Sub-Saharan Africa’s desire for liberal democracy: civil society to the rescue?

Abstract

In the context of the global recession of democracy, this article engages with sub-Saharan Africa’s so-called ‘democratic’ deficit. Three arguments are presented. First, sub-Saharan Africa’s challenge is less a democratic deficit than it is a liberal deficit. The political elite are content to use the electoral mechanism to gain access to power but are thereafter resistant to restraints on that power. Second, organised civil society can contribute to addressing this deficit by contending for civil liberties and holding political authority accountable. Third, sub-Saharan Africa’s deeply religious society can contribute towards the development of such a civil society. The study engages with secondary data analysis using survey data from Afrobarometer to determine sub-Saharan Africa’s ‘deficit’ and whether religion can contribute to the development of civil society in the region. From the survey data it was found that citizens of sub-Saharan African countries understand democracy in its liberal form – ensuring civil liberties and personal freedoms. Furthermore, it was noted that those who are religious are more likely to be civically engaged than those who are unaffiliated, and in time, this can contribute to addressing the liberal deficit.

Keywords:

• Sub-Saharan Africa
• liberal democracy
• liberal deficit
• civil society
• religion
• Protestantism

Acknowledgments

I was a Visiting Fellow of the African Oxford Initiative (AfOx), University of Oxford, and a Research Affiliate of Nuffield and Brasenose Colleges, during part of the writing of this article. I would like to convey my sincere thanks to the African Oxford Initiative and these institutions for this opportunity. In addition, I acknowledge with gratitude the assistance of Prof. Martin Kidd (Centre for Statistical Consultation, University of Stellenbosch) with the data and statistics.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 V-Dem is a multidimensional and disaggregated dataset reflective of the complexity of the concept of democracy. See https://www.v-dem.net/en/

2 This question was not asked in other survey rounds.

3 The guidance in the survey to explain ‘Civil liberties/Personal freedom’ was: ‘(freedom of speech, religion, movement, etc. …)’.

4 Zuma spent R210 million of public funds on his private homestead and then had cabinet ministers defend the expenses as security upgrades. Amongst the most absurd of these ‘security upgrades’ was the swimming pool redefined, to an incredulous public, as a ‘fire-pool’.

5 Classical liberalism is distinguished from modern liberalism, where the former values a minimal state and the protection of individual liberties, and has freedom as its key value, while the latter is more sympathetic towards a bigger and more interventionist state and values equity. Modern liberalism espouses ‘positive’ freedom, with the state intervening to provide social welfare and social justice and to promote special interests.

6 It should be acknowledged that ‘not all civil society is good for democracy’ (Way 2014, 35). There has been, with due cause, a growing scepticism of civil society, especially when it takes the form of violent social movements or bursts of divisive populism. For civil society to continue to be a productive democratic force it needs ‘to mobilize society without splintering the polity and encouraging greater violence’ (Way 2014, 35). Kamrava and O Mora (1998, 895, 897) similarly noted the importance of civil society in democratic transitions, either before or after the transition, but argued that it needed to inculcate norms of moderation, trust and tolerance, rather than agitating for violence.

7 The role of the church was certainly not unproblematic in South Africa, as the apartheid system was theologically, even if erroneously, underpinned by the Dutch Reformed Church. The idea of the ‘elect’ was promoted, which led to an endorsement of exclusion.

Additional information

Funding

Funding was received as a nationally rated researcher through the National Rating Foundation (South Africa) [grant number 96267].

Notes on contributors

Nicola de Jager

Nicola de Jager (PhD in political science) is Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science (Stellenbosch University) and Co-Editor-in-Chief of the journal Commonwealth & Comparative Politics. She is the editor of South African Politics (Oxford University Press, 2020) and co-editor of Friend or Foe: Dominant Party Systems in southern Africa (UCT Press, 2012). She is a nationally rated researcher (NRF) with publications on the topics of comparative politics, religion and democratisation.