CHALLENGES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDIES: GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP MODELS IN AFRICA

INTRODUCTION

Africa, like other developing regions, has experienced and continues to experience political changes of enormous proportions, especially in terms of governance systems. Since the 1980s, the models of governance and leadership have become the centre of debate for academics, decision- makers, civil society and, in particular, the international development agencies owing mainly to political instability and poor economic performance that have been recorded in most African countries since their political independence. Governance and leadership determine the rules and behaviour of actors in a polity, in particular political and administrative actors. As such, these have been viewed as key factors that may promote or inhibit the development process of a country. Developed countries and the multilateral lending agencies (the World Bank and IMF) have suggested that Africa’s inability to develop economically is principally the consequence of bad governance and poor leadership. As a result, a series of reforms has been sought, and in some places introduced. These include democratization, decentralization, popular participation in policy-making, and public sector reforms. All of these have the objective of achieving an effective and efficient government that can facilitate sustainable development.
This chapter aims to present different major systems of governance that have been applied in Africa. Leadership and institutions of governance, and how these have interacted are explored. The study focuses on the post- independence era. However, pre-independence governance is also highlighted given its strong resonance on current leadership and governance systems. The purpose of the chapter is also to appraise the state of governance by highlighting key features that are said to impede the social and economic development in Africa. This information is used to determine the obstacles or challenges the APRM is facing in addressing governance issues in Africa; hence, its significance in answering the research question.
The chapter begins by providing a general framework of political systems that exist in the world and how institutions and groups interact in each one. Then, the chapter presents and discusses political systems found on the African continent. The concept of political system defined as the model of how politics determines public policy is seen as a framework needed to understand the functioning and behaviour of governments. Thus, although a public administration research would be interested on those aspects of policy implementation and the organisation of government activities, the dynamics of the political system, which affect the bureaucratic machine and its workings, need to be understood. Furthermore, governance in Africa is analysed in the context of the globalised economy. The African response to globalisation and the challenges for governance and leadership are also highlighted.

MAJOR POLITICAL SYSTEMS IN THE WORLD

David Easton (1965:21) defines a political system as a set of interactions through which values and policies are authoritatively allocated for a society. Broadly, the political system is an open system subjected to influences from the external or international environment of which it forms a part. Narrowly, the political system is viewed as an intra-societal system, which encompasses institutions, structures, processes, and actors – such as the executives, the parliaments, courts, political parties, policy mandates, organizational structures, administrative rules and guidelines, and institutionalized rules and norms – which are interconnected in a process through which policies are initiated, decided and implemented. It is through understanding the dynamics among the various components of a political system that one can come to grasp the concept of leadership and governance and their relationship to public decisions.
There are various models of government in the world. These include liberal democracies, authoritarian models and communist systems. To compare and classify the political systems across the world, political scientists have used various criteria, such as the mode of decision-making (for example consensual versus majoritarian decision-making), and economic organization (communism as opposed to capitalism) (Lijphart, 1984; Blondel, 1995). Blondel suggests five types of political systems which were classified in terms of the answers given to three sets of normative questions: “who rules, in what way, and for what purpose” (1995:29). The first question is concerned with the numbers and proportions of people who participate in the decision-making process. For this question, the focus is on who is entitled to take and who effectively takes decisions. In a democracy, as it was practised in ancient Athens, all the members of the polity participate in taking public decisions. Today, this form of democracy is impossible. Another extreme concerns monocracies in which only one person rules. It is also impossible to find this in any polity. Thus, in the real world, there exist various types of intermediate positions, which correspond to different types of “oligarchy” (Blondel, 1995:30).
The second question refers to how decisions are taken. What is being investigated here, is the levels of openness of the decision-making process. Are there restrictions on the discussion of alternatives with respect to policies and governance? To what extent do these restrictions exist? Answering these questions determines the extent to which a political system is liberal or authoritarian. Again, within this continuum, liberal to authoritarian, there is a series of political systems, which are hybrid or moderate.
Finally, the third normative principle concerns the purpose of public decisions that political systems pursue. All societies have a certain vision of what is the “good society”, which is promoted through policies that advance more or less equality in the society (Blondel, 1995:31). Here, the classification focuses on the substantive goals of policies that are being developed and implemented. Consequently, one may find two liberal democracies, which may differ in terms of actions taken with respect to property, social welfare, and education. For example, the liberal capitalist, on the one hand, advocates a limited government, and promotes individual and property rights, which leads the capitalist class to draw the biggest share of benefits in comparison to the rest of society. The liberal socialist, on the other hand, intervenes in the public arena including the economic sphere, while protecting fundamental individual rights. This bargains for more equality in the society.
Thus, answers to these normative questions determine the type of political system that can be located at different points in the three-dimensional continuum defined by the norms. Furthermore, a cluster of political systems provides an image of structures (institutions and groups), which exist in these systems and within their relationships. Below are the five clusters of political systems proposed by Blondel namely, the liberal democratic, the egalitarian- authoritarian, traditional-inegalitarian, populist, and authoritarian-inegalitarian (Blondel, 1995). The structures, institutions and groups that make up these systems and the working relationships between them are also highlighted.

LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL SYSTEMS

Liberal democratic political systems apply principally to the modern democracies of Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Israel (Blondel, 1995:36). Ancient Athens is the classic example of a direct democracy, in which citizens made decisions themselves without representative institutions. The essence of direct democracy was a “self- government” in which all adult citizens participated in shaping collective decisions in a context of equality and open deliberation (Hague, Harrop, and Breslin, 1998:20). In the modern state, however, the most common form of democracy is “representative democracy” in which the people elect their representatives, who make decisions on their behalf. These elected leaders operate within formal limits, often set out in the constitution. Such limits reflect the liberal goals of preserving individual rights and maximizing freedom of choice (Hague et al., 1998:21).
Diamond (1999:11) provides a list of characteristics and conditions that a regime has to meet to be considered a “liberal democracy”:

• Control of the state and its key decisions and allocations lies with  elected officials, in particular, the military is subordinate to the elected authority.
• Executive power is constrained by the autonomous power of other government institutions such as an independent judiciary and parliament, and other mechanisms of horizontal accountability.
• Electoral outcomes are uncertain with a significant opposition vote and the presumption of party alternation in government, and no group that adheres to constitutional principles is denied the right to form a party and contest elections.
• Cultural, ethnic, religious, and other minority groups are not prohibited from expressing their political interests, speaking their language or practicing their culture.
• Beyond parties and elections, citizens have multiple ongoing channels for expression and representation of their interests and values, e. they can form and join diverse, independent associations and movements.
• There are alternative sources of information, including independent media, to which citizens have free access.
• Individuals also have substantial freedom of belief, opinion, discussion, speech, publication, assembly, demonstration and petition.
• Citizens are politically equal under the law.
• An independent, non-discriminatory judiciary, whose decisions are enforced and respected by other centres of power, effectively protects individual and group liberties.
• The rule of law protects citizens from unjustified detention, exile, terror, torture, and undue interference in their personal lives not only by the state but also by organized non-state or anti-state forces.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
DECLARATION
ABSTRACT 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES.
LIST OF FIGURES
ACRONYMS
CLARIFICATION OF TERMS 
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
INTRODUCTION
AN OVERVIEW OF AFRICA’ S DEVELOPMENT POLICY
THE LAGOS PLAN OF ACTION
THE AFRICAN-ALTERNATIVE FRAMEWORK TO THE STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMME
CHALLENGES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA: SOME
MAJOR OVERVIEWS
HISTORICAL FACTORS: SLAVERY AND COLONIALISM
THE COLD WAR AND DONOR POLICIES
LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE ISSUES
IMPERATIVES FOR THE AFRICAN RENAISSANCE: FORMATION OF THE AFRICAN UNION, NEPAD AND APRM
THE AFRICAN UNION (AU) AND ITS OBJECTIVES.
NEPAD: ITS INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS
DEVELOPMENT OF NEPAD
Mobilisation of resources and market access.
NEPAD’S MONITORING MECHANISM: THE APRM
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY.
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY.
STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS
CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 
INTRODUCTION.
RESEARCH APPROACHES.
QUALITATIVE VERSUS QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
BIOGRAPHY.
PHENOMENOLOGY
GROUNDED THEORY
ETHNOGRAPHY
CASE STUDY
SYSTEMS APPROACH
RESEARCH DESIGN .
DATA COLLECTION PROCESS
DOCUMENTARY SEARCH
ARCHIVAL RECORDS.
INTERVIEWS.
SAMPLING AND SELECTING INFORMANTS
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION.
ETHICS, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY.
ETHICS
VALIDITY
RELIABILITY
CONCLUSION.
CHAPTER 3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNANCE AND NEPAD/APRM: A CRITICAL LITERATURE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION.
THE MANAGERIAL APPROACH
THE POLITICAL APPROACH
THE LEGAL APPROACH
THE NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT APPROACH (NPM)
GOVERNANCE: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE: NEPAD AND APRM
PEER REVIEW MECHANISM
THEORIES OF REGIONALISM AND REGIONAL INTEGRATION
DETERMINANTS OF GOVERNANCE, LEADERSHIP AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
THE RULE OF LAW
ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
IMPORTANCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT PUBLIC SECTOR
DEMOCRACY: THE CONTROVERSY
GOVERNANCE – A DEFINITIONAL FRAMEWORK
CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDIES: GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP MODELS IN AFRICA
INTRODUCTION
MAJOR POLITICAL SYSTEMS IN THE WORLD
LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL SYSTEMS
EGALITARIAN-AUTHORITARIAN POLITICAL SYSTEMS
TRADITIONAL INEGALITARIAN POLITICAL SYSTEMS
POPULIST POLITICAL SYSTEMS
AUTHORITARIAN-INEGALITARIAN POLITICAL SYSTEMS
POLITICAL SYSTEMS AND GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA
TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE
GOVERNANCE DURING THE COLONIAL PERIOD
INDEPENDENT AFRICA: NEOPATRIMONIAL REGIMES AND AUTHORITARIAN RULE.
LEADERSHIP, POLITICAL STABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA
TYPES OF AFRICAN POLITICAL REGIMES UNTIL THE DEMOCRATISATION ERA (1990)
INFLUENTIAL FACTORS FOR BAD GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA.
BEYOND AUTOCRACY: DEMOCRACY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA.
EXPERIENCES OF DEMOCRATISATION IN AFRICA.
INSTITUTIONS AND THE SUSTAINING OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE
GOVERNANCE AND INSTRUMENTS OF POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
REGIONALISM AND POLITICAL/ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION IN AFRICA
CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5 AFRICAN PEER REVIEW MECHANISM: A CASE ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
ANALYSIS OF APRM POLICIES AND STRUCTURES
INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES OF THE APRM
PERIODICITY AND TYPES OF PEER REVIEW
THE PROCESS OF THE APRM
ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE APRM
THE PROGRESS OF PEER REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION
MERITS AND BENEFITS OF THE APRM POLICIES
IMPROVING LEADERSHIP AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE
OPEN SPACE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION
NEW PARTNERSHIP WITH DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
PROMOTING REGIONAL INTEGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT
CHALLENGES OF THE AFRICAN PEER REVIEW MECHANISM
DIFFICULTIES OF IMPLEMENTATION
CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY
CONCLUSIONS
THE APRM IN A NUTSHELL
MERITS AND POTENTIALS OF THE APRM
OBSTACLES AND CHALLENGES OF THE APRM
RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES
BOOKS
REPORTS, JOURNALS, AND PRESENTATION PAPERS
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS ON THE NEPAD AND THE APRM.
INTERNET SOURCES
NEWSPAPERS.

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT