Liberalism and Democracy: Which Way for Africa?

Published on 13th July 2008

Former President of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo, South African President Thabo Mbeki, Abdullahi Wade of Senegal and Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria spear headed the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). In  doing this, they might have unwittingly agreed with the ominous prediction of Francis Fukuyama that at the twilight of the millennium, the battle between authoritarianism and ideology has left only liberal democracy- the doctrine of individual freedom and popular sovereignty standing. 

With NEPAD, the continent’s leaders agree that they must not only take accommodative view to world politics but adjust to the realities of neo-liberal globalization which came to fore after the collapse of Berlin wall and Gorbachev dealt the final blow into the coffin of communism with his glasnost and perestroika. A crucial part of the accommodation is in the area of internal political and economic reforms in line with neo-liberal economics and liberal democracy. 

Arising from a culture of impunity and authoritarianism, Africa and indeed Africans have been anything but liberal. Individual freedoms have been curtailed; political opponents hounded out of competitive space, dubious victories claimed at elections and  markets restricted. Where liberalism has reared its head, it has uncanny manipulation of the state. Markets have only liberalized for few individual under fraudulent circumstances. Enabling environment for access to external market has not been created. The burden of Africa is indebtedness and crass under-development arising from unequal exchange between Africa and the world market because 'technology, manufactured goods and technical know-how' have to be imported at prices way above what is earned from export. 

How do these play out in Africa in the so called liberal and democratic atmosphere? First, democracy presupposes that all citizens have a share in political power and that power is simply held in trust for the majority who played an active part in the making of that government.  Economic liberalism on the other hand presupposes that market should operate freely allocating values and resources. 

From the examination of democracy above, it presupposes that there are basic rules that must be observed, these rules which are as important as the game itself have often been observed in the breach. The people are hardly given a voice with leaders who themselves hardly believe in the tenets of democracy that they are supposed to be practicing. 

If we draw examples from Nigeria especially our recent experience, the point can be made clearer. Nigeria’s failure and perennial groping in the dark in our attempt to establish functional, and durable, democracy can be assessed on the basis of the various failed attempts that were made since independence in 1960.After the first and major election midwifed by the outgoing colonial administration in 1959, the next general election in 1964/65 were seriously flawed. The protest that greeted that election contributed to the demise of the first republic and the macabre dance that snow balled into the fratricidal civil war.The movement from the parliamentary to the presidential system of governance in the second republic 1979-1983 did not substantially change the attitude of the political gladiators to electoral matters. But if the elections of 1979 were disputed on the account of some perceived flaws, the one organized to transit the civilian government in 1983 to another civilian regime was worse. The military putsch that flushed the government of Alhaji Shehu Shagari in December 1983 was the direct consequence of the failure of the democratic process displayed in that election.

It is instructive to note that failure of the democratic process has always been an invitation or at least a justification for the interventions of the military in the democratic process. The military came to be seen as the corrective antidote to a malfunctioning political class and system. 

Obasanjo who conducted an election generally seen as fair in 1979 mouthing some democratic credentials raised the people's expectation. Apart from midwifing the second republic in 1979, he had transformed it into an intellectual and moral forum to enthrone good governance and democracy. No one was more eminently qualified to ensure genuine democracy  than Obasanjo and when we add this to his international pronouncement and actions exemplified by his been at the fore front for the birth of NEPAD, Nigerians could be forgiven to think that democracy had finally come to stay. 

If there were eye brows raised in 1979 about Obasanjo's conduct of the elections that brought Alhaji Shehu Shagari to government, there were worse scenarios in 2003. Wide spread rigging was the order of the day in the main elections apart from suppression of opposition and lack of internal democracies in the parties.

The worst was yet to come. Obasanjo the voice of moral opposition to Babangida and Abacha for trying to sit tight and bringing the military to disrepute suddenly developed the idea that he could manufacture for himself a third term of office in glaring subversion of the constitution which clearly stipulates  a maximum of two terms of four years each. It is a lasting tribute to the civil society movements, the media and the opposition that Nigeria was not turned into another banana republic and Obasanjo was forced to leave.

Obasanjo also advertised economic "reform' as a pillar of his administration. This reform was no doubt geared towards his belief in liberalizing the economy. But liberalization for whom? The economic reform was cosmetic picking aspects that will appeal to some foreign donors and putting in place policies that made a few rich while impoverishing the population. Obasanjo met a little above 48% of Nigerians living below poverty line and left over 70% now below poverty line. He came when the exchange rate of the national currency was N80 to 1 USD but left it at N140 to 1USD. There is nothing to show for the unprecedented oil revenue of the past eight years. Mass retrenchment under the guise of right sizing all in response to IMF/World Bank conditionalities have become the order of the day.

If we take the case of Nigeria to be a mirror of other African countries, economic liberalization and democracy have so far failed. In the last eight years especially, Nigeria has produced five senate presidents in Evan Enwerem, Chuba Okadigbo, Ayim Pius Ayim, Adolphus Wabara and Ken Nnamani all installed through executive manipulation and removed at the slightest show of independence which constitute disloyalty.The ruling party has also produced equal number of chairmen with early founders hounded out by a bully of a president. The Nigerian economy has been nothing but an appendage of IMF/World Bank churning out anti people policies in the name of liberalization.  

The way out is for genuine electoral reform to make the agency charged with the conduct of election truly independent. There must also be genuine internal democracies in the parties. For when one talks of election rigging in Africa, it is `not only at the general election but within the parties. No rigging is worse than preventing the best candidates from emerging among contestants at intra party elections. When this happens, the electorate is already denied the chance to make a good choice.The presence of a strong judiciary and an executive ready to respect the rule of law is also crucial. Monetization of the process should also be checked to allow for people with genuine interest to serve but without the massive resources currently used the opportunity to serve.Liberalization of the economy is good but it must be people driven and not targeted at making a few people rich and leaving the majority poor. The success of Liberalization lies solidly on the good governance.

By Adedayo Thomas

Nigeria.


This article has been read 1,606 times
COMMENTS