Dead duck democracy
Miles Hudson
Democracy on Trial Mohamed Ahmed Mahgoub (Andre Deutsch £4.50)
Mohamed Ahmed Mahgoub's career as a leading political figure in the Sudan came to an -abrupt end when he was finally ousted in the Second Army Coup in May 1969. His reflections on Arab and African affairs during the turbulent post-war period until his departure from the scene make fascinating reading, containing as they do a detailed examination of the labyrinth of Arab politics, as seen by an active participant, together with his considered judgement of what went wrong. He is not, however, discouraged by his personal experiences and concludes with a chapter embodying his ideas for the future. Much of the book is, naturally, concerned with the Sudan, covering both its internal developments and difficulties and its external relations, in which he played a leading role during his two periods of office both as Foreign Minister, and later, as Prime Minister. He throws an interesting light on the character of President Nasser, whom he came totally to distrust — as far as he was concerned not without reason. He recounts the drama of the Six-Day. War as he saw it, but contradicts himself as to the origins of it: "Thus ended the Six-Day War. A war that nobody wanted and one for which we the Arab countries were not prepared; a war that was suddenly precipitated by President Nasser, and ended so quickly with disastrous losses for the Arabs." This is followed four pages later by the charge he made against Israel in the General Assembly of the United Nations of "naked, premeditated and wanton aggression." He also deals, very gloomily, with the history and prospects of both African and Arab unity. But perhaps the most interesting
part of the book concerns the constitutional problems which have followed the transition from colonial to independent status, problems which seem to be of almost universal relevance, as he himself recognises.
Mohamed Ahmed Mahgoub believes in democracy: "Democracy, I still believe, is the only system of government that could function in what are hypocritically described the ' developing ' countries." The whole book is informed by a deep conviction that the failures of newly emergent countries to cope with their difficulties flow from departures from the democratic ideal and he cites his own country and others as evidence. He unhesitantly rejects both military rule and the one-party state as solutions to the considerable problems which must follow independence. Refreshingly, he does not put all the blame for these difficulties on the excolonial powers, although he does castigate Britain for what he believes to be the deliberately divisive legacy of the Southern Sudan problem. He sees the problems of independence as stemming in part from the over-optimism of the leaders and the peoples of colonial territories as to the immediate benefits of independence.
Before independence, the people are promised liberation, prosperity and a change in their lot by the nationalist movements of the day. After independence, when the pace of progress is impeded by economic stringency and the need arises for re-establishing stability inside the country, the people become impatient with their rulers. Hence the number of coups d'dtat in many of these countries. There is hardly a country in Africa which has not suffered a coup, and my own land of the Sudan has been plagued with two of them.
He also believes that a further cause of trouble lies in the absence of doctrine and of • clearly defined objectives by leaders who suddenly find themselves in positions of power:
Trouble started soon after our independence. It stemmed from one basic cause: having either worked for, or opposed, Independence, the parties found themselves without any particular aim once it was achieved. Much was expected of the parties, and they all fell short of expectations. They had no defined programmes to deal with economic or social development.
There is clearly much truth in both these observations although the problems of unkept promises and, in some cases, the absence of doctrine are not confined to newly independent countries. The real problem which the author does not touch on, except by implication, is this: how can a democratic system, by which the people can throw out a government merely by using the ballot box, be transplanted rapidly into countries which have never known it? The lure and the rewards of power are considerable. In some Western countries, the tradition of accepting political defeat has become part of the national consciousness: this is not so either in Africa, or in many Asian countries. Even if. one accepts the author's view that a truly democratic system is the best for Africa and Asia — and there are two views about this -unless the mechanics of a change of government can be assured, the argument becomes academic. It took centuries for the habit of peaceful change of power by popular choice to become part of the Western ethic: indeed it is a very recent, although healthy, development even in a country like Germany. Of course many states in Africa are developing what they see as their own type of democracy, and perhaps they will be successful. But these constitutions are not based on the two or multi-party system with freedom of choice for the electorate, and it is this latter system which the author espouses.
There is a further problem: "When they raped democracy on November 17, 1958, the Army officers claimed there was corruption, instability and economic chaos in the country: all in their opinion being the outcome of a democratic party system." Mohamed Ahmed Mahgoub does not, of course, accept this claim in the case of the Sudan. But what if politicians are corrupt and if there is instability and economic chaos? There would be few who would deny that this situation has at times existed in some African countries. How can a whole system which is inefficient and corrupt be changed except by a coup of some kind? And, having done so, is the system to be handed lightly back to those same politicians? Or if different politicians take over and travel the same path, what then?
These are difficult questions to which there is no easy solution. The author sums up his own answer as follows:
I have always believed that the remedy for a faulty democracy is more democracy and more liberties, not their suppression. By this I mean that democracy must start at the grassroots of village society, and work its way up to parliamentary level through elected representatives.
The author's sentiments are impeccable, but the fact is that they have not worked out in practice and seem unlikely to do so in the near future. Constitutions are only valid if they work in practice and if they reflect the reality as it exists; democracy, as Mohamed Ahmed Mahgoub defines it, has so far proved to be unworkable in Africa.
But, nevertheless, this book does represent the considered views of a man who has seen it all at first hand. It is a valuable and thought provoking work which should be studied by, those who are interested in these controversial and absorbing matters. Miles Hudson was personal political adviser to Sir Alec Douglas-Home from 1970 to 1974. He is a specialist in African affairs.
Previous page
