7 votes

The claim that democracy fares better in the West than in Africa is a fallacy

3 comments

  1. [2]
    Algernon_Asimov
    Link
    This didn't gibe with my gut feel, so I did some checking to find out whether my gut feel was wrong, or this statement was wrong. I found some interesting facts and statistics. For context: there...

    Over the past two decades, the book notes, democracy has blossomed in Africa: in 1990, the continent housed, at most, four democracies. Today, countries in which the government is not at least elected in a free vote in which opposition parties contest are a small minority.

    This didn't gibe with my gut feel, so I did some checking to find out whether my gut feel was wrong, or this statement was wrong.

    I found some interesting facts and statistics.

    For context: there are 55 countries in Africa.

    Of these 55 countries, 20 of them are recognised as one-party states or dominant-party states. That's more than one-third of African countries where elections are free in name only; 7 of those countries have current leaders who are recognised as dictators.

    And, looking at the Corruption Perception Index for African countries, there's only one country on the continent (Botswana) which ranks above the midway point between "not corrupt" and "corrupt"; all other countries fall on the "corrupt" side of the midway point.

    These are the facts which influence people's perceptions about whether democracy is faring well across Africa.

    Sure, most countries across Africa are nominally democratic, but are those elections free, and is the government free of corruption?

    Western democracies aren't perfect, by any means. But, overall, they seem to be operating better than the African democracies.

    9 votes
    1. cfabbro
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Only one is a one-party state and "dominant-party state" does not necessarily mean "elections are free in name only". It's an incredibly loose label that merely means "a category of...

      Of these 55 countries, 20 of them are recognised as one-party states or dominant-party states. That's more than one-third of African countries where elections are free in name only

      Only one is a one-party state and "dominant-party state" does not necessarily mean "elections are free in name only". It's an incredibly loose label that merely means "a category of parties/political organisations that have successively won election victories and whose future defeat cannot be envisaged or is unlikely for the foreseeable future." And to put that in perspective, Canada was up until recently considered a "dominant party system" because the Liberal party "ruled for most of the 20th century between 1935 and 1984". So how useful said label is in determining the legitimacy of a democracy and truly understanding the viability of opposition parties in them is highly debatable, IMO.

      8 votes
  2. patience_limited
    Link
    It's an important point that there are multiple democratic models, and that a number of Western nations fall short of the ideals they espouse. Aside from the colonialist presumptions about who...

    It's an important point that there are multiple democratic models, and that a number of Western nations fall short of the ideals they espouse.

    Aside from the colonialist presumptions about who gets to define proper democracy, Botswana, Nigeria, Rwanda, Kenya and other democratic African nations have different pluralism challenges. Skin color racism is less of a factor than entrenched elites, tribal representation, and resource sharing. China's growing influence in promoting one-party authoritarian states is a problem as well.

    3 votes