The Pope’s encyclical on Development, Populorum Progressio, has drawn attention to a man, Père Lebret, who is better known in many parts of the Third World than in Europe and particularly in the English-speaking world, but whose life is, nevertheless, expressive of one of the main trends that have marked the development of humanity and of the Church during the last decades.

In marking him out as one of the principal instigators of this encyclical, Paul VI knew better than anyone that he had not intervened in its detailed preparation simply as an expert, but that it was his experience and his life which had given him the essential inspiration for it. And those who knew him realize that his work and thought are one with his life; so much so, that if his writings were to pass away, in the way writings do, there would still remain the mark he has left on the history of his time and the direction which, largely thanks to him, some men and some commissions have given to their life and work.

In our present preoccupation with the problem of our relations with the Third World, it would, therefore, seem to be useful to recount the main stages of his life, in order to understand better some of the forces which determine the direction of history in the sense of an ever closer interdependence of nations.

Although exports of underdeveloped countries (UDCs) are currently for the most part primary products, with manufactured exports accounting for only about 15 per cent of the total, the future growth of these exports is crucial to the success of efforts to achieve economic development in these countries. This proposition holds regardless of whether one accepts the widely held view that the outlook for primary product exports is extremely bleak. That view may turn out to be too pessimistic. The proposition that there is a secular tendency for the prices of primary products to decline relatively to those of manufactured products is not well supported by either the empirical evidence (unless that evidence is presented rather selectively) or by theoretical argument. The claim that prices have a long-run tendency to move against primary products and in favour of manufactured products is often the premise to an argument that the UDCs will have to move out of specialization in primary products towards the production and export of manufactured products. But the conclusion does not depend upon this premise. Production of primary products will not be a sufficient basis for economic development even if the trends in primary product prices turn out to be extraordinarily favourable. A few countries in specially favourable circumstances may be able to raise income per head to high levels by achieving high levels of productivity in the production of primary products and obtaining their requirements of manufactured products through international trade.

The division between East and West on which most of us have been brought up, is gradually losing its significance and relevance in the face of a very much sharper division of mankind—between rich and poor countries. Among the rich are all the ‘white’ countries and Japan. They make up one quarter of the world population and share between them 90 per cent of the world’s income. This leaves 10 per cent for the other three-quarters. On average, an American earns in one week a little under what an Indian earns in one year. An Englishman earns the same amount in about two and a half weeks. This imbalance is far greater today than it has ever been before. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the ratio of wealth between the richer and the poorer countries was of the order of five to one. Now it is twenty-five to one.

One could argue that in a world of plenty, in which all were able to satisfy their basic needs and aspirations, such a gross disparity was intolerable. But the point is that the majority of those living in the poor countries are not in a position to satisfy the most fundamental of their needs and aspirations in terms of food, shelter, clothing and employment; whereas we, in the rich countries, having quite lost sight of the distinction between what is fundamentally necessary and what is superfluous, are increasingly brain-washed into thinking that the most unnecessary novelties are vital to our well-being.

The debate on aid to less-developed countries has recently been concentrated in the fields of private charity and government contribution. In the field of private charity there has been an extension of the 1 per cent idea, and schemes have proliferated—Third World First, 1 per cent Group, Good Friday appeal, St Andrewstide appeal. These are all designed to overcome one of the main disadvantages of appealing for money from the individual—the enormous cost of collection. In the field of government contribution the debate has settled in the field of multilateral v. bilateral aiding. The important point at issue here is to ensure that the aid does not become a political football.

The debate as it has been conducted, chiefly by men of good will of left-wing persuasions, has left aside the question of how private investment could be integrated or used for the development of the less-developed countries. The words that go round are those of moral obligation and what is right rather than the efficiency and profitability of the products of the development process. There is a lack of trust in the products of the capitalist system, a feeling that it cannot work fast enough or fairly enough to be able to augment the direct efforts that can be undertaken by direct transfer without receiving anything back.

Any understanding of this statesman’s contribution to a new African ideology of reality and humanity in their political, economic and social doctrines has to be combined with an examination of the background from which he emerged.

Nyerere has been fortunate in inheriting problems which have not been as serious or restrictive of new policies as those experienced by the new presidents of Uganda and Kenya, even though there was the shared inheritance of colonialism, underdeveloped economies overwhelmingly agricultural and the shadows of a British style of administration too expensive for newly independent African states to maintain.

Tanzania’s historical background is remarkably free of the problems which continue to bedevil the politics of its neighbours. Tribal differences are minimal and mostly within the Bantu group so that the state has no inherited splits in its structure. There is the national language of kiSwahili, dating from before the colonial period and structured into the administration first by the Germans and then by the British; it is a real medium of communication centred on the towns and as such has associations with politics and progress which have increased its utility.

The capital at Dar-es-salaam on the coast is not dominated by one tribal group and the state had no semi-independent federated kingdoms to cope with; the progressive Haya and Chagga are too small in numbers and too far from the capital to be in any position to dominate national policies. The numerically superior Sukuma and Nyamwezi had neither the economy nor natural leaders to achieve the Kikuyu and Ganda ascendencies in their respective countries.