May 25 2008 was the 50th Anniversary of African Liberation Day, which was founded by the leaders of independent African states at the first conference held to mark their freedom (uhuru) from colonial rule in Accra, Ghana, in 1958. During the intervening five decades, the hopes of what independence would bring were dashed on the rocks of authoritarian rule and economic collapse.
However, a tentative process of recovery since the early 1990s suggests that, as in 1958, Africa now stands at a crossroads. African countries are more likely to make good on this new opportunity if foreign governments maintain the pressure on African leaders to democratise, but Western governments should not overplay their hand.
African Liberation Day was established with three main aims. First, to celebrate the achievement of those states that had already gained independence. Second, to highlight the plight of those countries that at the time were still labouring under forms of colonial rule. Finally, to demonstrate and reinforce pan-African solidarity and to critique Western imperialism. Sadly, many of these aims remain unfulfilled.
Although there is no one ‘Africa’, but rather a collection of remarkably diverse states, the depressing fate of the continent has resulted in its becoming synonymous with famine and conflict in the public consciousness.
With a few exceptions – including Botswana and Mauritius – external domination during colonial rule was replaced either by civil conflict or by military rule and single-party dominance. While Africa finally became ‘free’ with the end of apartheid in South Africa in the early 1990s, many African states remain so desperately poor that their independence is compromised by their economic reliance on foreign powers.
African governments now find that economic policy is largely dictated by the IMF and the World Bank; a subordinate position in the global economy makes it virtually impossible to go it alone.
Since the early 1990s, however, things have started to change. The remarkable commitment of African peoples to democracy, the weakening of authoritarian regimes, and the encouragement of the international community have resulted in political liberalization.
Most African countries now hold multi-party elections, and many have started on the long road to economic recovery. However, African elites in countries including Kenya, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe have shown that they are not yet ready to play by the rules of the democratic game.
Both Western and African governments have an important role to play in persuading these elites to relinquish their grip. Democratic African leaders must not let their commitment to pan-African solidarity gag them from speaking out against human rights abuses perpetrated by African leaders.
The US and the UK must not allow their war on terror to promote supportive relationships with friendly authoritarian governments such as those in Kenya and Ethiopia. African and Western governments should coordinate to protect pro-democracy activists and demand that leaders respect their own constitutions.
But it is naïve to think that foreign governments, whether African or Western, can ensure successful democratisation. They are far more effective at immediate regime change than at securing long-term stability, as demonstrated by the painful case of Iraq.
Robert Mugabe has shown that authoritarian rule can be maintained in the face of international condemnation and domesticeconomic collapse, so long as leaders are sufficiently devious and self-serving. Instead, African populations must devise new ways to hold their leaders accountable, and African leaders must allow their power to be constrained.
Genuine democracy in Africa can only come from within.
