(5 minutes read)
· A long list of countries will go to the polls in Africa, such as Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, Niger, Seychelles, Tanzania and Togo.
· There are conspicuous restrictions that undermine the free elections, such as censorship on press, letting loose violence to mar the election processes, postponing the elections indefinitely etc.
· Autocratic and overly ambitious rulers can upset the growth process of a country and dash the hopes and aspirations of its citizens. Where should one draw a line is the most difficult and delicate task: but for the sake of development one has to take that tough call!
It is again an election time for Africa. During the year, a long list of countries will go to the polls, such as Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, Niger, Seychelles, Tanzania and Togo. Coupled with these, parliamentary elections will also take place in Chad, Mali, Ethiopia, Cameroon, Comoros, Egypt, Somalia, Liberia and Gabon.
Are the elections free and fair so that the electorate can opt for their preferred leader through the ballot box? As elsewhere in the world, in Africa also the elections are not that straight forward. Africa faces such incidences more often than anywhere else in the world, despite the fact that there has been a conscious effort to improve electoral processes and security. Undeniably, success rates are encouraging. Nonetheless, the continent has to traverse a long distance to catch up with its peers elsewhere in the world, where elections are held in time, at least.
Ethnic and tribal conflicts and dynastic rule apart, there are instances of shutting down of social media during these tense election periods. Countries like Uganda, Chad, Gabon, Burundi and Togo had resorted to these tactics of late. There are other conspicuous restrictions that undermine the free elections, such as censorship on press, letting lose violence to mar the election processes, postponing the elections indefinitely etc. If such things are happening with regularity and willful intent, it is a matter of great concern.
The way out is as tougher and more rigorous than the problem itself. Can there be a consensus among all political parties and the leaderships to grant only a maximum of two terms to a head of state in his/her lifetime? The US has such restrictions. But that cannot be generalized since there are elected heads of states even in most developed countries, where leaders occupy the top position for years together and at times for decades. The other criterion could be fixing a cut off age for a ruler or an elected representative. But for that also there are glaring exceptions across the world even in the developed world. People contest elections at an advanced age, despite being afflicted by diseases, which may pose difficulties for him or her to execute day to day responsibilities.
Political solutions are more complex than economic prescriptions. There can be some external pressure for changing the economic game plan of a country, especially when the country has to seek assistance from external sources like IMF or World Bank. The multilateral organizations impose severe economic conditionality on the aid receiving country. Can that yardstick applied in the case of political administrations that go haywire in their administration, without infringing on the sovereignty of that country and the rights of its citizens? Indeed, it is a tough call to decide the ambit of the political engagement with a country. Yet, autocratic and overly ambitious rulers can upset the growth process of a country and a genre of citizens. Where should one draw a line, is the most difficult and delicate task. But for the sake of development and smooth running of democratic systems one may have to take that tough call!
 |
ReplyReply allForward
|
