The debate on the so-called “hidden” debt has deeply divided the country. It is a contrast between the two camps, nourishing suspicions and crystallizing frustrations. Yet, to look at it closely, this quarrel had all of a guerre où l’on s’envoie à, bout portant des missiles supersoniques, while it was avant tout a divergence de visions. Because, in the end, each had his share of reason… and his share of blindness, perhaps… This debate should not be reduced to a duel between virtue and fault, but should be understood as the clash of two legitimate visions of development: two ways of imagining economic sovereignty. In sum, the question was less one of ethics or theory than of pragmatism: each approach translated a response to the constraints of the moment. For the old regime, the objective was to meet the need for rapid and visible development.
Why the debate on the so-called ” hidden ” debt has been ill-posed! (Par Malick SONKO)
