How many countries in africa wikianswers

Such a role is hardly appreciated, organized and pursued. Despite the fact that such organizations are necessary to the articulation, and achievement, of key national objectives through popular participation.

Such movements greatly contributed to the achievement of independence and all forms of our major, and positive, national expressions.

All of them could contribute more given the right conditions and environment. It is clear from the above considerations that in order to ensure governance that expresses the popular wishes of its population there is a need to be able to facilitate, generate and utilize both popular and specialized forms of participation, towards the effective formulation and implementation of national policies, as well as the enforcement of its most basic laws. As a result of this a new pattern of control, which assumed more of an indirect form as opposed to the direct colonial occupation of old, developed.

Similarly the new form of control was based on foreign multilateralism in the form of a united alliance between the US and its NATO Allies. In addition the divide-and-rule policies of imperial control was maintained and, where need be, invented anew in order to ensure Africa's incapacity to resist. Finally the task of retaining old colonial mono-cultural economic structures, as well as imposing new forms of economic control, were achieved through the activities of the foreign states concerned, some multinational corporations as well as international agencies at the level of UNO such as IMF, World Bank, WTO etc.

It was in the form of the Cold War in Africa that the assault on newly independent African countries identified above was organized and carried out. The objective of the assault was to reverse the gains of independence, and forestall local control over national resources or the evolution of independent processes of policy formulation that could lead to the diversification of the economy, resulting in the unraveling of foreign dependency. The Cold War in Africa did not seek to promote any form of free political expression but rather the negation of all forms of political expression that constituted any threat to continued imperial hegemony on the African continent.

Ideological propaganda, as well as political, diplomatic and military intervention by the NATO powers became all too common in Africa.

In this respect the Cold War was waged at several levels, all to the disadvantage of African independence, unity, self-reliance and development. In short to the detriment of all that Pan-Africanism and African nationalism stood and fought for. In many cases independent African regimes were toppled, while many patriotic African leaders were assassinated.

In an assessment of the impact of the Cold War on Africa the writers noted that:. Cold War rivalries encountered newly-independent countries still struggling to find their feet.

Both Communists and the 'Free World' found their champions in either the governments or 'freedom movements' in each particular country. Arms, money and other forms of support flowed, and the picture was and still is complicated further by the resource-rich nature of many of the countries involved. The results were often catastrophic - Angola, for example, suffered one of the longest conflicts in modern history.

In common, however, such policies on both economic development and good governance have only tended to fail. Ake, ; Mohammed, A. It tends to be totally silent on such vital issues as national sovereignty, nation-building, national unity, national development plans, citizenship and regional integration.

As a result they have promoted policies which undermine local nationalist achievements in favour of foreign economic and political interests.

Not only have African economies remained mono-cultural and non-industrialized but all forms of local investment and indigenous private capital have been undermined in favour of foreign public, as well as private, interests. Despite the poverty-generating effects of dependent African economies foreign policy prescriptions on Africa always tend to maximize resource extraction from the continent rather than allow for the diversification of the local economies and the creation of more employment opportunities in ways that could lead to the promotion of relevant social welfare programmes, as well as the facilitation of local control over natural disasters and social conflicts, in a manner that will benefit its pauperized peoples.

Finally the ideology of good governance, as propounded by foreign powers does not only serve as a pretext for selective intervention in the affairs of other nations it also, in certain situations, facilitates the funding and use of interventionist NGO'S, CSOs and human rights groups to undermine regimes that attempt to assert their independence.

Thus three problems tend to become associated with the issue of human rights. In the first place there is the worrying question of the widespread abuse of human rights by a variety of states. This requires an equal, open and transparent mediation by legitimate institutions of the United Nations. In the second place there are certain states such as the USA, Members of EU and Israel, which appear to be beyond international sanctions on human rights or any other issue.

Finally human rights is, many fear, becoming increasingly reduced to a mere pretext for the pursuit of the foreign policies of the powerful nations of the world to the detriment of the very principle of human rights itself, as well as the interests of those nations that have become the victims of such interventions. Coomassie, ; Ladan, To define the term good governance in conceptual terms, embracing the status of contemporary Africa and Nigeria in the global political set-up, we need to appreciate major developments since and, in particular, the impact of the Cold War on politics and development in both Africa and Nigeria.

The thesis of failed states and failed leadership have, in general, tended to identify problems of Nigeria and Africa as resulting only from lack of good and capable leadership. It is usually suggested that it is the incompetence, mismanagement and corrupt practices of African leaders that has led Africa to the state that it is in today. Zartman, While there is some truth in this position it is both one-sided and inadequate in many senses.

In the first place this perspective has neither identified, nor explained, the associated problems and conditions which greatly contribute to the very occurrence of failed leadership in itself.

For example what role do inherited colonial economic and political structures, or the prevailing scope and character of foreign influences and direct intervention in Nigeria's internal affairs, play in the general equation of failed leadership in the country? To what extent is failed leadership a deviation from sovereign national development policies, and a reflection of political surrogacy to foreign interests?

Similarly to what extent can we relate local failures, in terms of leadership, to the extent to which the implementation of independent national policies is forsaken in favour of policies imposed from abroad by foreign powers, either directly or indirectly?.

Furthermore the perspective represents a broad and false generalization to the extent that important instances and cases of good leadership in Africa are not only covered up but also misrepresented. Cases of good leadership in Africa are many and most abundantly represented in the type of leadership that constituted the PanAfricanist movement over the last two centuries as well as the nationalist leadership responsible for the liberation of African states from colonial domination leading to the achievement of independence on the continent in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

Aminu Kano among many others. Some of such leaders, at the continental level, include people like Patrice Lumumba, Gamel Abdel Nasser, Sekou Toure, Amilcar Cabral, Kwame Nkurumah, Julius Nyerere, Nelson Mandela, Samora Machel and many others whose achievements towards the liberation of Africa have not only been monumental but a number of whom were indeed either overthrown, or assassinated, by foreign interests that are inimical to Africa's independent development.

Similarly the failed leadership thesis has neither identified empirically, nor explained theoretically, the exact nature, scope and character of the failed leaders it is referring to beyond generalizing them as African.

It thus assumes that the leadership of Africa, as distinct from its rulership, is all African without an external component. The key problems undermining good governance in Africa stem from three major sources. The first is the extent to which foreign interference by the USA and its allies, under the pretext of the Cold War, greatly undermined and reversed the nationalist struggle for independence, democracy and self reliance on the continent. This, in turn, assured the retention of old colonial economic structures as well as the extraction of new forms of economic concessions, and political control, through a diverse range of policies, directives, conditionalities, treaties and military bases promoted by foreign powers.

Secondly the installment of puppet rulers in itself, where this was feasible, greatly undermined both national and popular sovereignty and, therefore, local control over processes of governance. This is a very significant feature of Africa's contemporary history that deserves a great deal more attention from researchers. Nothing seems to define the political character of contemporary Africa like the struggle for control between foreign imperial powers and local nationalist, moderate or revolutionary, forces.

The first major manifestation of this was the crisis in the Congo where the duly elected leader, Patrice Lumumba, was abducted and assassinated while a puppet military ruler was installed.

These crises defined not only the nature of the political crises in Congo itself but also the pattern of indirect political control that tended to emerge all over Africa subsequently. Finally, both national and regional development in Africa cannot be divorced from the ability to implement duly considered plans, at both the national and regional levels, within the bounds of existing constitutions and agreements.

Failure to operate within such bounds explains why issues like citizenship identity, national unity and economic integration at all levels have not been treated rationally, systematically and on constitutional bases but are rather unusually undermined through various acts of political incitement and provocation, as well as the return to colonially induced ideology of ethnocentrism and primordialism in both politics and civil affairs.

Nabudere, ; Mamdani, ; Bello, If there is any need to verify the truthfulness of this observation a survey of the relative successes of the Pan-Africanists, nationalists and pioneer African governments in the achievements of Pan-African unity, independence and democratization, in addition to the initiation of many independent development policies between to is enough to bear ample testimony.

Kodjo, ; Ali, Today's African rulers whose failures are being generalized as an overall African phenomenon consist, essentially, of surrogate functionaries supported and promoted by the West in its continuous struggle to keep the continent, its peoples and natural resources under its control. The quest for sovereignty, justice and development in Africa, under the general label of good governance, must not be turned into an opportunity by foreign powers to intervene in African affairs leading to the subversion of both national and popularly sovereignty, which alone constitute the major bases for the independent, and democratic, development of Africa's nation- states.

Good governance cannot be but self-governance, in all senses of the term. Indeed good governance, properly defined, cannot be reduced to the pursuit of so — called democratization and human rights on the basis of intervention in the affairs of others and generally weaker, but particularly weakest, nations. The first major problem of this perspective of interventionism, in the name of good governance, is that it does not apply to all other nations of the world but only to a few of the developing countries and most of the states in Africa.

The European and American nation states do not brook foreign intervention in their own affairs and so do not apply, or allow others to apply, such policies to undermine or compromise their sovereignty. Secondly both national independence and democracy would mean nothing and amount to nothing if they do not translate into popular sovereignty where the citizens, on the basis of their national laws, can freely formulate the policies that rule them as well as make their chosen representatives accountable to them through due and constitutional processes.

Where, as is presently the case, the policies that rule Africa emanate from powerful foreign interests while their rulers, even where they were seemingly elected, tend to kowtow only to local and foreign overlords, it needs to be noted that such a system of indirect control is a misrepresentation of democracy.

Furthermore it is also curious that legions of foreign sponsored organizations are claiming to promote democracy in the weaker countries of the world while their very sponsors are doing everything in their power to frustrate the democratization of the UNO and other international organizations. Finally not only is popular sovereignty the only true face of democracy it is also the surest guarantor of national independence and public interests, as well the greatest anti-dote to corruption.

Unfettered empowerment of the public, through universal franchise, makes it possible for the public to use their representatives and the law, to achieve the protection of public interests. Good governance, comprehended beyond the rhetorics of Cold War propaganda, must espouse libertarian principles and articulate popular rights in a manner that is not only applicable to each and every nation but is also respected by all nations in each and every case.

This is why popular sovereignty and not external dictations or interferences ought to provide, like in most other parts of the world, the basis for the development of good governance in Africa. On the basis of this we can proceed to identify some of the key challenges that need to be taken into account in the formulation and execution of a good governance agenda. In so doing however it is important to keep some issues in perspective.

Good governance needs to be based on the identification and application of those essential principles of governance that makes it possible to overcome bad or ill-governance in favour of unity, peace, prosperity and the enjoyment of basic citizenship rights. Ill-governance is here understood to mean a form of governance that is conducted without any concern for, indeed despite, its harmful effects of oppression, exploitation, repression and pauperization on the majority of the population.

Those key political features of today, on the basis of which many characterize Nigeria's present day political system indicate, in themselves, the various dimensions of both bad and ill-governance in the form of corruption, tribalism, nepotism, kleptocracy and, above all, a contingency plan for the rulers to flee their countries when things finally get out of hand. Amin, ; Joseph, ; Essence , Such relations of god-fatherism are expressed in local political activities, as well as in the latter's connection to the arena of international politics.

In essence god-fatherism, wherever it exists, tends to undermine the required qualities necessary for good leadership in terms of honesty of purpose, independence of character, patriotism and respect for the rule of law. It tends to undermine the capacity for the cultivation of good and independent leaders, with commitment to public interests and national goals, expressed through respect for the constitution and the rule of law.

This is why many analysts of the African condition see venality, or disrespect for the laws, as the major form in which corruption asserts and manifests itself. It is also for the same reason that we need to see those countries which provide safe havens to looted funds, and serve as refuge for corrupt officials from other countries, as accomplices in the practice of ill-governance. This is also why the system corrodes democracy, and the rule of law, by denying free, popular and lawful choices in favour of surrogates at every level of the political officialdom, whether governmental or non-governmental, elective or appointive.

The principles we use to formulate or adjudge good governance must not only be capable of overcoming conditions of external dependency, and god-fatherism, but must also not be based on any double standard in the sense that they ought to be able to apply equally to all nations. At the same time they need to respect the rights of non-interference in the affairs of other nations. Finally the objective of good governance in Nigeria must be able to embrace and address the need for national socio-economic viability through its effective and functional integration into the African regional economic community, as the only viable framework for its general capacitation, diversification, expansion and competitive development.

It is also imperative to appreciate that only such a regional platform will be able to promote not only the required economies of scale necessary for independent and sustainable economic development, it is indeed also the only basis on which Africa's political and diplomatic unity could be harnessed and deployed for the pursuit of its vital interests at the global levels. It is through such a capacity-building process that Africa could be able to protect the interests of its various constituencies at every level from both foreign and local predation.

It is also at this level that Africa could be able to exert its weight towards the reform of global institutions into a more democratic, and just, international order as an essential condition critical to its own liberation and development.

To achieve the above objectives African states need to organize, conduct and promote governance on the basis of principles capable of leading to the achievement of people-centred objectives in the form of sovereignty, unity, democracy, creativity and resource control, as well as overall security and performance capabilities. Only in this way can we be able to approach the question of governance in an expanded, as well as integrated, enough perspective that should do justice to the peculiar problems that governance itself should address in the context of developing countries, in general, and African states in particular.

We thus need to focus on:. Sovereignty: As the capacity to assure that national independence, and the freedom of the population to determine the destiny of their nation, is ensured in line with the laws of the land. A close observation of Africa's development since independence reveal the contradictory fact that for the most part its major policies have either been imposed, or unduly influenced, from outside rather than by the needs of its own peoples. Wisner, Unity: Unity is fundamental to the attainment of all social and national goals irrespective of their nature or scope.

Where it fails such ventures will more often than not also fail. Unity is however not the same with uniformity and certainly not averse to diversity. Indeed unity in diversity is more of the reality in all ages and has certainly become the key principle in the management of modern political, cultural and business establishments.

Unity implies the ability to identify common goals or interests and work towards their basic and persistent pursuit, at both the socio-political and economic levels. That is why the most important instrument signifying the unity of any nation is its constitution as well as the corresponding activities of the state towards its continuous realization, development and protection. Unity is not in any way a unidirectional quest for socio-cultural, religious or ethnocentric uniformity.

The laws of social development deny such possibilities on the basis of differentiation in all cultures, societies and polities leading to their general transformation.

Such is further denied by the need for individuals, as free citizens, to exercise their independent rights of choice, and affiliation, in relation to such matters as personal opinions, creed, affiliations and association. Most African leaders, and scholars, have remained captive to colonial ethnocentric ideologies and lost sight of the fact that the developed nations of the world do but strive only for individual citizenship on the basis of equality, and in the context of plural or multicultural societies.

Perhaps the major source of Africa's incapacity is always demonstrated when it fails to unite in order to face the challenges facing it.

Where it was able to unite which are, unfortunately, few and far between it had been able to register tremendous successes and progress. Democracy: Democracy is designed to ensure the rights of all nationals as free citizens rather than their continued existence as colonial or other subjects. It assures their participation in the selection and control of their leaders through popular elections, as well as constitutional checks and balances, on the exercise of power.

Popular sovereignty, or people's power, constitutes the basis for independent decision making in the polity, as well as the mechanism that assures control and accountability in the use of power.

Where the practice of democracy is neither based on nor serve, such ends it will be a misnomer to call it so. The denial of popular sovereignty in Africa is a fundamental source of its woes. Creativity: In order for any modern nation to assert its independence, promote its development and greatly benefit from its human resources it has to be able to harness, tap and properly deploy the creative and productive powers of its population.

These should be in the form of a variety of solutions to its socio-cultural, economic and political problems. More often than not the prevalence of old colonial structures, and new forms of external influences, tend to preclude such possibilities in Africa. Resource Control: Related to the above issues is the question of resource control. This is particularly relevant for the use of resources to solve basic national and regional programmes.

This problem has manifested itself in Nigeria in a manner which runs counter to the positive manner earlier Pan-Africanists and African nationalists had envisioned the utilization of Africa's natural resources minerals, water, fauna and flora.

Unfortunately not only are Africa's resources essentially controlled by foreigners but its failed leaders have also led their nations down the path of corruption and ethnocentrism which only promote misuse of revenues, as well as divisiveness and conflicts, in their various polities. There are today in many African states armed mobs deployed by various ill-motivated sponsors to contest and, if possible, confiscate territories which are rich in mineral resources for the benefit of certain criminal gangsters campaigning under one retrogressive banner or another.

The nations of Africa must strive towards the general, comprehensive, planned and coordinated use of their resources in order to build productive, and industrialized, economies that can provide jobs, and lead to greater progress through wealth creation, reproduction and conservation for both present and future, generations. Security: The concern with the issues of security in Africa is today expressed at many levels of individual, public, national, sub-regional and indeed regional interests.

Virtually all aspects of security concerns pervade individuals as well as public agencies and institutions in Africa. They range from individual political rights or security from hunger to general public concerns over foreign interventions, sabotage and aggression at all levels — national, sub regional and regional.

They could be in the form of testing nuclear bombs, dumping toxic waste, economic sanction, instigation of coups and conflicts or outright invasion.

As many contributors have expressed, one major factor requiring attention with respect to security in all nations of Africa is the need to review, and transform, it from the inherited colonial functions of the suppression of the local population to the new need for upholding and protecting the rights of Africa's independent citizens as well as their wellbeing and dignity.

Secondly the national security outfits of African nation states need to be reoriented to the task of facilitating the integration of African countries, safeguarding the free movement of peoples in the region and the protection of its integrated economic community rather than the continued maintenance of each African state as an isolated monocultural economy operated mainly for the benefits of foreign economies.

Thirdly a security network which is designed to serve the interests of the African peoples ought to have as its basic frame of reference the relevant constitutional provisions of African states as well as the various instruments, at the regional and sub-regional levels, they have adopted.

It needs to be empowered, and autonomous, enough to undertake its professional responsibilities without undue interference from the executive arms of government.

Finally African states need to exert their diplomatic weight, as well as invoke international law, in order to secure themselves from subversion by foreign interests. Performance capabilities: Performance is here seen as the operational capabilities of the essential structures for the execution and delivery of services.

An examination of the LGAs in Nigeria; their structures, capabilities, relations with traditional authorities and state governments reveals that a lot contributes to their present dysfunctional state.

The same with the operations of the states and the Federal government. A similar pattern is illustrated in the relation between the central authorities and the service institutions, or parastatals, established to support and complement their functions. Finally an examination of the foreign component of the functions of the state reveals a tendency towards undermining previous achievements in terms of Nigeria's leadership role in Africa, as well as the AU's general conduct at various levels of international relations.

The problems of political stability, continuity and efficiency, which has attracted the attention of many scholars, cannot be discussed outside the realm of the functions of such to the achievement of nationalist objectives of independence, democracy and self-determined development. Stability cannot be both the permanence and durability of colonial, and neocolonial, institutions as well as those of independent, national and Pan-African institutions at the same time. One must give way to the other and where this has not yet successfully happened only crises of instability is bound to recur.

Conclusion and Recommendations. Good governance could refer to the ability of those in power to promote and protect popular, public and national interests. In this regard governance need to be designed, and conducted, with reference to the essential need for popular sovereignty, unity, democracy, creativity and resource control in the interest of self-determination as well as overall national security and capabilities, for the effective achievement of national goals, as well as their effective protection.

In the light of the popular demand for political reforms in Nigeria two important issues need to be continually pointed out in line with the recommendations of the Political Reform Committee. In the first place there is need to insist on the complete independence of the so-called Independent National Electoral Commission INEC as well as professional autonomy for all security and law enforcement agencies, in order to shield them from undue political influence, as well as ensure that they can execute their duties without let or hindrance, in the interest of the nation and in line with its constitutional provisions.

Similarly in the light of our observations on the deviations from the provisions of the Constitution there is need for continuous pressure towards structural reforms, at both the economic and administrative levels, aimed at ensuring that not only is the Nigerian economy diversified and made more productive but that all relevant laws designed to contain corruption are duly implemented at all levels. In this regard the campaign of Nigeria's Civil Liberties Organization CLO to the effect that all leading members of each administration ought to be seen to account for their tenure, in line with the laws of the land, need to be fully supported and effected.

Enhancing the scope of popular and patriotic participation in governance is vital to the achievement of Nigeria's national objectives, as well as those of the African region.

The present rather lukewarm approach to the activities of national associations, and institutions, need to be greatly improved upon. Higher institutions of learning, specialized research centres and other types of resource establishments as well as political party administrative structures, and the research capabilities of legislative assemblies at all levels, need to be facilitated to assume a more purposive, visible, capable and pro-active function in policy formulation and oversight functions.

This will greatly enhance the country's capacity to become focused as well as engage competent hands in the articulation of its national goals towards finding solutions to its national problems.

The Government needs to greatly improve its performance at the level of mobilizing, sensitizing and using community, religious, youth and women organizations as well as their leaders, towards the promotion of peace, unity and development.

Conversely the state also needs to ensure constitutional enforcement of the law where the activities of organizations, or individuals, subvert or threaten these national objectives.

The proper identification, organization and synergisation of such bodies will greatly enhance the nations capabilities in good governance at least at two critical levels. In the first place the specific contributions of each of such bodies to national programmes, and activities, constitute important and critical dimensions to the overall processes of governance in the polity, as well as the character of the essential variables informing its development practice.

In the second place such organizations could, through their exertion of professional ethics and advocacy functions, play a great role in ensuring respect for the rule of law with beneficial effects on the containment of corruption in the land. In order to achieve this each professional association, in particular, and other associations in general, should work to ensure that their members respect the ethics of the organizations and are so held to account in their practices.

In particular accountants, lawyers, auditors, architects and many other consultants as well as teachers, administrators, managers, and engineers in both the public and private sectors, in addition to many other social and security functionaries, will contribute a lot towards sanitizing the nation if they work towards enforcing their professional code of ethics on their respective members.

This presently constitutes a very important Missing Link in our attempts to fight corruption. Finally we need to always remember the most basic truism that governance cannot but fail, where justice does not prevail. All our efforts will come to nothing if we are not able to enthrone the delivery of justice as the most cardinal principle of all forms of our national endeavour. We need not only ensure the separation of powers, as well as the independence of the judiciary, but also the latter's expansion, and empowerment, in such a manner that will make it possible for it to handle the enormous tasks of the delivery of justice which so many, so eagerly, expect from it and which has not only been in short supply but also deliberately denied in many cases.

Finally the extent to which we are able to separate positive political undertakings from criminal activities fraud, rigging, embezzlement, bribery, theft, hate-mongering, kidnapping, rape, incitement to violence, public unrest, murder, arson etc will greatly determine the progress we make towards the enthronement of justice as the cardinal principle in our national affairs. This, and only this, will help us to separate politics from criminal activities, — the two of which have been deliberately conjoined, and confused, in the interest of those in power.

On the other hand, Africa, Asia, and Russia were less democratic. In , the pace of democratic change worldwide was rather stagnant. Globalization drove the explosion of democracy in the late 20th century. In , the State government declared that the spread of democracy and human rights in the late 20th century came as a result of the third wave of globalization.

The third wave of globalization led to an international adoption of universal human rights and the rise of transnational actors. Multinational corporations, international institutions, and societies capable of interacting with their governments each played a role in the spread of democracy.

The internet and the free flow of information promoted universal norms such as democratic institutions and human rights. The most significant change of occurred in the Middle East and North Africa. During the Arab Spring, the British Foreign Secretary William Hague claimed that the uprisings in the Middle East were the greatest advancement of human rights and freedoms in decades. Departing colonial leaders often attempted to shape the outcome of elections or encouraged violence to destroy legitimacy in the event that results were not favorable.

Britain rigged elections in Africa to ensure that preferred candidates emerged victorious in Nigeria and Kenya p. Third, colonialism did not grow economies or create lasting institutions that would catapult these new states into fully-fledged and well-functioning democracies.

Colonialism created the culture of corruption, political coercion, including the misuse of law enforcement, and the complete disregard of human life that still plagues many states in Africa.

Inevitably, the postcolonial states adopted the features of colonial states. At each stage of African authoritarianism, Cheeseman and Fisher argue that ideas and norms serve to justify its existence. Patronage or Big Men in the colonial era facilitated colonialism without resistance p. Authoritarianism may also emerge out of some form of national appeal for unity.

In some cases, authoritarian leaders championed restoring and defending traditional norms that had been eroded by decades of colonialism. Notwithstanding the complexity of the question of who has the right to define what is African, many authoritarian leaders quickly labeled democracy alien to Africa p. Authoritarian regimes did not defend the rights of minorities.

They preached unity arising from the one-party rule, but their notions of rule were fundamentally undemocratic and tantamount to regime preservation p. Authoritarian regimes also emerge out of the economic foundations of states.

A large petro-state like Angola can survive by distributing its massive oil rents to secure the support of elites. But when oil wealth dwindles, it opens fissures because people cannot meet the expectations they have had from the state. In return, the ruling elites become ever more authoritarian pp.

Taxes would require accountability on the part of citizens. Nigeria, for example, used oil resources to strengthen its military capacity. It became a regional hegemon, but it is also susceptible to prebendalism, the idea that political leaders have the right to use public property for private interests p.

Thus, most democracies arise when the public becomes the financier of the government. Sogaard suggests that African democracy will have to be organic and led by the middle-class. Cheeseman argued that there are gradual signs of progress made towards democratization in Africa. Further, a subsequent normalization and consolidation of democracy will depend on the norms that emerge. Africa requires that democracy be defined by Africans through instruments native to the continent as opposed to democracy as a western import.

Their model of authoritarianism draws authority from a combination of the charismatic appeal of the leader and the bureaucratic authority of formal rules and regulations. One aspect that would benefit from further coverage in the book, is an explanation of how some countries transitioned from authoritarianism to democracy and why such cases are unique.

Authoritarian states such as Uganda and Rwanda have had some documentable success, especially in areas of human rights, and in ways that are more progressive than many democracies. Both countries have reserved seats for women and minorities. In Rwanda, women account to close to 60 percent of total legislators p.