How Africa fared on democracy in action-filled year

There is rarely a dull year in African politics, and the last twelve months have been no exception. In Uganda and Zambia the ruling party prevailed in what proved to be extremely controversial elections, and in both cases the opposition rejected the result.

In Gambia, the opposite played out, with the opposition securing the largest number of votes only for the government to claim that the process was flawed. Taken together, these episodes generated a sense that African democracy was in decline.

However, other trends suggested a different narrative. Good news came in from Ghana, where a peaceful transfer of power provided a much-needed shot in the arm for African democracy.

So what have we learned about African democracy over the last year, and what new questions does this raise?

Power of incumbency’s waning

In Gambia and Nigeria the result – and the willingness of the electoral commission to announce it – came as a surprise.

Similarly, although opinion polls in Ghana suggested that support for President Mahama had declined significantly, and so his defeat was not unexpected, the fact that he became the first Ghanaian incumbent to lose an election since the reintroduction of multi-party politics mean that this election, also, set a precedent.

All previous transfers of power had come after the sitting president had been forced to stand down as a result of presidential term limits. In a new article written with Gabrielle Lynch and Justin Willis that is soon to be published in the Journal of Democracy, I argue that one of the main factors that has made it harder for incumbents to retain control is the combination of economic decline and increasingly assertive voters.

Opposition’s learning

The one common thread linking Gambia, Ghana and Nigeria is that opposition parties learned from their mistakes. This was particularly striking in Gambia and Nigeria, where the main opposition demonstrated a new-found sense of unity. In both countries it was this, as much as the failures of the ruling party, which paved the way for change.

More specifically, the willingness of opposition parties to put aside their differences in order to maximise their chances of success had two important consequences. First, it meant that the main opposition leaders did not divide the vote, and so incumbent presidents found it far harder to deny their rivals momentum. Second, the emergence of more coherent and effective political machine meant that opposition leaders were able to use scarce resources more effectively, and leant credibility to their claims that they would deliver meaningful political change.

Democracy’s in decline

Not all ruling parties respond to the prospects of defeat by handing over power. For every Ghana there is a Uganda. For every Nigeria, a Zimbabwe.

As a result, the mounting challenges to incumbency have played out in very different ways across the continent. In countries in which democratic institutions are stronger and leaders are more committed to democratic principles, it has led to new political openings.

However, where presidents are determined to retain power at any cost, the implications for democracy are very different.

Faced with waning popularity and smarter opposition parties, authoritarian ruling parties fell back on repression and censorship to retain control.

This resulted in the arrest of opposition leaders in Uganda, a ban on rallies in Ethiopia, and police brutality in Burundi.

Thus, in a considerable number of African states democracy is in decline – so many, in fact, that the average quality of civil liberties and political rights on the continent has been falling over the last ten years according to the American think tank, Freedom House. This is one of the great ironies of African politics in recent years: the emergence of stronger opposition and the waning power of incumbency has been as likely to drive a decline in democracy as a process of political reform.

Term limits predict crises

In 2016, it was the turn of Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Knowing that he was due to step down at the end of the year, Kabila tried a number of strategies to remain in office.

When efforts to change the law failed, he derailed preparations for general elections that were due to be held in November, reasoning that he could not be expected to stand down if no one was elected to replace him. This strategy was subsequently endorsed by a pliant Constitutional Court.

Despite this, Kabila’s limited control over the political landscape ensured that he could not push through his agenda as easily as President Yoweri Museveni in Uganda and President Paul Kagame in Rwanda. Instead, over the last few months a number of deals have been proposed that would see Kabila stand down before the end of 2017, in line with opposition demands.

Don’t rush to prosecute

Everything seemed to be going remarkably smoothly in Gambia when the electoral commission announced that the opposition had won the election and President Jammeh proceeded to concede defeat. But less than a week later, the President had changed his mind. Publicly, Jammeh cited irregularities with the process. In reality, however, what had come to light was not the fact that the polls were rigged, but a series of statements by the president-elect and his team that they intended to prosecute the outgoing leader for crimes committed while in office.

Not only did opposition leader Adama Barrow commit himself to bringing charges against his predecessor within a year, but his team explicitly rejected “softer” alternatives such as allowing Jammeh to go into exile. Unsurprisingly, this news dampened the president’s enthusiasm to hand over power, and he rapidly backtracked on his earlier announcement.

Nic Cheeseman is professor of democracy, University of Birmingham, the United Kingdom