I will argue that because of poverty, the average intelligence of many Africans is lower than what it should be. I say so because all the conditions discussed in the literature that help in nurturing a person's intelligence and enabling it to flourish are negated by poverty. Poverty is a serious problem in Africa. In many respects, it is chronic poverty. It is good to have democracy but I still maintain that if democracy will not produce true dividends that address the basic needs of human beings, such people will prefer authoritarian regimes than that. Of course there are different types of democracies. The classification ins there in the literature. The substance of majoritarian and proportional democracy are for instance different even in developed countries.
Note that even under colonial rule which we describe as oppressive, there were many areas of Africa where people's day to day lives were not directly impacted by colonial rule becasue of indirect rule. By and large most of them continued with their normal lives. Of course in the case of Nigeria, Lagos was a colony. IN the same way, there are many authoritarian regimes that often in terms of the day to day functions, people pursue their normal lives and they do not notice any serious or notable difference. Of course the elites who are trying to compete for power will not experience that probably. For those that are from Nigeria, I will encourage them when they visit the country to visit some rural people or ordinary communities and ask them about how democracy is helping them. I did that and democracy for many ordinary Nigerian is organized robbery and deception. There is no emphasis on the provision of public goods; getting something depends on personal access or patronage which if you are not part of the machine, you will suffer.
I was in Kenya two years ago and spoke at the chapel of a boarding school at Kibera. I was touched by the determination and maturity of the young men. But one of them told me that things have not been working, whether it is democracy or the simplistic idea that prayers are working, when people continue to do the wrong thing everyday. If anyone here wants democracy to be sincerely embraced, they should rather invest their energy in examining what can distort democracy and undermine it from helping people to address their basic needs. This is the great challenge.
In my assessment, we will be underestimating and disrespecting the rationality of ordinary Africans, if we just assume that they should embrace democracy for its own sake when it is not working towards truly addressing their basic needs and human dignity. Indeed, we should be surprise if they did that, when it is not working for them. What is wrong with that. Is democracy God or their grandfather? It is about the substance of the political process, and not some general sweet claims. This challenge today in Africa is not an academic one of just making a case for democracy without substance or dividends. The challenge is a practical and moral question. It is not just about having a good constitution. It is about the mechanisms of getting the results of good governance that creates an enabling environment for citizens to pursue their aspirations. If Kagame as an authoritarian leader can provide that, Rwanda will do better than African countries that have democracy but doing nothing to promote the living conditions of their people. This is not making a case for authoritarianism, but it is about observing how things operate on the ground. It will be unfortunate for anybody or any country to think of making their president more or less permanent like in Zimbabwe. But note that the 11th hour on Sunday is still the most segregated hour in America, after more than 200 years of democracy and Enlightenment and more than 2000 years of Christian teaching of love. But it sounds very uncaring to just tell people to go for democracy when it is not addressing their needs. Just look at the statistics of poverty or income inequality in the U.S. for decades and then ask yourself, where did democracy go?
I remember Winston Churchill saying democracy is the worse form of government but for the others. I am not against democracy, but freedom of expression is not enough because it is misleading. Check the documentary film "The Persuaders" and see how corporate media manufactures truth. How can one have true freedom of expression in a media system that is dominated by corporations with their own corporate agenda and often they want to manipulate people's thinking. You may have the formal freedom to express yourself but there is no guarantee that your voice will be heard. The authors of the book "Poor People's Movement" based on U.S. history show that the democratic system under normal circumstances ignores the poor. It is only when the poor or socially marginalized manage to do something so crazy that they draw public attention and then some of the elites pay attention and start thinking of making concession. Otherwise the system just ignores them.
--Are democracies that do not "perform" democracies? I am inclined to answer "No". Not if a democracy as is popularly described is truly the 'government of the people, for the people, by the people'. What happens in many cases is that governments characterized as democracies are anything but. If they were, their purpose and actions would be to continually seek to achieve and advance the common good of all citizens, not mostly government leaders and a privileged select few, at all times. Many of the governments do not pass this test.
Democracy is more than elections, any elections involving a plurality of political parties. It is about free and fair elections. It is about securing the public interest, not private interest shrouded as public interest. It is about electing and empowering accountable governments whose focal interest, sincere commitment, and unbounded determination are ensuring the maximum good for all citizens.
Is China a democracy by the above characterizations? Can a government led by an executive president for life be a democratic government/? Everyone must answer for themselves.
Economic prosperity for citizens in a democracy should be a right along with other rights of equal citizenship. It should not be the act of discretionary benevolence of an unaccountable autocratic or other political leader.
oa
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 3:15 PM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - PAUL KAGAME BECOMES A LIFE PRESIDENT [Ludicrous]
I agree about binary opposition and their distortion of reality. But so does the option between ballot and blood Bode proposes. The reality really is that there must be a possible space between the authoritarian and the democratic. And China stands before my mind as the solid argument for stability we can get. Can we fault the Chinese if s/he finds all s/he wants within such a context? Can we fault the African? If we can achieve the coincidence of performance and procedure, then i am all for it.
I am intrigued by the reality which Samuel's statement aptly signifies: there are so many "democracies" that ain't performing, and so many autocracies that the people love! What's the middle ground between them? Kagame may have some economic achievement, but as Oga Ogugua pointed out, there are also some cultural and political deficits. But then, if Kagame manages to clear the deficit within a non-democratic regime, should we applaud him? More fundamental still: isn't performance and procedure also possible within an authoritarian regime? Again, i look towards China. And i haven't forgotten Tiananmen. But what does constitutionalism contribute to democracy if not the need for coercive stability?
Adeshina Afolayan, PhD
Department of Philosophy
University of Ibadan
+23480-3928-8429
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 9:14 PM, kenneth harrow <harrow@msu.edu> wrote:
the premise on which the statement below is based rests on a binary opposition which is questionable.
like, can't we also have a real democracy that also works reasonably well, and isn't just a plutocracy, which is what democracy is linked to in the binary?
isn't the autocracy inherently unstable?
isn't the platonic benevolent dictator really, ultimately, built on the dictator having to reward his friends--usually the police or military--in order to subvert democratic rule?
are the progressive features, like providing electricity, arguably distorted by the dictator to validate his rule? and if the press is stifled, how can you measure effectively his or her claims? how can you measure public opinion?
the argument simplifies the realities, distorts them, to the point where we are already given the answer by the way the question is framed.
kenOn 11/3/15 1:19 PM, 'Adeshina Afolayan' via USA Africa Dialogue Series wrote:
"Today, if you ask many Africans to choose between an authoritarian government that is able to maintain law and order, provide electricity, infrastructure, reduce poverty etc, and a democratic government that just caters for a small percentage of elites who share public funds among themselves while ignoring the provision of public goods etc., they will go for the efficient authoritarian government. And the West will prefer that." Samuel Zalanga
I like this statement a lot, and it reminds me of one of the thought experiments i challenge my political philosophy students with: Where does political legitimacy derive from--authoritarian performance or democratic procedures? It is always a delight for me to stand back and process the heated debates in the class between those who are sold on the sentiment of democracy being the best form of government; those who think what the people need is just infrastructural benefits, and what matters which type of government makes it happen?; and lastly those who steuggle to untangle the conceptual dilemma between performance and procedure.
Democracy has become too sentimental that it clouds analysis. And its cash value, to follow the pragmatists, is becoming suspect in Africa. When we say "democracy is the best form of government," i tell my students, it raises a lot of philosophical problems. Ditto: authoritarian government is anathema. Presently, i have been battling with the conceptual relationship between democracy and constitutionalism. Is that relationship a necessary or contingent one? If contingent, at what point does democracy really become a nuisance or a lame concept without an accompanying framework of legal compulsion? And at a moral level, how do you ensure that democracy becomes a moral force if it does not guarantee performance?
It isn't surprising that you will find some Nigerians looking back wistfully and extoling some virtues of past military governments. Some remember that order was imposed, a la War Against Indiscipline (WAI); others remember that some infrastructural benefits accrued to the citizens. A colleague told me recently that he had some Chinese students on a visit to the department, and he was curious about the stability-democracy conundrum. Surprisingly, it wasn't such a dilemma for them because, according to the students, they have so much internalised the stability arguments that they even interjected the presence or absence of freedom into whether there is more stability or less. And stability comes with infrastructural dividends!
Thus, when we talk about democracy and authoritarianism, we should also take note of several contextual and philosophical implications involved. Plato didn't reject democracy for nought.
Adeshina Afolayan
From:"Samuel Zalanga" <szalanga@bethel.edu>
Date:Tue, 3 Nov, 2015 at 1:06 PM
Subject:Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - PAUL KAGAME BECOMES A LIFE PRESIDENT [Ludicrous]The author of the document raised some legitimate issues of concern. But given the world we live in today where American pragmatism and neoliberal globalization have taken over, I will liken the author's concern to the case of complaints against corruption. Corruption can and should be critiqued on moral grounds, no matter what. But some scholars argue that having said that, the major problem with money gotten through corruption in many countries is that it is not invested productively in the society's economy. It is often either siphoned out of the country or wasted in ostentatious consumption. If the money were to be invested productively, while it will still create inequality and distortion, at least some people will get job. And for many, this is their main concern. We may think it is naive but when you do not have anything to do as with the youth in Africa, this is not something one can ignore just because they live in the West.
I do not see anything surprising actually with the situation in Rwanda. I attended two conferences where two persons who were not Africans, made presentation about Rwanda arguing that in spite of the genocide, there is some significant progress taking place in the country and it is now a sign of hope rather than despiar. Many Africans challenged the guys and the guys were not really trying to promote Kagame but just looking at some empirical evidence. The idea is that the country is trying to become a kind of Singapore or a hub for information technology in the region.
There is one documentary film I watched that I cannot remember now, whether it was Michael Moore's capitalism a love story or "Inside Job" but in the documentary an official of the Wall Street said without apology that an efficient market economy that is functioning is more important than democracy for people. I was not surprise when he said that because I am familiar with the different schools of thought about the market that Alan Aldridge summarizes in his book "The Market." Here is the summary of the ideas of the group called market populists which I believe is relevant for understanding the silence of the West and the situation in Rwanda:
Market Populism:
a) Market populists see "the market" and "the people" as one and the same.
b) They believe that the market is MORE democratic than any of the formal institutions of democracy: elections, legislatures and government.
c) The market is free of ethnocentric boundaries.
D) The market abstractly sees everyone as the same and having the same desires.
e) The market claims to liberate us all.
f) Market populism presents corporations as being on the side of the people because they respond to the demands and needs of the people.
Market populists claim that if a corporation in a free market becomes a monopoly, it is not an abuse of power but the will of the people who voted for it with their check books.
"The end point of market populism is to hold that the free market is an achieved democratic utopia" Aldridge, p.47).
In effect, Market populism which is the public relations part of market fundamentalism and neoliberal globalization, believes that everything about democracy is just public relations, because in true sense, they believe that the market is more democratic. The market allows you to vote with your check book directly. You can vote in an election but once the officers are elected they go to the national capital and share the "national cake." Paid, lobbyist have more access to them than ordinary citizens who voted for them in large numbers. But if you have your check book, you have direct control over your "vote", choice or life. You can get what you want without the risk of a politician who divides and rule and forgets about you.
So from this perspective, and other historical evidence, it is expecting too much for anyone to assume that the West is so deeply concerned about democracy per se. In the "Commanding Heights" documentary, it was the military regime / government of Chile (military dictatorship) that was relied upon to implement neoliberal economic reforms. President Nixon resumed diplomatic relations with China and he sent Henry Kissinger to go in the middle of the night from India to China to arrange the visit when China was officially communist and calling the U.S. the great devil then. Singapore for as long as it has lived has been considered or classified an authoritarian state, but the country is run efficiently and so does the West care? President Clinton and many dignitaries attended the funeral of their founding president. As dependency scholars argue, the West has not permanent friends but permanent interests.
What is happening is what in the development literature is considered the competition or debate between "The Washington Consensus" and the "Beijing Consensus." Many in the ways have resigned to the fact that many developing countries will go with the Beijing Consensus and they not like that. The Washington consensus insists on combining liberal democracy and neoliberal economic policies as the best way forward.
Empirical evidence suggests that this is naive and it does not seem to work as suggested on paper. Amy Chua of Yale Law school wrote a book "The World on Fire" where she provided empirical evidence with case studies from Asia and Africa, that documents how implementing democracy and neoliberal policies do not always work together. Actually, they create a lot of tension because often the group that is politically dominant (numerically) in terms of democratic voting maybe the one far behind and losing in terms of the implementation of neoliberal economic reforms.
Thus the losing group will use their power to take away the opportunities of successful minority entrepreneurs, which will create political instability. Malaysia is a good example. Indonesia, Philippines, Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania are all examples. There are successful minorities in all these countries. China refused to go with the approach of the West, and they developed the Beijing Consensus which focuses on promoting economic prosperity while maintaining an authoritarian control of the state. The West criticize that but see how they have rushed to invest in China. Why? Because the China is far more and better governed (notwithstanding Tibet and other cases) than many so-called democratic countries. There has been significant success in getting millions out of poverty even though inequality is widening. In some parts of Africa, they have democracy but both poverty and inequality are either remaining the same or increasing, in spite of economic growth.Moreover, Herbert Marcuse will argue that this happens in the West through a process a calls repressive de-sublimation. In theory people are free in the West, but the culture industry bombards them with consumerism and sexual excitement to the point, the people become consumed with these and forget about the real workings of the political system and how it marginalizes them. The goal of the culture industry is to control the hearts and minds of people and distract it from focusing on the real issue of life in a democracy.
Today, if you ask many Africans to choose between an authoritarian government that is able to maintain law and order, provide electricity, infrastructure, reduce poverty etc, and a democratic government that just caters for a small percentage of elites who share public funds among themselves while ignoring the provision of public goods etc., they will go for the efficient authoritarian government. And the West will prefer that.
The real issue is if Kagame compared to other African leaders is really transforming Rwanda to a point where the people see some light at the end of the tunnel in terms of material prosperity. Do investors feel the country is stable and producing results or making progress along capitalist lines. Western nations and ordinary Africans will prefer Kagame even if he is authoritarian but he is really improving the country forward. If this is the case, to ignore that and be thinking just about democracy is simplistic and naive as it suggests not appreciating the history of what capitalism wants. Capitalism is not primarily committed to democracy. In many cases, democracy even here in the US. some would say is just like a public relations or "crowd control" mechanism to keep the masses calm, and give them an impression that they have a say but the substance of politics remained the same.There are good reasons to want democracy, but for many Africans, if democracy does not provide concrete dividends, are they going to eat just the idea? Those of us writing from the West sometimes, need to imagine writing from the perspective of villagers in some interior of Africa. Such people do not know what the constitution of their country is all about. They vote but what do they get out of it. IN some cases, their votes are not even counted. They do not benefit much if anything from the government. So if you get a country like Singapore that is authoritarian but very efficient or credible on the indices of a well-run economy, who will be taking seriously the push for democracy that even when laudable in concrete reality, it makes no differences to the millions of the masses in Africa.
Singapore in the past has been characterized as draconian in terms of some of its public order laws but who cares? The real issue is: is it a good place to invest? Is there order, guarantee of property rights etc. Is there good infrastructure etc. Is there good investment in human capital (health and education). If they have that, who will leave that for many African economies where the elites just use democracy is if it is some kind of spiritual or miraculous experience that once you have it, it will change things even when you are doing everything wrong in terms of governing your country well.
There was a time I looked at the human development indicators of Rwanda and found out then that they were better than that of Nigeria. Rwanda went through terrible experience, but it may well be that if Kagame is running the country well and opportunities open for the ordinary masses and investors to trust the place, and there is good infrastructure, good investment in human capital, guaranteed of private property, the West will prefer that than a country where you have Boko Haram, Biafran mobilization, poor infrastructure, declining health care system and educational facilities.
If African countries want democracy to be highly admired, they must ensure that democracy truly produces results and dividends for the masses. For many, the government is a nuisance.
Samuel
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Anunoby, Ogugua <AnunobyO@lincolnu.edu> wrote:
Why no outrage especially from Kagame's Western friends? Silent indignation is not enough. The silence is deafening.
oa
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Oluwatoyin Adepoju
Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2015 7:34 AM
To: USAAfricaDialogue
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - PAUL KAGAME BECOMES A LIFE PRESIDENT [Ludicrous]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: 'Herrn Edward Mulindwa' mulindwa@look.ca [Mwananchi] <Mwananchi@yahoogroups.com>
Date: 31 October 2015 at 14:23
Subject: [Mwananchi] PAUL KAGAME BECOMES A LIFE PRESIDENT
To: ugandans-at-heart@googlegroups.com, Mwananchi@yahoogroups.com
Rwandan Parliament Makes US Ally and Military Partner, Paul Kagame President for Life
Global Research, October 29, 2015
Rwanda has never, since its independence from Belgium, experienced peaceful transfer of power from one "elected" president to another. Each president that grabs power declares himself the only Rwandan capable of ruling. Each regime comes in power because they want to remove the dictator from power and hand the mantle of state power to " the people." Change from one regime to another has always been bloody in Rwanda.
In 1994 General Paul Kagame defeated General Habyarimana after a bloody four year civil war. General Habyarimana had made himself " the father of the nation" and an irreplaceable president of Rwanda. General Kagame and his RPF/A waged the 1990-1994 war because General Habyarimana had closed all the possible venues for peaceful transfer of power. General Kagame and his RPF/A sounded determined to hand power over to " the people" after the war. Over a million Rwandans perished during the war.
General Kagame and his Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) party: More of the same
After the war and massacres that brought Gen Kagame and his RPF/A into power, Gen Kagame's diagnosis of Rwanda's problem was " bad political leadership and clinging on to power. To address this problem, Gen Kagame and his RPF/A wrote the 2003 Rwanda Constitution. Article 101 of the 2003 Constitution provides, inter alia , " no person shall be president for more than two terms". Each term is 7 years under the 2003 Constitution of Rwanda.
Gen Kagame's second and last term under the 2003 constitution of Rwanda is due to expire in 2017. General Kagame claims that no Rwandan is capable of leading the country and " the people" need him to consolidate his "achievements".
Constitutional amendment to keep General Kagame in office:
In a bid to legitimize his broad scheme to cling to power, Paul Kagame deployed his brutal security apparatus, at all levels of his administration, to compel " the people" to petition Parliament to change the law regarding term limits. Millions of Rwandans, including those who cannot read and/or write, "wrote" to Parliament " begging" for a constitutional amendment. The General then instituted a " constitutional review commission" which " consulted" the people before Parliament passed the constitutional review proposal on October 28th, 2015.
The new law of the jungle:
Parliament approved various amendments including Article 167 which provides that: Considering the citizen petitions preceeding [preceding] the coming into force of this revised Constitution that were informed by the nation-building achievements and creation of a sustainable development foundation, the President of the Republic completing the term of office referred to in Paragraph One of this Article may be re-elected for a seven (7) years term of office. The President of the Republic who has completed the term of office of seven (7) years referred to in [ ...] this Article may be re-elected as provided for by Article 101 of this Constitution.
Article 168: Senators Senators in office at the time of commencement. Article 167 comes under a Section termed " Transitional Provisions".
Article 101 provides that " The President of the Republic is elected for a term of office of five (5) years. He/she may be re-elected only once."
A most unusual law:
Article 167 read together with Article 101 has many implications.
First, the "amendment " has created an exception for the current president and military commander of Rwanda. Article 101 will be shelved until after seven years – the exceptional term created for him after 2017 – when Kagame will start running for a five year term, renewable only once, giving Kagame a chance to rule for 17 years after 2017. This is confirmation that "some animals are more equal than others " in this Animal Farm, thereby rendering the constitutional principle of equality before the law null and void.
Second, the law does not mention whether or not, if Kagame died or otherwise becomes incapacitated after 2017 but before 2024, Article 101 would come into force immediately. In any case, a constitutional provision ( the proposed Article 101) that shall not come into force until after 7 years is a most unusual law.
Third, the amendment creates " transitional provisions" in a constitution without a provisional government. "Transitional provisions" without a transitional government prove that what Kagame's junta has completed is a constitutional coup, not an "amendment to the constitution," as they call it.
Charles Kambanda is a Rwandan American attorney, a former law professor at the National University of Rwanda, and an apostate member of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, now living in exile in New York City.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Charles Kambanda, Global Research, 2015
EM
On the 49th Parallel
Thé Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja and Dr. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda is in anarchy"
Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi
"Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja na Dk. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda ni katika machafuko"
__._,_.___
•
Reply to sender
•
Reply to group
•
•
Join us at Mwananchi an African Forum at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/mwananchi
--kenneth w. harrowfaculty excellence advocateprofessor of englishmichigan state universitydepartment of english619 red cedar roadroom C-614 wells halleast lansing, mi 48824ph. 517 803 8839harrow@msu.edu
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Department of Anthropology, Sociology & Reconciliation Studies
Bethel University, 3900 Bethel Drive #24
Saint Paul, MN 55112.
Office Phone: 651-638-6023
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment