![]() ![]() There was clear agreement that, whatever the form, one-party states and other forms of dictatorships suppressed both competition and participation, undermining the potential for a healthy civil society and the necessary institutions for democracy. The military leaders exercised power on an institutional basis, governing collegially as a junta or by circulating top government positions among military generals. In some cases, military dictatorships were created by coups d'état, which overthrew democratic or civilian governments. It was pointed out that power in the state had depended on access or proximity to, dependence on, or support from the dictator. In the three workshops, much consideration was given to how, over time, the postcolonial government of newly independent African states had evolved into domination by a single party in a one-party system, which in turn often became a personal dictatorship. The governing party became the instrument of elite groups that held onto power at all costs and were unwilling to tolerate dissent or serious competition. Access to power was through the party organization and its rule was enforced through ideological persuasion or coercion. In a number of African countries, participants pointed out that the national liberation movement had evolved into a party that either legally or effectively monopolized power, often under the banner of preserving independence from foreign interference. God himself does not want opposition-that is ![]() In Malawi, for example, the idea of an opposition was rejected on quasi-theological grounds: "There is no opposition in Heaven. Competitive politics was rejected as an imported luxury neither needed nor affordable in developing countries. The postcolonial trend toward one-party systems in Africa was justified on a number of grounds, including the alleged tradition of a single unchallenged chief, the idea of a democratic majority expressed through a single party, and the need for unity in the face of ethnic, linguistic, and cultural differences. ![]() Participants indicated that, although contemporary authoritarian regimes in Africa have taken a number of forms, they fall within the general models of one-party systems, personal dictatorships, and military regimes. Some wondered if the new demands being placed on African nations by international donor institutions as well as heightened individual expectations for better lives could be met by the nascent democracies. Nevertheless, they pointed out that emerging democratic governments would have to confront a legacy of poverty, illiteracy, militarization, and underdevelopment produced by incompetent or corrupt governments. As authoritarian regimes in Africa increasingly are being challenged across the continent, participants were hopeful that competitive multiparty systems might emerge in Africa. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |