African democracy and reviews

As we mark the second anniversary of the May 2005 elections, it would be significant to reflect on the state of elections and growth of democracy in Africa. The elections of May 2005 can be seen as a milestone in politics in Ethiopia as it has shown all of us the promises as well as heartaches associated with elections. The election promises were that probably for the first time in Ethiopia’s history there has been a wide field of contestants and debates grounded on policies have taken place. These helped in bringing about hopes that democracy and the rule of law can actually grow roots in Africa.

In fact what has happened in Ethiopia depending on degrees has been a phenomenon observed in much of Africa for the past few years where there were sincere attempts at bringing about democratic transitions in Africa. The question arises whether Africa can handle elections without bloodshed and accusations? And can the fledgling African democracies handle the new tide of pluralism and populist oppositions? At most reactions from incumbents from these threats have at times been over handed and ended up with casting doubts on the whole electoral process. Besides the political parties involved in the squabbles, electoral observers too should share the burden of blame.
For one, electoral bodies have been seen contradicting one another presumably for fear of criticism shied away from sticky issues in regards to electoral malpractices such as ballot box stuffing, ghost voters and other issues. Some have attributed this to the fear of change and believing that incumbents that have been in power for decades are stabilizing forces in the region and as such indiscretions can be overlooked. This has probably been noted in recent times in regards to donors and the international community. Another stumbling block here emanates from regional bodies and the AU who shy away from giving out any criticisms towards its member states.

In response, Africans who are increasingly demanding for democratic institutions are swayed by such arguments and prefer to allow incumbents to continue in power with the expectation that if given ample time to deal with inherited problems, probably democracy slowly but surely would flourish in the continent. This is also a phenomenon that has its roots from the 1990s when authoritarian governments were replaced by parties who at that time were seen as freedom fighters following the end of the Cold War. One thing that rings out is that authoritarianism has toned down in much of Africa since 1990s. The problem is how much has democracy grown during the ten- plus- year period? And which changes are direct results of the changes that have occurred in Africa as consequences of African governments’ moves and which changes were spurred by changes from outside Africa?

One thing is for certain: regional blocs in Africa continue to shy away from guaranteeing democracy in the region for fear of political backlashes within the region. Granted that the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) is an attempt by African nations to self-regulate African nations but five years on only 25 African nations have joined the APRM by signing memorandums of understanding and only a handful of nations have been reviewed. This is indicative of the lack of political grit within Africa to support such a noble cause. If African governments cannot do it clearly, an alternative needs to come up. Probably the role of civil society groups needs to be looked into; civil society groups by and large are closer to the people and are seen with respect. If we go to the remotest parts of Africa we see civil society groups working in the areas of health, income generation, education, advocacy and others and have established relations with grass root communities stronger than any political party. They serve not for political gain but for societal development. It would be worth Africa’s time to allow civil society groups more room to maneuver to help guarantee good governance and democracy. After all , we are in the age of partnership and alliances. Why not be more inclusive in achieving our common goals?

May 18, 2007