Why Western-style democracy is not suitable for Africa

By George Ayittey, Special to CNN

August 20, 2010 -- Updated 1022 GMT (1822 HKT)


STORY HIGHLIGHTS

· Majority-vote democracy is not suitable for Africa, says George Ayittey

· Western model has let African leaders advance the economic interests of their ethnic group

· Many traditional African societies take decisions by consensus

· African democracy should build on consensus model

Editor's note: George Ayittey is a Ghanaian economist and the author of several books on Africa, including "Africa Unchained" and the forthcoming "Defeating Dictators in Africa and Around The World." In 2008, Ayittey was listed by Foreign Policy magazine as one of the "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" of our time. He writes for CNN as part of Africa 50, a special coverage looking at 17 African nations marking 50 years of independence this year.

(CNN) -- Western-style multi-party democracy is possible but not suitable for Africa.

There are two forms of democracy. Democratic decisions can be taken by majority vote, which is the Western form. It has the advantage of being transparent, fast and efficient. But the downside is that it ignores minority positions.

The alternative is to take decisions by consensus. This has the advantage of taking all minority positions into account.

However, the demerit is that it can take an awfully long time to reach a consensus the larger the number of people involved. Nevertheless, the Nobel Peace Committee and the World Trade Organization (WTO) all take decisions by consensus.

So too do many traditional African societies. Just because a group does not take its decisions by voting does not mean they have no understanding of the essence of democracy.

In the early 1990s, following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the winds of change swept across Africa, toppling long-standing autocrats.
In our haste to democratize -- and also as a condition for Western aid -- we copied and adopted the Western form of democracy and neglected to build upon our own democratic tradition.

The Western model allowed an elected leader to use power and the state machinery to advance the economic interests of his ethnic group and exclude all others: Kenyatta of Kenya and the Gikuyu, Moi of Kenya and the Kalenjin, Biya of Cameroon and the Beti, Eyadema of Togo and the Kabye, to name a few.

Virtually all of Africa's civil wars were started by politically marginalized or excluded groups.

In the West, the basic economic and social unit is the individual; in Africa, it is the extended family or the collective.
--George Ayittey

At Africa's traditional village level, a chief is chosen by the Queen Mother of the royal family to rule for life. His appointment must be ratified by the Council of Elders, which consists of heads of extended families in the village.
In governance, the chief must consult with the Council on all important matters. Without this council, the chief is powerless. If the chief and the Council cannot reach unanimous decision on an important issue, a village meeting is called and the issue put before the people, who will debate it until they reach a consensus.

The village assemblies exist among various African tribes including: the Ashanti of Ghana, the Igbo of Nigeria, the Somali, the Tswana of Botswana, the Shona of Zimbabwe, the Xhosa and the Zulu of South Africa.

If the chief is "bad" he can be recalled by the Queen Mother, removed by the Council of Elders, or abandoned by the people, who will vote with their feet to settle somewhere else.

Traditionally, African kings had no political function. Their role was spiritual or supernatural -- to mediate between the cosmological forces: the sky, the earth and the world, each of which is represented by a god.
The king's role is to propitiate these gods and maintain harmony among them. If the sky god is "angry" there will be thunder, heavy downpour, floods, etc. That would mean the king had failed to perform his function and off went his head (regicide).

Africans could have built upon this system. In the West, the basic economic and social unit is the individual; in Africa, it is the extended family or the collective.

The American says, "I am because I am." The African says, "I am because we are." The "we" denotes the community.

So let each group choose their leaders and place them in a National Assembly. Next, let each province or state choose their leaders and place them in a National Council.

Choose the president from this National Council and avoid the huge expenditures on election campaigning that comes with Western-style democracy. Those resources can be better put to development in poor African countries.

Next, let the president and National Council take their decisions by consensus. If there is a deadlock, refer the issue to the National Assembly. This type of democracy is in consonance with our own African heritage.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of George Ayittey's.


Why Western-style democracy is not suitable for Africa - CNN.com

The funeral flutes were playing in the streets here in the boondocks of Adenta in Ghana for President Mills this evening. His death still a mystery (or at least not shared with the public); he had health challenges for some time.... It was reported in the news that he recently went to the u.s. for medical reasons and upon his return to Ghana he heard the rumors that had already spread that he was dead, way before he even died.... I do not know what to make of the situation, but I can't take out of account the fact that this is a serious election year for Ghana; that everyone was sure Mills would be re-elected, and that threats of a violent election were swirling in the news; the drama of this year's election has affected the Ghana economy, dropping the value of the currency to more than half its value; and that Mills was trying to promote peace for election year... We don't need a conspiracy theory to put 2 & 2 together....

Something I've noticed is a general lack of understanding between continental and diasporan Afrikans on very rudimentary levels especially on initial contact. While I can list exceptions to this, I'll write generally for the sake of the discussion.

For many Afrikans in the diaspora, it seems unbelievable to come to Afrika and to meet continental Afrikans who may have been born without any Afrikan name whatsoever. Like Harry Sawyer. Or to meet many who have never practiced any traditional Afrikan spiritual system; whose parents were born into the church/mosque and that's all they've ever been exposed to. Or to find continental Afrikans who can't speak their language at all and, those who do, can't go 3 words without switching to the colonizer's language entirely or at least making 50-60% of any conversation in the colonizer's language. Continental Afrikans who find it weird to wear Afrikan clothing except maybe to church or a funeral. Particularly among modern/urbanized youth but also the not-so-modern and not-so-urbanized youth. It's like diasporan Afrikans have read the books, know about neocolonialization at least as a concept, but to be confronted with a white jesus everyday and "Afrikans" who have never even considered worshipping anything else...tends to lead to a breakdown in understanding.

By the same token, oftentimes it seems inconceivable for continental Afrikans to meet Afrikans from the diaspora who have never had european names. It's like, what do you mean? Those who wear Afrikan clothes. Those who speak Afrikan languages are like a novelty. And the most unbelievable, who practice Afrikan spirituality. For many, it's literally like, that last one is actually impossible. While this may be different in Benin (in reference to spirituality) or other places (in Burkina Faso there was a stark contrast with Ghana in terms of people wearing clothes made by Afrikan hands at least back in 2001), generally, the expectations of continental Afrikans and diasporan Afrikans in reference to the reality of who their counterparts are and what is possible tend to be skewed at best. While I'm mainly speaking about the youth, much of the values or lack of values for anything outwardly or inwardly Afrikan are inherited from the parents and the parents may have gotten it from missionary schools, churches, mosques, t.v., radio or various other orafices of attack. The result can be someone who literally says to you word for word, "the African can only mess things up and destroy things. Only the white man is good. Only the white man can do anything good."

The point of this, other than sharing personal experience mainly in Ghana but also in Nigeria, Senegal, Gambia, Burkina and Mali where I've traveled, is to ask the question "how can mutual understanding based in reality occur?" For those who are familiar with the prologue of Ayi Kwei Armah's historical epic Two Thousand Seasons, the view from the ground is largely one of those hustling towards the white city of death and destruction and those who have already tasted its bitter white death and are looking for a way back to our way. What are the steps to bring about an understanding of reality of who the counterpart is to use as a basis for mutual understanding, interactions and work amongst Afrikan people.