Quasi Democracies of the World Shall we follow them?

Ziauddin Choudhury

There are currently eight heads of governments in the world, all of them in Africa except two (Cambodia
and Kazakhstan), who have been ruling their countries for more than thirty years. One, Paul Biya of
Cameroon, has been in power for over forty two years. They rule countries which are officially
democracies and, believe it or not, they do have periodic elections. What explains the longevity of these
dictators who rule in the garb of democracy? Are they really darlings of their people? Are they
sustained by manipulation of their constitutions, corruption of the institutions, or both? Unfortunately
there is no single answer to their longevity as each leader has his unique characteristics and approach to
manage his survival. One thing common among them is their desire to retain power at all costs.

All of these pseudo democratic countries hold elections for the highest office (as well as their so-called
legislatures). These elections are officially contested by opponents of the ruling party, but they are
routinely trounced by the party of the President in power. In Cameroon, for example, Peoples
Democratic Movement (CPDM) was the only legal political party until December 1990. Numerous
regional political groups have since formed. But Biya and his party have maintained control of the
presidency and the National Assembly in national elections, by manipulating elections.

In Equatorial Guinea, President Obiang was elected to a seven-year term as president in 1982 (after
securing power in 1979 through a coup); he was the only candidate. He was reelected in 1989, again as
the only candidate. In subsequent elections he allowed other parties to nominally contest the elections.
Nonetheless, he would be elected President term after term (each for seven years) with votes nearing a
hundred percent for him. Zimbabwes legendary President Mugabe (Prime Minister from 1979 to 1987,
President since 1987) ensured his iron grip over his country through constitutional amendments that
combined the roles of head of state, head of government, and commander of armed forces in one. His
party ZANU-PF ensured his election each time through voter intimidation and rampant corruption that
Mugabe himself spawned.

In all of these countries including those not cited in the examples the rulers rule and exercise total
control through the political parties they spawned, and legislators who overwhelmingly belong to the
government party. The rulers create a vast network of mutually supportive institutions that range from
the army through police, government bureaucracy and often the judiciary. Yet, the irony is that a
majority of the leaders in these countries came to power on the shoulders of the people who once
welcomed them as liberators and champion of the masses.

Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe was an anti-colonist political activist who first fought for independence of
his country (then Rhodesia) and later against the white minority regime of Ian Smith who had declared
independence of Rhodesia unilaterally and had formed a white dominated government. Mugabe was
able to end white minority government of Ian Smith after years of struggle, much of which was through
leading guerilla warfare against the regime. In 1979 Mugabe was elected as Prime Minister with a huge
popular support when the government of Ian Smith, under pressure from neighboring South Africa,
agreed to the participation of Mugabes party to participate in the elections. His party ZANU-PF became
the peoples party. But the story of Rhodesia (which he renamed Zimbabwe) would soon be different
from then on. In a few years Mugabe would use his huge popularity to change the constitution of the
country to converge three different offices, Prime Minister, President, and Commander in Chief of the
Army into one, and assumed those powers. His party would soon be the only major political power in
the country. He and his supporters would hound out any opposition to him or to his government
through intimidation, abuse of power, and bribery.

Following the creation of a unitary state in 1972, Paul Biya became Prime Minister of Cameroon in June
1975. In 1979, a law designated the Prime Minister as the President's constitutional successor. The
President that time (Ahidjo) unexpectedly announced his resignation in November 1982, and Biya
succeeded him as President of Cameroon. Since then he has remained President after winning several
seven-year terms after forcing an obliging legislature to remove term limits for Presidency. He is in his
forty second year as President.

We can go on and on to analyze the causes of longevity in each of the cases of the long lasting heads of
states/governments existing in the world today, but the conclusion would be somewhat similar. Each
has used their rise to power on shoulders of popularity and each had succeeded to manipulate both
people and their constitution to have an iron grip over their rule. Some may have begun their career
through a military coup, and later legitimized their ascendancy to power through managed elections.
But others used their name and fame either as liberators of their countries or over throwers of
unpopular regimes to perpetuate their rules by manipulating the constitution.

A common theme running through these long lasting regimes is emphasis on their need to lead their
country in its fight against perceived enemies of the country, domestic and foreign. They also portray
themselves as emancipators of their people from poverty, and as leaders of economic progress. The
parties they formed became their cheer leaders and poster bearers of these images. The leaders also
ensured that their parliaments are packed with such loyal supporters. Gradually, they also packed other
institutions of the country with acolytes of the leader. When all institutions are populated by loyalists to
the regime, common citizens have no recourse but to accept dispensations from the office holders of
the regime, whether elected or unelected. Elections in these regimes become farcical as a system
corrupted by greed and power only lead to further perpetuation of the regime, because the elections
are not free and unfettered.

Using democracy to absolute power is not an unknown phenomenon. History is replete with such
examples. What is often forgotten, however, is that a leaders personal desire to hold a permanent grip
on power also leads to undesirable or unforeseen consequences. History is also full of such sad
consequences. Paul Biyas or Mugabes of the world may have longevities even they may not have
thought of, the likes of them came to horrific ends in their own continent. Democracy may be abused
for a short period, but a people cannot be abused ad infinitum.

In our country we restored democracy after two decades of struggle. We have had five elections since
1990, a few of which, notably the last, could have been managed in a more transparent manner. But at
least we are not abrogating peoples right to choose. We still have officially a multiparty system, and we
have hopes that the system will be allowed to operate in an unfettered manner in the next election.
What we do not know however is the extent to which opponents will be allowed to exercise their right
to mobilize people to their cause. What we do not know is the extent of freedom our institutions such as
election commission, police force, and bureaucracy will have to operate and exercise their roles in the
elections. In a true democracy these institutions operate as politically neutral entities. They serve
people, and not a political leader or party.

There is a hairline difference between the quasi democracies of the world and other true democracies.
This difference comes from the will and desire of the leaders who lead their countries. A democracy can
be bent only the leaders are bent. We hope we can avoid this.