Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare. – The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
Before colonialism, there was a system of governance in Afrika performed by traditional leaders, who practiced their brand of democracy through traditional courts that had freedom of expression, and generally, just laws. The continent still has traditional leaders albeit neutered of power by politicians save for Eswatini, an absolute monarchy. The system worked fairly well until colonialism happened and forced the multi-party democracy (MPD) down our throats. To be clear, monarchism as a source of political authority was also practised in Europe. In fact, an absolute monarchy was the prevalent form of government in much of the history of Europe.
However, over the centuries, monarchies in Europe were reformed and evolved gradually, inclusive of the revolutionary Magna Carta document, which established the principle that everyone is subject to the law, even the king, and guaranteed the rights of individuals, the right to justice and the right to a fair trial. It served as the foundation of the English system of common law, and was also fundamental in the evolution of liberal democracy.
Since the end of World War I, however, most European monarchies were abolished and replaced with liberal democracy or MPD. As of today, apart from the Vatican City, there are no absolute monarchies anymore in Europe – only neutered constitutional monarchies exist side by side with MPD.
Liberal democracy is whereby individual rights and freedoms are officially recognized and protected, and the exercise of political power by a government is limited by the rule of law. The system emphasizes the separation of powers, an independent judiciary and a system of checks and balances between branches of government. Liberal democracy also calls for a representative government through parliament to fulfil societal diversity. MPD is often equated with liberal democracy because it is believed that pluralism in a society can only be exercised through a multiple of political parties.
Afrikan leaders who fought for independence were less concerned with the suitability of the political system that will be used to govern the newly independent countries, and more about controlling state coffers. As a result, instead of agitating for a more suitable system, upon gaining self-rule, Afrikan countries adopted, without question, the governing system that prevailed in the countries of their ‘former’ colonial masters: MPD.
However, MPD is extremely ill-suited for Afrikan conditions largely on account of the continent’s low level of development. Afrikan countries that have adopted the political system are applauded and praised by the West. This is principally because, firstly, by manipulating the system, the West benefits from it economically, and, secondly, to encourage its continuance and dispel any doubts about its unsuitability, as briefly described hereunder.
Divisive -The system is characterized by perpetual tussling for state power within and between political parties. Its highly divisive nature denies Afrikans the opportunity to focus on their nascent economies and indigenise them. On account of the infighting, foreign powers and non-indigenous businesses use their business experience and cash-power to dominate Afrikan economies and lock out locals, thus, increase the potential for social instability. Also, MPD does not encourage national unity, a prerequisite for the development of developing countries.
Competency – Only those who can withstand the hustle and bustle of public campaigns can make it in Afrikan politics. However, on many occasions, these would not be the most capable and, as a result, the system tends to produce incompetent leaders and governments.
Funding – Finance plays the largest role in the contestation for state power. Money is needed for a plethora of expenses (advertising, paraphernalia, rallies, travelling, accommodation, etc.). Without finance, a political party cannot wage a meaningful campaign. The targeting of foreign donors and wealthy citizens, most of whom are non-indigenous, to boost party coffers often lead to state capture and compromises democracy because parties are often beholden to funders rather than to the voters.
Educational Attainment – Voting for a particular party ought to be an informed decision. However, the ability to interpret a political manifesto is generally low amongst the electorate because of little education. Voting is therefore done along sentimental reasons instead of the stated intentions of a party and its ability to deliver.
Winner Takes All – MPD gives the winner a blank cheque to national coffers for the duration of the election period. This provides fertile ground for public corruption especially where there is poor oversight, a situation that obtains in many Afrikan countries. Public corruption invariably results in the depletion of resources that could otherwise be used for public programmes. Jealousy by those denied the opportunity to dip into state coffers result in insurrection and military coups.
Limited Human Resources – Governing parties are normally wary of possible sabotage, therefore, some citizens, regardless of competence, are overlooked for positions in government. Also, the non-participation of opposition parties and their supporters in government denies a country access to valuable human resources. Thus, a country only utilises a fraction of its available brainpower, which is already in short supply in the first place. This breeds nepotism, with merit playing a minor role in appointments, leading to incompetence in government.
Denial of Governing Role – If a contest between two parties, for example, results in a close margin of say, 51 percent to 49 percent, the losing party would be shut out from contributing in running the country; meaning that a very large proportion of the voting public (almost half in this case) is denied a say on how a government is managed, which, by any standard, is undemocratic and a gross injustice.
Party Over Country – Often, ruling parties prioritise party interests over those of the country. Corruption and incompetence of powerful party members such as the president and cabinet ministers are overlooked, resulting in the gross mismanagement of a country. These unethical members are not taken to task because it is thought that it would tarnish the image of the party and reduce its electability.
Small Private Sector – Not many, especially locals, are adept at navigating the private sector, which, in any case, offers very limited opportunities because of its small and nascent nature. Political power is therefore regarded as a way to amass wealth, through public corruption. Consequently, political parties tend to attract mostly the unprincipled members of society, which cannot be good for democracy.
Wasteful Expenditure – In reaction to opposition condemnations and to remain politically relevant, populist projects with little economic returns are favoured by ruling parties over less popular projects with higher economic returns because of low development awareness amongst the electorate. This wasteful expenditure is tragic when a country is poor and needs critical public investments.
Manipulated Elections – In some cases, elections are manipulated to produce results favourable to the incumbent regime. This is done in order to avoid detection of public corruption that has taken place, and to continue unhindered access to state coffers. This results in disgruntlement by those unfairly denied a shot at state power, which often leads to political instability.
Intolerance– When public corruption is in full swing and conducted with impunity, the ruling party refuses to give up state power when it loses the election. And a society is characterised by arbitrary arrests, incarceration without due process, torture, harassment, terror, political assassinations, by its government.
Volunteerism – Before and just after independence, there was a woefully shortage of social amenities. Consequently, the citizenry took it upon itself to pool its meagre resources to set up amenities such as schools. However, the advent of MPD killed the spirit of volunteerism. Opposition parties accuse the governing party of poor service delivery, claiming they would do much better if elected into power. To counter such promises, governments provide numerous handouts in the form of safety nets for the poor that countries can hardly afford.
Presented with such a situation, people are averse to improving their lot, and wait for handouts from government or for the opposition to attain state power in order to receive the promised handouts. This entitlement mentality does not augur well for volunteerism and self-sufficiency.
The continent has huge developmental potential, but it is held back by a poor leadership on account of a political system that is grossly inappropriate for the continent. Public corruption, incompetence, political intolerance, reluctance to give up power, state brutality, military coups and other ills of governance are not peculiar to Afrikans. Leaders in any society that is at our level of development would succumb to the same temptations that MPD presents. Given its inappropriateness, there is a need for an alternative system of governance.
Unfortunately, Afrikan monarchies were not given the same opportunity as their counterparts in the Europe to gradually evolve into a modern governing system that would have been suitable for Afrika. Colonialism ensured that Afrikan monarchies were shoved aside after being used to grow the abhorrent system.
Given the unsuitability of MPD, a coalition government (CG), or a government of national unity (GNU), would be the most appropriate system to govern Afrikan countries. Here, a CG means an alliance of all political parties that stood for general elections. It shall observe liberal democracy values such as equality before the law, separation of powers, an independent judiciary, checks and balances, the rule of law, and individual rights.
Cabinet and other positions shall be distributed to parties as per an agreed formula. The head of state or president shall be replaced by a national council consisting of political, civil society and other leaders to run a country. The national council shall, among others, decide on broad policy and provide strategic guidance to cabinet. After say, twenty years, elections would be held for the renewal of a CG.
A CG shall prepare a twenty-year development plan with all stakeholders contributing to its preparation, and headed by development planners and development economists. This blueprint, to be reviewed periodically, would have sectoral plans, clearly defined targets and timelines. A CG would give a government a high degree of political legitimacy and diminish internal political strife. Currently, coalition governments in Afrika are only formed as an interim measure when no single party gains an absolute majority in parliament.
