By James Tamba Lebbie
It is generally believed that there is no perfect democracy around the world, not least in the country where the concept and practice originated, and certainly not in the other developed nations that borrowed and popularized it. That said, we may tend to wonder why, in spite of its over half a century of existence as a continent with sovereign states, Africa has lagged behind so dismally in terms of democratic gains.
Suffice it to note that the difference between Africa and other continents, no doubt lies in the investments the latter have made in nurturing strong democratic institutions, while African leaders with their shadow state caboodle are busy undermining their own democratic institutions - especially those that are concerned with the rule of law - thus rendering them impotent to hold them to account.
And their supporters are making the argument, sometimes vociferously too, that in fact, Africa should not be compared to Europe and America in terms of their democratic credentials, and that it is unjustified for those Western democracies to define African politics by their democratic standards. The outstanding reason according to that argument, is that while democracy has been in the West for over two centuries, that same concept and practice was exported to African only recently when African countries gained independence.
While that argument may sound plausible, I’m inclined to make a counter argument that even if democracy as a concept takes two centuries in Africa, its practice will still be flawed. This is because among other factors, the continent’s socio-cultural nuances, including the issues of identity and cultural practices, will continue to serve as a hindrance to enhancing good governance practices, including political and economic accountability.
In his treatise, In the Name of Identity: Violence and The Need To Belong, Maalouf (2000), points out that a person’s identity and affiliation to a given group is determined and influenced by two forces – those who try to make him one of them and those who try to exclude him. He says a person does not grow up with an awareness of his identity but acquires it gradually. Maalouf says the interesting point about one’s identity is the fact that one identifies himself with whatever of his allegiance that comes under attack.
Perhaps, a better way to underscore this point is to put my argument in context. In the immediate aftermath of the latest corruption scandal surrounding our vice president, which some say could rock his ambition for a second term, a friend at a pub asked me as a journalist who hails from Kono District whether the All People Congress (APC) could carry the Kono votes in the November 2012 polls without Vice President Samuel Samsumana, a district that some observers believe could tip the balance in determining the presidential winner.
My response? It is possible if he was replaced with a trustworthy and respectable personality from the same district. The reason? In spite of the fact that the Sierra Leone Peoples Party secured a landslide vote in the 2007 parliamentary elections that translated into securing seven out of eight members of parliament in that district, Samuel Samsuman’s five-year stewardship as vice president of the country means a lot could have changd in that district in terms of political allegiance. And there are some evidences that he has gained some support and acceptability among the Kono people although this not to suggest that he is popular among them.
However, should the APC decide to replace him with someone outside that district- even when he has messed up, not necessarily in terms of guilt but by allowing so many accusations to overwhelm him - the party risks losing the Kono vote to the SLPP because support for the Vice President is simply out of identity influenced by ethnic considerations. He could not be loved by all Kono people but they can mobilize against any entity that wants to alienate and marginalize one of their own. Therefore, the APC’s conundrum is to look for a similar candidate that shares that strong identity with that district.
And to further contextualize my argument on a larger scale, the election of the public official in most African countries, not least in Sierra Leone is not on the basis of ideology, platform or competence. It is simply on the basis of either patronage or identity or both. For instance, the 2007 Presidential and Parliamentary elections revealed clearly how polarized the country has become along ethnic and regional lines as opposed to an ideological divide. And like in other African countries, the two leading political parties in Sierra Leone have their strongholds in the regions where their candidates hail from. This again is a consequence of the politics of identity. Ethnic and regional considerations largely account for people identifying themselves with others, while that same identity becomes even stronger when that aspect of his allegiance comes under attack - in this case through opposition from another political party in an election.
Similarly, one is inclined to opine that while the opposition Sierra Leone Peoples’ People (SLPP) elected its flag bearer from its south-eastern stronghold, it chose to appoint its presidential running mate from the ruling northern stronghold because the party has calculated that the issue of identity will yield dividend. In other words, the SLPP is expecting to poll more votes in the north than the previous election because of its presidential running mate’s northern background.
And like the element of identity, which has a strong influence on political conduct, Africa’s cultural practices are other elements that continue to undermine accountability and good governance practices.
For instance, Africa’s custom and traditional practices dictate that one should not argue with an elder, let alone challenge him. In addition, it is considered an act of betrayal when you fail to support your brother in a contest/competition of any sort, even if your brother is not qualified and is incompetent. It frowns at children challenging their parents even when the parents are wrong. We have been taught to be obedient and not to complain or protest when we are bullied by our elders. And because of the traditional gender roles in society and the generational gap that often characterizes their relationship, women are expected to be submissive to their husbands even when the former becomes an object of abuse by the latter. In this regard, subservience to elders and protecting our kinsmen even in situations of wrongdoing has become part of the African DNA.
Juxtapose these attributes with the tenets of democracy and you will quickly spot the difference: Unlike African’s custom that emphasizes allegiance, respect, obedience, support, and subservience even in the face of injustices, democracy, a widely-believed Western concept calls for accountability of office holders and respect for human rights including the free expression of views and opinions regardless of age and other considerations. It therefore sees nothing wrong when subordinates hold their superiors to account or when younger folks challenge the views of older ones if in their estimation those views are flawed. Put in another way, there is a degree of incompatibility between the tenets of Western democracy and the African custom, and there lies the conflict.
And while I will agree that Africa has indeed, come a long way in terms of democratic gains, I will not hesitate a moment to state that until and unless Africans prune that aspect of their custom that is in discord with Western democratic principles, the continent would continue to lag behind in terms of accountability, the rule of law, respect for women and other good governance practices.
(c) Politico 09/08/12
