principals) transfer power to representatives (agents) whose incentives may deviate from the public interest. The image of the "hyena guarding the goats" perfectly illustrates the absurdity of expecting restraint from self-serving actors without effective checks and balances. When voters lack information, are subjected to targeted disinformation, or prefer short-term gratification to responsible long-term policies, they can indeed “choose thieves” – and then be surprised when actual theft occurs. Sometimes the system itself encourages exploitative behavior – for example, through campaign financing mechanisms, gerrymandering, or the influence of special interest groups on regulatory authorities ("regulatory capture"). Even well-intentioned voters are then often faced with only a selection of poor options. This is a poignant, bitter metaphor for the problem of trusting in power – when people elect those who only pursue their own interests and then wonder about the consequences. What is the underlying message here? This statement is cynical, yet it has a basis. When Lumumba says, "We elect thieves," it is a criticism of corruption and the dishonesty of politicians. When he says, "Hyenas supposed to look after goats," he's using an image to describe a fundamentally flawed choice: A hyena won't protect the goats, it will eat them. The issue, therefore, is appointing people to positions of power whose interests are diametrically opposed to those of society. The problem of accountability and the “election of the hyenas.” In a number of sub-Saharan countries, elections are often not perceived as an effective instrument for controlling power, but rather as a ritual in which voters have little influence. This includes the phenomenon of “electoral authoritarianism”: While formal elections take place, genuine alternatives and mechanisms for accountability are largely undermined. Corruption and the “eaten goats.” Corruption in public tenders, the embezzlement of public funds, and the opaque distribution of revenues from the raw materials sector (an issue you also raised) lead to resources that should actually benefit society simply “disappearing.” Therein lies the bitter irony of the expression: While society expresses outrage at the consequences, the root cause lies in the incentive structure of those in power. Then the evaluation. “If the goats were eaten, we wonder why that happened,” is an ironic allusion to the fact that society apparently does not connect the outcome of things with its original choice. This phenomenon is not limited to Africa. Europeans are lagging behind in this regard. Let's pursue this further. The economic consequences are predictable. When institutions are weak and control over power is minimal, this has a direct impact on the economy: Inflation rises, the investment climate deteriorates, and GDP growth slows. The "goats" aren't just "eaten"—their absence is directly reflected in macroeconomic indicators. And then there's the historical dimension: the legacy of colonialism and neocolonialism. Overcoming neocolonialism—in this sense, the metaphor also works on a deeper level. Many critics point out that political and economic models inherited from the colonial era create structures in which elites profit from the status quo—and not from genuine development. This is also the source of the feeling: "We're letting the hyenas guard the goats." The contrast to examples of responsible leadership: Against this backdrop of skepticism, individual examples stand out in which leaders have actually acted in the interest of society. The story of Theresa Kachindamoto (which you asked about) is one such example: It shows how a local leader can act contrary to the "hyena logic" and defend vulnerable groups – in her case, girls who were saved from early marriage. Examples that help illustrate the metaphor: Scandals in public contracts and infrastructure projects: In various countries across the continent, reports regularly surface about inflated cost estimates, "favored" contractors, and projects that benefit only a small circle of people instead of the general population. Revenues from raw materials and the “resource curse”: In countries with a large resource sector (whose impact on poverty you asked about), revenues from oil, gas, or minerals often do not lead to sustainable development. Instead, they end up in the pockets of the elites or are spent in opaque ways, while poverty and inequality persist. Local contrasts: Paradoxically, at the local level – for example, in communities – far more transparent and accountable mechanisms often function. These include, for instance, traditional councils, women's cooperatives, or projects promoting entrepreneurial skills – such as those in Mozambique, which were financed from the Viennese budget. This shows that the problem does not lie with the "people," but rather with how incentives are structured at the state level. Alternative formulations of this idea among African thinkers. Steve Bi wrote extensively about how oppression destroys self-identity and dignity. He emphasized the importance of people determining their own futures – which is a kind of response to the metaphor: Don't let "hyenas" define what is valuable to you. In pan-African discourse, the idea often arises that liberation means not only political independence, but also control over resources and decision-making processes. True "protection of the goats" therefore consists of economic and political sovereignty. · Where the metaphor reaches its limits: Unlike hyenas, elected officials are subject to constitutions, courts, a free press, opposition parties, and (in principle) the voters. The actual purpose of institutional design is to make exploitative behavior costly. When these safeguards erode, the metaphor holds true; when they function, however, it becomes too fatalistic. The term "we" is problematic: electoral majorities are coalitions, not monolithic blocs. Many voters certainly expect exploitation and vote accordingly – however, they are often outvoted or structurally disadvantaged. The blanket use of "we" can obscure who actually benefits from the respective constellation. Not all politicians are "predators": The power of the metaphor lies in its absoluteness, but the political system also includes people who genuinely feel committed to the common good. A cynicism that blurs this distinction can be self-perpetuating: If everyone assumes that politicians are inherently thieves, honest candidates suffer a credibility disadvantage. The underlying question is: Does the problem lie with the people we elect, or with the structure that makes exploitative behavior seem rational? The metaphor suggests the former (poor electoral choices), but the approach that actually offers room for action is the latter: It is a matter of shaping institutions—through transparency, control mechanisms, fair competition in elections, and independent courts—that make the "hyena's" calculations unprofitable, regardless of who wins the election. Voters can be deliberately influenced through disinformation, fake content, deepfakes, targeted advertising or campaigns. This is manipulation of the information environment – ​​not automatically manipulation of the vote count. Election authorities therefore warn particularly against hybrid threats and disinformation, but see no way to alter the ballot boxes in these. It is certainly a disturbing diagnosis, but an incomplete approach to a solution. The goats don't just need better protection against hyenas; they need fences, herders, and a system where guarding is more profitable than eating.