Over the past ten years or more, heads of states across many of Africa's new democracies have attempted to modify their country's constitutions to prolong their mandates.
Today, in many of these countries - examples include Burundi, Rwanda, Togo, Benin and both Congos - discussions are heating up over whether term limits should be imposed.
In past articles, I have made several arguments in favor of fixed terms. Here, however, I take a step back to see if there is a relationship between term limits and citizens' well-being. Does maintaining the same person in power for decades make any difference in the livelihoods of the people?
Before delving into this issue, there is one necessary caveat to clarify. The links between democracy (or any regime type, for that matter) and economic development have been the subject of ample prior research. However these studies have rarely born definitive conclusions.
Analysts such as Michael Ross and Mancur Olson believe that democracy leads to better management of public resources and an overall improvement in people's lives (particularly in the education and health sectors).
Meanwhile, there are others, such as Jenny Minier, who think that providing services to constituents is not a trait specific to democracies and that non-democratic regimes can indeed provide the same.
The purposes of this paper are not to take sides of this debate, but rather to un-package some of the issue itself. This paper, therefore, does not attempt to provide definitive answers, but merely to stimulate further discussion.
Is there any evidence to show that populations can indeed benefit from having the same person in power for a protracted period of time? That is the most obvious question. It is a key question for new democracies in the region to be asking, especially given the number of heads of states fighting to hold on to power and the seemingly high price paid by the citizens for this type of "uncontained" control.
The 'cost' on our countries is, among other things, reflected in our weak institutions and civil society, restraints on citizens' basic rights and the inexistence of opposition. But is this solely, or even directly, a result of presidents who don't relinquish power?
One possible entry point to this conversation is to look at the UNDP's human development rankings of countries where terms limits are imposed/respected as compared to those where leaders have been/stayed in power for decades.
Data on Development in West Africa
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education and income and will be used as the factual (data) basis by which to compare two national groupings that have very different leadership histories.
The first group is made up of countries where the same leaders have held power for decades. This includes Togo, Burkina Faso and Gambia. In the former country, for example, the presiding Gnassingbe family has been in power for 48 years (Eyadema Gnassingbe stayed in power from 1967 to 2005 and his son, Faure Gnassingbe, has been there since 2005). In Burkina Faso, President Blaise Compaore spent 27 years (1987-2014) before he was forced to leave office at the end 2014 due to violent street protests; while in The Gambia, President Yaya Jammeh is now ending his second decade in power (which he's held since July 1994).
In the second group, there is Benin, Ghana and Senegal - all countries where democratic rotation and the alternation of power have become the norm (there have been at least two changes in power in each country since the mid-1990s). While in Ghana, politicians seem to have respected terms limitation, Benin and Senegal have experienced attempts by former presidents to hang on to power beyond the two terms limits set by their constitutions. These attempts have failed however, thanks to civil society activists and some political actors.
Looking at Graph 1, (see original report) which explores the Human Development Index (HDI) of the six countries, there are no perceivable patterns or major differences between the two country groupings.
For instance (and except for in Ghana), the trends in the evolution of the HDIs in Senegal and Benin (which have experienced at least two changes in power over the last two decades) are not very different from those of The Gambia, Togo and Burkina Faso where heads of state have stayed (or tried to stay) longer than initially planned (or for more than 10 years). However, the HDIs seem slightly higher in the first group of countries as compared to those in the second group.
But of course there are other factors to consider aside from the HDI.
Aspects such as the amount of natural resources, geography (whether the country is landlocked or not) and the size of the economy (GDP) are all important considerations. For example, take the first group - Ghana, Senegal and Benin - all of whom have higher GDP per capita ($4029, $2,243 and $1,793 respectively). The second group, by contrast, are nations with smaller GDP per capita ($1,642 for The Gambia, $1,638 for Burkina Faso and $1,390 for Togo).
But what if we looked at states within the top GDP ranked countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and compared their leadership histories? Nigeria, South Africa and Ghana can be grouped into one category where there are high GDP's and power alternation. Equatorial Guinea, Angola and Cameroon may be grouped into another with high similarly high GDPs, yet without power alternation. The result? Graph 2 represents the variation (or lack thereof) of the HDI between 1990 and 2013 between these two groups.
According to Graph 2, it once again indicates that staying in power longer (more than 10 years), even with higher GDP per capita, does not necessarily translate into better human development compared to a country with changes in power. For instance, South Africa and Ghana with GDPs of $12,507 and $4,029 respectively have better HDI's compared to Equatorial Guinea and Angola where their GDPs are $33,767 and $7,978.
But the story doesn't end here. There are several other factors that come into play and which contribute to the social and economic development of a country. A change in head of state is just one consideration. More research still needs to be done to provide concrete evidence supporting the fact that, except for in very few instances, several decades incumbency does not make any difference in citizens' lives.
It would be beneficial for all new democracies to find additional and measurable proof that in countries where leaders hold on to power for several decades there was not any notable difference in the lives of citizens, as compared to countries where alternation of power was the norm. If this was indeed the case, there would be no point in fighting to keep the same person in power for several decades, especially since there are many advantages in alternation of power. So what are these benefits?
Alternation of power is good in itself
In a previous article, I argued in favor of presidential term limitations, largely because it improves the virtue of those in positions of control and operates as a moderating mechanism against abuses. Power tends to increase over time. As former US President John Adams is often quoted, "human passions are insatiable" in their quest for control and, as British historian and politician Lord Acton used to say "power corrupts". Indeed the longer an individual or aligned group stays in power, the more dominance they accumulate and the more they (and power) becomes prone to abuse. Furthermore, experience across 90% of the world's established democracies has shown that presidential rule is subject to a form of limitation, while here in Sub-Saharan Africa unlimited presidential terms have not proven conclusive.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
A recent article posted on the Brookings' Institution website on the African Leadership Transitions Tracker provides further arguments in favor of power alternation. Among its benefits it cites an "improved context for political rights and civil liberties"and the fact that "citizens' support for democracy is affected by democratic turnover".
American political advisor Gideon Maltz(5) goes even further by stating in his 2007 article The Case for Presidential Term Limits that "... the mere alternation of ruling elites tends to disembowel electoral authoritarianism"(6) . Most importantly, Maltz goes on to stress an even more valuable truth: "... turnover in government destroys the patronage networks and clientelistic relationships ... and the new ruling party must begin the gradual process of taking over the state's assets and pressing them into service."
As I've tried to show through this short overview of the HDI's relative to power tenure across country groupings,there are no notable differences between Ghana, Senegal and Benin and Burkina Faso, Gambia and Togo as a result of power alternation. However, what is important - in fact, crucial - is that in this first group of countries, they are engaged in building functioning and effective institutions.
And it is these institutions that will (among other roles) serve as the foundations to provide peace and stability, which are invaluable to social and economic development. However, and as previously stated, more evidence is still needed in support of the arguments put forward here, and it is my hope we can further build on this discussion to build a more fruitful and tangible case for imposing presidential term limits.
Mathias Hounkpe is OSIWA's Political Governance Program Manager. Follow Mathias on Twitter @Coffi_12
Graphs, footnotes and links to reference documents can be found in the original article on the OSIWA website.
