democracy in africa Archives

September 30, 2011October 7, 2011

Democracy or Prosperity, Which Comes First In Africa’s Bid for Prosperity

Feature/Africa Development

Democracy or Prosperity, Which Comes First for Africa?

As Africa’s democracy gradually evolves, the arguments are whether Africa should concentrate on creating prosperity first and then grow its democracy later or build up its democracy first and then use it to develop its prosperity. This thinking has come about because of the on-going democratic revolutions occurring in Africa, in places such as Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, and multi-party democratic elections after elections have become recurring rituals.

Despite its global hypothesis, in the African context, the democracy-or-prosperity arguments wheel around Africa’s largely enviably untapped wealth and the continent’s painful dark political history where totalitarianism of all brands had been the order of the day. So whether prosperity first, democracy second, or the other way around will be determined by Africa’s political history in the past 50 years.

In most parts of Africa independence from colonial rule saw authoritarian one-party-systems and military juntas dominating the political scene. The erroneous thinking, as Kofi Abrefa Busia, a former Prime Minister of Ghana, explained, was that democracy was thought to be “alien” to “Africans thought and way of life,” and that the only language Africans understands is despotism that emanates from the African culture. As Ghana under Kwame Nkrumah witnessed, the argument was that authoritarian one-party system will bring rapid prosperity by controlling all dissent and freedoms.

Still, as military juntas in Southeast Asia such as South Korea or South America such as Brazil had done, the thinking was that Africa’s then mushrooming military juntas such as Uganda under Gen. Idi Amin will either be able to use their military discipline for either speedy advancement or laid the foundation for swift progress. In all this, the so-called rapid prosperity didn’t happen – Africa became more backward materially than before despite it’s immensely endowed human and natural wealth. Rather, the military juntas and the one-party systems left in its wake muddled thinking, oppression, deaths, confusion, state paralysis and state collapse, civil wars, endemic corruptions, tribalism, and constant fear and threats.

In Libya, a key face of Africa’s current democratic revolution, despite is immense oil wealth with a population of only 6.6 million; its problem is that for 42 years it has been despotically rule by Muarmmar Gaddafi. Despite having per capita income of about US$13,000, average life expectancy of 77 years, UN Human Development Index at 53th position out of 170 countries graded (high at 2010 rankings) and literacy rate of about 90 percent, the schisms between democracy and prosperity saw a civil war for democracy and freedoms break out in the face of dictatorial practices where freedoms were brutally suppressed.

On the other hand, Botswana, Africa’s longest democracy star, has about a third of Libya’s population, and a little better than Libya’s per capita income (at US$15,489). Botswana’s UN Human Development Index is at the 98^th position (medium at 2010 rankings). But Botswana has been able to balance democracy and prosperity ever since it got independence from Britain in 1966 and its people enjoy greater peace, freedoms and democratic tenets for the past 44 years under the long-ruling Botswana Democratic Party. Unlike Libya, Botswana’s democracy has come with it sound accountability and transparency. Transparency International reports that Botswana is the least corrupt country in Africa. In the course of the Libyan democratic revolution, an anti-corruption worker who spoke to Transparency International’s Arab branch said, “It wasn’t safe to fight corruption. If you opposed the government, you would disappear. We were careful. But now we are ready to work.”

The lesson from the Libyan and other African states’ perturbations is that when a country is prosperous its people want more freedoms. Libya had been undemocratic for the past 42 years. Till the democratic revolution, Libya had put economic development first for prosperity but missed out in opening the democratic field (as South Korea, Chile and Taiwan did) and saw Gaddafi blew its authoritarian regime into pieces. Most Africans states, after gaining independence from European colonial rule had put democracy ahead of economic development but didn’t prosper and went back to despotism that sent most into turbulence.

Botswana and Mauritius’ experiences teach that there have to be skillful grafting of prosperity and democracy if holistic advancement is to take place without recourse to dictatorships. Botswana and Mauritius show that African governments who put democracy ahead of economic development do not slip back into tyranny. The 2009 Mo Ibrahim Index of African Governance, limited to sub-Sahara Africa, measures the health of African governance practices using different variables. The Index’s 2009 report revealed that Mauritius has the highest rank of “participation and human rights” and “sustainable economic opportunity.” With a per capita income of US$14,097, Mauritius came second in the “rule of law.” In the UN Human Development Index, Mauritius ranked 72^nd out of 170 countries measured (high in the 2010 rankings).

The African understanding indicates that democracy and prosperity should be simultaneously affixed in the proposition for Africa’s sustainable progress. The Botswana and Mauritius’ successful models that are gradually been replicated Africa-wide is captured in The Prospects for Democracy in Africa (1961) by Kofi Abrefa Busia when he asked: “The question which we cannot avoid asking is whether economic development and nation building must mean authoritarianism and denial of freedom. Is it true that roads, railways, houses, harbours, factories and the like can only be quickly built under dictatorial forms of government?”

If you like this article, I’d recommend my book “If I Was Famous, I’d Have a Lot to Say”

August 20, 2011October 7, 2011

Elections in Africa and its Impact on Development

Democratization has produced a mechanism of election through which decision can be made by people in the state, community etc. The process of election in Africa can be so tense and charged, because most of the political leaders can use the process to come to power to get ill-gotten wealth off the state. It is unfortunate to note that most of the political leaders that participate in election in Africa do not understand the nature of state-building; rather it is about “Personality”. In essence, most of the elections in most parts of Africa are beclouded, with the “culture of Self aggrandizement”. The culture of poverty and the greed of power have stimulated this kind of “Personality attitude. Many times in African elections, conflict can develop because the process is marked with fraud and those who are mandated to manage the elections fail repeatedly because they are frighten to disappoint their entrenched interests. Only reputable Election Commissions’ Heads who care for state-building can ensure that the process is transparent, credible, free and fair. The Independent National Election (INEC) Chairman of Nigeria Prof. Attahiru Jega, ensures that the general elections held recently in Nigeria were transparent, even though there were some pockets of minute irregularities. When elections are transparent, it strongly helps the developmental process of the state.

The process of electioneering in Africa seems to be a difficult culture because Africans are accustomed to the traditional ways of selecting their leaders. The elder who has rich cultural heritage will always be given the mantle of authority. Since the introduction of this democratic process of choosing leaders, there have always been problems. For the incumbent leaders on the continent, every strategic frame work must be adopted to ensure a “must win scenario” in spite of their poor governance performance. Laurent Gbargbo of Ivory Coast could not accept the election results because he had conceptualized that he must win. Sometimes based on the poor performance of the incumbent, the chances for the opposition to win can be high, but the failure to manage this opportunity has become a great challenge. Opposition failure to accept the results of the election which were internationally acclaimed to be transparent can also create problem for development. Election has become complex for African politicians and has continued to pose the problem for development.

Today, in Kenya, there is an inclusive government and some are undergoing investigation as well as trial in The Hague, based on post-election violence. According to BBC news, in 2008, approximately 600 persons were reportedly killed in the post-election violence in Kenya, following disputes over the results of the December 2007 presidential elections. The country is gradually evolving from the election nightmare after a government of national unity was negotiated which saw power being shared between President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga. In another development, the opposition leader in Uganda, Dr. Kizza Besigye claimed that President Musovini used intimidation to win the 2011 election. Dr. Kizza Besigye was beaten and hospitalized because of his stance of the election result in which he commented that it was marked with fraud. In Liberia, there was violent demonstration after the 2005 Presidential elections. The scenario was not different South Africa where Thiabo Mbeki and his Defense Minister, Mosiuoa Lekota resigned from the African National Congress (ANC) to organize a new political front-the Congress of the People (COPE), after Thiabo was defeated in the ANC convention in 2008.

The high quest for Mbeki to win could not be realized thus leading to the fragmentation of the ANC. In 1992, following disputes over the election results in Angola, the National Union for the Total Liberation of Angola (UNITA) returned to war, which lasted almost a decade.

Unfortunately, the time for election is considered by most African politicians as the time for wielding and dealing wherein they can benefit from the process. It was reported in some major dailies in Liberia that the Congress of Democratic Change’s (CDC) political leader, George Weah, took some money from the Liberty Party Executives for the purpose of alliance. The deal was not successful and Weah benefitted from the deal. It is always good for the political parties to take election as the conduit of building a more democratic state than using the process to breakdown the reason for which it is intended. Wielding and dealing can corrupt the democratic process.

Notably, some political parties cry foul when they have not developed any logical ways of winning the elections. Sometimes, opposition parties used this tactics to negotiate with regional or international organizations to be included in the government. For elections to be transparent in Africa, the incumbent should stay out of any process that would influence umpire body- the election commission. On their part, the electoral commissions should develop the managerial capacity void of outside influence to ensure a prudent management of the elections. Africans politicians must get use to participating in election that is devoid of violence. Every politician must understand that losing elections serves as one of the mature ways of developing statehood. The Judiciary must be respected and they must look beyond party lines to protect the stability of the state. The traditional African practice of selecting leaders has become past reality, therefore every democratic electoral procedure must be professionally respected. It is my hope that the Liberian Politicians and the Election Commissioners will ensure that the 2011 elections will be void of conflict. When Africans developed a respectable practice for election, it will help the continent to develop its socio-economic fabrics. The time is now!!

If you like this article, I’d recommend my book “If I Was Famous, I’d Have a Lot to Say”

August 20, 2011October 7, 2011

Bumps, But Africa’s Democracy Rises

After much misunderstanding, with all the anarchic one-party ordeals and self-serving dictatorial military juntas, it appears Africa is nearing a turning point in its democratic grasp. There may be divergent signs, some incredibly disturbing as Guinea Bissau and the Central African Republic indicate, but it looks like a turning to democracy as the best option to solve Africa’s development challenges. This is Africans new trust, for cultural, historical, moral and material reasons, in resolving decades of political mix-ups, contradicting irrational international exuberance and governance deficits, in relation to Continue reading “Bumps, But Africa’s Democracy Rises”

December 22, 2010January 19, 2011

The role of tradition in African democracy

“Democracy works only when it has evolved within a specific socio-cultural environment and fused into the traditional political systems such that it is seen as an indigenous product, but unfortunately Africa has not been given the opportunity to develop this.”

Comments from the former President of the Republic of Ghana, His Excellency Jerry John Rawlings, seek to treat democracy as a political system that ought to function on the basis of cultural relativism. The idea of allowing local values, traditions and cultural habits to factor in our democracy has been touted by leading academics and scholars as well. The argument is that democracy as it is practised in Africa is a wholesale adoption of a Western political practice. As such it might prove to be incongruous to Africa’s traditional ways.

What are some of these traditional ways? One might ask. For one thing traditional African societies have generally been communal. The notion of placing emphasis on the group is in essence at variance with a political practice that empowers the individual (one man, one vote) to partake in the process of societal governance. Civil and Political Rights by definition puts the interest of the citizen above the society and endeavors to liberate the individual from social shackles that may impede individual freedom.

The traditional African society however, sometimes suppresses individual rights for the sake of the rights of a group. The minor is expected to shelve personal views in the presence of elders. This practice is carried into boardrooms and the political arena as well. So a full or proper implementation of the tenets of Western democracy in Africa is at times curtailed by some of these factors indigenous to the African way of doing things.

Even advanced democracies on the continent such as Ghana are still having difficulties fully adapting to western political practices. Freedom of expression is still somewhat elusive in Ghana due to the fear of victimization or societal alienation. The generational gap between the young and the old means that, the youth are still struggling to make an impact on the society and continue to fight for acknowledgment that will enable them to partake properly in the process of policy formulation. Even in corporate settings views espoused by relatively younger workers are dismissed for viewpoints that are deemed to be more elderly. What this invariably means is that African societies continue to be excessively conservative and tend to be parochial in terms of outlook and ideas.

Needless to say that, such a paradigm of Africa is strongly endorsed by ultra conservative reactionaries who are in the habit of referring to the superiority of ancient ways. Dr Kwame Nkrumah’s vision for Africa is often cited as a continental ideal seeking to form a United States of Africa. In Ghana it is a sacrilege to criticize or dismiss views that seek inspiration from this wise statesman. African societies are therefore slow to change and the proclivity to embrace cultural liberalism is condemned and seen as a perversion of local values.

Hence the tendency to believe that even democracies must have a local flavor, otherwise they are doomed to fail on the continent. The problem with traditionalists and the conservative mindset in general is that, human institutions tend to be organic and dynamic and what this basically means is that they evolve with time to reflect the changing nature of people and the societies they live in. Failure to incorporate these changes into social ordinances and political practice can prove to be a great disservice to the people that these ordinances are expected to serve.

An evolving Africa means that, traditional practices and beliefs are becoming increasingly archaic and anachronistic. Holding on to them is tantamount to being stagnant and refusing to adapt to global innovations that are advancing other societies unlike our own.

Democracies are already indigenous to human beings and need no local flavor to thrive successfully in any cultural setting. If democracies in Africa are so far failing to enrich states on the continent as expected, this may be due to repeated and consistent failures on the part of African politicians whose tendencies to be dictatorial remain strong even when they are expected to function in democratic political settings.

Rather than, infusing African democracies with traditional political practice, the continent must endeavor to introduce systemic innovations to democratic practice by limiting the power of politicians and increasing the power of citizens. A leading democracy on the continent like Ghana still needs to incorporate fresh ideas into its democratic methods by edifying the electoral process especially.

Entrepreneurs and businessmen continue to have a foothold in party politics. This unfortunate political norm must be curtailed with the introduction of caps and restrictions on political campaign contributions to ensure that political parties are not manipulated by financiers and sponsors. The power of the executive branch ought to be limited as well by adopting a style similar to the Westminster system in England where the Prime Minister is expected to account to legislators and explain his actions to the parliament.

When some of these Western democratic practices are introduced to African democracies, the political system will surely have the desired effect of enriching the continent by fully liberating its people. As long as traditional practice plays a role in governance, the tendency or rather the risk of going back to political dictatorship under the guise of cultural relativism remains. If democracies are so far failing in Africa it could be due to their poor implementation by politicians who still enjoy the cover offered by traditional practices that permit political autocracy as a method of governance.

December 20, 2010March 10, 2011

There Is Hope For Democracy In Africa

John Dramani Mahama, the vice president of the Republic of Ghana, is writing a nonfiction book about Africa.

The current political development in Cote d’Ivoire, and the manner in which it will be resolved, will serve as either a clear indication of how tenuous the democratic process still is on the African continent, or a joyous testament to how far the continent has traveled in its promotion of peace and advancement.

I’m sure that because many people, especially in the Western world, may still not have faith that democracy can actually work on the African continent, it didn’t come as a surprise to some that the results of the Ivorian Electoral Commission were not recognized by Laurent Gbagbo’s incumbent government and not followed by the requisite concession and transfer of power.

However, the exact opposite was true for a great many of Africa’s leaders and heads of state. We had every faith that the elections in Cote d’Ivoire would be yet another success story in this new narrative of democracy that our nations are writing. We were all surprised at the turn of events after the results were broadcast.

Politics in Africa, for centuries it seems, have been a violent game of domination in which the residents of any given region are nothing more than pawns, warm bodies to be subjugated or slaughtered or, in earlier centuries, sold and enslaved. As, one after the other, African nations won their independence from colonization, a sense of hope and a feeling of confidence took hold of the continent. Finally the people of Africa would be free to determine their own destiny. They would be free to partake of all the pride and progress that being sovereign seemed to promise.

Yet before cartographers had even finished documenting the names of the newly independent nations, all the leaders who had been celebrated and held up as heroes — like Kwame Nkrumah, Sylvanus Olympio, Patrice Lumumba — were either overthrown or assassinated. The era that followed should have, and so easily could have, been one of steady development and economic stability. Instead, for decades, the continent turned into a garish kaleidoscope of dictators, coups d’etat, prisons overflowing with opposition leaders, and people fleeing under cover of darkness to live in foreign lands as refugees and political exiles.

But times are changing in Africa; putsches and autocracies are fast becoming a thing of the past. Our citizens are tired of despots and corrupt leaders dimming the prospects of a bright future for them and their children. Africans are becoming more politically vocal and savvy, refusing silence and staking their lives on their right to suffrage.

Voter turnout in the Ethiopian general elections this past May was over 90 percent; likewise, voter turnout in the Burundi presidential elections this past June was over 70 percent; and it was nearly 80 percent in Guinea, which, also in June, held its first free and fair elections since 1958.

These figures are significantly higher than those of more developed countries such as the United States, whose highest voter turnout ever was 81 percent — in 1876. (Even with all the confusion, long lines and mass international coverage, voter turnout for the 2008 U.S. presidential elections was only approximately 62 percent.) Understanding that their right to vote has not always been respected, Africans often turn out in record numbers, praying that this time, this election, their vote will ultimately be counted, and their voice will be heard.

In response to the tense standoff in Cote d’Ivoire, heads of state have issued pleas, condemnations and warnings. Organizations such as the African Union, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and ECOWAS have been decisive; democracy must prevail. And they have been firm, threatening sanctions and alienation.

There was a time in Africa when this would not have been the case. Cote d’Ivoire might very well have plunged into civil war before the world took notice, or action. I was wondering today, while reading about and listening to news reports about the increasing pressure that is being mounted on Mr. Gbagbo to step down, what has prompted this change in the way the international community now regards and responds to Africa.

Could it be that the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur made clear the message that we all pay a price for inaction? Or that the civil wars and battles for blood diamonds that gave birth to armies of child soldiers, whose opprobrious conduct left fields full of corpses and villages full of amputees, taught us that the world must speak quickly and loudly, and it must say, “No more. This cannot happen anymore”?

Or maybe it’s something much simpler than any of that. Maybe Africa itself has shown, by making such incidents the exceptions rather than the rule, that it is maturing politically, leaning eagerly toward the sort of liberation its citizens have craved for so long.

Peaceful transitions of power are no longer an aberration; they no longer stand out as much in the public imagination, because these days, more often than not, they are what is taking place on the African continent. Lately, peace has prevailed even in the most potentially explosive situations, such as Ghana’s 2008 presidential elections, in which I ran as the vice presidential pick on the opposition party’s ticket. Our victory, which came as the result of a runoff election, was, by official results, the slimmest margin ever recorded in the history of modern African elections — less than half a percentage point.

For days after the results were announced, our nation was gripped with fear. Despite a consensus among all the independent election monitors that there were no improprieties, accusations of voter fraud were nonetheless made. People even went so far as to predict that Ghana would follow in the footsteps of Kenya, which erupted into postelection violence in 2007, the residual effects of which are still being felt in that country today. We held our breaths and waited, hoping that our lives and the land we all so loved would not be needlessly torn apart.

Though the other presidential candidate never conceded, Ghana’s incumbent president made it clear that he would encourage and support the democratic process by respecting the will of the people and handing over power to whomever the electoral commission certified as the official winner. Because of that, Ghana was able to boast yet another peaceful transition of power in 16 continuous years of democratic governance. Over the past couple of weeks, we have been witness to the same respect for democracy and the rule of law in Guinea, with the ex-prime minister conceding defeat and calling for peace, particularly among his supporters.

The U.N. peacekeepers that were guarding the democratically elected president, Alassane Ouattara, have been ordered out of Cote d’Ivoire by Mr. Gbagbo. Danger seems to be looming, and the world’s attention is now fixed on the fate of that nation. We all remain hopeful, because Africa cannot afford another political setback.

Mr. Gbagbo has the unique opportunity to help cement one of two antithetical perceptions of Africa: as a continent of despots in the service of power instead of the service of their people, or as a continent making great gains toward democracy and sustainable development. Whatever decision Mr. Gbagbo makes will leave a lasting impression, not only on his country but also on the entire continent. Let us pray that he chooses wisely.

(NPR)

December 13, 2010December 14, 2010

Gbagbo; Another ugly face for Africa

E. Ablorh-Odjidja (pubhisher, ghana.com)

There was a presidential election in Cote d’Ivoire in December 2010, as required by the peace agreement after the civil war of 2002/2003. The arrangement allowed the then incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo to stretch his hold on power.

He has been in power for ten years and just lost the 2010 presidential election to his rival, Mr. Alassane Ouattara.

Mr. Laurent Gbagbo, however, refuses to leave office, citing a supposed vote rigging by his rival in the northern half of the country as his reason.

The UN has declared Gbagbo the loser after the vote count. Major European countries have backed the UN’s decision.

ECOWAS, the West African regional economic group, has given the nod to Gbagbo’s rival Ouattara as the winner and president elect.

At a meeting held in Abuja on December 7, ECOWAS members went a step further to suspend Cote d’Ivoire from the group because of Gbagbo’s refusal to step down.

The United States and the European Union are considering other sanctions should Gbagbo continue his grip on the presidency.

So far, the situation looks ominous with Mr. Gbagbo’s refusal to back down. Not surprising, he is being encouraged by none other than Russia, the old nemesis of the West in the cold war days.

The BBC quotes diplomats who say “Russia is blocking a Security Council statement endorsing Ivory Coast opposition candidate Alassane Ouattara as president” because Russia claims the UN has no mandate on the issue, notwithstanding the fact that the Russians are aware of the peace agreement that gave the UN the right to supervise affairs in the Ivory Coast election.

Gbagbo knows that Russia’s stance at the UN can easily re-ignite the Ivorian conflict. With America supporting President-elect Ouattara, chances are that the West African region may erupt into a super-power rivalry that will be costly. But because of personal ambition, Gbagbo is blind to this possible outcome.

Why Russia doesn’t understand the UN position on the matter should not be a mystery. Rather, it should be understood as a classy case of mischief making at the expense of the Cote d’Ivoire and West Africa.

This same Russia that hamstrung the US in the UN on matters leading to the Iraq war is at it again; this time, in another part of the world; all in the name of ideological and super-power struggle.

So the Civil War, as part of Cote d’Ivoire’s history, may rear its ugly head again. But not to blame the Russians, there is no reason why they should love Africa, much less Cote d’Ivoire.

The blame must go to Gbagbo who should know better to help the Cote d’Ivoire come out of this chaotic situation.

For the Russians this much can be said: the messier the situations in Cote d’Ivoire, the better the chances are to turn her into a client state.

But the same cannot be said for ex- President Laurent Gbagbo, a citizen of Cote d’Ivoire and the man with the insatiable ambition.

Ten years in office as president is a lot for most, except leaders in the Third World. And given the odds, the remainder of Gbagbo’s Ivorian generation, within that same time frame, can never constitutionally arise to the presidency because he is in power.

How does one account for the loss of potential leaders if one were to allow an incompetent like Gbagbo to straddle his rule to two or more generations?

Amazing and cruel as it is, the above is lost on Gbagbo. For his personal ambition, the whole of Cote d’Ivoire and generations of citizens after him may likely come to ruin.

Instead of looking at the looming danger ahead, Gbagbo has insolently named himself the president of Cote d’Ivoire even though he lost the 2010 election.