One-party domination, a flaw in Africa’s democracy: Comparative cases from Cameroon and South Africa

One-party domination has been firmly established as the mainstay of the political landscapes of most African countries. With a combination of both empirical and secondary data, this research set out to selectively examine the factors that contribute in entrenching the dominance of the ruling parties of Cameroon and South Africa. It also analyzed the extent to which one-party domination has contributed in thwarting good governance in these African states. This research revealed that, the dominant party in Cameroon has employed tactics spanning across corruption, nepotism, constitutional manipulations and annihilation of opposition, so as to consolidate its grip of power. In South Africa, the ruling party has largely benefited from the black majority of the population and has capitalized on racial politics, so as to secure its dominance. Amongst some recommendations made to ensure that democracy in Cameroon and South Africa works are: a separation of party from the state; the formation of inclusive governments; anti-corruption mechanisms; and respect for constitutional provisions.


Conceptualizing democracy and one-party domination
There is a great debate amongst scholars and politicians as to what constitutes democracy. This is because the concept has been implemented in various shapes and forms in Africa in particular, and in the world at large. Highly centralized autocracies such as the People"s Republic of China, North Korea, Gabon and the Democratic Republic of Congo, refer to themselves as democracies. It is perhaps as a result of this variety in the interpretation and implementation of the concept, that scholars such as Giliomee and Simkins (1999: 17) reduce it to what they refer to as its procedural minimum. This includes competitive elections, universal franchise, the absence of massive fraud and the effective exercise of civil liberties. While these tenets are necessary in ensuring transparency, accountability and social welfare, Przeworski and Limongi (1997) on the other hand, insist on an alternation in office before classifying a regime as democratic.
Their argument is based on the hypothesis that, the absence of political turn-over results in a de facto oneparty state which in turn paves the way for dictatorship. In the light of this, it can be suggested that the absence of a change in government in democracies is at best untested and at worst, dictatorial. One-party domination as the name implies, is a condition in multi-party politics whereby the political landscape is perpetually over-shadowed by a single political party.
"liberators from the fangs of colonization", the party generally enjoys absolute majority in parliament, its caucus gets to deploy loyalists or strategic elites to staff the civil service, its ideologies and slogans are the singsong in public gatherings, and whether "by hook or by crook", it is sure of winning the next elections. Opposition parties on the other hand are reduced to groups of frustrated individuals limited in scope, with inadequate resources and no significant chance of creating a nationwide impact. Pempel (1999) argues that dominant parties have a conviction that only through their own continuance in power would the national interest as they chose to define it, be served.
The political landscapes of both Cameroon and South Africa have been dominated by a single party. In Cameroon, the Cameroon People"s Democratic Movement (CPDM) has been in power since independence in 1960, while the African National Congress (ANC) has ruled since the introduction of multiparty democracy in 1994. The ruling dominant parties of these countries frequently have to reckon with criticisms, disgust and sometimes outrage and demonstrations from their citizens. In Cameroon, this has manifested in covert and overt denunciation of the government, low voter turnout, calls for secession and violent demonstrations. In South Africa on the other hand, service delivery protests are the orders of the day, prompting researchers (Buccus, 2009;Niar and Swart, 2009) to conclude that South Africa is the most protest-rich country in the world. These protests are accompanied by power tussles between and within political parties, the most dramatic being the split in the ruling ANC in 2008 that resulted in the birth of the Congress of the People (COPE).
In spite of these challenges, there is a strong indication that both the CPDM in Cameroon and the ANC in South Africa will not be ousted from power anytime soon. The 2004 and the 2009 presidential elections results in Cameroon and South Africa respectively confirms this conclusion. Elections results published by the State Minister of Territorial Affairs Marafa Hamidou Yaya in Cameroon (2004) and the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) (2009) in South Africa revealed that while the CPDM won over 70% of the electorate, the ANC in South Africa swept over 65% of the votes. The closes rival opposition party in Cameroon the Social Democratic Front (SDF), won just over 17% of the electorate while in South Africa, the runners up the Democratic Alliance (DA) won less than 15% of the electorate. The question that arises is, in spite of this apparent hostility by the citizenry towards the governments of these countries, why do they still remain in power? What are the factors that have contributed in perpetuating one-party domination in both Cameroon and South Africa? These questions will be addressed using a combination of both primary and secondary data, empirical and dialectical reasoning.

Factors that enhance one-party domination in Cameroon and South Africa
It is worth mentioning here that the factors which contribute in consolidating one-party domination in these selected states are not necessarily universal. There is no rule of thumb in entrenching one-party dominance in Africa; hence, generalizations should be made with caution. Each of the selected dominant parties exploits the factors that lie at its advantage or at the disadvantage of its opponents, so as to consolidate its rule. They vary from one country to another and are determined by certain historical, social and institutional underpinnings. The risk of making generalizations in political science has often involved contradictions and/or exceptions in contemporary events. This necessitates the use of empirical data.
In Cameroon, constitutional sacrilege has been instrumental in consolidating one-party domination. With a total of 153 out of the 180 seats in parliament, the CPDM party"s has often resorted to manipulating the constitution whenever and wherever it suits or does not suit its needs. As Ibrahim (2003) accurately argues, the problem with most African governments is that, they do not respect the provisions of their constitutions. Most political systems in the continent are characterized by excessive uncertainty and abuse of power, which in turn translates to the lack of basic freedoms and denial of popular sovereignty. Such is the scenario in Cameroon. Within a period of five decades, Cameroon has adopted three constitutions, the federal constitution of 1961, the unitary constitution of 1972 and the 1996 constitution of the Republic, all of which were carefully drafted to perpetuate the dominance of the ruling party. The Biya regime has largely been selective in implementing the provisions of the 1996 constitution. Articles 1, 14 and 53 provides, respectively for a decentralized unitary state; the establishment of an Upper House of Parliament therein referred to as the Senate; and the establishment of a Court of Impeachment with jurisdiction to impeach the president and other members of government with respect to acts committed in office. While these fine Articles have conveniently not been implemented since 1996, Article 6(2) which stipulates an extension of the presidential term from five to seven years renewable once came into force immediately after the CPDM party won the elections in 1997. To make matters worse, the CPDM party did not hesitate to flex its muscles in Parliament in 2008, to press for an amendment of the constitution, to provide the pre-sident with immunity from prosecution for acts committed while in office and also to allow the chief executive to run for unlimited re-elections. This system of executive supremacy and constitutional blasphemy in Cameroon is the backbone behind the solidification of one-party domination in the country.
Authoritarian politics has also contributed in entrenching political dominance of the CPDM party in Cameroon. There is no single political group, trade union, social gathering or any component of civil society in its entirety that has any overbearing influence on the CPDMdominated government of Cameroon. The state is synonymous to a large sea monster as illustrated in Thomas Hobbes" (1651) Leviathan. It determines who gets what, when and how. It is an open secret that, most corrupt African dictators do not organize elections unless they are certain of winning. By the time they do, they have put in place a series of meticulously crafted mechanisms to ensure that by hook or by crook, their party wins. Smith (2008) lists certain strategies employed by the Biya regime to annihilate his opposition. Radio stations such as Equinoxe in Douala and Magic FM in Yaoundé which were too critical of the government were closed down and their offices ransacked by soldiers; Titus Edzoa, former secretary general at the Presidency and a presidential confidant, resigned as health minister in 1997 to stand in the presidential election, was promptly arrested and is serving 15 years in jail for embezzling state funds; Ayissi Mvondo, who aimed to run against Mr. Biya, died under mysterious circumstances; the main opposition leader Ni John Fru Ndi, was accused of and charged with murder; and the list goes on. This determination to subdue any opposition to the government has been translated into the solidification of CPDM dominance.
In addition, disenfranchisement, elections rigging and low voter turnout plays no small role in consolidating oneparty domination in Cameroon. It is common knowledge that corruption is institutionalized in the country. For a country that has rubbed shoulders with the most corrupt in the world for over a decade, rigging elections and nullifying opposition has become an art. It is an endemic cancer-worm that is deeply-rooted in all facets of public and private life. From administrative officials, through the courts of law and the police, right down to the private sector, fraud, nepotism, embezzlement and bribery are parts and parcel of daily life. No doubt the country is still amongst the most corrupt countries in the world according to international corruption watchdog, Transparency International, actually haven topped the chart twice. Armed to the teeth with this arsenal, government officials in Cameroon work effortlessly during elections, to ensure absolute majority for the ruling party. Biya and his cronies have perfected the vice of elections-rigging. Ofege (2004) records this malicious scheme from the invention of artificial voters" registers, the stuffing of ballot boxes, the establishment of polling stations in wrong places (such as in chiefs" palaces), the absence of indelible ink, manipulation of result tallies, and the use of the gendarmerie to subdue dissidents. Besides, Mbaku and Takougang (2004) capitalized on Biya"s reluctance to the creation of a truly independent electoral commission, preferring that the government-controlled ministry of the interior be the principal arbiter of elections. During the October 11, 2004 presidential elections, Cameroon"s Minister of State in Charge of Territorial Administration and Decentralization, Mr. Marafa Hamidou Yaya declared that 4,529,000 Cameroonians registered to vote. With a population estimated at over 18,000,000 people, one could only imagine the number of Cameroonians who were disenfranchised.
In South Africa, the ball game is somewhat different. The ANC government has benefited from broad black majority support as a result of being the party that dominated the fight against and liberated South Africa from apartheid. A dread for a relapse to white minority rule coupled with the absence of a credible black-based opposition party has given the ANC a leeway over other political parties. The ANC government has exploited its huge support base generated by historical factors to entrench its dominance. It is an open secret that the horrors of apartheid are still fresh in the minds of most black adult South Africans. Observational studies have shown that, whenever a white person for instance says or does something that offends a black person, the latter in turn usually attributes it to racism. The premier of the Western Cape, Helen Zille"s predominantly white cabinet, utterations made by ANC Youth League president Julius Malema alongside other top-ranking ANC officials over the Caster Semenya saga (Sunday Times, August 23, 2009), alongside other on-going rivalries, have confirmed this assertion. There is thus, a psychological attachment to the ANC whose members are still usually hailed as "freedom fighters" and "champions of the struggle".
Empirical evidence further suggests that, besides this, people continue to vote for the ANC because of the lack of a credible alternative party. Given the country"s apartheid past and ongoing racial tensions, any political party that intends to capture the votes of the black majority who constitute approximately 80% of the population has to appeal to their needs. The majority of blacks dread a relapse to white domination in the form of DA rule. Infighting within the newly formed Congress of the People (COPE) has merely confirmed speculations that the party might not have the best interest of the populace at heart. The ANC thus, remains the only party that appeals (at least historically) to the majority of blacks. With a comprehension of this reality in mind, the ruling ANC has sought to entrench its dominance by eliminating the dividing line between party and the state. Rather than be regarded as a temporary government, the ruling party in South Africa has slowly become synonymous to the state (Giliomee and Simkins, 1999). No doubt the country president Jacob Zuma confidently maintained that the ANC would rule till Jesus Christ returns. That alas, might be sooner than expected! However, since multi-party democracy was introduced in South Africa in 1994, the country has been rated by the international community as a fairly good democracy.
There have been regular free and fair elections contested by several political parties, constitutionalism, judicial review, rule of law, respect for human rights and an independent and free media. This has perhaps given citizens of the country a conviction that they are not under autocratic rule, a conviction which has been translated into legitimacy for the government and support for the ruling party. Thus, the relative successes recorded by the ANC in terms of good governance and economic growth, has also been one of the cornerstones in the solidification of one-party domination in the country.

The flaws of one-party domination in Cameroon and South Africa
One-party domination runs the risk of degenerating to centralization of power. This is clearly evident in Cameroon which is a highly centralized unitary state. Besides providing for a presidential term of seven years with unlimited re-election, the 1996 constitution and subsequent amendments grants the president of the Republic, the power to amend the constitution by a simple majority of votes cast by the CPDM dominated parliament; and immunity from prosecution for all acts committed in office. This centralization of power in the hands of the chief executive has often resulted in gross violations of human rights as opposition to the regime is considered subversive. Even though South Africa has a much more practical, decentralized system of government, there have been hints for the ANC dominated government to exercise more control over the provinces. That would be a gateway to centralization. Centralization of power in turn results in elite rule and gerontocracy. This elitist class arises out of the need by party leaders to reward, protect and maintain loyalists and other strategic roleplayers who help consolidate the party"s dominance. Members of this group are the fulcrum of the entire political system and the backbone of the economy. It is commonplace for members of the ruling party to occupy senior positions in government for decades. Sometimes, the same individuals get rotated from one senior government position to another for years. A report by a French language monthly La Cité as cited by Dibussi (2009), records that about 80% of Cameroon"s ruling class consisted of individuals who were far older than their official retirement age. Amongst the over 60 key members of the CPDM party that were cited are: In a highly sarcastic tone, the author maintains that "in Cameroon, the dinosaurs of 1960 are still in office, while their grand children are still searching for their first employment," all this in a country where life expectancy is 53 years (United Nations Statistics Division, 2008). As a result, government officials are more preoccupied with building clicks and networks rather than developing the state. This has contributed in thwarting the growth and sustainability of democracy, and has generally resulted in the establishment and entrenchment of an oligarchic and nepotistic gerontocracy in the country. Besides, one-party domination has resulted in disenfranchisement and voter apathy in Cameroon. Schultz-Herzenberg (2009) is of the opinion that, voter turnout is important in determining the quality of participatory democracy in a country. While high voter turnouts is a source of legitimacy, low turnouts on the other hand is often attributed to factors such as political apathy, disillusionment or even contempt for the government, especially in dominant party systems where election results are predictable. In a bid to perpetuate its stay in power, the CPDM party has often engaged corrupt strategies targeted at disenfranchising citizens in suspected opposition strongholds. Decades of elections rigging and corruption has resulted in low voter turnout and contempt for the state. Low voter turnout in turn has seen a tyranny of the majority by president Biya and his elites. This has paved the way for centralization of power, poor service delivery, a perpetuation of the vicious circle of poverty and calls for secession by the minority Anglophones who consider themselves to be marginalized politically, economically and socially. In the light of these, fine democratic tenets of rights of minorities, free and fair elections and civil liberties all remain but a dream in the country.
In South Africa, the ruling African National Congress ushered in a new class of black economic elites, many of whom are largely loyal to the ANC party. Policies such as the Black Economic Empowerment have not been instrumental in alleviating poverty within local communities. They have merely been utilized as avenues for "connected" individuals to enrich themselves. No wonder the country has been classified as one of the most unequal societies in the world (World Bank Report, 2006). That party explains the reason behind the numerous service delivery strikes in the country, prompting researchers to confidently assert that South Africa is the most protest-rich country in the world. One could imagine that the remarkable democratic process practiced in the Western world have been developed and perfected over centuries. In this light, one would be tempted to maintain that Africa needs more time to develop its own system of democracy taking into consideration the specifics of the society. The problem here however, is not the youthfulness of democracy in Cameroon and South Africa. It is a conviction by the elites of the ruling party of these countries that only through their continuance in power would the national interest as they chose to define it, be served (Pempel, 1999). This has seen the perpetuation of "governments for life" in Cameroon with the end-result being autocratic rule.
Some of the hardcore disadvantages of one-party domination as portrayed in Cameroon do not prevail in South Africa, due to the fact that the latter is still a fairly young democracy. With barely 15 years into multiparty politics, the demons of one-party domination (centralization of power, elitism, corruption, violation of human rights, etc) might still be taking their roots. Already, insinuations by the ANC that the state needs to have more control over the provinces already indicate moves to break away from the current system of provincial autonomy to a more centralized state. Besides, a change of heart by the ANC president from his election campaign"s "one term in office" to his post election slogan, "let the people decide" indicates that power tends to corrupt.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Democracy according to Schumpeter (1942) has evolved far beyond the classic perception as a prosaic, unsentimental political market place, characterized by the buying and selling of votes at periodic elections. It is far from a system in which people did not want to participate because they are more preoccupied with family and leisure pursuits. According to the author, democracy has transcended this parochial political culture where citizens were predominantly fairly ignorant of what constituted wise decision-making, and could easily be roused by demagogues. Stuttner (2004) argues that democracy without turnover is at best fragile and untested; at worst, it is not really democracy at all. Even though the welfare of the people are sometimes catered for by politicians and expressed in policy in one-party dominated states such as South Africa, strong, credible and rotatory opposition parties are necessary to provide checks and balances which are necessary ingredients for democracy to thrive. Without these ingredients, power will be absolute and absolute power as nineteenth century British historian and philosopher Lord Acton posits, corrupts absolutely. Even though these checks and balances on executive power may emanate from both the legislature and the judiciary, their effectiveness is questionable when the political landscape is largely dominated by one political party.
Given this possibility, how can Cameroon and South Africa address these drawbacks of one-party domination? This is obviously a very difficult thing to achieve, considering the fact that, the primary objective of any political party is to ensure its survival by capturing and consolidating political power. That notwithstanding, a starting point could be to address those defects of one-party domination in these states. In Cameroon, there is the need for the creation of an independent electoral body, the need for the establishment of an autonomous anticorruption unit with powers to prosecute, and commitment by politicians to observe the provisions of the constitution. South Africa on the other hand, seriously needs to address the problem of service delivery and income inequality. Recent reports of corruption and opulence of government officials has exacerbated the problem of mismanagement of state resources. Besides the nationalists" branding of individuals as racists is a gateway to political extremism and a stimulus for genocide. The ANC government and its activists need to overcome this shadow of apartheid and engage an all inclusive government in the spirit of truth and reconciliation and liberal democracy.
Liberal democracy is thus a stepping stone to progress and development. As Diamond (1996) argues, it is a system in which executive power is limited by effective checks and balances, freedom of expression and the rights of minorities are upheld and party competition is strong. As a result, rights are effectively protected and enjoyed, and corruption is kept within bounds. In as much as competitive, regular elections and frequent change of governments can result in job insecurity, corruption, instability and inconsistency in successive governments" policies, it is nonetheless an avenue for other motivated leaders to effect meaningful change and build on or revise policies of predecessors. It is also an opportunity for other citizens to engrave their names on the national stone. Long stay in power generally results in loss of inspiration, enthusiasm and charisma of a leader, while citizens on the other hand become apathetic, disgruntled and disgusted with the regime. Fomunyoh as cited by Dibussi (2009) is of the opinion that, it is extremely important to frequently renew political leadership in every country, so that new leaders can bring a fresh perspective to global trends and developments, and help move their countries in ways that may differ from previously long held typical and traditional approaches. One-party domination of a political system and centralization of power is obsolete with regards to the exigencies of the contemporary world. It does not fall in line with modern tenets of democracy, rule of law, constitutionalism, human rights and separation of powers.
To achieve this tradition of liberal democracy requires commitment from politicians to separate the party from the state. By so doing, government officials alongside other members of civil society would be allowed to express their sentiments without fear or favour; state officials will execute their functions based on impartiality and objectivity rather than on expectation of political reward; party competition will be strong with an alternation of ruling party constituting a real prospect, corruption will be kept within bounds, abuse of power will be greatly curbed and the welfare of citizens will be greatly enhanced.