By Morgen Makombo Sikwila
African leaders extend their terms for several reasons, including personal ambition for power and resources, fear of prosecution for past wrongdoings, and the absence of strong political opposition.
They may also cite the need for stability, citing their own role in ensuring peace and development, or argue that term limits are an undemocratic infringement on the people’s choice.
In power, cronyism puts pressure on the presidents not to step down. In very pure African settings, the chief or leader is an embodiment of the people and their culture. His powers are many and abound: he is the first gentleman of the land and his instructions are final; he is the commander in-chief of the living and at the same time a link between the living and the ancestors; all the resources of the state are entrusted to his care and he holds them in trust of the community. From this cultural background that African leaders go beyond the bounds most especially when pressure is being put on them by their ethnic groups.
A number of arguments have been put forward by leaders seeking to extend, or simply abandoning, term limits. One is that term limits prevent people’s choice of president. Another is that African leaders have much more to do to bring about development and therefore need more time. A third is that they have the sovereign right to govern and change constitutions as they see fit. And finally, the strongman argument around a president’s ability to keep the country united and to create peace and stability.
It is also argued in the existing literature that some incumbent presidents think they are indispensable and that their countries cannot do without them. The African presidents think this way because they feel that they have played lead roles in the liberation struggle of their countries or they have brought their countries out of economic quagmire to an appreciable level that they will want to stay longer to consolidate it. This thinking is perfectly in line with the African way of leadership. Normally in Africa, leadership is entrusted to personalities who have distinguished themselves or displayed extra-ordinary qualities or sterling performance in certain areas of life. In this case, the most preferred people for leadership in Africa are those who have shown bravery by leading their states in wars or saving them from a calamity or have worked so hard and become very rich as a sign that they are capable of attending to societal needs.
In the African cultural context, leadership is not for trial, rather leadership is meant for those who already have a performance track record. It is from this cultural background that some African leaders think that they had achieved enough for their countries as either liberation fighters or economic messiahs and they deserve to be allowed to stay longer in power instead of trying others who probably have no proven records of performance.
Addiction to power and resources is yet one of the factors accounting for third termism in Africa. In reality, some African leaders are so obsessed with power and resources and find it difficult to leave all these and step down to live as ex-presidents. But more importantly, lack of succession plan or fear of instability and leadership vacuum is also to blame for the failure of some African leaders to step down when their mandate expires.
However, this is a tacit admission of failure on the part of African leaders who refuse to step down because there is no body competent to take over. If handing over is part of their agenda, certainly, they will certainly groom someone to take over. It is because they are not prepared to hand over and that explains why they don’t mentor anyone to succeed them. In fact, for such leaders anyone who shows ambition to succeed them in future is crashed and for this reason oppositions from the other side of the political divide are seen as enemies who must be destroyed and flashed out and that explains why in Africa, most often than not the opposition is too weak to wrestle power from or put pressure on erring presidents to step down. In the western world, whilst the opposition is seen as opponent, in Africa the opposition is seen as enemy. Culturally, the African traditional leadership has no official opposition as compared to that of western Democracy.
Deliberate refusal to step down because of despotic and kleptocratic tendencies from African leaders, the idea of third termism in Africa needs to be properly looked at within the African cultural settings.
Culture refers to the way of life of people and in this case, it is a set of attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors shared by a group of people and which is transmitted from one generation to the other which distinguish the members of one group of people from another. In another dimension, it is a set of basic assumption, orientation to life, beliefs and values, policies and procedures, behavioral conventions that bind a group of people together and which enables them interpret the behaviors of others. From the above definitions, it is clear that culture shapes people’s understanding of the world and how they go about with things. It is on this premise that it is clearly stated that the reasons why some parts of the world experience growth and wealth, while other parts stagnate and wallow in abject poverty is as a function of culture. Factor endowment can influence the development of a country but the overarching determinant is culture. Culture makes all the difference.
Liberal Democracy, of which a presidential term limit is a cardinal feature, is the culture of the west and so it is not possible to practice it in its purity in Africa since Africans have varied and unique cultures. In the African context, leadership is for life and it is mostly but not always bestowed on the most senior and assisted by a council of elders who represent various constituencies. He/She is seen as a father figure and his powers transcend the living and the dead. All state resources are held by him in trust and there is no opposition to wrestle power from incumbents. If there is any opposition, it is meant to put pressure on the ruling class to improve the system for all but not for a section as always been the case in liberal democracy where the winner takes all. Such a unique is the power of the African leader in that during colonial rule, the British in dealing with the West Africans, the powers of the traditional leaders served as a legitimacy on which colonial authorities depended.
There is a huge cultural dichotomy between the western world on one hand and the Africa on the other with reference to politics and public life. Due to this huge cultural difference, it is not possible to transport and implant pure Western Democracy on Africans and that is a possible reason why some African presidents find it difficult to respect presidential term limits since it has never been part of African cultural leadership. Whilst the West sees themselves as one people within a state, Africans are divided by ethnicity within the same state. For example, Americans are all Americans and natives of Britain are all British, but same cannot be said about African states. Though Zimbabweans are classified as Zimbabweans, they are further divided along Ndebele, Shona, Tongas and so on. Ethnicity has a strong influence on Africans because ethnicity is the basic political unit within the state and for that matter most African presidents are forced to do something for his kinsmen when in office. Most often, these kinsmen put pressure on sitting presidents not to relinquish power even when his tenure of office comes to an end.
In the West, all people who attain eighteen years and above are considered matured to live independent life, in Africa, maturity and experience is associated with old age. The qualification for leadership in Africa is seniority in age, wisdom, sense of responsibility and logical persuasiveness. All these qualities are often united in the most senior and so, as the president keeps longer on the seat, he gets wiser, better and more experience to deliver.
Whilst in the Western world, there is a term limit for their leaders; there is no term limit for the traditional African leader. His or her leadership is for life and this is the cultural environment in which African leaders operate and this probably explains why some African presidents find it difficult to step down.
In African traditional environment, there is no known official opposition to African traditional leadership and even if there is, that opposition is not there to wrestle power from those ruling but to put pressure for those ruling to improve the system for all to benefit. In the West, there is official opposition positioned to wrestle power and form an alternative government.
Westerners see politics as differences in ideas regarding how the states should be organized and therefore see opposition as opponents but not enemies. Since, culturally, there is no known opposition; many African leaders see their opponents as enemies and therefore sometimes find it difficult to step down and hand power to them. Whilst the people in the West enter public office to serve the state, the people of Africa enter public office to see what the state can do for them. For those in the West, they enter into public office because they feel they have something special to contribute to the advancement of their nation. This does not mean they don’t get paid for it but that is always not the driving force. For this reason, recruitment into the public service is driven largely by merits, and in this case if a public servant fails to perform or has finished contributing his quota to the state, he/she steps down for others to continue. This is not the case in Africa as many people enter into public offices with the sole aim of bettering their lives, but of course one cannot blame the ordinary African so much since survival has become so difficult as a result of endemic poverty. Recruitment into public offices is hugely influenced by clientelism and cronyism and those who cannot perform are not willing to step aside because if they do, how are they going to survive? This may be one of the reasons why some sitting presidents would still want to stay in power beyond the acceptable period for the state to continue to serve them for them to also be able to serve their relations.
In the West, those in public offices see their positions as trust and feel that they owe it as an obligation to serve their people. African leaders enter public offices as masters to lord it on their citizens. So, some sitting presidents can amass a lot of wealth to themselves while majority of their citizens are swimming in abject poverty and for fear of being prosecuted, some ruling presidents would want to stay longer in office even after their tenure of office has expired in order to cover up or clean the mess.
No doubt, democracy is considered a default system of rule and has been accepted as the most suitable form of government. However, Africa has a peculiar case, and that is, after three (3) decades of liberal democracy. Africa has a very scanty result to show, even though the same process has produced better results in other regions. In fact, the pure practice of West democracy in Africa is not possible because democracy is the culture of the West which is very opposite to the varied and unique cultures of Africa.
Indeed, given the high level of underdevelopment in Africa, and the peripheral and the parasitic nature of African image on the international scene, it is fair to suggest that Africa needs to invent a democracy that would function as the hub of social progress and development. Certainly, at the onset of the 1990s, Africa was yearning for democracy as and if after three decades, Africans are not getting the needed results. Africa must redefine and reinvent its own democracy. This is because democracy as a system of government has to evolve practically, taking roots from the traditions of its people, nurtured and watered by its cultures.
It is important to note that the current form of western democracy as we know it now was not same when it started in Athens. It has grown and evolved over the years and shaped by the culture of its practitioners. Indeed, for Africa to develop better, it must redefine democracy to suit it cultures. The reason is that, the issues that drive economic development which are so key to Africa do not lie in economic logic but rather in the culture and history of the people. To be honest, the call for Africa to redefine its democracy to suit its peculiar cultures has been long overdue. This is so because Africans can witness the fact that China, one of the World’s Economic giants, has redefined democracy to suit the culture and customs of Chinese with the introduction of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and they are good to go. The Chinese people pay much attention to what is functional and workable as cultural confidence represents a fundamental and profound force that sustains the advancement of a nation. In fact, they have evolved their democracy to the extent that presidential term limit is not an issue but rather on performance. As long as any sitting president of the Chinese Communist Party is capable of delivering what the Chinese people want, he can contest for the presidency as many times as he wants, after all, the original aspiration of the Chinese community is to seek happiness and prosperity for the Chinese people to be able to rejuvenate and develop China.
Certainly when democracy began, especially in the middle of 1800s, it was seen as a dangerous movement associated with barbaric mob rule targeted at destroying civilized cultures. Initially people without property were not allowed to vote and it was in the twentieth century that women were given franchise to vote. More interestingly, Africa was not matured enough to rule itself according to the Western World until after World War One. This tells us that democracy went through stages to get to the level we know it now. For this reason, it is good to start something and see how to improve on it in future. There is a serious call on Africa to go back to the drawing board to see where she faulted and that would enable her to fashion out a democracy that is imbedded in the history, traditions and cultures of its people.
African traditional life and governance was by consensus and that issues were discussed in solemn conclave until such a time that agreement could be achieved. In consensus democracy, the main aim is to satisfy the two parties and also ensure reconciliation for unity. Reconciliation ensures goodwill and trust. Reconciliation ensures that all parties feel their point of views have been adequately taken care of in the future. In Africa, the idea of consensus mostly starts on the premise of diversity. No doubt Africa is diverse in terms of ethnicity. Africans are polarized on ethnic lines and therefore consensus democracy would produce the compromises that would be acceptable to all. In the African traditional settings, a village, is headed by a chief and in the performance of his duties; he is assisted by a Council of elders who hail from and represents their ethnic, clan or lineage. These are seasoned people chosen by consensus to represent the interest of their people and so whatever decision reached at the Chief’s palace is on consensus and representative. There was no official opposition to wrestle power from those ruling. Any opposition rather is meant to improve the system for all. If we have a consensual democracy underpinned by dialogue and reconciliation, where leaders come from different ethnic backgrounds, then the government would be representative enough in terms of its membership and content of its decision in this case, at the National level, all the ethnic groups that form the state would have come to a consensus as to which ethnic group should be the first lead, followed by which one in that order until all have their turn. Since presidential term limit is a big headache for many African leaders, it could be scraped and the position would be for life, bearing in mind that after the death of the sitting president, the next president would come from the ethnic group whose turn is it to come to power, at this level a reasonable term limit based on dialogue and consensus could be imposed. The regional and District level could follow same. In a district made up of only one ethnic group, then they could rely on clans or lineages within the same ethnic group. Consensus democracy is the bedrock of African life and it ensures representativeness, dialogue, inclusiveness, trust and the protection of all interest within the state. This is the kind of democracy Africans knew before the arrival of Liberal Democracy. This consensual type of democracy was not adopted by Africans for fun, it was meant to take care of our diverse backgrounds and to translate diversity into unity and therefore the introduction of multi-party democracy base on majority is alien to the African culture.
Majoritarian democracy arising out of liberal democracy alienate the minority and creates a winner takes all system which has become a major source of conflicts and confusion in Africa. A well-crafted consensual democracy would make the existence of political parties useless and elections needless. This is because the various ethnic groups represent parties and since all groups interest would be taken care of, then there is no need to conduct elections, since by consensus all ethnic groups know when it would be their turn to come into power.
A very close examination of pure African leadership shows at least, that, it is closer to presidentialism. The reason is that presidentialism gives much power to the executive president which is similar to the African traditional leadership which wills so much power. The only difference is that, under presidentialism, there is a term limit which is alien to African traditional leadership and that probably explains why some African presidents find it difficult to abide by it. The African traditional leadership shows unity and that also explains why after independence, most African countries that embraced liberal democracy turned their countries into one-party states but this eliminated members of other parties from government, hence the unity was not achieved. Liberal democracy too could not achieve this as a few elites enjoyed at the expense of the poor majority. Liberal democracy encourages winner takes all which is alien to African societies.
Africans embraced liberal democracy in order to survive and progress but it seems these hopes are fast fading into the thin air and so from now on, she should go in for the sort of democracy in all probability and possibility, is anchored on tangible economic and social rights and opportunities for all underpinned by consensus and dialogue towards brotherliness, inclusiveness and unity which are the defining features of a pure African society.
The growing trend of “third termism” is likely to prevent African countries from reaching Pan-African ideals of political and economic integration, solidarity, unity, dignity, justice and equality for all, yet again as the interests of individuals are placed above those of citizens and countries. Africa needs visionary and courageous leadership, not benevolent or autocratic rulers. It needs leaders that can create the enabling environment for democracy, peace, and development to thrive and endure, and for citizens to live to their fullest potential.
Africa also needs citizens who will hold leaders to account and who will contribute to the realisation of the vision of a democratic pan-African future. As Africans we don’t have to make a choice between democracy and development. We deserve both.
Morgen Makombo Sikwila
MSc Peace and Governance
BSc Counselling
Diploma in Environmental Health
Certificate in Marketing Management
email address: morgensikwilam@gmail.com
Phone Number 0772823282
