Why Africa is Ready for Democracy!
I. The History of Democracy in Africa.
It is said that people generally get the government they deserve. In Africa, nothing could be further from the truth. Leaders, who are mostly in it for themselves, in no way deserve their electorates. From the US to Uganda, most countries grapple with a democratic deficit. Yet there is a popular perception that Africa lags behind the rest of the world in this most ambiguous of political terms. This is despite the fact that millions of people elsewhere in the world live under regimes that can be described as authoritarian, oppressive and undemocratic, while millions of people within Africa enjoy the benefits of relatively good governance. In reality, democratic concepts are not alien to the African continent, despite the impression created in the postcolonial period. Democratic forms and institutions existed in precolonial African societies, and their practice may be found today in some rural areas. For example, as a form of checks and balances, some nations exercised limits on the absolute power of their leaders by electing and removing African kings. Many rulers had to consult with community leaders before implementing vital decisions. Traditionally, popular participation was encouraged by using a process of consultation that allowed African leaders to reinvigorate their rule with community input. In the postcolonial period, too, democracy did take root in several African countries, such as Botswana and Mauritius, where competing political parties, an independent judiciary, and a free press have been in existence for a number of years. There are good reasons for believing that democracy in Africa can and does work. Nevertheless, when most people think about Africa, they think about the alternative which is generally so much worse: dictatorship. You only have to think of former Zaire’s, Mobutu Sese Seko, or the Central African Republic’s self-proclaimed, Emperor Bokassa, to appreciate the restraining power of the ballot box. You mainly have to think about the African regimes of 1960s that were mainly characterized by their authoritarian nature and were mainly inefficient managers of Africa's economic, political, and social systems. These authoritarian and centralized states implemented state ownership and parastatals in order to grow their bureaucratic control over the nation in order to horde its economic growth and assure their power. (Schrader, 2004) These states dismantled institutions and created personal rule networks in order to consolidate their power. These states also took advantage of the social systems of free speech and the right to assemble by co-opting and silencing any form of opposition that came their way. Overall, they were futile for Africa’s growth. That’s why former British leader, Winston Churchill, thought democracy was “the worst form of government, except for all the others.” (Zampetti, 2003) His words lay bare the imperfections of what we call democracy, but also hint at how difficult it is to define. This is why having a firm understanding of the definition of democracy is paramount when thinking about solutions for the African continent.
II. What is democracy?
As a whole, democracy in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament.
Democracy has long been debated as an ambiguous and controversial topic over the past century. There have been many forms of democracies but the two that will be scrutinized in this paper will be the illiberal and liberal democracy. It has been difficult to recognize this problem because for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy.
On one hand, an illiberal democracy is a governing system in which--although elections take place--citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties. It is not an "open society". There are many countries that are categorized as neither 'free' nor 'not free', but as 'probably free', falling somewhere between democratic and nondemocratic regimes. This may be because a constitution limiting government powers exists, but those in power ignore its liberties, or because an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties does not exist.
On the other hand, a liberal democracy is a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. Similarly, in socialist thought, the concept of a liberal democracy extends beyond the precept of accountability to the idea of social justice. From that perspective, liberal democracy implies the effective pursuit of an egalitarian social order in addition to a government which is accountable to the people.
Thus, it will be argued that the process of liberal democratization involves bringing about the end of both illiberal democratic and undemocratic regimes and the beginning of consolidation of a liberal democratic system. The overall process of democratization is usually long, painful, and complex but it is best for Africa in the long run.
III. The Three Theories Against Democracy.
In post-colonial Africa, there have been three predominant schools of thought that have opposed democracy: the dependency theory, the cultural argument, and the developmentalist theory.
Dependency theory is the notion that resources flow from a periphery of poor and underdeveloped states to a core of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former. It is a central contention of dependency theory that poor states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the world system. In 1949, Hans Singer and Raúl Prebisch--the founders of this theory--observed that the terms of trade for underdeveloped countries relative to the developed countries had deteriorated over time: the underdeveloped countries were able to purchase fewer and fewer manufactured goods from the developed countries in exchange for a given quantity of their raw materials exports. Thus, it seemed like the only alternative for Africa was to minimize economic and intellectual trade with the West. African leaders in the 1960s used this theory in order to gain state ownership of the nation through parastatals and as a pretext of not being able to have democracy because they were constantly being exploited by the West. This theory has certain limitations in the sense that when the state chooses to control, it truly undermines competition and trade: by subsidizing in-country industries and preventing outside imports, these companies may have less incentive to improve their products, to try to become more efficient in their processes, to please customers, or to research new innovations. In Africa, states which have emphasized import-substitution development, such as Zimbabwe, have typically been among the worst performers, while the continent's most successful non-oil based economies, such as Egypt, South Africa, and Tunisia--prior to 2011, have pursued trade-based development.
Similarly, the cultural argument has also prevailed in undermining democratic transition in Africa. Two main proponents of this theory are Samuel Huntington and Elie Kedourie. In his influential 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations, “‘Huntington warned more generally of “fundamental [civilizational] divides.’ He stressed the cultural distinctiveness of the West, ‘most notably its Christianity, pluralism, individualism, and the rule of law,’ adding that ‘Western civilization,’ in its commitment to liberal democratic values, ‘is valuable not because it is universal but because it is unique.’” This argument has also been used by most of the West when they denounced democracy in North Africa because they claimed that Arabs are naturally violent and are not ready for democracy. Similarly, Huntington argues that Latin America has been historically ruled by absolutism and that they have been culturally indoctrinated to resist democracy. The Apartheid government of South Africa also used this argument when justifying their oppressive government because they believed black people lacked an experience with civilization and democracy. However, when the Arab Spring happened this theory was quickly criticized and undermined because Arab nations like Tunisia have succeeded in a democratic transition.
The last theory that undermines democracy in developing nations is the developmentalist theory which is also known as the modernization theory. Modernization theory is used to explain the process of modernization within societies. Modernization refers to a model of a progressive transition from a 'pre-modern' or 'traditional' to a 'modern' society. Modernization theory originated from a wide array of ideas ranging from Max Weber to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, which provided the basis for the modernization paradigm developed by sociologist and political scientist, Seymour Lipset. As Lipset put it, "all the various aspects of economic development — industrialization, urbanization, wealth and education — are so closely interrelated as to form one major factor which has the political correlate of democracy." (Velasco, 2004) In the 1960s, some critics argued that the link between modernization and democracy was based too much on the example of European history and neglected the Third World. Recent demonstrations of the emergence of democracy in South Korea, Taiwan and South Africa have been cited as support for Lipset's thesis. This theory is essentially in favor of building a strong middle class and afraid of the poor because it views that without education or resources they are more able to be corrupted and bought by leaders. Nevertheless, as critics have pointed out in this model, the modernization of an African society requires the destruction of the indigenous culture and its replacement by a more Westernized one. Proponents of modernization typically view only Western society as being truly modern and argue that others are primitive or unevolved by comparison. Thus, in reality this theory not only encourages autocracy (which tends to go terribly wrong most of the time), but also the denunciation of one’s own culture and traditions however democratic they may be.
IV. Larry Diamond’s Argument.
In Larry Diamond’s article Why Wait for Democracy? he argues that for far too long people have been encouraged to sacrifice their individual liberties and live under autocratic regimes in order to be finally ready for democracy. He says, "in Africa, people have learned that through bitter experience that without democracy they will have neither freedom nor bread." Thus, Diamond concludes that "the best way to democracy is through democracy." I would largely agree with him on this because Africa has seen the most stability and economic growth under democratically elected regimes. Examples of these successful democracies would include Botswana, Senegal, Zambia, and South Africa. Through qualitative leadership, Botswana and its 2 million citizens have managed to turn its fortunes around as one of the poorest countries at independence to its current status as one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Its current per capita GDP of $18,825 is one of the highest in all of Africa. The country also ranks very highly on the global Human Development Index. Similarly, Senegal is regarded as one of the most successful post-colonial democratic experiments in Africa. It has never suffered a military takeover of power and in 1980, Senegal’s first President, Leopold Senghor, set a precedent for the country’s future leaders after he voluntarily relinquished power and retired from public life. With a thriving economy to accompany it, in 2008, Senegal ranked 12th on the Mo Ibrahim Index of African governance. In contrast, although Zambia was led by a dictator for nearly three decades under a one-party system until 1991. When Kenneth Kaunda, the Zambian president, stepped aside, the country launched into an era of genuine multiparty democracy and continued economic growth with freedom. In 2010, the World Bank named Zambia as one of the world’s fastest economically reformed countries. In South Africa, democracy is continuously progressing and the once seemingly unassailable African National Congress is yielding to pressure at the ballot box. Four of the country’s biggest cities, including Johannesburg and Pretoria, are run by the opposition. As a result, Diamond believes that “one after another, arguments that non-Western countries are not “ready” for democracy have been upended by experience.”
IV. Why Africa is Ready for Democracy.
In my personal view, democracy is a sheer necessity for the African continent to prosper. As previously seen throughout this paper, there has always been a struggle between the means of creating a prosperous nation: developmental dictatorship or liberal democracy. The origin and purpose of the former, according to political scientist A. James Gregor, is:
The principles of developmental dictatorship were first formulated by Italian Marxists during the course of intense theoretical debates before the outbreak of World War One. Eventually, they came to understand that orthodox Marxism was not relevant to the social realities of their underdeveloped country. Left to itself, they reasoned, the feeble Italian bourgeoisie, fettered by its dependence upon foreign capitalists, would not create an industrial society. Fatefully, they forsook the ideal of proletarian internationalism and embraced statist nationalism in order to mobilize all talents and resources for a program of forced and rapid industrialization. With heretical abandon, they entrusted responsibility for the direction of events to an "audacious minority" or "vanguard elite" (Gregor, 1979). Faced with a similar predicament in the 1920s, the post-capitalist regime in Moscow adopted similar nationalist and statist strategy. Ever since, national struggles to overcome economic backwardness in many parts of the world have been intensified if not actually led by proponent of developmental dictatorship. (Sklar, 1983)
As previously stated, ideally developmental dictatorship would be the optimal form of governance but the problem remains: how many dictatorships end up becoming developmental? For every economically progressive Paul Kagame, there have been countless Mobutus, Mbasogos, Mugabes, and Mubaraks! Thus, the only viable alternative that remains on the African continent is the liberal democracy.
Until the electoral victory of Mauritian socialists in June 1982, no national government in an independent African state had ever been transferred to an opposition by electoral means. (Sklar, 1983) Nevertheless, it could be also argued that Benin led the wave of political liberalization and democratization in Africa after it drafted a new constitution in response to an institutional crisis and ousted Mathieu Kerekou from his 19-year reign during the Benin Conference of 1990. Although Kerekou had the chance to re-run and was defeated in the 1991 presidential election, he returned to the presidency in the 1996 election and was controversially re-elected in 2001. Now another issue arises with liberal democracies: how can we prevent the people from re-electing their ex-tyrants? Similarly, we also have to ask continuously ask ourselves how we can avoid a path of extremism with our democracy? Currently, many experts speculate that if elections were held now in many North African countries, they would be won by fundamentalist parties that would proceed to destroy whatever modicum of liberty exists and probably eliminate future elections--as we almost witnessed in Algeria in 1992, Tunisia in 2011, and Egypt in 2012. It is a risk we have to take in order to grow and learn from our mistake because, by contrast to dictatorship, democracy is a developing idea and an increasingly sophisticated form of political organization. It is a learning process that promulgates growth in the long run whether it be in learning from our electoral or economic mistakes. It is noteworthy to mention that for the latter, “Competition in democracies is cerebral, not physical. Killing foes works for dictators, but it is a pretty surefire path to political oblivion in a democracy. That’s a good thing, from a moral standpoint, of course.” Thus,“ democracy is an arms race for good ideas.” (de Mesquita Bueno, 2011)
In conclusion, it could be maintained that democracy—in concept, if not in reality—is the ideal form of governance on the African continent and it has gained new popularity and wider acceptance as a political alternative. Multiparty democracy has become the rallying cry for much-pursued political reforms, but, in a larger sense, the agitation in Africa in the last decade stemmed from a modest question of accountability: how to hold leaders responsible for their conduct in office and how to make governments more responsive to the wishes of the people? Africans need answers to these questions after decades of corrupt, indifferent, or harmful governance under single-party dictatorships. It seems that democracy is the only option that can provide the framework through which these questions can be answered. As rhetorical and general as it may seem, it is truly better to have freedom and no bread than no freedom and no bread. This goes to say that the democracy that will be ideal for Africa would be a capitalistic one with elements of socialist principles because in an age of social optimism, people will not settle for the redistribution of misery and poverty. This is because with capitalism, not wealth per se, we tend to have an independent bourgeoisie that upholds the universal rule of law as a protection against feudal state power. I certainly believe that although Africa’s leaders may not be ready for democracy, its people certainly are.