Timbuktu Institute – September 2024

Contrary to some analyses, the young Africans who cheered military juntas after the announcement of coups d'état were not rejecting democracy per se. They were expressing disillusionment, disappointment and frustration accumulated after years of struggle, sometimes at the cost of many lives, for precisely the rights granted by the democratic regime. In fact, there is no problem with democracy as a system of governance, but there is a misunderstanding of the sometimes Eurocentric democratic narrative, as well as, over the decades, a real problem of credibility of Western discourse on democracy in view of the inconsistencies, often due to repeated sacrifices of the democratic principle on the altar of so-called strategic, economic and other interests.

What's more, long before the wave of “democratization” in the 90s, a thousand and one promises of peace and development had been made to our countries through the application of structural adjustment policies. More than thirty years on, neither peace nor development have materialized. This disillusionment in a fast-changing geopolitical context, combined with poor governance and the wear and tear of a political elite out of touch with the aspirations of a “hyper-connected” youth facing the harsh realities of neoliberal globalization, has fuelled scepticism about the efficiency of the democratic model.

However, the latter has never been rejected per se, but there is an ardent desire to reinvent and, above all, endogenize a principle, a spirit that is certainly universal, but to which the various intelligible declensions could give substance and, above all, substance.

The democratic principle suffers from European-centric idealism, from the shortcomings of modern democracies and from the continuing deterioration in the state of democracy, which has not spared the African continent, with its attendant violations of human rights, restrictions on freedoms and so on. It is against this backdrop that military coups and autocratic regimes are emerging, fueled by populist rhetoric that goes so far as to extol anti-democratic models in an international environment where even so-called “modern” democracies are not spared the various shortcomings of neoliberalism, among other evils.

The beginnings of an awareness of the obstacles to democracy, and recognition of the shortcomings of the principle itself, have become essential elements in the reflection on the need to promote this mode of governance, despite the “unfavorable winds”, the culturalist approaches carried by a wind of populism sweeping across all continents and its globalized effects.

Breaking out of the European-centric idealism of “Western » representative democracy

It's true that in order to give democracy a “Western essence”, contrary to its universal scope, we often wrongly establish a filiation, a continuity between Athenian democracy and modern democracy, failing to recall that the founding fathers of modern democracy were opposed to democracy, like Plato, seeing it as a kind of ochlocracy, “government of the crowd, the multitude, the rabble”, a kind of “tyranny” or “dictatorship” of the majority: John Adams (vice-president of G. Washington's vice-president before becoming president of the United States, said that democracy “is an arbitrary, tyrannical, bloody, cruel and intolerable government”. Similarly, in France, eminent figures in the 1789 Revolution spoke of the “vices” and “follies” of democracy, which they associated with anarchy and despotism, rejecting it with horror as “the greatest of plagues”. The same rejection can be found among liberal thinkers of the early 19th century. B. Constant, A. de Tocqueville, and many others. It was only with the invention, in the mid-19th century, of “representative democracy”, as opposed to Athenian democracy (government of the people, by the people themselves), that the founders of “liberal democracy” came to embrace the democratic idea.

Admittedly, it's rather idealistic to talk of continuity between Athenian “direct democracy” and “Western representative democracy”, as we like to say. However, if there is continuity, it is at another level that is often overlooked: that of the beneficiaries and the excluded of democracy. Whether in ancient experiments with direct democracy, or in modern and contemporary forms, democracy is founded on the recognition of the equality and freedom of the members of political society, which Aristotle distinguished from “domestic society”, the latter being governed by inequality and the submission of inferiors to superiors: slaves to their masters, women to men, the small to the large, the “barbarians” to the “civilized”, and so on. From this point of view, democratic society can be defined as a society whose members are free and equal. Consequently, to take away one or both of these pillars is to doom it to extinction as such.

The big problem is that, in both its ancient and modern forms, it has been the privilege of a minority - the free men of Athens, the peoples of the colonial metropolises to the exclusion of “natives” and “slaves” before the formal recognition of civil rights and the right of peoples to self-determination.  It's important to recognize that democracy was born and flourished, until now, in contexts where the aspiration to freedom, equality and self-determination was a necessity for the population of a country, or part of it, because its vital needs were satisfied, if not by its own activity, then at least by the exploitation of other populations who were often, if not always, excluded from the benefits of democratic coexistence. This was the case in ancient Athens, where free men (around 15% of the population) were freed from the activities necessary to satisfy their basic needs, through the exploitation of slaves, women and metagods, or foreigners, working in crafts and trade.

Admitting the shortcomings of modern democracies

It's also a fact that some modern democracies only came into being thanks to the wealth accumulated through maritime discoveries, the large-scale practice of slavery, and the extermination or subjugation of Indo-Americans, the plundering of the wealth of colonized countries and continents, and the unequal exchange with countries escaping colonization or gaining independence after decades and centuries of colonial domination by countries enjoying democracy and financing it through the exploitation of the majority. The figures speak for themselves: 85% of the population of ancient Athens, almost 90% of the planet's population excluded from democracy and exploited by a minority of wealthy people in dominant countries for centuries. Today, according to reports published every two years by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA International), the proportion of the population actually enjoying democracy is lower than it was in ancient Athens. In 2014, 12.5% of the countries assessed were full democracies, 35.5% imperfect democracies, 14.4% hybrid regimes and 37.6% authoritarian regimes (See map below).

A steady deterioration in the state of democracy that has not spared Africa

The IDEA International report for 2015, published on March 5, 2016, highlights a sharp deterioration in the state of democracy worldwide. Most African countries are among the authoritarian or, at best, hybrid regimes. The situation is not improving. In 2020, for the fifth year running, the number of countries moving in the direction of authoritarianism exceeded the number of democratizing countries. Countries considered to be among the world's greatest democracies, such as Brazil and India, are experiencing a worrying backward slide in democracy. Countries such as the USA, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia are also experiencing democratic regression. Even in established democracies, genuinely elected governments are increasingly resorting to authoritarian methods. Often, these steps backwards for democracy meet with a degree of popular support. Reports on the state of democracy worldwide draw attention to the alarming trend in 2020, which saw the number of countries becoming increasingly autocratic reach an all-time high.

As part of this general trend, Africa is one of the continents where these setbacks are most worrying, with the progress made over the last three decades either stalling or falling back sharply.  Election results are often contested, sometimes with violence. Circumvention of the rule limiting the number of presidential terms (13 African countries amended or abolished constitutional provisions on presidential term limits between 2015 and 2020), resurgence of unconstitutional changes, repression of opposition parties and the populations that support them, and other distortions are all grounds for democratic disenchantment, particularly among young people, who make up 75% of the population of countries subject to the whims of gerontocracies worn down by decades of autocratic, authoritarian and corrupt power, deaf to the demands of society. These developments are at the root of the growing number of military interventions, or interventions supported by the army, such as in Algeria, Egypt, Sudan and Zimbabwe, or more recently in Mali, Chad and Burkina Faso.

Sometimes, these interventions are supported by the population, whose living conditions are worsening by the day: in 2020, 34 African countries (68%) were in the bottom quartile in terms of basic well-being. The army's intervention is seen as a means of breaking deadlocks, and is welcomed by a desperate population who no longer know which way to turn. Many young people, for whom all horizons are blocked, cheer military coups d'état and welcome interventions by the Wagner group, Russia, China, Turkey and other international or regional powers for whom democracy is the least of their worries. This is also the case for young people who, with no hope of finding a way out at home, do everything to leave, including risking their lives crossing the Sahara and then, when they do, attempting to cross to the other side of the Mediterranean, which has become Africa's largest cemetery, to the indifference of the barricaded European democracies; or by joining armed jihadist groups, for whom democracy and human rights are nothing more than the “modern-day heresies” they set out to eradicate.

Restriction of freedoms and persistent violation of human rights

In the shadow of these developments, freedoms in general, and freedom of expression in particular, are being curtailed in at least 29 countries. Human rights violations are multiplying. Violence against women is on the rise. Constitutional reforms have partly compromised the fight against gender inequality. Responsibility for this situation certainly lies with the authorities in the countries concerned ; but the major powers also bear a large share of the responsibility, whether because of a colonial past that has yet to be overcome, or because of neo-colonial policies based on authoritarian regimes and even corrupt dictatorships, and on financial institutions and the WTO to impose neo-liberal policies of structural readjustment, free movement of capital and goods, and social disengagement of the State, resulting in the rollback of public services in the fields of health, education, housing, transport, support for the most disadvantaged, and so on.

Awareness of the obstacles to democracy: grievances and criticisms of neoliberalism

It's difficult to have a credible discourse on democracy promotion without considering the effects of neoliberal globalization and its collusion with the various expressions of the conservative revolution that are developing, in different forms, all over the world: neoconservatives, the Tea Party and other supremacist movements in North America, far-right identity movements in Europe, Eurasists and National Orthodox in Russia and the countries of the former Soviet empire, ultra-nationalist and xenophobic Hinduism in India, Catholic fundamentalism and evangelical fundamentalism in cahoots with far-right parties in South America, Jewish extremism in Israel and Jewish diasporas, political Islam and Islamo-nationalist movements in Muslim countries and Africa, etc. Everywhere, it's “the double impasse of commercial and religious fundamentalisms attacking the universal”, as Sophie Bessis puts it.

One might think that, instead of promoting the generalization of economic and social progress and democracy, as promised and announced by its “prophets” and promoters, neoliberalism has contributed, everywhere, to the worsening of inequalities and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny minority (the richest 1% saw their share of income growth rise from 16% in 1980 to 27% in 2016, while the incomes of the poorest 50% stagnated at around 9%. According to the Observatoire des inégalités report published in September 2020, the richest 1% will hold almost half the world's wealth in 2020.) Politically, these developments have led to the weakening, even collapse, of the most fragile nation-states. Where we had expected democracy and the rule of law to triumph, we have witnessed ethnic cleansing, new genocides, the development of populism against a backdrop of religious and cultural wars, and a retreat into “murderous identities”, to use Amine Maalouf's expression, fostered by the questioning of the solidarity needed to reduce inequalities and the “misery of the world” incompatible with democratic coexistence.

Some, like Mohamed-Chérif Ferjani, even believe that in order to conceal the responsibility of neoliberal globalization for the decline of democracy, the search for scapegoats has been preferred, with talk of a “clash of civilizations” inherent in the hostility of certain cultures, or certain “rogue states”, towards democracy and the West. In an interview during the preparation of this report, he made some worrying observations. According to him, “in order to reduce these threats, and in the name of the war on terrorism, the powers presenting themselves as champions of the defense of civilization against barbarism, of democracy against dictatorship and totalitarianism, have given themselves the right to carry out interventions to supposedly establish democratic regimes and states governed by the rule of law, and to eliminate dictatorships that oppress their peoples and threaten the peace of neighboring countries and the world”. Everywhere, these interventions have led to the weakening, if not the collapse, of the targeted states, leaving the way clear for chaos and “war of all against all”, with its attendant human rights violations, misery and the displacement of millions of people fleeing the atrocities of terrorist groups vying for power, as in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia and vast areas of several African countries, to name but a few. These interventions and their consequences are not unrelated to the decline of democracy in the regions and countries concerned.