During the Cold War, democratic movements in Sub-Saharan Africa were suppressed by the authoritarian governments. These governments were supported by the forces of East or West. After the Cold War, as a condition of economic aid, the Western donors demanded “democratization.” Without aid, most of the authoritarian leaders could not cling to office anymore, so some leaders accepted the democratization, and others were ousted by the antigovernment forces.
The transition to democracy did not foster the consolidation of democracy. Some countries plunged into the internal wars. Other countries could establish new governments by the multi-party poll, but these new governments imitated their predecessors, became authoritarian regimes and suppressed the opposition in order to cling to office.
Why is the consolidation of democracy so difficult in Africa? Many researchers have explained the reasons as “ethnic politics.” They say that the introduction of a multi-party system to ethnically divided societies in Africa results in the creation of “ethnic” parties, and these parties are opposed to each other ethnically. Confrontation between ethnic parties causes ethnic conflict. This explanation seems to criticize the ethnic “identity” of African people.
Ethnic identity does not cause the ethnic conflict immediately. Many ethnic conflicts have been caused not by ethnic politics but by resource competition and power politics. The “haves, ” regardless of ethnicity and religion, fight each other over the resources. They use “ethnic” identity to mobilize their people, and ethnic identity changes into ethnic nationalism. It is “haves not” who fight and kill each other under the name of ethnic nationalism. “Haves” are not in the battlefield.
The introduction of democracy, which means “participation and opposition” (R. Dahl's “polyarcy”), gives the disenfranchised groups excuse to protest to the government. Without establishing new rules to avoid the predictable “ethnic” and “religious” conflicts, democratization of the authoritarian state, which maintains the legacies of colonial rule, has faced objections raised both by the group which wants to preserve the vested interests and by the group which demands the redistribution of the power. “Impoverishment” of people by economic deterioration makes it easier to mobilize poor people to fight for the elites' interests. The state system will collapse, and internal conflict will start under the name of ethnicity or religion.
Nigeria had been an authoritarian state and maintains colonial legacy. Because it did not make rules to prevent conflicts before the transition to the Fourth Republic in 1999, Nigeria met the 2000 Sharia conflict and the Niger Delta armed uprising. These uprisings could have been foreseen before the establishment of democratic government.
From the study of Nigeria, we learn that, in order to successfully democratize in Africa, the colonial legacy must be thrown away and the rules which will avoid the future conflicts should be established before any multi-party poll.
For the Nigerian government, we recommend two points. One is to protect human rights. The other is to improve the circumstances of people. Redistribution of resources is needed with global cooperation.
抄録全体を表示