Democracy and transition crises in Africa

Transitions in Africa have witnessed African rulers over-staying or under-staying their tenure.  For instance, Tanzania President, Julius Nyerere, ruled for 24 years (1961-1986); Kenya’s President, Jomo Kenyatta, ruled for 15 years (1963-1976); followed by President Arap Moi, who had 24 years (1978-2002); and currently, President Mwai Kibaki, who is in another term after a violent […]

Transitions in Africa have witnessed African rulers over-staying or under-staying their tenure.  For instance, Tanzania President, Julius Nyerere, ruled for 24 years (1961-1986); Kenya’s President, Jomo Kenyatta, ruled for 15 years (1963-1976); followed by President Arap Moi, who had 24 years (1978-2002); and currently, President Mwai Kibaki, who is in another term after a violent widely disputed 2007 election. Julius Nyerere of Tanzania also ruled for 24years before getting tired and retired. Mr Mugabe has been ruling Zimbabwe since independence in 1980 (31years). Libya’s Ghadafi has been Head from 1969 to date (42years). In Uganda, the first 24 years after Independence (1962-1986) witnessed five abrupt changes that involved eight transitions (eight Presidents), implying an average of three years’ tenure per President, until when Mr Kaguta Museveni came to power. He is now in his 25th year as president and had just (on 20/02/11) won an additional term of 5years.  In Nigeria, transitions have, until recently, never been peaceful, right from the days of Premier Tafawa Balewa (1960-1966).  The list continues to include Sudan, Tunisia, Egypt, DRC, Mali, Somalia, Guinea, Gabon, Cameroun, to mention but a few.

Can the transition difficulties in the African continent find solace and be interpreted as undergoing a team-building process?  Probably yes, if we mapped the continent into the phases of team-building. The first phase of team-building is the formation/familiarization phase that is characterized by group awareness and relationship-building, including passive conduct, laying down ground rules (Constitutions), and less activity.  Africa has passed this stage during the first 25 years after Independence.  The second phase is the storming / charge phase, which is dominated by more activity, power play, confrontation, ambiguity, negativity, finding faults and recognition of the need for dominance and attempts to achieve same. This is the phase most countries in Africa are in; hence the crises.  The other later phases include forming or constructive phase and performing or freezing phase. Soon after these crises which Africa is facing, we shall soon grow into the productive, constructive and performing phases. Let us console ourselves to believe that other non-African countries have undergone these phases, many countries in the so-called developed world are at the performing phase.

But why do African Heads overstay?  The reasons may include but not limited to the following:

When African Presidents take up positions, many of them assume absolute power.  Power can corrupt, but absolute power does corrupt absolutely.  Absolute power creates dictators who commit hideous acts such as closing up political space, create a lopsided political field, framing up political opponents, personalization of state resources, skewed distribution of national wealth/appointments, award of bogus contracts, misappropriation of  funds/corruption, tribalism/ethnicity, nepotism, repeal/amendments of Constitutions, to mention but a few.  Consequently, such Heads prefer to stay in power, not for the comfort of it, but for fear of what may happen when they are not in power.  For such people, remaining in office and dying there is less risky, less dangerous and less embarrassing than vacating office and facing the consequences of their misdeeds.

In a related reason, as the preceding one, the fear of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is the beginning of sit-tight presidents. Because of the possible treatment they are sure (due to their misdeeds) to receive from ICC, some Presidents prefer to die in power.

Some presidents assume power from financially impoverished states.  Logically, such people are expected to share the plight of the poor, but indeed the opposite obtains.  A person in this situation experiences a complete change of lifestyle from ordinary to extravagant style, which he is not too willing to relinquish. This leads to demand for more terms/extension of terms, amendment of the Constitutions or/and claim of rigging when the opposition thrash them in elections.

Similarly, when Heads accede to power through the might of the gun or merciless rigging, there is a high tendency of developing an ‘I got it’ feeling.  This is also true in a situation of vote trading where voters sold their votes which contestants bought over with pitiable gifts such as salt, soap, oil or jewelry and the like. In a situation such as this, the people in the government feel they are unaccountable to the voting population, since the votes had been exchanged for something; implying that accountability started and ended during elections.  This is what international observers alleged in the recent Ugandan elections that were at the same time adjudged to be free, safe and transparent. As far as vote trade bore fruits at the first attempt, the strategy will continue in all subsequent elections – thus the sit-tight Heads.

There is a vicious inability of incumbents to understand the distinction between crowds and supporters when a sitting president is on a campaign tour. It is normal that everyone would want to have a glimpse of that popular/common name in the media. A situation such as this brings forth a mammoth crowd which does not necessarily translate to supporters. It only misleads the incumbent to believe that he is popular. Therefore, when he is defeated at elections, he cites rigging by the opponents. Could this be the case in Ivory Coast?

Prof Nok writes from Kampala. [email protected]