How democratic is Africa’s predominant party system? A Case Study of Zambia

This brief essay will present a case study of Zambia as a means to illustrate the nature of the predominant party system in Africa. This will be split into three sections; first examining the relationship between democracy and the party system, then looking at Zambia’s predominant party system between 1990 and 2001 and then post-2001.

Democracy and Party Systems

What is the relevance of the party system with regards to democratisation?

The academic literature assumes a relationship between party systems and democratic consolidation. The political parties in regimes making the transition to democracy have a key role in whether democracy ultimately consolidates; yet so too can they undermine that process.

The ideal party system for democratic consolidation, according to Giovanni Sartori, would be one that is highly institutionalized, lowly fragmented and idealistic by which we mean motivated by ideology rather than personal allegiance to charismatic leaders.[1] This is the opposite of what we have in Zambia and most of Africa.

If democracy is to consolidate, at which point democracy becomes the only game in town and is the accepted way in which power is obtained, then there must be political parties competing in free and fair elections.[2] The competitiveness and stability of party systems are essential for democratic consolidation.[3] To then answer the question directly, a predominant party system would be one which actually undermines democracy as it is neither competitive nor stable as it is weakly institutionalised.

Juan Linz says a ‘political society’ is necessary for democratic consolidation to contest the legitimate right to exercise control over public power. A full transition must involve political society, this being political parties, elections, electoral rules, political leadership and legislatures, through which society constitutes itself to select and monitor democratic governments. There must be political parties who represent the differences in society and regulate conflict.[4]

In this mix, how then do we define the predominant party system?

In assessing Zambia’s party system Peter Burnell utilises the framework offered by Giovanni Sartori in Parties and Party Systems and suggests that his classification – the predominant party system – can be applied to Zambia’s third republic.[5]

This term describes a type of party system in which there exists a predominant political party which over time is able to command an absolute majority (over 50%) of the seats in the legislature.[6] This is different from a one-party system as other parties compete for election as opposed to a ‘dominant party system’ where other parties are not constitutionally permitted to compete; in a pre-dominant system there is the possibility of alternation between parties but it is unlikely.

Zambia Case Study – 1990 to 2001

How does Zambia fare in regard to this criteria? Since democratization in 1991 Zambia has had a predominant party system with the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy dominating through to the present day; by 1996 they controlled 87% of seats in the National Assembly, the Presidency and local government too. Yet between 1991 – 1996 there were 11 parties contesting elections and a total of 25 registered parties.[7] It appears that there is a fully functioning and thriving democracy.

However a high number of political parties may not necessarily be conductive to democratic consolidation according to the Laakso-Taagepera index for the effective number of political parties.[8] This is because it creates high fragmentation which isn’t ideal according to Sartori’s criteria. Additionally, many of these parties are parties in name only and others such as UNIP were dominated by one leader, the former president Kaunda and his family, who used it as personal means through which to obtain power.

If we measure democracy by the presence of parties alone then we could conclude that democracy is thriving in Zambia. To counter this, Peter Burnell argues that for a thriving democracy more is required than the presence of elections.[9]

Important considerations include: What about the quality of those elections? Was there a real competition between parties and a real ideological choice on offer? The accusation of Zambia is that democracy has made little difference and there is the continuation of de-facto as opposed to de-jure one party rule as under Zambia’s Second Republic. Peter Burnell argues Zambia is not a one party state and points to continuities with the Second Republic and longer held political traditions from the colonial period. This then becomes an issue of African political culture and whether it is by nature anti-democratic.[10]

There may be some merit in the point about the one-party state; there are occasions where the MMD has resorted to authoritarian practices as in using its dominance of the National Assembly to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting the opposition leader, former President Kaunda, from standing in the presidential elections. This was only able to occur due to the absence of horizontal accountability and an opposition motivated to hold the government to account. If we are to properly consider the predominant party system democratic then parties must respect the civil and political rights of their opponents.

The political parties in Zambia tend to be underdeveloped because politicians use parties for personal gain and are willing to jump between them to share in the benefits of government patronage. As a result they are not focussed on holding the government to account. They do not outline alternative policy proposals and do not offer an ideological choice. Zambia is a ‘choiceless democracy’ because of the near permanence of the MMD and the lack of credible opposition.

Zambia has a low degree of competitiveness with most people having no contact with the opposition party in the time between elections. There is the enduring problem of an uneven playing field where the MMD uses state resources (e.g. broadcasters, finance) to win elections. It is not healthy for democracy whereby the democratic process is distorted and other parties can’t compete on an equal footing.

The absence of horizontal accountability and because of weak democratic institutions the government is able to exercise its power unchecked as demonstrated by the 1996 constitutional amendments. With no effective check on the power of the governing party in 2000 President Chiluba felt confident in attempting bypass constitutional norms, displaying perhaps a lack of respect for democracy, in launching his ‘third term campaign’ to allow him to run for a third term. It is promising that this was thwarted, not by the opposition, but by civil society. The failure of the party system to hold government accountable may result in a stronger civil society to compensate.[11]

In Zambia there is certainly the existence of non-democratic trends embedded within the predominant party system yet they are clearly far from authoritarian.

Zambia After 2001

Peter Burnell speculates that the party system after 2001 will become more competitive. With hindsight we can point to many improvements; the system is more competitive with seats in the legislature being more evenly distributed between the parties.[12]

However the process of democratisation has been slow and seemingly come to a halt. It’s unlikely there will be a return to an authoritarian one-party system however progress is unlikely. The process of democratisation has become stagnant and the lack of development in party systems may be part of the reason.[13] We can’t fully consider these African countries democratic yet neither are they authoritarian. They have been described as either ‘hybrid regimes’ or as ‘delegative democracy’ which seems the new regional democratic phenomenon.[14]

It may be that African democracy will be characterised by weak parties, weak legislatures and powerful executives.  It is even questioned whether parties are suitable vehicles for the promotion of democratisation and perhaps they are not.[15] We may be guilty of taking a western-centric view of political parties and in fitting with the tenets of modernisation theory expect them to develop in accordance with Dahl’s conception of polyarchy in being highly competitive and participatory.[16]

Illiberal democracy may be the fate for Africa as modern democratic practices exist alongside older more traditional forms of representation perhaps viewed more favourably. Perhaps the individualism of liberal democracy does not sit well with African communitarianism? And perhaps our conception of what a political party is and does is not the right one for Africa and perhaps the predominant party system, while certainly less democratic as we’ve established, is a better fit?

---

[1]  Sartori, G. (2005). Parties and party systems: a framework for analysis. United Kingdom: ECPR Press.

[2] Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy: toward consolidation. United States: John Hopkins University Press. P 259.

[3]  Kuenzi, M. & Lambright, G. (2005). Party systems and democratic consolidation in Africa’s electoral regimes. Party Politics, 11(4), pp. 423-446.

[4]  Linz, J. & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation. United States: John Hopkins University Press.

[5]  Burnell, P. (2001). The Party System and Party Politics in Zambia: Continuities Past, Present and Future. African Affairs, 100, pp. 239 – 263.

[6] Sartori, G. (2005). Parties and party systems: a framework for analysis. United Kingdom: ECPR Press. P 174.

[7] Burnell, P. (2001). The Party System and Party Politics in Zambia: Continuities Past, Present and Future. African Affairs, 100, pp. 239 – 263.

[8]  Rakner, L. & Svåsand, L. (2004). From Dominant to Competitive Party System: The Zambian Experience 1991 – 2001. Party Politics, 10(1), pp. 49-68.

[9] Burnell, P. (2001). The Party System and Party Politics in Zambia: Continuities Past, Present and Future. African Affairs, 100, pp. 239 – 263.

[10] Burnell, P. (2001). The Party System and Party Politics in Zambia: Continuities Past, Present and Future. African Affairs, 100, pp. 239 – 263.

[11] Burnell, P. (2001). The Party System and Party Politics in Zambia: Continuities Past, Present and Future. African Affairs, 100, pp. 239 – 263.

[12] Rakner, L. & Svåsand, L. (2004). From Dominant to Competitive Party System: The Zambian Experience 1991 – 2001. Party Politics, 10(1), pp. 49-68.

[13] Democracy index 2010: Democracy in retreat. (2010). Retrieved April 18, 2011, from The Economist Intelligence Unit: http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf.

[14]  O’Donnell, G. (1994). Delegative Democracy. Journal of Democracy, 5(1), pp. 55-69.

[15]  Burnell, P. (2001). The Party System and Party Politics in Zambia: Continuities Past, Present and Future. African Affairs, 100, pp. 239 – 263.

[16] Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its critics. United States: Yale University Press.

Advertisement

---