CNN: Can Democracy Thrive in Africa?

[Uboat509]

I was in Niger during this most recent coup and for several months afterwards. The CSRD is apparently doing all the right things to transition back to some form of representative democracy but I would argue that even if everything goes the way that it is planned now, that the corruption, nepotism and patronage will still be there eating away at whatever positive moves that the new government makes. Until you get rid of that rot, throwing a veneer of "Western style" democracy isn't going to be successful and you won't get rid of that rot until Africans themselves decide to get rid of it themselves.

[Pete]

In terms of U.S foreign policy, what to do about "failed states" -- or whatever we decide to call them -- might turn out to be to 21st century foreign policy as Containment of communism was to the 20th. Should other terrorist strikes on U.S. or European soil be mounted from any of these places a quick retaliatory strike disproportionate enough to send an emphatic message could be a more desirable policy option than years of having troops on the ground conducting COIN operations. A few weeks ago the Washington Post reported that a new kind of high-explosive technology every bit as destructive as nukes is being developed, and for some decades the U.S. would be the sole possessor of the weapon.

[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.

[Dayuhan]

I was in Niger during this most recent coup and for several months afterwards. The CSRD is apparently doing all the right things to transition back to some form of representative democracy but I would argue that even if everything goes the way that it is planned now, that the corruption, nepotism and patronage will still be there eating away at whatever positive moves that the new government makes. Until you get rid of that rot, throwing a veneer of "Western style" democracy isn't going to be successful and you won't get rid of that rot until Africans themselves decide to get rid of it themselves.

It is true that Africans will have to get rid of that rot themselves. It's also true that it's likely to take them a while to do it, just as it took us a while to do it. The glossy version of our own history that we teach in school often leads us to forget - if we ever knew it - that for much of our own history corruption, nepotism, and patronage were as prevalent as they are in Africa today. The same is true of Europe, which for much of its history experienced not only corruption, nepotism, and patronage but a level of political violence far greater than what we see in Africa today.

Africa's process of political definition may have been arrested by colonialism, but once resumed, why should we assume that it would run more smoothly or peacefully than similar processes elsewhere?

[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.

[John T. Fishel]

In fact, Dayuhan, the argument you make is much the same as that made during the ratification debate over the US constitution. Many of those present at the Convention argued that a Bill of Rights was not needed because the structure of the govt protected rights... I would argue that the minimal conditions of the definition I proposed generally protect minority rights through the requirement for sufficient freedom of speechm press, assembly, and religion coupled with an impartial independent mechanism for disput settlement minimally protect the rights of the minoriities. Of course, I would never object to getting specific in the constitution of a state.

Cheers

JohnT

[Dayuhan]

I would argue that the minimal conditions of the definition I proposed generally protect minority rights through the requirement for sufficient freedom of speechm press, assembly, and religion coupled with an impartial independent mechanism for disput settlement minimally protect the rights of the minoriities. Of course, I would never object to getting specific in the constitution of a state.

And I would argue that given the frequency and vigor with which minorities are stomped by majorities even when structural protections are present, the protection needs to be as specific as possible, and needs regular review to see that it's actually functioning.

It is an old argument; dress us up archaic and we could re-enact the debates of the founding fathers. The debate endures because the issue is so fundamental to any system based on majority rule.

[Fuchs]

The best protection for minorities is not written on paper, but based on party power games.

A minority can become a key player, even a king-maker. It can be the decisive few per cent in a democracy. It can play the role of state-loyal group that is above average involved in national authorities.

The truly powerless minorities are those which
- have no economic power
- are not represented in state authorities (especially executive positions such as justice, police, city planning)
- have no own party, nor do form a wing of a powerful party


The Turkish people in Germany are such a minority. The only thing that's left for them is indeed the constitutional protection and the rule of law. They failed to gain influence through anything else. In fact, even much smaller minorities are much more powerful because of better political strategies.

[JMA]

The best protection for minorities is not written on paper, but based on party power games.

A minority can become a key player, even a king-maker. It can be the decisive few per cent in a democracy. It can play the role of state-loyal group that is above average involved in national authorities.

The truly powerless minorities are those which
- have no economic power
- are not represented in state authorities (especially executive positions such as justice, police, city planning)
- have no own party, nor do form a wing of a powerful party


The Turkish people in Germany are such a minority. The only thing that's left for them is indeed the constitutional protection and the rule of law. They failed to gain influence through anything else. In fact, even much smaller minorities are much more powerful because of better political strategies.

Ok, so where in Africa do we see a healthy multi-party democracy?

That not being in place where do we see a rock solid constitution with minority rights guarantees entrenched?

Economic power? That's an easy one. Just grab it and to hell with the consequences.

So Africa gets zero out of your three. As I said, not in the lifetimes of any living person...

[Fuchs]

It's a classic mistake to look at past & present and conclude from that on the future. Much can change.

My lifetime will (hope so) reach well beyond 2050. Africa's states will be about twice as old as now in 2050.

[Dayuhan]

Everything will change. How it will change, and how fast, and into what... these are things none of us know.

Western Europe took several centuries to define its internal political structures and move from rule by whimsical and generally inept hereditary autocrats to functioning democracy, and the process was accompanied by a level of violence that made Idi Amin look like Gandhi by comparison. Maybe the Africans can do better.

[JMA]

It's a classic mistake to look at past & present and conclude from that on the future. Much can change.

My lifetime will (hope so) reach well beyond 2050. Africa's states will be about twice as old as now in 2050.

Is it not also a classic mistake to make policy based on wishful thinking?

If grounds for short term optimism can be provided then please do so. Can't see the point of going to bed at nights with ones fingers crossed hoping that things will be different when one wakes in the morning.

Take Afghanistan and its tribal make-up... what are the chances of a great leap forward in the next 50 years there? Zip, nada, nothing. It would take a Peter the Great to drag that lot kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Chances of that happening?

[JMA]

Everything will change. How it will change, and how fast, and into what... these are things none of us know.

Western Europe took several centuries to define its internal political structures and move from rule by whimsical and generally inept hereditary autocrats to functioning democracy, and the process was accompanied by a level of violence that made Idi Amin look like Gandhi by comparison. Maybe the Africans can do better.

If you believe that past genocides in Europe excuse the same in Africa then that's fine. So we can chalk up a 1m person genocide as an improvement on a 5m person one, yes?

Feel so sad for the millions who are dying while others somewhere believe things are not that bad in Africa.

[JMA]

In fact, Dayuhan, the argument you make is much the same as that made during the ratification debate over the US constitution. Many of those present at the Convention argued that a Bill of Rights was not needed because the structure of the govt protected rights... I would argue that the minimal conditions of the definition I proposed generally protect minority rights through the requirement for sufficient freedom of speechm press, assembly, and religion coupled with an impartial independent mechanism for disput settlement minimally protect the rights of the minoriities. Of course, I would never object to getting specific in the constitution of a state.

Cheers

JohnT

In the African context who would enforce the provisions of such a constitution?

[Dayuhan]

If you believe that past genocides in Europe excuse the same in Africa then that's fine. So we can chalk up a 1m person genocide as an improvement on a 5m person one, yes?

Feel so sad for the millions who are dying while others somewhere believe things are not that bad in Africa.

Did I say things weren't bad, or that European genocides excuse African genocides? The point is simply that given human precedent elsewhere, we've no reason to expect anything other than what is, nor have we any reason to think we're superior. Neither have we any reason to think we should or could "fix" Africa. They need to work things out their own way, and it's likely to be ugly, just as it was for us.

[JMA]

Did I say things weren't bad, or that European genocides excuse African genocides? The point is simply that given human precedent elsewhere, we've no reason to expect anything other than what is, nor have we any reason to think we're superior. Neither have we any reason to think we should or could "fix" Africa. They need to work things out their own way, and it's likely to be ugly, just as it was for us.

Thanks for the clarification.

I would say that it is the very unwillingness to criticise or demand/expect better out of Africa for fear of being charged with superior behaviour or racism that contributes to the current state of affairs. And if the gang of thugs (the leadership) sitting in that AU (club) can prevent interference in the internal of sovereign states in respect to human rights abuses and the like then they can continue with impunity. They have reached that point where they have outsiders making excuses for their actions. Well done to them.

"fix" Africa? Africa cannot fix itself so what you want to do? Ring-fence it and them get on with it? Same for medieval Afghanistan?

[Dayuhan]

I would say that it is the very unwillingness to criticise or demand/expect better out of Africa for fear of being charged with superior behaviour or racism that contributes to the current state of affairs.

I'm not sure how my expectations or demands contribute to Africa's current state of affairs: I rather doubt that anyone in Africa gives a damn what I expect or demand. And while I would certainly hope that Africans will sort out their affairs faster and with less misery than Europeans, I'm not sure it would be reasonable to expect or demand it.

I suppose Africans might have had a hypothetical right to demand or expect better than they got from the gang of European thugs that ran the place during the age of colonies, but their expectations and demands meant as little in that time as ours do in this time.

And if the gang of thugs (the leadership) sitting in that AU (club) can prevent interference in the internal of sovereign states in respect to human rights abuses and the like then they can continue with impunity. They have reached that point where they have outsiders making excuses for their actions. Well done to them.

"fix" Africa? Africa cannot fix itself so what you want to do? Ring-fence it and them get on with it? Same for medieval Afghanistan?

The question of whether or not we should fix Africa seems somewhat moot until we consider the question of whether or not we can fix Africa. I don't think we can, though I suspect that we could mess it up even more. If you look at the number of dollars and troops we've applied to fixing Afghanistan, and then extrapolate based on relative size and population, it's fairly clear that we haven't a fraction of the dollars or troops that would be required to fix Africa. Then of course we have to consider that the dollars and troops so far applied to Afghanistan have yet to fix anything... I suppose we'll have to leave it to the Chinese, who have a lot more dollars and a lot more troops than we have. They'll choke on it of course, but so would we; better them than us.

Certainly the Africans can't fix Africa right away. Neither can we, or anyone else. I suspect that over the course of a century or two they can probably pull it off. For much of the 19th and 20th centuries East Asia and Latin America seemed beyond salvation; I'm not sure I'd call either "fixed", but they've managed considerable forward progress since we got it through our thick skulls that they needed to sort out their own affairs without our "help".