Source: Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2016, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2016/table-scores
Analysis by Nicolas van de Walle and Takaaki Masaki substantiates further the link between democracy and growth.23 In scrutinising 43 (out of 49) countries in sub-Saharan Africa for the period 1982 to 2012, the authors found ‘strong evidence that democracy is positively associated with economic growth’, and that this ‘democratic advantage’ is more pronounced for those African countries that have been democratic for longer periods of time.
Figure 2.2, which is calculated on the basis of the Freedom House classifications, shows that GDP growth in those countries classified as ‘free’ is substantially higher than growth in the ‘partly’ and ‘not free’ categories.
As can be seen, the performance of the ‘not free’ group is considerably worse if the oil-producing states (Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Gabon and DRC) are omitted. Although, in the short term, commodity endowments can push up growth rates, over the medium to long term, the quality of governance becomes more important because commodity prices are cyclical and good governance is necessary to garner investment.
Figure 2.2: Sub-Saharan African GDP per capita sorted by freedom indicators
Source: Based on classifications that used Freedom House’s Freedom in the World Report (https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world) as well as GDP data from the World Development Indicators (World Bank national accounts data, and OECD National Accounts data files)
Not only do democratic regimes improve accountability, but the great asset of democracy is that it also enables a test of philosophies in the marketplace of the political consumer. One of the inherent strengths of democratic systems is their flexibility and pragmatism. They enable consensus – that aid is no longer a panacea, that regional integration needs to be promoted, that investing in education and skills is essential – to be implemented and institutions to work.24 Democracy makes politics and policies more competitive, something particularly lacking under autocratic regimes and, to be successful, businesses and economies need a competitive edge. Thus, a ‘benevolent dictatorship’ comes with a cost to potential economic growth.
This argument is reinforced by the poor performance of military regimes. Since the end of the Cold War, the number of military regimes and the frequency of coups have significantly declined. Even though there has been a revisionist literature on the impact of ‘good coups’ in Africa,25 the record of economic management and political violence of the coup era speaks for itself, as African militaries have been worse at managing countries than their civilian counterparts.
Figure 2.3 illustrates the difference in economic performance between those governments in sub-Saharan Africa where the military has abstained from a role in politics (Botswana, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Djibouti, Gabon, Kenya, Malawi, Mauritius, Senegal, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zambia), and those elsewhere where it has been involved since independence.
Figure 2.3: Economic performance of sub-Saharan Africa’s militarisers versus non-militarisers (GDP per capita in constant 2000 $), 1981–2011
Source: World Bank Databank, http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators&preview=on#
Autocracies are typically three times more likely to have sharp economic declines leading to regular periods of crisis. This volatility is partly, though not entirely, due to autocracies’ greater reliance on revenues from natural resources. Moreover, analysis shows that autocracies are more likely to recede in periods of economic stagnation (i.e. when there is per capita growth of less than 1 per cent). Indeed, this matches a wider pattern – globally, the degree of fluctuation of growth in autocratic regimes is substantially higher. The coefficient of variation (standard deviation over mean) for the autocratic growth rate since 2000 is 4.28; for mixed regimes it is 2.11; and for democracies it is 1.48. In other words, democratic growth has been about three times less volatile than that of autocracies. In practical terms, this means that autocracies vary far more widely from year to year and among one another in their growth than do democracies. Consistency matters in growth and development; such volatility undermines the compounding impact of steady growth.26
As noted above, a key component in democratic reform is the role played by the private sector. Where this is weak, it limits economic opportunity and the potential for job creation needed to help turn around a stagnating economy.27 These periods challenge autocracies’ claims of ‘performance legitimacy’ – or, essentially, legitimacy through delivery despite an absence of human rights – and can lead to more abrupt transitions.
Democracies are more peaceful
The second reason for supporting democracy is that, historically, democracies have proved to be much more effective at resolving tensions and conflict within societies peacefully. Therefore, paradoxically, it is entirely in the self-interest of the leaders of authoritarian regimes to move towards democracy because authoritarian regimes often end violently, with serious consequences for the incumbent. Peace and stability, or lack of it, have economic as well as social consequences, as outlined above.
Before 1990, sub-Saharan Africa had experienced 19 democratic elections, 14 undemocratic or contested elections and 77 incidences of undemocratic regime change. Seventeen heads of state died violent deaths in office or shortly after having been deposed in a coup. The post-1990 reality of the continent is starkly different. Since then there have been significantly more elections. By 2016 there had been 118 democratic elections, 77 undemocratic or contested elections and 34 undemocratic regime changes. Eleven leaders suffered violent deaths in office. When the data is further disaggregated into the most recent Freedom House categories of free, partly free and not free countries, it’s possible to see how different trajectories of regime change affect the levels of freedom within a country.
This should not be surprising. ‘Democracies,’ notes Annan, ‘have far lower levels of internal violence than non-democracies. In an era when more than 90 per cent of wars take place within, not between, states, the import of this finding for conflict prevention should be obvious.’28 Democracy produces orderly changes of leadership. It enables people to be patient for their turn, rather than revert to a coup. In this regard, the 1991 Organisation of African Unity Conference on Security, Development, and Co-operation in Africa identified lack of inclusive democracy as the primary cause of insecurity on the continent.29
A viable democratic dispensation offers the possibility of alternative government, and avoids government complacency.
Finally, and probably the foremost good reason for having a democratic system of government in Africa is that it’s the style of government that the citizens favour. The Afrobarometer Index of Demand for Democracy climbed 15 points in 16 countries surveyed between 2002 and 2012, from 36% to 51%. Seven out of 10 Africans in 34 countries surveyed preferred democracy to ‘other kinds of government’ by 2013. The demand for democracy is strongest in West Africa. Africans also see elections as the best sign of a democratic regime.30 There are good examples, too, where democracy has worked in spite of a difficult inheritance.
Ending coups: A personal reflection on Nigeria, by Olusegun Obasanjo, former Nigerian head of state
The military’s intervention in Nigerian politics in January 1966 went on like musical chairs for 33 years, fouling the political air, causing instability and uncertainty, causing destruction of lives and properties, resulting in a civil war and leaving the country divided internally and isolated externally. This peaked when General Sani Abacha ruthlessly and recklessly pursued his programme of self-succession and life-presidency. Nigeria was impoverished economically, politically, intellectually and culturally. It became a pariah state. Nigerians deserted in droves and sought refuge all over the world. Nigeria was left prostrate. Those who raised their voices were either assassinated or put in jail, myself and my second-in-command as military head of state, Shehu