Introduction: African Development or Underdevelopment?
In the last century many African states have experienced political decolonization and witnessed the spread of democracy. Considering the global political economy, African states fall within the purview of the Washington Consensus and Bretton Woods institutions[1], and abide by international laws and regulations[2] regarding economic development. African states are heavily influenced by foreign institutions and nations[3], and even relegated to secondary status under the current international system. As a result, since WWII many African states have either pursued a pro-capitalist path towards economic development, or in a few instances, a non-capitalist or socialist path towards economic development[4]. Despite either path toward development, African states (their respective governments and economies) exist in a state of perpetual underdevelopment, especially in relation to developed nations. Despite their underdeveloped state, African nations continue to implement economic and public policy recommendations prescribed by developed nations and international organizations and continue to pursue political development that reflects and supports the state apparatus of Western nations, namely Europeans nations and America. This study examines democratization – the spread of democracy – in Africa and the progress of African capitalist and socialist states that have instituted democratic principles while adopting welfare state policies for economic development. The intent is not to advocate for democracy or another form of governance in African states, nor is it to condemn African states that have adopted welfare state policies for their path toward economic development. The study aims to analyze whether the application of democratic principles in African governance, combined with welfare state economic development policies can be considered a viable option for development considering the structure and function of the global political economy.
Often, the narrative of African states on the path to capitalist economic development is told from a perspective of Western dominance where incentives African states could receive are overemphasized. However, capitalist development in Africa has led to conditions of economic deterioration. Instead of considering the impetus of capitalist development and pro-West political and economic activities in Africa as the “consumerism development” that African leaders learned from Western nations, I would suggest that Western influences are just as present as they were in previous centuries. It is widespread knowledge that any economic or political reforms to international economic systems enhanced the control of said system by Western powers.[5] The aforementioned fact, combined with the facts that historically society has been stratified based on a social hierarchy of racialism – which was instituted by false-narratives and pseudoscience, and both were dominant factors in the decisions European leaders (first monarchs and clergy-members, and eventually politicians and businessmen and women) made regarding the economic exploitation of African states – should not be underemphasized. With the underpinned racial subjugation as the driving force of the global political economy, in my opinion, neither capitalist nor socialist development would lead to economic development that would benefit African citizens and descendants, unless said subjugation was eradicated and outlawed. Furthermore, despite the relationship between Africans and European Socialist states, Africans could reach also pro-socialist, and communal paths of economic and political development without Europeans, due to African philosophy.
The conditions that led to the perception of Africans as derogatory are all present in modern capitalist countries.[6] Therefore, examinations of African state reactions to the global political economy and newly instituted economic order created in the post-1948 (World War II) society are critical. With the conclusion of the Second Great War and the development of capitalist nations such as Germany, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and others, as well as the United States’ increasing role as a global superpower, African states became the focus of an “extraction based” global economy based on commerce, that sought to convert Africa’s many resources into financial capital that would in turn be used to develop the “developed” nations.[7] As a result, many leaders of African nations found themselves in compromising positions where they had to participate in the global system of capitalism and accept foreign oversight or administration of economic and political affairs.[8] Although Africa is known to have experienced political liberation due to the independence movements of the 1950s and 60s, the economic systems that were instituted by the colonial nations were maintained under the new global economic order.[9] In other words, African nations were nominally “liberated” under the guise of political freedom as African leaders showcased their power and privilege internally among Africans, but were exploited, subjugated, and manipulated economically and socially by foreign powers and overseers of the global pollical economy.
[1] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[2] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[3] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[4] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[5] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[6] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[7] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[8] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[9] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
Statement of the Problem
Since the advent of the post-WWII international economic system, many African states have pursued economic development policies under the influence of foreign nations such as the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and other former colonizers, and international organizations such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization[1]. The economic policies and recommendations can be classified as welfare state policies that are applicable and suitable for non-African states that have democratic political and social systems and exists within an international economic system that benefits from African labor. Moreover, after their periods of colonization, many African states have also pursued democratic political development under the auspices of the aforementioned “developed” countries and institutions such as the United Nations.[2] The fact that African states adopt approaches to political and economic development that benefit non-African states and populations more than African states and populations is problematic. Moreover, considering the legacy of slavery, colonialism, and contemporary racialism, it is also a problem that African states have not superseded foreign guidance and instead relied on African philosophy regarding approaches to political and economic development.
Purpose of the Study
This research study is designed to assess whether it is legitimately possible for African states to pursue any path toward economic development based on democratic governance and welfare state policies that is absent of foreign intervention, guidance, and influence. Furthermore, this study seeks to analyze the potential of African theory to contribute to economic and political development in Africa and reestablish and redefine what can be considered as “progress” for African states under the current conditions of the global political economy. Concepts such as African philosophy and epistemology, democracy, the welfare state, and welfarism, economic development, colonization, political development, fragmentation, and hegemony will be discussed among others. This study seeks to examine if the application of democratic principles within African governance, combined with welfare state economic development policies can be considered a viable option for development, considering the structure and function of the global political economy; whether or not international support of democracy and welfarism in Africa has helped African states develop politically or economically; and the welfare state policies that were produced in non-African states.
[1] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[2] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
Design and Methodology
The design of this study is based on a qualitative analysis and incorporates case studies in order to assess the progress of political and economic development of African states. The study examines the application of democratic principles within African governance by examining data and qualitative information about the successes and limitations of political systems in Africa, with respect to the developed nations and international organizations that advise and influence African nations. The study features an initial analysis of the relationship between African philosophy and modern approaches to economic and political development in Africa to establish the founding question: is it possible for Africans to use their own knowledge to develop their states politically and economically? The study analyzes whether welfare state economic development policies and political systems that feature democratic principles and institutions are viable options for development in Africa, considering the structure and function of the global political economy. Before addressing welfarism and democracy in Africa, the study offers a historical analysis of African development via capitalist and socialist models, noting that the international system is fundamentally capitalist, which limited any independent socialist model for development. Lastly, the study utilizes case studies from three African states that applied welfare state public policies and pursued democratic forms of political development, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal, and South Africa. The case studies are used for qualitative analysis and to examine the potential for development beyond what is concerned progress by non-African states, economic and political development that is rooted in African philosophy that benefits African states and their citizens.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study is limited by a lack of quantitative data that is longitudinal in scope and assesses the production of respective African economies. The study is also limited by a lack of qualitative information that provides context about African states’ historical paths of political development. The study is limited by the amount of African states featured in the analysis, three, although each is in a different region. The study is also limited because it does not compare African states that pursue non-democratic political systems. Lastly, the study solely relies on observation, historical analysis, and secondary data, rather than primary sources of information.
The study used three African states because it would be exhaustive and extensive to compare the political development and economic development of every African state, considering the time limitations.
Significance of Study
This study seeks to refine and extend existing knowledge in the area of African governance, public policy, and economic development. The study’s findings can prove that democracy and welfare state policies are not enough to facilitate sustained political and economic development in Africa. Moreover, the study could also contribute to debates about the significance of African philosophy and its role in contemporary approaches to economic and international development in Africa. Lastly, the study can help shed light on the potential of African states to experience political development that is absent of foreign “guidance” and oversight. Individuals who are practitioners of public policy, economic development, education, and governance and public administration in Africa could find this study significant due to the implications. Peers and members of the international community could also find this study useful in order to increase economic output, save resources, and invest in other areas of national development. Lastly, this study could lead to future studies regarding the capacity of African philosophy in the field of economic and political development.
African Philosophy and Epistemology
This study seeks to identify if African theory can contribute to development in Africa, considering the nature of the global political economy and the respective approaches to political and economic development in Africa. The development of democratic political systems and institutions is considered a strong political tactic, and the application of welfare state policies combined with increased consumerism is considered the economic model for sustainable development in Africa. This is problematic and frustrating because the spread of democracy and application of economic policies championed by Western and foreign powers has not led to economic and political development that benefits Africans en masse[1]. As a result, this study examines the potential for African philosophy and thought that is independent of foreign guidance to contribute to the development of African states. The impetus for modern African philosophy finds root in similar circumstances:
“In Plato’s Theaetetus, Socrates suggests that philosophy begins with wonder. Aristotle agreed. However, recent research shows that wonder may have different subsets. If that is the case, which specific subset of wonder inspired the beginning of the systematic African philosophy? In the history of Western philosophy, there is the one called thaumazein interpreted as awe and the other called miraculum interpreted as curiosity. History shows that these two subsets manifest in the African place as well, even during the pre-systematic era. However, there is now an idea appearing in recent African philosophy literature called onuma interpreted as frustration which is regarded as the subset of wonder that jump started the systematic African philosophy… ‘Frustrated’ by colonialism and racialism as well as the legacies of slavery, they were jolted onto the path of philosophy—African philosophy—by what can be called onuma.”[2]
Modern African philosophy was produced by the African’s frustration with slavery’s legacy, colonialism, and both historical and contemporary racialism. Considering the distinct schools of thought that approach ontological and epistemological theorizing differently, it is important to place the approaches to economic and political development in Africa within context with respect to African philosophy. African states are more than capable of leading their own development based on the knowledge, theories, thought, and actions of Africans and the diaspora.
There are various forms of ontological and epistemological approaches to scientific research and theorizing, and as a result there are distinct schools of thought that approach ontological and epistemological theorizing differently. In “An African Epistemological Approach to Epistemic Certitude and Scepticism”, by Jimoh and Thomas, the authors provide a demonstration of the various forms of ontological and epistemological approaches to scientific research.[3] The authors peruse certainty and skepticism within the context of African epistemology and conclude that culture is the greatest determinant. By juxtaposing African and Western conceptions of epistemology, one can understand the polarity that exists in discourse. Jimoh and Thomas uphold that man and nature, material and metaphysical, are “sacredly united…so the African world is a unitary world as against the analytical and pluralistic world of Western thought”[4]. Said differently, African theories of knowledge do not separate subjects and objects but believe both subject and object exist in a continuum and share an interdependent relationship where both subject and object interact and influence each other.
Considering the nature of development in Africa, as well as the legacy of slavery, colonialism, and contemporary issues of racialism, it is important to consider how Africans’ unique way of creating, surviving, and thriving under extreme conditions can be applied to political and economic development in Africa. The development in African states under the guidance of international organizations and developed nations with either capitalist or socialist economic systems benefit foreign nations and international organizations more than Africans. This relationship should be mutually beneficial for African states to experience uninterrupted development.
[1] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[2] Iep.utm.edu. 2020. Internet Encyclopedia Of Philosophy | An Encyclopedia Of Philosophy Articles Written By Professional Philosophers.. [online] Available at: https://iep.utm.edu/afric-hi/#SH4b [Accessed 1 December 2020].
[3] JournalsIndexed. 2020. International Knowledge Sharing Platform. [online] Available at: <https://www.journalsindexed.com/2017/02/iiste-international-knowledge-sharing.html> [Accessed 1 December 2020].
[4] JournalsIndexed. 2020. International Knowledge Sharing Platform. [online] Available at: <https://www.journalsindexed.com/2017/02/iiste-international-knowledge-sharing.html> [Accessed 1 December 2020].
African Development Under Capitalism
In Chinweizu’s “Africa and the Capitalist Countries” found in General History of Africa, Volume VIII Africa since 1935, the author discusses various aspects and key points in history that have affected African states that pursued the capitalist road to development. Based on the information provided by the author, such states that were inclined to follow the capitalist road of development did so under subtle and overt influences from foreign and western nations that had histories of colonialism.[1] As a result, states with colonial histories in Africa were more than likely to have economic and political interests that did not align with the progress and development of African states.[2]
In Multilateralism and the Atlantic Charter, the author explains that after WWII, the leaders of anti-Axis alliance sought to prevent economic rivalries and hostile competition from capitalist countries, and thus a new economic arrangement was created to manage peace.[3] The arrangement, which is referred to as the “Atlantic Charter”, was outlined by United States President, Franklin Roosevelt, and British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, and instituted multilateral organizations to maintain political, economic, and military control of designated regions of the world.[4] The Charter was the foundation and led to the development of the Bretton Woods agreement of 1945, where several economic institutions were created such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank system, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to manage international economic and political affairs, as well as the United Nations Organization and North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which were established to manage world affairs and secure the collective defense of American and European powers, respectively. Chinweizu also explains that later, the European Economic Community (EEC) and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) were instituted to manage commerce, trade, and other economic areas of development.[5] The aforementioned organizations collectively made up the international structure of rules, laws, and regulations that oversaw the affairs of African states as they were co-opted into them. Moreover, the West was admittedly preoccupied with preventing the spread of Soviet influence in Africa, although such instances exist where African nations received Soviet assistance.
In Economic Development and Decolonization (1960-73), the author details how the West was determined to maintain its economic order and African dependence on Western powers, and how as means of assuaging African leadership, allowed economic development to experience forms of Africanization in order to accommodate Africans who desired political independence. This created a pattern where during the first 25 years of African political independence, any nation’s attempt towards economic development was met with efforts of the West to ensure said development maintained a pro-capitalist form. Nations that pursued capitalist forms of economic development usually adapted the “GDP growth formula” for economic development as the author notes investment funds, aid grants, producer goods, and foreign technical expertise and technology were viewed as factors of economic progress.[6] While many states that subscribed to capitalist economic ideology integrated some form of the formula mentioned, Chinweizu notes that there were key distinctions among Africans about the way and means by which such economic development strategy should take place, specifically between capitalists and socialists. The author notes that Marxist-Africans (socialist-right wing) desired a society where collectivized means of production were run by a dictatorship of the proletariat; non-Marxist, or communal Africans (socialist-left wing) desired a state run by a coalition of representatives; while capitalist-Africans (right-wing), sought a mixed economy and social an economic arrangement based on private and state ownership of means of production.[7]
Despite African nations’ attempts to lead their own economic development in alliance and aligned with capitalists’ interests, they ultimately maintained a position similar to colonial times, and remained the source of economic growth for foreign nations while the economic conditions of African states deteriorated. Chinweizu states: “if anything the colonial economic relations waxed stronger” as African nations did the biding of the UN, World Bank, IMF, NATO, end eventually the EU, etc.[8]. In the subsection, the Persistence of Africa’s Dependency and Underdevelopment, the author finally notes that despite the near complete success at political decolonization, economic development and economic decolonization efforts in Africa ultimately failed. Unlike third world NIC (new industrial economies) such as Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Communist China, African nations did not critique the welfare policies instituted by Western powers and subsequently did not seek to become producers in the new global economy, and treated economic development as consumerism.[9]
[1] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[2] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[3] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[4] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[5] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[6] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[7] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[8] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[9] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
African Development Under Socialism
In Iba Der Thiam, James Mulira, and Christophe Wondji’s “Africa and the Socialist Countries”, the authors make an important note about the relationship between socialist countries and African states dating back to the early 20th century during the Bolshevik revolution. Whereas the West was considered an international imperialist state, socialist nations such as the USSR and China posed themselves as allies of African states and considered Afican nations victims of the west.
The authors consider the primary periods of internationalist socialist support in Africa to be: 1917-1944, which is when European communist parties and radical Pan-Africans worked together; 1945-1960, where socialist states encouraged a weakened position of colonial powers, and thusly supported independence movements; 1960-1975, which saw a decline in explicit support from socialist states as they focused on diplomatic relations; and post-1975, which was the period after the Vietnam war, and saw socialist states increase their influence in Angola and the Horn of Africa.[1]
The authors also provide context about the Soviet Union and Africa, and the relation between Africa and the socialist countries since 1935. They distinguish Marx and Engel’s capitalist assessments of political and economic affairs as analyses that largely exclude Africa and developing nations, and explain that Lenin often included Africa in his analysis of global affairs and believed African states could take a course towards communism and socialist development absent of the capitalist stage of development. During this time, African anti-colonial movements were encouraged to combat colonizers and align with the anti-imperialist front, so Lenin’s Comintern established mutual agreements with nationalist organizations including: the National Congress of British West Africa (NCBWA), the Kikuyu Central Association or the African National Congress (ANC). Other instrumental organizations that supported communism in Africa were the Red International Labor Union, RILU), the United Front from Below (UNFB) and the International Trade Union Committee of Negro Workers (ITUC-NW), which Jomo Kenyatta was a correspondent for.[2]
In the subsection, African Democrats and the International Communist Movement, the authors explain that since the Comintern considered it difficult to encounter African nationalists, they advanced their interests via African Americans and West Indian Pan-Africanists. As a result, social states backed Sylvester Williams, who influenced Marcus Garvey and would inspire many African nationalists, while DuBois and the West Indian George Padmore influenced African socialists such as Kwame Nkrumah.[3] Although the ideological and strategic foundations for African nations to participate in socialist development were complete prior to the Great Depression, the economic downturn of the late 1920s and early 1930s threatened anti-colonial movements. Despite the economic downturn, Marxism continued to spread throughout Africa as Marxist intellectuals trained in Portugal via communist linkages such as Agostinho Neto and Amilcar Cabral.[4]
In the subsection, the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and Decolonization in Africa, the authors explain that although communism existed in Africa, the position was ambiguous as very few parties openly claimed allegiance to Marxism while the USSR also received consideration.[5] After WWII, the socialist world began to take interest in African states – this coincided with the increasing/looming Cold War – and period of 1945-1960 where there was an increase in anti-colonialism, and the independence movement in Africa was produced. During the struggle for independence, several African nationalist parties in states such as Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Sudan, Tunisia, Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, and Somali were supported by socialist states.[6] In Southern Africa, the USSR and Eastern Europe assisted the ZAPU movement in Zimbabwe, the FRELIMO in Mozambique, and the MPLA in Angola, as well as the ANC of ZA and SWAPO in Namibia. After obtaining independence, several states sought USSR and European support to counterbalance the unilateral hegemonic influence of the West and to escape neo-colonial systems.[7]
[1] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[2] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[3] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[4] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[5] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[6] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
[7] Mazrui, A. and Wondji, C., 1993. General History Of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
The Welfare State, and Democratization in Africa: Case Studies
“Some students of social policy see the development of “The Welfare State’ in historical perspective as part of a broad, ascending road of social betterment provided for the working classes since the nineteenth century and achieving its goal in our time. This interpretation of change as a process of unilinear progression in collective benevolence for the classes led to the belief in the year 1948 ‘the Welfare State’ was established. Since then, successive governments, Conservative and Labour [parties], have busied themselves with the more effective operation of the various services, with extension here and adjustments there and both parties, in and out of office, have claimed the maintenance of the ‘Welfare State’ as an article of faith…An analysis of the more important writings on the subject since 1948 lends support, for the dominant note, far from suggestion that social needs have been neglected, has been that the ‘Welfare State’ was ‘established’ too quickly and on too broad a scale. The consequences, it is argued, have been harmful to the economic health of the nation at its ‘moral fiber.’”[1] - Richard Titmuss
Simply defined, a “welfare state” is a state or nation that consist of a central government that provides social services for the nation’s citizenry.[2] This form of public policy is based on the economic output and productivity of a nation, as the aggregate labor of citizens is transformed into wages, income, savings and hopefully investment by the government in order to improve public welfare.[3] In “Essays on ‘The Welfare State’” Richard Titmuss offers a series of public lectures and speeches on the efficacy, potential, and purpose of the welfare state in the global political economy. Whereas most of the speeches took place in the 1950s and 1960s, Titmuss’ central argument and takeaway remains in 2021, as the author asserts that “the social services (however we define them) can no longer be considered as ‘things apart’; as phenomena of marginal interest, like looking out of the window on a train journey. They are apart of the journey itself. They are an integral part of industrialization.”[4] This statement is crucial considering the economic policies and models of development that African states utilize in modern-day society. Readers can observe by Titmuss’ tone, that he considered the administration, model, and review of social services provided by a government a key issue considering the divisions of class and labor in British society. Should we continue to use the maxim provided by Titmuss and multiply or magnify the sentiment based on the scope of African states and the global political economy, we would also consider the administration, model, and review of social services provided by African governments important. Yet, the context of African governance can be distinguished from British governance because the United Kingdom does not have a colonial history, which lends itself to cater to its former colonizer in contemporary society via international regulations based on economic policy. Said differently, Britain operates independently (or with its allies) under the current international economic order, while African nations operate as an appendage of the international economic order and their former colonizers.
As mentioned, African states pursued capitalist and nominally socialist paths to economic development, but the economic public policies instituted have led to underdevelopment. This fact cannot be accepted solely considering African governance and leaders as if they operate independently of their own volition, when in fact, said African leaders have been under the “guidance” and influence of international economic organizations, alliances, and developed nations as they instituted “prescribed” economic policies. The problem with African states implementing welfare state policies for their populations, is that the current international economic system does not allow African states to opt out and seek African development as a primary goal. As a result, African states are simply playing “copy-cat” or “monkey see, monkey do” regarding public policy, as they continue to implement economic policy recommendations that lead to further economic deterioration. Unfortunately, African nations are only allowed to engage in economic development efforts via the facilitation of international overseers such as the IMF, OECD, European Union, and the United States. This point can be further exemplified when considering developments to the international economic order such as the G20 Conference, which features a single African nation, South Africa[5]. Unsurprisingly, South Africa’s economic policies benefit the racial minority population, which is classified as “white”.
Economic development and policy reform are boosted by political liberation, yet Africa’s new democracies continue to experience economic underdevelopment. In Democratization in Africa: Progress and Retreat, Peter Lewis considers this the “democracy-development disconnect” in his essay “Growth Without Prosperity in Africa”.[6] Lewis notes:
“Officials and average citizens alike often note the ‘disconnect’ between macroeconomic indicators and microeconomic performance…data on poverty and human development are showing few significant improvements, and citizens report discouragement when surveyed about attitudes and economic conditions…This paradox presents a basic challenge for Africa’s new democracies. However desirable democracy may be in its own right, political liberalization does not ensure economic regeneration or improved popular welfare…the tension between democracy and welfare is evident…”[7]
Lewis continues his analysis and suggests that while early observations of democracy in Africa did not outperform non-democratic African governments economically, a recent study by Brian Levy assessed 21 African states between 1975-2000 and found that African states pursuing democracy and economic reforms were more successful than non-democratic states.[8] Despite the metrics used to assess economic growth in Africa, (GDP growth, income per capita, etc.) – which led to Levy’s assertion that democracies in Africa were economically successful – such metrics are deceiving as they conceal two important limitations. Firstly, African states are under the purview of the international economic order, which ensures that non-African states benefit from African labor more than African states due to the extraction and commodity-based economy. Secondly, democratic African states that experienced “economic progress” according to Levy, also suffered from welfare state policies, as the public welfare of citizens did not improve, which further illustrates Lewis’ point of “growth without prosperity in Africa”. In order to further assess the capability of African democracies to experience economic progress amid public policies of welfarism, this text utilizes case studies from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal, and South Africa.
[1] Titmuss, R., 1963. Essays On 'The Welfare State'. London: Unwin University Books.
[2] Titmuss, R., 1963. Essays On 'The Welfare State'. London: Unwin University Books.
[3] Titmuss, R., 1963. Essays On 'The Welfare State'. London: Unwin University Books.
[4] Titmuss, R., 1963. Essays On 'The Welfare State'. London: Unwin University Books.
[5] G20.org. 2020. G20 2021 Italy |About G20. [online] Available at: https://www.g20.org/en/il-g20.html
[Accessed 2 December 2020].
[6] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[7] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[8] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Democratic Republic of Congo
The Democratic Republic of Congo has experienced several political issues utilizing democratic principles and institutions and instituting democracy to facilitate change and political development. This study will circumvent the broader history of political and social strife the DRC has experienced since the colonial era as well as aspects of political elections, voting, and runoffs. Instead of analyzing the success of democracy in the DRC based on the ability of the nation to adapt or emulate Western political structures, this study seeks to highlight issues democracy has not addressed within the DRC. Herbert F. Weiss, emeritus professor of political science at the City University of New York, offers analysis of democracy’s progress in the DRC since the 2005 constitutional referendum that sought to pursue such political development in “Democratization in Africa: Progress and Retreat”[1].
Despite the DRC’s 2006 multiparty election, which saw Joseph Kabila defeat Jean-Pierre Bemba and subsequently establish an alliance between his party and the party of third place winner from the first election, Antoine Gizenga, the DRC’s adaption of democracy was riddled with significant issues.[2] While the international community, observers, and foreign powers stood to benefit from the DRC adapting democracy as a political system, said “supporters” could not resolve deeper issues such as ethnic and political division among the Congolese population, the fallout from the 1998-2003 civil conflict, constant foreign intervention, conflict between central and local government administrations, and economic deterioration despite being one of the most resource-rich nations in the world.[3] The ethnic and political division in the DRC is nuanced as voters were divided via geography and language, as Swahili and Lingala speakers were polarized and often in conflict.[4] Furthermore, the DRC also experienced an issue establishing an election body and providing physical security for citizens interested in voting, and relied on contributions from foreign donors (primarily Western European states) amounting to $500 million US dollars, and the MONUC, the United Nations peacekeeping force in the DRC, to protect Congolese voters.
Despite the “successful” adaption of democracy within the DRC, contemporary economic, social, and political issues persist, revealing that the utilization of democracy – even under the guidance of international organization and developed nations – is not entirely sufficient for political and economic development in an African state with the unique history of the DRC. Moreover, as the international community benefits from democracy in the DRC, Congolese natives continue to suffer as Congolese political leadership is held disproportionately responsible as international overseers and proponents of democracy remain absolved[5].
Senegal
Senegal has also experienced political issues utilizing democratic principles and institutions and instituting democracy to facilitate change and political development within the state. Again, this study will circumvent the history of political and social strife Senegal has experienced since the colonial era and its path toward socialist development and analyze the “successes” of democracy in Senegal highlighting issues unaddressed. Penda Mbow, associate professor of history at Chiekh Anta Diop University in Dakar, offers analysis on democracy’s efficacy and utilization in Senegal in her essay published in the January 2008 issue of the Journal of Democracy[6]:
“The turnover of power that took place as a result of Senegal’s March 2000 presidential election was hailed by democrats throughout the world and especially in Africa. The second-round victory by longtime opposition leader Abdoulaye Wade of the Senegalese Democratic Party (PDS) not only toppled incumbent president Abdou Diouf after twenty years in power, but marked the end of forty years of Socialist Party (PS) rule. Yet from a democratic perspective, the era of President Wade has been a severe disappointment, dashing hopes that the great turnover of 2000 would pave the way for democratic consolidation…Despite the promise of democracy in 2000, Senegal today has declined to the point of mere electoral authoritarianism.”
Mbow’s continues to review the progress and effectiveness of democracy in Senegal, citing numerous examples of authoritarian uses of political power post-democratic elections.[7] It is important to note that the misuse of state apparatus for personal rather than public benefit and economic development, yet again takes course after attempting to emulate the political development of former colonial powers. Mbow notes “in Senegal, as in France, when the president’s party has tight control of the National Assembly, the prime minister serves at the will of the president”[8]. Beyond this, president Wade’s administration was characterized by his monopolization of power, mobilization of religious factions for political summoning, repression of individual liberties, and a justice system that allowed him to preside over the careers of the nation’s judges via the Supreme Council of Magistrates, while Senegal also implemented welfare state policies prescribed by foreign nations and international organizations[9]. The political development Senegal has experienced since democratic institutions and processes have been implemented can be questioned, providing leverage for the investigation into democracy’s usefulness as a political system in Senegal. Socio-cultural factors such as religion and ethnicity influence political parties and organizations, and ultimately this effects the broader Senegalese society and economy. Despite any internal conflict within Senegal, foreign powers and advocates of welfare state economic policies continue to benefit from democratic experiments that produce more authoritarianism.[10]
South Africa
South Africa’s application of democracy and utilization of democratic institutions a form of political development has led to varied results as several political and economic challenges have become imminent. The nation’s unique history created conditions for democratic advances, however South Africa is another example of an African state whose citizenry struggles to benefit from the democratic implantations, especially considering major economic issues such as widespread levels of poverty, underdevelopment, and residential segregation.[11] According to Steven Friedman in his article “An Accidental Advance? South Africa’s 2009 Election”, which appeared in the October 2009 issue of the Journal of Democracy, it is important to consider what is intended by democracy.[12] Friedman asserts “if we understand democracy purely as a set of ‘negative’ freedoms that protect individuals from arbitrary government power, South Africa’s democracy has done much better than expected since its inception in 1994…But if we see democracy also as positive liberty – as a regime of popular sovereignty in which law and policy are meant, as far as practicable, to reflect the will of an actively participating citizenry – then progress is far more modest”.[13]
South Africa’s political developments and economic challenges since the election of Jacob Zuma in 2009 are further examples of some of the challenges African states can experience after implementing democratic reforms, as political fragmentation among the South African population and identity politics influence the potential of democratic practices. Despite regular national, provincial, and local elections, economic challenges persist as the country has had varied results addressing residential segregation and poverty. The geography and identity of South Africans who participate in democratic elections ultimately determined the outcome of parliamentary elections since 1994, furthering socio-political division among the populace as political parties sought to galvanize their supporters in order to maintain office, but catered to the elites and party leadership.[14] [15]Using the 2009 election as an example, major South African parties received support based on geographic, racial, and ethnic distinctions. Friedman offer analysis citing how the winning party, the African National Congress (ANC) received support from urban townships, where poor black Africans reside, and in the rural regions of the KwaZulu Natal (KZN) province; the Democratic Alliance (DA) received support in suburban areas dominated by racial minorities and in the Western Cape from colored South Africans who felt the ANC prioritized the needs of black Africans; while the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) sought support of ANC traditionalists who were not supporters of Zuma.
Although South Africans benefited from democracy nominally as they were able to influence leadership via electoral processes, the accountability of the government remains in question primarily due to the racial and economic challenges, making the welfare of citizens and services they need and want paramount. While the South African government undoubtedly needs to make progress in poverty reduction and address the conditions of poorer South Africans, the majority black government office holders continue to be heavy influenced by the “well -resourced and well-connected” racial minorities, as well as international economic organizations and foreign allies such as the United States and UK[16]. Lastly, should the South African government continue to seek to serve the interest of politicians rather than the voters, the efficacy and utilization of democracy will remain questionable.
[1] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[2] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[3] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[4] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[5] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[6] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[7] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[8] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[9] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[10] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[11] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[12] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[13] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[14] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[15] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[16] Diamond, L. and Plattner, M., 2010. Democratization in Africa. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Conclusion
As the end of the colonial era gave rise to the independence era and movements that saw Africans vie for nationalist leadership within their respective states and various forms of political development took place, the new international economic order continued to benefit from former European colonies in Africa. African states experienced politicization and liberation movements that lead to political development, whilst foreign states and the international system of economic governance maintained the extraction-based economy. After independence, African states began to implement welfare state policies and pursued economic development models under the tutelage, supervision, and oversight of developed nations and agents from international bodies such as the IMF, World Bank, OECD, and EU. It can be said that African states’ relationship with former colonizers merely changed to one of idolization, as the global political economy expanded at the expense of African labor. However, is the decision to prioritize the economic and political recommendations of non-African states a rejection of African philosophy? Can African philosophy and thinking that is absent of foreign guidance and interference enhance the efficacy of democracy in Africa?
If the present conditions in African states are due to poor African leadership, management, and administration of public services and economic development, one must consider the influence of foreign states. Foreign states and international institutions have driven the increase of democratic institutions in African governance, yet economic development that benefits Africans has been absent. Beyond this fact, should we analyze the behavior of African leaders and elites and their pursuit of economic policy that does not prioritize Africans through a particular lens, say Pan-African, one could consider their actions indicative of notions they were taught via colonialism. By neglecting the needs of African citizens, have African elites and leaders have in fact treated their fellow citizens in similar ways that colonizers treated Africans during colonialism? Can this be considered benign neglect? Was the purpose of implementing democratic institutions in African states post-independence movements and pursuing economic policies that benefit welfare state economies that are non-African supposed to contribute to political and economic development in Africa? Based on this treatment, I believe the answer is “not exactly” at best. Using this conclusion as a driving and creative force, those who believe in the potential of African states should unquestionably be interested in the capacities of African states to facilitate and lead their own political development, democratic or non-democratic, as long as the economic activity improves the welfare of Africans and their relative economic status in the global political economy.