Political power changeovers in the last few months have showcased the democratic achievements of some African countries and revealed the immense weakness of state institutions in others.
The delicate balance of power between the civilian authorities and the military still stands out as the most potent source of potential chaos in a continent where forceful power seizures are commonplace. This year’s military coups in Mali and Guinea Bissau show the deeper internal strife that can be unleashed where a properly established democratic culture is absent.
Even in Malawi, Ghana and Ethiopia, where peaceful transitions have followed the death of incumbent leaders, analysts say the role of the military and the civilian institutions is particularly critical.
Ghana provides good lessons for Africa’s democracy. The people feel empowered during an election, their passion is reflected in their right to vote, the soldiers accept the principles to play by the rules of democracy and good governance, and the judiciary keeps petty politics out of its decisions. In July, in keeping with the tradition of its post-military era, Ghana witnessed a flawless transfer of power hours after the death of President John Atta Mills.
In Malawi, following the death in April of President Bingu wa Mutharika, former Vice-President Joyce Banda was almost robbed of power by cadres of the former ruling Democratic Progressive Party, who attempted unsuccessfully to engineer a behind-the-scenes transition. In this case, the military rescued Malawi from an overdrawn and potentially public battle for the presidency.
And in Ethiopia, after the death of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, his deputy, Hailemariam Desalegn, quietly engineered a reshuffle of the top military command to bring about what one analyst called “an ethnic balance” before assuming power on 21 September after a much-delayed swearingin ceremony devoid of any military pomp.
Taking power after weeks of uncertainty over whether the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front would endorse him for the post, Hailemariam had been operating from political limbo, with the state media consistently referring to him as “deputy” or “interim” prime minister.
“The constitution was clear; Article 74 states the deputy prime minister would assume power upon the death of the prime minister,” said Dr Mehari Taddele Maru, head of the African Conflict Prevention Programme at the Institute of Security Studies, Addis Ababa.
After winning the ruling party’s Council vote with a convincing majority and having served with distinction as Ethiopia’s head of foreign policy for more than two years, the new man at the helm was adequately prepared to govern, but his ascension to power was not easy. Dr Mehari pointed out that Hailemariam is familiar with the internal party dynamics but hails from a “peripheral area” of Ethiopia and is a Protestant Christian in charge of an Orthodox Christian majority and a Muslim minority. “Meles brought him to think about Ethiopia’s foreign policy. He was groomed for six years, part of it as an adviser, [but] even in death, Meles seems to be running Ethiopia,” he added.
Whether it happened by design or by accident, the rise of Hailemariam has communicated a profound message about Ethiopia’s inevitable and unstoppable transition to democracy, according to Professor Alemayehu Mariam of California State University.
Others say there was a need to balance power. Tsedale Lemma, publisher of the Addis Standard magazine, said: “The coming to power of Hailemariam is a result of a clear vision for the country and a clear succession plan by the late Prime Minister Meles… The new prime minister is a seasoned technocrat and he is not new to politics but there were fears that because the military command was dominated by the Tigray, they diplomatically moved to appoint a mixture of people from other ethnic groups. This was done to soothe fears that the army will not do the bidding of the new government.”
Dr Emmanuel Akwetey, the executive director of the Accra-based Institute for Democratic Governance, gave his view that the transitions in Ethiopia and Malawi appeared to lack critical ingredients of democratisation. “In Ghana, we have gotten beyond that,” he claimed. “We have shifted from a belief that it is possible to change the politics. The fundamental decision is to believe in the system.”
“The bottom line is the willpower among the political elite to prevent a return of the military rule. There was a lot of political instability, which prevented the tenure of elected governments when the military came to power. Its rule was marked by economic decline and retrogression,” Akwetey said, adding that the keys to an entrenched democratic culture in any society are judicial independence, the role of the electoral body, the place of the military and the role of political parties.
Power handovers in Africa will always involve intricate political undertakings. But having the support of the army still seems to be a crucial part of the deal.
