Power-sharing has since been advocated as a remedy to countries emerging from ethnic, religious, or political conflicts. Power-sharing usually builds on the principle of inclusion, where rival groups and marginalized groups are included in decision-making processes in order to minimize political inequality. Undoubtedly, this measure has not totally solved the problems confronting fragile countries, especially.
Often times, the haphazard search for alternatives to war in fragile states, rather exacerbate violent conflicts and distrust. The quest for peace and sustainable development in Africa has literally welcomed a ‘threat’ to democracy in the continent in the form of 'power-sharing’. This thirsty quest is engineered by international pressure and local concerns. Being an artificial antidote, it disguises itself with a lot of promising packs to bring about national reconciliation in war-torn societies, which in turn would foster development in these societies. Using a comparative approach, this article examines cases in Africa which led to power-sharing. It illustrates how power-sharing might not be the appropriate alternative to Africa’s historical political tragedy, using examples from the past and current experiments on the continent.
In order to elaborate on this topic, this article has been divided into two parts. Whereas the first part examines the conceptual underpinnings of power-sharing drawn from different literatures, the second part illustrates salient differences in cases of power-sharing in Africa with a final conclusion.
Introduction
Power-sharing has since been advocated as a remedy to countries emerging from ethnic, religious, or political conflicts. Power-sharing usually builds on the principle of inclusion, where rival groups and marginalized groups are included in decision-making processes in order to minimize political inequality. Undoubtedly, this measure has not totally solved the problems confronting fragile countries, especially.
Often times, the haphazard search for alternatives to war in fragile states, rather exacerbate violent conflicts and distrust. The quest for peace and sustainable development in Africa has literally welcomed a ‘threat’ to democracy in the continent in the form of 'power-sharing’. This thirsty quest is engineered by international pressure and local concerns. Being an artificial antidote, it disguises itself with a lot of promising packs to bring about national reconciliation in war-torn societies, which in turn would foster development in these societies. Using a comparative approach, this article examines cases in Africa which led to power-sharing. It illustrates how power-sharing might not be the appropriate alternative to Africa’s historical political tragedy, using examples from the past and current experiments on the continent.
In order to elaborate on this topic, this article has been divided into two parts. Whereas the first part examines the conceptual underpinnings of power-sharing drawn from different literatures, the second part illustrates salient differences in cases of power-sharing in Africa with a final conclusion.
Power-Sharing: Conceptual Clarification
Power-sharing as a concept, has been defined by different scholars from different fields of study. This section explores the meanings of power-sharing from different perspectives, and how it relates to Africa.
The term ‘power-sharing’ is believed to quicken a negotiated ending of war, since it offers the combatants a share in the future government in most cases. However, it must be noted that it is often accompanied with stalled agreements, fragmentation, and a return to war. Anna Jarstad (2006:3) believes that power-sharing as a means to develop democratic governance, rests on the logic of inclusion by joint decision-making, which is expected to lead to moderation. However, she argues that, “power-sharing does not always end violence and promote moderation; but, can trigger mechanisms that have negative implications for long-term democratization and peace." This implies that power-sharing is capable of pulling the rival parties apart, thereby making it difficult for them to reach a negotiated settlement.
According to Gates, Scott and Kaare Strom (2007:iii), “power-sharing arrangements aim to reduce the risk of civil conflict by guaranteeing potentially warring parties a role in the country’s government, thus lessening the stakes of political contestation.” Although its potential benefits are being enumerated by many scholars and international organizations, some scholars still express their concerns over its unintended negative side-effects (Jeremy, Horowitz 2009:2). Such concerns outlined by Jeremy include heightening of the transaction costs of governance and immobilism. He also noted that power-sharing may create an adverse selection problem, which ultimately empowers extremist leaders over moderates, and as well, exacerbates moral hazard. This leaves us with questions such as, has power-sharing in countries emerging from violent conflicts brought an end to corruption, inequities and radical extremism? Does it fully address the root causes of conflicts in these countries? This takes us to the next section which examines some experiments from Africa.
Experiments from Africa
Walter, Barbara (2002) explains the function of power-sharing as a mechanism for solving the commitment problem in a context of severe distrust and vulnerability as was the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where the power-sharing deal stalled as a result of the exclusion of the Pro-Hutu extremist, Convention pour la Defense de la Republique (CDR) from the negotiation process, coupled with distrust and civil war. Earlier, she argued that the concessions involved in a peace deal increase the parties' vulnerability, and therefore limit their ability to enforce the other terms involved in the peace process (Walter, 1999). Examples like Rwanda, DRC, Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria suggest that it is very difficult to form coalitions in war-torn societies, regardless of international pressures on opposition groups.
Frequently asked questions
What is the main argument of this text?
The text argues that power-sharing, while often advocated as a solution for countries emerging from conflict, may not always be the appropriate alternative, especially in Africa. It can exacerbate conflicts, create distrust, and pose a threat to democracy. The text suggests that power-sharing is often an artificial antidote driven by international pressure and local concerns, with unintended negative side effects.
What is the core principle behind power-sharing arrangements?
Power-sharing builds on the principle of inclusion, aiming to involve rival and marginalized groups in decision-making processes to minimize political inequality.
What are some of the potential negative consequences of power-sharing?
The text identifies potential negative consequences such as stalled agreements, fragmentation, a return to war, heightened transaction costs of governance, immobilism, adverse selection (empowering extremist leaders), and exacerbated moral hazard.
What examples from Africa are used to illustrate the complexities of power-sharing?
The text mentions the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Rwanda, Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria as examples where power-sharing arrangements have faced challenges, including distrust, exclusion, and difficulty in forming coalitions.
Why did the power-sharing deal in the DRC stall?
The power-sharing deal in the DRC stalled due to the exclusion of the Pro-Hutu extremist group, Convention pour la Defense de la Republique (CDR), from the negotiation process, coupled with distrust and civil war.
What is the "commitment problem" in the context of power-sharing?
The "commitment problem," as explained by Barbara Walter, refers to the difficulty parties have in enforcing the terms of a peace agreement due to increased vulnerability and severe distrust.
What is the relationship between inclusion and exclusion in power-sharing arrangements?
The text suggests that the function of inclusion in power-sharing can inadvertently lead to the exclusion of certain groups or individuals. Additionally, elite-negotiated agreements may result in extremist splinter groups and a lack of local ownership, undermining democratization.
What are the research methodologies used in this text?
The text uses a comparative approach, examining different cases of power-sharing in Africa to illustrate its points.
What is the structure of the text?
The text is divided into two main parts: the first examines the conceptual underpinnings of power-sharing, and the second illustrates salient differences in cases of power-sharing in Africa, ending with a conclusion.
What is the meaning of the term "power-sharing"?
Power-sharing is a concept that aims to provide combatants or conflicting parties a share in the future government, often to quicken a negotiated ending to a war.
- Quote paper
- Akudo Chinedu Ojoh (Author), 2012, Power-sharing in Africa: A Solution to Africa's Flawed Elections?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/192020