Weak democracies deprive the continent of development and service delivery. The weakness of democratic institutions is also evident from the 2017 Ibrahim Index of African Governance. The slow pace of democratisation is highlighted by the Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2017 Democracy Index, which indicates that many African countries remain under authoritarian and hybrid regimes. Gaps in the African Charter enable the subtle subversion of democracy in member states Thus far, the African Charter has been signed by a majority of African states (46) and ratified by 31. Ten years on, even the AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) is asking whether the charter has made a difference.ĭr Khabele Matlosa, director of the AU’s Political Affairs Department, told the PSC during its 22 August 2018 open session that only Togo had submitted a report on compliance to the African Charter since it became law in 2012. When it was first adopted in 2007, the African Charter raised the hopes of democracy activists, who believed it would strengthen good governance. Last year, on the 10th anniversary of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (the African Charter), outgoing AU Commission chairperson Dr Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma admitted that the continent’s modest gains were outweighed by persistent governance deficits. The AU has no illusions about the problem. And yet democracy continues to be subverted in other ways, like constitutional coups. Fewer coups on the continent are largely the result of the African Union’s (AU) rejection of unlawful take-overs. Most African countries now hold regular elections, albeit often flawed and contested. The article contributes to “a better understanding of the relationship between the state and democracy and reveals the mechanisms that are behind a successful subversion of democracy in the name of the nation.The AU has helped reduced coups, but steers clear of other tactics used to subvert democracy. “Accordingly, besides facilitating democratization, a resolved stateness problem should be regarded as a condition that fosters democratic resilience as well,” he continues. The authors argues that “stateness problem creates conditions that facilitate democratic backsliding even if a country achieves a considerable level of democratic development: a fertile ground for ethno-political entrepreneurship and national identity-based political divisions that promote polarization.” Using the example of former Yugoslav republics and based on Mill's method of difference that is complemented with process tracing,” the article offers an alternative approach. “With respect to the relationship between the state and democracy, the scholarly research thus far has mainly oscillated between two perspectives: ‘no state, no democracy’ versus ‘no democracy, no state’. “A democracy can emerge within the context of unresolved matters of state and nation but it is unlikely that it will flourish,” our Research Affiliate Filip Milacic writes in his article in Nations and Nationalism.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |