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

[Rex Brynen]

A happen to be graphing the Freedom House scores for various regions the other day (as part of a project on the depressing state of political freedom in the Arab world), and I'll post the results here since they show Africa too. They show fairly clearly the improvement caused by so-called "third wave" democratization in the 1990s--and the subsequent stalling and even retrenchment as hybrid electoral-authoritarian regimes emerge.



Freedom House scores both political and civil liberties on a 1-7 scale, where 1=most free. Therefore, when looking at the graph a lower numerical score is "more free". I have some quibbles with their coding (especially pre-1990s), but I do with Polity IV and all the other quantitative indicators too.

[M-A Lagrange]

Rex,
Interesting graphic. Africa seems to enjoy a better democratic life than Arab countries.
What I “fear” the most at the moment in Africa is the tendency to look at other models than Westerns ones as better. Not that westerns models are better.
There is a strong tendency to justify autocratic regimes by looking into Asian models, especially China, to justify that democracy is not adapted to Africa. What I would not like to see is a similar reject of democracy because of economical unrelated non development. And that Africa falls in the same model/pit than Arab countries because of the failure of “democratic” regimes.
In addition, I would just say that I have seen excellent work made by individuals coming from South America or Asia in the electoral process in Sudan which has been completely undermined by Africans (not all of them far from it. ! or 2 but that’s enough to maintain a bad reputation). Why? Because they fear their neighbour most of the time or do not want to be confronted with issues. If no voice is raised then there is no problems. Hopefully things are changing.



Tom,

I do agree with you, using relief aid to justify the success or failure of development aid does not make a lot of sense. I am also “afraid” of the tendency to drop development aid on the shoulders of humanitarian organisations. Humanitarian/relief work is not development and vice versa.
The path between the 2 still needs to be found.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Bob's World]

I think its a bad label that confuses the point to call a people that come from a culture where "state" are a foreign concept and then judging them as "failed" when they don't do it well, or reject it altogether.

Kind of like characterizing Michael Jordan as a "Failed Baseball Player," yes, it is true, but it is a derogative label that misses the point altogether. Maybe we just need to help these guys get back to the form of governance that comes natural to them and stop trying to make them something they aren't.

This is why I think it is time to retire the "State Department" for a Foreign Office with State, and non-state departments within it.