Weak political institutions breed despots

THE role of political institution development in the building of effective, responsive, and formal democratic political institutions cannot be overstated.
Capable, responsive governance and administration are critical elements in preventing conflict; the success or failure of democratic institutions depends on their ability to mediate conflict by hearing, channeling, mediating the multiple citizen demands that modern societies express through civil and political associations.
By reducing the inefficiency that undermines public confidence in civilian institutions, capacity and institution building can help increase officials capability to manage conflicts at an earlier stage. The lack of government accountability and effectiveness in many African countries increases domestic opposition and reduces legitimacy.
What lessons do we draw from the founders of the African political tradition and the inventors of the post-colonial political parties? What can we learn from how the founding fathers of Africa – think, write, speak and act? Why is it that the founding fathers of Africa who were subjected to colonial despotism have failed to display any fear of “power,” “corruption” and notions of “liberty”, “virtue”, personal and political “independence”, and “equality” that were all embedded in a view of the world that inspired the anti-colonial struggle have become astonishingly unfamiliar to the vocabulary of the architects of the anti-colonial struggle?
Why is it that the former champions of freedom and enlightenment end up as instruments of despotism and darkness in Africa? What is it about African institutions that make democracy a universally expensive project in Africa? Is the failure of African liberation movements to transform into viable and sustainable political institution a result of manipulation of the founding fathers or is it an indictment on Africans?
In the case of Zimbabwe, only one political party has been in power since independence and the question we need to address is to what extent the party exists because of its hegemony on the state. What would Zanu PF be without the state? Equally the same question can be asked of Africa’s ruling parties. What makes this political institutions tick? What sustains them? What is the glue that brings the people together in these political institutions? How would we rate Africa’s founding fathers as political institution builders?
It is my submission that Africa’s founding fathers have failed the citizens of the continent on the question of institution and capacity building of political institutions. If one looks at the post-colonial political parties, the record has been appalling. Taking Zanu PF as an example, it is instructive that after 26 years of monopolizing state power, the liberation movement has not been transformed into a political party that has a separate and distinct personality from its father. Zanu PF is not unique in being unable to transform itself into a political institution that has sufficient depth to survive even if the party lost state control. We have seen in Africa that most political parties that lose state power disintegrate immediately.
In addition, the leader or founding father is normally the glue that keeps the party together on the back of a state patronage system. Most founding fathers have failed to invest in institution building at the party level often electing to inherit the state machinery and using that as a proxy for the party. It is not strange to see that notwithstanding the political power wielded by the founding fathers as state Presidents, the political parties they lead are often under funded, disorganized, and faction ridden. In fact, these parties do not offer any career prospects to party cadres who end up congregating in government positions. Most of the founding fathers end up confusing the country with the party because of their inherent inability to invest in political institution building.
Building institutions and capacitating them is never easy and most founding fathers would not qualify to be Chief Executive Officers of any commercially oriented institution. In terms of institution building, the churches have done a better job that our politicians. While religion offers a promise of life after death, the politicians who have the potential of offering real life benefits have failed to capture the imagination of members. Without business plans, members of religious groups have historically shown the capacity to build institutions and through their congregations fund them without robbing the state. This cannot be said of Africa’s modern day institutions.
The financing of political parties poses the most significant threat to democracy and yet Africa’s founding fathers have not been able to provide any leadership in terms of institution building. If one looks at the Roman Catholic Church as an example, the command structure is quite clear with one Pope, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests etc. The church has outlived many generations and no single Pope can dominate the church to the extent that the survival of the institution becomes threatened by his mortality. The succession issue is institutionally resolved while many African political institutions have not been able to address this issue transparently.
Even the opposition parties in Zimbabwe have not fared any better. We have seen an internal struggle in one opposition party end up producing two Popes. Is it conceivable that if a few cardinals were to plot against the Pope that one day these cardinals would end up constitution themselves into a faction with a new Pope but elect to remain the Catholic Church and then fight for the assets of the church? Why is it that even the opposition parties in Zimbabwe have dismally failed to provide any leadership on the institutional challenges that face the country? In most African countries, political parties end up being a reflection of the leader.
The institutionalization of Africa’s response to despotism requires that the governed take the process more seriously. While it is easy to blame the founding fathers for hijacking the revolution and privatizing it, we should explore the hypothesis that Africans are weak political institution builders and should put the blame squarely at them. Even those who have established debating platforms like New Zimbabwe.com have failed to position the portal as more than just a talk shop. Imagine the readers of this website could one day organize themselves into a New Zimbabwe Society (NZS) and begin to think more constructively about what kind of society they need Zimbabwe to be.
Having contributed to New Zimbabwe.com for the past few weeks, I am still not sure what the name stands for. If we who are privileged to use this portal are not able to institutionalize ourselves and determine the kind of content we need, we should not complain about the blindness of our founding fathers when we have failed to raise the moral ground. It would be interesting to know how many people actually visit the site and count the collective net worth with a view to realigning such underlying power for a better Zimbabwe that is informed by well grounded institutions. I have been personally encouraged by the many who read my weekly column but discouraged about our inability to leverage ourselves for a better Africa. Imagine we could create a virtual bank, mobile phone company, property association, burial society, insurance company for the readers of New Zimbabwe.com and use the income there from to build a new Zimbabwe.
We have witnessed how weak Zanu PF is as an institution by the intrusion of Prof Moyo and Gideon Gono. If Zanu PF was a party that stood for principles that could be understood, how on earth the party could allow Gono to run amok? He is now a law unto himself and accountable to no one. Is it conceivable that the party has no policies or programs to deal with the challenges of the country? If one accepts the construction that Zanu PF is a party that is people centered, then how do we explain that it has not been able to asset itself against leaders who may have outlived their usefulness? As a revolutionary party, can we safely say that the persona of the party has not been irreparably contaminated by its leaders? If the party stands for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then what has the party got to say about its leadership? Is the party happy with its drivers? How confident are Zimbabweans that a successor who is privileged to be in the same ship will be any better? Equally, how confident are Zimbabweans that an opposition that has failed to institutionalize its cause can rise to the challenge if elected into office?
The Zimbabwean dilemma is not dissimilar to the challenges that confront many African countries. As I have said before the only power people who do not have power is the power to organize. We in the diaspora have failed to provide any leadership and yet have the luxury of blaming those that have taken the challenge to make a difference in Africa. I was laughing the other day that South African roads that were never prepared for the invasion of black motorists are now daily victims of traffic jams and yet in the traffic you observe the African dilemma.
Imagine if all black African motorists had confidence to insure their cars with one black controlled service provider how much money could that provider command and what difference that will make to the continent? We have continued to watch Africa being used as a football by celebrities from other continents and yet we have not been able to respond institutionally to the health, environmental, economic and political challenges that will help define a New Africa. When are we going to wake up and take responsibility? What is our role in the creation of a new African heritage or identity that places the responsibility for shaping the destiny of Africa on Africans themselves?
As sovereignty was transferred from colonial despots to citizens, it traveled a circuitous route. Deposing the colonial state created a vacuum of legitimate authority that representatives of the people should have quickly filled. The most significant consequence of the anti-colonial struggle should have been the invention of an African idea of sovereignty, the conception of parliament as self-constituted, self-sufficient and autonomous. In practical institutional terms, the invention of sovereignty should have marked a departure from the construction of the colonial state.
With despots at the helm the sovereignty was easily transferred back from the people who naively thought that the anti-colonial struggle was about creating a republic founded on the notion of common citizenship to despots who sought to establish absolute tyranny over citizens. The long chain of abuses and usurpations that characterized the colonial state was directed at the citizens by the liberators. The people whose rights should have been self evident were now subjected to extreme abuses and the legislature reduced to a toothless agent of the executive. Little did Africans know that the founding fathers would violate the trust of citizens by pursuing their own interests at their expens!
Exploiting an early burst of popular enthusiasm for the liberation struggle, the founding fathers quickly and successfully assumed a quasi-monarchical authority. The dilemma facing many African parliaments is that any effort to institutionalize its authority inevitably jeopardizes the despotic tendencies of the founding fathers.