Reconstructing the Authoritarian State in Africa

George Kieh, Jr., Pita Agbese, George Klay Kieh, Jr., Pita Ogaba Agbese

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781135007584
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politica e relazioni internazionali
• Subtopic: Politica

This work seeks to examine the nature and dynamics of authoritarianism in Africa and to suggest ways in which the states covered in the book can be democratically reconstituted.

In 1990, a wave of euphoria greeted the "third wave of democratization" that swept across the African Continent. The repression-wearied subalterns were hopeful that the "third wave" would have set into motion the process of democratically reconstituting the authoritarian state on the continent. More than two decades thereafter, although some progress has been made, by and large, the authoritarian state remains the dominant construct in the region. Even in some of the countries in which democratic transitions have taken place, the process of democratic consolidation remains an elusive quest as these states are sandwiched between authoritarianism and democracy.

Against this background, the purpose of this book is to examine the travails of the authoritarian state in Africa, including the Herculean task to democratically reconstruct it. In order to do this, six of Africa's perennial authoritarian states—Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Liberia, Rwanda and Uganda—are used as the case studies.

The book has two major objectives. First, the various chapters probe the nature and dynamics of authoritarianism in Africa. Second, the chapters suggest ways in which the various authoritarian states covered in the book can be democratically reconstituted.

1 Introduction

The tragedies of the authoritarian state in Africa

George Klay Kieh, Jr. and Pita Ogaba Agbese

Introduction

The decolonization process in Africa witnessed the colonial powers transferring an authoritarian state construct to the first generation African leaders. Fashioned in the image of the colonial state, the post-colonial construct retained the nature, mission and character of its colonial progenitor. In terms of its nature, the post-colonial state in Africa is a by-product of the historical and cultural proclivities of colonialism and imperialism. In essence, the post-colonial state in Africa by its design reflects the interests of neo-colonialism and imperialism. Accordingly, the primary raison d’être of the post-colonial state is to create and maintain a conducive and enabling environment in which foreign-based capitalists and the advanced capitalist states can promote their economic and political interests. Also, the post-colonial state in Africa has a multidimensional character described variously as “repressive, exploitative, prebendal, neo-patrimonial, predatory, criminalized and vampirish,” among others.¹ Given the specific circumstances, one or a combination of the dimensions of the character of the post-colonial state may become ascendant.²

Significantly, the first generation African leaders had the opportunity to shepherd the process of deconstructing, rethinking and democratically reconstituting the post-colonial state in Africa. Regrettably, with very few exceptions—e.g., Ghana and Tanzania—the first generation leaders chose to retain the colonial state in its post-colonial form. Accordingly, the post-colonial state in Africa retained all of the features of its colonial predecessor. According to Claude Ake, the first generation African leaders were not interested in the democratic reconstitution of the post-colonial state “because they lacked a democratic agenda.”³ Moreover, the succeeding generations of African leaders equally failed to make the democratic reconstitution of the post-colonial state the epicenter of the state-building project. Hence, over the past five decades of independence, the post-colonial authoritarian state has enveloped Africa in multifaceted crises of underdevelopment—cultural, economic, environmental, political, security, social, etc.

Against this backdrop, this chapter has seven major objectives. First, it will discuss the evolution of the post-colonial authoritarian state. Second, it will examine some of the major tragedies that the post-colonial state has engendered—the multifaceted crises of underdevelopment. Third, the chapter will discuss the nature and dynamics of the “third wave of democratization” and its resulting impact on authoritarianism in Africa. Fourth, it will discuss the focus and objectives of the book. Fifth, the chapter provides the conceptual framework for the book. Sixth, the theoretical framework for the book is presented. Seventh, the chapter will present the summaries of the constituent chapters of the volume.

The evolution of the authoritarian post-colonial state

The authoritarian post-colonial state in Africa was fashioned by the colonial and imperialist powers and bequeathed to Africa at independence. The post-colonial construct is substantively similar to its predecessor. Julius Ihonvbere provides an apt description of the glaring similarities between the two constructs:

The post-colonial state was a continuation of the colonial state with very minimal changes, mostly in terms of personnel rather than structures, functions and relations to civil society. Thus, it remained as interventionist, exploitative, and repressive as its predecessor. It is therefore inappropriate to expect good governance, transparency, social harmony, respect for human rights, adherence to the rule of law, and political stability in social formations presided over by weak and non-hegemonic elites.⁴

In essence, the post-colonial state retained the authoritarian characteristics of the colonial state. For example, the mission of the post-colonial state is to create a conducive atmosphere for the private accumulation of capital by the metropolitan-based owners of multinational corporations and other businesses and their local African clients, including state managers. In performing its mission, the post-colonial state tramples on the rights and freedoms of the African peoples. That is, because the post-colonial state is an illegitimate formation detached from the people it rules, the post-colonial state primarily relies on coercion and other repressive methods to promote the interests of the ruling class (the internal wing consisting of state managers and local entrepreneurs, and the external wing comprising the owners of metropolitan-based multinational corporations and other businesses).

The post-colonial state has a multidimensional character. For example, like its colonial progenitor, the post-colonial state is violent and repressive. As Claude Ike asserts, “At independence, the form and function of the state in Africa did not change much for most countries in Africa. State power remained essentially the same: immense, arbitrary, often violent, always threatening …”.⁵

Another feature is the post-colonial state’s predatory proclivity. The state, for example, likes to collect taxes and other fees from its citizens, but does not provide services. Instead, the resources of the state are used to enrich the members of the ruling classes. For example, while the masses lack the basic necessities of life, the members of the ruling classes and their families live in opulence. This is because the state provides propitious conditions in which the members of the ruling classes and their relations can engage in the predatory accumulation of wealth at the expense of the subaltern classes (working, peasantry, petit bourgeois, the unemployed and the lumpen). In other words, the state is analogous to a “buffet service in which the members of the ruling classes and their relations ‘eat all they can eat’ for free.”⁶

Similarly, the post-colonial state is exploitative. This is demonstrated in several ways. For instance, it pays low wages to civil servants; these wages are woefully inadequate to meet the basic needs of these civil servants and their families. Also, in some cases, the state does not pay civil servants regularly. In this vein, civil servants are usually unpaid for several months. Meanwhile, the upper echelon of the public bureaucracy pillages and plunders the state’s coffers, while telling civil servants the “state has no money.” Also, the state facilitates the exploitation of workers in the private sector by multinational corporations and other foreign-owned businesses. Characteristically, these workers are paid abysmally low wages. But, when they protest, the state employs the full battery of its repressive apparatus to cow them into submission.

Also, the state has a neo-patrimonial dimension to its character. Essentially, recruitment to the public service is based on personal connections and patronage rather than on merit. State managers employ their relatives, friends, cronies and others to occupy various positions in the public sector, including ministries, autonomous agencies, the police, the military and security services.

Each particular dimension or a combination thereof of the state’s character is usually ascendant, depending on the special set of circumstances. For example, the prebendal aspect of the state’s character might be dominant in a particular circumstance. At other times, the violent and repressive dimensions might dominate. Alternatively, the exploitative and repressive elements might be most apparent. Anyway, no matter which dimension is dominant at a given time, the fact remains that the character of the post-colonial state is intrinsically anti-people, anti-democracy and anti-development.

The tragedies of authoritarianism

The horrendous performance of the post-colonial state in Africa is vividly captured by the multifaceted tragedies it has engendered. Culturally, in many cases, the post-colonial state has polarized ethnic groups. That is, rather than promote peaceful coexistence, and a sense of nationalism and patriotism based on allegiance to a common patrimony, the post-colonial state usually pits one ethnic group against another. Given the lack of a democratic agenda and therefore legitimacy, state managers tend to seek refuge in the provinces of their respective ethnic groups. Accordingly, the state has become ethnicized: the polity has become the exclusive province of a particular ethnic group usually associated with the incumbent president. The other ethnic groups are then banished to the periphery of the society. The emergent “us” against “them” struggle has, and continues to be designed for the achievement of two major goals. First, the incumbent president relies on his or her ethnic group for support, against the backdrop of the loss of national support. For example, the incumbent president fills the major positions in the state bureaucracy, the military, police and security establishments with the members of his or her own ethnic group. By so doing, the incumbent president believes that his or her regime would be secured. Second, the incumbent regime uses ethnic manipulation as a vehicle for foiling the development of class solidarity among the members of the subaltern classes. By orchestrating “ethnic differences,” the incumbent regime is able to prevent members of the subaltern classes from various ethnic groups from forming the bonds of solidarity that are exigent for waging a struggle against the ruling class.

In the economic realm, the African masses are enveloped in mass abject poverty and very low standard of living. For example, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, 323 million Africans lived on less than $1 a day.⁷ According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest incidence of poverty in the world, and unlike almost all other regions of the world, poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa has been rising over the last decade.⁸ For example, of the world’s 1.2 billion people who live on less than $1 a day, 24.3 percent are in Sub-Saharan Africa.⁹ To make matters worse, Africa has the second most unequal income distribution next to Latin America.¹⁰ The Gini coefficient for Africa as a whole is 44 percent.¹¹ By the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, mass poverty remained ensconced on the landscape of the political economies of African states: about 51 percent of the people in Sub-Saharan Africa lived on about $1.25 per day.¹² Similarly, about 388 million people in the region lived on about $1 a day.¹³

The economic crises generated by the authoritarian state in Africa are exacerbated by high debt and the attendant debt servicing. Substantial portions of the export earnings of African states are devoted to paying the interests on the usually odious debts owed to the Bretton Woods institutions (the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank), the advanced capitalist states (United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, etc.) and the major capitalist commercial banks. Similarly, the neo-liberal agenda being championed by the United States and the Bretton Woods institutions is making the economic crises worse, by, among other things, forcing loan-seeking African states to dismantle their respective “social safety nets.” That means, African states with welfare programs are removing subsidies for such human needs as education, health care, public housing and public transportation. Additionally, the privatization ethos and the associated “rolling back of the state” is creating more hardship by selling critical public corporations such as utilities to private companies. In turn, these private firms are charging high fees, which poverty-stricken Africans cannot afford.

In terms of the environment, degradation is prevalent. This has been occasioned by an assortment of factors. The imperatives of poverty have forced scores of Africans to rely on the felling of trees as a source of survival. The trees are then used to make coal. As well, the lack of viable reforestation programs is leading to the destruction of valuable species of trees. In addition, logging companies are exploiting the forests of various African states for profit-making reasons. These companies, mainly foreign-based, are cutting logs and processing them into timber for export. Again, the lack of viable national reforestation programs is causing massive destruction of scores of species of trees. Furthermore, scores of Africans are using various bodies of water for multiple purposes—from “laundry marts” to lavatory facilities. The use of bodies of water for various purposes, especially as lavatory facilities, is causing health problems. This is because many Africans use the water that serves as a lavatory facility for cooking and drinking purposes as well. Similarly, the air is being polluted by myriad activities—from the emission of carbon dioxide gas by dilapidated automobiles to smog by various industrial activities. These activities have been identified as the major causes of the emergent phenomenon of “global warming.” For example, in various West African countries—Ghana, Liberia, etc.—the temperature is consistently hot and humid both during the dry and the rainy seasons. Historically, the temperature has been relatively cooler during the rainy season.

Politically, the authoritarian post-colonial state has occasioned numerous problems. At the base is the primacy of the “cult of the presidency.” The president in African states is deified: he or she is considered omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Hence, his or her edicts are to be obeyed and not questioned. Moreover, the president is above the law. That is, the law is for the mere mortals, not the “presidential demi-god.” The “cult of the presidency” is manifested in several leadership styles that Robert Jackson and Carl Rosberg have variously referred to as “The prince, the autocrat, the prophet and the tyrant.”¹⁴

The related problem is the centralization of power in the hands of the president. Despite the existence of the legislative and judicial branches, the president wields the greatest amount of power, which is unchecked by the formal institutional mechanisms. As Richard Sandbrook notes, “The strongman, usually the president, occupies the center of political life.”¹⁵ With unlimited and unchecked powers, the president has carte blanche to do whatever he or she pleases. For example, he or she can order the minister of finance to provide any amount of money for his or her use, outside of the approved annual state budget and the legislative process. Similarly, he or she can use the state’s resources for private purposes, including placing government vehicles and homes at the disposal of his relatives and friends.

One of the major tragedies of the authoritarian state in Africa is the bastardization of the multiparty system. In authoritarian states like Burundi, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe, there are several de jure political parties; but, in reality, there is one de facto party—the ruling one. Under this arrangement, the ruling party, given its suzerainty over the state apparatus, controls the electoral process. For example, during the 2005 Egyptian Presidential Election, the incumbent, President Hosni Mubarak, used his control over the state machinery to bring fabricated charges against his major opponent. The ostensible goal of President Mubarak was ...