Author: SEM Contributor
INTRODUCTION: When President Abraham Lincoln developed the concept of democracy, he principally meant participatory governance; …“a system of government of the people, by the people, and for the people“. His theory was later understood and popularized by the works of Barun de Montesquieu in ‘Separation of Powers’ and A.V Diecey’s ‘Rule of Law’ respectively. (Photo: Patrick Brima Kapuwa)
Today, especially among different academics and intellectual disciplines, the word ‘democracy’ is now subject to varied theoretical explanations. In this paper, I am set to investigating and analyzing the concept of Democracy/Democratic Peace (its contending challenges from a political and economic microscope) and at the end present my scholarly opinions on the possibility and survival of ‘democracy’ and the Democratic Peace Proposition especially relating it to the African situation. The hypothesis of this paper stems from the assumption that the concept of Democratic Peace as amplified by International Relations Scholars is impossible for the African political and economic dynamics, and that continuous and aggressive efforts to plant the democratic order as a dominant political ideology in Africa without due consideration to the traditional political and economic practices of what characterizes African Politics, is more likely to engulf the African region into a nasty grip of insecurity and bloody civil wars.
Political arguments against Democracy in Africa
My argument here is that Democratic governance as a major tenet of a liberal international order, thereby leading to Peace is fallacious and unfounded as far as Africa is concerned. This is not in any way to dismiss out rightly the relevance and possibility of the concept and practice of democracy elsewhere or even in Africa, I am more concern of its attendant outcomes. It has proven to be a successful case study in the United States, UK and other parts of Europe where several scholars have contributed to our general understanding of Democracy and the Democratic Peace Concept. David Held (1995): Democracy and the Global Order. From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance, Oxford), explains Democratic governance as been defined as the autonomous determination of the conditions of collective association’, being also connected with a collective self-determination by equal and free citizens, that should be able to choose freely the conditions of their own association’ and determine the form and direction of their polity’. It is also about a common structure of political action’, that should be neutral regarding the ‘relations and institutions which can be regarded as impartial or even-handed with respect to their personal ends, hopes and aspirations. While agreeing with David Held, it is my conviction that the possibility of a democratically governed African polity is considered to be incompatible with necessary conditions for democratic governance, or, on the other hand, with the necessary conditions for international structural change although the arguments regarding this ‘necessary conditions’ are not compelling. African democracy presents a real challenge, without being impossible and very difficult to explain causally. This is particularly so because the necessary conditions for an all out African democracy are rigid and incomprehensible base on several competing challenges such as the stateness component, the cultural homogeneity, a certain level of economic prosperity, and a certain level of economic equality. I shall explain more of this in subsequent paragraphs, but it is worth noting that several scholars/researchers of International Relations have added their voice to this debate with some contemporary comparisons. To them, ‘Global or Regional’ Wars like those that have paralyzed African political and economic order and the major historical events have brought a new wave of incertitude regarding the form and direction of their polity. Democracy has not ever been existing as a reality of choice to such sovereign states. Because of the democratic possibilities and tendencies, the legitimization of a global, overriding regional African interest/rule is hard to be proved. African democracy is strongly connected to the global democratic initiative, especially now, as it is in a deep crisis. Without this necessary dependence, democracy has no value, as it must be based on an open-ended process of democratization. On the other hand, the general assumption of the Democratic Peace theory according to Bruce Russet is that ‘Democracies never go to war with each other’ and that where they are constrained to do so, would rather clash with non-democracies. Bruce Russet summarizes his assumption that firstly, from a liberal/constructivist view point, because sister democratic states have the same democratic credentials, (participatory governance, human rights, shifting coalitions, toleration of dissent) requirements, culture, perceptions and practices that allow compromise and peaceful resolution of conflict without the threat of war; and secondly from a realist assumption that democracies don’t go to war with each other because of shared information on both sides about what states want and the risks they are willing to bear because with this open relations, debates about whether to go to war are strongly handled by the public. This defensive debate as to why Democracies don’t fight each other is further strengthened by Michael Doyle in his essay ‘Liberalism and World Politics (Dec,1986)’, in which he emphasizes that liberal democratic states are different as they are peaceful among themselves and are prone to make war on non-liberal states. The nucleus of Doyle’s assumption is that a liberal state/government founded on respect for individuals, exercises’ restraint and ‘peaceful intention’ in their foreign policy, because at the domestic level he argues, respect for human rights, freedoms, participatory governance, entrenched autonomous state institutions restrains the government/state at the international level thus leading to a peaceful foreign policy.
Having briefly highlighted the contextual demands of the Democratic Peace concept, I would want to narrow it to what democracy means to Africa, the way it is been ‘exported’ by the west (USA and UK) and the contending challenges and implications such political actions have had and continue to have on the general security of African nations. Again I will like to register that Democracy is not the only means that can ensure peace between states of either the same political characteristics or contrasting characteristics. On Bruce Russet’s rather short sighted essay, my take here is that democracy been a relative term should also allow it’s relativity to a varied dynamism. By this I mean that the parameters with which the West/Western democracies used to measure ‘democratic credentials/practices, (especially USA/BRITAIN) should not be used as universal indicators especially for Africa. This is because, it has been proven that owing to the nature of some civilizations (history, norms and identities) it will be difficult to have a one straight jacket to fit all. Since democracy is an imported political ideology, for it to have meaning and general acceptability, it should be tuned to the individual civilizations in which it is been exported. Let the concept of “Asian democracy” for example (taking into consideration the historical hierarchical nature of the political order using a social driving force for its communist ideology,) be construed completely differently from a western concept of democracy like the USA which uses capitalism to advocate for a liberal world order (democracy, human rights, freedoms, civil society groups). This same goes for an understanding of African democracy which emphasises on the supremacy of traditional state institutions such as Chieftaincy). It is thus only through this case by case scenario of democracy, that can ensure a democratic peace, but any attempt by the West in particular (importers of democracy) to force their own ideological concept of democracy as one fit all is a recipe for chaos. If China through its socialist communism has enjoyed relative peace since 1949 (no major political unrest save the Tiananmen Square incident), then it will be prudent to accept this concept of democracy as long as it continue to improve on its peaceful relations with its Asian neighbours and the rest of the world. Secondly, I totally agree with Bruce Russet that Democratic Countries because of shared information, norms, common trade, and values it is very much unlikely to go to war with each other. Before the advent or exportation of the Western style of democracy in Africa, there was no history an African country going to war with another simply because of varying political ideologies/systems. This was because they relatively enjoyed inter-state trade, and cooperation that made them peaceful. You don’t need to be a democracy before you decide to fight or not to fight another country of either democratic or non-democratic status. We have seen instances were democracies and non-democracies enjoy peace and do not go to war. The current economic relations/interdependence between China and the USA today further renders the argument limited. China, though not a democracy has very high investments in the USA (a Democracy) with a greater portion of it’s economic development tied to such investments in the USA vice-versa. America knowing China to be a non democracy (at least by their own standards) still highly depends on China for its economic growth both domestically and external. If this explanation is indeed true (actual fact as it is), then you will agree with me that because of this high level of economic interdependence, it will be difficult for both to go to war with each other. Thus my argument that it is not democracy alone that has the potential of ensuring peace between states, but other factors such as Economic Interdependence will ensure peace between Democracies and non-democracies as it is currently seen in the China-USA asymmetry relationship. In conclusion, Bruce Russet presupposes in his Democratic Peace Theory that, democracy means the absence of a threat or war, but what if all nation states in the world were democracies, would that mean world peace or the absence of threat? Of course not.
Ali Manzrui’s Who killed democracy in Africa? Clues of the past, concerns of the future (Jan. 2002) emphasizes that in analyzing the prospects of democracy in Africa it may be necessary to distinguish between ultimate goals and necessary instruments for achieving them. It would make sense for Africa to distinguish between fundamental rights and instrumental rights. The right to vote, for example, is an instrumental right designed to help us achieve the fundamental right of government by consent. The right to a free press is an instrumental right designed to help us achieve the open society and freedom of information. In essence, what Manzrui wishes to communicate to exponents of the possibility of Democracy in Africa is that it has got a lot of contending challenges, and tries to distinguish between democracy as means and democracy as goals. The most fundamental of the goals of democracy are probably four in number. Firstly, to make the rulers accountable and answerable for their actions and policies, secondly to make the citizens effective participants in choosing those rulers and in regulating their actions, thirdly to make the society as open and the economy as transparent as possible; and fourthly to make the social order fundamentally just and equitable to the greatest number possible. Accountable rulers, actively participating citizens, open society and social justice – those are the four fundamental ends of democracy. The question that arises is, can or has such practices been/be possible in Africa? Definitely YES. It has been in existence and can continue to be in use. The west (USA/UK) in achieving such have adopted Separation of Powers, Rule of Law, Sovereignty, Universal Human Rights and freedoms, public opinion or press freedom. What i see here as contending issues between Western concept of democracy and what operates in Africa are the means to their end. From every indication, it is now a truism that if the goals of western democracy are the same with what Africa has and have been practicing before Western ‘interruptions’, while the means for achieving them differ, then such traditional African means of achieving those same four goals of accountability of rulers, participation of the citizens, openness of the society and greater social justice should triumph.
Today, Africa is seeing some of its other nation states partially attempting to democratize – Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya etc. Kenya is a more recent example of how Democracy has yet again failed Africa especially in its attempt to govern it’s people under a western-style democracy. Before the recently conducted Kenyan 2007 elections, Kenya had a strong economy, but the botched elections that recently took place put this beautiful country on the “Failed State” list with other African nations using western style democracy to elect their leaders. This list of considered failed states includes: Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic, and Cote D’Ivoire. There are other countries in Africa who want to believe that this system of democracy is working although it is clear that their country stands on the brink of being classified also as a failed state. That election kept Kenya in the news spotlight because of the violence that spread outside of the capital, Nairobi. Hypocritically some world leaders, in the name of solidarity/peace and in their effort to help bring an end to the violence that was destroying the country, had to travel to Kenya, called the leaders of both parties, and asked former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to try to negotiate a peace settlement. The end result just to have in place another western system of exploiting fellow country men through a sealed box , was that some nearly 1,000 and more were confirmed dead, 300,000 displaced, stores looted and property burned. Is this any price to have in place a corrupt, poorly guided western rule/form governance otherwise called democracy to pay? Has such a democratic order led to Peace? Where is the Democratic Peace assumption then? Africa, like any other civilized sovereign entity, of the world, long for a decent form of governance， where the masses are free to choose their leaders without a trail of death and destruction before and after elections. My argument in this direction has always been that, the whole episode and Africa’s eventual grip into such a political trap started during Western Colonization of Africa. The west adopted several approaches in their efforts to colonize Africa. For British West Africa, Lord Lugard introduced the ‘Indirect Rule System’ through the traditional African Chiefs, thus they had two establishments, The British Colony and the Protectorate Areas. Unquestionably, it was because of the organized and well structured nature in which the British saw the system of administration and governance that they decided to rule through the people’s traditional Chiefs. From all historical records, such administration was exceptionally peaceful until when the Colonial masters started going against treaties signed with the traditional Chiefs/ Kings. From the French angle, France adopted the ‘Policy of Assimilation and Association’ which meant that all French West Africans were to become French citizens by simply adopting the French way of life. Do you think the French would have allowed native Africans French citizenships if they weren’t decent people with admirable qualities? In South Africa, it was quite the opposite from the West African approaches. There, the traditional Zulu way of life and administration was such an enviable system that their Colonial masters inversely and unlike the French method, instead forcefully changed their identity into Africans using the discriminatory system of Apartheid. What an irony!
Unquestionably, Africa needs a form of government that speaks to its diversified cultures and traditions. In many areas of Africa, the influences and importance of tribal leadership cannot be dismissed. Any system of representative governance (democracy) that is developed must take into consideration the reality of tribalism, cultures and traditions of such as civilization. Africa cannot follow the European or American style of democracy. The Europeans developed this democracy from Greek influences and have had hundreds of years to improve upon this system of government, contrary to the nations of Africa who have only enjoyed freedom, peace and a generally acceptable form of governance believed to be defined by Devine intervention and in high reverence. Institutions were inaugurated without reference to cultural compatibilities, and new processes were introduced without respect for continuities. Ancestral standards of property, propriety and legitimacy were ignored. Kings/ Chiefs were never elected, but assumed such tittles as a result of their bravery in redeeming their lands from external aggressors, thus therefore, the institution of Chieftaincy and or Kingship was regarded as God given, in reverence, protector of its people. This was how leadership and governance originated in Africa. They people would listen to and obey their King/Chief because it protected them and provided them the enabling environment for a sustained livelihood means.
Africa needs a think tank comprised of “the best minds” that can develop a form of its own carefully carved out ‘democracy’ that speaks uniquely to the African experience, considering what’s in the best interest of the country, considering tribalism, culture, norms tradition and inclusive of advice from traditional elders. In tribal tradition, when one of the “sons” of the tribe is running for office, it is expected that most members of the tribe will support him.
As this western-style democracy pits tribe against tribe, there are forces at work dividing the Nations of Africa: The North Africans (Arabs) against the Sub Saharan Africans (Blacks). As Africa fights, America and France are planning to build military bases on African soil. Africa is struggling to maintain its freedom and self determination, allowing military bases (for pittance) will erode this freedom.
All across Africa, African leaders seeking to be elected are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fund these multi-party elections patterned after western style democracy, a path that Africa should not and ought not to follow. Many a time a government so elected leaves state covers completely empty that they have to begin to beg for financial assistance or loans. This is not only possible in Africa but even among the world’s biggest economic and financial powers like the USA. In America, the cost of the 2008 presidential elections exceeded $2 billion, and what did we see after all…a nation plunged into a deep financial crisis. What if such a huge financial inputs were rather used for national development rather than elections especially for Africa? Therefore my example of a struggle for democracy in Africa-Kenya brings home the reality that trying to adopt the colonial master’s system of government for the people of Africa is a miserable failure.
As I conclude this political argument, we would like to touch on what many International Relations scholars of Africa consider as a big issue about democracy in Africa, i.e. its relationship to development. On this relationship between democracy and development in Africa, one crucial question has persisted. Is Africa underdeveloped because it is primarily undemocratic? Or is Africa undemocratic because it is primarily underdeveloped? It is my honest view that Africa is under-developed and insecure today because of the aggressive desires by the west to democratize nation states. In as much as i may be inclined to accept any improved form of democracy or representative governance, such attempts should be tuned to the challenging demands and dynamics of what characterizes the African political system before the importation of Western form of democracy in Africa. Considerable attention should be given to the African people’s traditional political institutions and the cultural practices of such people.Patrick Brima Kapuwa, M.A International Relations Student, Jilin University,Changchun, China
Comments