Trending and Contending Dynamics of Africa’s Underdevelopment: The Issue of Models of Governance

Bola A. Akinterinwa 

Various reasons have always been adduced to explain Africa’s slow development since 1960 by scholars and political observers. One major dynamic has been the colonial and neo-colonial factors. It is often argued that the foundation for Africa’s underdevelopment or slow development was laid in 1885 when Africa was partitioned into zones of influence without due regard to ethnic populations and their international borders. While the proponents of this argument cannot be faulted, another school of thought has it that the period from 1885 to date is enough time for African leaders to have also shown statesmanship and competence in delivering Africa and its people from the shackles of colonialism. 

And true enough, African leaders have been making strenuous efforts to liberate Africa from foreign domination. It was against this background that the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) was established in 1963, why the Lagos Plan of Action was adopted in 1980, why the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) was set up in 1975 and also why the 1991 Abuja Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community redefined Africa, no more as a region in the mania of the United Nations, but in the mania of the OAU. The treaty divided Africa into five regions for the main purpose of fast tracking integration and economic development. 

When it appeared that all the efforts being made could not liberate Africa from economic enslavement, the OAU was transformed into an African Union in 2000 in response to the perceived challenges of the new century. This transformation, again, does not appear to be an effective antidote to the colonial mainmise. Re-colonisation has become another trending question: why political sovereignty but economic enslavement? Why are some Third World countries able to throw away the colonial shackles into the garbage of history and African countries cannot?

Africa’s Non-development: Dynamics and Approaches

In an attempt to respond to the challenges of Africa’s non-development, several academic institutions and professional bodies have and are still taking different initiatives to nip the challenges in the bud. The Achievers University, Owo is particularly noted for seeking to use international relations as an instrument of economic growth and development, not tin the mania of fostering foreign direct investments and promotion of foreign trade, but in teaching how to address the intrigues that often inform international diplomacy. 

The Achievers University has put in place two programmes for teaching, training in diplomatic practice, and in culture and language proficiency in the strong belief that international life is largely governed by diplomacy, language and culture. These factors, it is believed, can shape the attitudinal disposition towards international economic governance. 

Put differently, in the eyes of the university, Africa’s non-development status is largely a resultant of poor attitude that can be polished at the level of history and historiography of Africa’s economic problems. If the Achievers University commences the programme in its next academic session, especially in collaboration with other African diplomatic institutions, there is no disputing the fact that international relations can be effectively used to grow the economy and guide governance at the national level.

In the same vein, student bodies have not been left out in the quest for liberation of Africa from economic underdevelopment. On Friday, 20th September, 2024 the Department of History and International Studies (the Master in International Relations and Strategic Studies) of the Lagos State University held its maiden annual symposium at the Okunuga Hall at the Faculty of Law. There were three lead speakers. The first speaker, Professor Bola A. Akinterinwa, spoke on “Contending Issues in African Economic Development: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives.’ Professor Akinterinwa differentiated between the historical and historiographic issues and noted that the dynamics of Africa’s economic challenges since the time of political independence have remained constant. Africa had political independence but never economic independence.

Professor Abolade Adeniji of the Department of History and International Studies of the LASU spoke on the “Travails of Democratic Governance and the Resurgence of Praetorian Rule in Africa. He considered the resurgence of military in power as a major travail in democratic governance. The military coups in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger prompted the ECOWAS to declare its policy of zero tolerance for unconstitutional change of government. The coupists vehemently rejected the ECOWAS policy with the support of their people. The rejection led to their giving notice of their membership withdrawal from the ECOWAS.

The third speaker, Professor Ibrahim Olateju, Dean of the Post Graduate School, also spoke on African Economic Development and underscored the need for the policy of self-reliancism, especially at the individual level. He strongly believed that self-reliance could go a very long way in preventing the shedding the tears of poverty and unhappiness. Why depend on electricity supply from the government when the opportunities are there to be taken advantage of, he asked.

Without any jot of doubt, the three papers generated much interest and questions. Dr Faruq I. Boge, the coordinator of the Master in International Relations and Strategic Studies (MIRSS) and Professor Olusegun Adeyeri, the Head of Department of History and International Studies, who moderated the discussion session, were all agreed on the need for Africa to take the issue of development setbacks in Africa more seriously.

What is noteworthy about the symposium, particularly from the many questions raised by the graduating students is the increasing interest in international relations, not simply as education but as an instrument of economic growth and development. From the perspective of the list of graduating students, there was a reflection of ethnic spread, and therefore of national unity. Of the 27 graduating students, six of them are Igbo, representing 22.22%. They include Maduekwe Odinaka, Tony Manuaka, Nkpa Helen, and Nwosu Joseph.

The Yoruba ethnic group accounts for more than 50% with 17 graduating students.  George Akaa from the Taraba State is carrying the flag of the people of Taraba. The same is true of Ekpo Samuel from Akwa Ibom. As international relations always have their domestic foundations, the LASU and other tertiary institutions ought to make greater efforts to redirect their admission drive towards other states of Nigeria. By so doing, national cohesion can become a unifying factor of national unity and which cannot but complement the NYSC scheme as an instrument of national integration. 

In this regard, how does the understanding and interest in international relations help to douse the tension being raised by the trending and contending dynamics of Africa’s under- development? How can it stop the colonial foundations of economic development from being further strengthened in Africa? For instance, can there be a replacement to the Bretton Woods institutions? Can the BRICS’ new approach of creating parallel institutions serve as an antidote to the International Monetary Fund and to the World Bank? Can there be a United Nations of African and black people of the world to coexist with the New York-based United Nations? Is it possible to alter the present structure of global governance? 

At the African domestic level, can population be an impediment to economic development? Is Nigeria’s big population an obstacle to good governance or to the political system put in place? These questions are necessary because it is increasingly being argued that democracy has become a major obstacle to development? Is it democracy as a system of government that is the problem or the mania of conduct and management of democracy? In fact, it is at times argued that the per capita income of the average African is unnecessarily low and therefore that the population of Africa should be cut down? In many advanced countries, complaints against uncontrolled birth rate of immigrants abound. Apart from this, there are the issues of soaring indebtedness, unending loan-taking, export marginalisation and trade barriers, institutional corruption, energy paucity and bad governance that has compelled self-exportation, not to use the new concept of ‘japa-ing’. While debts are growing and becoming riskier and the debt service is also galloping, on the one hand, Africa is also increasingly being entrapped internationally. For instance the debts of the Least Developing Countries (LDCs) and the debt service between 2011 and 2019 tripled to $33 billion. The debt service was put at $43 billion in 2022

Perhaps more disturbingly, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) noted on 4th April, 2022 that about 1.1 billion people were not only challenged by under- development in the LDCs but were also increasing in number. There were 25 countries in the LDC group as at 1971. The number increased to 52 in 1991. The number is reduced to 46 as at today, implying that only six countries have succeeded to do away with the challenge of underdevelopment. Africa is still largely commodity dependent and therefore cannot but be export marginalised. Majority of people in Africa still lack electricity supply. The same is true of access to potable water. Africa is largely suffering from the impact of global warming for which the advanced industrial are largely responsible. Africa’s policy of zero tolerance for unconstitutional change of government has become meaningless as praetorian rule has become the new order. It is against this background that there have been calls for a review of liberal democracy in Nigeria.

African Models of Governance: Quo Vadis 

On May 14, 2024 Chief Olusegun Obasanjo was quoted as saying that mistake was made in Nigeria for adopting the western liberal democracy. On 22 May 2024 he again reportedly said that Africa must re-examine the democracy inherited from the West during the Summit on the “State of Democracy in Africa,” organised by the Olusegun Obasanjo Presidential Library and held at the Yar’Adua Centre in Abuja, FCT. 

In the words of Chief Obasanjo, when he met with the members of the House of Representatives who were seeking to reintroduce the parliamentary system, at the Yar’Adua Centre, we should ‘go back to the beginning where we got it wrong – the western liberal democracy that is what the Europeans have. When you look at the western liberal democracy, it is a product of their culture, a product of their way of life’ (vide Bakare Majeed, “We Made Mistake adopting Western Liberal Democracy – Obasanjo,” Premium Times, May 14, 2024).

Additionally, Chief Obasanjo said he had ‘looked into most African languages, western democracy has what they call loyal opposition. What is opposition? What is opposition in African languages? Enemy. Western democracies called oppositions ‘loyal’ because the oppositions are loyal to the monarchy. That’s where their loyal democracy began. They used to have monarchies. There is nothing in the liberal democracy that is African. We ruled ourselves before the advent of colonialism. We had empires and striving kingdoms. We did not rule ourselves as opposition.’

In this case, the point of emphasis is the extent of understanding of loyalty and opposition in the context of the western world and in the context of Africa. ‘Loyalty,’ and particularly ‘opposition’ in the United Kingdom, for example, does not mean enemy as it is taken in Africa. An enemy in Africa is normally fought tooth and nail until extinction. 

This appears to be the main concern of Chief Obasanjo. Professor Akinyemi agrees with this conception of loyalty and opposition politics as obtained in Western Europe but, in terms of the extent of usefulness of the liberal democracy itself, Professor Akinyemi argues that there is the need to investigate the factor of multiparty politics in the quest for political stability, economic prosperity, and good governance.

On the occasion of the 200th edition of his ThruMyeyes programme held on Thursday, 19th September 2024, a special symposium was convened by Professor Akinwande Akinyemi to review Africa’s Governance Models, identify their features and challenges, as well as suggest possible way forward in commemoration of the occasion. There were four lead discussants: former Chief of Air Force of Ghana and Executive Director of the Gulf of Guinea Maritime Institute, Air Vice Marshall Frank Hansen, Professor Bola A. Akinterinwa of the Achievers University, Owo, Ambassador Godknows Igali, Nigeria’s plenipotentiary to the Scandinavian countries, and Professor Adewunmi Falode who spoke differently and well on the theme: “Africa’s Governance Models” well. 

In the words of the AVM, ‘for the last 60, 70 years, post-colonial Africa, we have been deliberating between whether democracy, civilian-led governance, military governance, or a hybrid of both has served the continent well… The 1980s have really been what other experts have described as the most difficult war period.’ In the context of choice, he said ‘democracy would be the ultimate model that, as states in assault bridge, especially in West Africa, would be the possible and the most convenient.’

AVM Hansen admitted that democracy has its own challenges but they must be overcome. He posited further that ‘even with the advanced democracies, all went through very serious problems. So when it comes to the models that we are seeing today, if we are to go by the kind of political system we have, especially the role of the judiciary, the independence of the parliamentarian senators… we should stick to that model. Any attempt to change these models with military rule could foster disaster for the kind of stability we are looking for, because we have a long list of others who contribute.’ In essence, he argued that the military should be the bastion of democracy and should not be part of politics. ‘The best military that supports political objectives is what will give a solid model to ensuring that our democracy endures,’ he said.

And most importantly, the AVM is opposed to two political system as the parties cannot but have conflicting interests. To ensure the full participation of the citizens, he advocated that the political processes, especially elections, ‘should be programmed and arranged in a manner that the full participation of the citizenry, information management, misinformation, especially are properly aligned with the political processes.’ 

Professor Akinterinwa, in his presentation, explained that democracy has its variants, such as direct and indirect democracy. Besides, governance models are largely explained by ‘power’ and ‘system.’ Democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, colonialism, theocracy, etc. are all about power. He noted that Nigeria combines many of the models in such a way that it is difficult to identify a model peculiar to Nigeria. More important, he said that democracy, per se, is not the problem in Nigeria but how democracy is perceived. In Nigeria, religion leaders impact on political governance, so do the military continue to impact on governance. Nigeria currently plays host to civilianised military and ‘militarian’ or militarised civilians in the governance of Nigeria. 

This partly explains why General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida wanted to be addressed as a President and not simply as a Head of Government. This also probably explains why  General Olusegun Obasanjo prefers to be addressed as a ‘chief’ rather than as a General and why Muhammadu Buhari rightly prefers ‘president’ as his title. In other words, the civilians now behave the military way. This is largely responsible for political chicanery and societal indiscipline. 

In terms of choice of model, Professor Akinterinwa, said whatever is the choice by anyone of us, a common impediment to growing democracy in Nigeria is the penchant for electoral fraud. To engage in electoral fraud is not seen as a big deal in Nigeria. Consequently he suggested the re-adoption of Option A-4 Voting System as introduced by Professor Humphrey Nwosu when he was the Chairman of the National Electoral Commission in 1993. Option A-4 System is an open system of voting and counting at the polling unit. The most critical and interesting point about it is that the option allows for transparency and inhibits election rigging, ballot snuffing and theft of ballot boxes. All Nigerian political parties engage in election rigging but only accuse one another when they are outsmarted. Ambassador Igali recalled the case of President Nyerere of Tanzania who opposed the Westminster system of government and its shadow government and how he told the British that the meaning of an opposition leader in his own local language was synonymous with an enemy. He therefore suggested a system without anyone opposing an elected leader to reflect the African character. Kwame Nkrumah also called for a true African system. He therefore suggested the need to continue to researching on the best model. He identified lack of good leadership and holding of elections as wars as major issues in the governance models. As a way forward, he recommended the implementation of the AU Agenda 2063 placing emphasis on agriculture, promoting intra-African cooperation, and strengthening the private-sector led economy, as well as bearing in mind the need to sustain regional integration. 

In the eyes of Professor Adewunmi Falode, ‘democracy is still the best option for Africa, but it must be a democracy that takes into account Africa’s unique and peculiar developmental processes. That is the only kind of democracy that will work.’ In this regard, he divided democracy into benign and assertive and opted for assertive democracy. Benign democracy is what is practiced in Western Europe, particularly in Europe and the United States. It is procedural and substantive. It works well for them because it underscores nation-building and because it is organic. On the contrary, assertive democracy necessarily combines procedural democracy with the ‘cult of personality,’ that is, a strong leader capable of driving the necessary changes to build the state. Professor Falode identified the dynamics of a successful assertive democracy as an open-ended term limit, election of strong leaders, a strong central government and suspension of some civil liberties. 

The general discussion was quite interesting. Ambassador Lewu noted some problems of impunity and nepotism in the governance of Africa and therefore suggesting the need to borrow from the Scandinavian-style plebiscite or autonomous systems. He also suggested the need for strong institutions and civil society organisations and the establishment of a committees to recommend models for African countries.

While the need for governance models, driven by African culture and learning from the Indian experience, was suggested by Mr Ismail Lawal, Professor Akinyemi expatiated on President Nyerere’s opposition to the Westminster system of government earlier on raised by Ambassador Godknows Igali. Professor Akinyemi said that pluralism in Africa is largely based on ethnic nationalities and not based on party pluralism. In Africa, everyone was allowed to air his or her opinion without seeing it as a right. The views expressed by the people are then debated and consensus reached. But most unfortunately, the colonialists often imposed their own decisions and by so doing destroying the people’s consensus. Basing pluralism on ethnic nationalities present can present major problems if the ethnic nationalities are allowed to be concretised into an opposition to government. When an ethnic group is not represented in government, the group is necessarily excluded from government, meaning it cannot participate in democracy. This is not ideal. As a possible way out, he advocated a one-party system in which the various sectors of the polity (trade unions, military, students, etc.) will be involved in decision-making processes. He underscored the need for consensus building in African governance models, especially to contain unnecessary ethnic divisions in politics. Thus no one is opposed to democracy but differences exist on its modus operandi. Democracy in the mania of Africa remains the definiendum.