Why are Western powers all over African elections?
Nick Mangwana
Government Up Close
THERE are a number of elections being held in Africa and there is evidence that some Western powers are meddling in those processes.
In some cases, they have their own horse in the race and accept nothing but their horse’s victory. But how can they be both players and observers? When some among us question this, the retort they get is that Western powers are invited by African countries to come and participate as observers. I think it is unfair to judge us harshly for that. We know what happens to those that don’t invite them, don’t we? They are treated as rogue, illegitimate regimes and outposts of tyranny. So it’s a scenario of invite us or we treat you as a pariah. Where is the fairness in that?
The invitation of foreign election observers, particularly from the West, by African countries, raises questions about reciprocity and fairness. While African nations willingly open their electoral processes to international scrutiny, Western countries rarely extend the same courtesy. This imbalance underscores the double standards in international relations, where Western nations dictate democratic standards for others but resist external oversight themselves.
International election observation has become a norm since the 1990s, primarily driven by Western countries seeking validation of democratic commitments in developing nations. African countries, eager to demonstrate democratic pledges, invite observers. However, the West’s reluctance to reciprocate undermines global democratic co-operation.
Notably, regional bodies like the African Union actively promote democratic elections through observer missions, and here in Zimbabwe we have always invited them, so has the rest of the African continent. Yet, when Western countries are invited, there appears to be a selective application of democratic thresholds which erodes trust in them and their intentions.
The application of different democratic thresholds in African elections, depending on whether a country is aligned with Western interests or not, is a concerning phenomenon that undermines the legitimacy of democratic processes. When outcomes of elections in Africa align with Western interests, they’re often deemed “free and fair,” regardless of potential irregularities. Conversely, elections that don’t serve Western interests are frequently criticised and questioned, even if they’re conducted transparently. This double standard not only erodes trust in democratic institutions but also implies that African countries can’t manage their own electoral processes without external validation. Were we not enslaved and colonised because of this very mindset and attitude?
For instance, in countries with strong Western ties, electoral violence or irregularities are often downplayed or dismissed. Meanwhile, similar issues in countries with less favourable relations with the West are amplified and used as evidence of democratic shortcomings. This selective application of democratic standards creates an uneven playing field, where some countries are held to higher standards than others. And as Zimbabwe, we can say, we are held to a higher standard than anyone else out there and judged more harshly than our contemporaries. It’s crucial to recognize that democratic consolidation requires consistent and impartial evaluation of electoral processes, regardless of geopolitical alignments. For the sake of their own credibility, the West should apply the same threshold to evaluate electoral processes. But the ideal situation is that they should not be involved at all.
For genuine global democratic advancement, reciprocal transparency and cooperation are essential. African countries should rethink inviting Western observers unless mutual observation opportunities are afforded. There is an implied assumption that the western kind of democracy is perfect. But that is not true.
Democracy, in its truest form, remains an elusive concept. While many countries have made significant strides in embracing democratic principles, none have achieved perfection. The reality is that democracy is a spectrum, with nations exhibiting varying degrees of democratic institutions and practices. Even the most advanced Western nations just lie somewhere on that spectrum.
Even in countries considered to be beacons of democracy, there are limitations and imperfections. For instance, electoral democracies, where citizens have the right to choose their leaders, may still struggle with issues like unequal voting rights or flawed electoral processes or even strange electoral colleges. Similarly, liberal democracies, which emphasize individual rights and the rule of law, may face challenges in balancing individual freedoms with collective interests. Once we have established the fact that there is no perfect democracy under the sun, then we have to try to explain why then do African countries find it necessary to invite the West to come and endorse their electoral processes and outcomes?
Well, some argue that, the quest by African countries to have their electoral processes validated by the West can be seen as a self-patronizing and deprecating move. Essentially, it implies that African nations lack the capacity to manage their own democratic processes and require external validation to legitimize their elections. This mindset undermines the autonomy and sovereignty of African countries, reinforcing a harmful narrative of dependence on Western approval.
Moreover, this pursuit of validation can be viewed as a relic of colonialism, where African nations are still seeking approval from their former colonizers. It’s crucial to recognize that democratic processes are not one-size-fits-all and that African countries have unique contexts and challenges that require tailored solutions. By seeking Western validation, African nations may be compromising their own agency and self-determination.
Instead of relying on external validation, African countries should focus on strengthening their own inter-regional and intra-regional peer review of their elections. This would enable them to build robust and credible democratic institutions that reflect their own values and priorities. Ultimately, African nations should assert their independence and confidence in their electoral processes, rather than seeking external endorsement. When the West meddles in our processes, let us consider that sometimes it’s us who invite them to do so and they end up treating us like children.
The West’s stance on foreign interference in democratic processes is quite hypocritical. On one hand, they’re extremely sensitive about external influences in their own elections, and rightly so. They claim that there are threats from Russia and to them, these threats are real. When it comes to their own electoral processes, they recognize that foreign interference poses a significant threat to their democratic institutions. The European Parliament has even dedicated special committees to address external attempts to influence elections and other democratic processes within the EU. But how much money do these countries pour in other countries in support of parties that are aligned to them or to undermine those that they believe contradict their interests?
Why, when it comes to African elections, does the West suddenly think it’s right for them to get very involved? They send observers, provide funding, and even dictate electoral reforms. This double standard is striking. While the West demands autonomy and non-interference in their own democratic processes, they seem to think it’s acceptable to interfere in Africa’s. It’s almost as if they believe African countries can’t manage their own elections without external guidance. The irony is that the same concerns about Russian or Chinese influence in Western elections should apply to Western influence in African elections. African nations should be allowed the same autonomy and self-determination as Western countries. It is time for the West to practice what they preach and respect Africa’s sovereignty.
It would be remiss of me to complete this week’s piece without highlighting the role Civil Society Organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) play in the undermining of national sovereignty of African countries.
The deployment ofNGOs) as instruments of interference in African countries’ sovereign affairs and agents of regime change is a pernicious practice that undermines the continent’s stability and self-determination. Under the pretence of promoting democracy, human rights, and humanitarianism, these Western-backed NGOs surreptitiously fuel insurrections, destabilize governments, and manipulate public opinion to serve foreign interests. Their clandestine activities, often financed by powerful governments and corporations, erode national sovereignty, exacerbate ethnic and political tensions, and legitimize external intervention. These include the funding and training of opposition groups to topple democratically-elected governments, the promotion of Western-oriented agendas over local values and interests as well as the dissemination of misinformation to incite unrest and mobilize protests. The work of the ironically named Centre for Applied NonViolent Actions and Strategies (CANVAS) is a case in point.
This neo-colonialist strategy exploits Africa’s vulnerability, undermining nation-building efforts. African nations must vigilantly regulate NGO activities, ensuring alignment with national interests and values. Zimbabweans are now eagerly waiting for President Mnangagwa to assent to the PVO Bill so as to regulate against these insidious actions of NGOs and CSOs. This is what independent countries do, including those in the west. The so-called international community should respect Africa’s sovereignty, allowing nations to address internal issues without external manipulation. Only genuine partnerships, not covert regime change operations disguised as humanitarianism, will foster meaningful development and cooperation.
Let me conclude by saying, the role of Western election observers in African countries is a complex issue that warrants critical examination. While some believe these observers may bring valuable expertise and resources, their presence can also be perceived as an affront to Africa’s sovereignty and democracy. The fact that Western countries often have their own interests and biases in African elections raises questions about the true motives behind their observation missions. Moreover, the selective application of democratic standards, where some African countries are held to higher scrutiny than others, undermines the legitimacy of the observation process. And the question still lingers; If we can’t observe theirs, why do they observe ours? Are we children?
Nick Mangwana is the Permanent Secretary for Information, Publicity and Broadcasting Services
Comments