OpinionPerspectivePolitics

Why is Democracy Offering Little Dividends in Africa?

5 Mins read

Obasanjo served two terms and left power, he set the precedent in Nigeria of you serve and then you step aside for your successor. Nigeria has enjoyed 25 years of presidential succession. President Buhari just did the same thing, he served his two terms and then he stepped aside. That is a big deal in democracy – peaceful transitions of power. That is a huge thing to be proud of, It does not happen very often,

by Taiwo Adisa

Ahead of the 2023 elections in Nigeria, a social worker was busy canvassing the need for free and fair elections. She met a group of market women who were apparently returning from an election outing and on accosting them she said: ‘My sisters, please make sure you vote your conscience in the forthcoming elections. If they give you money reject it and vote your conscience.’

The Social worker had hardly finished when one of the women replied in Yoruba Language, which I translated thus. “You said we should not collect money to vote, if I don’t collect the money what will they give me when they enter office? Will they make me a commissioner or SA? The money they are giving us is the only thing we would see…” The disappointed Social worker was unable to convince the market woman.

Encounters such as this were commonplace during the last electioneering campaigns. Citizens openly expressed frustrations at the lack of dividends of democracy after election cycles.

Though we can say that Nigeria has been lucky to have sustained its longest streak of democratic rule in the last 25 years, evidence of what has been identified as “declining democracy” cannot be said to be missing in the Nigerian content.

In a way, you can blame the state of affairs on the pro-democracy fighters of the 1990s who fought a war but refused to take the spoils. When General Sani Abacha was pronounced dead and General Abdusalami Abubakar taking over announced an 11-month transition, the pro-democracy leaders who had held sway refused to take the lead in the transition programme. They were skeptical about the military’s sincerity and by doing that they left the stage largely for friends of the military or those that can be called money-miss-road politicians. The result is the rudderless democracy the nation and indeed Africa have witnessed in recent years.

Years back, some editors met with one of their friends who had become a governor. The guy had the fortune of having performed well in a previous public office he held during the twilight of the military. The editors complained that his state capital was littered with potholes and that he needed to fix internal roads. The then governor just flared up, No tell me dat, I no pay to get here? He was simply referring to the money he shared during the election and insisting it was harvest time!

Can democracy revive what it has broken in Africa? That is possibly a million-dollar question. In a recent interview published by the online newspaper, The Cable, former President Olusegun Obasanjo was asked whether democracy was working in Africa and he said:

“The point is this: where in Africa have the people benefited from the dividends of democracy? Tell me.” The interview was published by The Cable on September 5, 2023.

The former President was dissecting what French President Emmanuel Macron had called the “epidemic of coups” that was ravaging African countries. Obasanjo had concluded that the liberal democratic tendencies copied from the settled democracies of the West to Africa may not be working. He said it was time to “put our heads together” and fashion a system that would work.

“I don’t know. But we have seen that the liberal type of democracy as practiced in the West will not work for us. We have to put our heads together,” Obasanjo had told The Cable.

He said that what Macron described as an “epidemic of coups” was a “new phenomenon” and that the emerging military leaders are not those who plan to leave in four or five years, but in a generation.

The United States Consul-General in Nigeria, Will Stevens, also attempted an answer to what puzzled Obasanjo when he spoke recently in Abeokuta, Ogun State.

Stevens said that the failure of African leaders to accept peaceful transfer of power, a key tenet of democracy is a major source of the challenge democracy faces in Africa.

“I hope and feel that you (Africa) can fix the problems and the problems are big; it’s climate change which leads to flooding, it is plastics pollution, it is food insecurity, it is the backsliding of democracy in the region.

“Obasanjo served two terms and left power, he set the precedent in Nigeria of you serve and then you step aside for your successor. Nigeria has enjoyed 25 years of presidential succession. President Buhari just did the same thing, he served his two terms and then he stepped aside. That is a big deal in democracy – peaceful transitions of power. That is a huge thing to be proud of, It does not happen very often,” he said at an event held at the Obasanjo Presidential Library, Abeokuta.

But beyond the question of peaceful transition of power as a scourge of democratic growth in Africa lies some other critical challenges. Renowned novelist and author, Professor Chinua Achebe, identified the question of leadership as the main ailment that rocks his country, Nigeria, if not Africa as a whole.

An article by John Campbell and Nolan Quinn, published by the United States Council on Foreign Relations in 2021, equally identified the decline of democracy as an emerging trend in Africa.

Titled, “What’s happening to democracy in Africa,” the article noted that“A democratic decline, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, is underway in sub-Saharan Africa. More Africans live under fully or partially authoritarian states today than at most points in the last two decades.”

It noted further that authoritarian and semi-authoritarian rulers have dressed their regimes in the forms of democracy with either rigged elections or de facto separation of powers. They have fostered illiberal rule and engineered democratic decline, the writers had said.

They identified some reasons for Africa’s declining democracy including unmet expectations of the populace; regional issues such as following one’s neighbours; outside influences; influences of information generation and COVID-19 politics.

Above all, the article identifies the presence of “unscrupulous elites” as a key source of the scourge that has bedeviled Africa. In Nigeria, you won’t need to look far before this example punches you in the face. Poor leadership is a scourge that breeds declining democracy and in fact, ridicules our attempt to grow democratic tenets. The unscrupulous elites have undermined the system to the extent the common man is unable to identify his true worth or need anymore. A number of voters now agree that the tokens they are given ahead of elections or on election days are the only democracy dividends the leaders can afford in four years.

It is strange that African leaders in a democracy are subjecting their people to the sort of inhumanity the colonialists did not even attempt. That is the key to the declining democracy in Nigeria and continental Africa.

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Abuja FileCover StoryOpinionPerspectivePolitics

Tinubu’s Reforms Deserve Continuity, Second Term Crucial — Onuigbo

4 Mins read
The President of Globe Legislators International, Rt. Hon. Sir Sam Onuigbo, has called on members and stakeholders of the All Progressives Congress…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com