Debate on Africa tends to elicit one of two responses: the impenetrably factual and the unhelpfully emotional. Indeed, the debate sat at two extremes: at one end were Mara-Tafadzwa Makoni and Goylette Chami, embroiled in an academic argument too theoretical for laymen such as myself. As with the debate two weeks ago, the motion’s phrasing became problematic, and too much time was spent trying to clarify the slippery idea of the ‘net harm/good’ of aid.

At the other end was the thoroughly enjoyable, rousing speech of Lord Boateng PC, who often relied on theatrics to compensate for a lack of substance.  Occupying the middle ground, and so the strongest speaker, was Professor Francesco Caselli, whose approach was informed but not overly technical, rigorous but succinct.

As a Ugandan, Mwenda spoke with somewhat more authority, and pointed out that it ought to be Africans having the debate. However, the proposition were too far-sighted (though admirably optimistic) in envisaging a self-sufficient, enterprise-driven African continent; equally, the opposition’s referencing of ‘poverty indicators’ and ‘aid goals’ displayed short-sightedness.

Anna Stansbury and Lord Boateng argued well was that it is too easy to blame African corruption, civil wars and bad governance on foreign aid. Playing Caselli at his own game, Lord Boateng perceptively pointed out the inconclusiveness of many economic studies, showing that causality is incredibly difficult to tease out in this issue.

All the speakers seemed to agree, though, that boosting the African economy through entrepreneurship and trade was essential; the opposition simply argued that aid was also essential. And on some basic level, I agree: if we were to pull the plug on all African aid tomorrow, millions of people would die. It’s as simple as that.

The emergency debate, discussing whether religious hatred was the new racial hatred, was at times handled insensitively: it always makes me anxious when the Holocaust is referenced too freely, or when people try and count the number of individuals from ethnic minorities in the room. Neither side fully directed themselves at the question, but were too busy discussing the causes of racial hatred, or justifying hatred of religion.

Ultimately, both debates showed signs of erudition and cogency, but neither fully penetrated the issues at hand.