Democracy and the question of term limits in the developing world
Democracy and term limits in developing world: A look at Africa through the shades of Uganda’s recent elections.
By Aleu Mabil, Malaysia
February 27, 2016 (SSB) — Whereas democracy as a concept has spread to almost all corners of the world, it continues to develop and have different forms in different countries. Even autocracies, oligarchies, theocracies and monarchies claim to subscribe to the same principles upheld by democracies such as transfer of power with the support of the majority of the citizenry. ‘Majority of the people’ is the key phrase to democracy. The West, the proclaimed champion of democracy, tries to market the concept packaged along with their ideologies and cultures. In the importing nations, the package is received with mixed feelings. In most cases, it’s a copy-paste in theory, a look-alike in connived practice yet largely ill-formed in reality. This is where the debate of term limit comes in and thence arises the question; are the term limits really useful or irrelevant and in what number or is there a better form to term limit than the usual two-terms or are there other better alternatives altogether? Let’s take a look.
The developing nations subscribe, in principle, to such aspects of democracy as term limits yet their leaders remain venal and in quest to ditch them. While ascending to power, the song is democracy! Democracy! Down to prolonged stay in power! Up Term limit! Such was a song of Mugabe and Museveni in 80s, Kagame in 90s et cetra. “The problem of Africa in general and Uganda in particular is not the people but leaders who want to overstay in power”, Museveni, 1986 [1]. But then things changed. Damn power is very good. To whom should it be left? They seem to speak to their minds. In a shift of position, Museveni was recently quoted saying …You hear people say ‘Museveni should go’. But go and leave oil money? …These people want me to go back to the bush” [2]. This leaves nothing to interpret – it is better to give another rap. The likes of Museveni argue that terms limits remove good leaders. Once good leaders have emerged, the impoverished countries need them for some good time. Therefore, the people, not the term limit, should decide to remove their leaders. After all some the well-governed countries or Western democracies, for example, the United kingdoms, do not practice term limits. The queen rides in power indefinitely and so goes the prime minister term-limitless. So, what is special about our countries? Such is the argument and experience that replaces the good promise of short stay in power and democratic reforms made by leaders like Museveni, Mugabe and Kagame at the ascent to power.
While it’s indeed true that term limit is not much a thing in UK as it is in US after Franklin Roosevelt, the West still tries so much to force it down the throats of developing countries as if there are no stable countries without term limit. The concerns and reasons may be genuine. Elections are in many cases not true reflections of people’s choice, at least in African and Asian pseudo democracies. Like everything else, they are corrupted. The pro term limit argument puts it that violence, political cataclysm and economic abyss and stagnation that results from such corruption of elections are more lethal than a two-term limit. That too is indeed true. The consequences of mismanaged elections or unhealthy quest for power, the entrenchment of a pseudo democracy as manifested in post-election crisis in Kenya and Ivory Coast or the predicament that followed the pre-election power struggle in South Sudan, Central African Republic and Burundi are way too much to deserve anything.
On the other hand, the intervention by the so called international community, the friendly countries and the ‘architects of democracy’ has not helped Africa better than it destroys. Rather, it has bred as much the same or even worse suffering and setback as the home baked chaos. The conspiracies disguised rescue interventions have well served the purpose of ridding good leaders in the name of democracy, as it was most recently done in Libya with shameless show of arrogance and imperialism and upon the watch and approval of some African leaders. This speaks a lot for itself. Indeed the dislodgement and extermination of Gaddafi in Libya, Lumumba in Congo and Sankara in Burkina Faso show that external interventions are no honey and milk either. Rather, they paint a much worse picture for the West and the struggle for good governance and human rights in developing countries or Africa for that matter. It renders masses suspicious of leaders with Western backing. As a result, people are left with no choice other than contend that Kagame should continue without term limit for his continuation is better than the Libyan experience or the French/UN watched horrific film of 1994. Things are even much better in Kagame’s case knowing the uplift he has made for Rwanda. In some situations, there are no safer sides. It is sheep’s choice between wild dogs and wolves. And so those who are adept in playing the game will find themselves in as better known devils than unknown angels as in Angola and Uganda among others. This calls for a re-examination of a spectrum of things on both sides, the rider and the intervener. Elections and term limit, the mechanisms of power transition are at the fore here. The talk, though, has remained as in the vocabulary of the exporter and intervener.
But are there no other alternatives to salvage the situation? Why copy-paste Western term limit by confining it to two terms? Why not go for term limit in a different way, for example, a term limit of three terms of each five years or of four terms of each four years? Wouldn’t that settle both concerns; that term limits remove good leaders too soon and that leaders should not overstay in power? What about redressing the electoral and judicial system? Wouldn’t term limit or prolonged rule be worthless debating if these institutions were adequately empowered to ensure free, transparent, fair and judicious transfer of power and a system that serves all with the same glass of wine regardless of incumbency? Why should the heads of electoral commission and judiciary be appointed and removed by the incumbent and expect them to fairly manage the rumble involving their appointing authority? Even the principle of natural justice alone would do some magic let alone the fear of being removed and dusted. Would Badru Kiggundu have announced results where anyone other than Museveni is a victor? It would be illusion to think so. The rest, the reader may have them for answers. But not far from the truth is that the solution to peaceful elections or transfer of power lies in the answers to these questions, not just term limit. If an incumbent before term limit can lose an election to an opposition candidate as it happened in Nigeria, the message here is that even before or without term limit, a bad leader can be sent home. How and what the Nigerians, Malawians or Zambians did to realize free and fair elections that witnessed the respective victory of Buhari, Peter Mutharika and Sata (RIP) in defeat of the incumbent would be more important than the term limit.
Therefore, instead of looking at term limit in the same old lens, it is better to re-calibrate the democratic compass in developing world to suit their own dynamics. Many African parliaments and leaders have gone great lengths to enact term limit in their constitutions only to take a big trouble to repeal it later. This happens because of the realities they choose to ignore in the beginning; the fact that African traditional style of leadership embraces democracy but differently. By many African traditions competition is not about how many times you compete but how fair. How many times you win as long as the playing field was levelled is not a problem. This is applied in sports and leadership representation at various levels. Variations only exist(ed) at the top where kings and royal chiefs would follow a different path albeit with the support of the majority of their subjects in most cases. In the wider world perspective, to stress on fair play and free, inclusive contest is nothing but logic. Conversely, if all citizens have inalienable right to contest for any position of power of their land, that right is exclusive to no one; incumbent or not, having held position for long or short time. It is therefore, no surprise that in 29 African countries where term limit survey was conducted, only 34% think that term limit is good [3].
However, this does not mean that autocrats get free tokens to hijack power and people’s freedom. To shut down social media communication and infringe on right to freedom of association as it was done in Uganda’s last week elections is not only repressive but unconstitutional. Such actions only thwart the well-intended idea of not capitalizing on term limit but on a transparent, fair electoral system and therefore give an elusive mischaracterisation of an otherwise genuine African argument on term limit. In reality, Uganda’s, Ethiopia’s and Sudan’s suppressive and heavy-handed approaches on opponents in their elections management are just unfortunate manipulations of the African term limit argument and the idea of a ‘levelled field’ that can work well with or without term limit. It should be recalled that one of the reasons for term limit is to rid these repressive and autocratic tendencies. However, it is not also the best safeguard against these practices as traditional ruling parties keep to the same tactics even though with different candidates as in Ethiopia and Mozambique. Thus, the real and absolute solution is to level the playing field. Because then the constitutional right to any political office by anyone possessing the leadership merits and deeds would not be compromised. It would not matter whether Museveni and Besigye are the contestants, Kagame faces off with a newcomer or Afonso Dhlakama battles it out again with another MPLA candidate.
To the reality and logic of the African view of term limit as indicated by the studies of Afrobarometer, the West should therefore acknowledge that ‘levelling the field’ is paramount and whence begin to shun their attempts to always tie democratic reforms and human rights to their interests and packs of cultural exports that are not only too exotic but also unwelcome in African cultures. They should revisit and reverse their neo-colonial thinking and embark on true mutual, rather than predator-prey, relations and therefore present a renewed advocacy and real trustworthy support for these ideals in Africa. Until then, there would be no need for Western intervention as the developing countries, in renewed, genuine friendly relations, will be their own masters and prudent managers of their affairs through their established, adequately protective and remedial institutions. And even though, intervention may be necessary, it will be minimal and of different form from what has been and is going on.
At the same time, the regional/continental bodies, the local political actors and domestic civil society should direct their efforts and invest in building strong and credible judiciary and electoral systems that are immune to manoeuvres and manipulations of the incumbent. The government of the day should provide much needed political will and space for this dispensation to take place. The incumbent, the opposition and the parliament must be involved in the process of appointing the heads of these institutions. Otherwise, how fair is it to allow one of the coaches of rivalling football teams to appoint match officials? Either the incumbent should appoint, with approval by the parliament and opposition parties, the heads of judiciary and electoral body with their removal only by the parliament or the parliament and opposition should do their nomination only for the incumbent head of state to confirm them but yet with their removal (when warranted) as a shared power between them. Any other arrangement that eliminates the dominance and unfair advantage of the incumbent or any of the other parties but which guarantees fairness for all should be sought.
On the other hand, term limit is not to be dumped outright. Where these suggestions are not attainable, it will stand the trial, better as a three or four term than a two term limit. This alternative would still settle both concerns for unnecessary early removal of good leaders and cling to power of bad leaders. At the same time capability to level the electoral playing field and the judicial system will be developed.
Otherwise, instead of a two term limit, a term may be longer than four/five years as it commonly is. It could be six/seven years subject to parliamentary scrutiny wherein the legislature may pass impeachment against the incumbent when warranted. The incumbent after his/her first term will, for the next term, stand aside for his running mate/party nominee and after which he/she can re-contest in the subsequent term elections. This skip-and-re-contest process can then go on as long as one’s popularity and age can afford. It would be hard for one individual to dominate as, for a seven year term for example, it will take a great deal of time and good leadership offerings to the people for an ex-president/premier to come back successfully. With this, Amama, as Museveni’s protégé, needed not quit NRM. He would have had the chance to take over with Museveni as his premier in a government akin to that of Medvedev-Vladmir in 2008 – 2012 or perhaps Besigye would have had the chance to score it and show to Ugandans the better that NRM and Museveni has not offered.
In the nutshell terms limit and democracy should be contextualized in view of the traditions of the constituency. Necessary modifications and bold steps to commission them should be taken by all actors. As such, it is necessary to integrate rather than homogenize modern governance concepts and good practices around the world without special, unjustified concentration on some regions. Alien ideas, political or socio-economic, cannot be simply imported to replace native old-aged traditions and concepts of governance and cultures of the constituencies (African, Asian or Arab) and expect them to make a quick jump to the apex of those ideas. The journey is as well gradual for them as it was for the West.
Above all, the crux of the matter is to achieve transparency, fairness and inclusivity in elections and to develop competent, independent judicial system that can shrewdly weigh in on electoral disputes and other judicial matters without discrimination, fear or favour. This is the true foundation upon which democracy, with or without term limit, can substantively work.
Aleu Mabil is a South Sudanese living in Malaysia. He can be reached at aleumabil@gmail.com. The views presented here do not represent those of his affiliations but purely his as a student of free thought and reason.
The opinion expressed here is solely the view of the writer. The veracity of any claim made are the responsibility of the author, not PaanLuel Wël: South Sudanese Bloggers (SSB) website. If you want to submit an opinion article or news analysis, please email it to paanluel2011@gmail.com. SSB do reserve the right to edit material before publication. Please include your full name, email address and the country you are writing.
About Post Author
