CNN: Can Democracy Thrive in Africa?

[Pol-Mil FSO]

The latest edition of Der Spiegel has an article that reiterates the argument that development aid does more harm than good by fostering dependency:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...712068,00.html

That said, I think that the recent referendum in Kenya is a positive development - hopefully an opportunity to break away from an ethnic-based and corruption-fueled model of governance.

[Fuchs]

Africa has several problems that keep it from developing well (along its own paths).

Insufficient contact among African nations is one key problem (much traffic infrastructure such as railroads was built for overseas exports - orthogonal to the coastline - instead of for the connection of countries/then-colonies).

Another key problem is the lack of a middle class that could actually work out a path of development that works well.

Yet another key problem is the lack of an effective bureaucracy that can harness the workforce of the country.
(I read often of great unemployment and underemployment. This is essentially a waste of workforce. These people get fed anyway, with a bit more food they could be involved in productive projects (dams, irrigation systems, roads, buildings built with local materials, education, training and much more). The European model of a state fails so badly in Africa that they cannot even harness the country's workforce as well as ancient Egyptian Pharao's and Chinese emperors were able to.)


Western-style democracy isn't even close to perfection and doesn't need to be emulated - they might someday find and adopt a better model, at least a better one for themselves. Democracy needs to grow, it cannot simply be introduced. They need to develop the(ir) pillars of democracy, and that will likely involve the development of forms of democracy that suit their conditions.

[Rex Brynen]

Western-style democracy isn't even close to perfection and doesn't need to be emulated - they might someday find and adopt a better model, at least a better one for themselves.

I also suggest that we avoid using the term "Western style democracy." There little similarity between the structures of, say, the political-institutional structures of the UK, France, and the US.

Moreover, one could argue that the most successful example of a democratic parliamentary system—not in terms of quality, but certainly in terms of sheer number of voters and in certainly in terms of remarkable stability despite all the poverty and ethnic cleavages stacked against it—is.... India.

[John T. Fishel]

If one looks at India in terms of the definition I gave of democracy, one finds that it meets all 3 of the criteria I proposed. Does it do so in exactly the same way as the US, UK, France, or Germany (or any other established democracy)? No. But it does do so.

Cheers

JohnT

[Rex Brynen]

If one looks at India in terms of the definition I gave of democracy, one finds that it meets all 3 of the criteria I proposed. Does it do so in exactly the same way as the US, UK, France, or Germany (or any other established democracy)? No. But it does do so.

Cheers

JohnT

Yes, and you proofread too! God that last post of mine was full of typos...

[Bob's World]

(I posted this on another thread a few minutes ago, but it really fits better here):

Africa is a fascinating and troubled land, with many challenges. I believe firmly that bad systems produce bad results, and Africa has not been able to escape the vortex of borders and governance imposed upon them by others; nor the corrupting effects of the primary goal of virtually everyone who goes to Africa to extract some resource for their own profit elsewhere, with little inclination by outsider or insider alike to actually invest in Africa and her people alike.

Labels like "failed state" are not particularly helpful, as most of these are nations with fractured populaces and cultures that were not developed under a Westphalian construct of governance, but rather had these foreign concepts imposed upon them. Bad systems. I would really like to see our State Department step back from the current insanity gripping our own government and stop forming departments focused on things like "Counterterrorism," "Counterinsurgency" and "Democracy"; and instead recast themselves as a "Foreign Office" with the majority department being focused on States; but with a "Non-State" office designed to work policy and diplomacy with the ever growing in number, size and purpose family of powerful organizations (legal and illegal) outside of the state construct. I don't need a State Department to do CT, that is a very limited tactical mission done very well domestically by the FBI, and overseas by the CIA and SOF. Similarly there (IMO) really is no such thing as foreign COIN, only Domestic COIN. As to democracy, I have to side with our founding fathers on that one. No foreign power has the standing to tell any other populace how to govern as each has the inalienable right to self determination. Democracy itself is a dangerous concept in its pure form and must be contained and controlled within carefully designed and enforced limitations, such as we imposed with our Constitution when the Confederation threatened to destroy our young nation with the chaos of raw democracy. A "Self Determination" Division would serve us well. Again, bad structures lead to bad results and we are getting bad results from our policy as they are shaped and implemented in structures designed for a world emerging out of WWII that no longer exists.

Africa could probably profit from a lot less foreign charity and exploitation; and instead getting together to develop 3-4 EU-like structures committed to common security and economic development goals that do not eradicate the state structures, but rather that reconsolidates people with common heritages and shares resources more effectively. Not sure if they can get there but it seems to be the evolution of governance globally.

Just looking at Western Civilization over the past 2200 years or so as the Romans expanded their influence we went from Tribal to City States / Feudal to Westphalian States, to confederations of sovereign states (American States under the Articles of Confederation; the EU) to broader structures of shared sovereignty (USA under the Constitution; perhaps a United States of Europe some day as they evolve?)

I could see Africa growing in stability if they could work toward a similar path, where they could develop a few broad confederations that could someday evolve into large, powerful and stable nations, or something similar to that that makes sense in their cultures. One such structure could be a Caliphate. We should become the champion of such a concept, not the obstacle to.

The world is evolving; and we need to be careful that we don't wake up one day and find that we are standing on the wrong side of history. Each of those changes in governance structures I described above was associated with old powers falling away and new powers emerging. Each was also associated with some significant change in information technology (Roman Roads, nautical navigation, printing press, steam and internal combustion power harnessed, electronic communications) that brought isolated groups together into more effective alliances.

Too much of our efforts in Africa is just flailing at the symptoms of problems, rather than stepping back and taking a broader view.

[Pete]

Africa is a fascinating and troubled land, with many challenges. I believe firmly that bad systems produce bad results, and Africa has not been able to escape the vortex of borders and governance imposed upon them by others ...

Yet another visionary scheme to reform the world? For the time being at least we should be sure to keep our powder dry.

[M-A Lagrange]

Africa could probably profit from a lot less foreign charity and exploitation; and instead getting together to develop 3-4 EU-like structures committed to common security and economic development goals that do not eradicate the state structures, but rather that reconsolidates people with common heritages and shares resources more effectively. Not sure if they can get there but it seems to be the evolution of governance globally.

Sénégal: 50 ans après, l'éclatement de la Fédération du Mali dans l'oubli
La Fédération du Mali, formée en janvier 1959 à Dakar, regroupait initialement le Sénégal, le Soudan français, la Haute-Volta (Burkina Faso) et le Dahomey (Bénin).
Ces deux derniers pays s'en retirent très vite et laissent seuls Sénégalais et Soudanais dans cette aventure fédérale, boudée également par le dirigeant ivoirien Félix Houphouët Boigny.
Le Soudanais Modibo Keïta est président du gouvernement fédéral et le Sénégalais Léopold Sédar Senghor préside l'Assemblée fédérale.
La Fédération va sombrer notamment devant les difficultés du partage des postes (présidence et assemblée, ministère des Affaires étrangères, chef d'Etat-major de l'armée).
Elle éclate dans la nuit du 19 au 20 août 1960, les Sénégalais dénonçant une "tentative de coup d'Etat de Modibo Keita", accusation rejetée par les Soudanais.
Selon des historiens, la France n'a jamais été favorable à la Fédération du Mali et a oeuvré à son éclatement.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...8Tq7YmzGZ4-8hA

I translate:
50 later, the disbanded federation of Mali is forgotten
The federation of Mali, created on January 1959 in Dakar, was initially regrouping Senegal, French Sudan (Mali), Haute Volta (Burkina Faso) and Dahomay (Benin).
Those two last countries quickly quitted this federal adventure also not supported by the Ivorian president Felix Houphouet Boigny.
The Suadanese (Malian) Modibo Keita was president of the federation and the Senegalese Leopold Sedar Senghor president of the federal assembly.
The federation will fall mainly because of the difficulties to share power postings as president and assembly president, foreign affairs office, chief of the armies.
During the night of August 19 to 20, the federation will explode, the Senegalese denouncing a coup attent from Modobo Kaita. Accusation refuted by the Sudanese (Malian).
It is also said that France was not supportive and worked to its destruction.

Well, France did work to the destruction of this federation, I guess. But my point is not there. As so often in so many countries, sharing power is an issue and brings good idears on their knees.
A United State of Africa is just a dream for now. The main hiccup is that people in power do not feel confident enough in their position. And they have good reasons for that. The first one being the fact that most of them do not have support from their populations and even less from their armies.
The first thing to build in too many countries is a real national army which is not a competitor for civilian power and civilian entrepreneurs.
What ever you do, with or without aid, if you cannot pass the hiccup to have an army that is separated from power and whom officers are not allowed to interfere with the public debate and use the State assets to intimidate competitors… then you are building a useless fake state.
As anthropologists have shown, chiefs had to respond to their people and being chief was both enjoying privileges and the burden of real obligations. Most of the time, obligations were so heavy that it was worst being the chief.
But that went lost in time and now, too many believe that being in power is just enjoying privileges. But times are changing...

And Bob,
labels as failed states (or fake state should I say) are usefull as they allow to put a generic name on a reallity. That does not mean that failed states are all the same and exclusively Africa. To be very honest, the actual Iraki or Afghan governments are failed states.

the question is much more: now that we can name the disease, it's time to find a cure. Labelling is not curring and on that we do definitively agree.