What creates enduring political institutions that can ensure peaceful transfers of power from incumbents to new leaders?
Two important events happened in Africa last week that provide
important insights into our continent’s political evolution. First, was
the death of the president of Zambia, Michael Sata. This was followed by
a constitutional and peaceful transfer of power to his vice president,
Guy Scott. The second was a mass uprising in Burkina Faso. Angry mobs
marched down the streets burning down cars and buildings including
parliament. This led to the forced and ultra-constitutional removal of
President Blaise Compaore, who had ruled that country for the last 27
Why did Zambia have a peaceful transition but Burkina Faso a violent
one? May be it was in the way these presidents gain power and exercised
it. The first president of Zambia, Kenneth Kaunda, ruled that country
for 27 years like Compaoure. But he had been an elected founding father.
But when demands for multi-party politics became loud, Kaunda rose to
the occasion and accepted political reform. He held a free and fair
election which he lost. And Kaunda gracefully conceded.
Under Kaunda’s successor, Frederick Chiluba, Zambia introduced
two-term limits on the presidency. Chiluba and his allies sought to
remove this clause but were stopped by peaceful demonstrations. Again,
Zambia managed this major political landmark in a mature and peaceful
way, a factor that young nations find difficult to achieve. Therefore,
in spite of his long rule (Kaunda) and in spite of his polarising
politics (Chiluba) both bequeathed unto their nation a political
tradition that makes that country manage political transitions
peacefully. The defeat of Kaunda and Chiluba also demonstrated that the
political balance of forces in that country favoured peaceful
transitions. Thus when Sata defeated incumbent president Rupia Banda in
2011, the transition went without a hustle.
Zambia’s neighbour, Malawi, has behaved the same way. When Kamuzu
Banda (who had ruled for 30 years) was defeated in the 1994 elections,
he conceded defeat. When his successor, Bakili Muluzi, attempted to
remove term limits, he was also stopped by popular protests. And only
this year, we saw an incumbent president in Malawi, Joyce Banda, lose
elections and concede. We find parallels to this experience in Senegal
and Tanzania. There, the founding presidents Leopold Senghor (in Senegal
in 1980) and Julius Nyerere (in Tanzania in 1985) retired peacefully
long before anyone asked them to do so. Since then, these two countries
have gone through regular peaceful changes – in Senegal, twice (in 2000
and 2012) the incumbent has been defeated.
Yet it is not always a sure deal that when an incumbent retires
peacefully, the country will acquire a culture of peaceful transitions.
In 1982, President Ahmadou Ahidjo of Cameroon peacefully retired and
handed power to Paul Biya. Thirty two years later, Biya is still in
office. In 1996, Biya accepted term limits on the presidency which he
removed in 2008. In Sierra Leone, President Siaka Probyn Stevens came to
power in 1971 but voluntarily retired in 1985, handing over power to
Gen. Joseph Saidu Momoh. Sierra Leone later degenerated into civil war, a
coup leading to state and economic collapse. Somalia was indeed the
first country in Africa to enjoy a peaceful transfer of power from one
president to another after electoral defeat. But later it degenerated
into a coup, civil war and the break-up of the country.
In some countries like Kenya and Botswana, the founding fathers died
in office but still enjoyed peaceful transitions. Today, their sons are
presidents and in both cases after two presidents. In Gabon, Togo and
DRC, presidents died in office only to be replaced by their sons through
peaceful transitions. It is therefore possible that the peaceful
transitions in Zambia, Malawi, Senegal, Kenya, Botswana and Tanzania had
something to do with the contribution of their founding fathers. But it
may also be a culture embedded in the social tissue of these countries.
In Ivory Coast, the founding president died in office after a
successful project of state/nation building and economic prosperity.
Since then, Ivory Coast has degenerated into a basket case of coups,
civil war leading to state and economic collapse. May be countries that
have had military men rule them find it difficult to organise peaceful
transitions. The only exceptions to this rule are Ghana, Nigeria and
Let us come back to Burkina Faso. Between independence in 1960 and
the coup that brought Compaoure to power in 1987, Burkina Faso (formerly
Upper Volter) had suffered seven changes of government – giving its
leaders an average of 3.5 years. So Compaoure’s contribution in that
country was to offer it a long and unbroken period of continuity
characterised by political stability, leadership predictability and
certainty. But as the events of last week demonstrated, he overstayed
his welcome. Political decay led to mass mobilisation and organisation
that forced him to leave.
Compaoure came to power via a coup where he assassinated President
Thomas Sankara. Is this kind of power grab a predictor of future events
i.e. it leaves behind a legacy of blood? Well when Rawlings captured
power via a military coup in 1979, he publically executed four former
presidents in a firing squad. Some people believe that this is what has
given Ghana its stable political dispensation. Equally interesting is
that not all peaceful transitions lead to stability. Liberia enjoyed
more than 100 years of peaceful political transitions before it
collapsed into a coup, civil war and the almost complete collapse of the
state. Countries like Mali and Madagascar show that poorly organised
transitions can produce disaster.
The lesson from the above experiences is that a country’s political
future may be shaped by its history. But how these historical events
play out leading to stability or civil war, we do not know for sure.
What we can conclude is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to
political stability on our continent. States and their politics are not
generic. They vary in their political dynamics. What may be good for
Kenya may be dangerous for Togo.
Therefore, each nation needs to be left to evolve its political
institutions and practices to reflect its political realities. Text book
theories about what ensures a stable political dispensation have to be
weighed against the hard political reality lest they bring a nation to
tears. Zambia has succeeded because of a specific constellation of
factors. That does not mean that if Somalia or CAR followed a similar
course, they will succeed.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment