CNN: Can Democracy Thrive in Africa?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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?

[bjackson]

If African countries did away with corruption then democracy would strive.