Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1835469142-scaled

The US must stop supporting 'forever presidents' in Africa

Despite aid and other commitments, democracy is backsliding among some key US-partners.

Analysis | Global Crises

Over the last four years, Chad, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, Angola, Gambia, and Algeria have all had their forever presidents fall from power. Collectively, these six presidents spent 188 years in office. What has kept many of them in power for so long was the abolition and/or manipulation of constitutional term limits, the rigging of elections, gross human rights violations, and a lack of governmental transparency. With many countries seeing their long-standing authoritarian regimes change, how will the United States respond to new leaders that might look to remain in power indefinitely?

Since decolonization, Africa has seen its fair share of political strongmen come and go. Forever presidents have caused harm to millions through political repression and deprived their nations of billions of dollars through economic mismanagement. However, since 2011, many of these leaders, for example Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir and Chad’s President Idris Deby, were either forced from office through elections, term limits, or they passed away while serving as president. The majority — six out of ten — were ousted by popular uprisings. These rare changes in leadership present a timely opening for the United States to demonstrate its commitment to democratic values in these and other countries globally.

During Joe Biden's 2020 presidential campaign, he presented plans to hold a global Summit for Democracy within his first year in office. To show that the United States is adjusting its relationship with global democracies, the summit intends to reinvigorate champions of democracy and address the critical democratic backsliding taking place around the world. Details of the Summit for Democracy have yet to be released, but it looks to reposition U.S. diplomacy in the direction of democracy promotion. This summit, if it takes place at all, will come at a time when we see a global decline in democracy and a rise in authoritarianism. In order to address democratic backsliding, the United States will need to do more than hold a summit on democracy, it will need to act by ending its tacit support for authoritarians and forever presidents anywhere in the world.

Some of the U.S.’s closest democratic African allies like Uganda and Nigeria are experiencing pervasive setbacks in their democracies. President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, who has been in office since 1986, is an example of a leader who has sustained strong relations with the United States despite being such an anti-democratic figure. The United States recently took a harder stance against President Museveni by applying targeted sanctions against Museveni’s regime for human rights violations committed during Uganda’s presidential election. President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria recently banned Twitter in the country after the social media company removed his tweet that encouraged violence. This direct attack on the freedom of speech and expression comes after gross human rights violations committed by the Buhari administration during the ENDSARS movement in 2020. After reports of Nigerian soldiers killing protestors, the United States has done little to hold President Buhari and the Nigerian government accountable for the Lekki Toll Gate massacre.

African governance monitoring indexes have indicated that freedoms in the democratic process are regressing on the continent. The Mo Ibrahim Foundation Index of African Governance's participation, rights, and inclusion score has reached a nine-year low. This figure — which measures political pluralism, civil society space, and personal liberties across Africa — has been on a downward trend since 2012. A recent African Peer Review Mechanism annual report details how, despite reforms to safeguard constitutions, presidents often overpower reforms to remain in power past their constitutional limits.

The United States needs a new policy approach to address anti-democratic leaders. This means tying prospective trade, aid, and security assistance efforts to the democratic practices and good governance within a country. A greater emphasis on assisting and monitoring the development of strong institutions within our democratic allies is paramount in addressing authoritarians globally. Limiting strategic aid would allow the United States to leverage its partnerships in favor of democratic values and strong institutions. Significantly reducing U.S. assistance over democratic backsliding will send a clear message that the United States will no longer tolerate repressive regimes in aid recipient countries like Tanzania and Zambia.

The international community also shares responsibility in sustaining the longevity of strongmen around the world as it often accepts poor democratic behavior by heads of state. A reduction in U.S. aid coupled with unified targeted sanctions from the United Nations and the European Union will have a greater chance of altering the attitude and actions of oppressive regimes. Targeted sanctions will put more pressure on anti-democratic leaders while sparing the local economy of civil societies that bear the brunt of non-targeted sanctions.

Though the actions on January 6th in the U.S. Capitol highlighted the U.S.'s continued struggles with democracy at home, the United States can still be a champion for democracy abroad while mending its own democratic rift at home. To revitalize democracy in the 21st century, pressure must be put on authoritarians and forever presidents who seek to undermine democracy. At the Summit for Democracy, the United States must signal that it will not stand idly by while autocrats reverse democratic progress. With many African countries currently being governed by first-term presidents, the transitional focus must be on solidifying democratic values, especially since their predecessors have had a stronghold on their respective countries for 20+ years.

Thanks to our readers and supporters, Responsible Statecraft has had a tremendous year. A complete website overhaul made possible in part by generous contributions to RS, along with amazing writing by staff and outside contributors, has helped to increase our monthly page views by 133%! In continuing to provide independent and sharp analysis on the major conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as the tumult of Washington politics, RS has become a go-to for readers looking for alternatives and change in the foreign policy conversation. 

 

We hope you will consider a tax-exempt donation to RS for your end-of-the-year giving, as we plan for new ways to expand our coverage and reach in 2025. Please enjoy your holidays, and here is to a dynamic year ahead!

LAGOS, NIGERIA- OCTOBER 16, 2020: Nigerian youths bearing protest banners during a march against police brutality in Lagos, Nigeria. (Photo: Ajibola Fasola via shutterstock.com)
Analysis | Global Crises
Neville Chamberlain
Top image credit: Everett Collection via shutterstock.com

It's time to retire the Munich analogy

Global Crises

Contemporary neoconservatism is, in its guiding precepts and policy manifestations, a profoundly ahistorical ideology. It is a millenarian project that not just eschews but explicitly rejects much of the inheritance of pre-1991 American statecraft and many generations of accumulated civilizational wisdom from Thucydides to Kissinger in its bid to remake the world.

It stands as one of the enduring ironies of the post-Cold War era that this revolutionary and decidedly presentist creed has to shore up its legitimacy by continually resorting to that venerable fixture of World War II historicism, the 1938 Munich analogy. The premise is simple, and, for that reason, widely resonant: British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, in his “lust for peace,” made war inevitable by enabling Adolf Hitler’s irredentist ambitions until they could no longer be contained by any means short of direct confrontation between the great powers.

keep readingShow less
ukraine war

Diplomacy Watch: Will Assad’s fall prolong conflict in Ukraine?

QiOSK

Vladimir Putin has been humiliated in Syria and now he has to make up for it in Ukraine.

That’s what pro-war Russian commentators are advising the president to do in response to the sudden collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, according to the New York Times this week. That sentiment has potential to derail any momentum toward negotiating an end to the war that had been gaining at least some semblance of steam over the past weeks and months.

keep readingShow less
Romania's election canceled amid claims of Russian interference
Top photo credit: Candidate for the presidency of Romania, Calin Georgescu, and his wife, Cristela, arrive at a polling station for parliamentary elections, Dec. 1, 2024 in Mogosoaia, Romania. Georgescu one the first round in the Nov. 24 presidential elections but those elections results have been canceled (Shutterstock/LCV)

Romania's election canceled amid claims of Russian interference

QiOSK

The Romanian Constitutional Court’s unprecedented decision to annul the first round results in the country’s Nov. 24 presidential election and restart the contest from scratch raises somber questions about Romanian democracy at a time when the European Union is being swept by populist, eurosceptic waves.

The court, citing declassified intelligence reports, ruled that candidate Călin Georgescu unlawfully benefitted from a foreign-backed social media campaign that propelled him from an obscure outsider to the frontrunner by a comfortable margin. Romanian intelligence has identified the foreign backer as Russia. Authorities claim that Georgescu’s popularity was artificially inflated by tens of thousands of TikTok accounts that promoted his candidacy in violation of Romanian election laws.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.