Democracy As Africa's Burden

DEMOCRACY AS AFRICA ’S BURDEN

Kabiru Danladi

For the past three months Zimbabwe remains in the headlines of most western media after the controversial March 29 elections. As a country Zimbabwe went through so many hurdles that few African countries experienced. In the early 1970s the country went through a lot of crises as a result of dictatorial white minority rule. In 1974 when most of its neighbors especially Mozambique and Angola attained power shift as a result of a coup de tat in Portugal , which was then colonizing the two countries, Zimbabwe was devastated by revolutionary armed struggle by Africans in quest for freedom. The power shift in these two countries put more pressure on the then autocratic regime of Ian Smith to negotiate with the joint revolutionary forces of Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU) and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU). Sensing the dangers, the British government, (the country’s colonial masters) began deliberations for settlement with the Africans.

Although a Unilateral Independence (UDI) was declared by the dictatorial regime of Ian Smith, which claimed to be democratic, persecution of the black majority continued. On the other hand the joint military of ZAPU and ZANU intensified their antigovernment guerilla activities causing ‘destruction, economic dislocation, casualties, and a slump in white morale’. Realising he was defeated Ian Smith sought for settlement with the revolutionary forces. Therefore, a meeting was convened between the two parties; the Patriotic Front, consisting of ZAPU and ZANU on one hand, and the Zimbabwe Rhodesia Government under Bishop Muzorewa and Ian Smith. The meeting which took place at Lancaster House in London , ended biracial rule and an agreement was reached on December 21 of the same year, on the terms of Independence Constitution, and that elections should be supervised under British authority to enable Zimbabwe ( Rhodesia ) to proceed to legal independence and the parties to settle their differences by political means.

During the transition period nine political parties took part in the elections, which were conducted on 27-29 February 1980. Under British supervision and other hundreds of observers a free and fair elections were conducted. The results of the elections gave ZANU-PF party, under Robert Gabriel Mugabe victory. The rest is history.

Although Mugabe critics especially British and their American friends tried as much as possible to down play this important historical fact, the present crises in Zimbabwe are very much connected with what happened in Lancaster House. Most people are convinced that Mugabe has overstayed his welcome, but we need to remind ourselves that Mugabe is not the longest serving leader in Africa . It was his fallout with the west due to his ‘controversial’ land reforms that earned him the title of the most hated African leader in the west, especially by these two members of the U.N. Security Council that is Britain and U.S. It is important to note that when Mugabe came to power his major priorities were to integrate the various armed forces in the country, reestablish social services and education in rural areas, and resettle the estimated million refugees and displaced persons. But of all his priorities none attract attention like reversing the past discriminatory policies in land distribution, education, employment and wages. However, land distribution issue, which I want to believe, is the bone of contention gave way to the British to raise so many issues including the recent ‘democratization’ and ‘human right’ in Zimbabwe. It is equally important to note that before the present crises in Zimbabwe , the country was one of the most successful countries in Africa and it was Mugabe who achieved that. However, his fallout with his masters Britain and the U.S in the 1990 resulted in change in their relationship.

The two super powers used their positions in the United Nations to sponsor resolutions that imposed numerous sanctions on the country. This led to the total collapse of the county’s infrastructure and consequently destroying the country’s economy altogether, which at present reaches about 2,200,000% inflation rate. The motive of the super powers of punishing Zimbabweans is simple; Zimbabwe or Mugabe should consolidate power, allow ‘free and fair’ elections and hand over power to the opposition MDC. Although to any discerning mind the sincerity of the motive is questionable, because of the hypocritical nature of the west in promoting democracy, especially in developing countries. One need not to be told for him to be convinced on this, because of the fifty six independent African countries only few can burst of having a genuine democratically elected government, and even where such a government exist you need not to ask how fraudulent the elections were.

Whereas a country like Gabon is headed by lone dictator for over forty years, no single country in the west talks about regime change in that country. And Gabon is not alone on this. There are countries like Egypt where Mubarak’s government detains and persecutes opposition at will attracts little or no attention from the self acclaimed promoters of democracy. This is also the same in countries like Ethiopia , Tunisia , Cameroun and many countries. This act led some analysts and political commentators to doubt the west’s seriousness especially Britain and the U.S. about promoting democracy and development in Africa . Even in countries where there are assumed democratic government the level of development in those countries is more or less no different from the other so-called dictatorial regimes. This lack of development and the persistent poverty and hunger in the continent, raises so many questions as to whether we need western styled democracy to develop or solve our problems. Why does the west impose on Africa their own way of life despite difference in culture and historical background? How compatible is western styled democracy to Africa ? Why many countries in Europe, Asia and Latin America succeeded despite abandoning western styled democracy? Does western styled democracy brings about the much desired change and development in human and material resources most of us expected?

Africa’s experience with western styled democracy since independence in 1950s and 60s is that of regrets and disappointments, because the system failed to meet the yearnings and aspiration of Africans. Western styled democracy is an ideology and system that is shrouded with lofty ideals and catchphrases like freedom, equity, representation, empowerment, participatory development etc.etc, which are nonexistent in real practical terms. In western styled democracy we are made to believe that rulers are accountable and answerable for their actions. In other words, citizens can be able to monitor the actions of their rulers and participate effectively in choosing and regulating their actions. We are told that the system makes society open and the economy transparent as possible. Thus, creating a social order, justice and equity in sharing resources. In reality these lofty ideals start and end in theory books. They are far from what obtained in virtually all the ‘democratic’ societies especially here in Africa .

The inception of democracy in most African states brought hopes and expectations to many Africans, but these hopes and expectations are dashed few years afterwards. Failed promises are what followed, and then stories of public funds stealing, hunger, poverty, civil wars and HIV/AIDS become major headlines in most of African dailies. Suddenly Africans realized that the much desired change expected does not come with democracy. The question is that; do we need the western styled democracy to achieve what the west has achieved in their countries or do Africans have other options?

History has taught us that quite a number of countries including those countries in Western Europe had at one time abandoned democracy – (in strict western definition of the term), to what they felt was best for them at that particular time. Surprisingly those countries today are the leading industrial nations in the world. A good example is Spain , which in 1931-39 realizing the country was not going anywhere; the democratic republic of Spain was replaced with a paternal dictatorship which stamped out all opposition. The democratic system could not work because of deep poverty and social conflicts over resources. Franco’s dictatorship developed Spain (turned it into the 9th industrial power on earth), and in year 1975-96, the country re-modeled as a democracy. If a country at the heart of Europe could abandon democracy to look for a better future for its citizens, what is it that is stopping Africa to do same?

The biggest problem the African continent faces today is not of dictatorship or sit-tight rulers, but of greedy neo-colonial elites whose sole aim is to satisfy the interest of Western imperialists. There is after all examples of sit-tight rulers elsewhere who transformed their countries to fanciful economic success. People like Fidel Castro, Dr. Mahathier Mohammed, Suharto, the leaders in Singapore , Thailand and Vietnam are very good example.

In recent years Russia becomes a very good example of countries that chose to abandon the western styled democracy and in few years the country was able to come out of its economic and social crisis of the 1990s. The emergence of Vladimir Putin as Russia ’s president in 2000 ushered in new hopes for mother Russia . Under Putin , Russia was neither democratic or dictatorship, like most countries of the world it has a ramshackle authoritarian system with some democratic trappings (some of which are meaningful). His style of leadership was generally condemned by the West as dictatorial but received acceptance from the Russians. His eight-year rule brought economic stability, improved living standard of ordinary Russians and gave the country a new voice at the world stage, a role she lost since 1990.

Many people attributed his success with his high-handedness and his experience in the KGB. The Soviet KGB was a huge institution, with massive personnel who are extremely committed to the Russian project. Unlike their African counterparts, Russian leaders are a group of committed, patriotic and dedicated individuals. In just eight years they were able to re-transform the Russian nation back to its former glory. Distinguishing democracy as a means and democracy as a goal, they were able to create a dynamic society with over 20-25 % of the Russian society qualifying as middle class. On the other hand, Africa ’s story is a bleak one. Over half a century after independence, African society is still grappling with poverty, hunger and diseases. Majority of Africans live below the poverty line, and corruption remains the main issue. Therefore, it is wrong for anybody to see the problems of Africa from a single country perspective. It is indeed very wrong to think that Zimbabwe ’s problems is an isolated case, it is not. As long as these neo-colonial elites remain in power, we will continue facing same problems. It is either elections violence in Kenya , persecution of opposition in Ethiopia and Egypt , Darfur crisis in Sudan or Niger-Delta crisis in Nigeria . Western styled democracy has become a burden for African nations and their leaders. Until the continent is able to solve its problems by proffering solutions from African perspective, I am afraid even in the next hundred years the continent will remain what it is - a dark continent.

Kabiru Danladi,
Lawanti Village, km25,
Along Gombe to Bauchi Road ,
Akko LGA,
Gombe State,
Nigeria.
0805 454 6764 or 0803 515 0369