Plato once observed, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws". This point has all the connotations of any Sub-Saharan Africa country where democracy (only if it means voting alone) has generally been accepted and it is taking roots even though The Economist reminds us that the ruling party has never lost elections in the region.
Democracy, as the entire politics, is a popularity contest, you win the people's hearts; you get their vote. But as Plato says: bad guys do not always play by the rules, if they are not popular, the bad guys always find their way of holding on to power.
Often than not, the consequences of such situations are dire and it is always the innocent people that are on the receiving end. It is this side of politics that gave birth to apartheid in South Africa. The minority white government had to discriminate against the black majority as a way of holding on to power. Thousands of people have suffered and continues to live in difficulties under Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe only because they dared to think differently at a time when Mugabe was not ready to relinquish power.
This is why I dread politics. I only talk about it because, as Peter Tosh, a reggae singer pointed out: "we suffer the consequences". Zimbabwe has been hit hard by sanctions, yet it is the innocent people that are suffering and not the real culprits: Mugabe and his cronies.
There are various theories as to why leaders, this is particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, cling on to power. Greed is always there, but perhaps the most convincing and prominent reason is that, once in power leaders tend to indulge in so much corruption, and they are afraid of prosecution once out of office, as a result. Given the corruption trials that ex-leaders in this region have undergone, this theory carries some weight.
Best examples are Fredrick Chiluba of Zambia who has recently been acquitted of corruption charges by a Zambian high court having been found guilty of the same charges by a London court in 2002. Malawi's ex-president Bakili Muluzi has corruption case pending. Thus, one would not be surprised that these two men also hold a similar record of trying to change their respective republican constitutions to allow themselves to continue as presidents when they had served their two constitutional consecutive terms.
When these two men failed to change their respective constitutions, they both hand picked their successor. The late Levy Mwanawasa in Zambia and Bingu wa Mutharika in Malawi. Again, the theory is that the two ex-leaders were ensuring their safety once out of power. The opposite happened.
With this background, one would not be surprised that the Mo Ibrahim Foundation could not found an ex-president in Africa to win its ex-leader's prize only three years after its introduction. The previous winners are Festus Mogae of Botswana and Joachim Chisanu of Mozambique. This is even more shocking given the fact that Africa holds more elections than any other time in her history.
For instance, The Economist observes that this year alone Sub-Saharan Africa is scheduled to hold twelve elections, there will be a total of seven elections next year and by 2014 nearly every country will have had elections. The Economist's analysis is that these elections only change the elite at the top, as the case of Afican National Congress in South Africa. The same is the case in Malawi, there are politicians at the top that have served in every administration, swapping portfolios. This begs a question: what is the point in elections when they hardly change anything?
Mo Ibrahim has had to defend himself under the criticism that his ex-leader's award bribe leaders to do what they are supposed to do in the first place. In his defence, Ibrahim has argued that the critics "are failing to take into account how central governance and leadership are for Africa's development". He points out that while in Europe leaders retire and go on to hold different roles or give speeches for a fee, there is nothing to do for African leaders.
Very interesting point indeed and perhaps that is why African leaders are never the ones to retire. On the other hand, it raises an interesting point on suitability of western-style democracy in Africa. Perhaps the system is not as compatible on both ends of the world as the current models want us to believe. Meanwhile the question lingers: which way for African democracy then?