“There is nothing more dangerous than to build a society with a large segment of people in that society who feel that they have no stake in it; who feel that they have nothing to lose. People who have a stake in their society, protect that society, but when they don’t have it, they unconsciously want to destroy it.” – Martin Luther King Jr.
As a Kenyan, every time I watch our chaotic, polarising, sometimes farcical elections, which usually end up with the same cast of politicians with their tired approaches to development in charge. I ask the same question, I saw in a newspaper cartoon, several years ago. Is democracy bad for Africa or are Africans bad for democracy?
The more I ponder the question the more I realise that the answer is neither, but rather if African democracy is flawed, it is because it isn’t African enough. In a previous post, I wrote about how the argument that democracy does not deliver development is wrong, and that we need to think of democracy as not just elections, but broad and continuous participation in governance by citizens. In this post, I want to address the first part of that argument. Elections are not democracy, but they crucial pillar of democracy, the ultimate decision-makers in our governments are chosen through this process. If Africa is to develop and craft courageous new policy approaches to the challenges of the 21st Century it must solve its leadership problem, and that starts with elections.
Changing how we vote and what we vote for may not only help make African democracy more relevant to the African context but by making representation more diverse we can elect the leadership we need and ensure that all Africans feel like they have a stake in their democracies. Many African states have focused on reforms to other parts of the democratic infrastructure such as separation of powers, an independent judiciary and devolving power away from central authorities. These areas of reform are vitally important and must continue, however, if we do not address our electoral infrastructure the whole democratic system will be fundamentally weak and susceptible to the strongmen, dictators, and tyrants that we need to consign to the dustbin of history.
The problem with African elections
Liberal democracy has its roots in the history of the West. The Athenian idea was that citizens (men at the time) should elect their leaders. The innovation of the Romans separated and limited the powers of the leaders to prevent tyranny. The Magna Carta of England made the king a subject of the law rather than the other way around, and so on. The history of the West is in the DNA of democracy and it is a system which Africa inherited as it shed colonialism and that was pushed by the western powers in the 1990s as many African states were encouraged to make democratic reforms. And, many did so, holding elections to determine who will be running the country.
The problem is, that history and the type of elections they bequeathed, namely winner take all elections are not entirely relevant to African states. Winner takes all elections have a number of negative impacts.
First off because only one man can win (it is unfortunately usually a man) the stakes are so high that people are willing to do anything to win. This usually involves having to raise outrageous amounts of money to run a campaign and then having to make that money back while in office it’s a recipe for corruption. Or employing underhanded tactics such as rigging, voter and opposition intimidation, spreading fake news and refusing to accept the results of elections, fundamentally undermining the system to invalidate their opponents’ victory. Winner takes all elections also tend to leave behind a feeling of division and resentment in ethnically diverse societies. When the candidate you support loses, in societies where voting blocs are often based on identity such as ethnicity or religion you feel like your tribe or clan has lost, leaving you feeling marginalised and much more susceptible to radicalism and open to drastic solutions, such as supporting the overthrow of the government you do not feel a part of.
African countries spend a lot of money on elections trying to ensure they are free and fair, which is all good and well until those expensive elections breed division, corruption and rigging. This isn’t an argument to stop holding elections, rather its an argument to reform elections and electoral systems with more creativity and shaped to the African context.
Changing how we vote – One man one vote, with a twist
Elections are based on a simple principle, that every citizen has a right to decide who runs their country. In most African electoral systems, you only vote for one person, and your vote is counted once. This need not be the case, in democracies such as Australia and Ireland they employ ranked or preference voting systems. Which not only considers the choice of the voter but also their preferences about all the candidates, by having ballots where citizens rank the candidates in order of preference. Thus, not only is your vote cast for your preferred candidate, your preferences live on even if your first choice is not a front-runner.
A simple example of this is to imagine a race for a member of parliament (MP) where there are four candidates. Candidate A wins 40% of the vote, Candidate B 30%, Candidate C 20% and Candidate D 10%. In a first past the post system, which most African countries employ, the candidate with 40% of the vote would become the MP, but 60% of people didn’t vote for them, leaving you with a democratic problem. Does the candidate represent a broad enough cross-section of his constituents? In a ranked voting system, after the first round of counting the candidate who won 10% would be eliminated as there is no mathematical possibility of them winning, but the votes would live on, through whomever the voters have chosen as their second choice. Thus, if half of candidate D’s voter’s choose Candidate C and the other half Candidate B it would now be 40% 35% and C 25%. In the third round of counting you eliminate Candidate C and if his voters express a third preference that is 80% for Candidate B and 20% for Candidate A. They would respectively have 60% and 45% of the vote and Candidate B would be the winner, because more voters expressed a preference for that candidate over the other candidate.
Meaning that to win elections candidates would have to appeal to all voters rather than just a simple plurality. Furthermore, cynical strategies like trying to divide the opposition vote by backing spoiler candidates would backfire as those votes could still eventually count against them. Most important a ranked voting system gives the voters a greater voice and ensures better representation as the candidate who is preferred by the most voters would win, rather than the cleverest campaigner.
Changing whom we vote for – ending marginalisation
As spoken about earlier the diverse nature of African societies, means that marginalisation is not only a possibility it is an unfortunate reality in far too many African states. Minority groups find themselves either completely locked out of the political process or having to become junior partners to larger groups in some form of coalition. This is due to the combination of a first past the post electoral system and single-seat constituencies, where a constituency or district is represented by only one person. There is no reason why this must be the case, why should representation be limited to one specific form, in Germany and Lesotho they employ what is called mixed member proportional representation. Where people cast 2 votes one for a candidate to represent a constituency another for a party that they feel best represents your views. Parties that achieve a minimum number of votes nationally (at least 5% in Germany) get a seat in parliament in proportion to the votes they have received. This allows voters to elect who they think will represent their community best, as well as who they think would do best nationally. In addition, it means that small parties, the ones that represent minority interests, the ones who may not be able to win an individual seat, but can get a share of the national vote are represented and can ensure that those minority voices, which may have been marginalised previously are heard.
Mixed member proportional representation is a way of trying to ensure that representation is as diverse and representative as possible, that the concerns of the big groups do not drown out the concerns and interests of minority groups.
Publicly funding candidates
It is not just enough to change how we vote and what we vote for. To get the kind of responsible leadership we need, we need to give the candidates without the ability to raise huge amounts of campaign cash the opportunity to put their case to the people and that means funding. Some countries on the continent have tried some form public funding for party’s policy in an effort to make political parties less susceptible to corruption. This hasn’t really worked as parties are happy to take whatever cash they can get their hands on, legitimate or otherwise, while candidates who aren’t willing to play the dirty cash game are unable to afford to campaign are either discouraged from running, or get drowned out by their better-funded opponents. Having a pool of public funds which candidates, who meet certain criteria – such as committing to publicly disclose all non-public funding that they receive – can receive would give them the ability to put their case to the public. And it would give the public a choice. Money talks, especially in elections, and should give everyone a voice.
Africanising elections
Prior to colonialism and its practice of centralising power in the state and its chosen representatives, many African societies had consensus seeking, conciliatory methods of exercising power. Chiefs and king (where they existed) were generally not tyrannical autocrats, they were constrained by, and had to listen to their people through various mechanisms (such as Botswana’s Kgotla). Rather than doing away with democracy or allowing its continual erosion on the continent we should instead be looking to strengthen it. Draw upon our socio-cultural history of responsive people-based leadership to inspire an Africanisation of democracy, to make it more relevant and effective on the continent. Doing this requires addressing the issue at the heart of democracy, elections.
The winner takes all, money-fuelled, to-the-death contest that elections have become on much of the continent is problematic as it deepens divisions within society and feeds the cycle of bad leadership on the continent. The three mechanisms suggested here, could have the effect of making every individual vote more meaningful, make elections more inclusive and give candidates from outside the tired mainstream a viable chance to win.
Elections may not be seen by many as a development policy issue, however, I believe it is. It is through elections that we have perpetuated the cycle of bad leadership, that has led to ineffective and counterproductive policy and development outcomes. I have previously written on Africa’s leadership problem and the need for citizens to take more responsibility for and elect and support the right type of leaders. But in order to do so they must have the electoral tools available for them to do so, ranked voting, mixed member proportional representation and publicly funded candidates are tools that not only put more control in the hands of the voting public but also enable diminish the incentives to vote for the devils we know and increase the incentives for a new type of politician to run.
Democracy and elections are loud and passionate, and that is because important things are at stake. Africanising elections means making them more relevant to voters by tailoring them to the societies and realities we actually live in rather than 18th century Britain and America. Better, more relevant, and African tailored electoral systems could mean, better leadership and accountability, which will mean better policy and developmental outcomes, its something worth trying.