In Ethiopia, the same is almost true but with a disturbing caveat. It is an open secret that the double-digit growth of recent years is supported by dubious statistics. Yet the same figures are bandied around by development experts arguing that a trade-off between growth and civil liberties is inevitable. That sounds worryingly familiar to the case used to justify western support for cold war clients. Are African desires for more accountable leadership becoming subordinate again to the opinion of western donors and the commercial and strategic interests of foreign businesses and powers? It is to be hoped that pressure from electorates will ensure that if this is so, it is only temporary. But it is a dangerous time for democracy in Africa.
By William Wallis (Financial Times)
Published: August 9 2010 20:43
Last updated: August 9 2010 20:43
There are plenty of reasons to be hopeful about sub-Saharan Africa. Progress towards more democratic rule, however, is no longer among them.
Anyone persuaded otherwise needs to take a hard look at recent elections and revisit history for a reminder of the costs of stolen ballots and stifled ambition. These can be heavy in countries where, for all the talk of an expanding African middle class, people still tend to vote on the basis of their ethnic identity.
Rwanda, which held elections on Monday, is a special case. It was always debatable how much the outside world should push for political freedom in a country recovering from genocide.
Western donors, led by the US and Britain, have mollycoddled President Paul Kagame, encouraging the notion that Rwanda’s stability rests on him. They have relied on his good will to get the timing right, in the hope that political space will gradually open.
It should come as no surprise that the reverse is taking place. There are few precedents of authoritarian rulers becoming more benign after 15 years in power. Like other guerrilla leaders whose path to the presidency went through the bush, Mr Kagame has proved ruthlessly effective in stabilising and rebuilding his country. His credentials for presiding over the more liberal environment needed if tensions are to be contained are less evident.
In this kind of instance outside pressure has proved necessary in the past. Western pressure on client regimes played a central role after the cold war in lending momentum to Africa’s political transition. Indeed, if democracy could be measured by the number of elections taking place now then there
would be cause to celebrate already. This year voting will take place in 12 of sub-Saharan Africa’s 48 states.
In this context it is tempting to think that even the most entrenched autocracies are being cajoled into more liberal behaviour. Undoubtedly, in the age of mobile phones and internet, it is harder to silence critics and rob the central bank.
Yet far from reinforcing a virtuous circle of more accountable rule, a run of recent polls, Rwanda’s among them, have instead challenged a commonly held assumption: that the more elections taking place, the more democratic and stable the continent becomes.
The arrival of China as a major influence in Africa, and with other emerging nations, a source of finance and trade, has certainly diluted western leverage. But western strategic considerations, in an era of international terrorism and stiffening competition for markets and resources, have also seen electoral fair play drop down the agenda.
The rhetoric has not followed, however, leading to a policy that looks perfidious and silly. With one hand the US, the EU and other donors encourage and finance elections. With the other, they routinely accept the outcome regardless of how dubious the manner in which it is achieved.
In many cases voting simply adds trappings of legitimacy to a contemporary form of one-party rule, in which incumbents use patronage, oppression and control of electoral machinery to maintain power.
No doubt in Rwanda, where counting is under way, the process will be hailed as orderly even though there was no competition. Mr Kagame’s real opponents have either fled, been barred from standing or are lying low.
The results of earlier elections in Ethiopia, in which the opposition were evicted from all but two seats in the 545-seat parliament, were no less pre-ordained.
In both countries, as in much of Africa, western donors justify continued support on the basis of their development record. In Rwanda this is exemplary. The question is whether it will be sustainable as popular frustration at the closed political environment grows.
In Ethiopia, the same is almost true but with a disturbing caveat. It is an open secret that the double-digit growth of recent years is supported by dubious statistics. Yet the same figures are bandied around by development experts arguing that a trade-off between growth and civil liberties is inevitable. That sounds worryingly familiar to the case used to justify western support for cold war clients. Are African desires for more accountable leadership becoming subordinate again to the opinion of western donors and the commercial and strategic interests of foreign businesses and powers? It is to be hoped that pressure from electorates will ensure that if this is so, it is only temporary. But it is a dangerous time for democracy in Africa.
In the past two decades, electoral transformations in countries such as South Africa, Ghana and Senegal encouraged positive momentum across the board. The opposite is true today. Before Rwanda this year, Sudan, Burundi and Ethiopia all hosted deeply flawed elections with little or no consequence for their relations with the outside world.
The leadership in other African countries where polls are looming will all have taken note: going through electoral motions remains a prerequisite for international acceptance. But there is no need to offer the real thing.
*The writer is the FT’s Africa editor*
No comments:
Post a Comment