What type of democracy does Africa need?

 People’s choice
whereas nearly everyone (more than 80%) supports democracy in
Liberia, Cape Verde, Ghana, Tanzania, Senegal and Zambia. As for the
percentage of people satisfied with the implementation of democracy
in their country, it ranges from 75%, 74%, 72% and 71% respectively
in Tanzania, Ghana, Mauritius and Botswana, to 50% in Burkina Faso,
to 31% in Mali and 21% in Togo.
T
People’s Choice
What type of democracy
does Africa need?
A complex continent requires
complex democratic systems
Gilles Olakounlé Yabi
The findings of the latest survey conducted by Afrobarometer in 34
African countries, published in April 2014, are clear: Seven out of ten
Africans (71%) prefer democracy over any other form of political regime.
However, the survey also shows a considerable gap between the popular
demand for democracy and its actu al implementation, which depends
on the elite in power: less than half of citizens (43%) consider their
country to be a democracy and state that they are happy with the way
democracy works in their country. The findings vary widely from one
country to another, both in terms of the degree of popular support for
democracy and the people’s assessment of its actual implementation.
Less than half of all adults prefer democracy in Madagascar (39%)
and Swaziland (46%), and just over half in Sudan, Algeria and Egypt,
38 OPENSPACE NOVEMBER 2014
he study findings, based on serious surveys conducted in various
countries on the continent, are quite reassuring for fervent
advocates of democracy. The index of demand for democracy
measured by Afrobarometer in sixteen countries in 2002 and 2012,
including both citizens’ expression of support for democracy and their
rejection of all forms of autocratic regimes (military regimes, single-party
systems or personal dictatorships), has risen significantly (by fifteen
points) in a decade. These findings show that democracy continues to
gain ground in people’s hearts and minds despite the insufficiencies and
failings of democratisation experiences in a number of countries over the
past decade, and despite uneven performances bydemocratic regimes in
the areas of economic and social development, and even political stability
and human security.
However, we should avoid being overly hasty in declaring a definitive
victory for democratic aspiration in Africa. Although, according to Afrobarometer surveys, virtually all Africans (93%) reject at least one form
of autocratic government, less than half (46%) systematically consider
democracy to be the only form of government to which they aspire.
Rejection of military regimes, in particular, is not absolute everywhere.
The days when people believed in the ability of countries to undergo
rapid political change culminating in the establishment of democratic
governments worthy of the name are past. The excitement surrounding
the start of the “Arab revolutions” in 2011 has quickly fallen flat. The
aftermath of the toppling of authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Libya and
Egypt has been very difficult, although to differing degrees. Although
Tunisia, over the medium term, has a good chance of restoring a political
balance compatible with the exercise of democracy and respect for the
fundamental liberties of the citizen, post-Mubarak and post-Morsi Egypt
has become more militarised than democratised, while post-Gaddafi Libya
is falling apart in the midst of civil war.
In North Africa, as in the other regions of the continent, discussions
of the obstacles and constraints linked to democratisation and analyses
of the choice of types of democratic regimes cannot ignore the countries’
individual political trajectories and the nature of their actual politics.
Virtually all African countries today officially have democratic governments and the texts of the African Union and the speeches of its leaders
never fail to promote democracy, good governance, and the protection of
human rights and freedoms. However, as we mentioned above, less than
half of all Africans consider that they live in a democratic country. If our
sole criterion for describing democratic government is the real possibility for its citizens to choose their leadership and remove it from office by
voting, which presupposes at the very least the organisation of regular,
free elections that effectively reflect the voters’ choice and in which the
election results are not always known in advance, then the list of truly
democratic countries would include barely a third of Africa’s 54 countries.
WHAT TYPE OF DEMOCRACY DOES AFRICA NEED? OSIWA.ORG
However, it is hoped that the list of “real” African democracies is far from
immutable, on a continent in constant flux, where the States formed within
their present borders have only existed for five or six decades.
Africa needs democratic regimes
that aspire to true democracy
The top priority of the majority of African countries is to work towards
a minimum of reconciliation between the democratic aspirations and
respect for the rule of law proclaimed in their constitutions and the
reality of political and institutional practices imposed – with a greater
In too many African
countries that are officially
democratic, there are no
limits to the falsification of
democracy. This is the first
change that needs to be made.
It was a similar process, over a much longer period and in keeping with
the changing circumstances of the different eras, that forged the older,
more established democracies of the West. These latter are also quite
imperfect. However, limits have been set by the democratic culture that
has progressively been anchored there, which are very difficult to overstep
in terms of men and women circumventing the rules in the conquest of
power. In too many African countries that are officially democratic, there
are no limits to the falsification of democracy. This is the first change that
needs to be made.
The fundamental problem of fake democratic regimes is not the fact
that they are not democracies, but the fact that they claim to be democracies when they are not and do not even aspire to become democracies. They are not developing democracies but rather undemocratic
regimes that dare not speak their name. Their constitutions, modelled
on or inspired by those of Western democracies, proclaim respect for
human rights and freedoms, the primacy of the sovereignty of the people
exercised through regular elections, the separation of the executive, legislative and judiciary powers, independent justice, respect for the freedom
of the press and so on, while in reality, these principles and values are
systematically or regularly flouted. It is at election time that the betrayal
of the democratic spirit by those who claim to represent the people is
most flagrant. By repeating crude or sophisticated manipulation of the
or lesser degree of sensitivity and refinement – by the elite on the bulk
of the population. There is no need to resort to Western democracies as
examples. The lead has been taken by a core group of African countries
that sit at the top of the established rankings in terms of democracy and
good governance: Cape Verde, Mauritius, Botswana, South Africa, Seychelles, Ghana, Namibia, Lesotho, Zambia, Senegal… While the list may
be an approximation and subject to flux, in every region of the continent,
everyone knows which are the countries where the sovereignty of the
people is regularly expressed and concretely imposed, and which are the
countries where it is a fiction entrenched in the constitution and which are
the ones where it only episodically dares to stand up to the sovereignty
of the most powerful, at the risk and peril of the most earnest believers.
The countries mentioned above are far from being perfect democracies, where actual practice systematically espouses constitutional values,
principles and dictates. The political actors in those countries are not all
virtuous and deeply attached to a sacred notion of democracy. Nor are
the people they represent. However, at important times in their contemporary history, they all have had elites who, whatever their motivations, have endowed their countries with democratic rules and believed
in them sufficiently to give a significant number of their compatriots
the feeling that these rules should be taken seriously and effectively
govern the political, economic and social life of the national community.
OPENSPACE NOVEMBER 2014 39
People’s choice
electoral process, especially during presidential elections with universal
suffrage, they have ended up impressing on the minds of the people that
such practices are entirely acceptable in democracy. Ever since many
countries have voluntarily adopted constitutions limiting the number of
consecutive presidential terms in office, tricks have been multiplied to
Democracy
continues to gain
ground in people’s hearts
and minds despite the
insufficiencies and failings of
democratisation experiences
in a number of countries
over the past decade, and
despite uneven performances
by democratic regimes
in the areas of economic
and social development,
and even political stability
and human security.
overcome these provisions with fallacious legal arguments.
Adopting rules and then devoting all one’s energy and creativity to
getting around them or manipulating them for personal profit is the fundamental characteristic of actual practices in fake democracies. It is
founded de facto on constant lying to the citizens by the elite, which soon
develops into a fusional lie between political society and civil society.
Fake democracies send everyone, including the younger generations, the
message that a democracy can be run without ethics, and that the role
models they should follow are those of political entrepreneurs who stop at
40 OPENSPACE NOVEMBER 2014
nothing to achieve their goals of grabbing power and wealth. By liberating
politics – and thereby the management of the State at the highest level –
from the limits established by ethics, these regimes can only encourage
the whole of society to minimise the importance of following rules, in
every area and at every level of responsibility. Finally, because the benefits
expected from democracy are only materialised when democracy is real
and sound, while its disadvantages and costs are apparent even when it
is merely an artificial facade, the establishment of false democracies in
Africa is a threat to the survival of the ideal of authentic democracy and
to the continued existence of the most credible democratic regimes on
the continent.
Africa needs democratic regimes that can
solve the crucial issues countries face
Some people support democracy based on their belief that it is the political
regime most compatible with humanistic values, such as respect for
a certain number of fundamental individual rights and freedoms. This
means supporting democracy for its underlying values and thus for itself.
However, others support democracy, and prefer it to all other options,
because they think that democratic regimes are more effective than others
in producing security, peace, stability, economic development or some
other form of progress appreciated by humankind. This vision, which is
more utilitarian than idealistic, makes democracy more of a means than
an end in itself. In the real world, idealistic arguments are rarely enough to
secure popular support for a political regime that is particularly demanding
of both its elite and the common citizen. In countries and societies where
a significant proportion of the population lives in a permanent state of
extreme physical and material vulnerability, in which human needs that
are elsewhere considered elementary are not satisfied, it is not enough
to defend democracy by brandishing its theoretical content of freedom.
We do not do democracy any favours by avoiding embarrassing questions
and claiming without credible evidence that it is always, everywhere, and
under all circumstances, the best immediate response to people’s needs.
Many Africans have excellent reasons to doubt the usefulness of the
“democracy” that was so enthusiastically touted to them at the turn of the
1990s. Threatened by a wide variety of violent conflicts in their countries
or at their borders, Africans have been kept in poverty by unproductive
and unfair economic systems. They have been left in the hands of fate
(and their God) by elites that privatise the State and monopolise the lion’s
share of economic resources and opportunities. They have been delivered
up as ideal recruits to purveyors of religious or ethnic intolerance, taken
in by promises of instant wealth through criminal activities of all kinds
and thrown into confusion by an unceasing flood of information, fake
models and illusions from all over the globalised world. More times than
not, citizens do not have the tools to interpret or put into perspective. So
what good does it do if it does not bring their countries greater peace,
security, economic prosperity, or social cohesion? It is all very well to
have freedom of expression and the vote, but what is that worth when you
are in physical danger or food insecure? The list of African countries that
have fallen prey to armed conflicts, violent political crises, or situations of
government collapse or breakdown continues to grow, despite the spread
of the democratisation process. Under such conditions, it is impossible to
WHAT TYPE OF DEMOCRACY DOES AFRICA NEED? OSIWA.ORG
continue to make people believe that democratisation necessarily leads
to greater peace, security and happiness.
Theoretical analysis, and the political experience of numerous
countries on every continent, shows that there is no simple nor systematic causal link between democracy, political stability and the prevalence
of peace, or between democracy and economic progress. The temporal
variable, as well as the characteristics of actual political practices (whether
or not the regime is officially democratic), are decisive. In contemporary
history, we can point to as many countries that have experienced long
periods of peace and stability under patently authoritarian regimes as
democratic regimes incapable of ensuring stability and security for their
populations. We also know that some authoritarian regimes have been
capable of achieving significant economic, social, educational and technological progress in their countries while other democratic regimes and
official democracies have kept their populations in material, moral and
cultural distress.
The two great Asian powers, China and India, have achieved remarkable, long-term economic and social progress, the first under a
highly organised and openly authoritarian regime, the second as the
most populous democratic country in the world, which always organises
elections on schedule despite the formidable logistical and financial challenges involved. The case of India serves as a reminder that it is possible
to run a functional democracy in a context of great poverty, extreme
ethnic and religious diversity and even social stratification anchored in
tradition. It also shows that the democratic option does not solve every
problem. Democracy does not always protect a country from high levels
The
Establishment of
false democracies in Africa
is a threat to the survival
of the ideal of authentic
democracy and to the
continued existence of the
most credible democratic
regimes on the continent.
of corruption or inefficiency in the provision of services by the State and
social injustice.
If it is reduced to the reality of exercising the sovereignty of the people,
the democratic option will not enable African countries to resolve the
pressing major issues faced by their societies. It is only when democracy is
sound and solidly established in the minds of the elite and a critical mass of
citizens that it can give the full measure of its benefits, its ability to resolve
conflicts peacefully and to impose rules on the different groups with their
OPENSPACE NOVEMBER 2014 41
People’s choice
contradictory interests which safeguard the essential: a certain idea of the
public good. African democracies, whether they are advanced or merely
facades, are very young and will have to wait some time before they can
benefit from the advantages of consolidated democracies. Meanwhile,
they have no protection from authoritarian reflux, from hijacking by the
elite and foreign powers that do not truly wish for anchoring of democracy
or from self-destruction if they do not bring concrete and positive results
in terms of well-being for the people.
Meanwhile, what Africa needs are regimes that are both democratic
and efficient in producing and consolidating effective and efficient States.
Because many people confuse the democratisation process and the State
consolidation process, and the failures of the latter are often ascribed to
the former. For African countries that currently only have States with no
real capacity for action on their own territory in terms of security and
the economy, organising democratic elections is less of a priority than
restoring a minimum of State authority. In every country on the continent,
the consolidation of States in their capacity to act continues to pose a
major challenge that is not to be confused with democratic ambition.
Present-day Rwanda is an interesting example. Everyone knows that the
regime embodied by President Paul Kagame fails to meet the criteria of
an advanced democratic regime that makes respect for human rights a
priority. However, no one who has set foot in the country in recent years
can deny the reality of the progress achieved in a few years in numerous
areas that are vital for the day-to-day lives of Rwanda’s people, thanks to
public authorities with a proven ability to transform a real political vision,
even if it is hardly democratic, into concrete action.
The progress achieved by Rwanda remains fragile, since it is not known
whether the changes in the country launched under Kagame will live on
beyond his presidency… and whether his will be able to escape the trap into
which non democratic regimes so often fall, that of being unable to adjust
to a new environment in time, by releasing their authoritarian stranglehold
on the population. Certain African elites are tempted to view the Rwandan
example as a demonstration that “enlightened” authoritarian regimes are
better able to bring security, stability and economic development to their
countries, or at least better than democratic regimes. This hypothesis, and
the logical recommendation that entails, are both facile and risky. There
is no known recipe for making sure that an autocrat will be “enlightened”,
will always remain so and will be able to create the conditions to ensure
that the good work done for the country is sustainable. The superiority
of democratic regimes resides in their ability to create the conditions for
their own renewal over the long term. The Rwanda example, whose initial
tragic and highly unusual circumstances should not be forgotten, should
instead motivate Africans to design and set in place regimes that fully
safeguard democratic values while ensuring that the State has the means
to exist and take effective action for the public good. This path is surely
much more demanding than pursuing illusory enlightened autocracies.
Africa needs democratic regimes that are innovative, demanding and
designed with future generations in mind
How many times have we heard African personalities, including Heads
of State, answer criticisms of departures from democratic practices in
their country by evoking the “foreign and imposed” nature of Western
democracy? How many times have we heard African political actors, and
42 OPENSPACE NOVEMBER 2014
also intellectuals and experts in seminars, explaining that the Western
democratic model cannot be anchored in African countries because it is
purportedly not suited to African social, cultural and economic realities?
These views are justifiable. All the more so since nowhere has the
emergence and establishment of democracy as a standard political regime
followed a linear process, and nowhere have major political changes
taken place independently of economic and social evolution and interest
struggles between national social and political groups, generally backed
by competing external supporters.
Western democracies themselves are not as old as they would have us
believe, and for many decades they exported or encouraged in Africa and
elsewhere the most authoritarian forms of government and those least
respectful of human rights in the framework of colonisation or implicit
domination. The call for democratisation by the major powers, with the
exception of China, is very recent and continues to vary according to circumstances, depending on the strategic interests of the different parties.
African
Democracies,
whether they are advanced
or merely facades, are very
young and will have to wait
some time before they can
benefit from the advantages
of consolidated democracies.
But can we and should we continue to hide behind our denunciation of
foreign powers’ hypocritical promotion of democracy, which masks an
actual opposition to democratic values or, at best, the inability of the elites
to develop democratic regimes that are “tailored” to African realities? As
long as what is meant by African realities remains unexplained, the call
for the “Africanisation” of democracy is suspicious.
Is it the general idea of sovereignty of the people that would seem to
be incompatible with African realities? Is it the dictate that society must
be run based on laws that protect individual freedoms? Is it the primacy
of individual rights over the collective rights of the community? Is it the
principle of the separation of executive, legislative and judiciary powers?
Or the principle of independent justice? Must the fundamental values
and principles underlying democracy be adapted to African realities, or
WHAT TYPE OF DEMOCRACY DOES AFRICA NEED? OSIWA.ORG
How many times
have we heard African
political actors, and also
intellectuals and experts in
seminars, explaining that
the Western democratic
model cannot be anchored
in African countries because
it is purportedly not suited
to African social, cultural
and economic realities?
the rules and procedures supposed to organise the democratic running
of a country, as duly enshrined in their constitutions? If the African elites
believe that these fundamental values are ill-suited to the status and
aspirations of their societies, then there is a real problem that should
lead to a responsible decision to renounce the democratic option rather
than accepting schizophrenic seclusion in the register of fake democracies. If our doubts are not about values, but rather the specific choice of
a democratic constitutional model, then the problem is much less serious
and the requirement of adaptation to African realities is not only justifiable
but even indispensable.
The reality that must be particularly taken into account is the great
internal diversity of African countries, societies and populations, including
ethnic, religious, socioeconomic, cultural and educational diversity. In
many African countries, this diversity, which ought to be an asset and
certainly is not unique to Africa, takes the form of a polarised society,
which soon leads to intolerance, exclusion and violence. Countless violent
conflicts have been tragically aggravated by political mobilisation of
ethnicity or religion. The democratic regimes that Africans need should
enable them to discourage these dangerous approaches to politics, by
explicitly including sanctions and incentives in their constitutions aimed
at setting clear limits on the means that can be mobilised by political
actors in the conquest or conservation of power.
The enshrinement in most African constitutions of the great principles
of equality between citizens, respect for diversity, protection of ethnic
and religious minorities, non-discrimination in access to political and
OPENSPACE NOVEMBER 2014 43
People’s choice
Democracy does not always protect a country
from high levels of corruption or inefficiency in the
provision of services by the State and social injustice.
administrative positions, etc., is not enough. Actual practice will remain
totally independent of those principles as long as there are no credible
sanction mechanisms or judicial institutions that are independent from the
political authorities and strictly enforce the law. By combining incentives
with ethical behaviour and sanctioning practices that sully the exercise
of democracy, the powerful and noxious influence of dirty money over
political life can be mitigated in African countries. Truly enforceable regulation of the financing of political activities is an urgent need in African
countries, in a context of growing criminalisation in many States.
As we can see, Africa needs very complex democratic regimes
designed to handle the complexity of its countries and the security,
economic, social and cultural challenges they must meet. It does not need
“kpayo” democracies – a term used in Benin to describe the purportedly
poor-quality petrol massively smuggled in from neighbouring Nigeria,
where petroleum products are subsidised. The continent has no chance
of experiencing greater peace, stability, economic prosperity or social
cohesion unless it renounces the choice of facility that is always a choice
of poor quality, short-sightedness and renunciation of ethics.
The democratic regimes that African countries need must be designed
to promote the emergence of a type of society that is both what we want
for future generations and suited to today’s realities. The future is what
counts. The fundamental requirement for African political regimes is
that they send very clear messages regarding the values we want African
societies to be identified with in the future, even though we know very well
that actual practice will never be in total conformity. African countries
in their diversity can and must draw inspiration from existing models of
democracy in their great variety to design, test and implement their own
models – ones which will be resolutely modern because they are turned
towards the future and free from all complexes inherited from History.
****
Political analyst and economist, Dr Gilles Olakounle
Yabi spent seven years as senior political analyst and
then project director for the West Africa Project of the
International Crisis Group, a think-tank dedicated to conflict
prevention and resolution. He led the research, policy, advocacy and
media work of the organization in West Africa during three particularly
difficult years for the region (2011-2013), with a deadly post-electoral
44 OPENSPACE NOVEMBER 2014
conflict in Côte d’Ivoire, uncertain political transitions in Guinea and
Guinea-Bissau, outburst of violence in northern Nigeria and a brutal
collapse of Mali threatening the wider Sahel region. With a PhD in
economics from the University of Clermont-Ferrand in France, Gilles
also worked as a journalist for the weekly magazine Jeune Afrique.
After leaving Crisis Group in November 2013, Gilles has been working
as independent consultant in the fields of conflict analysis, security
and political governance in West Africa. He also publishes articles and
editorials on his blog: Le Blog de Gilles Yabi (http://gillesyabi.blogspot.
com). He is now focusing on establishing the WATHI, a participative
and multidisciplinary think tank on West African crucial issues
expected to start its activities in 2015.