Is conceit responsible for the perceived democratic deficit?

OPINION | DEMOCRACY

By Andrew Barungi

In early September, the Supreme Court of Kenya annulled the Presidential Elections which were held in August. Many activists celebrated this verdict and were confident that Kenya was progressing, democratically. The celebration of the verdict may have come too soon because it has not solved Kenya's political problems manifested in clashes and violence before and after the repeat election.

The late 1980s and early 1990s could be described as the "second liberation" in much of Sub-Saharan Africa. Many autocrats were ousted either through the barrel of a gun or the ballot box. New and costly constitutions were written and promulgated. Many African elites were boasting about their new constitutions, the number of women participating in politics and also economic growth. Today, many elites are crying foul about the perceived lack of constitutionalism and human rights and civil liberties curtailed. Could their conceit after the "second liberation" be responsible for their indignation?

I think some African elites lacked foresight. They assumed that the promulgation of the constitutions and symbolic verdicts by judiciaries would curb authoritarianism and corruption. Many of these elites  complaining about the current democratic deficit used to support the current administrations, rather religiously, because they believed that their countries would be on the road to Damascus.
 
Democracy was not built in one day, it has to be refined periodically. I think many elites were happy with a paper constitution without strong and independent institutions to defend it. Did many elites overlook the role and the strength so these institutions? Many institutions are weak and they thus fall victim to authoritarianism (a form of government in which the governing body has almost absolute control, which is, typically controlled by force, and little heed is paid to public opinion or the judicial system).

If I can be simplistic, Britain, an Industrialized State has no written constitution, but it has an unwritten one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions. But one has to acknowledge that Britain has been building institutions since Magna Carta (a charter establishing the rights of English barons and free citizens, granted by King John in 1215 and regarded as the basis of civil and political liberty in England).

Belgium, another Industrialized State, did not have an elected government for almost 600 days in the early 2010s because the opposing Flemish and Walloons (Tribes in Belgium) were unable to agree on policy issues and form a governing coalition following national elections. The State was functioning and citizens were getting on with their lives. Who needs a government if Institutions function? Again, Belgium has been a State for over 150 years.

May be African elites should advocate for the abolition of governments and suspensions of (paper) constitutions, and invest in strengthen in institutions so that they are that citizens are not dependent on government. Isn't' it worth a try?

All might not be lost in Africa. Incumbent parties and presidents have lost elections in Ghana and Nigeria, and human rights and delivery of public services are implemented in Botswana and Namibia. Constitutionalism and delivery public services can be sustained if citizens demand it and if the powers that be choose to be a Government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The question to the Ugandan and African elite, is it necessary to spend a lot of money on constitutions and forming governments when many have failed to deliver services to citizens? May be Africa will have constitutions and governments that can deliver services to its citizens in the next 100 years when it is Industrialized and has a GDP per capita of more than $2,700. What do you think?

The writer is a social scientist
andybk82@yahoo.co.uk
Twitter: @andybk82