Guinea Conakry and the Meaning of Democratic Reform

The colonially engineered nation-state of Guinea in West Africa has faced decades of authoritarian leadership and ethnic conflict ever since independence from French-rule in 1958. After a coup led by Moussa Dadis Camara in 2008, there was much enthusiasm about a break with that past. Then, on a day which will live in infamy, September 28, 2009, a protest against Camara's military junta turned violent when at least a hundred and fifty-six people were shot dead and women gang-raped in the streets. You can see and hear an audio slide-show in the New Yorker on the history. A video of the ensuing political crisis is below.

Today, Guinea is headed for a reportedly "free, transparent and credible" election on June 27, 2010, that will usher in a civilian controlled government. A list of presidential front-runners in the election are already announced. The Guinean military has sworn that it will not interfere in the election process. A Guinean diplomat happily told Reuters,"for now, the army has remained out of the political process."

But is it really possible? Has Guinea, after years of brutal dictatorship finally entered into the paradise of a Western approved multiparty democracy? A timely analysis in Foreign Policy magazine warns that transition from military to civilian rule will in no way challenge Guinea's kleptocracy (rule by thieves)---a system in which multinationals and elites work with the military behind the scenes to ensure the safe extraction of resources.

"No one doubts that the military, through its affiliated networks of businessmen and political allies, will continue to overshadow the running of any elected regime. Guinea is the world's largest bauxite exporter and home to vast iron ore deposits, and possibly even oil reserves -- all of which the military is keenly aware."

The challenge therefore is to understand just how much democracy Guineans can expect after the polls on the 27th? If a sign of democracy is how much Guinea's people directly share in the fruits of the nation's wealth, signs are so far not looking positive. After all, the free-flow of Guinea's mineral resources in past have not in anyway improved the social and economic lives of the country's majority poor population. According to U.S. sources, when economic growth rose slightly in 2006-08, due to increases in global demand and commodity prices on world markets the standard of living fell. Guinea remains among the poorest countries in the world despite its rich natural resources.

Another historical problem in Guinea is the habit among the state to utilize political violence against opposition movements and political parties (often along ethnic-lines). And while a transition to a nominally civilian government represents the opportunity for a serious change, the amount continuing military intrusion in economic and political affairs is a warning sign. The Foreign Policy article lists the continuing influence of the military as a warning sign for future violence along ethnic or religious lines.

"Most alarmingly, serious splits have emerged within military circles. Last year, Camara brought in Israeli mercenaries to train as many as 10,000 new recruits for the army. They came mostly from Camara's ethnic Geurzé tribe in the isolated Forestiere region....Over the last few weeks, ethno-religious clashes have killed several people in Forestiere amid fears that Camara may be stirring up trouble ahead of the polls."

I recently listened to a piercing analysis in a Brecht forum podcast on Western military and judicial influence in the African continent. One speaker noted toward the end of the discussion the fact that forms of natural resource extraction conspicuously match political structures in Africa. Guinea is a text-book case of this phenomena even during significant moments of regime change as we are about to witness later this month. What does democratic reform mean in a state like Guinea where the political structure is configured for the cheap extraction of the country's mineral resources rather than endogenous social development of its citizens?

Elections Without Democracy in Ethiopia?

Ethiopians have recently finished voting at the electoral polls in a parliamentary election that was widely held as a test of the country's multiparty democracy. Despite ethnic violence, conflicts with neighboring Somalia and Eritrea and accusations of political repression, the ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front and Menes Zelawi, the current prime minister, are expected to win big in the election. Zelawi is one of the U.S.'s closest allies in the 'War on Terrorism'. In keeping with the norm of African elections, the ballot box will not likely deliver any sweeping political changes internally or in foreign relations.

Was the election a sign of internal political legitimacy for the EPRD and continuity?

Opposition parties are claiming foul play but the alternatives are either addressing grievances through the courts or violent confrontation with the ruling party. Have things become some bad here that a peaceful but flawed election is the most one can hope for? As usual Al Jazeera has had great coverage of the electoral proceedings and their implications.

All Eyes on Sudan

Sudan is Africa's biggest country and possibly the most strategically important to external economic powers. Not just because of its enormous oil reserves but Sudan is geographically nestled in one of the continents hot zones sharing borders with some of the most volatile countries in the continent. There are warning signs according to experts that Sudan could spiral into a civil war as the Southern region of the country votes for independence next year. Sudan's parliament voted to allow a popular referendum which could open the way for southern succession from the North.

The Sudanese People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) is the leader of the Southern faction and originally started as an armed resistance movement called the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA). The history of their armed struggle is proudly recorded on the SPLM's website which you can see here. A civil war that ended over a million lives between North and South officially ended in peace talks and powersharing with the central government in 2005 but many of the underlying concerns in the conflict remain. In recent weeks the SPLM and the ruling National Congress (NPC) of the North have attempted to mend fences but the independence vote is likely to stir up old tensions.

If these tensions actually spillover into a violent civil war, the world's preeminent military powers will be drawn in. A Small Arms Survey found that the SPLM group is already receiving thousands of weapons from a U.S. proxy Ukraine, via Kenya in anticipation of a potential stand-off with the Northern government. The NPC is receiving its own cache of weapons from Russia and China. This small arms build-up is a new cold war battle between the West and the East over the future of Sudan. Given the instability that another violent conflict could cause, both sides will be jockeying for position in a contest to control Africa's third largest oil reserves.

Is this potential civil war between North and South real or just another exhagerated call for external intervention? In my opinion the most reliable Western source of information on Sudan comes from Alex de Waal, a Harvard researcher who ran the website Making Sense of Darfur. Recently, the name of the site was changed to Making Sense of Sudan, because de Waal agrees with others that the situation in Sudan has come to a defining crossroads.

"Without doubt, the coming twelve months will be the most momentous in Sudan’s
history. The year is likely to be tumultuous as well. This site will not attempt to keep track of the many developments as they unfold, but rather to continue to provide a forum for informed discussion on key issues for Sudan, including of course Darfur."

Alex de Waal believes that 2010 will be "the year of democracy" in Sudan. But there is no question this year will be the most interesting time to follow politics in Sudan.

Venezuela Enters 2010 Fighting for the Future

Venezuela is one of the world's largest exporters of crude oil and the leader of one of the world's only existing experiments in democratic socialism.

In 2009, oil prices plummeted and the Venezuelan government was spending more money than it generated from revenues causing internal debt to grow. As a central component of the 'Bolivarian' socialist revolution, President Hugo Chavez has refused to reduce government spending on social programs despite opposition criticism he needs to do more to curb simultaneously the debt and inflation. In response to evidence that its social policies could not be sustained, the government has decided to devalue its Bolivar currency against the U.S. dollar to encourage exports and discourage imports. Venezuela will alter the official exchange rate of the bolivar currency and create a second rate for "non-essential" imports. Venezuela like other developing countries is notoriously dependent on imports of both primary and consumer goods. With Venezuela receiving more bolivars for each dollar of oil revenue, more funds will be available to service debt and continue his popular social programs. At the same time the government intends to make imported consumer goods more expensive than imported basic purchases of items the country is lacking, such as basic foods and medicines.

FOREXYARD has a snap analysis of the Bolivar devaluation that weighs both costs and benefits of the devaluation policy. In the final analysis, the report says the Venezuelan government should be able to dampen the regressive impact of higher prices on the poor through state subsidies and industry will be more competitive in the global market.

"The devaluation will make Venezuela's hard-hit industry and agricultural sector more competitive by increasing the cost of imported goods and making the country's exports cheaper. Venezuela suffers from an economic condition called "Dutch disease," where high oil revenues cause an overvalued currency and lead other economic sectors to wither."

The reaction of the Venezuelan government to economic turmoil reveals the character of the Bolivarian revolution. Other developing countries have responded to economic crisis through cuts in government subsidies, privatization, external aid and strict monetary policies. The Venezuelan government however, has remained true to its left-wing nationalist principles and moved to lessen dependence on either external goods or advise from international financial institutions. The results of the government's response could have important implications for the structure of power and privilege in Venezuelan society. Hugo Chavez and his party the PSUV will be contesting parliamentary elections in September. The vote will be a referendum on the government's performance thus far. As prices rise, opposition leaders may seize upon social unrest and hope voters loose faith in Venezuela's socialist policies.

I am one among a few open American supporters of the Bolivarian project in Venezuela but fear future bureaucratization and poor service delivery could destroy whatever hope people had for socio-economic transformation. 2009 was a bad year for the Venezuelan government and a repetition of its performance could spell the end of President Hugo Chavez, his party and alienate the very social movements that brought him to power.

The Limitations of Representative Democracy in Kenya (Africa)

Democracy versus Authoritarianism is one of the major debates in the comparative political economy of development. The conventional view is that representative democratic systems are more responsive to the material demands of citizens than authoritarian systems. For example, development economist Amartya Sen has previously observed that famine only occurs in authoritarian regimes. Democracy, according to Sen was more responsive to citizens needs and thus able to prevent famine from occurring. So what conclusions are we to draw from nominally democratic systems in Africa, that clearly lack the ability to respond to the wishes and opinions of their citizens?

Kenya has a representative, multiparty, electoral democracy and embraces a model of capitalism defined by economic liberalization. Kenya has both a market economy and open society complete with scores of foreign aid agencies, missionaries and non-governmental organizations. The Freedom in the World Report ranks countries according to the amount of political rights and civil liberties, thru which countries are classified as “Free”, “Partly Free” and “Not Free.” According to Freedom House, Kenya is "Partly Free", ranking more favorably than countries like Zimbabwe, Libya, or Eritrea (countries considered authoritarian in the West). While there are still challenges, civil liberties and political rights are relatively well recognized in Kenya. Yet, the East African nation of Kenya is on the verge of an expansive famine that is threatening the lives of millions.

The New York Times reports,

"A devastating drought is sweeping across Kenya, killing livestock, crops and children. It is stirring up tensions in the ramshackle slums where the water taps have run dry, and spawning ethnic conflict in the hinterland as communities fight over the last remaining pieces of fertile grazing land."

The New York Times has stopped short of calling the current drought a famine, but facts on the ground suggest the same characterizing features---extreme scarcity of food. The real culprit in this case is typical of other recent converts to representative democracy in Africa. Politicians in Kenya are more concerned with being elected to representative seats in parliament than performing the necessary duties of public service. Worse yet, voters elect politicians with whom they share ethnic or familial ties instead of choosing candidates on the basis of their competence and vision for the poorest sectors of society. The images of ethnic violence after claims of voter fraud in 2007, were terrifying. Perhaps just as tragic has been the general incompetence and elitism of the resulting power-sharing coalition in Kenya.

Like other young democracies in Africa with significant cultures of nepotism, another of Kenya's great hurtles is the lack of political education among citizens. Very few are aware that as citizens they are entitled to certain basic inalienable rights, not limited to civil liberties only, but also freedom from fear and want. When State institutions fail to deliver social protection, people trend toward ethnic violence rather than organized demands for greater responsiveness from the State.

Kenya is a perfect case-study of the ineffectiveness of State consolidation in parts of Africa after the fall of colonialism, but also the tremendous shortcomings of 21st century identity politics. Kenyan author Ngugi Wa Thiong'o best summarized, in his analysis of the 2007 general elections, the ridiculousness of identity politics in Kenya and the need for a real agenda for development.

"I am not a member of any of the contesting parties. They don’t adequately embody the vision of the unity of the small farmer, the worker, the jobless and landless Kenyans across all the regions of their birth and residence. They don’t seem to recognize sufficiently that Kenya like Africa as a whole has only two tribes: the haves and the have-nots."

The widespread incapability of the State to promote the welfare of citizens in Kenya can not be blamed on the Kenyan government alone. Most recently, Western aid agencies and governments have played directly into the hands of ineffective politicians by perpetuating the myth that the fundamental responsibility to help protect the physical and material well-being of people in need lies with Western NGO's rather than the government. External social engineering in Kenya has subversively redefined the role of government to exclude the provision of basic necessities to focus instead on liberal institutional reforms.

The reason, according to the New York Times, that donors have been slow to assist Kenyan's during the crisis is because of aid conditionalities tied to such reforms!

"Part of the reason may be the growing disappointment with Kenya's leaders.They have been poked and prodded by Western ambassadors---and their own citizens---to overhaul the justice system, the police force and the electoral commission."

In the midst of a human catastrophe, the aid agencies are digging in their heals in the fight against corrupt behavior, but few have addressed the deeper structural issue in Kenya. The inability of the Kenyan State to fulfill its fundamental responsibilities of social protection had left poor Kenyan's without basic provisions of food, health care, housing, education, and meaningful employment well before the current drought. The failure of welfare provision in Kenya is the very reason for the existence of so many external aid agencies there in the first place. No wonder NGO's are slow to address this point. Globalization is no substitute for responsive governance.

In Africa, there are frequent campaigns for regime change against alleged authoritarian strongmen whose exploits lead to economic inefficiencies or social failures. Should the grounds for regime change in cases of authoritarianism apply for nominal democracies in Africa as well? Do Kenyan citizens for example have a legitimate case for regime change in their country when the regime is non-responsive to their needs? The very suggestion would be opposed by most liberals but the search for answers among the popular classes of Kenya is inevitable.

Presidential Term-Limits and Democracy

Niger is moving to eliminate term-limits through a referendum. The United States and its European allies have swiftly condemned the referendum and the possibility of incumbent President Mamadou Tandja serving another term as anti-democratic. The attempt to end presidential term limits in Niger is by no means novel. Several other developing countries have also moved to alter their constitutions in order to remove constitutionally mandated limits on the executive branch. In nearly every case, referendums have been the result of presidents appealing for more time to carry out the will of their constituents.

The traditional thinking in the West is that term limits are absolutely necessary to prevent tyranny and the ability of a 'bad' person to become president for life. This belief has been an important aspect of Western liberal democracy for hundreds of years and many continue to believe that term-limits have a universal merit for all human kind. Certainly, there have been a very long list of authoritarian governments that have used the veil of democracy to support their absolute rule. But it would be wrong to argue that there exist no reasonable arguments in support of the elimination of presidential term-limits or to unfairly demonize other countries that try to make them.

Commentators are wrong to immediately characterize every challenge to traditional liberal democratic term limits as anti-democratic. There can hypothetically be legitimate scenarios in which citizens in developing countries desire the ability to experiment with other forms of democracy based upon their own realities. For example, in many unequal developing countries parliaments are often controlled by wealthy elites who favor a weak executive branch in order to prevent any comprehensive attempt at political or economic reform. In another context citizens may favor the policies or programs of an incumbent president to any challenger in the opposition. Term-limits encourage changes in a given course of action but hinder the ability of people to choose continuity.

The effect of short term limits can have a detrimental effects on long-term social and economic planning. In countries struggling with the effects of long-periods of structural poverty and marginalization, development goals cannot always be defined according to 4 or 5 year time horizons. Many of the most successful examples of economic development have come from Asian countries with 15 to 20 year plans. There are many, many countries that have performed abysmally when it comes to poverty reduction and provision of basic necessities that have term limits, with executive branches that lack clearly defined agendas for the long-term---including Nigeria, which was quick to criticize the referendum vote in Niger.

Many intellectuals and policy-makers are resolved to oppose altering a constitution to change term limits even when the majority of citizens in a given country vote to do so. These liberal commentators make the philosophical argument that majority rule can easily lead to tyranny over the minority without "objective" constraints such as term-limits to protect them. However, this reasoning is contradictory and unfortunately often goes unquestioned when raised. There is no objective way to predict that in all cases rule by the majority will lead to tyranny just as it is impossible to assume that representative systems cannot exercise absolute power i.e. oligarchy.

The absence of term-limits does not necessarily give presidents the right to wield absolute power over their citizens. Even in a system without term limits incumbent presidents that perform poorly can be voted out of office in a transparent system. The bigger issue is whether or not there exists transparency, accountability and opportunities for wider citizen participation. The absence of either transparency or democratic participation however, can occur in countries with term-limits and regular elections. Frankly, I think a healthy debate about the limitations of conventional thinking on presidential term limits is long overdue and may actually wind up increasing, not diminishing the prospects of genuine democracy in the developing world.

Senegal Celebrates 49 Years of Independent Democracy

Saturday, Senegal celebrated its 49th anniversary of independence with a civil and military parade presided over by President Abdoulaye Wade. Several African countries and France sent contingents to the parade in tribute to nearly half a century of democratic governance. In 1960 Senegal gained its independence from decades of French colonial rule. Since indepedence, Senegal has remained a developing democracy in a region plagued by coup d'etat, civil war, and resource driven conflict.

Thousands of Senegalese students studying in the United States celebrated the 49th anniversary from their college campuses. "Being away and thinking about Independence Day for any Senegalese gives us a sense of nostalgia," said Soukeyna Sylla a junior International Studies major at Macalester College from Dakar, Senegal.

Although she is miles away from home, Independence Day is a day when she and her friends conceptualize the countries future and reflect on the current situation.

"Within the historical context when you see discouraging events happening nextdoor in Guinea Bissau and Mauritania, it gives us pride about our democratic experience,"Sylla said. Soukenya is pleased that it appears Senegalese politicians are not necessarily thinking about their own personal interest but are in the process to sustain the nations democracy. "Although the ruling party lost the recent elections, they proved that democracy is not impossible and is an achievable ideal."

Recently, Senegal showed again why many consider it among the most politically conscious democracies in Africa. On March 22, Senegal had its local elections, which selected 20,000 people to serve in rural, municipal and regional positions. Official results showed that Senegal's opposition had won several major cities, including the capital Dakar. The recent showing was a yet another peaceful transition of power and was accepted by the ruling party and incumbent President Wade.

"The president congratulates ... in particular the opposition parties and coalitions whom the voters mandated to lead many local authorities including some important towns," said a government statement.

Senegal is a predominantly Muslim nation whose model of religious and ethnic tolerance is the envy of many countries around the world. The West African country presents an inclusive face of Islam that western media often overlooks in its coverage of the Muslim world.

The first president of Senegal at independence in 1960 was Leopold Sedar Senghor. Senghor was a leading intellectual figure in the Negritude movement as well as being a charismatic politician. After a stint with one-party governance under Senghor's party, le Parti Socialist (PS), Senegal transitioned into the rich multi-party democracy present today.

The Republic is widely known for its vibrant free press. Several newspapers are published which play an important role in holding office holders accountable to the public. Senegal's youth are also very much engaged in local and national politics. The acclaimed documentary, "Democracy in Dakar" highlights the impact hip hop artists have had on the democratic process, and the role young people played in the 2007 presidential election.

But recent crackdowns on the opposition in the media and on the streets have tarnished Senegal's international image and critics of President Abdoulaye Wade say officials are enriching themselves while most Senegalese struggle with poverty and unemployment.

Today, Senegal faces several human development challenges in spite its flourishing democracy including persistent illiteracy, youth unemployment and declining purchasing power among broad majorities of the country. In 2008, the capital city, Dakar, was rocked by food riots as the price of rice skyrocketed. Every year, thousands of Senegalese risk their lives in dangerous sea voyages in search of economic opportunity in Europe.

Last Friday, the United States government’s Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) signed a grant agreement with the Senegalese government to provide up to $13.39 million to support development that seeks to reduce poverty through economic growth. The MCC awarded the grant to further promote Senegal's "good governance, economic freedom and investments in people".

"Why should our democratic achievements be defined by a US grant? I don't think we should subject our understanding of democracy to the will of any other country," said Soukeyna Sylla. She says corruption still exists inside the Senegalese government and foreign dollars rarely reach the Senegalese people directly. "Whenever I discuss these intiatives coming from outside I never believe in them. I don't believe in the idea you can inject any sum of money into the country and things magically change," Sylla said.

So far social and economic set backs haven't discouraged Senegalese citizens willingness to support the democratic process. The next presidential elections in Senegal are scheduled for 2012.