CNN: Can Democracy Thrive in Africa?

[Tom Odom]

CNN started an interesting series today with this article online. As stated in the article, the answer to the question is much shaped by the definition of democracy.

Editor's note: This year 17 African nations mark 50 years of independence from their former colonial rulers. Eight of those countries celebrate their anniversary in August, they include Benin, Ivory Coast and Gabon. CNN.com is marking this major milestone with special coverage in August analysing the continent's past, present and future.

(CNN) -- When African countries gained independence from 1960 onwards, they faced the challenge of building their structures from scratch.

Their former European masters had mostly not encouraged the idea of accountability and any pre-colonial institutions had been destroyed, according to most historians.

Recent events in Rwanda echo my concerns that President Kagame may be his own worst enemy: he just was reelected President for another 7 years but key leaders whom I was relatively close to in the 90s have now been arrested on various charges. That is a significant drift toward the arbitrary decision-making common to big man politics away from the consensus building that used to be the norm.

Time will tell

Tom

[Pete]

When Rwanda boiled over in '94 I was working as a contractor for the U.S. Army Medical Materiel Agency at Fort Detrick, Md. We had some Cipro stored in a U.S. Army warehouse in the Persian Gulf region shipped to CONUS for potential trans-shipment to Rwanda to treat the diarrheal diseases breaking out there. If I recall correctly the U.S. part of the humanitarian assistance effort there never materialized.

[Tom Odom]

When Rwanda boiled over in '94 I was working as a contractor for the U.S. Army Medical Materiel Agency at Fort Detrick, Md. We had some Cipro stored in a U.S. Army warehouse in the Persian Gulf region shipped to CONUS for potential trans-shipment to Rwanda to treat the diarrheal diseases breaking out there. If I recall correctly the U.S. part of the humanitarian assistance effort there never materialized.

I was on the ground in Goma for the refugee crisis in which some 70K died from cholera. The US effort was substantial including airlift and supplies. The focus on the effort was water distribution with purification a secondary. The counter-diarrheal effort was not the priority as the deaths were quick--most efforts were to provide rehydration salts and again safe water to prevent further spread. The JTF itself spread out from JTF-A with me in Goma, to Entebbe, and Kigali. Goma with Bukavu as a secondary was the focus for the humanitarian effort. That had its costs politically and strategically in the following years as those efforts did little for victims of the genocide even as we helped those responsible for the genocide.

Tom

Tom

[M-A Lagrange]

Recent events in Rwanda echo my concerns that President Kagame may be his own worst enemy[/URL]: he just was reelected President for another 7 years but key leaders whom I was relatively close to in the 90s have now been arrested on various charges. That is a significant drift toward the arbitrary decision-making common to big man politics away from the consensus building that used to be the norm.

Tom,

I believed you read that one: Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better Way For Africa from Dambisa Moyo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dambisa_Moyo

Interesting book written by a native African who worked for the World Bank. Her demonstration on how aid has been supporting the non democratization of Africa is interesting (I stay mostly unconvinced but she does have arguments).
I am personally not convinced that enlighten dictatorship could be in any how the solution, as she proposes. Ivory Coast is a good example of the counter effectiveness of that option.

About the consensus process of decision making… I am even less convinced. We did not witness the same but I was not in the same circles neither.
I believe that the problem lay deeper. Look at the Sudan elections. They were not free, fair and transparent and every body said it was a good election for an African Country. I do believe the problem is there: acceptance of low standards for Africa.
We shall probably never agree on Kagame but I do recognise that he developed his country. The problem now is to have an after Kagame. Same question for Uganda and the after Museweni. The After Kabila (or Kabila renewal) is also problematic. Not even talking of the Wade flirting with authoritarian regime.

The AU decision about ICT is not so much based on a consensus that on the fear of ending up in jail by several members of that noble assembly.

Actually countries like Botswana seems to do good and South Africa remain strong.

M-A

[Tom Odom]

M-A

While I don't disagree with most of your concerns, i would question the statement regarding acceptance of low standards for Africa. By that I mean whose standards and whose acceptance are we questioning? I agree that in a western sense much is indeed adrift if not absolutely of course when it comes to African leaders. But do our standards count when they are largely dismissed by the Africans' themselves?

It is easy to get irate about Mugabe in Zimbabwe; it is equally fruitless when the greater community of African leadership closes ranks around him in the face of external criticism. My bottom line has been for sometime, if the people with the leadership issue are not inclined, willing, or courageous enough to seek change then I am equally disinclined to suggest forceable change by whatever means.
Best
Tom

[M-A Lagrange]

M-A

While I don't disagree with most of your concerns, i would question the statement regarding acceptance of low standards for Africa. By that I mean whose standards and whose acceptance are we questioning? I agree that in a western sense much is indeed adrift if not absolutely of course when it comes to African leaders. But do our standards count when they are largely dismissed by the Africans' themselves?

After the last elections in Sudan, the Russian special envoy said that the elections were good quality for Africa.
For me this is exactly what I call the acceptance of low standards. To please some African leaders, we accept that international standards can be lowered to evaluate thing in Africa. Basically what I do not accept is the: "everybody knows that Africa is a mess...", "in Africa, corruption, nepotisum... are cultural..." approach. The idea that Africa cannot be as good as any other part of the world.
I am also a little up set/frustrated by the African leaders who purposely do not seeck to elevate their countries but try to pretend that because Africa is different, they do have the right to have low standards for anything. Most of the people I have inter act with in Africa expect good governance, quality services delivery, reliable security forces... They do not accept the discours from some leaders who look into history to excuse themselves for have low quality governance, kleptocraty, corruption...
I believe the acceptance of low standards comes from both sides: African leaders who do not what to change a system they do profite actually and from the external actors who support them in this.

It is easy to get irate about Mugabe in Zimbabwe; it is equally fruitless when the greater community of African leadership closes ranks around him in the face of external criticism. My bottom line has been for sometime, if the people with the leadership issue are not inclined, willing, or courageous enough to seek change then I am equally disinclined to suggest forceable change by whatever means.

Bashing Mugabe is easy but actually his discourse is coherent from A to Z from the first day to the last. But that does not make him the choice of his people.

The change has to come from Africa, that is sure. But that does not mean that promotion of high quality values has to be dropped. Forcing changes does not work and does support the old guard.
Actually there is a complaisance in Africa in this state of distress.
But interresting enough, some African Leaders are now looking for achosen colonisation:
This time for Africa: Africa calling Indian farmers

ASSOCHAM, India’s apex industry body, has sent a proposal to the external affairs ministry to consider tapping the emerging agricultural opportunities in Africa and offering to act as a facilitator to help Indian farmers reap the benefits of the huge potential that lie in Africa.
“Hoping to address the huge issue of food shortage, these countries have begun inviting overseas farmers to come and cultivate their lands. These governments are willing to lease land free of cost for 99 years”, ASSOCHAM secretary general DS Rawat said.
Farmers were free to cultivate the land and raise any crop and sell it to the domestic market and also export.
“It is a win-win situation for the farmers and for the African governments”, said Assocham director Om S Tyagi.
“Since the lease is for 99 years, it means that a farmer is in control of the land for his life time. It means land for roughly around three generations,” he said.
The countries that were in the forefront trying to attract agriculturists were Sudan and Ethopia, he said.

http://farmlandgrab.org/14776

M-A

[John T. Fishel]

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.

Cheers

JohnT

[Tom Odom]

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.

Cheers

JohnT

JohnT

As a westerner I would agree. As an Africanist interpreting probable African reactions, maybe so, maybe not, depending on whom you speak to and of what you speak.

M-A

Reference the debate on assistance, here are the relevant pieces from the CNN series:

Why foreign aid is important for Africa

Nairobi, Kenya (CNN) -- The idea that those who have should share with those who don't is inherent in most societies -- insects, animals and humans alike.

Sharing is essential to maintain and protect the collective, and empathy is an essential value of what it is to be human. It is inhuman to watch another dying of hunger and not share when you have more than enough to eat.

International aid is the instrument by which this very human practice occurs in modern times across borders, and should ordinarily not be controversial. But it is -- very much so....

Why foreign aid and Africa don't mix

By Robert Calderisi, Special to CNN
Friday, Charles Abugre of the UN Millennium Campaign writes for CNN about why aid is important for Africa and how it can be made more effective.

(CNN) -- I once asked a president of the Central African Republic, Ange-Félix Patassé, to give up a personal monopoly he held on the distribution of refined oil products in his country.

He was unapologetic. "Do you expect me to lose money in the service of my people?" he replied.

That, in a nutshell, has been the problem of Africa. Very few African governments have been on the same wavelength as Western providers of aid....

Now I will say that in offering the 2 sides to the question, the 2 commentators are talking apples versus oranges. the first centers on food and aid in general and disaster assistance specifically. When he does refer to developmental assistance, he uses Asia to make a positive case. The second uses the developmental definition for assistance. He is, however, honest enough to say that some countries have broken the dependency mold he uses as an argument against assistance.

Best
Tom