Thursday, December 19, 2013

Africa After the 1960s – Exposing the Dark Side of African Politics



African countries may boast about improving democracy; but the survival of the continent’s ancient tyrants had continued to taint its governments.

Leaders versus Dinosaurs?

Except in the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius, no single African ruler was peacefully ousted at the ballot box between the continent’s independence from colonial rule in the early 1960s[i] and the end of cold war in 1991. However, when  Zambia’s Kenneth Kaunda and Mathieu Kerekou of Benin resigned from office in 1991, African voters appeared to have suddenly become politically active, kicking out as much as 30 of their leaders and ruling parties at the ballot box.  One of the unique features of African politics is the popularity of multi-party systems, which by far outnumber single-party ones.  On the positive side, when compared to the Arab world,  where so far almost no incumbent-ejected elections have taken place anywhere, Africa is doing better in terms of democratic governance[ii].


In spite  of this, many countries of Africa are still ruled  by too many dinosaurs whose time ought to have passed. As a matter of fact, it is only in Africa that you can find half of the world’s longest-serving rulers. What is certain is that some of these African leaders, particularly Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe(who assumed leadership of the country 34 years ago), began with what may be considered a genuine popular consent.  Another African leader who was very popular  when he became president about 26 years ago but who has no plan of relinquishing power is Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni. The aforementioned leaders, Robert Mugabe  and Yoweri Museveni, shares similar political agenda with several other old timers who, unfortunately, have been in charge of their country even longer: To hold onto power as long as they can. Notable among them are Tedoro Nguema of Equatorial Guinea (who pushed out his uncle in 1979); Jose Eduardo Dos Santos of Angola(whose Marxist philosophy enabled him to assume leadership of his country in 1979);  and Sudan’s Omar al-Barshir , who has presided over his country since 1989 and is wanted by the International Criminal Court  for alleged crimes against humanity. It is an acknowledged truth that if the citizens of the countries presided over by these dictators had more freedom, they will not allow them to calcify their positions as presidents. [iii]


Independent studies suggests that South Africa and Nigeria are the continent’s biggest democracies. [iv] Nevertheless, their citizens cannot boast of having a representative government. For instance, since 1994, South Africa has been under the leadership of the African National Congress – a party which, through its activities, has put the country in danger of becoming a de facto one-party state. In Nigeria, the politicians are so corrupt that the masses are so disgusted with that political philosophy called democracy. Of course, both countries had continued to witness the rise of billionaires at the top even though the masses, which constitute as much as 80 percent of their population, still live in penury[v].


When we look at economic indicators of the last five years, it will be tempting to suggest here that, at least in the short term,  only in Africa does  autocracy seem to favor economic growth. For instance, a country like Ethiopia, has seen its economy grow faster than those of its more democratic neighbors, even though it was ruled by the anti-democrat Meles  Zenawi.  In addition, the life of the Rwandans have improved a lot under the leadership of Paul Kagame – a ruthless and autocratic president. Furthermore, among the fastest growing countries in the world are Equatorial Guinea and Angola – growth rates that is fuelled by oil windfall.

Playing to Win – The Price of Democracy

In spite of the above near-good news, some African leaders like Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe has continued to be an epitome of bad leadership, pauperizing a once-rich country, thereby  becoming a real life evidence that the least-free countries are also the most economically backward.  For instance, according to the Mo Ibrahim Index of African governance, a foundation that helps to define, assess and enhance governance and leadership in Africa, most of the 300 desperate refugees who drowned off the Italian island of Lampedusa on October 3 were from Africa’s worst performers in political participation and human rights, particularly from Somalia and Eritrea. [vi]One of the key findings of this index is that, when viewed in the light of governance and leadership, it would be observed that countries can generally do well in economic development if, and only if, they are good performers in such areas as political participation and human right protection. The basic insight from this finding is that, given that democracy is the best guarantor of political participation, human right protection and peace, it makes sense to infer that it(that is, democracy) can serve as the best foundation for growth and development, especially in Africa.

The presence of Western influence as well as the activities of the nongovernmental organizations(NGOs) in Africa is obviously a good thing. They give succor and lessons in institution-building to the African people. On the negative side, they are losing their leverage in that regard, for one simple reason: While aid from the West  to Africa are conditional on more democracy and respect for human right, grants, loans and trade deals from China comes with no tiresome strings attached. As a result, the West has become less alluring to African leaders. So, given that African kleptocrats  are neither willing to give up power nor implement reforms that would improve their citizen’s standard of living, the onus is on African people to demand more of a say in the way their countries are run, including how its abundant natural resources are managed.  On the positive side, the advent of the internet and mobile phones is helping more Africans to argue and complain about politics and their life conditions, so Africans are actually changing, albeit slowly. One thing the African dinosaurs should understand is that it will not be a long time before their people will become more serious about demanding better government and due process.



NOTES




[i] About(2013): A Chronological List of Independence Dates in Africa. Retrieved December 19, 2013 from http://africanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/blIndependenceTime.htm

[ii] The Economist(2013): African Governance – Too Many Dinosaurs. Retrieved December 19, 2013 from http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21587787-too-many-dinosaurs

[iii] Ibid

[iv] Alence R.(2009): Democracy and Development in Africa. The Journal of International Institute, 16(2), 4-5.


[v] The Economist(2013): African Governance – Too Many Dinosaurs. Retrieved December 19, 2013 from http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21587787-too-many-dinosaurs


[vi] UNHCR (2013): Refugees Daily. Retrieved December 19, 2013 from http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&date=2013-10-11&cat=Africa

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Collapse of the Humanitarian Narrative Against Israel: The Truth Behind Gaza's Civilian Casualty Figures

  The humanitarian case against Israel collapses when scrutinized against the principles of just war and the manipulation tactics employed b...