Are you serious?! On 'Unclaimed' Democratic Rights

The following quote is from Michael Bratton and Carolyn Logan's paper, "VOTERS BUT NOT YET CITIZENS: THE WEAK DEMAND FOR VERTICAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN AFRICA’S UNCLAIMED DEMOCRACIES", Afrobarometer Working Paper No. 63, September 2006. Available at http://www.afrobarometer.org/conference.html.

I'm interested in what you think.

"Are African regimes therefore best regarded as being delegative democracies? Not necessarily. The term 'delegative' suggests a degree of agency on the part of individual members of society that may be misleading. Coming out from under the shadow of authoritarian pasts, Africans may not so much be intentionally delegating power to their governments, as failing to claim it from them. Whether unwilling, unable, or simply unaware, many Africans have hesitated to take advantage of the rights and opportunities – along with accompanying responsibilities – that are meant to be theirs in a liberalized political world. They have not yet made a personal transition from mere voters into fully engaged citizens. Thus, to the extent that democracy is supposed to mean 'power to the people' and not just 'a vote to the people,' democracy in Africa remains largely unclaimed. " (17)

Let's start with the statement in the middle of the paragraph: "Africans may not so much be intentionally delegating power to their governments, as failing to claim it from them." Both parts of the sentence (which use the verbs delegating and claiming) involve the idea that power can be held and passed from 'the government' to 'the people' or vice versa. To discuss power as a 'good' that can be handed around, like Tolkien's ring, seems to me to be rather weak conceptually speaking. Power is about relationships between actors. The very existence of a government and 'the people' implies that there is a specific power arrangement already at play, one that has been produced and reproduced over time -- one that has determined who in society makes the rules for others and who has access to various resources. That is what government refers to -- those that rule, that have authority over others. It does not make sense to say in this context that power can simply be shifted from the rulers to the ruled without changing the configurations that make up the power structures of the state.

Which begs the question -- what do the power structures of the state look like? This question unfortunately seems to be bypassed in much of the literature associated with the idea of the "Third Wave" of democratisation that apparently reached Africa in the 1990s. Posner and Young (2007) recently voiced related concerns: "In the past 20 years, there has been much debate about whether various African regimes should properly be viewed as 'pseudodemocracies', 'facade democracies', 'hybrid democracies', or in terms of some label that connotes democratic imperfection. Such efforts, we believe, risk diverting attention from the more basic issue of whether or not the behavior of political actors is constrained and, if so, whether by rules or violence or the threat of violence." Their analysis echoes a similar comment made by Joseph (1998)**: "...scholars should actively analyse and criticize configurations of power that involve the adoption and distortion of democratic institutions, rather than simply recommend policy adjustments based on their acceptance." Bratton and Logan would do well to consider these points.

Indeed, if people do not seem to have the rights and opportunities that "are meant to be theirs" in an idealised state (say similar to Dahl's polyarchy), it might be that the reasons lie in the configurations of the relationships of power that characterise their political regime. It might be that the "liberalized political world" that Bratton and Logan mention is not actually a reality (shock horror!).

As a result, I find the conclusions concerning 'unclaimed' rights and power somewhat misleading and rather disconcerting. I understand that the Afrobarometer data might not be able to take the paper much further than ascertaining that there appears to be a low demand for vertical accountability, but it might be better to end the paper with a question about why people's views seem to suggest this -- rather than jumping to a claim that Africans have yet to make that personal transition to fully engaged citizens...(which obviously people in other democracies around the world have all done...hmmm).

Instead in the paper we get another question (which I still cannot believe is in the paper): "Can Africans be helped to become rights-demanding citizens?" (17)

Though you'll be relieved to hear that they do conclude that it is up to citizens to seize their rights and the power of external agencies is limited...in case that's what you were worried about.

I don't understand how this stuff gets to be seen as authoritative work and makes it onto reading lists -- unless it's to raise the ire of hapless students. I think it's poor and condescending social science. But then maybe I am missing something...

References:
*Posner, D. and D. Young, "The Institutionalization of Political Power in Africa", Journal of Democracy 18(3), July 2007, pp 126-140.
**Joseph, R., "Africa, 1990-1997: From Abertura to Closure", Journal of Democracy 9(2), April 1998, pp. 3-17.