African democracy Rating the economist 2010

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

Africa's year of elections

The democracy bug is fitfully catching on

Africa is in the throes of election fever. But more voting does not necessarily mean more democracy

Jul 22nd 2010

 

EnlargeBURUNDI has just had one, as has Guinea. That came hot on the heels of the semi-autonomous region of Somaliland’s, which followed Ethiopia’s. Rwanda is bracing itself for one at the beginning of next month, and after that Tanzania, Chad and several others are due to follow. By the end of December a score of sub-Saharan Africa’s 48 countries should have gone to the polls for an assortment of local, regional and national elections. Kenya is also holding a vital constitutional referendum on August 4th. This is a big year for African voters. The electoral calendar has never been so crowded.

 

Indeed, elections have become a normal occurrence on a continent once better known for the frequency and violence of its coups and civil wars. Since the late 1990s the number of coups has fallen sharply (see chart), whereas the number of elections has increased, sometimes in the unlikeliest of places.

 

The west African country of Guinea is an encouraging example of a possible new trend. After two decades of dictatorial rule by Lansana Conté, the army seized power after his death two years ago. So far, so predictable. But the story took a new twist. The coup leader was attacked and injured by one of his aides, enabling other members of the junta to promise a return to civilian rule after elections they vowed not to contest. The first round of a presidential poll was held peacefully on June 27th; a run-off is expected soon.

 

.Related items

Burundi's election: Pretty squalid

Jul 22nd 2010Several factors explain this surge in enthusiasm for the ballot box. Would-be voters, anxious to make their often corrupt and arrogant politicians more accountable, are exerting fiercer pressure. For example, Nigerians expressed fury at the way the ruling People’s Democratic Party conducted the charade of an election in 2007. As a result, the government has had to make concessions over the running of the election due next year. The recent appointment of Professor Attahiru Jega as head of the Independent National Electoral Commission has raised hopes that his organisation will be truly independent of political control, rather than just a cog in the ruling party’s re-election machine. Nigeria’s coming election will be scrutinised across the continent.

 

Pressure for improvement comes from beyond the continent, too. Gone are the days of the cold war when West and East propped up their favoured dictators for geostrategic reasons. Nowadays a lot of aid money and diplomatic support are tied to progress in governance and democracy. Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir, for example, held the country’s recent election as part of a peace deal with the country’s southern rebels, brokered largely by the United States in 2005. Countries such as Ghana and Mali have every incentive to stay democratic to get billions of dollars of aid from America’s Millennium Challenge Account, started in 2002. This requires countries to prove a commitment to good governance and elections if they are to get the money. Africa’s own regional groupings, notably the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), have also started punishing member states that fall prey to coups.

 

But the news is by no means all good. A cursory look at several recent polls shows that too often they are travesties. In Burundi the incumbent, Pierre Nkurunziza, won unopposed with 92% of the vote (see article). In Ethiopia those opposed to Meles Zenawi’s ruling party won just two of parliament’s 547 seats. And in Sudan’s election Mr Bashir won against an opposition that had largely boycotted the event.

 

In the language of international election observers, many of these elections fall “below international standards”; in plain English, they are rigged to ensure that the incumbent or his ruling party cannot be ejected by the voters. Moreover, though even the nastiest leaders now feel obliged to hold elections, they are also getting more adept at fixing them. In Sudan, for instance, the regime manipulated every stage of the electoral process long before the actual voting, from the census in 2008 to keeping the opposition off the television screens just before the vote. Mr Zenawi has become similarly expert, passing laws before the poll to muzzle dissenting voices and hamper opposition.

 

This is part of an older problem: the refusal of a defeated incumbent to accept defeat and bow out. Refreshingly, it does sometimes happen, as in Somaliland earlier this month and in Ghana in the past decade. But President Robert Mugabe refused to go in Zimbabwe after a clear verdict in an election in 2008 and President Mwai Kibaki refused to go after the elections in Kenya in 2007. Both leaders sparked widespread violence in their countries, thanks to their determination to cling to office; both eventually had to accept power-sharing agreements with the opposition.

 

Moreover, elections are often a poor guide to a country’s overall state of democracy and civil liberties. The mere number of elections can be deceptive. Our accompanying map of Africa shows how countries rank in terms of democracy, initially measured in 2008 on a broad range of criteria by the Economist Intelligence Unit, a sister organisation of The Economist, but updated to include more recent data from a variety of sources. The number of coming elections is cause for hope. But the advance of African democracy remains patchy. Too often the big men still find a way to stay put, whatever the voters may want.

 

Middle East & Africa

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

This is part of an older problem: the refusal of a defeated incumbent to accept defeat and bow out. Refreshingly, it does sometimes happen, as in

Somaliland

earlier this month and in Ghana in the past decade. But President Robert Mugabe refused to go in Zimbabwe after a clear verdict in an election in 2008 and President Mwai Kibaki refused to go after the elections in Kenya in 2007. Both leaders sparked widespread violence in their countries, thanks to their determination to cling to office; both eventually had to accept power-sharing agreements with the opposition

[Saalax]

Excellent

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

There are about a handful democratic countries in the African continent. Most African countries are authoritarian regimes as the map indicates. And there is also one totally failed country.

[Suldaanka]

Remarkable progress.

[Jacaylbaro]

Indeed .............. we are here to impress the world ,, always.

[Thankful]

 

 

Suldaanka, JB, Libaahe and Xaaji, do you realize that this pic rates NW Somalia's election has FLAWED DEMOCRACY ?????

 

The Dark Green like South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Ghana are FULL democracy's!

 

But the light green which you guys are part of is counties and enclaves with flawed democracies????

 

Hmmm, I wonder why you are considered flawed by the economists? Maybe because of what I have mentioned countless times, how there were only two opposition leaders who came from one family! No one from Sool or Sanaag could run. But maybe if not this reason, then what can possibly make them list you as a flawed democracy, you tell me??

 

So JB you are hear to impress the world with your flawed democracy???

[Thankful]

Originally posted by Oodweyne:

 

As for democracy goes, even if it's a

"flaw version" of the kind that this article is alleging on the part of Somaliland, one could say that well it's all to the good that some countries are learning more quicker than the others how to do it, indeed. Hence, in time we may be a passed masters of this thing.

 

 

Regards,

Oodweyne.

What it seems that NW Somalia has learned is to make sure that both opposition parties are lead by one segment of society.

 

Any other country would have never allowed such elections to take place where one group had a monopoly over all the power and shut out so many others. There would have been outrage, this is exactly why election turnout in area's that had no one running were little to none, as of a lack of any tangible evidence of pics outside of the triangle.

 

Again, many parts of Somalia are a fail state, I am certain that if regions just broke up and were led by one tribe who had all the power like NW Somalia, they would be more successful.

[Thankful]

Flawed isn't the worst label and I wont go through each country you listed and why they are flawed, but I suggest you look at their leaders who re accused of massive corruption, among many other things!

 

Anyways, I am simply addressing the comments that included things like "Excellent", "We are here to impress the world" and others by JB and co.....As usual I must clarify my point, (although I am certain you know what it is), that this article isn't very positive, it actually states an opinion that your elections were flawed. So the people bragging about it with these comments may want to reconsider!

 

I would love to know why the Economist says the elections were flawed in their opinion!

[Jacaylbaro]

Don't u see the border between Somaliland & Somalia ??

 

 

[Thankful]

I mean no offense by this but are you color blind, or is it your imagination?? Because there is no border between the two of us, it looks like there may be a dashed line, but not a border like the other countries have seperating them. All the countries have a clear line between them. There is none between us!!But you must see something different. Also, all the REAL countries names are in black capital letters (including Somalia), while your enclave is in another color with lower case letters! Obviously they dont see you as the same as the rest!

 

Anyways, I am curious as to why they feel your democracy is flawed? Do you have any assumptions on why they may feel that way?

 

 

Originally posted by Jacaylbaro:

Don't u see the border between Somaliland & Somalia ??

 

 

[Jacaylbaro]

What you can see there is the names of the countries adeer ,, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, Somaliland and so on ....

 

 

What you can see is also the border between Somaliland and Somalia ...

 

 

What you can see is also Somalia defined as a "Failed State" against Somaliland's Democracy ,,

[Thankful]

Originally posted by Jacaylbaro:

What you can see there is the names of the countries adeer ,, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, Somaliland and so on ....

 

 

What you can see is also the border between Somaliland and Somalia ...

 

 

What you can see is also Somalia defined as a "Failed State" against Somaliland's Democracy ,,

Ok lol, I guess you see things different! Because I see all the names of real countries in black capital letters, and only 1 enclave in red lower case which is yours...no one else is written like that! I do not see a border between the two and finally, I agree Somalia is classified as a failed state, but NW Somalia is classified as a flawed democracy! Meaning there is something wrong with it! So I ask you again or Oodweyne, why do you think they consider you as a flawed democracy???

[Jacaylbaro]

how does it feel when you talk about flawed democracy against a complete "Failed State" ,,,, and regardless of the color you can read SOMALILAND's name next to Somalia ,,,

 

 

waxba fahmi maysid niyow ,,,,

[Thankful]

Well I answer your questions and you avoid mine. I believe that Somalia is trying to make a government that includes ever segement of Society, where everyone can run for president. As opposed to your enclave that makes election that put only one side with an unfair advantage. There is no sharing at all! Many groups are completely shut out.

 

So for the final time, why do you think they are calling you flawed, what might they see that makes them come to the conclusion that you are flawed?