Africa’s democratic experience has been argued from various vantage points and regardless of these points of views they can be summed up, categorized and generalized into two schools of thought or as the debate between gradualists and sequencelists. The sequencelists argue that for democracy to emerge in a society there must be a set of certain conditions and experiences that the society identifies itself with. The gradualists, on the other hand argue that democracy can emerge without necessarily having a predetermined set of conditions and experiences that sequencelists assume. So where does that leave Africa in this democratic debate. That democratic debate must be a debate about Pan Africanism and its ability to reconcile competeing elements as liberalism has done to acertain extent. Pan Africanism remains the best vehicle to achieve the unification and real liberation of the continent.
With the coups in Mali, Central African Republic, and Chad one wonders whether Africa with the exception of the above mentioned countries is transitioning from military dictatorship and “the big man syndrome, the days of Mr. President, the big man” to multiparty systems embedded in parliamentarism or presidentialism making it imperative that these systems that support democracy are entrenched. Since independence Africa’s engagement with democratic rule has proved to be a challenge. A continent divided into nation-sates with complete disregard to territorial boundaries of its peoples has its effects still reverberating through now. As that maybe, that is, the hand that Africa has been dealt and we have to deal with it.
The first decade of Africa’s experiment with democratic rule was marred in shifts and changes in electoral factions and post-election alliances. These attributes were a common narrative in Africa for example in Uganda during the first elections held in 1962. In which, upon the realization by the UPC (Uganda People’s Congress) that the then P.M would lose the elections to Democratic Party (DP) it formed an alliance with KY (Kabaka Yekka) political party to deny the DP electoral win. Nonetheless the failure of Africa’s initial democratic experience can be attributed to the failure of its leaders. Fast forward and it seems though the current crop of African leaders with the exception of a few still remind some of us Africa’s initial democratic experience. Leaders just offer lip service to the ideals of democratic rule but rarely do they come through.
But how do we get to a democratic Africa, one of the starting places would be and that if we are to accept the premise of Kew (2005) that: “African countries at both ends of this divide appear to have come to a common consensus that the democratic path is the only institutional vehicle that can deliver the socioeconomic progress demanded by populaces across the continent”. If that is the case then Lindberg (2006) posits that “mere repetition of multiparty elections—regardless whether they are free and fair or not—leads to increases in human freedom and the spread of democracy”. Elections have become an essential piece of the global conflict resolution system. They are considered a benchmark in deciding whether a country has consolidated democracy or not. Yet it is also clear that elections are conflict prone and can be generators of conflicts. Lindberg (2006) argues that the more elections the better even when the elections are flawed the country should keep on having them because elections create a culture of expectation and eventually this produces the need for meaningful elections.
Elections also provide the opportunity for the opposition every four or five or six years to compete for the right to govern the country. Lindberg (2006) articulates furthermore that by the fourth election cycle the countries having elections see the loosening up of political space in which civil liberties are fairly respected. Although Lindberg’s take on elections is open to intense debate and scrutiny I’m convinced by Lindberg’s argument that elections must be at the heart of Africa’s democratic path because embedded in democracy is the idea of elections. That is:
Elections by themselves are a fundamental organizing principle of democratic culture in society because elections provide the opportunity after every four or five years where the society exercises its individual rights to weigh in the governance of their country. If after every four or five years the elections are flawed continuously this eats away at the legitimacy of the government in power and eventually the government collapses in one way or shape. Consequently, elections do educate voters on the electoral process and also allows the voters to make informed choices about the nature of government that they want to govern them.
Elections decide who will govern and this decision rests with the people. That is, elections act as a conflict resolution mechanism in that political elites who want to govern have to articulate why they want to govern and that decision is left up to the voters to decide. Elections act as a national decision making mechanism in which the citizenry decides as a country what their form of government ought to be. Elections are a bulwark against illegitimate governments that are conflict prone.
In the end democracy is like a pyramid in which the political, social, and economic factors are prioritized accordingly. The building of strong political institutions, implementation of viable economic reforms, and social organization is a gradual process. Democracy cannot be defined in terms sequencelists but rather in terms of gradualism. That does not mean I agree with the current democratic pretense of most of the African countries that have failed to produce an Ideological dispensation that caters to the political and economic needs of its people. The lack of good governance and leadership in Africa is Africa’s fault it’s that simple. Come to think about God has blessed Africa with resources and good climate yet Africa lags behind, in the early 1960’s most of Africa’s economies case in point Ghana, Uganda and Nigeria were better than China, India and even Bangladesh yet now the opposite is true these countries have surpassed all countries in Africa. In simple terms Africa suffers from a lack an ideological dispensation. Pan Africanism that embodies the economics and politics has been abused by a bunch of reactionaries that have fragmented the African people into gender chauvinism, sectarianism of tribes and religion. Pan Africanism should be a peoples system that promotes values that are the product of the African civilization and struggles against slavery, racism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism. Physical borders imposed on the continent have given way to mental boundaries, which continue to divide the children of Africa on the continent and also in the Diaspora.
Africa's Resources and Governance 
Nice paper.
I however think that Africa’s adoption of democracy did not take into consideration its culture and fundamental values. Hence the copy and paste democracy Africa is trying so hard to adopt and implement is not working.
For Africa to attain an acceptable level of democracy, I agree that it must be via gradual normalisation. China is not the quintessential democracy, yet it is its own kind of democracy embedded and guided by its cultural precepts.
What do Africans really need? Democracy, free and fair elections, freedom of speech etc or socio-economic growth? Does the real African cares to speak freely, vote fairly or does he want to live well, get a job, build a home and stay away from poverty. Is democary, free and fair elections synonimous to the much needed socio economic growth?
I think the situation in Africa is similar to that of the Middle East where there is lack of education in regards to Democracy and democratic values. I think in general the lack of practical experience makes the transition messy. But more importantly there is a large portion of population that is illiterate, which is a significant concern for countries pursuing a transition to democracy but most importantly, at least in terms of the ME and I believe Africa is the same, there the issue of loyalty; people are generally loyal to their tribal leaders and there is pressure to support “your own” vs. the well being of the state. So how do we deal with this issue? I think it is a combination of education and implementing a democratic system that takes this issue into consideration.
There is also the fact that countries make the transition to democracy after some dramatic change, such as a regime overthrow by internal or external forces. The problem is that without a strong governing body to facilitate the transition, other groups (militarized groups) have high aspirations, and in most cases have the power, to seize control. So there is always the question of when (and how) should democracy be implemented. How how do we control these forces when there is no strong government in place?
I am more interested in what type of democracy should be implemented? This is the question I think about when ever I come across the question of whether or not a democracy would work. People operate under the assumption that “democracy” has one meaning but it does not. It has a set of underlying values that are, to the most part, the same but in terms of the implementation the governing structures can drastically vary. For an example, we do not have a pure democracy (majority vote) in the US; we have a federal system. Federalism exists in other countries are is also applied differently. And federalism is not the only form of democracy. Other forms include majority vote (winner take all approach), while others offer minorities veto power. Others offer a democratic system for the majority group only (which I do not consider a democracy but it is recognized as such by many). Some emphasize local elections, while others focus on the country’s executive elections. There are many other elements that differ from one democracy to another. So, in my opinion the question is not if there needs to be a democracy but rather what type of democracy, if implemented, can work and satisfy the needs of the people.
Final note: I don’t think that improving the socioeconomic conditions of a people/economy of a country and instituting democratic values or a democratic system are mutually exclusive. I think it is possible to do both at the same time. Granting people more rights while improving the economy of the country is absolutely possible.