In her article titled “New Trends in Democracy and Development: Democratic Capitalism in South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya” Professor Rita Kiki Edozie of the International Relations department at Michigan State University examines the “complex relationship between capitalism and democracy in contemporary democratic regimes in Africa from the perspective of current trends in economic globalization” (43). The article follows the prospects of democracy in the three mentioned African countries and the scandals surrounding their dominant political parties: The African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in Nigeria, and the National Rainbow Coalition (NARC) in Kenya (Edozie 43).
Edozie uses the theoretical frameworks of political economy and comparative studies to show how the global regimes of capital are having effects on contemporary national democratic politics and how a democratic crisis in each country is associated with an economic crisis. Among these are South Africa’s French Connection Scandal, Nigeria’s Globacom Affair, and Kenya’s Anglo-Leasing Finance Scandal (Edozie 43). According to Edozie, when considering the relationship between capitalism and democracy, one must consider two things: the region’s context of economic development and economic conditions that foster the emergence of democracy, as well as the performance of democratic regimes that speak to the conditions required for democratic stabilization, consolidation, and effective performance (45).
Edozie explains that in the developing world context, the analyses of problems that influence democracy are defined in socio-political, economic, and cultural, terms Edozie labeled as external or extrinsic (47). In the case of Africa, such factors cause significant effects on unevenly developed economic structures in developing democracies. Democratic transitions in which economic and democratic reform occur simultaneously allow for the formation of “democratic capitalism” (Edozie 48). From here Edozie moves into specific examples in the African context: South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya’s network of democratic capitalism. All three countries serve as important examples of the “phenomena” of democratic capitalism and show how intrinsic features such as liberal democracies and pluralism, along with extrinsic features such as global laissez-faire capitalism are contributing to a crisis of democracy (49). These three countries were selected because they are among the wealthiest of African economies on the continent. However, compared to other advanced industrial democracies throughout the world these African countries are relatively poor (Edozie 49).
Beginning with South Africa, the crisis of democracy is attributed to the second election and the assumption of Thabo Mbeki as the executive power. After his rise to power, the ANC become more centralized and dominating and “talking left while acting right” (Edozie 50). Others such as Jacob Zuma further tarnished the name of the ANC by illegally benefitting from a multibillion dollar arms contract, or the “French connection” as Edozie terms it. The tension originally began as a power dispute between Jacob Zuma, the Deputry President of the ANC and Bulelani Ngcuka, head of South Africa’s Directorate of Special Investigations. Ngcuka illegally benefitted from an arms trade deal with his financial partner Schabir Shaik, the director of the Nkobi Holdings and the African Defence Systems (Edozie 56). Tension built within the party as those with different ideologies (pro-reform vs. traditional revolutionary beliefs) clashed. Such internal conflict made it impossible for the ANC government to focus effectively on the issues of South Africa such as the HIV/AIDS epidemic and unemployment among others. and put democracy at risk.
Next Edozie moves onto Nigeria and its incumbent ruling party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). In Nigeria much of the political tension was caused between the battles between the country’s legislature and the executive. Impeachment charges were brought against then President Obasanjo and then counter charges against key legislators. Later on when Abubaka won the presidency, tension arose between the Southern Christians and the Northern Muslims. More pro-economic reform policy was pushed by the executive, putting more emphasis on personal power politics and the ideology of Nigerian ethno-regionalism (Edozie 50).
Under the NARC regime Edozie elaborates on the Globacom Affair. This affair had international connections, and very heavy relations with the US Department of Justice, the FBI, and Congressman William Jefferson. The Nigerian Presidency claimed to have been acting on behalf of the FBI to investigate the Vice President involvement in the laundering of money from privatization program funds and using them to purchase shares in Globacom and other US ‘front’ companies (Edozie 54). Such accusations of scandal, money laundering, and corruption are never conducive to democracy, and to accuse a President of those wrongdoings truly damages democracy in Nigeria.
Finally Edozie elaborates on the crisis in Kenya and the historic transition election in 2002 that brought President Mwai Kibaki and the National Rainbow Coalition Party (NARC) to power. With Kibaki’s ascension to power came Kenya’s adaptation of nurture capitalism in democratic politics. In 2003 a sensational corruptions scandal was discovered in Nigeria, now known as the Anglo-Leasing Finance Scandal. Its major players included NARC, President Kibaki, and a host of his other key ministers. The government of Kenya wanted to replace its passport printing system and sources its bids from international companies. A French firm quoted the transaction at 6million Euros, and a British firm, Anglo-Leasing Finance, quoted 30 million dollars. The scandal happened when the contract was awarded to Anglo-Leasing, which then sub-leased the contract to the French firm for 6 million dollars. NARC ministers were implicated but no charges were brought against them (Edozie 58-9). When the people can’t trust their own elected officials due to monetary scandal, democracy is in danger indeed.
Edozie’s collection of data for the three countries suggests that the democratic crises experienced by each country are linked to national and global economic structures including elites, electorates, and capitalist interests (60). These developing countries more aggressively “seek business investment for the purpose of economic growth and poverty reduction” (Edozie 61). But because of this, they tend to turn into nurture capitalist economies because they must rely on large domestic and international corporations who exploit the people of these countries. The governing bodies of these countries tend to support no-reform policies rather than economic reform because they realize how harmful such polices are to the welfare and interests of the people. Even still, since economic policy almost always presides with the executive and elite who are loyal to the central banks and creditors, they tend to form political majorities in parliament mobilized to support the technocratic, pro-reform economic policy (Edozie 62). Therefore, the interests of the people are never really given a chance.
Edozie’s evidence showing that people of these countries are demanding more than just democratic representation (such as suffrage, entitlements, or political rights) is her overall strength. She does not say that the political parties in South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria have taken part in corrupt practices, but gives specific evidence of their wrongdoings as well as shows how the people reacted to them. She uses the labor strikes, demonstrations, riots, and militant conflicts of the people to show that constituencies in all three countries are demanding democracies that provide the redistribution of the already scarce resources (Edozie 62). Democratic capitalism is being rejected by the people. The future of the countries depend on whether or not each country can get beyond their crises through peaceful political means. In the case of South Africa it may mean allowing other parties than the ANC to have a share in the political process of the country. Similar are the cases in Nigeria and Kenya where there is a need to create a multi-ethnic, multiparty systems that foster national development and equal access to material wealth for everyone, rather than just the elite few.
Works Cited:
Edozie, Rita Kiki. “New Trends in Democracy and Development: Democratic Capitalism in South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya.” Politikon. 35:1, 43-67.
Showing posts with label Kenya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kenya. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Sunday, January 13, 2008
kenya's political history of turmoil
If it happens in Africa it must just be the primal instinct based in tribalism. The mass media has been covering the situation in Kenya as a near exclusive tribal and ethnic conflict without accounting for the history of Kenya's political turmoil and where ethnicity is put into a colonial context. The crisis in Kenya is not solely ethnic and tribal. It is a crisis based on democracy and fueled by past divisions created by British colonial rule.
What we have seen recently is a devolution of 'democratic' elections into ethnic conflict. The Presidential incumbent, Mwai Kibaki, was made President in previous elections as the opposition candidate was declared unable to run by the constitution. Moving into the most recent elections Kibaki did not have the majority support. However, in the end tallies of votes Kibaki came out ahead of the opposition candidate, Raila Odinga. Odinga was running with his Orange Democratic Movement behind him. European Union observers declared Kibaki's second term as stolen when the national vote counts came back different than the district vote counts, putting Kibaki as the winner. What we then saw was a devolution of a 'stable democracy' in to "tribal" conflict. But, before we can even begin to grasp what this means in Kenya we have to examine and understand Kenya's history of colonial violence and created ethnic tension.
In 1888, the British took over the area known as Kenya as part of the 1885 Berlin Conference that divided the land area of Africa between the major European powers. The Germans formerly controlled the land. The colony known as British East Africa remained uninvolved in World War I. By the twentieth century 30,000 white British settlers began establishing themselves in the fertile highlands growing coffee and tea and commanding unjust political and economic power in the country. The highlands had traditionally been home to the Kikuyu people, who were forced off of their land and had to then seek jobs on their own former land under the employ of white settler farmers for a meager wage of newly imposed British currency. This injustice set off the start of the Mau-Mau rebellion lead by the Kikuyu people and the Land and Army Freedom movement in 1952. The country was placed under martial-rule. The British Long Rifles, the Home Guard (Kenyan soldiers), and the British army backed by Winston Churchill's command came together strongly against the movement and killed 42% of the rebel fighters. The capture and execution of Dedan Kimathi in 1956, the Mau Mau leader, essentially ended the rebellion. The Kikuyu rebellion was destroyed. The British consciously divided the Kikuyu and Luo people for fear that they would be too strong of a unifying force against their colonial empire. The Kenyan elites were able to take power with the election of the Kikuyu elite, Jomo Kenyatta.
The first elections in Kenya were in 1957. To the dismay of the British, the election was won by Kenyatta backed by his Kenya African National Union (KANU) party instead of the 'moderate' Africans the British had hoped for, but this was their own product of favoring the Kikuyu. Upon Kenyatta's death Daniel arap-Moi took power, stepping up from his Vice Presidential role. His succession to president was strongly opposed by the Kikuyu elite, known as the Kiambu Mafia. He held power in uncontested single-party elections from 1978 until 2002. Moi dismissed political opponents and consolidated his power. He put down Kikuyu coup attempts through execution of coup leaders. Moi was central in the perpetuating Kenyatta's single-party state, reflected in the constitution. In his 2002 and 2007 election wins, Moi exploited the mixed ethnic composition of Kenya and with a divided opposition of smaller tribes - Moi won. Moi represented an ethnic minority, the Kalenjin, that kept the Kikuyu out of power for many years. I am not sure if we are to assume the role of Moi as Vice President to Kenyatta was to appease the ethnic minority, but the Kikuyu's role as a benefiting elite was lost with Moi's succession.
Kenya's 36 million people are divided among more than 40 ethnic groups, each with its own identity, cultural traditions and practices, and separate language. The main groups are Kikuyu (22%), Luhya (14%), Luo (13%), Kalenjin (12%) and Kamba (11%), according to government figures. Now we see the colonial policy of "divide and conquer" lives on. The tradition of corruption in Kenyan politics continues and Kikuyu is pitted against the various ethnic groups. However, this is a created ethnic conflict in a country where ethnicity and politics are conjoined. Kenyatta was a Kikuyu elite created by the British colonialism, Moi was essentially a dictator for 30 years, and Kibaki undemocratically stole power and now for a second time. Instead of a conflict rooted in tribalism this conflict, "suggests that the undemocratic historical trajectory that Kenya has been moving along was launched at the inception of British colonial rule more than a century ago." What is most surprising is not that there is now an ethnic conflict in Kenya, but that it did not happen sooner.
Surprisingly, CNN acknowledged the roots of Kenya's ethnic political troubles. Neither candidate in Kenya's elections really represented the people or true democracy. Odinga's (Luo) Orange Democratic Movement was supported by Luhya and he promised to appoint a Luhya deputy if elected. Kibaki's government has had troubles and scandals dealing with corruption and graft since beginning in 2002. The BBC also gives a more accurate account of the conflict in Kenya. They suggest that the headlines talking of tribalism should better read: "Tribal differences in Kenya, normally accepted peacefully, are exploited by politicians hungry for power who can manipulate poverty-stricken population." But no one wants to read that. The main stream media has decided to final cover Africa as a front page story only because it provides a striking headline. As Kikuyu flee, the news wants to make Kenya out to be another Rwanda, but I wouldn't venture so far to say that it has become that terrible. This sentiment of violence influences writers at every level. One student writer can only focus on the violence in her article.
The US has condemned the violence in Kenya. "We condemn the violence that occurred in Kenya as its citizens await these election results, and call on all Kenyans to remain calm while the vote tabulation process is concluded," State Department spokesman Tom Casey said in a statement. The US would like to say how terrible it is that Kenyans have been denied democracy. However, I am not sure how we can claim to know democracy. Just as Kenyans, we too have never known real democracy in this two-party system full of government control and corruption. My swahili professor is from western Kenya, he is a Luo. The other day I asked him if his family was safe. He said they were, they had fled soon enough to miss the violence. I asked him about the history of ethnic favoring in Kenya and he said that it all started with Kenyatta. While this all goes on - colonial legacies of ethnic tension, stolen democracy, and a fear of continued turmoil, the US presidential primaries plug along. We as US citizens can only dream of democracy. While Obama, with Kenyan descent, gains popularity and primaries his family in Kenya watches. Will there be democracy gained anywhere? Will stolen votes bring conflict in the US too or maybe we do not have a knowledgeable enough electorate to protest.
From theWhen not in Africa. . . blog.
What we have seen recently is a devolution of 'democratic' elections into ethnic conflict. The Presidential incumbent, Mwai Kibaki, was made President in previous elections as the opposition candidate was declared unable to run by the constitution. Moving into the most recent elections Kibaki did not have the majority support. However, in the end tallies of votes Kibaki came out ahead of the opposition candidate, Raila Odinga. Odinga was running with his Orange Democratic Movement behind him. European Union observers declared Kibaki's second term as stolen when the national vote counts came back different than the district vote counts, putting Kibaki as the winner. What we then saw was a devolution of a 'stable democracy' in to "tribal" conflict. But, before we can even begin to grasp what this means in Kenya we have to examine and understand Kenya's history of colonial violence and created ethnic tension.
In 1888, the British took over the area known as Kenya as part of the 1885 Berlin Conference that divided the land area of Africa between the major European powers. The Germans formerly controlled the land. The colony known as British East Africa remained uninvolved in World War I. By the twentieth century 30,000 white British settlers began establishing themselves in the fertile highlands growing coffee and tea and commanding unjust political and economic power in the country. The highlands had traditionally been home to the Kikuyu people, who were forced off of their land and had to then seek jobs on their own former land under the employ of white settler farmers for a meager wage of newly imposed British currency. This injustice set off the start of the Mau-Mau rebellion lead by the Kikuyu people and the Land and Army Freedom movement in 1952. The country was placed under martial-rule. The British Long Rifles, the Home Guard (Kenyan soldiers), and the British army backed by Winston Churchill's command came together strongly against the movement and killed 42% of the rebel fighters. The capture and execution of Dedan Kimathi in 1956, the Mau Mau leader, essentially ended the rebellion. The Kikuyu rebellion was destroyed. The British consciously divided the Kikuyu and Luo people for fear that they would be too strong of a unifying force against their colonial empire. The Kenyan elites were able to take power with the election of the Kikuyu elite, Jomo Kenyatta.
The first elections in Kenya were in 1957. To the dismay of the British, the election was won by Kenyatta backed by his Kenya African National Union (KANU) party instead of the 'moderate' Africans the British had hoped for, but this was their own product of favoring the Kikuyu. Upon Kenyatta's death Daniel arap-Moi took power, stepping up from his Vice Presidential role. His succession to president was strongly opposed by the Kikuyu elite, known as the Kiambu Mafia. He held power in uncontested single-party elections from 1978 until 2002. Moi dismissed political opponents and consolidated his power. He put down Kikuyu coup attempts through execution of coup leaders. Moi was central in the perpetuating Kenyatta's single-party state, reflected in the constitution. In his 2002 and 2007 election wins, Moi exploited the mixed ethnic composition of Kenya and with a divided opposition of smaller tribes - Moi won. Moi represented an ethnic minority, the Kalenjin, that kept the Kikuyu out of power for many years. I am not sure if we are to assume the role of Moi as Vice President to Kenyatta was to appease the ethnic minority, but the Kikuyu's role as a benefiting elite was lost with Moi's succession.
Kenya's 36 million people are divided among more than 40 ethnic groups, each with its own identity, cultural traditions and practices, and separate language. The main groups are Kikuyu (22%), Luhya (14%), Luo (13%), Kalenjin (12%) and Kamba (11%), according to government figures. Now we see the colonial policy of "divide and conquer" lives on. The tradition of corruption in Kenyan politics continues and Kikuyu is pitted against the various ethnic groups. However, this is a created ethnic conflict in a country where ethnicity and politics are conjoined. Kenyatta was a Kikuyu elite created by the British colonialism, Moi was essentially a dictator for 30 years, and Kibaki undemocratically stole power and now for a second time. Instead of a conflict rooted in tribalism this conflict, "suggests that the undemocratic historical trajectory that Kenya has been moving along was launched at the inception of British colonial rule more than a century ago." What is most surprising is not that there is now an ethnic conflict in Kenya, but that it did not happen sooner.
Surprisingly, CNN acknowledged the roots of Kenya's ethnic political troubles. Neither candidate in Kenya's elections really represented the people or true democracy. Odinga's (Luo) Orange Democratic Movement was supported by Luhya and he promised to appoint a Luhya deputy if elected. Kibaki's government has had troubles and scandals dealing with corruption and graft since beginning in 2002. The BBC also gives a more accurate account of the conflict in Kenya. They suggest that the headlines talking of tribalism should better read: "Tribal differences in Kenya, normally accepted peacefully, are exploited by politicians hungry for power who can manipulate poverty-stricken population." But no one wants to read that. The main stream media has decided to final cover Africa as a front page story only because it provides a striking headline. As Kikuyu flee, the news wants to make Kenya out to be another Rwanda, but I wouldn't venture so far to say that it has become that terrible. This sentiment of violence influences writers at every level. One student writer can only focus on the violence in her article.
The US has condemned the violence in Kenya. "We condemn the violence that occurred in Kenya as its citizens await these election results, and call on all Kenyans to remain calm while the vote tabulation process is concluded," State Department spokesman Tom Casey said in a statement. The US would like to say how terrible it is that Kenyans have been denied democracy. However, I am not sure how we can claim to know democracy. Just as Kenyans, we too have never known real democracy in this two-party system full of government control and corruption. My swahili professor is from western Kenya, he is a Luo. The other day I asked him if his family was safe. He said they were, they had fled soon enough to miss the violence. I asked him about the history of ethnic favoring in Kenya and he said that it all started with Kenyatta. While this all goes on - colonial legacies of ethnic tension, stolen democracy, and a fear of continued turmoil, the US presidential primaries plug along. We as US citizens can only dream of democracy. While Obama, with Kenyan descent, gains popularity and primaries his family in Kenya watches. Will there be democracy gained anywhere? Will stolen votes bring conflict in the US too or maybe we do not have a knowledgeable enough electorate to protest.
From theWhen not in Africa. . . blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
