CNN: Can Democracy Thrive in Africa?

[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.

[Bob's World]

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

I assume you mean keep throwing good money after bad? It is our most likely course, but I doubt it is one that will produce more than a largely ineffective mitigation of the symptoms of the problems there.

Bad systems and bad policies breed untold problems. For example, if one really wanted to curb corruption in Afghanistan they would begin by fixing the constitution that sets conditions that make corruption inevitable; not by arresting some dumb bastard thrown under the bus by his equally corrupt political rivals. But it is easier to just hack at those branches; and as you say, it requires no vision to do so.

[Dayuhan]

Tom, interesting thread, but I want to return to your seemingly minor point. As a political scientist and an old guy, I assert that for democracy to exist three conditions need to be present:
1. Free, competitive, and periodic elections to select leaders open to a majority of the adult population as voters.
2. Sufficient freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly so that electoral campaigns can be organized and policies widely debated.
3. An impartial mechanism for the settlement of disputes that in most Western states is an independent court system. (Not required is American style judicial review - see the UK.)
If all of these conditions are not present, then you do not have democracy but something else. What that something else is may be "good" or "bad" but it is not democracy. I would argue that this definition is both universal and necessary for the concept of democracy to have any meaning.

I’d have to add the need for some sort of institutionalized method of protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority… possibly not a requirement for democracy to exist, but probably necessary to make democracy any more attractive than the alternatives. Granted, an impartial mechanism for the settlement of disputes might in some sense embrace this, but even an impartial court system will not necessarily protect minorities if the majorities are making the laws.

I assume you mean keep throwing good money after bad? It is our most likely course, but I doubt it is one that will produce more than a largely ineffective mitigation of the symptoms of the problems there.

Bad systems and bad policies breed untold problems. For example, if one really wanted to curb corruption in Afghanistan they would begin by fixing the constitution that sets conditions that make corruption inevitable; not by arresting some dumb bastard thrown under the bus by his equally corrupt political rivals. But it is easier to just hack at those branches; and as you say, it requires no vision to do so.

How much vision does it require to see that it is neither our responsibility nor our right to diagnose the root causes of other people’s problems or to impose our own preferred solutions? We may choose to try to alleviate symptoms if it makes us feel better to do so, or if we believe that failure to do so would compromise our interests. Attempts to fix other countries, however, are generally uncalled for and rarely effective.

It might be true that “if one really wanted to curb corruption in Afghanistan they would begin by fixing the constitution”, but unless one is an Afghan one might be better advised to back off and mind one’s own business.

[Bob's World]

I’d have to add the need for some sort of institutionalized method of protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority… possibly not a requirement for democracy to exist, but probably necessary to make democracy any more attractive than the alternatives. Granted, an impartial mechanism for the settlement of disputes might in some sense embrace this, but even an impartial court system will not necessarily protect minorities if the majorities are making the laws.



How much vision does it require to see that it is neither our responsibility nor our right to diagnose the root causes of other people’s problems or to impose our own preferred solutions? We may choose to try to alleviate symptoms if it makes us feel better to do so, or if we believe that failure to do so would compromise our interests. Attempts to fix other countries, however, are generally uncalled for and rarely effective.

It might be true that “if one really wanted to curb corruption in Afghanistan they would begin by fixing the constitution”, but unless one is an Afghan one might be better advised to back off and mind one’s own business.

...only that we have a duty to understand what it is that actually must be done in order to get off of the path to instability, and onto the path toward stability. In the end, the Host nation must choose the path, and take their own journey. If we make the decision for them, or carry them down the path it is not likely to be an effective engagement as it will lack the legitimacy of self determination and popular sovereignty.

I post these thoughts not to prescribe what we must do, only to help us understand what must be done. There is a difference. Less is more. We over engage currently, often in the wrong places and in ineffective ways. DOD is reconfiguring itself currently to go even deeper down this path, I understand why they are doing that (we need to do something, and DOD is an action organization), but I believe the nuances of how to achieve success are not well represented by organizations such as CNAS that has the SEC DEF's ear.

This will all balance out, an over correction is probably better than no correction at all. But I believe that COL Gentile plays a critical role as well, in persistently reminding that there are still states that must be deterred, and wars that will need to be fought when deterrence fails. I would add to that that we must evolve to learn how to expand deterrence in new ways beyond state structures as we move into the future. We are indeed in an age of strategic uncertainty, where we end up on the other side will depend on how well we navigate in the fog and darkness, and how well we can focus on where we are going, not on where we came from.

Powers rise and fall in these historic cycles of uncertainty, and arguably the US was the first power to rise in the current cycle, and we need two hands to count all of those that have fallen. This cycle is likely to be several generations long, so the question is not who was first to rise, but rather who will be last. I believe that the US, for all of its current challenges has the best prospects to be last man standing; but only if we remain committed to our principles as a nation that brought us here (not the current values we assess to those principles), and continue to embrace change. To resist it and seek to consolidate and hold the world static is to be bypassed or defeated by those who continue to press.

[Dayuhan]

I post these thoughts not to prescribe what we must do, only to help us understand what must be done. There is a difference. Less is more.

Possibly I misinterpreted this, posted on another thread dealing with the same subject...

Soooo, snipe at the symptoms, but ignore the problems?

I have to go with Henry David Thoreau on this one:

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

I choose to hack at the root.

"I choose to hack at the root" seems to go beyond merely understanding what must be done, but possibly I overextended the metaphor.

[davidbfpo]

A focus on Zimbabwe, the intricate power play by that superb player Robert Mugabe, but it was the last paragraph that caught my attention:

Professor Goran Hyden of the University of Florida gives a very precise summation in his paper entitled “Between State and Community: Challenges to redesigning governance in Africa” by saying:

“Recent deliberations over what to do with the problematic forms of governance in Zimbabwe shows that the rule that you are either with me or against me continues to be a powerful force in deciding relations between African heads of state and the rest of the world” (2006:16).

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/cliffor...-08-25%2018:05

[JMA]

A focus on Zimbabwe, the intricate power play by that superb player Robert Mugabe, but it was the last paragraph that caught my attention:

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/cliffor...-08-25%2018:05

Realism must prevail here. The Greeks and Romans started trials with this democracy thing hundreds of years ago but the 1967 coup d'état (Greece) and fascism in Italy (1922-43) proves how fragile this whole democracy thing can be. Stable democracy in Africa? Not in the lifetimes of anyone alive today.