In the situation where voting comes with a PRICE in most countries in Africa where poverty is the order of the day. People vote based on who is able to spend more at the election day or pre- election day. Therefore, election does not truly guarantee good governance as credence of true democracy is worn out.

Another issue is how much does the people understand election as a tool to transform a society from backwardness to a more developed state.

Therefore everything boils down to awareness and advocacy.

It's important to distinguish between representative and direct democracy. In Africa where the citizens are less educated and good information on their representatives is hard to come by (it's even hard here in the U.S.) it will prove difficult for them to make good choices on their representatives and easy for corrupt ones to trick them - even as it is here in the U.S.

The only viable solution is I think to switch from representative democracy to direct democracy, and allow the people themselves to vote on major bills and decisions, with representatives deciding matters of less import on day-to-day governance. It is much harder to corrupt a people than a few representatives. There are of course challenges in keeping the voting system itself transparent and accountable then, but not challenges that cannot be overcome.

All African nations should get their nationals identities through the issuance on National Identification Cards. Africans should get registered and also vote with this. It is easier knowing the population that is eligible to vote and those that are not. It is easier to identify underage voters,non citizens, and to prevent other electoral malpractices through national ID Cards than any other means.

Voting in an election is just one of the primary activities in governance. Even in a dictatorial type of government people do vote. It becomes a factor for democracy only when it is followed by well established checks and balances. For instance, in most of the democracies, be it in Africa or else where, non-existence or the existence of unfunctional institutions [i.e. judiciary, legislature, impartial police and army, free and impartial civil society] meant to check adherence to democractic principles, waterdown the importance of voting in a democracy. Therefore, it is true that voting can be used to legitimise oppression/dictatorship or uphold democracy depending on the existence and proper functionality of institutions required to uphold democracy.

The research question and objectives of your project is very interesting. I wish you all the best in this regard. However, i find your "point of departure" or thesis a bit puzzling. In the last sentence, Wellington posits that "voting is basically an instrument of oppression and perpetuation of dictatorship in Africa and Zimbabwe". In trying to find the answers to this puzzle the contributors above, have also indicated plausible explanations for the occurrences of the latter phenomenon in Africa. In my opinion, it is the same song. Africans "were told, and accepted, that our 'poverty was caused by our poverty' in the now famous theory of the 'vicious circle of poverty' and we went round in circles seeking ways and means of breaking that circle'. I agree with the contributor from Mexico "Eduardo" that " In my opinion, many African countries experience the Latin American political situation, where we think that we are "democracies" just by exercising the voting process". Of course, "there is no other explanation to the fact that practically the whole of the underdeveloped world has been colonised either directly or indirectly by western powers". Are they not underdeveloped (politically, economically, etc) , now because of five Centuries of slavery and over a century of colonial rule?

At the time of the conquest of Northern Africa [by the muslims], some merchants penetrated into the western part of the land of the Blacks and found among them no King more powerful than the King of Ghana. His States extended westward to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean. Ghana, the Capital of this strong, populous nation, was made up of two towns separated by the Niger River, and formed one of the greatest and best populated cities of the world

"Before even the British came into relations with our people, we were a developed people, having our own institutions, having our own ideas of government"...

J.E Casely- Hayford, 1922 (African Nationalist).

Despite elections in Africa, democracy seems elusive. How can voting contribute to development of democracy and good governance?

Africanists have pointed out that , even in advanced democracies, it is no where perfect. For example, after the general election of 1996 in the US, the Democratic and Republican parties each accused the other of voter fraud by the misuse of absentee ballots in Louisiana and voting bu non-citizens in California. Compared to the Ghanaian situation, there are also suspicions that people from the neighbouring country Togo, do participate in Ghanaian Elections due to their ethnic affiliation with some (ewe) Ghanaians. Hence, this phenomena is not unsual. Developing countries do not have a monopoly on electoral fraud and corruption and the perpetuation of inequality and poverty.

As rightly noted by a leading Scholar on African Politics, the question is "whether a country's institutions- both governmental and non- governmental- are well established and impartial enough to give the populace confidence that the instances of fraud are the exception rather than the rule, and that they can be corrected.

Having lived in Africa, 5 trips to Zimbabwe over the years, and now seeing the flaws of Western government I see the problem is that democracy is not actually happening anywhere. Western governments are corporations who answer to big business and make sure the police and legal system also answers to them. Hidden bureaucrats with not so hidden agendas who work hand in hand with big media make sure their 'yes' men and women are elected. How is that democratic that the masses are then media herded to voting for the puppets?

Tribal people used to self govern within their own society and community. Personal integrity, honour, responsibility, loyalty and good will has gone out of the door as we are taught a dangerous way of abdicating our power to others. The West could learn how to govern, govern not rule, as the African tribes people would (or any long surviving traditional society for that matter). Short term financial gain and power mongering will see the destruction of man and to call it democratic is a joke.

Politicians often diverge from their constituents' preferences. Thus, democracy alone may not be sufficient to achieve economic and social development. Along with more democracy, other institutional changes are required. In particular, constraints on the executive and improvements in the rule of law are likely to lead to better outcomes as suggested by

- Rodrik, D.; Subramanian, A. & Trebbi, F. (2004), 'Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions Over Geography and Integration in Economic Development', Journal of Economic Growth 9, 131-165.

Such institutional changes and improvements would make it also more likely that politicians commit to electoral promises towards their constituents.

Well, Drowning in a sea of troubles ... Too many Third World countries are still stuck producing primary commodities, unable to move into the more profitable area of processing and manufacturing. This leaves them prey to commodity speculation thousands of miles away, unable to plan from one year to the next. They could break out of the trap and realise the potential of trade {and not only issues of democracy and voting} -- that is if only rich countries do not club together to prevent them.

Qouted from the NEW INTERNATIONALIST (Feb., 1990).

The problem with democracy is that we equate any kind of election as election. It is very rare to find free and fair elections anywhere in Africa. Elections are either bought straight away or rigged. In the end the result is hardly the choice or preference of the electorate. These sort of elections cannot produce or sustain democracies. So the problem for democracies in African is fraudulent elections. We should not mix the two. Genuine elections are necessary conditions for democracy while fraudulent elections are necessary for dictatorships and bad governance.

Hmmm, but even in advanced political systems, democracy is not perfect. There are numerous examples to support this assumption. Moreover voter fraud is not unusual anywhere in the world of politics. And developing countries do not have a monopoly on electoral fraud and corruption, check the facts well......

As Mahmud says, genuine elections are necessary but not sufficient for democracy. I think that the absence of genuine elections is a symptom, not a cause, of lack of democracy. In much of Africa, as Howes says, there used to be tribal self-governance. But that system of governance does not scale up. For one thing, It is based on everyone knowing everyone else. In the biblical book of Exodus, Moses is taught by his father-in-law (who was black!) to delegate judicial authority because there are too many Israelites for Moses to be the sole arbiter. Scaling up is why a formal rule of law seems necessary for countries to have a fair system of governance.

It is not true that free elections do not occur in dicatorships. Hitler received the overwhelming majority of votes in two or three elections during the 1930s, after he had seized power in Germany. Much historical evidence points to people truly voting in secret and to an accurate tally of the votes.

"Modern conceptions of causality have their origins in David Hume's analysis which replaces the necessary connection of events with a mere constant conjunction. Hence, empirical relationships are contingent and not necessarily true. Moreover, even without a concept of necessary connection to direct us toward final or ultimate causes, we then can distinguish between sound empirical and spurious relationships... hmmmm this probably will have to take us to the methods used for such Analysis........

Following the arguments of the renowned political scientist, Alan C. Isaak , the nature of political Analysis, prefers to be logically safe in "assuming that the discovery of necessary conditions is as rare an occurrence as the discovery of sufficient conditions. It is even rarer to identify a condition (A) which is both necessary and sufficient; for if we do, we have in effect found the one and only 'cause' of (B). Remember that a necessary condition need not be sufficient".....

Wow the Philosophy of Science.........

Hi Wellington,

Your statement, “voting is basically an instrument of oppression and perpetuation of dictatorship” misses the point of voting as well as its contribution to creating democratic lands. The very act of voting – even if the wrong people are elected – is a necessary part of evolving from an oppressed people (subject to dictators and military juntas) to people who have a say in electing their leaders. Think of it as a society discontinuing arranged marriages and letting individuals choose whom they will marry. Sure, individuals will make mistakes in choosing their mates – so what? They can divorce and marry again and keep doing it until they get it right (or become too old to care).

You would never say that freedom of choice is “basically an instrument of oppression and perpetuation of bad marriages” – would you? No, one separates the ability to choose from the fact that a bad choice (of spouses or whatever) is made. It is indeed the rare individual that would determine on the basis of a few bad choices (or many bad choices) that the ability to choose is at fault. Keep in mind that the ability to choose entails the ability to make poor choices. So what if Africans keep electing duds; at least these are duds that they have chosen, rather than duds that have been foisted upon them.

I still have the ballot from the first vote in South Africa after Apartheid; it contains pictures of the candidates so that illiterate voters could choose their candidates and participate in this declaration of freedom from white supremacy. However, the candidates (and there were many of them) didn’t matter. What mattered was that Black Africans were voting – exercising a right that had been wrongfully denied to them during all the years of Apartheid. And, of course they must keep exercising that right – the franchise is what determines whether a land is a democratic land, not the faults of the leaders elected (assuming that an honest election was held).

Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.

Gwen

I really do not see why "voting is basically and instrument of oppression and perpetuation of dictatorship". The possibility of voting insures that politicians have to be more responsive to constituents' needs and wishes.

There are many reasons provided in the economic and political science literature how voting and democracy contribute to long run development. In a recent and short contribution we ourselves show that voters elect mainly politicians who closely matched their preferences (see attachment). Thus, even if people sometimes elect the wrong politicians, there is clear evidence that they choose politicians who correspond well to their preferences.

Article Voters Elect Politicians Who Closely Matched Their Preferences

Voting is simply a part of a process of election. Are we addressing the whole concept of democratic electoral processes or the simple act of casting a ballot? These are not necessarily the same. Voting could be done in an undemocratic fashion, yet it would produce an outcome. An electoral process includes voting, put has other elements that impact on the actual voting.

The process of selection of candidates (and their presentation) by political parties (or independent candidates presenting themselves) has underpinnings in other factors including the political system. Here is the draft: when the outcome of contested elections (where actual voting takes place occure) reflects the electorate's choice of "politicians who correspond well to their preferences", we have an outcome that is reflective of the partial portion of the population that allows itself to be engaged in the electoral process - both as politicaians/candidates and electorate/voters. We have only to investigate the level of voter turn out at elections to justify a postion that NOT EVERYONE who needs to vote actuall votes in elections.

Voting at elections has no direct correlation to the development of democracy and good governance anywhere in the world!

Dear Jonga,

An interesting question. Let me share some of my thoughts: First, democracy is a term which all of us seem to understand. But for the sake of this discussion, I would like to briefly define it as empowering people to rule their own destiny. Well, we all understand that a million or billion people can not start deciding what they want to do as a country. Therefore, a system of elections was devised to appoint representatives of people to come together as a forum (legislature), representing the views and aspirations of each group or community or society in the country, so that collective decisions can be made that would reflect majority interests. This would ensure that common good will prevail, although the interests of some segment of the society may get lower priority.

Second, if the electoral system in a country is not achieving the above purpose, then in my opinion, there are the following problems:

1. Awareness level among people is extremely low. They are unable to distinguish a good representative from a bad one. In the process they vote mechanically. This type of environment is ideal for corrupt politicians because they can then 'purchase' votes.

2. The bureaucratic machinery in the country is playing for vested interests.

3. There is no independent mechanism or authority in the country to organise and conduct the elections in a free and fair manner.

I understand that all these factors have been taken into cognizance across Africa and countries like Burkhina Faso, Ghana and many more have instituted awareness campaigns for citizens, appointed independent election commissions to conduct elections, etc. You may like to check on these.

Your question is also in a way related to my discussions at:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/In_what_ways_can_citizen_participation_contribute_to_good_governance

with best wishes for a Happy New Year,

srinivasan

This is a very interesting and yet provocative question. You see, no one answer is the right one and this could go on for ages. Despite the well accepted definitions of democracy, it appears that each country seems to be defining it in its own terms. Hence, whether by fair or foul means, so long as the numbers are good enough, the country is democratic. Even in instances when the numbers tell us that the country or countries are clearly divided along certain lines the world simply applauds them for their democracy. Not all countries can afford this democracy because they fear the implications while for others it comes simply as a costly exercise. Can there be a system that gives people the opportunity to voice out their thoughts on how they are governed? Can we have a rotational system of role especially in Africa due to the regional, tribal, language ethnic difference that continue to dominate the choices that people make during the so called democratic elections? It help minimise the un-necessary tensions and strive that have become so pervasive in Africa today.

Why voting is important?

Because voting is an important part of the formal democratic process.

Because in the past many groups were excluded from the right to vote at various levels.

Because many societies in the past have denied people the right to vote based on ethnic group.

The success of the women's movement for the right to vote.

Because the vote is not only an obligation is primarily a right won with many struggles.

Because this noun, vote, which translates the action of voting, it is of great importance to the conscious citizens of their civic duties.

Because voting is a force that can change the political destiny of a people.

Not exercise the right to vote is to be silent in the face of such political shenanigans spoken.

Because the indifference and lack of commitment do not express anything or lead anywhere.

Within any electoral process there are good and bad politicians, but if we have the power of decision in the hands, simply close our eyes and 'wash our hands', more corruption and lack of important works will leave for future generations.

Over the years many changes have occurred in this area. To be fair, there has been some progress towards democracy in Africa since the past 40-60 years. I am not even sure if this time factor, short as it may be, can be an excuse for the limited progress. But progress, there has been. The extent of it remains questionable. It varies from country to country.

But the real question is whether voting alone can lead to democracy? This is where the question is somewhat flawed. Being allowed to vote in the midst of high levels of illiteracy and education or human rights can be seen as being given the opportunity to swim but with ones hands tied behind ones back. For most leaders in Africa, if people are given the chance to vote, they reckon that they are being democratic, but then that unwittingly becomes the justification for whatever they do, hence the temptation to think that voting can become an instrument for oppression.

In the peculiar case of Zimbabwe and perhaps many more African countries, the populace continues to vote for a particular party on account of tribal, interest groups, and other factors and NOT on account of clearly set out policies or programmes. Thus the voting often gives a mandate to governments which are inherently oppressive. If the link between the two was that direct, why would the people continue to vote for the same regime over and over again. Many other elements and factors are at play and not the voting alone per se.

My concern is why the population continues to vote for regimes which keep promising real progress to the people and are unable to deliver on those promises, year after year.

The point that people continue to vote for parties that have no clear developmental agenda is worthy of discussion. The defining feature of democracy is the power vested in the people to elect their representatives. But is that choice is forced upon them due lack of awareness, vested and manipulative political interest, then there is a need to enhance awareness levels. For those who have watched the Indian elections recently, there are huge lessons on the subject.

The poor, the oppressed and the common citizens who make up the majority in any country have a wisdom of their own. That wisdom needs to be channelized through awareness programs and citizen action groups to bring about sanity in electoral politics. The privileged, learned and affluent segments of the population have a huge role in creating such awareness.

You are right in your assessment of the issues. The problem lies with both the voters and the politicians. On the voters part, despite their having a wisdom of their own, they have tended to be too short-sighted. The frequent promises by politicians of some immediate gains have so often guided their decision making and the choices they make. So, so long as majority of the voters remain relatively poor and illiterate the choices before them will remain short-sighted resulting in decisions that question the whole democratic process.

On the part of the politicians who are rather too keen to serve certain interest groups, they would rather have the voters remain uneducated or even have clearly defined national and higher national goals which can be used to assess the effectiveness of the democratic processes.

These papers may be relevant:

Hausken, K. and Ncube, M. (2014), “Determinants of Election Outcomes: New evidence from Africa,” African Development Review 26, 4, 610-630.

Hausken, K. and Ncube, M. (2015), “Production, Economic Growth and Conflict in Risky Elections,” Journal of African Elections 14, 2, 34-49.

Hausken, K. and Ncube, M. (2016), “How Elections are Impacted by Production, Economic Growth and Conflict,” International Game Theory Review 18, 1, 1550015, 29 pages, DOI: 10.1142/S0219198915500152.

Article Determinants of Election Outcomes: New Evidence from Africa

Article How Elections are Impacted by Production, Economic Growth and Conflict

Article Production, Economic Growth and Conflict in Risky Elections