By Jimmy Henry Nzally
Military takeovers are also seen as an integral part of Africa’s postcolonial struggles. A coup d’etat involves the sudden overthrow of a government by a small group, i.e. by the military. In postcolonial and contemporary contexts, it became part of the military culture to overthrow governments using the barrel of a gun. As noted by Marinov and Goeman (2014: 801), “the actors perpetrating the coup may include domestic armed groups or a member of the governing elite”. Coups have often been rooted in external influence too. During the Cold War period, for instance, coups d’etat were widespread and often instigated by European powers (McGowan, 2003). This explains why coups have become entrenched in Africa’s political instability. Houle and Bodea (2017: 382) made a similar argument focusing on sub-Saharan Africa, stating: “coups are the main threat to democracy in the region, by harming democratic consolidation and economic development, and by provoking further political instability”. This shifts the focus towards the re-emergence of coups in Africa, especially in the context of the existing tensions in the multipolar context between the West, the USA, Russia and China. As reported by the bbc (4.1.2023): “From 2021 onwards, there have been six coup attempts in Africa, four of them successful”, in Mali (2021), Guinea Conakry (2021), Burkina Faso (2022) and Niger (2023). Through these military takeovers, these former French colonies are also trying to cut ties with the French. Needless to say, however, the coups have severely undermined the improvement in democratic rule across the continent. In the twenty-first century, the image of Africa is shifting in a more positive direction. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance report of 2021 indicated that: “In 1985, for example, there were 3 democracies and 42 authoritarian regimes; by 2015, the number of democracies had reached 22 – its apex so far; in 2020, with the recent lapses, there were 18 democracies compared to 19 authoritarian regimes and 13 hybrid ones” (International idea, 2021). Another good indication is the African Union’s African Charter on Democracy, Elections, and Good Governance (acdeg). This is a legally binding signed document, adopted by member states in 2007. Its objective is to avoid unconstitutional changes of government as well as to promote human rights and good governance.
The acdeg charter has been called into question, though. This is because it is binding on all member states of the African Union. Its application in certain cases has raised some eyebrows, for example with the removal of Robert Mugabe in 2017 by the military, as well as recent military takeovers in other African states. However, cases of military takeover in Zimbabwe in 2017 and also in Sudan in 2019 were seen by the international community as a welcome development. In the case of Zimbabwe, internal party dissent resulted in the use of the military to organise a coup. In Sudan, democratic protest was led by the people against Bashir, which eventually resulted in a military takeover. This was despite the fact that – arguably – these leaders had been “democratically” elected, at the time of their removal. But for the West, Mugabe and Bashir had overstayed their welcome. Some observers would argue that these leaders were seen as anti-Western – hence the implicit support from the West for their removal, which is contrary to the situation of recently ousted leaders of Burkina Faso, Guinea Conakry, Niger and Chad (bgnc), who were seen as puppets of the West, in particular France. This brings us to the question of the rise of military takeovers and why they still occur decades into postcolonial Africa. And what about those leaders who stay in power by using constitutional manipulation, such as Macky Sall (Senegal), whose plan to change the constitution in order to stay for a third term failed. Leaders such as those in the recent coups in the bgnc countries often justify their military takeovers by citing these kinds of constitutional manipulations by so-called “democratically” elected leaders. Criticism and Contemporary Application of Almond and Verba’s Civic Culture There is no question that Almond and Verba’s (1963) work on civic culture helps to explain the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Civic culture is therefore important for any democratic and political culture to triumph. Their work is not, however, without biases. In their study of political cultures, only nations of Europe and America were considered. The countries studied were mainly the UK, the USA, Italy, Germany and Mexico. Not a single former colony was included, despite the fact that during this period the fight against colonialism and independence was at its apex. The classification of Almond and Verba is relevant and applicable, however, as it underscores that the so-called civic culture discourse had long existed within African states, even though the exclusion of independent African countries from the selected case studies raises some questions. One could argue that Africa has often been non-existent in the Western polity of democratic discourse. This confirms the longstanding culture of stereotyping the continent as uncivilised. Many books written about Africa from a Eurocentric standpoint, as pointed out by Asante (2007), lack the standpoint of Africans themselves. This is why there is an increasing call for Africans to rewrite their history. However, it is fair to say that the countries selected by Almond and Verba do give some insight into functioning political systems. The two social scientists grouped these countries into three main classifications of political cultures. These characterisations are what forms the basis of understanding of the civic culture of a population. In a civic culture, according to Wiarda (2014: 69), “the individual is oriented toward both outputs and inputs, is aware of political issues and their effects, and takes a more active role in the political process, either by voting or other means”. The first classification model distinguished by Almond and Verba is the parochial system (Mexico is singled out as an example), in which the public is unaware of or uninvolved in political life and, as a consequence, is detached from it; the second classification is the subject political culture (with Germany and Italy as examples), in which the public’s participation in the political process is limited to the system’s outputs through bureaucracy, the executive and the judiciary; the third classification is participant political culture (with the USA and the UK as examples), where the public is highly aware and actively participates in the political process (Kamrava, 2000: 125). Concretely, citizens are fully engaged, partly engaged or not at all engaged. So, therefore, the political culture of the country depends on the degree of citizens’ engagement. Even though this grouping was done in the 1960s, it is still relevant and adaptable in explaining the current realities of democratisation and citizen participation. The findings were based on the political and economic systems of the selected countries, citizens’ levels of trust in their governments, and their perceptions of “freedom”. It is therefore citizens’ orientation that forms the basis of their behaviour, their “civic culture” in a political culture. These attitudes are to be understood as the psychological dispositions of individuals towards the political system. What is particularly noted in Almond and Verba’s study is the way in which different countries have somewhat unique systems of governance. Their study therefore helps to build new theories that attempt to explain democratic change, not least in Western societies, which then eventually spreads to other parts of the world. As argued by Dalton and Klingemann (2007: 4), political behaviour in advanced industrial democracies has “shifted in fundamental ways during the latter half of the twentieth century. A dramatic process of social and political modernization has also transformed much of the developing world.
The Third Wave of democratization has reformed the political systems and the citizenry in the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America.” This shift is to a large extent due to numerous factors to which technology has contributed, such as the advent of social media, which raises interaction and awareness and promulgates actions both within and outside of a specific country or region. As Almond and Verba (1963: 4) philosophised ahead of time: “[w]hile the movement toward technology and rationality appears with great uniformity throughout the world, the direction of political change is less clear”.
Findings and Analysis
It is crucially important to gain insight into the political history of the African continent. This section attempts to trace the political and social history of Africa in the context of understanding its political culture. The past as well as the present cannot be ignored, especially in the analysis of political culture as it serves as the bedrock to an understanding of the continent’s leadership and its people. The discussion will focus on the following key aspects: (1) African traditional systems of government; (2) colonialism and nationalist movements; and (3) postcolony African politics. In studying African politics, this article aims to contribute to an understanding of how colonial history influences the contemporary politics of the continent of Africa. As reinforced by Asante (2015), this is about “rewriting” the history of Africa from an African perspective. It entails unearthing biases that exist in the predominantly “Western” literature about the continent’s polity. As observed by Young (2003: 2), “The centrality of modernization, the state and nationalism ensured that history and political science became prominent, indeed predominant, in the new African Studies, anthropology having become increasingly suspect as the handmaiden of colonialism or worse, as the purveyor of a patronizing account of Africans, implying they were incapable of modernity”. This prejudice about the continent implies that modernity should be the yardstick by which to measure Africa’s civilisation. African traditional systems of government Africa had established systems of government before the coming of the European explorers and European colonisation. In those days the continent’s rulership was based on established kingdoms. One example is Dahomey, the great medieval African kingdom, located in what is known today as Benin. This kingdom was occupied by Europeans n the eighteenth century (Claffey, 2007) and traded slaves for weapons. Different from Dahomey is the Benin empire, formerly known as Igodomigobo (1180–1897 ce), located in what is now south-west Nigeria, which is said to have been the last of the great ancient African kingdoms (Ayen, 2017). The king was referred to as “ogiso”, meaning “king of the sky”, and he had much influence and popularity (Ayen, 2017). The empire of Ghana (700–1240 ce) is another example, known for its gold mines, which made the warrior king (the origin of the name “Ghana”) extremely powerful (Conrad, 2005). The kingdom should not be confused with the new state of Ghana although the latter was named in honour of it. The Mali empire (1235–1600 ce), governed by a king called the Mansa, is said to have been perhaps among the most developed polities at the time in Africa (Insoll, 2003). Considered to have covered the largest part of the former western Sudan region, the Songhai empire (1430–1591) was ruled by the Soninke dynasty and was founded by the Berbers (Alexander and Rucker, 2010). The kingdoms of Nri (948–1911 ce), Bonoman (eleventh to nineteenth century ce), Mossi (eleventh century to 1896 ce) and Takrur (eleventh to thirteenth century ce) and the Jolof empire (1350–1549 ce) are further examples. These kingdoms had characteristic features such as a dominant patriarchy and were run according to African values (tradition and culture).
The political culture was based on local traditions perpetuated by established local institutions (kingdoms and local leaders). Therefore, the kingdoms were established based on conquest (invasions), heredity (ruler and family lineage), and masculinity and patriarchy (predominantly male rulership). Going by Almond and Verba’s framework, we can characterise the people living in these territories as subjects, meaning that the public’s participation in the political system was limited. With the coming of the Europeans, these traditional African institutions and their kingdoms became prone to external invasions by those in search of slaves, and this led to the eventual conquest of Africa and imposed colonial rule.
To be continued
