| Prof. Toyin Falola, born in the ancient city of Ibadan on the 1st of January 1953, a distinguished scholar, a Professor of African studies and a foremost Professor of History at the University of Texas, Austin in the United States, is a renowned intellectual whose work on African history has impacted many all over the world. |
by Toyin Falola
When many people speak about democracy in Africa, the common themes are about corrupt politicians, state capture, election battles, party conflicts, and poor governance. But beneath the facades, there are many questions still: why does democracy, a system widely embraced in theory, so frequently disintegrate in reality on the continent? Western-form democracy did not arrive in Africa as a natural political development. It was instituted under colonialism and maintained at independence through constitutional imports from Britain, France, Portugal, and Belgium. Intended to replicate the European-style parliamentary or presidential forms, but were implemented in fragmented societies, fragile economies, and states formed primarily for exploitation rather than governance.
In the 1960s, many African leaders embraced multiparty democracy: Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, Nigeria’s Nnamdi Azikiwe, and Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere all had democratic credentials. However, within a decade, coups, one-party states, and military regimes had largely discredited the early optimism. Democracy’s failure to take hold was not due to the idea being rejected; indeed, surveys by Afrobarometer in 2024 continue to show that Africans remain committed to democracy as an idea. However, the question has been one of how to make democracy work in African contexts where inherited institutions and political realities were out of balance.
As Claude Ake argues in Democracy and Development in Africa, there was the façade of democracy, but its essence never took hold. Elections, constitutions, and term limits all exist on paper, but too often as a charade. Political elites use such avenues to reinforce their leadership rather than empowering citizens. This disconnect manifests itself in the existence of institutions that are European- or American-in-style but not anchored in African social realities.
- Hits: 10
When China occupied Tibet in 1950 to "liberate" Tibet from its "economic backwardness" of feudal and religious traditions, the effects were devastating. Tibetans were dispatched to labour camps, monks and nuns were executed or imprisoned, thousands of monasteries and temples were destroyed, and communist propaganda was forced upon the Tibetan people. An estimated 130.000 Tibetans are living in India today. The vast majority travels to India through Nepal (where some 14,000 Tibetans are exiled), but a few go through Myanmar (Burma) or straight through India's northeastern parts. Travel is undertaken mostly by foot, and in groups of 5-15 persons because of safety issues.
People’s Republic of China (PRC) that encompasses roughly half of Tibet. While Chinese state media is striking a predictably upbeat tone on the anniversary, the reality is that Tibetans have little to celebrate.
The US has had a good, long run as a beacon of freedom for the entire world, but nothing lasts forever. Things started changing radically with the War Between the States, and the ascendancy of progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Then came FDR with his New Deal, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. And it's accelerated downhill from there.