In a democratic African country, the desired outcome will be independence between political leaders and the citizens. The citizen will 'elect' and pay taxes to the governments which politicians form, but only on one condition: satisfactory performance. If that satisfaction in performance is not achieved, the citizen will not at first elect that failed political leader, but if that leader persists in power, the citizen will not pay taxes. That means the politicians will always strife to perform better in order to be elected/re-elected, and the citizen will be obliged to elect and pay taxes . The tax pays the politicians income and maintains his stay in the office.

However, this process is turned upside down by aid. When the leader can get income in the form of aid, he wont find the need to 'perform' or serve the citizens well, even if the citizens fail to pay taxes. Aid replaces the democratic interdependency between the eleted and his electors. Usually if aid isn't available, the leaders are forced to make their citizens happy and enhance their local economies due leadership competition. So the whole country is benefited by such leadership competition and interaction between the leaders and their voters. It is a hard job but it works wonders. On the contrary aid cripples both the local politics and economics, because it does away with leader/citizen interaction and interdependence. Leaders are kept power by foreign aid but the citizens are left to suffer. Aid creates misery and dependency.