Abstract

The basic premise and assumption of democracy is the ability of the populace to participate  effectively in the determination of their lives for themselves directly or through their elected representatives. Unfortunately democracy has come to be equated with mere superficial and easily recognisable mechanical processes, the most recognised of which being regular elections. But the mere casting of a vote does not a democracy make even when the elections are indeed free and fair. 

Democracy and democratic practice is not a foreign concept to Africa though to hear of it spoken now one would think participatory structures for communities to determine their existence as a  group never existed before the advent of the white man on this continent. It is not true to suggest that there can be no democracy with poverty. It is quite plausible for democratic structures and institutions to exist even where communities are poor, as long as they are able to effectively participate in the determination of their own existence and all matters relating thereto.  The current manifestation of democracy as espoused, interpreted and introduced by the west and adopted by African states  however does necessitate some level of poverty eradication, because democracy as it is practised today in African countries does not have sufficient structures and capable institutions, nor access to them, to ensure that the entire population is able to participate beyond the level of the ballot box. The new African democracy caters for, and panders to, the needs and interests of the new African ruling classes who have access to, and control over, the structures and institutions that are meant to ensure democracy for the entire population and manipulate them to prolong their stay in power and control of the state, which in many African countries has become the sole means of acquiring wealth.

It is the argument of this paper that poverty breeds the kinds of socio-economic conditions that automatically precludes a significant number of people from  active and full participation in the political process and the current practise of democracy. In his hierarchy of needs Maslow illustrated the various developmental stages of humanity where the realisation of next stage of development was impossible without the preceding stage being realised. The paper  illustrates, based on a similar pyramidal construct of the four elemental needs that have been identified and deemed essential for the existence and function of democracy in any society, that without the eradication of poverty there can be no democracy in present day Africa. At the bottom of the pyramid, representing the most primal and basic needs would be found, as with Maslow, food, shelter and security needs, above that would be the availability of adequate health, followed by education and at the very top access to, and understanding of, information. The issue of language necessarily plays an integral role and features prominently in the whole process, but mainly in the top two tiers of the pyramid, if we are to even begin to speak about the realisation of true democracy.

Introduction

Democratic structures existed in African societies prior to the imposition of the colonial state on Africa. According to Claude Ake “(t)raditional African political systems were infused with democratic values ... (s)tandards of accountability were even stronger that in Western societies” (Ake; 1991, 34 as quoted in Schmitz and Hutchful;1992, vi) The democratic nature of pre-colonial African societies is elaborated further by Ntimama (1996, 25):

Most African societies were ruled by groups of elders who were usually elected by consensus and who were entrusted to making major decisions on political and social affairs that affected the community. ... In most African societies these elders met at regular intervals  to regulate and coordinate the way the society  should be governed. They passed laws, administered justice and had a system of punishment for members who broke the law.

But it has now become a popular belief that the concept, or more accurately the practice, of democracy was unknown to Africa until very recently introduced to the continent by the colonialist. This perception has been given credence mainly by two factors. Firstly the distorted and inaccurate representation of African history, designed to give the impression of an uncivilised, lawless, godless dark continent in need of the civilising temperament of the colonialists and the missionaries. The second and perhaps more obvious factor is the manifestation of the post colonial states of Africa. The oppressive and criticism intolerant leadership are taken to be reflective and representative of the mind set of the continent at large and where it is coming from. 

It was the despotic nature of most states in Africa that led, in the late 1980s, early 1990s, to an almost unanimous continental call for a change in the political system to be, not just more representative, but transparent, accountable and non-repressive. The 1990s saw an extensive upsurge in the democratisation process throughout Africa, as a result of widespread opposition to the prevalent authoritarian rule. The opposition to authoritarianism in Africa was supported by a majority of the population who felt that a change in government would bring about, at the very least, an alleviation of the economic hardships they were experiencing, but also more fundamental changes to the general state of deterioration in individual countries and on the continent as a whole. This marked the introduction of a "new" political era on the continent, sometimes referred to as the second liberation^[1]. However, not many of them are actually functioning as democracy according to our understanding of the concept, many African countries continue to labour under the yoke of kleptocratic despots (Esterhuysen: 1997/8). 

It should be pointed out that there are several causes of concern within this process which should not be overlooked among the euphoria. The first being that the process, as it is currently being practised, rather than being part of a natural political process has been imposed on the continent at the insistence of western donors and countries, by threatening to withhold financial and other forms of aid unless African states became more democratic. Because the process is unnatural it runs the risk of not being appropriately assimilated into the political system due to the tendency of a top down implementation process without an adequate consultative process with the people most affected.

The second point of concern is the fact that the validity of many of the elections is being questioned even though they might have been declared free and fair There has been a tendency to declare elections free and fair even as they are obviously not so for the sake of expedience. In order to be able to continue to do business with illegitimate states many Western governments have been willing to overlook discrepancies in the election processes of many African states even as they have insisted on democracy as a prerequisite for continued aid and association. If indeed the process is seen by the population of Africa to be imposed and unfair, the negative perceptions of the state will to be perpetuated resulting in a continued power struggle for the control of the state and its resources exacerbating the already high levels of instability on the continent which in turn impact negatively on any attempts at growth and development as well jeopardising any future attempts at democracy. 

The third point to be taken note of is that even if the democratic process does indeed take root and assumes the form in Africa as that of its western counterparts (which is assumed to be the ideal) what kind of impact will this have on the majority of the population? Is it really likely that it will increase, not just their representation, but their full and active participation in the determination of their own lives as individuals and as members of a state? The probability is that it will not have as great a positive impact as the advocates of the positive influence of democratisation would have us believe. The issue when it comes to the working of democracy is not whether or not the general populace gets to vote every four or five years, but rather, whether or not their interests are being catered for and whether that vote grants them sufficient power and representation in the relevant structures for them to be able to have their concerns dealt with in a manner they deem most appropriate for themselves, and including and especially, improving the quality of their life which was somewhere described in Hobbsian terms as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. 

It is the argument of this paper that there can not be any hopes of a true democracy while the majority of the population is excluded from interacting fully within the political process of the country. This paper will argue that for the population of this continent to play a greater role in the democratic process we need to address the issue of poverty first. But it is not enough to eradicate poverty, though arguably all other things become simpler in its absence. It is not feasible for democracy to exist as it is currently manifesting itself in the face of the levels of dire poverty and destitution that is daily reality of the majority of the people on this continent. However this paper will not be arguing that poverty in itself results in the exclusion from democratic structures and processes, these structures can and do exist in poor communities. But rather that, the current manifestation and implementation of democracy, and more importantly factors that are specific to, and directly related to, poverty exclude poor people from the process hence the need to eradicate it before there can be any kind of participation from the poor beyond just voting. 

The paper sites four elemental needs that have been identified and deemed essential for the existence and function of democracy in any society. At the bottom of the pyramid, representing the most primal and basic needs would be found, as with Maslow, food, shelter and security needs, above that would be the availability of adequate health, followed by education and at the very top access to, and understanding of, information. The issue of language necessarily plays an integral role and features prominently in the whole process, but mainly in the top two tiers of the pyramid.

Each of the tiers will be discussed individually to illustrate not only why they located where they are, but also to elucidate the significance of their realisation if democracy is to prevail. The role of poverty, as it applies at each stage, will also be illustrated to concertise the necessity for its eradication as a primary prerequisite for democracy. 

The Limitations of Democracy

There is much to be said for democracy as a theory and as an ideal that all states and communities should aspire to. Through the centuries there have been many and varied attempts to define it and though no one definition is yet to be accepted as adequately capturing the concept most succinctly, theorists are agreed on a few essential components of democracy and democratic states Moon (1991) identifies six of them, that it is mainly agreed capture the essence of the theory, namely (1) press freedom, (2) freedom of group opposition, (3) absence of government sanctions, (4) fairness of elections, (5) executive selection and (6) legislative selection (Moon: 1991, 138). 

It is however imperative that we also recognise that though theoretically sound it is not necessarily so in practice. It is an act of folly to ignore the shortcomings of democracy and proceed to implement it in our own societies without due regard being given to these failings as we have begun to do and already there are clear signs of failure looming, “... Africa requires somewhat more than the crude variety of liberal democracy that is being foisted on it, and even more than the impoverished liberal democracy that prevails in the industrial countries” (Ake; 1996, 129 as quoted in Mbaku and Ihonvhere; 1998, 305). 

What is important to bear in mind is that it is not possible to merely transplant a practice, ideology or system from one place to another without first recognising the differences that prevail within the different societies. It is not possible for any one system to manifest itself identically in every society the world over. Each society has different needs and historical and current realities which it must contend with and device a system or process of functioning that is consistent and sensitive to these needs and realities. It need not even be stated that countries in the West and Africa are vastly different in all respects, developmentally, socially, economically, politically and most importantly historically. It is therefore not reasonable for us to expect that what has worked for the West will necessarily work for Africa without the idiosyncrasies, needs and aspirations of, not just the continent, but individual countries on the continent, which are vastly different, being taken account of. Without these things being seriously taken into account and not merely being acknowledged and then ignored the “idea that all or most African states will create perfectly functioning democracies which will survive indefinitely is too improbable to warrant serious consideration - however much one might wish it” (Clapham and Wiseman: 1995, 220 as quoted in Mbaku and Ihonvhere; 1998, 311). 

Already there are cracks in many of the new democracies of Africa, if indeed many of them can be so described, which though not necessarily reflective of the failings of democracy as a theory are perhaps more a reflection of the inappropriateness of its introduction to Africa. As Hans - Dieter Klee (1993, 181) stated:

The multi-party systems have, at least in the present transitional phase, a more disintegrative than unifying and constructive character. Power struggles are multiplying and, instead of stability, there is chaos -- often with renewed ethnic contradictions ... Democracy is a learning process which cannot be prescribed, nor can it fall from heaven. The greatest danger for African societies is that new structures which have no solid base merely replace former repressive, dictatorial, inefficient and corrupt systems of state control, without any fundamental change (as quoted in Mbaku and Ihonvhere; 1998, 313).

Whilst there should be consideration given to the relative newness these democracies and the foreignness of the practice to Africa, these considerations can not over shadow some of the more glaring problems that are stating to reveal themselves. Rumblings of dissatisfaction are already being felt as people continue to live in squalid sub human conditions, access to health and education facilities is still a reserve of the rich, representation of the poor, women, rural people and other marginalised groups has still not materialised and their interests and concerns still being largely ignored. Much critisism is being levelled against these new institutions from all spheres of society, and their credibility is being brought into question. Three of the more pertinent criticisms of these new governments will be looked at briefly. 

The first criticism is the fact that there are still no signs of these new democracies making any headway in the arena of providing some of the basic needs of their people. The already acknowledged newness of these democracies notwithstanding, there is an ever increasing sentiment that there should be some visible signs of these provision at least being on the way. Their inability to find means to alleviate some of the dire social ills is the cause of this criticism.

Poverty, hunger, inflation, disease, decaying infrastructures, violence, uncertainty and unemployment remain the lot of most Africans in spite of the vitriolic propaganda of the ‘new breed’ of politicians. The      rural areas remain neglected as is agriculture, .... Primordial differences and suspicions continue to waste   public resources, challenge the construction of a national project, and further divide already bifurcated  societies (Mbaku and Ihonvhere; 1998, 313). 

Moon (1991) indeed argues that it is a fallacy that there is direct correlation between democracy and the provision of basic services. Democratic exponents espouse this causal relationship between these two unrelated factors to propagate the notion of democracy as the ideal political system. The fact that most Western democracies are also able to provide the basic needs for a large percentage of their population is an incidental fact unrelated to the practice of democracy itself. “Although state policy may be the instrument by which the poor are made better off, democratic processes are not the source of this improvement...” (Moon; 1991, 134). He goes further to say that “it is important to note not only that democratic processes do not always bring about an orientation favourable to the poor, but also that such orientations do not arise exclusively in democratic system” (op. cit, 136). 

The second critisism is the fact that these new democracies continue to represent the interests of the elite. Like their predecessors, the new governments continue to cater for and pander to needs of the elite classes to which they themselves belong and ignore the marginalised poor classes who are under represented, if at all, in these new democracies. Little has changed in terms of population representation within these governments, a different set of elites now controls the state and will, in all likelihood follow the route of their predecessors. Many of the new states have failed to reach beyond their own social class in terms of representation, “(t)he on-going processes represent the interests of the corrupt and very irresponsible African elite; hardly challenges the structures and interests of the repressive neo-colonial state; are excessively focussed on the capture of raw political power; have very little room for women are largely urban based ....” (Ihonvhere; 1998, 10).

Finally, and most pertinent to the discussion at hand, these governments not only continue to represent the interests of the elite, but continue to exclude the poor, women, rural and marginalised communities from the democratic process outside of the casting of the vote. Most noted is the fact that there are no government initiatives to encourage and ensure that the traditionally marginalised groups within these societies have greater access to the state and a more active and contributory role to play in the determination of their own lives and the over all running of the country. Levels of accountability, transparency and accessibility are deemed to be very low. But that is as much a fault of the state and the condition of the people within the state. Poverty does not enable much by way of participation in the political process. Exclusion occurs on many levels but first starting with the fact that people are poor and until such time as poverty is eradicated will they be able to afford what is at present the luxury and the time of actually realising their rights and ability to take a more active and meaningful role in the functions of the state. 

The Hierarchy of Democratic Needs

Abraham Maslow, in a study of human development, proposed the notion that for human beings to realise the highest level of development as individuals there needs to be a gradual and incremental development process starting with the satisfaction the most fundamental human needs, namely air, water, food, procreation etc. (Maslow: 1943, 394). All other needs would be ignored or denied until such time as these basic needs were realised, and so it goes on until people reach the highest tier on the pyramid. The pyramidal structure reflected not only the stages at which each need and corresponding development occurred in relation to the other needs, but in tapering as it increased, also reflected the importance of the need. So at the bottom of the pyramid were the most basic of human needs food, shelter and security, without which the realisation of any of the other needs was not possible and at the very top was self actualisation, which being on top, indicated that though it is a desirable state of being in terms of human development, is not crucial. The needs he identified were:

1. Physical (biological ) needs - air, water, food, sex, etc.

2. Safety needs - assurance of survival and of continuing satisfaction of the basic needs

3. Affection or belonging needs

4. Esteem needs - by self and others

5. Self-actualisation or self development needs (Fitzgerald: 1977, 37).

Like human development therefore we can construct as similar pyramid for people’s ability to participate in a democracy. This structure, like Maslow's, reflects incrementally the various requirements or needs, if you prefer, of people in order for them to be able to participate actively in the democratic process. But unlike Maslow, all the needs reflected in this pyramid are essential for people to be able to fully and productively participate in a democracy², it is only the process of realisation in order of importance that determines where they are located on the pyramid, starting with the very basic needs of people that necessarily have to be available so as to enable them to take part in the process and working our way up to the less basic but still essential needs for relevant democratic participation. Whereas in Maslow's hierarchy it was deemed that people can, and indeed a large majority do, live full lives without realising the last stages of development, the democracy pyramid requires that all stages be realised in order for us to say that people are taking full and active part in a democracy. It is the prevalence of poverty that enables these conditions conducive to exclusion to prevail.

The pyramidal structure of democracy proposes that only by first identifying the various poverty-related restrictions to democratic involvement by poor marginalised communities, and recognising them as being what impedes poor people’s participation, can we hope to find solutions to the current limited representativeness and participation prevalent in African democratic structures. Indeed it is the suggestion of the paper that if we can ensure that these four requirements are met then we can also be assured of the increased participation of the poor in democratic structures while at the same time eradicating poverty and the provision of these needs is hindered by rampant poverty. As mentioned the four needs in the structure are food, shelter and security needs, health, education and access to, and understanding of, information. Though language is not part of the pyramid it is suggested very strongly in the top two tiers of the pyramid because it forms a very integral part of the need structure. 

Tier One

Food, Shelter and Security Needs

The availability of food and adequate housing are the two most basic needs of any human being. Included with food is access to clean drinking water, perhaps what should also be mentioned explicitly is that the food must be balanced, healthy, nutritious and in regular and steady supply. But it is not enough for people to have access to food and shelter, they also need to feel secure within their homes, but more importantly secure in the knowledge that they will continue to have access to food and water, and that they will not be denied their shelter. Although there is no direct connectedness between this first tier and democracy , it is the fact that this is the first step towards anyone being able to function even in the most limited definition of human function. In the absence of any or all of these things the human capacity to function is greatly reduced. It is also true that while people are pre-occupied with these very basic issues, their interest in other things in and issues around them is virtually none existent. As Maslow said when articulating the satisfaction of various needs , until the very basic needs of a human being are satisfied all other needs will be ignored or suppressed.

Like the food need, the shelter that is referred to is adequate shelter. Not shelter for its own sake but adequate shelter conducive to a healthy and comfortable pursuit of life. Many people in Africa are living in the most shocking conditions. Many of the hovels in which they dwell can only be referred to as shelter and nothing else because that is all most of these tin shacks are, shelter to keep the elements out. This type of lining condition does not lend itself to an active and contributive disposition to participate in political activity on any kind of real level. It is indeed true that most shack dwellers do and would vote in an election but that is usually the only level at which most of them participate in the political system of their countries. 

What, in the instance of poor people aggravates the situation is not only the fact that they do not have access to adequate food and housing but that even the measly little that they are able to access it not secure. They have no guarantees, from day to day, that their supply of food will be available to them, either because they rely on charity, handout or begging, or because their employment is irregular and not assured.  Also the security of their homes is continually under threat, they are at continual risk of their homes floundering under the elements being more precarious than properly constructed structures or being burnt down, as they so frequently do, due to the lack of electrification which necessitates the use of paraffin stoves and open fires in their quarters or simply because they are not able to pay their rent. Further to this is the fact that in order poor people to break from the cycle of poverty, which denies them access to other aspects of life, they need resources which they do not have and it is because they do not have these resources that they are poor. Barberton poses this question in relation to poor people and power, power in itself translating to access and control over resources, “do poor people have no power because they are poor, or are they poor because they have no power? (Barberton; 1998, 245)³. One can find arguments to support either one of these  angles. It is not really as relevant as question as;  how can the poor empower themselves so that they are able to break out of the cycle of poverty and be better able to take better control over their own lives and destinies? There are many possible answers to this question, but the basic starting point, would be for governments to ensure that all their citizens have at the very least the basic needs of food, shelter and security. 

Tier Two

Health Needs

Health matters are closely linked and related to the first needs. It has been an established medical fact that poor people are more succeptable to disease because of the nutritional dearth of their diet and because of the wretchedness of their dwellings. The fact that poor people are not able to afford healthy balanced meals and are forced subsist on meagre meals of whatever they can afford or they can find. Overcrowding, poor ventilation, inadequate sewage systems and damp all contribute to the ill health:

There is no doubt however, that in numerous ways the housing of people does to a very important extent influence their health in its physical, emotional and social aspects. It is almost to obvious to repeat that overcrowding will favour the spread of tuberculosis and the other droplet spread infectious diseases, that even infectious respiratory diseases such as pneumonia will be favoured by ill-ventilated dark damp conditions (Maister; 1940 as quoted in Lipschitz: 1984, 1). 

It is not, however, just the fact that the poor are more prone to disease because of their diet and their accommodation, but the fact that even as this conceded and recognised as an obvious fact, health provisions in poor areas are very limited. Either they are scarce or they are poorly equipt or they are just not there. This is especially true in rural areas where people have to travel great distances, at great financial cost, which they can ill afford, to get to a clinic only to find that there are no doctors and even when they are there is no medication. Assess to health is a recognised right in itself yet the provision by government, of this service is hardly adequate, issues of distance, cost and quality of health provisions hardly seems to feature in the concerns of most governments when it comes to providing for the poor. With the introduction of payments for services poor people are further excluded from access to the already inaccessible and scant health services. The situation is not better in urban areas where even there the marginalised do not have sufficient access to quality and affordable health, people can not afford private hospitals, but find that government hospitals are not able to provide the services that are expected of them.

Sick people or people whose health is questionable are not able to take part in any kind of democratic process. When people are concerned about the possibility of their offspring dying from treatable diseases that have been eradicated in Western countries for years because there are no clinics or hospitals and the ones that there are available are far, unfordable, badly equipped or all of the above, it is too much to hope that they will even notice what form of political system they are living under, never mind be interested and able to participate in it. Even as people recognise the failing of their political institutions in providing for their needs and even if they are fully aware of their rights and how to exercise them, they are disinclined to do so if they are sick or their families are sick all the time. 

Tier Three

Education Needs

“Without the education the foundations of democracies are insecure” (Wrong; 1945, 145). It is a long established fact that most African governments spend more on their defence budgets than they do on education. This has resulted in an education provision crisis. Like the health sector, education falls under one of the areas of social spending that the IMF discourages government spending on, and so like health all levels of education are now to be paid for. This has placed a even greater burden on the impoverished African majority who can not afford to send their children to schools, but can afford even less not to send their children to school. Education is the only hope that most poor people have of breaking the cycle of poverty in a world where any kind of access to resources is greatly increased by your being educated. But more importantly being uneducated means that they are largely excluded from the political processes of their countries. 

Not wanting to equate not having a formal education with illiteracy, it is a very real fact that most  people who do not have a formal education have lower levels of literacy than people who have been formally educated. Again not wanting to suggest that only educated people have an understanding of the political processes of their countries, the truth even among the educated this  knowledge is limited to the very obvious, but unlike the illiterate, literate people can find the relevant information and read up on it until they are informed. Their ignorance is voluntary through sheer lack of interest which those who really need to know how to make the system work for them are not able to access this information. 

The other aspect of education is education on people’s rights, how they can exercise those rights and how they can participate in the democratic process. It is not enough to teach people how to vote and remind them every so often of their basic rights as relates to the election process, people need to be educated about the entire political system. What they should expect from their governments. Not just what their role is, but the fact that they have a role to play in the system especially when it comes to matters that affect them directly, but even those that do not. People need to know that there is more to their role in this democratic practice than just voting, what is it they can do and how they can do it in exercising their right and role in the process to ensure government stay accountable to them. 

Without people being educated on this matters these are not really likely to know, especially if their levels of formal education are low, where they fit in beyond the vote because it is usually in formal educational structures that this kind of information is more readily available and people are better informed. In South Africa there is decided campaign to inform the general population on their rights and the meaning of democracy and what and how they can actively participate in the democratic process as a whole. There has been a relatively pronounced campaign to not publicise  the working of government and the democratic process and what people’s role in it is, in more simplistic and comprehensible terms and in the nine official languages of the country, but to also introduce it in the school curriculum so that children grow up with this awareness. But of course this campaign has been largely limited to urban areas which are in easy access and obvious  limited further to those who are literate. 

Fourth Tier

Access to, and Understanding of, Information

The final tier of the pyramid which also represents the last requirement for full participation in a democracy, but which can only be realised once the preceding needs are realised. So by this stage, the highest stage of the pyramid, all the anteceding stages have been accomplished, the people have access to food, shelter, and security, to health, and to education. But even with these things in place people still need access to information on the functions of the state and an understanding of the information that they receive. Most governments are located in urban centres which are inaccessible to the general population. Information of government activities is only received via newspapers and that is invariably selective and biassed in favour of the more sensational government activities. So people access to this information which is crucial to their participation is significantly limited. Even people who live in the urban areas and are members of the more privileged class do not really know where this information is to be found generally, there is an alarmingly high level of ignorance on government functions and people role therein even among the so called educated members of society. 

But even if people were to get access to copies of the proposed legislation or attended parliamentary sections or committee meetings the question more relevant than having access to this information is whether or not people actually understand it. The complexity of the legal and formal language used to articulate government policies is generally inaccessible to the average person and this greatly inhibits people’s ability to participate and contribute to the debate and in the democratic process as a whole. It is not enough that people are able to have access to this information and these structures if they are not able to fully understand what is contained in the documents or follow the discussions at hand. 

Language Issues in African Democracies

The proposed pyramid clearly exemplifies an ideal that we should be striving for in order to ensure full and effective participation of the majority of the people on this continent, while ensuring a transparent and accountable government fully cognisant of the power of the people to determine where or not it will continue in power. This in turn would result in governments striving at all time to provide the necessary services it was intended for diligently and consistently. However as mentioned this is merely and ideal and if we are wait until such time as all these things are achieved we will make very little progress by way of ensuring that as many members of the population participate as fully as they can in the democracies struggling to survive in Africa. If we are wait for the realisation of the needs articulated above, then we will continue, for a good many years, to exclude and marginalise those members of African society that comprise the majority of the population yet have minority representation in political and economic power structures.

It is important to continue to try and implement a just and participatory state structure while at the some time finding ways for the provision the needs articulated above. This will in turn precipitate the realisation of some levels of empowerment of the poor within most countries. But even as we work towards achieving these goals which are a far cry from what we hope to accomplish, language in Africa continues to be the most important vehicle of exclusion in democratic participation in Africa. A significant proposition of the African population does not use the colonial languages as a means of communication. Even among the literate poor members of the population literacy is generally in the mother tongue. Politicians and the elite underestimate the importance of language, not just in reaching the rest of the population, but in the very process of development this has been a recognised fact for decades now and although much has been written on this issue little reflects it. 

The issue of language and its relevance in these matters is greatly undermined and understated, it is a long established fact that people’s ability to develop is directly related to the use of their languages. “There is nothing more fundamental than the mother-tongue, and it would appear axiomatic that, for te African, as for other individuals, the mother tongue should form the basis of his development and his means of self-expression” (Ward;1945, 133-4). This line of argument is concurred by many scholars on African languages who continue to strive ensure their survival even in the face of adversity.

We also realise that all the successful societies of Asia and Europe are societies which use their own languages. The fact that people use their own languages contributes immensely to their development endeavours in all societies ... Our argument has been that these issues of language and culture are of enormous relevance to the development of society. If we want to culturally and educationally empower the masses of Africa, we have to take knowledge to the masses in  languages of their native historical experience and creativity. Unless we do this, there is no chance of advancement; until we dot his, we will be forever culturally tied to the linguistic and cultural apron strings of the former imperial masters of the world (Prah; 1998, 12). 

Government documents are not produced in these languages, nor are debates conducted in the languages of the majority of the people. So participation is limited to those members of society sufficiently fluent in whatever colonial language is the national language of the country. As Reitzes states the:

ability to participate is shaped not only by differential access ... to resources such as  formal education or the leisure time and funds needed to organise, but by factors as basic as language - our public debate is not conducted in the languages spoken by the vast majority of our citizens. Simply leaving democracy to the market place of competing ideas and organisations may well ensure that the voices which most need to be heard remain stilled (Reitzes; 1997,20). 

How do we expect people to be able to take full and active part in the democratic system if the entire system is based on a language that is inaccessible to the vast majority of the people. What and how do we anticipate they will be able to contribute if even at the most basic level of participation they are excluded.