African Democracy Politicians

Order online anytime. Need help? Call 0115 966 7956

UK Dissertations About Us Dissertation Writing Services Prices Guarantees Order Now Study Aids Free Dissertations

You are here: UK Dissertations » Dissertations » Politics » African Democracy Politicians

African Democracy Politicians | PoliticsDissertationsAbstract

This project sets out to examine the causes of the failure of the state in sub-Saharan Africa. Since theintroduction of democracy in the sub-continent in the early 1990’s, the process has been a slow andcumbersome, casting doubts on the possibility of instituting genuine democracy on the sub-continent. Thepolitical crisis gave room for autocrats who were the fomenters of the problem to eternalize themselves in powerin the name of avoiding further conflicts or problems. They have advanced a whole range of different problemsas the cause of this crisis where as the problem lies in the absence of a democratic culture or the properunderstanding of it.

In the words of the great Africanist, the late Professor Ake Claude, the sub-continents problems is but one ofleadership crisis. As this dawns on us at a moment when democratic regimes are a necessity in the new globalcontext, how do we solve the problems which have stalled the institution this much cherished democracy? Theanswer the thesis states lies in the institutionalization of democracy.

Introduction

The quest for good governments in Africa has been a high priority item on the agenda of African and worldpoliticians for well over half a century. The African continent for several decades now has been replete with illssuch as low living standards, a stagnant economy, and high rates of unemployment, poverty, low infrastructuraldevelopment, a violent political environment, dictatorships, ethnic clashes and above all a general disregard ofthe fundamental rights of the people. It still grapples with these political uncertainties, economic adversities,and social inequalities today (Chazan, 1999). There is thus a need to device the best means possible by whichthe state can be organized and empowered so that it deals adequately with these problems.

Democracy’s ability to organize society, ensuring the respect of the rights and liberties of the people, pressingfor accountable leadership, ensuring effective participation, a transparent economy and a just and equitablesocial order, in essence ensuring the socio-economic and political prosperity of a nation, which in summary areAfrica’s biggest problems, makes it the best possible solution to the problems Africa faces today. As a result,the quest for democracy in Africa has been seen as vital if Africa has to set up a harmonized community that willdevelop and catch up with the demands of the ever globalizing world.

The story of instituting democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa has been a long drawn one, with many highs andlows; several events have made it seem very probable and promising, but also there have been on the otherhand other very challenging events which have questioned the possibility of democracy’s survival. As a result,several debates have ensued amongst Africanist, who have focused on a large part on the prospects ofdemocracy on the continent, some arguing that it is doomed to fail and other optimist who believe that agenuine democratic system can and will emerge in sub-Saharan Africa. Their focus therefore have been howdemocracy can be properly instituted, its challenges and how the inherent problems it faces can be adequatelyresolved so that Africa will benefit from good governance schemes.

There have been several events starting with the legalization of political parties and the return to multipartyelections in the late 1980’s which suggested that democracy was well under way on the continent. But as it wasbeing instituted it faced several challenges which resorted to disorderliness throwing back the move todemocracy; new forms of electoral authoritarianism, return to military and in some extreme cases gruesome civilwars broke out on the sub-continent. This has left many critics of African democracy to question the possibilityof instituting genuine democracy on the continent, despite it being the choice of the people.

Apologist of African democracy have since argued that Africa’s political crisis were as a result of an impositionof a western culture or style of administration which is not compatible with the African society. They considerdemocracy alien and in violation to the African culture (Ake, 1991). This according to them has been thereason for the failure of democracy. They rather support the one party dictatorial style governance, which theyclaim is the best means by which the continent can unite to develop (Busia, 1961).

Another school of thought which emerged after the transition period, the modernist, advanced reasons for the

TweetTweet

Share this:

See what our customers say about us

WARNING! Avoid dissertation writing scams!

GET A PRICEUnited Kingdom

Essay

Undergraduate 2:1

1000 Words (~4 pages)

GBP(£) 130

Order Now

Like 0

The order process Help Contact us Buy Now My accountSearch UK Dissertations

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

failure of democracy in Africa, blaming the superficial nature of the state, and its failure to penetrate the Africansociety adequately, calling the state a weak leviathan (Chabal & Daloz, 1999). This same school and notablyPatrick Chabal note that Africa’s economic crisis does not favor the successful implementation of democracy onthe continent. Democracy he argues is underpinned by capitalism, a uniquely dynamic and productive system,in its absence therefore there is doubt that democracy can be successfully instituted on the African sub-continent. This view has also supported the point that democracy is an imposition on Africa and thus will alwaysfail the aspirations of those who seek to implement it on the continent.

This thesis therefore sets out to answer some of this cynicism and provide a possible solution for the problemsdemocracy in the African sub-continent faces. If anything democracy has not failed Africa, but Africa as shownby the poor actions of its leader, has failed to grasp the concept of democracy. It sets out trying tosystematically bring out how through its political evolution, it is the failure to properly institute democracy duringthe second wave democratization process which has brought about the political crisis the sub-continent isfacing. Secondly if neo-patrimonialism exists and survives today it is because leaders have twisted democratictenets to suit their whims and caprices, thus legitimizing such authoritative regimes.

The set backs it faced during the mid-1990 did not spell doom for democracy, but rather served as an eyeopener for Africa. “The democratic struggle is a gradual process which will emerge from experience andimprovisation as it continues to struggle” states professor Claude Ake, who believes that Africa’s experience willdevelop the best suited type of democracy that will solve its problems (Ake, 1993). Democracy can survive inAfrica, but the players and fomenters must take several factors into consideration, like picking up moredemocratic ethics and tenets and developing a strong united civil society, showing more good will and respecttowards their people and the state as opposed to the selfish and greedy attitude which has been noted to bethe norm on the sub-continent.

With time as adequate steps like institutionalization and consolidation are taken, democracy will be a successstory in Africa. This view is also supported by Larry Diamond, who stated inter alia “… if progress is to be madetowards developing democratic governance, it is likely to be gradual messy, fitful and slow, with manyimperfections along the way” (Diamond, 1989, p.24). Thus this piece looks at how these imperfections werecreated and how certain responses will set the sub-continent on track to democratic governance.

This thesis starts off by looking at the development of democracy on the African sub-continent in the 1990’s.Chapter one will therefore start off looking at why the third wave started, how it happened and why it wasbelieved to have been the new way for Africa. The case of post independent African politics was very elusive ofthe masses. The one party patrimonial state had proven to be disastrous, the military regimes which lateremerged, preaching immediate growth and development also failed the aspirations of the people and so therewas a general move by the people towards democracy. This was in addition to the external pressures thatexisted at the moment. Thus there was a general surge towards democratic elections in the sub continent, withseveral parties legalized and the political life of the sub-continent in different countries.

Chapter two looks at the break down in the drive towards democracy. Why the democratic frenzy was shortlived, only registering limited success across Sub-Saharan Africa. As the concepts of multiparty elections wereapplied across the sub continent, there were different outcomes with each case being very unique to thedifferent nations. Generally democracy failed to take root. It was cosmetic and a virtual democracy as describedby Richard Joseph. It will consider the reasons why this was the case. Given that almost all the countries in thesub-continent held elections of different kinds, did this imply they were all democracies? We will look at the newclassifications of African regimes. Considering that they were all at this point considered transitionary.

Chapter three starts off by considering the complex nature of democracy. It brings out a list of factors whichqualify a state as a democracy or not. It then looks at the regimes on the sub-continent and categorizes themper the 2006 Freedom House Review. These are democracies (11), Hybrid regimes (23) and autocracies (14).Since our focus is on the failing state we shall look at the commonalities and differences between the hybridand failed/unreformed regimes. In that light we shall bring out the common or popular concern for democracy inAfrica which is the misconception democracy suffers and the need for institutionalization.

Chapter four now looks at the problems African democracies have faced since inception. Considering the verybroad nature and tone the thesis has taken this far, it will consider a case study on the Republic of Cameroon,a country in the Central African region of Africa, which has failed to properly institute democracy till date. It isconsidered an electoral autocracy and serves as a perfect example of how Africa, fails democracy. Theproblems this state faces are in effect what most of the states of the Sub-Saharan region face, certainoutcomes may differ, but essentially the issues or problems are the same.

This study will provide the perfect opportunity of putting into context all the issues that I have raised this far tobuttress the point of the thesis, which is that it is the failure to fully understand and properly grasp the conceptof democracy that has caused democracy to fail in this country and the sub-continent as a whole. These areas

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

include the formation of political parties, to the electoral process, the narrow political field, constrained civilsociety, absence of civility, politicized violence and the international support for dictatorships. These pointswere adequately discussed by Professor Celestin Monga.

Chapter five shall be the conclusion to this project in which we shall be looking at possible solutions to theproblems raised above. It shall first suggest solutions to the problems duly raised and also consider effectiveinstitutionalization through the strengthening of the three tiers of government namely the executive, legislativeand judiciary; so that there is a balance in power amongst these three. By applying these solutions in theCameroonian context and eventually on the sub-continent, the African sub-continent will be brought closer tothe mark of consolidated democracies.

The Rebirth of Democracy (1990-1993)

The period 1989-1993 was considered to be the break point for Africa. This is the period during which Africawitnessed a wave of regime changes. Hitherto to this period, single party, military regimes and presidents forlife was the norm in most African states. Competitive politics was considered a luxury by most African leaderswho stated that it was neither necessary nor affordable for Africans (Decalo, 1992). This belief was aptlydescribed in the words of Sierra Leonean president at the time Siaka Stevens when he said of democracy and Iquote ‘…it is a system of institutionalized tribal ethnic quiquennial warfare euphemistically known as electionswhich is an open invitation to anarchy and disunity’ (Decalo, 1992) a view which was endorsed by Tanzania’sJulius Nyerere who also stated that democracy was stronger with a one party state rule which unified thecountry.

To back up this system of administration, it was claimed that Africa had its own unique history and tradition thusthe introduction of democracy was a violation of the integrity of the African culture (Ake, 1991). The Africantraditional system in its own right, they further argued, was infused with democracy with standards ofaccountability considered to be stricter than the west, though invariably patrimonial, thus it possessed signs ofa democracy-hence a democracy (Ake, 1991).

A second argument put forward was the social composition of African states. Because of its plural nature, theintroduction of liberal democracy could possibly inflame ethnic rivalries which will result in politicaldisintegration. Democracy they argued was a distraction to what was important for society. It was a thing forelites and the educated masses and ended on paper, it did not provide or cater for the pressing needs of therural masses. This one party protagonist’s concluded that a patrimonial system was going to unite and direct allpositive energy towards economic development (Ake, 1991).

Thus African style democracy as it came to be termed of one party politics was considered the best option forAfrica given its complex social context, endorsed by most Western governments as shown by their cooperationwith them. This ideology was even backed in cases by the World Bank as noted by their remark that “…withweak states, only a bureaucratic authoritarian regime could contain fissiparous tensions and lead to a freemarket economy…” (Decalo, 1992). Africans believed so much in this style of administration Samuel Decalotalks of Mugabe during a state visit to the United States of America in the 80’s, who recommended to theAmerican congress, the one party state system as an option they should consider (Decalo, 1992).

A point to note here is the hypocrisy of this political ideology. Despite preaching governments of national unityand socio-economic development, the opposite was being practiced and witnessed in most countries. Thepresidency and administration became the possession of whatever ethnic group held the presidency. Nepotismwas rife and groups were rather occupied with gaining a greater share of the existing pie than working forequitable development (Decalo, 1992). This political practice as a result accentuated the tribal and ethnicdivide which existed within the many African states and fuelled anti-government sentiments amongst thepopulation as we shall see below.

A change to this political scenario though requisite, was least expected to occur by scholars, in a continentwhich had shown signs of defiance to a more liberal democracy by sticking to its own developed and formulatedideology of ‘Afro-Marxism’ (Decalo, 1992). There were strong calls both from within and without for a change tothe system that was failing to provide adequately for their needs. This saw mass demonstrations, rallies andcivil disobedience all calling for the return of democracy and for regime change. This was spawned by the

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

stifling political authoritarianism and economic decay, further triggered by the spectacle of the fall of titans inEast Europe (Decalo, 1992).

The one party state had yielded a form of presidential authoritarianism, through which the state economy wasplundered, there was a disdain for civic and human rights, and little or no attention was paid to the plight of therural population (Decalo, 1992). Economic projects were failing to materialize; there was the absence ofinfrastructural development needed for this growth and above all a high rate of unemployment. The militaryregimes which took over power in certain instances to sweep clean the state failed to return power back tocivilian rule and fell into the same predicament by falling short of the efficiency mark.

These regimes were thus fundamentally unaccountable, personalized and patrimonial (Decalo, 1992). Therewere the failures of these regimes that could be considered the primary cause of the call to democracy andmultipartyism. The growing urbanization and education of Africans made sensitive to the hostile political andeconomic environment being created by their leaders, thus they desired liberty and the respect of their rightswhich had been usurped and abused by this dictatorial one party system. They wanted their grievanceslistened to and solved by a regime that had been removed from the people, blind and deaf to their problems.The only way to do this was by mass protest against such regimes and seeking to over throw them.

Economic related reasons, mainly externally influenced, could be said to be the greatest factors which led tothis drive in re-democratization. Africa relied for a large part on international aid and loans to fund most of itsactivities. The administrative sector was the biggest employer in most countries, thus the money aid theyreceived was used almost entirely on salary payments and carry out government businesses, rather than investin lucrative businesses which could eventually pay back. Civil servants in the higher echelon were corrupt andembezzled these state funds to fund their luxurious lives. The growth registered within the economy was goodbut this was not sustainable growth and did not guarantee a future for the economy.

Most corporations were state owned and private businesses were not promoted or were largely absent. As aresult of all these, donor countries through the IMF and World Bank suggested certain adjustments be madewith the governance system if they were to continue offering this aid and loans. This came to be known as theStructural Adjustment Program (SAP) which called for African governments to privatize state ownedcorporations, cut down on its public sector and above all to democratize as conditions to receive aid. Thisprovided a lee way for the dissenting voices of nationals who wanted change. They were joined by civilservants who suffered huge pay cuts and in extreme cases lost their jobs. This situation was further aggravatedby the fall in commodity prices in the international markets meaning that African states were pretty much at themercy of international donors, who wanted change with the regimes.

Finally the demise of communism and the end of the Cold War also had an immense impact on the political lifeof African states. First of all it diverted the attention of investors to the newly liberalized and potentialeconomies of Eastern Europe, thus reducing the amount of capital investments which flowed to the continent,affecting the African economy adversely. Secondly the West no longer supported the dictatorial regimes inAfrica as it did during the Cold War days. They withdrew support from these regimes (example of Angola andTogo where they had supported antagonized sectarian groups) asking them to democratize as a condition forcontinuous aid and loans (Decalo, 1992).

This was especially true of France who had since independence maintained a close link with FrancophoneAfrican states and signed several military accords with African states offering them (military) support when theyneeded it; the case of Central Africa and the support they offered Idriss Deby against Bedel Bokassa 1990, oneauthoritarian regime for another. The Apartheid regime of South Africa also did not receive any more supportfrom the West, who had pursued half hearted sanctions against this repressive regime. As soon as the ColdWar came to an end, the Apartheid regime under pressure yielded and released Mandela, introducing reforms,forcing other African states to follow suit, who had used this regime to propagate a repressive rule against theircitizens. They were thus forced to change.

The first shots of democracy in Africa were noted in Benin, when in early 1990, students, civil servants and thewhole community took to the streets denouncing the rule of then president, Mathieu Kerekou and calling forwhat they termed “a national sovereign conference of all active forces” (Richard Joseph, 1991). This sovereignnational conference was to bring together representatives of the different sectors and works of life in a voice ofnational unity to address the problems of society. In the case of Benin, it resulted in the removal of PresidentMathieu Kerekou’s control of public policy and the establishment of a transitional government (Richard Joseph,1991).

The outcome of this was received with much delight in other African states and they later began calling fornational conferences in their respective countries. This was the case in Togo, Zaire, Congo, Gabon andCameroon. The out come was not necessarily the same as in the case of Benin, because not all the presidentsyielded to such demands, they resisted these popular calls and tried making substantive concessions to theopposition (Richard Joseph, 1991). All in all it marked the beginning of change on the continent as a result ofpopular demand (democratic will, the voice of the people).

All this pressure resulted in the democratization of Africa as noted by the re-legalization of political parties,restored freedoms of association, assembly and expression and also in the reform of constitutions which led tomultiparty elections in most sub-Saharan states (Richard Joseph, 1998). Over the brief period of 1990-1994,54 competitive elections were held in 29 countries with 30 of the electoral outcomes welcomed by theelectorates and the process ruled as free and fair by observers (Bratton, 1998). One party rule was noted tohave been replaced with more open and participatory competitive democracy.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

With the influx of these political parties, they were quick at pointing out the short comings of government, itsadministrative inefficiency, political corruption, economic mismanagement, and social decay (El-Khawas, 2001).Notably between 1990 and 1993, twenty five countries held elections with eleven opposition parties winning andcoming to power. Though very commendable, the legalization of opposition parties did not necessarily meandemocracy for African countries (Diamond, 1994). Even those who saw regime change sooner than later facedcrisis thus questioning the durability of democracy in Africa, because certain cracks were noted in thefirmament of this nascent African democracy.

Looking at the above, democracy was not brought about by conditions of the west, but rather it was the desireand commitment of the people for accountability and meaningful development from their respectivegovernments, further fuelled by the economic conditions and effects of the SAP, which only came to show howpoorly the state was being managed. On the contrary the west could be accused of complacency. As earliermentioned they had supported these authoritative regimes and cooperated with them.

Even after conditions were placed on leverage, they never followed them up or pressed this dictatorial regimesto democratize as in the case of Kenya, Cameroon and Togo just to name a few, to which the internationalcommunity still offered loans and did not question the actions of these governments like human rights abuse,which drew a lot of criticism from the press and public (Ake, 1991). Therefore the call for democracy was onlyemboldened by economic factors which brought change at the time to some countries (Benin ousting ofKerekou, Liberia, fall of Samuel Doe) but failed to change regimes in others (Cameroon, Nigeria, Kenya) andcan not be said to be the main factor but a mix of both (Ake, 1991).

Chapter Three: The Democratic Dark Days

Following this run of political liberalization was a period of political violence, wars and crisis in a number ofAfrican countries that sent ripples down the nascent democracy in Africa. A critical look at the outcome of thefirst set of elections organized in the sub-continent drew a lot of criticism from pundits who considered theprocess as cosmetic and as failing in its objectives. What seemed to have been created on the African sub-continent was a virtual democracy as noted by Richard Joseph (Richard Joseph, 1993). This could beexplained by the fact that in a number of African states, the incumbents managed to hang on to power afterelections in their states, despite the mass demonstrations against their administrations and rule.

It is necessary to remind ourselves here of the popular support democracy enjoyed in the different Africanstates; it was not an orchestration or ploy of an elitist few, but a genuine request by all for change, thus a lotwas expected in the form of regime changes across the continent. Despite this, a few countries (11 of the 25countries that held competitive elections during the period of 1992-1993) and notably Zambia and South Africamanaged to see a democratic change in leadership (El-Khawas, 2001). Thus the much anticipated democracyin sub-Saharan Africa was failing to take root.

Regimes failed to be changed in Cameroon, Gabon, Congo, Kenya and Ghana just to name a few, despitemass protest and popular support the opposition in these countries enjoyed. Elections were noted to be carriedout in a politically tensed atmosphere, characterized by intimidation (house arrest and states of emergency),massive vote rigging and general violence. The experienced leaders with all the powers they wielded violatedthe rules of the country with impunity and after enjoying the booty they had siphoned from the economy, hadevery intention of staying in power and as a result did all to ensure their stay in power. ).

As a matter of fact, the biblical adage of old wine in new wine skins held true here since there seemed to benothing new to the political order in a number of states that witnessed elections. The story of ousted leaders onthe continent during the military coup days of the 1960’s had not been an envious one; as such they would doanything to preserve power in the event where they had been very reckless with power (Young, 1996; DeWalle, 2001). This is what Professor Ake Claude termed the leadership crisis of the continent; according to theprofessor the African political crisis resulted from the absence of true statesmen, but rather the prominence ofthose with every intention of ensuring their stay in power or having their own share of the national cake (Ake,1996). This assertion has been supported by Richard Joseph, who holds that a prebendal system is set up,with entrenched corruption, and the leaders work only for the benefit of themselves and their clients, leavingthe locals to their own devices for survival (Joseph, 2003).

As such, these leaders organized charades in the name of elections, given that they controlled the judiciaryand legislative and with this centralization of power they were able to corner the multitude of opposition partiesthey had legalized as a disorganizing technique of the opposition (Young, 1996). As such despite theirinefficiencies, the leaders found themselves in power with very vindictive policies against oppositionstrongholds. This was the case in Kenya, Cameroon, Gabon and Ivory Coast, where particular regions andtribes were subject to marginalization and vengeance of the leader.

In Kenya, Arap Moi and his cohorts fomented tribal conflicts that led to the death of about 1500 and displaced afurther 350,000 in the rift valley area, in Cameroon the Anglophone West Cameroon was massively underrepresented in the government that was formed following the presidential elections of 1992. Millions of dollarswhich were funds for other projects were misappropriated to ensure such electoral successes and thus theirstay in power (Diamond, 2008; Young, 1996). These leaders were also noted by the international community ashaving been endorsed by the people, and as a result the West continued its support of these corrupt regimeswith poor human right records, and with incumbents who had every intention to continue pillaging the economyas before.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

The situation generally speaking looked bleak for the African Sub-continent which had received the third wavewith such enthusiasm. The democratic quest was dealt further blows when civil wars and genocides broke out insome of the sub-Saharan countries; there was a return of the military to power in others. This period isconsidered to be the dark moments of African political development. The Congo Basin has been noted as oneof the main trouble spots on the continent owing to the manner in which the wars which emanated from thisregion spread across, affecting all the countries sharing borders. Zaire for starters was under the tight grip ofthe dictator Mobuto Sese Seko, who did not give into the pressures for democratization.

He refused convening a national conference, blaming it on technicalities of representation owing to the ethnicdiversity and broadness of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo-DRC). Thus democracy did noteffectively take root there, despite calls for the democratization by the masses. Armed conflicts broke out first inBurundi following the overthrow of the newly elected president Melchior Ndadaye, by Tutsi officers, trying toreinstate Tutsi control over the Tutsi dominated state. In neighboring Rwanda, the Hutu rule came to a haltwhen following elections in 1994 the Hutu president Juvenal Habyarimana had to form a coalition regime withthe Tutsi minority, but was assassinated during the process, giving room to extremist Hutu’s to launch agenocidal raid against the Tutsi’s.

These two wars led to the death and displacement of millions further enshrining the problems rocking thiscontinent. The National Resistant Movement (NRM) initiated by Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, an arm movementagainst dictators in the Central-East of Africa and enjoying the support of western powers and internationaldonors promoted more of the armed conflicts faced by this part of Africa. It supported rebels against the Kabilaregime who had earlier ejected Mobuto from power in 1997 (following the wars in Rwanda which gave therebels led by Kabila the impetus to fight Mobuto) following a fall out between the rebels and Kabila, leading tothe Congo war lasting from 1998-2003 Young, 1996; Richard Joseph, 1998).

The story of armed conflicts in the wake of an era of democratic elections is numerous on the African continent.One very interesting case to site here is that of Congo-Brazzaville, where democratic tides were considerablyreversed following the forceful return to power by Denis Sassou-Nguesso who had earlier been defeated inelections in 1993 (Young, 1996). This was accomplished with the support of France and Angola in front of adumb struck international community that only muttered on the events that were ravaging the continent. TheLiberian and Sierra Leonean cases could also be sited, but given these it is good enough to make our analysisof the democratic struggle in Sub-Saharan continent.

These crises resulted in the deaths of millions, refugee problems, food shortages and famines, poverty, a pooreconomy and low rate of development not only in countries involved, but affected the economy of other statesin general as it stalled possible investments in this part of the world. International investors feared investing in aplace which did not guarantee the safety of their businesses; they rather invested in the newly democratizedstates of West Europe. African investors themselves were fleeing with whatever capital they had; leading tomassive capital flights and brain drain as whole families sought new places and beginnings.

This far Africa was not providing a perfect home for Africans. If anything these moments looked to besupporting the claims of some African democratic skeptics and proponents of African socialism (and thus oneparty style democracy) that democracy let alone liberal democracy could not be instituted in Africa or evensolve African problems. They rather argued that the humanitarian crisis that rocked the continent were as aresult of the recently organized elections, which had also brought out the intricate socio-political nature of theAfrican continent which did not make the continent adaptable to the liberal democratic system being introduced(Young, 1996). They made this assertion following political unrest faced by the sub-continent leading to thedeaths and displacement of millions.

This is a very strong assertion which has gone a long way to undermine the institution of democracy in Africaon the grounds that its socio-political formation is in-penetrable by this system of administration. It has thusmade the transition to full democratic governments slow in certain countries, where there is the fear that the fullinstitution of democracy is bound to stir tribal or ethnic conflicts which will end in the further disintegration of thestate. As such the international community and the local African have been cajoled into accepting the statusquo of democratically elected authoritative regimes as the best option of governance against more liberal orinclusive forms of administration, so that peace is maintained and the very fragile nature of the African statemaintained.

The limited role the international community played during the crisis on the continent can also be faulted, giventhat they were an influence and possessed the power to prevent or stop some of the events that took place onthe continent. Though levying limited criticisms at illegitimate governments that emerged, they still cooperatedwith some of these regimes providing loans and assistance; in some extreme cases as earlier mentioned theydid intervene militarily (Congo) to further cement the political crisis rocking some of these countries. The mostirresponsible action of the international community at best here is the fact that they stood at akimbo, andwatched one of the most gruesome political events happen on the continent (Rwanda-Burundi genocide) and

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

did little or nothing to stop or prevent it, despite the ability to do so, resulting in the most shocking massacre ofthe decade.

They supported and sponsored some of the wars that ravaged the continent, by their illicit support of junta’sand rebels (case of Angola and Jonas Savimbi). Critics also point out to this limited role on the premise thatdemocracy is a western thing, now if it is plagued by all this mishaps, it can only be explained as being a ployby the West to disintegrate the African continent further and stall any plans of uniting for progress and thusleaving its resources open to exploitation by the west; what has come to be known as neo-colonialism. Thus alldemocracy has done is tear the people apart and given them a false hope of better governance.

The local African welcomed the reintroduction of multiparty politics and thus democracy as an end to all formsof corruption, clientele politics and favoritism which was characteristic of the one party state(authoritarianism/patrimonism) and had resulted in nothing but under development of the state and inequality inpublic life. Thus in any area that failed to see regime change, the people immediately lost faith in thedemocratic process of change by the ballot hence not being able to solve the leadership crisis on the continent(Chabal, 1998). Neo-patrimonial states as is coined by Larry Diamond who describes them as “a combination ofthe formal architecture of modern bureaucratic states, constrained in theory by laws, constitutions and otherimpersonal standards with the informal reality of personalized, unaccountable power and pervasive patronclient ties” (Diamond, 2008, pg 2).

This loss in faith in democracy as a result of this can be considered to be very detrimental to the political life ofsome African states as can be noted in the lackluster approach adopted by the locals in states like Cameroon,Gabon, Togo, just to name a few, in ensuring accountability from their respective regimes. This has promptedscholars like Richard Joseph to consider the fact that there has been ‘closure’ in the democratic process inAfrica (Richard Joseph, 1992). This statement is made against the backdrop of political violence and electoral(democratic) malpractices that have ravaged the sub-continent and the crisis it faced by the mid 1990’s which itcould barely manage. This has further gone to question the possibility of genuine democracy surviving on thecontinent. Can we blame it on the nature of democracy or on the manner in which it was implemented?

Chapter Four: Understanding Democracy Better

So far we have seen several accusations levied on the democratic process and it has been shown to be failingthe aspiration of the people. If anything there was the claim that African democracy was at a stand still and insome cases subsiding. But is there any formula to democratizing? African states as earlier mentioned hadshown all the necessary signs and seemed poised for democracy, but when the crisis broke out and tideschanged, critics considered the process a fiasco. It seems to me that these skeptics believed that Africa had setout on a path which could result in nothing less but democratic regimes in a short space of time. Is there aparticular route countries must take before becoming democratic?

Democracy is very transferable; as noted by Valerie Bunce, there is no single form of democracy let alonemeans by which it is attained (Bunce, 2007). The democracy that was started in ancient Greece is not what is inpractice across the globe today. As perfectly expressed in the words of Alexis de Tocqueville the construction ofdemocracy is an “…irresistible revolution advancing century by century over every obstacle and even nowgoing forward amid the ruins it has itself created…”. As such he was portraying the long drawn nature of thedemocratic process and the many hurdles it was bound to face before being fully established.

Even the most developed states today have had to face these tumultuous moments in their political historybefore installing a true democratic order (Boron, 2006). The civil wars that the sub-continent had justwitnessed, though gruesome and inadmissible, can therefore be considered the price the African sub-continenthas had to pay in order for democracy to be implemented. This does not imply in any way that they are nevergoing to be democratic, but rather it will come as a result of the need for democracy, the same way by which theFrench Revolution resulted from the need of civil liberties and equality.

Critics must therefore realize at this point that democracy is not failing the continent, but on the other hand thecourse is taking its natural route as defined by the factors that are in play on the continent like leaderscircumventing the rules of the game for personal gain.

No single definition can be indentified as best for democracy. It is a very ambiguous term; one of the most idealdefinitions of democracy was that coined by Abraham Lincoln who defined democracy as “…a government ofthe people by the people and for the people…” This definition according to Boron was long replaced by theSchumpeterian formula of democracy, which regarded this definition as very radical and impracticable, thusdemocracy in practice was noted to be detaching itself from the very idea and agency of the people and ratherfocusing on the means by which the peoples concerns could be represented (Boron, 2006).

Thus the Schumpeterian ideal defines democracy as “a set of rules and procedures devoid of specific contentrelated to distributive justice or fairness in society, ignoring the ethical and normative content of the idea ofdemocracy and disregarding the idea that democracy should be a crucial component of any proposal for theorganization of a good society rather than a mere administrative or decisional device” (Boron, 2006). By thisdefinition democracy is considered here to be rather a method, a decision making model, in which the will of themajority will triumph over the minority as per elections (Boron, 2006). Such a definition of democracy will givecredence to the recently organized charades in the name of elections in Africa, which according to the variousgovernment stats indicated that they had won the majority of votes in election. Boron argues vehementlyagainst this method, as it takes away the very essence of democracy. It is not just the implementation of the will

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

of the majority which is democratic, but other factors come to play for a country to be considered democratic.

Valerie Bunce joins in this argument and identifies a few factors that have to be considered if a state was tobecome democratic. These factors as noted by Bunce include the existence of a large and diverse civil society;a sharp political break with the authoritarian past, followed by regular turnovers in political leadership andgoverning parties; stable state borders; and political institutions which empower parliaments and, in culturallydiverse societies, give minorities political voice without locking them into permanent coalitions that blockcollaboration across group and divides the pursuit of common goals (Bunce, 2007).

Patrick Chabal also suggests four approaches to understanding democracy namely the instrumental,institutional, cultural and historical approach. Summarily the instrumental approach was the practical means bywhich a democracy is established and this comprises of the legal and constitutional frame work which ensures apeaceful hand over of power, also it involves the setting up of conditions necessary for conducting free and fairelections. That is the conditions must be favorable for all to partake in and all should have an equalopportunity, so the selection process is genuine. This approach alone does not imply a democracy has beenset up, but is only a first step in that direction, thus the multitude of elections that were noted on the continentthroughout the decade did not imply democracy.

This takes us to the second approach which is the institutional approach; Chabal at this point focuses on thebodies of a political order. He considers the relationship between these bodies which will ensure a genuinedemocracy and as a result the smooth running of state affairs. This is only possible if there is a constitution anda politically independent judiciary, along side an effective legislature (parliament), political accountability by theexecutive and a system of representation (Chabal, 1998). Culturally, Chabal points out that for true democracyto thrive certain attributes have to abound. These include factors like the need for representation, a democraticmentality and a notion of accountability, which the people and actors in particular need to possess. Thoughdisputed as imposing western culture on Africa, it still plays an important role to the institution of democracy onthe African sub-continent. This may be contradictory of the point that states in the democratic process developand pick up ethics, but in essence, these are the key factors of a democratic culture per its definition as a wayof life.

The people need to trust the mechanisms of a democratic system, which has been developed to suit the needsof all, with the political supremacy of the citizen at its heart as a must have for democracy to survive (Chabal,1998). Leaders on the other hand are expected to be accountable to the citizens for their actions, a culturealso akin to the African context as witnessed during the pre-colonial days, which just has to be continuedthough not as was practiced during these periods, but importantly so because, failure to do so will result inleadership crisis. A final approach to consider according to Chabal is the historical approach. This like theassertion of Boron earlier reiterates the point that no democracy appears arbitrarily, they have all developedovertime to be what it is today. The west has also witnessed their fair share of crisis and violence in the form ofthe revolutions.

If anything the system has been proven to be a very fragile one, irrespective of what culture or people it isbrought to, crisis seem inevitable for starters. Considering this point it draws us back to the issue of a politicalculture akin to the West. It may be argued that if states evolve in to a democracy, then there is no guaranteethat they will need to develop a particular culture, but what best suits them. In the case of the sub-continent asshown so far, the people seek for a representative system and an accountable administration. These all tie inwith the democratic culture, thus they will develop such a culture at their pace as they move along.

Chapter Five: Different Regimes In Sub-Saharan Africa

Following the above definitions and conditions of democracy, does sub-Sahara Africa fulfill any of therequirements or conditions for democracy? If not what how do we qualify the regimes that have since emergedfrom the electoral process? Regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa vary from country to country, ranging from liberaldemocracies to outright dictatorships. Freedom House statistics of 2000 noted that there were 9 ‘Free’ 22‘Partly free’ and 8 ‘Not Free’ regimes of the 39 that are found in the Sub-continent.

Free regimes are those regimes that have organized free and fair elections and have succeeded inconsolidating democracy; they are constitutional and accountable states with a free judicial and legislativesystem able to challenge the executive (de Walle, 2001). Hence they are able to set checks and balances forthe system and freedom of the civil society is to a great extent respected in these societies. These includeSouth Africa, Botswana and Mauritius just to name a few.

The partly free regimes on the other hand are those regimes that show signs of a democratic set up (holdregular elections) but fall short of exercising other democratic attributes like accountability or ensuring thefreedom and development of a civil society. Such regimes have come to be referred to as ‘Hybrid Regimes,pseudo-democracies or electoral autocracies’. The final group of regimes refers to those that have notexperience any form of transition; they are still autocratic or dictatorial and a vibrant opposition absent whichhas given the incumbent the opportunity to hang on to power. Power lies in the hands of the president and asmall clique of tribe people form the ruling class. These are the military, repressive neo-patrimonial regimes likeGuinea, Burkina Faso, Gabon and Mauritania (De Walle, 2001).

The introduction and implementation of democracy was marred by certain inherent faults which were eitherover looked at the time or not noticed at all given that most of these countries were first timers. The thought ofthis gives even more hope that they did learn from these mistakes and continue to learn from the mistakes they

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

have made and at some point they will be able to come up with good democratic governments. Celestin Mongain his article ‘Eight problems with African Politics’ identified and discussed the pertinent issues that plaguedAfrican democracy at inception and still do till date. Several other reasons exist as to why the democraticprocess in Africa went down the route it did. The experience of these states have proven the point that,democracy is not born in a day and these mistakes need to exists if states are to choose the best form ofadministration and better understand their polity.

Case of Cameroon, An Electoral Authoritarian Regime

Cameroon serves as the best example of putting into context the problems democracy faces in this part ofAfrica. The specifics certainly differ from country to country, but in essence the problems were the same. Thesestates approached the issues differently and at different moments in their political history reason why some nolonger face these problems while others do. But all in all signs of these problems can still be noted in thevarious states. As earlier mentioned the ineffectiveness of government had sparked off the call for multi-partyism, which was resisted by government leading to demonstrations and violence as the masses fought forthe voices to be heard.

The political parties that emerged in Cameroon in the 1990’s were off shoots of think tanks and pressuregroups predominantly of elites disgruntled with the way government functioned. These parties started off asmovements or fronts given that government resisted legalizing parties and later became parties whengovernment caved in. As noted by Celestin Monga, political scientist have identified four characteristics apolitical party must have namely a nation wide appeal, ability to continue even after the founders leave, adesire for power or change and must be consistent. In the case of Cameroon, several parties emerged like theSocial Democratic Front (SDF), the Democratic Union of Cameroon (CDU), Union of the Peoples of Cameroon(UPC), National Union for Democracy and Progress (NUDP) and to cut the list short the Alliance for Democracyand Development (ADD). These are the 5 main opposition parties that emerged in addition to the ruling party,the Cameroon Peoples Democratic Movement (CPDM).

These parties lacked the nationwide support required, as they were either regional or ethnic movements withan aim to get a share of the national pie only. They lacked vision and a far reaching manifesto which couldcontinuously garner popular support. These parties had emerged out of the need to challenge the status quoas opposed to actually developing a political agenda which served as an alternative to power. This is thereason why there existed a plethora of political parties in this state which had a stumbling 208 political partiesby 2001! Cameroon looks a state which is clearly torn apart by these parties.

Elections held in such a context are bound not yield any fruits, but only pave the way for the incumbent to walkto power as has been the case in Cameroon for almost all the elections held in the country. Results from theelections also showed that parties received mainly regional support as opposed to national support. Theylacked the technical, financial and human resources to compete during elections, and also faced threats fromgovernment during campaigns. The intimidation and victimization of opposition supporters also cut into thesupport they should have gained from government workers, who feared loosing their jobs. All in all the politicalparties that emerged were naïve and inexperienced.

The electoral process on the other hand suffered immense irregularities. In Cameroon the incumbent, PaulBiya, did all in his might to hang on to power and ensure electoral victory. The election process lacked civility asopponents to the incumbent were viewed as enemies of progress and thus they enshrined themselves inpersonality and physical attacks, he called them thugs, sorcerers and vandals. Politicians failed to regard theprocess as a debate of policy objectives and qualification for the job, who could deliver the goods. They ratherfocused more on very sensitive punch lines like ethnic background and cabinet make ups.

The electoral process handled by the government ministry of Territorial Administration, despite calls from theopposition for an independent electoral commission. Results were usually twisted in their favor. With suchpower, government could disqualify opposition candidates on any flimsy grounds like how long they haveresided in the country uninterrupted or on cooked up stories on nationality. These results gave room for theopposition to potentially resort to violence, which they did in Cameroon following the results of the 1992elections. A state of emergency was declared in opposition strongholds and the results rammed down theirthroats. In extreme cases, this should have resulted in war as was the case in Angola and Congo, but theopposition in Cameroon refused to go down that path. It did create secessionist sentiments especially amongstthe Anglophones who felt victimized for supporting the opposition.

A third point to consider is the absence of a strong civil society in Cameroon has been a major problem for thedemocratic process. For the fact that the regime failed to change in 1992, a lot of people lost faith in thedemocratic or better still electoral process, which transcribed into their political lives generally. Government hadtactfully disbanded such social groupings and workers unions from getting involved in politics. This impliedpolitics was left entirely in the hands of politicians and their multiple parties, who at this point had nothing buttheir interest at heart and were seeking ways of getting into government, some of which finally got appointedministers.

The absence of the voice of social groups and workers unions provides room for maneuvering the politiciansas they are left to the devices of their party and not the community at large (Monga, 1997). The press on theother hand was largely state controlled, so they acted as a mouth piece of the ruling party, propagating theirideals and brain washing the masses, which was almost turning into xenophobia against parties from differentregions. The absence of a balanced media helped to kill the prospects of developing a strong civil society

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

much to the detriment of any viable opposition.

Also age restrictions for participating in politics has been another way by which the government hasconstrained the civil society, as the voting age in Cameroon was put at 21 meanwhile from 18, these youngmen are capable of making decisions for themselves. This narrows the political field as those involved are onlyof a particular class and age group, politics is extricated from the lives of the people and controlled by a smallgroup of people.

One other major factor was the control of the arm force. In Cameroon as in other parts of the sub-continent,leaders wielded the support and allegiance of the arm force which they had created from their tribe and kinsmen. The president by constitution is head of the arm force himself, a power he has used to regularly send thearmy to quell uprisings and intimidate the people during elections and demonstrations, which they (military)happily did given that they had an interest to protect, one of their own in power (Jean-Germaine, 1995). Suchuse of brute force against the opposition scared them and they caved in stifling the political life of the nation.

This was the case across the sub-continent, even more fascinating were situations where ex-military dictatorsretired from the army to continue rule as civilian leaders. This was the case in Ghana with Rawlings, BurkinaFaso with Blaise Campaore, Yahya Jammeh of Gambia and war lords like Idriss Deby of Chad and YoweriMuseveni of Uganda. Thus control of the army had been a source of great strength for leaders who used it tosecure themselves in power.

Last but not the least is the support leaders received from the international community. In Cameroon thepresident received immense support from its former colonial master France who had vested interest in varioussectors of the economy. Thus they did all in their power to ensure that only one their own or a protégé was toascend to power. They provided the president Paul Biya with military and political advice alongside financialsupport against the anti-French strong opposition leader, John FRU NDI of the SDF, the Anglophone party.Despite the president’s poor human rights records, poor stewardship of the regime and highly corrupt regime,they still continued to receive support and aid from the international community.

From the above we see in a Cameroonian context the problems faced in general by democracies in Sub-Saharan Africa. These problems which include the ineptitude of political parties and leaders, poorly organizedelections, absence of a strong civil society and a constrained press organ, control of the media andinternational support stand out as the key concerns in Sub-Saharan politics (Monga, 1997). These factorslargely reflect the words of Professor Ake Claude when he said Africa’s political crisis is one of leadership.

The actors lacked statesmanship and national character; all were drawn out to protect particular interest fordifferent regions. All these played to the advantage of the incumbent. Cameroon is a unique case in itselfbecause where it should have broken to civil strife as did many other states confronted by these factors it didnot do so. This state still remains an electoral autocracy today with strong prospects of a democracy, but thiswill only happen when a true democratic culture is inculcated in the lives of the people and the above problemssolved.

Conclusion: A Solution To The Problem Consolidating Democracy InThe Sub-Continent

Through this epic journey of instituting democracy in Africa South of the Sahara, we have seen how a muchcherished form of government by its people has been denied them by the greed, ineptitude and orchestrationsof their leaders. These leaders in turn have heaped the blame on natural factors like the socio-political andeconomic nature of the continent as not welcoming to the concept of democracy. They have failed to showbeyond reasonable doubt that there is an alternative to the much suggested and requested democracy theyhave so much fought against.

This rebuttal on their part has caused immense damage on the sub-continent as they have refused to changeor make room for others to change, but rather fought to entrench their rule. With the passing of time, the globalcontext has transformed, becoming even more hostile to young democracies to join on the band wagon ofdevelopment.

This doesn’t take away the fact that democracy is still needed on the continent as it does solve the basicproblems of state hood and respect of civil liberties, the only medium in which an effective economy can bebuilt. Not indulging in the economic argument of whether democracy is bound to solve Africa’s economic crisis(given that it is a new topic in its own light) suffice it to say that democracy is the means by which the state canharmoniously set out to attain economic heights by whatever means they so seek to achieve it.

Whether they follow the capitalist route or the socialist route, essentially, they need democracy, which is theonly means by which the support of the millions of tribes of this part of the continent can be garnered becausethey feel involved or represented. Echoing the worries of the nobel laureate Wangari Maathai “...why is Africaone of the richest continents on the planet, endowed with oil, precious stones, forests, water, wildlife, soil, land,agricultural products, and millions of women and men, and yet most of Africa’s people remain impoverished?”which have become my worries, it only brings to mind the fact that sub-Saharan Africa lacks effectiveleadership.

Taking the example of South Africa, it took the selflessness of one man to give value to their quest fordemocracy when he instituted a genuine form of democracy void of racial segregation, a constitution that heldthe people at its heart and was responsive to their plight. The truth therefore lays in the institution ofdemocracy, strengthening the three tiers of government namely the judiciary, legislative and executive, making

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

them independent of one another and inculcating democratic tenets into the fabrics of society. This is the onlymeans by which these states will progress, owing to the balance that is instituted amongst these arms ofgovernment (El-Khawas, 2001).

Starting with the executive, most states of the African sub-continent are vested with so much powerconstitutionally. Taking the case of Cameroon, the president is the Chief Judge of the Republic and Head of theArm force. With such powers, they can not be either impeached or taken to court for crimes against the state.The leaders become corrupted by the power this office yields and as such personalize it, like Louis XIV ofFrance, the state becomes their property. This needs to be avoided and can be done by separating the powerof the office first from the individual and then balancing the power with the other organs of administration. Thepresident needs to respect the power of the office which stems from the people, it is the people who create thepresidency and thus they must be respected (El-Khawas, 2001).

The next organ which needs to be rectified is by empowering the legislative, which is the representation of thepeople. Authoritarian regimes have been noted to erode the power of the legislature by ruling by decree, whichimplies that bills duly elected in parliament can either be implemented or discarded dependent on the will of thepresident. This has been the norm, which has killed the political life of these states. Legislatures have to begiven more power and training to act professionally and so that power balances out with those of the president.In this regard parliamentarians who are the representative of the people will are able at this point to speak fortheir constituents and have their voices heard.

With the people made more aware of the duty of their representative, this all involving process will revamp thepolitical life of the state and men of dignity will be voted to represent the people. An independent parliament willalso facilitate the setting up of independent electoral commissions and other commissions of inquiry intogovernment action and misdeeds (El-Khawas, 2001). Also it will set as a check to the excess of presidents whowill be answerable to parliament during sessions and thus to the people. This will go a long way to answerAfrica’s problems.

The judiciary on the other hand needs to be made more prominent in the lives of the people. It has beenmasked behind the administration, always supporting the cause of government rather than ushering justice forall. Political crimes have been noted to be treated with severity by the justice department as a means of scaringthe opposition. Another issue is because judges are appointed by the president they owe their allegiance tohim. They are therefore seen to be working for the government as opposed to serving the people.

They are also charged with announcing results of elections, this is where most of the irregularities happen,when they pronounce falsified results. In the event of an independent judiciary, by their effective andprofessional training, with no fear of reprisal, they will be sure to pronounce the right results. In the event of thepresident misbehaving they can issue a probe into his activities and have him impeached.

Such is what is needed in Africa at this point, a means of making power more responsible and responsive to theneeds of the people. This is the second step in the democratic development of the sub-continent, now that thepeople are in the culture of electing their officials. This is been done in some states as was the case in Nigeriawhere parliament refused amending the constitution for the former President, Olesegun Obasanjo, to seekanother term in office. Though anomalies exist like in Cameroon where the constitution was amended, there ishope that states are beginning to see the need and importance of the next step towards consolidatingdemocracy in Africa.

References

Ake Claude (1991) ‘Rethinking African Democracy’ Journal of Democracy, 2(1): 32-44

Ake Claude (1993), ‘The Unique Case of African Democracy’, The International Affairs (Royal Institute ofInternational Affairs 1944-), 69(2): 239-244

Ake Claude (1996) Is Africa Democratizing? Lagos: Malthouse Press Limited

Barkan, J.D (2003) "Democracy in Africa: What Future?" in Muna Ndulo, ed., Governance and DemocraticReform in Africa, London: James Currey.

Boron A, (2006) “The Truth About Capitalist Democracy” Socialist Register 28-58

Bratton, M (1998) ‘Second Elections in Africa’, Journal of Democracy, 9(3): 51-66

Bratton, M (2005) “Building Democracy in Africa’s Weak States” Democracy at Large, 1(3)

Carothers, T (2002) "The End of the Transition Paradigm," Journal of Democracy 13(16)

Chabal P, (1998) “A Few Considerations on Democracy in Africa” International Affairs, 74(2): 289-303

Chege, M (1997) ‘Can Africa Develop’ Journal of Democracy, 8(2): 174-177

Decalo S (1992) “The Process, Prospects and Constraints of Democratization in Africa” African Affairs, 91: 7-35

Diamond, L (1994) "Rethinking Civil Society: Toward Democratic Consolidation," Journal of Democracy 5(3): 1-20.

Diamond, L (1996) “Is the Third Wave Over?” Journal of Democracy, 7(3): 20-37

Diamond, L (1994) "The New Wind," African Report 39(5) 50-65.

Diamond, L (2002) “Elections without Democracy-Thinking About Hybrid Regimes” Journal of Democracy, 13(2),1-16

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

El-Khawas, M (2001) “Democracy in Africa: Problems and Solutions” Mediterranean Quarterly 12(3): 85-97

Fomunyoh C, (2001) “Francophone Africa in Flux-Democratization in Fit and Starts” Journal of Democracy,12(3): 37-50

Gyimah-Boadi, E (1998) "The Rebirth of African Liberalism," Journal of Democracy 9(2): 28-40

Jean-Germaine (1995) “The Hard Lessons of Cameroon” Journal of Democracy 6(3): 112-127

Schumpeter, J (1947) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, New York: Harper, 298

Joseph, R (1998) "Africa, 1990-1997: From Abertura to Closure," Journal of Democracy 9(2): 8-20.

Joseph, R (2003) “Africa: States in Crisis”, Journal of Democracy 14(3): 159-170

Villalon (1998) “The African State at the End of the Twentieth Century: Parameters of the Critical Juncture” inLeonardo Villalon & Phillip Huxtable (ed.) The African State at a Critical Juncture: Between Disintegration andReconfiguration, London: Lynne Reinner 3-27.

Michael Bratton and Nicolas van de Walle (1997), Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime Transitions inComparative Perspective New York: Cambridge University Press.

Monga, C (1997) “Eight Problems with African Democracy” Journal of Democracy 8(3): 156-170

Ndulo, M (2003) “The Democratization Process and Structural Adjustment in Africa” Journal of Democracy10(1): 315-368

Young, C (1999) "The Third Wave of Democratization in Africa: Ambiguities and Contradictions," in StateConflict and Democracy in Africa, ed. Richard Joseph (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner).

Young, C (1996) “Africa: An Interim Balance Sheet” Journal of Democracy 7(3): 53-68

Zakaria, F (1997) "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy," Foreign Affairs 76: 22-43

Please note: The above dissertation snippet was written by a student and then submitted to us to display andhelp others. Thanks to all the students who have submitted their work to us. To see more dissertations, clickhere.

Request the removal of this dissertation.

Join our circle on Google+ Find us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Get our latest updates

Copyright © 2003 - 2013 - UK Dissertations is a trading name of All Answers Ltd. All Answers Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales Company RegistrationNo: 4964706. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Licensed under the Consumer Credit Act under Licence No: 0612201. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391.

Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ.

Fair use policy | Terms & conditions | Privacy policy | Complaints policy | Cookies | Sitemap

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com