Power-sharing deals in Africa
As the declared results of the presidential election in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) stunned observers with some Western powers and the Catholic Church casting doubts on the declared winner, the Southern Africa Development Community (Sadc), proposed a recount of the presidential vote and a unity government as ways out of another political crisis. Sadc urged vote recount as that “would provide the necessary reassurance to both winners and losers”.
On the question of power-sharing arrangement, Sadc’s statement referenced arrangements in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya, which, according to the statement “were very successful”, creating the “necessary stability for durable peace”.
In Africa, power-sharing arrangements are mainly a product of two things: elections or war. With disputed elections as was the case in Kenya, Zimbabwe, or Zanzibar, unique local dynamics played a huge part in reaching these agreements. The level of their success in each of the mentioned examples varies a lot.
In Kenya though the country moved on from the disputed election that led to a power-sharing deal and even inaugurated a new constitution, the feeling of some ethnic communities being left out is still alive and there are calls to amend the constitution to provide for those who feel left out.
The agreement in Zimbabwe many things but cannot be termed to be “very successful”, and came to an end leaving in place the socio-political situation it set out to improve where those who fought in the liberation war have the monopoly on power while in Zanzibar, the agreement was undoubtedly an attempt to cast a spell on the demons of a disputed past which manifests itself at every election but as things stand now, though the power-sharing arrangement is guaranteed by the constitution it has stalled since the disputed election of 2015. Protracted civil wars where warring parties fight themselves to a stalemate have given Africa another reason for power-sharing arrangements from Sudan, South Sudan, to Burundi.
Again, the arrangements were informed by local socio-political dynamics mostly inherited from colonial administrations and the failure of successive independent governments to deal with the horrors of the past which continue to destabilise these countries.
Perhaps Burundi had the most peculiar arrangement where the presidency had to rotate based on ethnic groups and a far-reaching overhaul of the state machinery.
In Sudan, decades of civil war ended with a new state being formed, while the new state which was formed, South Sudan has a newly formed power sharing government but the guns have not fallen silent.
Consociationalism, which was popularised by Arend Lijphart does not fully address the experiences of post-colonial Africa but is in line with Sadc’s argument of power-sharing arrangements providing “necessary stability for peace.”
While these agreements continue to give political and economic elites strong hold of their societies by claiming that their inclusion in government equals the inclusion of their socio-political groups, they have offered incremental changes in some countries like introducing presidential term limits, devolving powers of the presidency to integrating key state organs like the army which has played vital role in the stability or instability of many African countries. Back to the DRC, Sadc’s proposal of recounting votes and power sharing might seem contradictory but is based on the fact that regardless of how the Constitutional court rules on the motion challenging the announced presidential results, there will always be a party dissatisfied with whatever outcome.
And there is the fact that the parliamentary polls were won by parties allied to the outgoing president Joseph Kabila.
This reality will come with its own complications.
After all the Great Lakes region and DRC in particular are no stranger to power sharing deals. The Second Congo Civil war of 1998-2003 was brought to a close with a power-sharing agreement between the government and rebel groups which were backed by regional rivals.
Another power-sharing deal brokered by the Catholic Church and other domestic players was one of the reasons for President Kabila continued stay in power.
A report about power-sharing arrangements in Africa concluded that “the socio-political context is what spells the difference between success and failure”. Not constitutions or external powers be they regional or global ones.
For now, power-sharing arrangements in Africa are becoming a popular choice for those seeking to mediate in disputed elections or protracted civil wars and in some ways help actors in the violence which follow to avoid being held accountable.
It is about stability.
