Introduction 

Since the 1980s Africa’s quest for democratic rule and good governance has gained greater ascendancy. This new drive has had the backing of the OAU in the adoption of the African Charter on Popular Participation and Development in the late 1980s. This new-found desire for democratization was reinforced by the OAU in 1990 by the adoption of the Declaration of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government on the political and economic situation in Africa and the fundamental changes taking place in the world. The efforts were not in vain as they bore fruits in the early part of the 1990s with many African countries making the effort to hold “free and fair elections” and to institute some form of “democratic governments”. The overall current picture, however, shows that the continent remains in turmoil, plagued by instability and conflicts. If the early 90s saw greater progress towards democratic rule in some parts of the continent, the latter part of the 90s can be characterized as a period of instability and armed conflicts. The continuous armed conflict in the Southern Sudan, the overthrow of President Mobutu in the former Zaire, followed by armed rebellion in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the return of Sasso Ingueno to power in the Congo by military insurrection, the rebellion/armed mutiny in Lesotho, and the ongoing rebel incursions into Sierra Leone, represent a few examples of how the African continent has remained in turmoil. 

As its contribution to the debate on the democracy in Africa, the Development Policy Management Forum has been organizing annual conferences on democracy and governance. The 7-10 December 1998 Conference, the second in a series, must be seen as part of the ongoing search for answers to the undemocratic tendencies on the continent.

The Plenary Session involved the opening speeches, the Keynote Address as well as three Guest Speakers. Mr. James Nxumalo, Director, Development Management Division, ECA chaired the opening session.  The opening addresses were delivered by Ms Victoria Oku, Director of Administration who represented the Secretary General of the OAU; Ms. Lalla Ben Barka, Deputy Executive Secretary, ECA; Dr. Petros Olango, Deputy Speaker of the House of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia; and Mr. S. Nyambi, UNDP Resident Representative. Professor Archie Mafeje of the American University of Cairo gave the Keynote Address. The four Guest Speakers were, Mr. L. A. Darga, Former Minister of Housing and Environment in Mauritius; Professor H.Othman, University of Dar-es-Salaam; Dr. E. Kimani, Kenyatta University, Kenya, and Ms Joyce Mends-Cole, of the UNDP. 

Nurturing Democracy in Africa 

All speakers during this session were of the view that democratic institutions are sine qua non if Africa is to move out of its present predicament. The Opening Addresses, the Keynote speech, as well as the contributions by the Guest Speakers were unanimous in stressing the need to maintain the few democratic achievements on the continent and improve upon the existing ones. The emphasis was on the need to strive to improve upon what has been achieved, and also to pursue the legitimate goals with a view to removing all outstanding impediments to the realization of the optimum level of democratic development on the African continent. 

Divergence of opinions, however, emerged in respect of the brand of democracy which is suitable for Africa. Some participants were opposed to the imposition of the western type of democracy on the peoples of Africa. For this school of thought, individual African countries should be free to develop their own brand of democracy. However, the danger in this approach is the fallacious assumption that democracy has the chameleon type of image and changes to suit particular circumstances (Frimpong, 1997a). While, some limited, but cosmetic variations may be permissible, democracy, irrespective of where it operates, has certain prerequisites which are common to all the environments in which it is planted, be it in Africa, America, Asia, or Europe.  Any attempt to permit leaders to determine what they perceive as their own brand of democracy has always played into the hands of African “dictators”. They will choose to deflect any criticism against “their control of power” and justify their authoritarian rule, particularly by relying on the so-called African indigenous institutions. The same argument has been used over the years in favor of one party state and the so-called African socialism (Ayittey, 1991). Just as Africa cannot afford isolationism in the global economic advancement, she cannot opt out of the game of democracy by trying to insist on its own brand. 

On this particular issue, it was pointed out that the OAU must share the blame for the failure to live up to its responsibility. The OAU favors the democratic wind of change, which is supposed to be sweeping across the continent, and this is commendable. However, while its pronouncements are in the right direction, its actions and inaction’s do not suggest any serious concerted efforts to bring about democratic rule on the continent. For example, the OUA cannot be seen to be serious in its opposition to military interventions in the affairs of civilian governments when it turns a blind eye to military dictators who have self-styled themselves as democrats. It is not only an affront to the whole concept of democracy, but also a mockery to allow military dictators to try to topple another one in order to bring about democracy in Sierra Leone. Such ambivalent positions have encouraged military adventurists to continue to overthrow civilian regimes with impunity. The recent case of the Gambia readily comes to mind. When Captain Yahya Jammeh overthrew an elected civilian government in 1994 and subsequently organized presidential elections, which turned him into a civilian president, no opposition was raised by the OAU.  Similarly, while the OAU was busy in trying to restore a civilian rule in Sierra Leone, Sasso Ingueno in Congo was also busy in overthrowing a civilian regime. This did not receive even a condemnation from the OAU. Is Congo different from Sierra Leone? 

The danger with this inconsistent and incoherent policy on the part of the OAU towards unconstitutional changes of government breeds contempt for the Organization and encourages other coup-plotters to continue to destabilize the continent. If X in county Y has been allowed to retain his coup by claiming to have won elections which returned his country to civilian rule, what will prevent A in country B from trying to emulate his example. But, as some delegates pointed out, presumably we are expecting too much from the OAU.  What we fail to realize is the fact that, at the end of the day, the OAU is made up of the Heads of State whose own interests are at stake. Any serious condemnation emanating from the African leaders will amount to the OAU condemning itself, which will be suicidal. The ambivalent and inconsistent policy towards democratic rule is therefore the normal expectation from the Organization since most of whose members do not own their positions by what can be described as free and fair elections. 

Delegates were very emphatic in their condemnation of all forms of unconstitutional changes of government, especially through military interventions. It was argued that any attempt to change civilian government unconstitutionally reverses any gains along the democratic ladder. In view of the serious threats that unconstitutional change of government poses to the fledging democracies on the continent, delegates were called upon to make serious recommendations which might provide a lasting solution to the problem. In response to this quest and as a means of counteracting this growing threat to democratic aspirations, especially from military adventurists, delegates were urged to adopt a policy which would seek to punish any person who had ever overthrown any lawfully constituted government.  

Pseudo-democratic regimes, which are springing up and masquerading around the globe also came into the spotlight. The question arose regarding the true democratic status of some of the so-called democratic governments on the continent, particularly the manner in which they are deemed to have attained the democratic status.  In this regard, the election process of determining democratic governments was subjected to scrutiny. It was contented that the method of declaring elections allegedly to be free and fair has to be re-examined. The participants felt that the practice, adopted by the international community, to declare that elections have been free and fair, by merely attesting to this from the observations of selected voting stations on the day of the elections only, does not provide a realistic tool for determining truly democratically elected governments on the continent.  The role of NGOs in this regard, although laudable, was in many respects not very helpful. Participants therefore advocated a rapid transformation of the whole electoral system to ensure the operation of genuine democratic governments within the affected countries. This will rely on the voters themselves having the opportunity to assess the genuineness and legitimacy of elections, rather than to be dependent on foreign assessment. 

The relevance of free and fair elections was emphasized. Whenever elections are not freely and fairly conducted, the citizenry are cheated and not properly represented. Any government born out of deceit and fraud breads contempt, incompetence and instability. It is morally unacceptable for any person who has unconstitutionally seized power and remained in power to be a candidate for the return of the country to a democratic rule (Frimpong, ibid.). There is no way that any election emanating from that regime with the leader still a candidate can be free and fair. It is a verified truism that African governments, even when supposedly democratic, control all institutions which are material in the democratic process: the electoral authority, the security agencies, the judiciary, and the media. 

As a means of ensuring that elections are free and fair in all countries on the continent the practice of “leveling the playing-field” (which has been practiced in South Africa), but is gradually gaining popularity in many parts of the continent, should be adopted. One important requirement is an independent electoral office to conduct the elections. It has to have the full authority to ensure that all contesting political parties have equal chances, particularly equal access to the media. More importantly, any person who has come to power by unconstitutional means should be debarred from contesting elections that seek to return the country to a democratic rule. As a deterrent against any future military adventurist, it was strongly argued that any person who uses any unlawful means to overthrow a lawfully constituted government, should be debarred from ever holding public office. Furthermore, he should be pursued, prosecuted and punished for the treasonable conduct, without any reference to any statute of limitation (i.e. irrespective of the period that has elapsed since the treasonable action took place) (SAUSSC, 1997) or any exemption provisions. 

Professor Mafeje in his Keynote Address, Democracy, Civil Society and Governance in Africa, challenges African countries to adopt a critical approach towards the concept of democracy. He contends that “liberal democracy” is not what Africa needs. In his opinion, ‘liberal democracy’ as a concept is not appropriate for Africa. Instead, we should advocate “social democracy”. He argues that liberal democracy does not ensure social equality. Professor Mafeje emphasizes that even in the developed countries with very well entrenched democracies, such as the United States, the absence of social democracy results in the marginalisation of a section of the population and thereby undermines the democratic institutions.  The same can be said about South Africa with its fledging democracy.  Because of the absence of social democracy in that country there is a problem of income distribution. While a small minority abides in abundance of wealth, the majority of the population continues to live in abject poverty. 

Under “social democracy” the nation is preoccupied with the responsibility of development and maintaining “national accumulation” (Darga, 1998) for equitable distribution among the citizenry. Professor Mafeje sees social democracy as becoming popular and eventually being widely practiced. He, however, does not believe in social democracy that is imported, but rather defined and applied within the environment it operates. In this sense it has to be planted, germinated, rooted, and nurtured within the African context. 

It will be presumptuous for anyone to assume that democracy, in its final analysis is an abstract entity. The ultimate goal is the translation of its gains into the promotion of the advancement and the welfare of the peoples of the countries involved. The whole essence of the demands for the pursuit of democracy is the belief that it will provide a tool for the rapid economic transformation of the countries of Africa (Darga, ibid.). The assumption is that through democratic institutions there will be stability that may operate as a catalyst for the rapid economic growth which will remove the apparent economic stagnation of the continent. Democracy, the argument goes, is therefore not the ultimate goal of the proponents of the policy, but rather the economic empowerment and the development of the countries. 

This can be deduced from IMF and the World Bank policies toward Africa. Where the countries are able to implement their policies and progress in the economic field, the two institutions have turned a blind eye and not insisted on democracy as a prerequisite for assistance; but allowed dictatorial regimes to benefit substantially from their aid programmes. The two classic examples are Ghana and Uganda where dictators were in power and since they were prepared to implement the IMF/World Bank policies of structural adjustment, the absence of democracy did not pose any problem to the two institutions in dealing with those countries (Darga, ibid.). This led to an “incongruous relationship” (Frimpong 1997b) between the international financial institutions and undemocratic governments. 

It is a fallacy to link democracy with economic development and transformation. The facts around the globe depict a different story. There is no doubt that democracy can provide a tool for economic development as a result of stability and the ability to attract domestic and foreign private investment. It is, however, erroneous to assume that democracy per se can bring about development. There are a number of democratic countries whose socio-economic performance has been a failure. Similarly, a number of undemocratic countries exist which have been successful economically. It is therefore unfortunate that both the IMF and the World Bank have made democracy a condition to the latter’s lending programme, and more so for the fact that those institutions do not adhere strictly to this policy. 

Mr. Darga, in his presentation, Mauritius-Governance Challenges in Sustained Democracy in a Plural Society, cited the cases of both Rawlings and Museveni as examples where their regimes, even though not democratically elected had the full backing of the IMF/World Bank economic and financial power. This ambivalent position has itself seriously undermined the true democratic aspirations in some of the countries. The IMF/World Bank policy of sustaining and propping up dictatorial governments had the unfortunate consequence of weakening and even destroying the genuine aspirants for democratic reforms as they were branded as the “enemies of the economic reforms initiated by the governments with the support of the international lending institutions”. Those dictatorial regimes, on the other hand, enjoyed the international reputation for the “so-called success stories” (Frimpong, ibid.). The consequence of this was that any opposition to the regimes was seen as undermining their achievements. The opposition that offered what could be seen as the aspiration for true democracy to those regimes, was therefore not accorded any respect in the international media and were seen as impediments to the progress of their countries. In the process the opposition was weakened, fragmented and even destroyed. The outcome of this was that the regimes not only continued in their domination of the political as well as economic scenes, but that their leaders also managed eventually to succeed themselves as heads of state in the alleged return to civilian rule. Rawlings of Ghana, Museveni of Uganda, and Yahya Jammeh of the Gambia became Presidents of their countries with the approval and the blessings of the international community. 

The Role of the Intelligentsia 

Participants strongly argued for a change of attitude on the part of the African intellectuals in adopting principled positions on matters of national importance. 

Governance 

Considering the importance that good governance can play in the development of Africa most participants urged countries to adopt concrete measures to ensure that their countries improve upon the governance situation. Darga (1998), however, argued against the imposition of any foreign conditionalities in determining the level of governance. He preferred the populace as the best barometer for the assessment of governance since they are the best indicators as to whether the government is delivering or not. The danger in this proposition is the fact that it is not uncommon for the citizenry to be manipulated by the government in power.  A combination of both the international and the local assessment is therefore a better option in determining the governance situation of a country. In this regard, the “Self-Assessment” guidelines prepared by the Global Coalition for Africa (GCA, 1998) can be used as a working tool. 

Ethnicity and Democratic Rule 

On the sensitive issue of ethnicity, Professor Mafeje argued that nations have varieties of ethnicity, as there is no nation that can be said to be purely ethnically based.  He reminded participants that Africans have spent the past 15-20 years dealing with ethnicity, (a term which he found less ideologically loaded than tribalism), without reaching any clearly defined goal.  He felt that the definition of tribe itself can be problematic: is it by objectivity to determine its existence or not, or is it an issue of identity which is used to determine the tribe?  Professor Mafeje however, believes that ethnicity has been used in many parts of Africa, and even in other parts of the world, for political purposes. He gave as an example the case of Rwanda, especially during the recent massacre of the unarmed civilians. 

Ethnicity per se is not a negative concept and therefore the popular explanation that ethnicity is the cause of African problems should be rejected. It is rather its abuse and misuse that has been a problem for the African continent. This is supported by Professor Mafeje (ibid.) who stresses that the real problem is how best to share power. He argues that there can be no nation state in Africa, but rather only a multiplicity of identities. He contends that this is only a utopian idea, and that a nation state in Africa is impossible as this is not possible even in Europe, which, with very long history of nation building has not been able to attain that. He does not think that federalism offers the answer either.  He cites Nigeria as an example, where an attempt at federalism has not produced a lasting and coherent nation. In any case, Professor Mafeje stresses that Nigeria is not a federal state in the true sense of the word, but a unitary one which dominates others. As a solution, Mafeje believes that regional integration should be pursued as it has the capability to defuse tensions, as was done in Rwanda. But the danger in this proposition is the possible domination of smaller ethnic groups. 

It is not uncommon for politicians to capitalise on ethnicity for purposes of amassing power at the expense of other ethnic groups. Such leaders have manipulated ethnicity for political gains as a means of ensuring their desire to hold on to power. Politicians have been known to rely on divide and rule tactics by playing one ethnic group against another in order to ferment trouble as a pretext to impose their will upon the people. Leaders on the continent are known to have exploited ethnic differences in order to pave the way for authoritarian rule. Ethnic conflicts which have been common on the continent are also generally fanned by self-seeking power-drunk politicians who stop at nothing in their pursuit of power. In the process, many lives have been lost and countless innocent ones are left bleeding. As Professor Mafeje puts it, the ordinary people are the ones who suffer and not the leaders. The genocide in Rwanda offers a classic example, where the ordinary peasants were massacred, while the politicians escaped. Many African leaders who have participated in such murderous activities have their hands soiled in the blood of the innocents. 

Professor Mafeje discussed the issue of the exercise of state power.  He observed that the state power has been equated with control. In some instances, it has been used for domination and marginalisation. This has had the negative effect of creating factionalism, as the power base does not represent the will of the people.  Such actions, Professor Mafeje argues, do not afford a natural definition of ethnicity. When applied to democratic rule, ethnicity, in this sense, could pose a very serious problem for many African countries. Professor Mafeje contends that democracy itself has its own problems as it operates on the basis of the so-called majority rule.  This has an inherent element of domination of the smaller ethnic groups by the larger ones.  He gave as an example of Zimbabwe where the Ndebeles constitute only 20% of the population while the Shonas far outnumber them.  In such a case the Shonas shall always emerge winners.  The Ndebeles, in order to survive, had no option, but to join the ruling party, thus effectively creating a one party state.  In his opinion, the same can be said about Malawi where the ruling party tries to play down the issue of domination by claiming to represent the whole nation. 

Civil Society and the Democratic Process 

The important role that civil society can play in the democratization process, as well as in the development of the African continent, need not be overemphasized. Professor Othman, who spoke on Civil Society and Struggle for Independence, focused on the overall role that civil society could play in the democratic process and the assessment of governance. Most participants supported the important role that civil society plays in various countries in the pursuit of democratic goals. In his earlier presentation, Professor Mafeje had also touched on this issue. While he believes that civil society has a role to play in the development of the continent, he nevertheless thinks that civil society is weak in Africa and does not make any significant impact on the political, economic or social situation in Africa. In particular, he takes issue with NGOs, which are also classified under civil society.  He argues that some NGOs are used to subvert promising governments in Africa. 

While civil society can play an important role in supporting the democratic processes, it was observed that the local civil society has generally been very weak in this exercise. What baffled participants was this apparent weakness emerging only after independence. In his presentation, Professor Othman noted that in the struggle for independence all civil society groups were mobilized and involved.  There was no distinction between the youth, old and gender.  The post-independence period, however, has witnessed the emergence of one party states in many African countries.  Ghana became a de facto one party state in 1959 and Tanzania in 1964.  In most cases the civil society, including the Trade Union Congress (TUC) became wing of the CPP.  In Tanzania the TUC was banished and eventually became an integral part of the ruling party.  In this process most civil society became part of the ruling parties and lost their independence and ability to fight for and protect civil liberties.  They were eventually destroyed. 

The 1980s saw the revival of civil society with the emergence of democratic aspirations in many African countries.  The TUC spearheaded the demands for change as the working conditions had fallen below acceptable standards.  Furthermore, civil liberties had been trampled upon for far too long and many citizens were yearning for civil liberties, political freedom, better living standards, and freedom from oppression. In South Africa, for instance, because the apartheid system had dehumanized an overwhelmingly large section of the population, the demand for change was loudest.  The trade union movement was in the forefront for change as other political activities were banned. 

Civil society also found room to maneuver as the state withdrew from many activities because of either latent recognition of its inability to continue with such activities or because of the limited resources at the disposal of the state.  Among such activities were schools and hospitals run by churches that had previously been taken over by the state at the time of independence.  Civil society under those circumstances has taken over the activities from which the state had withdrawn as a vacuum has been creat