Leaders linger, but Africans back turnover
At the weekend, Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame was re-elected with 98% of the vote. Why is it that many African countries don’t seem to get sick of their presidents, while in SA presidents seem to have the life expectancy of a piece of uncooked salmon?
Kagame’s victory is not without its controversy. Developed democracies generally frown on political systems with such an overwhelming margin of victory because it seems so suspicious. And the suspicions are not without foundation.
Days after 35-year-old businesswoman Diane Rwigara launched her campaign as a critic of Kagame, nude photos of her appeared on the internet.
The biggest controversy, however, has to do with term limits. Kagame has been president for 17 years and this victory will mean he will stay in power for another seven. He was supposed to stand down, but in 2015, his party proposed a constitutional amendment to allow him an additional term and that too was won by a huge majority.
The number of presidents who have their eye on this process is kinda scary. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Joseph Kabila has suggested a similar extension. He should have left office in December 2016. In nearby Burundi, Pierre Nkurunziza announced in 2015 that he would stand for a controversial third term as president. Mauritanians voted at the weekend in a constitutional referendum that critics see as paving the way for a third term too. The official result was not known at the time of publication.
The Economist magazine reports that if they succeed, these presidents will join the ranks of the 13 African heads of state who have rolled back term limits. Why are they doing this? And why are they allowed to get away with it?
The Economist suggests they are doing it because the costs of doing so are very low. Term limits were introduced in the wave of democratisation in the 1990s to try to ensure the thug leaders of the postcolonial period could not get a permanent grip on power. Now, many of the leaders are ardent capitalists, which has had the dual advantage of improving their economies fabulously. And also making them darlings of the West — and the East.
In Rwanda, for example, the economy has boomed, life expectancy has increased to 64, not much below the global average; and mortality has halved for children under five years. In these circumstances, it is hard to argue with Kagame’s popularity.
The Economist points out another factor: the rising influence of China means the West’s leverage is reduced and anyway its priority is no longer democracy but combating jihadism.
But I think it is a bit more complicated than that. Most African countries have majority rural populations, unlike western countries, which are way past their industrial revolutions. Western democracies are broadly founded on class differences; it doesn’t always hold, but generally I think that is true.
In Africa, there is a larger degree of societal homogeneity. Successful African leaders can therefore legitimately hold large majorities unaffected by the grand divides of societies in the West.
Yet that doesn’t mean they should be condoned. Term limits are actually very popular. An Afrobarometer poll found that about three-quarters of people in 34 African countries said that presidential mandates should be restricted to two terms.
Africans still have bad memories of the thugs who seized power or would not stand down in the postcolonial period.
Some recent attempts to scrap term limits have resulted in calamitous social unrest. In Benin, Burkina Faso, Senegal and Nigeria recent attempts to sidestep term limits have failed.
This is all so different from SA, which is generally an urban country and has a different political tradition.
Politicians are scheduled to vote this week on whether to oust President Jacob Zuma. Whichever way the vote goes, it remains a grand accomplishment that such a vote can take place.
The outcome? Well, that’s a different question.
IF THEY SUCCEED THEY WILL JOIN THE RANKS OF THE 13 AFRICAN HEADS OF STATE WHO HAVE ROLLED BACK TERM LIMITS