The Foreign Service Journal, April 2005

to data lags affecting Mozambique’s scores on primary education. However, the board did not offer excuses for the poor showing of Armenia and Morocco on the political rights indicator. Ghana and Mongolia. Demo- cratic activists in MCA countries interviewed for this article were very positive about the concept of an assis- tance program perceived as reward- ing countries for democratic reform. Emmanuel Gyimah-Boadi, director of the Ghana Center for Democracy and Development, welcomed the U.S. “move away from basket cases” and toward recognition of countries that are “doing relatively well.” He believes the MCA will be “a real incentive for democratic progress” in Africa. Enkhtoya Oidov, former member of Mongolia’s parliament and a recent fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy, expressed pleasure that the MCA would have democratic practices as conditions for eligibility. “Our hope is the U.S.,” she says. Only its interest can protect “proper democratic institutions.” But so far, Mongolia, she says, has failed to attract American interest on strategic grounds. She sees a major aid pro- gram as a vehicle for that interest. Mongolia needs aid, so “will accept anything the U.S. says,” she adds. Conversely, absent American pres- sure, she believes the consequences for democratization in Mongolia will be dire; she predicts the opposition party will disappear. Both Gyimah-Boadi and Oidov make clear that how the MCA is implemented will be crucial if it is to have a positive effect on build- ing and consolidating democracy. Gyimah-Boadi expressed some con- cern for the impact of such significant amounts of aid. “Significant amounts of aid can have the same effect on governments as having natural re- sources. Governments can get lazy,” he says. “Aid could weaken efforts of governments to exercise fiscal disci- pline, especially in the area of tax pol- icy, where it needs to go after domes- A P R I L 2 0 0 5 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 33 Given that the MCA was developed in the Treasury Department, it is no surprise that it reflects the World Bank’s reluctance to use the “D” word.