 |
| Guinea's current president, Alpha Condé |
We have recently been discussing in
detail how and why African nations struggle in establishing and maintaining
successful democracies. I selected this topic because in my opinion, the best
way to reinforce these concepts is to look at real world examples. This example
looks at the nation of Guinea who provides a great example of a nation that despite
its best efforts, struggles with maintaining a stable democracy after
independence. Although Guinea’s current
president, Alpha Condé
seems quite optimistic, the prospects for a successful and most importantly
stable democracy still seem quite bleak.
One reason for this pessimistic
attitude toward Guinea’s success comes from its volatile political history. After
Guinea gained independence from France in 1958, Ahmed Sekou Toure became Guinea’s
first president, and “pursued a revolutionary socialist agenda and crushed political
opposition” (BBC). During his 26-year
regime, it is estimated that tens of thousands of people disappeared or were
tortured and executed. Lansana Conte, who took office in 1984, later passed a
referendum extending the term from five to seven years, allowing him to essentially
stay in power for as long as he wanted. Throughout Conte’s reign, we can see aspects
of neopatrimonialism, especially in Conte’s constant desire and need to
eliminate any sort of competition or possible uprising. For example, he
questionably sentenced the leader of his opposing party to five years in
prison. Although there were a few attempts to elect a president, success wasn’t
achieved until November 2010 when Alpha Condé was declared the winner of the nation’s first
democratic elections.
Many of the prerequisites for a
successful democracy as discussed in class, such as having a middle class,
urbanization, and improved living standards, are all still missing in Guinea. According
to the Guardian article, more than half of Guinea’s population still lives in
poverty, with 70% of the population still illiterate (Smith). Guinea also ranks
at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to global corruption,
development, and governance indices (Smith). According the African Leadership Index,
Alpha Condé
received a letter grade of “F” or fail, and Guinea’s Corruption Index score ranks
164 out of 183.
Despite his optimism, Condé himself remains part of
the problem. Falling into the same trap as his unsuccessful predecessors, Condé has stayed in power
longer than the allotted time and has also had clashed between citizens or
protesters and government officials resulting in numerous deaths. As discussed
in class, two of the core aspects of neopatrimonialism are weak state
institutions and a centralization of, both evident in Guinea. The World Bank’s
country director, Ousmane Diagana, said that Guinea needs “governance based on
stronger political institutions” (Smith). It also worries Diagana that Guinea’s
president is not conversing with his opposition in order to better the nation
politically and economically.
Based on our discussions in class
and what I have read both about Guinea’s history and this current article, the
chances of Guinea maintaining this so called “democracy” are slim to none.
Living conditions and political institutions need to be drastically improved,
along with a decentralization of power. Lastly, both Condé and future leaders need
to eliminate all aspects of neopatrimonialism from their rule. Sadly, I don’t
think we have seen the end of the violent and bloody protests of Guinea’s past.
Both the citizens and military are unhappy with the current conditions.
What do others think Guinea’s
future has in store? What are the best solutions to Guinea’s problems with
maintaining a stable democracy?
Sources:
History Information and Image: BBC News Africa:Guinea Profile
Statistics: The EastAfrican Magazine: African Leadership Index February 6-12, 2012 XV
