Party Systems and the Future of Democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa

International workshop to be held on 22-24 September 2011

Scarman House, University of Warwick

Workshop conveners

Renske Doorenspleet renske.doorenspleet@warwick.ac.uk

Associate Professor in Comparative Politics/Director Centre for Studies in Democratization, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick, UK

Lia Nijzink lia.nijzink@uct.ac.za

Senior Researcher in Law and Politics, Department of Public Law, University of Cape Town, South Africa

Research theme

Our workshop addresses one of the key issues that confront emerging democracies in Sub-Saharan Africa: what are the current party system configurations on the continent and what are their consequences for the future of democracy?

We are living in an era with an unprecedented number of democracies all around the world. Particularly since 1989, democracy has spread not only to Eastern Europe, Asia, and Latin America, but also to parts of Africa. Experts were worried that the adoption of democracy would lead to highly fragmented party systems in Africa because of the deep ethnic divisions on this continent. However, this did not happen. In contrast, party systems with one major dominant party emerged and have prevailed in many new African democracies.

Surprisingly, research on this phenomenon has been scarce. There are not many studies of the concepts, measurements, and explanations of party systems with one dominant party in general, let alone in the African context. Our project aims to fill this gap.

While our 2010 workshop focused on possible explanations for the endurance and decline of one-party dominant party systems, this workshop will focus on the consequences of one-party dominance.

One party dominant systems are assumed to be a problem for democracy on the continent (Giliomee and Simkins 1999; Schlemmer 2006). At the same time, they have emerged through the ballot box and can thus be seen as an expression of the will of the people. This apparent contradiction requires us to take a closer look at the consequences of one-party dominance in order to better understand the challenges one-party dominance presents for the development and deepening of democracy and good governance on the continent.

What are the consequences of different of party systems? The debate in the literature has drawn attention to the merits or flaws of multi-party versus two-party systems, and tries to tackle the question which type of party system is best for democracy.

Admirers of the two-party system (see e.g. Lardeyret 1993) argue that government effectiveness is higher in such a system than in a multi-party system. A two-party system is generally associated with a single-party government and not a coalition government. As political power is concentrated in the hands of a (narrow) majority, unified decisive leadership and hence coherent policies and fast decision-making are being promoted. The members of government can pass the legislation and make the policy they like and they think is necessary during their term of office, as long as they have support of their backbenchers in parliament.

Another important claim in favour of the two-party system is that it leads to more responsive and accountable governments than multi-party systems. It is argued that one-party governments offer clearer responsibility for policy-making and hence better accountability of the government to citizens. Moreover, it is argued that two-party systems offer the voters a clear choice between two alternative sets of public policies. Finally, such systems have a moderating influence because the two main parties have to compete for the swing voters in the centre of the political spectrum and hence have to advocate moderate, centrist policies.[1]

Proponents of multi-party systems argue that such systems are better at representing. It is argued that multi-party systems are more ‘fair’ in that minority parties have a chance to be represented in parliament. Another important argument in favour of multi-party systems is that they promote political participation, especially during elections. In multi-party systems, the number of parties and therefore the choice available among the electorate is bigger than in two-party systems. As a consequence, voters in general, and minority party supporters in particular, can feel that they have a realistic chance of electing a candidate of their choice. People are more willing to participate in multi-party systems, and empirical evidence shows indeed that the electoral turnout is significantly higher in such systems than in two-party systems (Jackman 1987; Blais and Carty 1996; Lijphart 1999).

In short, it has been argued that two-party systems are better at governing, while multi-party systems are better at representing. Since the development of one-party dominant systems in new democracies is a relatively new phenomenon, there is not yet much knowledge or debate about the possible consequences of one-party dominance.

One could argue that a one-party dominant system can be expected to be good at governing (perhaps even better than a two party system) and fairly good at representation, given the often broad character of the dominant party. One-party dominant systems might even have a fair degree of political competition, albeit within the party, between different party factions and/or between different smaller parties of the opposition. What they lack is an alternation of the party in power and thus the threat that the opposition might take over government.

It can also be argued that new and poor African democracies do not need two-party or multi-party systems, but rather a one-party dominant system. Such a one-party dominant system may be better in preserving stability and promoting socio-economic development (cf. Giliomee 1998: 132). It cannot be rejected that the ANC in South Africa and the BDP in Botswana played a crucial stabilizing role during the establishment of the new democratic regimes. In such a turbulent period in which the struggle for independence and freedom is only just over, a fragmented party system might have led to competition that was so violent that it could have destroyed democracy completely, already in the beginning of the democratization process.

On the other hand, a negative consequence of the one-party dominant system is the fact that political competition is constrained. In a minimal democracy, alternative preferences for policy and leadership can be pursued in the political arena and there is oppositional activity. In a democracy with a one-party dominant system, however, the opposition is small, and often fragmented and toothless, which limits the strength of political competition, not only during elections but also during processes of governing and policy-making.

In the small body of literature on one-party dominance, other negative consequences have featured

- Freezing of social cleavages on basis of which dominant party came to power

- Weakening of independent civil society

- Weakening of constitutional checks and balances

- Resistance to changes in political institutions for fear of losing dominant position

- Creating political apathy/loss of voter interest

- No clear distinction between party and state

- Reinforcing big man tendencies, patronage, clientelism

- Eroding minority rights

- Danger of non-democratic change of power/coupe/state of emergency

Without any empirical evidence, however, the factors above serve as points of discussion and speculation, rather than analysis and fact. A thorough analysis of the consequences of one-party dominance, both negative and positive, is the main aim of this workshop.

The first part of the workshop will give a general overview of theories, concepts and measurements of party systems, including one-party dominant systems. The subsequent sessions of the workshop will dig deeper, and focus on particular countries with one-party dominant systems, i.e. South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Mozambique, and explore what the consequences of one-party dominance are in these countries. The third session of the workshop will include African countries with different party system configurations in order to get a full picture of possible consequences of party systems in African democracies. Only by comparing one-party dominant party systems with different systems such as those in Ghana, Benin, Kenya and Malawi, can one start to understand the consequences of different party system configurations for the future of democracy on the continent. The concluding session will summarize the findings of the case studies and explore to what extent there are general trends and overarching conclusions with regard to the potential impact – both negative and positive - of party systems on democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa.