AEGIS ECAS 2007 - View abstract

Panel	44. Negotiating statehood in Africa
Paper ID	151
Author(s)	Conyers, Diana ; Larok, Arthur
Paper	View paper (PDF)
Abstract	External perceptions of democratisation in sub-Saharan Africa tend to be ethnocentric and ahistorical. Those countries that lack the basic characteristics of western liberal democracies are classified as ‘undemocratic’ or ‘un-free’ and, if this affects their capacity to deliver public services and promote economic development, as ‘weak’ or ‘failed’ states. However, any country that experiences a ‘democratic transition’ or political and economic ‘turnaround’ is regarded as an instant success story and expected thereafter to perform impeccably. This paper proposes a different view of the process of democratisation in Africa. It puts forward three basic propositions. Firstly, democratisation in Africa should be seen in historical and geopolitical perspective. In order to understand the region’s governance ‘problems’, one has to look at its history of colonial and neo-colonial exploitation, and before branding Africa as the ‘failed continent’, one should remember that those states that have relatively recently gained independence from the Soviet empire are experiencing similar, and often equally great, problems. Secondly, democratisation should be seen - in Africa and elsewhere - as part of a long, slow process of ‘state-building’ that entails constant negotiation and renegotiation between different sets of actors and interest groups. This process has to be internally driven; external actors are part of the process, but state-building cannot be imposed from outside or modelled on purely western concepts of ‘democracy’ and ‘good governance’. Thirdly, sub-Saharan Africa should not be regarded as a homogenous entity. Although geographical and historical factors make some generalisations both possible and useful, each country’s experience is unique. The experiences of Uganda and Zimbabwe are used to illustrate this perspective of democratisation. After many years of what would now be called ‘state failure’, Uganda experienced a dramatic political and economic ‘turnaround’ after Museveni came to power in 1986 and adopted a ‘Movement’ system of governance. In the early years this approach seemed promising and Uganda was held up as a model by external aid agencies. However, it is now evident that the transition was not as profound as it was made out to be and the country is struggling to live up to its external reputation. Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980 and at first was also widely upheld as a success story. But in the mid-1990s political and economic problems began to emerge and it is now regarded as one of the most obvious examples of a ‘failed state’. What lies behind these cyclical swings, and what are the prospects for establishing internally accountable ‘democratic’ regimes in these two countries? The paper addresses these questions. It concludes that both countries are engaged in an ongoing process of ‘negotiating democracy’ and that the ‘downturns’ (even those currently experienced in Zimbabwe) are an unfortunate but probably necessary part of this process.

Negotiating Democracy in Africa: Lessons from Uganda and Zimbabwe