​In the TV comedy program “Whose Line Is It Anyway,” performers create characters, scenes and songs 
on the spot and compete over who has come up with the most humorous skit. Democracy in many African countries looks like improvisational theatre, where various political actors are scrambling and 
scampering to see whose performance of the borrowed democracy is more comic. The problem is that 
the actions and non-actions of these figures grossly affect these countries’ citizens.

The end of apartheid and emergence of democracy in South Africa coincided with a new wave of 
democracy in many African countries. After two decades, these African countries are still 
struggling to stabilize their democratic institutions, while citizens are yet to gain any 
democratic dividends. The 2016 Afrobarometer survey from 36 countries showed that the majority of 
African citizens have low trust in  their democratic process. This is because democracy has been 
reduced to merely an election competition.

In 2016, 18 African countries held a general election, while in 2017 there are at least 9 major 
elections. Among these are Rwanda, Kenya, Angola, Liberia and Democratic Republic of Congo. The 
dynamics of democracy in Africa make one question the type of democracy Africans are implementing. 
Whose democracy is it? How is the democratic process that is introduced to a country compatible 
with and adaptable to the needs of the people? Simply put, where is the social contract in African 
democracy? Let’s examine the some key countries scheduled for major elections in 2017.

On August 7th, Rwanda’s sitting president, Paul Kegame, won election for a third seven-year term by 
98.63 percent, in what he called a “formality.” There was no serious opposition as any potential 
opponent is disqualified. Shall we call this democracy? Kagame has transformed the war-devastated 
country, bringing in the much-needed stability and socioeconomic progress that has made Rwanda one of the success stories of Africa. But Kegame rules as an authoritarian through a controlled 
election process. He has promised gradual relaxation of law and a restriction of opponents from 
political participation going forward. We will have to wait and see whether he will follow through 
with this promise. The bottom line is that the majority of Rwandans are happy with their leaders. 
Compare Rwanda, an authoritarian democratic country with a developmental approach, to countries 
like Liberia.

After completing her full two terms as president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf is expected  to  hand  over 
 power  to  whomever  wins  the  election  in  October  2017.

Currently there are four major contenders, led by former international footballer George Weah. 
After two civil wars that devastated the country, Liberia’s return to democracy has enjoyed 
relative political stability. Ellen Johnson has garnered a lot of international praise and 
accolades, including a Nobel Prize for Peace in 2011 for her non-violent activities for women’s 
rights and for navigating Liberia from civil war and the Ebola epidemic. Despite this recognition 
and a high growth rate, the country’s poverty, literacy and access to healthcare remain as major 
challenges. Even though Liberia scores higher in democratic ratings, its socioeconomic index is 
very low. This does not mean that the low socioeconomic performance is because of democracy, but it 
persists despite democracy. The few remaining authoritarian countries in Africa – Zimbabwe, 
Eritrea, Uganda, Cameroon - are not doing well either.

Since humans are not angels and Plato’s proposed system of philosopher-kings is an out-of-reach 
Utopia, democracy is viewed as the best political system for us flawed humans. Evidence from the US 
and countries of Western Europe has shown that democracy can work. But it remains a big challenge 
in some countries. There are many factors that could explain the  problems facing the new wave of 
democracies since the 1990s. I attribute the challenges of the democratic process in Africa to the 
way it was exported or imported in these countries. On the one hand, the West, led by the EU and 
the US, exports democracy in many countries just as structural adjustment program were exported – a 
one-size-fits-all method that does not recognize local characteristics. On the other hand, African 
authoritarians also tend to import one aspect of democracy – election processes - to gain favor and 
legitimize their perpetual hold on power. This behavior is drawn from an erroneous assumption that 
has been institutionalized as truth - that African traditional institutions and values are not 
compatible with democracy. Hence,  the  perceived  need  to  eliminate  or ignore local 
institutions and the social contract when introducing democracy has continued to sustain
neo-patrimonialism. The consequence is a political system that breeds more chaos, suppresses its citizens, lacks accountability and thrives on mismanagement of public goods.

We forgot that the modern Western democracies do not all operate in the same way. Each country 
adapted organically to its own local structure. For example, the US became a presidential republic, 
which was seen as most suitable for its context. The UK operates under parliamentary monarchism 
that allows it to retain its old and cherished traditions. On the other hand, Switzerland is a 
direct democracy that allows autonomy to municipalities and cantons. Until countries began 
promoting a type of democracy that emphasizes local context and structures within a social 
contract, as has been done in the EU and elsewhere, democracy will continue to erode many 
developing countries, especially in Africa.

 ​I attended a talk by Vishwas Satgar ─ ‘The Crisis of South African Democracy: The Challenge to Civil Society and Transformative Politics’ hosted by the Development and Governance of Watson Institute Brown University on April 26th, 2017. It was a well-articulated discourse on the political economy of South Africa, which is of great interest to me given my current work in the same area. Meanwhile, I will focus mostly on how the South African politics of which the speaker called Zumafication is a reflection of the growing global politics of nationalism/populism. Satgar did not explicitly define Zumafication but from his analysis it implies the rise of Zuma and how he captured the ANC through populist rhetoric and rallying. Having captured power he purged out every threat and used state power to scourge those who fight against his corrupted tendencies. The talk was richly interconnected to the global politics of past few years, and there were no end of questions and insights from the audience on each problem of state capture in South Africa and the current political climate. Given all that has been going on since Zuma got into power, I wondered how long the ANC tripartite alliance would hold. In my 2011 paper, published just after Zuma took power, I argue that the onus is dependent on the ability of the oppositions especially the then newly established Congress of the People (COPE) and Democratic Alliance to mobilize and form a strong opposition, or the country will remain a one party dominant system, making democracy vulnerable.  Zuma has continued to use his populist facade persona and rhetoric to gain some mass support while exploiting the political capital of ANC and gap in opposition. Obviously a new force – state capture has taken over South African political discourse. Whether this will transcend race and lead a mobilization that would be impactful in the next presidential election in 2019 will remain to be seen. One thing for sure South African state has been captured.

If I have learnt something, it is the complexity of human nature
If I have learnt something, it is to understand the differences in us
Sometimes I wonder what makes us - nature or nurture?
Must it be one? We can find in ourselves many features
When I look deeply into myself, I see a lot of contradictions
It is the same in everyone, but in different degrees and directions
How can someone claim to help and steal from you at the same time?
And be vexed towards you for not showing appreciation
Even when he has it all and you only have a dime
How can someone hold you down and ask you to be grateful?
How can you understand when there is something gainful?
Maybe I am the foolish one, of cause there is always something
Something to gain - power, money, ego and authority.  Stretching?