Factors That Caused Authoritarian Rule in Africa After Independence Assessment Answer

Introduction

A kind of governance known as authoritarian rule is characterised by strict central authority, constrained political freedoms, and a dearth of checks and balances. A single leader or a small group of elites hold the majority of the power in an authoritarian system, frequently with little regard for the rule of law or democratic procedures. The repression of dissent and resistance is one of the characteristics of authoritarian government. This suppression of dissent can result in a lack of political plurality and little public discourse, giving the populace little opportunity to question or affect governmental policies. On preserving societal order and stability, authoritarian governments frequently place a strong focus.(European Centre for Populism Studies, n.d.). To keep their hold on power, governments operating under such systems frequently impose restrictions on free speech, control over the media, and censorship.As a result, the dictatorship may implement tight law enforcement, monitoring, and the use of force to put an end to any threats to its power.

Despite the fact that this strategy frequently sacrifices individual freedoms and civil liberties in order to preserve control, it can also result in widespread violations of human rights (Svolik, 2012). Authoritarian regimes may implement economic policies that put the needs of the state or the ruling class ahead of those of the general populace. This may result in a lack of transparency, corruption, and an ineffective distribution of resources. Several African nations went through periods of authoritarian governance after obtaining independence from colonial authority in the middle of the 20th century. It was extremely difficult for many of these recently independent countries to build strong government systems (King, 2009).Authoritarian government may have some supporters despite its disadvantages who think that a strong central government can bring stability, effectiveness, and decisive leadership to a nation. The concentration of power in a small number of people can, however, also result in a lack of accountability, raising the possibility of abuses and corruption going unchallenged. Many politicians who wanted to consolidate power and maintain control over their nations throughout the post-independence era rose to power, frequently at the expense of democratic values and human rights (Liddard, 2023). The paper will discuss several factors that have caused authoritarian rule in Africa after independence.

Factors

Legacy of colonialism

Africa has witnessed a severe, credulous, dictatorial and cruel form of colonialism. Colonialism enormously altered the politics of Africa by substituting indigenous foundation by different agencies or organisations. Due to the influence of colonialism the democratic culture of Africa was dismantled in the pre-colonial era (Bayeh, 2015). European powers established hierarchical, centralised forms of government throughout the colonial era, which concentrated authority in the hands of a small number of people. These pre-existing systems were already in place when African nations gained their independence, giving newly empowered leaders a ready-made framework to consolidate power and erect authoritarian regimes (Cooper, 2008). Because the colonial powers prioritised resource extraction above long-term development and investments in infrastructure and education, colonialism left African states with enormous economic issues. As a result, several recently independent nations experienced economic hardship and turned to outside parties for financial assistance. Because the colonial powers prioritised resource extraction above long-term development and investments in infrastructure and education, colonialism left African states with enormous economic issues. As a result, several recently independent nations experienced economic hardship and turned to outside parties for financial assistance. By using patronage networks and corruption to strengthen their hold on power, weak authoritarian leaders took advantage of this economic vulnerability, further undermining democratic principles and accountability (Pwiti & Ndoro, 1999). 

The study conducted by Fisher & Cheeseman, (2019) observed that the legacy of colonial control has significantly shaped the political landscape of many African countries, resulting in the creation of authoritarian regimes that are characterised by fragility and instability. In order to gain support and tighten their hold on power, weak authoritarian regimes took advantage of these splits. Due to the suppression of opposition in order to preserve stability, this helped to develop an environment where democratic values were undercut. The article also looks at how colonialism's economic legacies impacted the establishment of a shaky authoritarianism. Colonial powers frequently put a higher priority on resource extraction than on spending on infrastructure and education. As a result, newly independent African countries experienced severe economic difficulties and a high reliance on outside parties. In order to keep control over economic resources, weak authoritarian leaders took advantage of their dependence on them by participating in corruption and patronage networks (Fisher & Cheeseman, 2019).

Table 1 : Type of one-party regime formation by colonial grouping

The above table describes the overall relationship between the countries that form one-party regime developed by coercion of party dominance which did not form one party regime. This table shows that multiple party regimes are not valued in any of the ex-French countries in Africa.

Ethnic and Tribal Politics

After achieving independence, ethnic and tribal politics were a significant element in the spread of authoritarian leadership throughout Africa. Many post-colonial African nations were characterised by a variety of ethnic groups and tribal groupings, each with its own unique cultural, linguistic, and historical identities. Additionally, ethnic and tribal politics exacerbated societal tensions and inequalities by contributing to the marginalisation of minority populations. The manipulation of ethnic identities resulted in the denial of political representation and access to resources for some people, escalating conflicts and dividing countries. Leaders frequently used authoritarian tactics to impose this exclusive mindset because they wanted to hold onto power by stifling minority groups' disagreement and opposition. Unfortunately, these ethnic and tribal differences served as a powerful weapon for political manipulation by aspirant leaders rather than serving to promote a feeling of national unity. Authoritarian politicians frequently seized on these divisions to win over their ethnic or tribal constituencies, cementing their hold on power and ensuring their rule (Ajulu, 2002).

Leaders consciously played on ethnic feelings in the quest for political domination, pledging to defend the interests of their various ethnic groups against perceived threats from others. This encouraged identity-based politics, which polarised various ethnic populations and hampered the growth of inclusive national identities (Deng, 1997). Tribal and ethnic politics also impeded the growth of powerful and enduring political parties. Parties frequently centred around charismatic leaders who were representatives of particular ethnic communities rather than organising around ideological or policy platforms. By restricting the development of a diversified and competitive party system and, in turn, reducing the constraints on executive power, this personalised politics let authoritarianism flourish (Legum,1999).

Figure 1: Africa response to the challenges

Limiting Political Participation And Opposition

Many post-colonial African governments purposefully restricted political liberties and muzzled opposition voices in an effort to hold onto power. Authoritarian regimes used a variety of strategies to limit political participation, including passing restrictive electoral laws, rigging elections, and using state-run media to stifle opposing viewpoints. The creation of dominating single-party systems was one typical strategy used to restrict political participation. These ruling parties, which are frequently under the leadership of the current administration, monopolised political power and shunned alternative parties, giving the populace few realistic options. Election results under such systems were frequently severely biassed in favour of the prevailing party and frequently lacked meaningful competition. As a result, the democratic values of accountability and representation were seriously undermined and citizens' capacity to influence government policy (P. Parolin, 2015).

The media and civic society were also subject to the restrictions on political liberties. Media sources were frequently under the control or censorship of authoritarian governments, which prevented the spread of unbiased information and critical analysis. Civil society organisations, which are essential for protecting individuals' rights and holding governments responsible, have been subject to tight regulations or outright prohibitions, further restricting opportunities for political scrutiny and involvement.Additionally, authoritarian governments used coercive tactics to crush opposition and dissent. It was usual practice to use harassment, intimidation, and arrests of political activists, journalists, and human rights campaigners to crush dissent and silence criticism. In addition to undermining the rule of law, these acts also promoted fear, which discouraged political participation and active participation in civil society (Rønning, 2005).

Predominately Centralisation of Power

The concentration of power allowed post-independence regimes to exert control over the military, judicial system, and media, among other facets of the state. Authoritarian leaders could stifle dissent, marginalise opposition, and influence political processes to their advantage in a climate of concentration of power. Since there were few mechanisms in place to hold leaders accountable for their decisions, authoritarian control became more entrenched as a result. It was difficult for opposition parties to establish themselves and offer a strong challenge to the ruling party since they had to overcome numerous obstacles. This absence of political competition made it harder for people to influence policy through democratic channels, which supported authoritarian practices ( Cappelen & Sorens, 2018).The colonial era saw the establishment of centralised systems of government by European powers, which concentrated authority in the hands of colonial administrators and a small number of local elites who worked closely with the colonial rulers. When African countries gained their independence, they inherited these centralised systems, which paved the way for the concentration of power in the hands of a single leader or ruling party.Furthermore, the largely centralised power structures prevented effective local government and decentralisation. The capital or major urban centres frequently received a disproportionate share of resources, overriding the demands and ambitions of rural areas in the process of decision-making. (Muchadenyika & Williams, 2018).

Lack of National Unity

Authoritarian rulers frequently used these distinctions to achieve their own objectives. In order to increase support from their different ethnic or tribal bases, they took advantage of ethnic and regional identities by capitalising on historical resentments and interethnic conflicts. These politicians reinforced societal divisions and marginalised specific groups by promoting identity-based politics, which led to an atmosphere where ethnic or tribal allegiances took precedence over the goal of national unity. An additional obstacle to addressing urgent national concerns and advancing sustainable development was the lack of national unity. Cooperation among varied populations was hampered by the lack of a unifying goal, making it challenging to reach agreement on crucial policy issues and give priority to national interests over specific ethnic or regional concerns (Rowlands, 2016).

Political unrest and economic difficulties were exacerbated by this lack of coordination and fragmented decision-making, which gave authoritarian leaders a chance to portray themselves as the country's saviours. Inheriting varied ethnic, linguistic, and cultural identities from colonial borders that didn't always fit with pre-existing social or tribal systems, post-colonial African nations were frequently characterised by these characteristics. Building robust and inclusive institutions that could accommodate the population's variety of interests was difficult in the absence of a strong national identity and a sense of purpose (Lewis, 2018).

Lack of Economic Diversifications

After achieving independence, the lack of economic diversification became a crucial element in the persistence of authoritarian leadership throughout Africa. Several main commodities, like oil, minerals, or agricultural goods, were significantly dependent on export in the economies of many post-colonial African countries. These nations were vulnerable to changes in the price of commodities globally due to their small economic bases, which also left them open to foreign economic shocks. As a result, governments frequently turned to authoritarian means to keep power and maintain stability when faced with economic difficulties. Additionally, the lack of economic diversification widened the gap between regions and in terms of income inequality (Awe et al., 2023).

Grievances against the government and ruling class became more intense in nations where the profits of resource extraction were concentrated in the hands of a privileged elite while significant portions of the populace remained marginalised and underprivileged. In order to maintain their position of power, authoritarian authorities had to crack down on opposition since the widening income inequality exacerbated social tensions and increased the likelihood of civil upheaval. Additionally, the lack of economic diversity made it difficult for many African nations to create jobs and provide economic prospects for their rapidly growing youth populations.. Because of this, authoritarian administrations frequently tried to stifle youth political activism and dissent out of concern that it might spark protests and calls for change (Usman & Landry, 2021).

Poverty and Unemployment

 Post-colonial Africa as a whole had severe economic hardships, with high rates of unemployment and poverty wreaking havoc on their societies. It was difficult to create jobs and provide economic possibilities for a population that was expanding quickly due to the economies' poor economic diversification, which was frequently dependent on a small number of main commodities. People lost faith in their governments' capacity to solve their urgent socioeconomic concerns as poverty levels rose and basic requirements went unfulfilled.A major contributor to the discontent and disillusionment with the political elite was unemployment, especially among young people (Hope, 1996).

Many young people felt left out of the advantages of economic growth and development due to the lack of prospects for gainful employment and upward mobility. This feeling of exclusion produced a community of dissatisfied adolescents who were frequently easy targets for radical or extremist organisations looking to capitalise on their frustrations.There is a complicated web of connections between unemployment, poverty, and authoritarian government. It was easy for authoritarian leaders to defend their iron fisted rule as vital for upholding order and ensuring economic stability because of the lack of economic possibilities and the failure to address widespread poverty. Unfortunately, these leaders frequently continued a cycle of authoritarianism by abusing their authority to accumulate riches and widen economic inequalities (Awogbenle & Iwuamadi, 2010). In figure 2 the unemployment rate of youth in North Africa elevates to 29.3%. This represents the highest rate of unemployment in Africa.

Figure 2: Youth unemployment rate in Sub-Saharan Africa

Heterogeneous Ethnic Composition of African States

Multiple ethnic groups coexisting frequently resulted in fierce rivalry for resources and political power. Using ethnic ties to gain support from their own ethnic communities, authoritarian leaders took advantage of these divisions to strengthen their positions of power. They did this by supporting identity-based politics and encouraging an attitude of us versus them among various ethnic groups. This hampered the development of a strong national identity and made some ethnic populations feel marginalised, causing resentment and social unrest in the process. The creation of inclusive political structures was further hampered by the diverse ethnic mix (Smith, 2013).

People outside the dominant ethnic elite were frequently barred from political participation and decision-making processes as political parties and governments began to be dominated by leaders from particular ethnic groups. This exclusive strategy weakened democratic ideals, constrained political plurality, and prevented the emergence of different viewpoints within the government. Additionally, the diverse ethnic landscape made it difficult to allocate resources fairly and provide adequate public services. Governments frequently had trouble allocating resources wisely and meeting the needs of different ethnic communities, which resulted in perceptions of favouritism or neglect. This increased complaints against the government and gave authoritarian leaders a chance to keep power by portraying themselves as the only ones who could handle the challenges presented by such diversity or as the guardians of a specific ethnic community (Welsh, 1996).

One-party System

 Several African nations adopted a single-party political system in the post-colonial period, where a dominant party monopolised political power and stifled the existence of opposing parties. In actuality, the emergence of one-party governments undercut democratic norms, political plurality, and the checks and balances that should exist between the executive and legislative branches of government. One-party governments made it possible for ruling parties to monopolise state institutions and exercise control over all departments of government, consolidating power in the hands of a small number of elites. Authoritarian leaders were able to keep their hold on power by repressing opposition, restricting political freedoms, and influencing elections thanks to this concentration of power (Anyang'Nyong'o, 1992).

 A lack of transparency and probable human rights violations resulted from the ruling party's limited accountability and the weakening of the executive branch's checks and balances in the absence of a significant opposition. One-party systems also prevented the emergence of a dynamic political culture and the expansion of democratic institutions. Citizens had few options and opportunities to participate in the political process because there was no vibrant multiparty competition. The repression of opposition voices also restricted the exchange of different viewpoints and ideas within the political sphere, preventing the creation of fruitful policy discussions and viable alternatives to existing problems at home (Thomson, 2022).

Western and Eastern Powers Weaponise Africa Authoritarians

Authoritarian leaders were valued partners in the struggle against communism and seen as guarantors of stability in areas of strategic importance by Western countries, especially the United States. When it benefited their interests, they gave these leaders military and financial backing while overlooking violations of human rights and the restriction of democratic freedoms. This support for African autocrats strengthened their governments and enabled them to keep hold of power and uphold their rule, frequently at the price of democratic ideals and human rights. The Soviet Union and other Eastern nations similarly offered assistance to autocratic governments in Africa (Levitsky et al., 2006).

The Soviet Union supported governments that supported their political agenda in an effort to broaden their sphere of influence and develop their socialist beliefs. They helped African leaders by offering them military support, financial aid, and ideological training, which helped them establish their rule and built a network of authoritarian nations on the continent that were associated with the Soviet Union. These international forces turned African authoritarians into weapons, which stoked a vicious circle of support for autocratic governments. The backing of outside parties increased the legitimacy of authoritarian leaders, enabling them to repress dissent and muzzle opposition with impunity. In consequence, this lessened the likelihood of democratisation and encouraged a culture of political repression and human rights abuses (Colin ,1988).

Case Study

The case study by van Donge, (1985) provides a detailed examination of the independence movement in Zambia, focusing on the specific case of Mwase Lundazi. Mwase Lundazi, a region within Northern Rhodesia, became a significant centre of anti-colonial activism and nationalist sentiments during the struggle for independence. The publication examines the role of key individuals, community leaders, and grassroots movements in mobilising the local population for the cause of self-determination. It also explores the challenges faced by the independence movement, including repression and intimidation by colonial authorities, as well as divisions and disagreements among different factions within the resistance. The study provides a comprehensive analysis of the strategies employed by the people of Mwase Lundazi to challenge colonial rule and advocate for independence. It sheds light on various forms of resistance, such as protests, strikes, and advocacy for political representation. The role of education and the emergence of nationalist political parties in galvanising support for independence are also explored. Furthermore, the publication delves into the broader national and international context surrounding Zambia's independence struggle. It examines how the fight for independence was influenced by regional and global events, as well as the support and solidarity extended by other African countries and the international community. The study concludes by reflecting on the significance of the Mwase Lundazi case study in understanding the complexities and nuances of Zambia's path to independence. By analysing the experiences of this particular region, it provides valuable insights into the broader struggle for self-rule in Zambia and Africa as a whole. Overall, the publication offers a rich historical account of the independence movement in Zambia, shedding light on the sacrifices, resilience, and determination of the people of Mwase Lundazi and their contribution to the country's eventual liberation from colonial rule.

Conclusion

The vogue of authoritarianism in Africa post-independence have contributed to complicated exchange of economic,historical and political factors. There are several factors which have contributed to authoritarian rule in Africa after independence. The state of colonialism has centralised ethnic division and economic disparities which has resulted in the emergence of authoritarian regimes. The dearth of national unity because of different ethnic composition in the states of Africa has fueled social stress. In addition to this one party system in some states of Africa has suppressed the participation of politics which has enabled the ruling party to take control over. This has resulted in perpetuating the rules without any accountability. The inadequacy of high poverty along with unemployment has contributed to irritation and discontent in the people. This has offered the authoritarian leaders to grab an opportunity and portray themself as the explanation to the woes. Moreover, weaponization by both Eastern and Western power in the cold war era has fueled the conflicts in between the different regions of Africa. The assistance of the leaders with the help of external factors weakened the expectation for human rights and democratisation. To address the main cause of authoritarian rule in Africa , constant efforts should be made and also promoted , including economic diversification, governance and national unity. The marginalised communities should be empowered by promoting education and also create opportunities for the development of the youth. To break the cycle of authoritarian rule, a comprehensive approach should be taken into action which addresses the socio-economic challenges and historical legacies. The active engagement of the advocates and civil society will help to foster an environment which will be helpful to build a democratic participation among the people. .To build a path towards sustainable development, the African nation will have to work collaboratively so as to promote inclusive governance and foster national unity. 

References

Ajulu, R. (2002). Politicised ethnicity, competitive politics and conflict in Kenya: A historical perspective. African Studies, 61(2), 251-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/0002018022000032947

Anyang'Nyong'o, P. (1992). Africa: the failure of one-party rule. Journal of Democracy , 3 (1), 90-96. 10.1353/jod.1992.0005

Awe, O. O., Musa, A. P., & Sanusi, G. P. (2023). Revisiting economic diversification in Africa's largest resource-rich nation: Empirical insights from unsupervised machine learning. Resources Policy , 82 , 103540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103540

Awogbenle, A. C., & Iwuamadi, K. C. (2010). Youth unemployment: Entrepreneurship development programme as an intervention mechanism. African journal of business management, 4(6), 831. https://www.academia.edu/download/71120169/article1380718345_Awogbenle_and_Iwuamadi.pdf

Bayeh, E. (2015). The political and economic legacy of colonialism in the post-independence African states. International Journal in Commerce, IT & Social Sciences, 2(2), 90. https://www.academia.edu/download/58651727/IJCISS2513Feb7.pdf

Cappelen, C., & Sorens, J. (2018). Pre-colonial centralisation, traditional indirect rule, and state capacity in Africa. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics , 56 (2), 195-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/14662043.2017.1404666

Colin W. Lawson (1988). Soviet Economic Aid to Africa. African Affairs, 87(349), 501–518. https://www.jstor.org/stable/722891

Cooper, F. (2008). Possibility and constraint: African independence in historical perspective. The Journal of African History , 49 (2), 167-196. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40206638.

Deng, F. M. (1997). Ethnicity: an African predicament. The Brookings Review, 15(3), 28-31. https://doi.org/10.2307/20080749

European Centre for Populism Studies. (n.d.). Authoritarianism. https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/authoritarianism/

Fisher, J., & Cheeseman, N. (2019). How colonial rule predisposed Africa to fragile authoritarianism. https://theconversation.com/how-colonial-rule-predisposed-africa-to-fragile-authoritarianism-126114

Hope, K. R. (1996). Growth, unemployment and poverty in Botswana. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 14(1), 53-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/02589009608729581

King, S. J. (2009). The new authoritarianism in the Middle East and North Africa . Indiana University Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=z9ByENf5KscC&oi=fnd&pg=PP6&dq=Authoritarian+re

Legum, C. (1999). Africa since independence. Indiana University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/20080749

Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan A. (2006). Linkage versus Leverage. Rethinking the International Dimension of Regime Change. Comparative Politics, 38(4), 379. https://doi.org/10.2307/20434008

Lewis, P. (2018). Political transition and the dilemma of civil society in Africa. In Africa (pp. 137-158). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429502538-9/political-transition-dilemma-civi

Liddard, P. (2023). Is Populism Really a Problem for Democracy?. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/populism-really-problem-for-democracy

Muchadenyika, D., & Williams, J. J. (2018). Politics, centralisation and service delivery in urban Zimbabwe. Journal of Southern African Studies , 44 (5), 833-853. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057070.2018.1500748

Parolin, G. (2015). Constitutions against revolutions: political participation in North Africa. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies , 42 (1), 31-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2015.973186

Pwiti, G., & Ndoro, W. (1999). The legacy of colonialism: Perceptions of the cultural heritage in Southern Africa, with special reference to Zimbabwe. The African Archaeological Review , 16 (3), 143-153. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25130675

Rønning, H., & Kupe, T. (2005). The dual legacy of democracy and authoritarianism: The media and the state in Zimbabwe 1. In De-Westernizing media studies (pp. 138-156). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203981764-15/dual-legacy-democracy-auth

Rowlands, M. (2016). The unity of Africa. In Ancient Egypt in Africa (pp. 39-54). Routledge. https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/chapters/edit/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4

Smith, A. D. (2013). The ethnic revival in the modern world. In Sociological Worlds (pp. 286-295). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315063362-34/ethnic-revival-modern-world-anthony-smith

Svolik, M. W. (2012). The politics of authoritarian rule . Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6fUgAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR17&dq=+authoritaria

Thomson, A. (2022). An introduction to African politics . Taylor & Francis. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BKigEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT18&dq=one+party+

Usman, Z., & Landry, D. (2021). Economic diversification in Africa: How and why it matters. Available at SSRN 3842228 . http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3842228

van Donge, J.K. (1985). An episode from the independence struggle in Zambia : a case study from Mwase Lundazi. https://www.ascleiden.nl/publications/episode-independence-struggle-zambia-case-study-mwase-lundazi

Welsh, D. (1996). Ethnicity in sub-saharan Africa. International Affairs , 72 (3), 477-491. https://doi.org/10.2307/2625552

You Might Also Like:-

Arts Architecture Assignment Help

Theoretical Understandings of Inclusion and Social Justice