SPEECH BY FORMER PRESIDENT FW DE KLERK TO THE INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, ACCRA, September 10 2013

DEMOCRACY IN TROUBLED TIMES

It is just one year since my last visit to Accra and to the IEA, which kindly invited me to speak about the Challenges of Change facing Africa.

How has the continent fared since then?

According to Freedom House, the respected monitor of global freedom, sub-Saharan Africa has in recent years been the world's most politically volatile region. In 2013 there were 11 free countries, 17 partly free countries and 19 unfree countries in the region. Political gains were made in Lesotho, Sierra Leone, Senegal, the Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea and Malawi. However Guinea Bissau, the CAR, The Gambia, Kenya, Nigeria, Madagascar, Uganda and - I am sad to say - South Africa, all became less free. South Africa is still free - with a robust and functioning democracy - but it now lags behind Cape Verde, Ghana and Mauritius in the African democracy stakes.

The recent victory of Ibrahim Boubacar Keita in the Malian elections is heartening evidence - that with international support - even the catastrophic effects of the armed seizure of power can be overcome. The elections in Sierra Leone were well managed and produced a clear result that was accepted by the electorate.

There were long-awaited elections in Kenya, under a new constitution, with the voters all having to complete six ballot papers. The terrible violence that followed the previous elections in 2007 was avoided and the declared result was upheld by the Supreme Court. The elections have not resolved some underlying divisions within the country. Kenya now faces the challenge of implementing its radically new Constitution and of strengthening democracy though the devolution of power.

The measuring stick in all this is democracy.

As Winston Churchill famously observed "Democracy is the worst form of government in the world - apart from all the others." Is this so - and if it is so, is the Western model of multiparty democracy the right system for all nations at all times? This question is of particular relevance to Ghana at this critical stage in the evolution of its own system of multiparty democracy. And what is important for Ghana is also important for Africa - since Ghana is one of the oldest and most deeply rooted democracies on the continent.

Right at the outset, I should like to point out that there is often an enormous chasm between western protestations of democratic rectitude and their actual practices back home. The fact is that there have been many unseemly episodes in the recent democratic history of the United States. The success of candidates is all too often determined by the size of their election funds and the effectiveness of their spin-doctors.

Constituency boundaries are routinely gerrymandered to benefit incumbents and there have been frequent allegations of jiggery-pokery - even in the outcomes of presidential elections. I recall having lunch with Al Gore several months after his narrow loss in the 2000 presidential election. Still smarting from defeat his comment on the election was: "Well, you win some, and you lose some ... and then there is a third category."

We must also remember that Britain's democratic system took hundreds of years to evolve - and in the process there were revolutions and depositions - and at least one king had his head chopped off. In 1830, the Duke of Wellington expressed the view that it would be impossible to improve the British system of government - which at that time gave the vote to only 435 000 males in grossly unequal constituencies.  

Now, I hasten to add that I have the greatest admiration for both the American and the British democracies - but the point that I am making is that they should not be so quick to pontificate to Africa - and that they should also accept that African countries may need to evolve their own special forms of democracy to suit the special needs of their peoples.

In particular, it is important for African democracies - with their complex multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious populations to avoid the trap of majoritarian domination. Many of the problems that continue to beset African countries have their origins in the fact that colonial borders often encompassed widely different cultures and religions. One of the perennial problems is the accommodation of this diversity.

Democracy works well in relatively homogenous societies where parties are elected into government on the basis of their policies - rather than on ethnic or religious affiliation. However, it does not work so well in societies that are deeply divided by racial, religious and linguistic distinctions.

In such societies minorities often find themselves in a situation of perpetual exclusion from government because of their inability to secure parliamentary majorities in general elections. Dominant majorities - often spurred on by hubris or historic grievances - are too often inclined to ignore the interests of minorities and to impose their own will and agenda on society as a whole.

We are now watching what appears to be the unravelling of Egypt's brief experiment in majoritarian democracy. Although Mohamed Morsi won the presidential election by only 51.7%, Islamists controlled the assembly that was appointed to write the new constitution. Non-Islamists - including the substantial Coptic Christian minority - boycotted the process.

Morsi compounded the fears of non-Islamists at the end of 2012 when he granted himself virtually dictatorial powers to "defend the revolution". In so doing he unleashed a backlash from non-Islamists - including the powerful military - that ultimately swept him from power. Now, the new military-backed regime is showing every sign of further aggravating the divisions in Egyptian society by trying to suppress the Islamists - who make up more than half the population.

The Egyptians might have learned from South Africa's constitutional negotiations during the early '90s. The strengths of the South African approach were its inclusivity, its genuine attempt to accommodate the reasonable interests of all parties, including minorities; and the strong provisions that it established to entrench the Constitution as the supreme law.

In all of this multicultural states would do well to heed the advice of the UN Development Programme in its 2004 report on multiculturalism:

"...states need to recognize cultural differences in their constitutions, their laws and their institutions. They also need to formulate policies to ensure that the interests of particular groups - whether minorities or historically marginalized majorities - are not ignored or overridden by the majority or by dominant groups. And they need to do so in ways that do not contradict other goals and strategies of human development, such as consolidating democracy, building a capable state and ensuring equal opportunities to all citizens".

So, we can agree with Churchill about democracy - provided that it avoids the trap of majoritarian domination and by making proper provision for the protection of minorities.

But is multiparty democracy - with its built-in political divisions and often bruising competition - better than the traditional African approach of consensual decision-making?  

As we all know, there are strong democratic elements in most of the traditional African governmental systems. In particular, there was a deeply entrenched process of consultation.  When matters of importance were to be decided the chief would generally summon a gathering of the men - and particularly the older men. Everyone would have an opportunity to express their views - from the humblest herdsman to the most senior induna.

It was the task of the chief to lead the discussion, to listen attentively and finally to formulate the consensus. The consensus then became the decision and the policy of the community. I understand that you had a very similar approach to consultative democracy among the Ashanti people.

However, once the policy had been adopted there was no room or scope for opposition. The concept of a loyal opposition was unknown in most African societies. It has, in fact, been said that in many African languages the only possible translation for "leader of the opposition" would be "chief enemy".  

This doctrine of traditional 'democratic centralism' could very easily be grafted onto the new emerging one-party states in post independence Africa. According to the Ghanaian scholar, Kwasi Wiredu, both Presidents Kaunda of Zambia and Nyerere of Tanzania were, for this reason, strong advocates of traditional consensual governance. Kaunda said that "In our original societies we operated by consensus. An issue was talked out in solemn conclave until such time as agreement could be achieved". President Nyerere added that "in African society the traditional method of conducting affairs is by free discussion ...The elders sit under the big trees, and talk until they agree".

The problem was that traditional consensual governance could - and did - easily morph into the dictatorial one-party rule that became the curse of much of post-colonial Africa. Ghana understands the pitfalls of one-party rule better than most countries and, in 1992, was one of the first African countries to adopt a robust multiparty system.

However, Ghana has also shown the rest of the continent that merely having competing parties is not enough.

Zimbabwe has just held elections - but although they were judged to have been 'peaceful' - few objective observers really believe that they were 'free and fair'. The orderliness of the process was nevertheless enough to secure acceptance of the elections by a number of African countries - including South Africa. Nevertheless, few of the requirements for truly free and fair elections were present: there was little prospect of free political activity before the election, there was no properly independent electoral commission and no impartial courts to adjudicate electoral disputes.

Genuine democracy requires an independent and effective electoral commission and impartial and fearless courts. Here, also, Ghana has led the way in Africa. You have respected and independent courts and an impartial - if embattled - independent electoral commission.  

You should not underestimate the great responsibility shouldered by an Election Commission in any election, and the great contribution Election Commissions make to promoting and embedding democratic institutions into a country's traditions. It is a difficult and dangerous business, because it is almost impossible to please everyone and passions run high.

I know of a retired Election Commissioner in a country in Africa who was responsible for two elections. He said that after the first one he was carried shoulder high in the streets, and after the second he was thrown out of every restaurant in town. So we need to treat them with respect.

The task of your Electoral Commission has been seriously complicated by the fact that your last two national elections have been so close. Your problem is that your two main political parties are very evenly matched. I wish that South Africa suffered from the same problem!

But competition is healthy - and essential - in any democracy. It makes for accountable government. It keeps government on its toes and reduces corruption. It provides a credible, peaceful channel for protest for the disaffected. It gives the opposition hope that it can achieve power by following the people's wishes, rather than by coercion, disruption and violence.

So, once again, we can agree with Churchill about democracy - but only if it is supported by independent institutions that can ensure that elections are truly free and fair and that any electoral disputes can be adjudicated fearlessly and impartially.

However, there is another and perhaps even more fundamental requirement for the success of democracy - and that is the commitment and resolve of the people to abide by democratic norms and outcomes.

Ghana has just emerged from a bruising test of its democratic institutions and of the commitment of its people and political leaders to accept the will of the people - expressed in free and fair elections.

The result of your 2012 elections was agonisingly close - with President Mahama securing 50.7% of the vote to the 47.7% that his challenger Nana Akufo-Addo received. The outcome in the parliamentary election was equally close. The NDC received a slightly smaller percentage of the votes - 46.4% - than the NPP, which secured 47.5%. However, because of the vagaries of constituency politics the NDC emerged with a substantial majority of 148 seats in Parliament compared to the 123 seats that were won by the NPP.

It is quite understandable that the NPP was bitterly disappointed - but admirable that instead of opting for extra-constitutional actions it referred its complaints to the courts. As we all know, the Supreme Court announced its judgment on 29 August - and confirmed the electoral victory of President Mahama and the NDC. The complexity of the legal proceedings is reflected in the fact that on three of the six complaints the Supreme Court judges were themselves quite deeply divided.

However, in my view, the soundness of Ghana's commitment to democracy was reflected not primarily in the judicial process but in the manner and grace with which its politicians and parties accepted the judgment of the Supreme Court.

Mr Nana Akufo-Addo immediately called and congratulated President Mahama. He said that whilst he disagreed with the Court's decision "everything in my bones, in my upbringing and in what I have done with my life thus far makes it imperative that I accept a decision made by the highest court of the land, however much I dislike or disagree with it".

In his response, President Mahama promised to serve Ghana selflessly and "to promote the goals of unity, prosperity and development". He also showed that Ghanaians are acutely aware of their responsibility as standard-bearers of democracy in Africa. He exclaimed that "Nobody should doubt it, Ghana had in the past led the African continent and will again lead our beautiful continent in so many other things, including, democracy and good governance."

Archbishop Nicholas Duncan-Williams commended Nana Akufo-Addo for the manner in which he had accepted the judgment of the court and called on President Mahama to use his victory to build institutions that would unite all Ghanaians and create the right environment for the general development of the country.

Former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, congratulated President Mahama and the Supreme Court "for its rigorous examination of the complex questions that came before the Court for adjudication". He also congratulated the NPP and Nana Akufo-Addo for deepening democracy in Ghana by respecting the ruling of the court. He added that Ghanaians should not be blind to the flaws in the electoral system that the judicial review has brought to light.  He expressed the need to work energetically to ensure that these flaws are addressed through the necessary institutional reforms.

Finally, he acclaimed that Ghana had once again lived up to its reputation as a beacon of democracy on the African continent. This was an achievement in its own right, and also "a solid foundation for lasting stability and prosperity".

So, the people of Ghana have proved that Winston Churchill was right: with all its imperfections, democracy is better than all the other forms of government -

• provided that governments avoid majority domination by protecting the interests and rights of minorities and those who lose elections;
• provided that democracy is supported by strong and independent institutions including an effective Independent Electoral Commission and fearless and impartial courts; and
• provided that the people and political parties are genuinely committed to the democratic process.

Ghana has passed all these tests with flying colours and in so doing continues to provide inspiration to the entire continent of Africa.

However, in the final analysis it might be useful for Ghana to revisit some of the consensual traditions of Africa's past. Kwasi Wiredu writes eloquently of the benefits of consensus politics. He reminds us of a traditional African art motif of a crocodile with one stomach and two heads locked in struggle over the same piece of food. The image depicts the irrationality of conflict and the need for those whose interests are inextricably linked to work together.

It is, perhaps, an image that Ghanaians should bear in mind as they enter this next phase of the development of their sound and resilient democracy.

Issued by the FW de Klerk Foundation, September 12 2013

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter