Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012.)
The demise of one-party states in Africa
CRM Dlamini*
Introduction
The 1990s kicked off in grand style for the development of democracy in Afri­
ca. Not only were there further developments towards democratisation in
Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, but a number of African countries which
had been one-party states before, abandoned that policy in favour of multi-party
democracy. In South Africa there were similar developments as well. On 25
February 1991 for example, an Institute for a Multi-party Democracy was
launched in Cape Town.
The aim of this article is to look at the prospects of multi-party democracy
in a future South Africa. The best way of doing that is by looking at the politi­
cal and constitutional developments in post-independence Africa. The reason
for this is that post-independence Africa provides a good lesson for us in South
Africa. We share a similar history with the rest of Africa. There are obvious differ­
ences, but the similarities can assist us in predicting a scenario for democratic
development in a future South Africa. Such a comparison can help us to avoid
the mistakes which were committed elsewhere in Africa.
The mission statement of this Institute is the promotion of the development
and maintenance of multi-party democracy, political tolerance and national
reconciliation. The charter of the Institute spells out what multi-party democracy
entails and how this will be achieved.
This comparison is not based on the simplistic assumption that what has hap­
pened in Africa will happen here as well. It is based on the assumption, that
given the same conditions, the same can happen. We therefore have to take
precautions against it.
The development of one-party states in Africa
Although freedom of association is often guaranteed in constitutions, interna­
tional declarations and conventions, in many African states this has been subor­
dinated to certain objectives which have been perceived as being of a higher
order. Freedom of association has often been subordinated to the elimination
of tribalism, divisions and factions, and the promotion of national unity.1 The
single party was the convenient vehicle used to achieve this. One-party states
* BProc LLM LLD LLD. Registrar (Academic) University of Zululand; formerly Professor of
Law, University of Zululand.
1 Welch 'The Rights of Association in Ghana and Tanzania' 1978 The Journal o f M odem Afri­
can Studies 639.
164
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012.)
The dem iseof one-party states in Africa
165
have been in vogue in Africa. Ghana led in 1964, followed by Tanzania in 1965
and Malawi in 1966. Zambia joined the queue in 1972 and many others later.2
Within a few months of independence, the legislatures of Ghana and Tanza­
nia, at the instance of their prime ministers, imposed significant limitations on
the right of association by restricting opposition parties. This led to the latters'
constitutional prohibition, and the establishment of a single party to which all
other associations were affiliated. This the leaders did on account of what they
considered to be extremely important national needs in the consolidation of in­
dependence, namely the reduction of tribalism, divisions and factions in the
national interest.3
The events that led to the adoption of a one party system in Zambia are par­
ticularly intriguing. W hen ex-ministers levelled tribal and corruption charges
against members of the ruling party (the United National Independence Party UNIP), this culminated in the resignation of Mr Kapwepwe and his followers
from the party and the government, and the subsequent formation of the United
Progressive Party (UPP). The remaining UNIP followers not only demanded
the banning of the new party, but also called for the immediate introduction
of a one-party system. This led to a cabinet decision that Zambia would become
a one-party participatory democracy, which in turn resulted in the detention
of the opposition leaders. Although the intention had always been to go the
one party route, the official policy as expressed by the president had been to
achieve it 'according to the wishes of the people ... as expressed at the polls'.
But the split led to the objective being brought about by an act of parliament
and without a referendum. The possibility of UNIP's losing to the combined
ANC and UPP also played a part in the process.4
In Africa in general the tendency has been that no ruling group is prepared
to countenance the idea of being ousted from power. Political insecurity has
therefore given rise to authoritarianism. Consequently the banning of opposi­
tion parties and the detention of opposition leaders have been perceived as a
pre-emptive coup. 'Altering the rules of the political game in the circumstances
may also be seen as an adroit tactics to buy time by a government beset by numer­
ous political, economic and security problems'.5
The commission that was established in Zambia to consider the desired
changes was not asked to consult people on whether or not they wanted the
change - the cabinet had already decided for th e m -b u t they were to take writ­
ten or oral evidence on 'the form it should take in the context of the philosophy
of humanism and participatory democracy'.6
Some of the recommendations which would have curtailed the power of the
president were rejected by the government. The one-party system came into
2 Aihe 'Neo-Nigerian Human Rights in Zambia: A Comparative Study with Some Countries
in Africa and the West Indies' 1971-73 Zambia Law Journal 43; Busia Africa in Search o f Democracy
(1967) 123.
3 Welch (n 1) 639; Mubako 'Zam bia's Single-party C onstitution-A Search for Unity and De­
velopment' 1973 Zambia Law Journal 69; Ndlovu 'Single-party States in Africa' 1978 Institute
for Public Service and Vocational Training Bulletin 60 et seq; Liebenon African Politics: Crisis and
Challenges (1986) 221 et seq.
4 Mubako (n 3) 68-69.
5 Idem 69.
6 Idem 70.
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012.)
166
1991 SA Publiekreg/Public Law
existence on 13 December 1972 by virtue of the One-party State Act 5 of 1972.
The Act declared UNIP to be the only party and outlawed any other party and
proscribed belonging to and sympathising with any other political party. It also
amended various provisions of the constitution by stipulating that holders of
a number of constitutional posts should be members of the party, namely the
president, vice-president, ministers, attorney-general, speaker and deputy
speaker. The Act assigned to UNIP a central position in the constitution unlike
the position in the Westminster and American traditions where political par­
ties are regarded as informal extra-legal associations.7
In Nkumbula v Attorney-General8 the ANC leader challenged the legality of this
step on the ground that the appellant's fundamental rights were likely to be
infringed. The Court of Appeal rejected the petition on the basis that if the
government first amended the constitution in the appropriate manner, the ap­
pellant had no right to be infringed. Moreover, the courts have no power to
prevent or question any bill before it becomes law, even if it aims at removing
fu n d am en ti rights. The One-party Bill followed all the required amendment
procedures, and when it became law, amended any conflicting provisions. This
decision effectively slammed the door to the right to freedom of association in
Zambia.
A similar process had taken place in Ghana. In September 1962 a motion had
been adopted by the National Assembly for the creation of a single-party state.
No doubt this was encouraged by the dwindling opposition parties. The issue
was presented to the people to vote upon in a referendum in 1964. Although
according to the official figures 92,81% of the 92,69% voters who went to the
polls voted in favour of the establishment of the one-party system, foreign ob­
servers reported that this had been secured through intimidation and the rig­
ging of the ballots in various ways. Yet President Nkrumah, in a broadcast mes­
sage to the nation after the referendum, declared that they had reached a state
that 'demands that everyone within our society must either accept the spirit
and aims of our revolution or expose themselves as the deceivers and betrayers
of the people'.9
The Tanzanian experience is equally interesting although a little different from
that of Ghana and Zambia. The Tanganyika African National Union (TANU),
the ruling party, already had overwhelming support before its national execu­
tive decided in 1963 that Tanganyika should become a single-party state. Many
of the party's candidates would have been returned unopposed in national and
local elections. Although the overwhelming support which TANU enjoyed had
virtually made Tanganyika a one-party state, when it was proposed to endorse
the situation in law, it was challenged by a small opposition party. After the
decision had been taken by the national executive of TANU that Tanganyika
should become a one-party state, the opposition party was dissolved. The report
of the commission on the constitution was published in April 1963. The new
7 Idem 71; Ndlovu (n 3) 58-59.
8 1972 Select Judgments o f Zambia 40. On this judgment see Gupta 'Harry Mwaanga Nkumbu­
la and Attorney-General for the Republic of Zambia' 1973 Zambia Law Journal 147 et seq.
9 Busia (n 2) 126-129; Chazan 'Ghana: Problems of the Governance and the Emergence of
Civil Society' in Diamond, Linz and Lipset (eds) Democracy in Developing Countries: Africa
(1988) vol 11 at 93 et seq.
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012.)
The demise o f one-party states in Africa
167
constitution, based on the recommendations of the commission, was passed
by the National Assembly in July. Parliamentary and presidential elections in
terms of the new constitution were held in October 1965.10
In many other African countries a similar trend towards the establishment
of a single party was followed.
The one-party state and democracy
The cardinal question is whether the adoption of the one-party system in Afri­
ca is compatible with democracy and in particular the individual's freedom of
association. In attempting to answer this question three attitudes towards
democracy in African states can be discerned. There are those who regard
democracy, as understood in western countries, as desirable for all people and
would like to see it translocated to Africa lock, stock, and barrel. According to
others, democracy is a luxury Africa cannot afford. AH that Africa needs, in their
perception, is economic development based on strong government. As a result,
authority in the communist fashion, and not liberty in the western style, is what
Africans need.
An extreme version of this is presented by Huntington who asserts that11
the thing com m unists do is govern. Their ideology furnishes a basis for legitim acy,
and their party organisation provides the institutional m echanism for mobilising sup­
port and executing policy ... Am idst social conflict and violence that plague m oder­
nising countries they provide som e assurance of political order.
The third approach to democracy accepts democracy and authority as essential
in developing countries as well, but would like to see them transformed into
an African shape. It is largely the last school of thought which most African
states have purported to espouse.12
There is definitely nothing wrong if Africans seek to establish their own in­
stitutions or to give them an African character. But the problem with a oneparty system is that it is neither an original nor a unique African institution.
It could be found in other parts of the world.13 The Communist Party of the
Soviet Union is a good example. Unfortunately the Soviet Union is not well
known for its democratic character. One does not know why of all the models
the African leaders chose the Soviet one. It is perhaps because it has a sem­
blance of democracy while remaining authoritarian. Moreover, many African
leaders were loathe to emulate western institutions which they perceived as
a heritage from the colonial past. They might also have felt the need to affront
their former colonial masters by adopting a model that was followed by the ene­
my of the west. Be that as it may, their model purported to be democratic and
10 Busia (n 2) 134 et seq. See also Kumar 'Justice in a One-party African State: The Tanzanian
Experience' 1986 Veifassung und Recht in Ubersee 255 et seq; Peter 'Justice in a One-party African
State: The Tanzanian Experience: A Rejoinder' 1987 Veifassung und Recht in Ubersee 235 et seq.
11 Political Order in Changing Societies (1968) 8.
12 Mubako (n 3) 80-81; Liebenon (n 3) 225 et seq; Eze Human Rights in Africa: Some Selected Problems
(1984) 37.
13 Busia (n 3) 143. See also Msimang 'The Real Source of the Law of the U SSR and the In­
fluence of the Communist Party of the USSR on the U SSR's Organs of State Power' 1977
Politikon T1 et seq; Clifford-Vaughan 'The Soviet Concept of Legality and State' 1976 Politikon
51.
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012.)
168
1991 SA Publiekreg/Public Law
it was possible to justify it then in order to revert to past African style of
government.
Democracy is based on effective participation by the people in their govern­
ment. It involves a number of checks on the rulers, lest they become authori­
tarian. Busia expresses this in the following words:14
Every dem ocratic com m unity m ust have effective checks o n its rulers. Dem ocracy re­
jects the view that the leader, and the group around him w ho lead the single-party,
always infallably seek the interest of the p eople, or em body the will of all. The leader
and the group and all w ho constitute.the party are fallible m en and w om en, on w hom
there m ust be effective checks in the exercise o f the pow ers they w ield.
It is really questionable whether democracy is compatible with a single-party
state. Formerly President Nyerere used to be a strenuous protagonist of the
single-party system. His contention was that democracy is not synonymous with
the two-party system, but that a single party, given certain conditions, is more
conducive to democracy than a two- or multi-party system. The contention is
that the two-party system by its very nature limits the members' freedom to
participate in elections at any level or to speak in parliament for fear of giving
inadvertent support or encouragement to the opposition party as a result of lack
of unity between the leaders and the other members. But in a one-party sys­
tem, the argument continues, there is no reason why debate in parliament should
not be as free as it is in a party's national executive.15
Despite the theoretical cogency of this argument, it was not borne out by the
facts. Moreover, democracy is a term that is much misused. Most states claim
that they are democratic.16 Many of the one-party states in Africa are
authoritarian party dictatorships of the extreme kind.
Free elections are generally seen as the lifeblood of democracy. Rightly so,
it is submitted. Thus, when a nation abandons elections by the general public
as is the case when there is a military takeover, this is ample evidence that it
is undemocratic. Before independence the denial of the franchise to the Afri­
cans used to be a rallying cry of nationalist leaders whereby they strongly con­
demned the undemocratic nature of the colonial regimes. But many of the oneparty states are replicas of the undemocratic colonial regimes although in differ­
ent forms.17
Despite Nyerere's protestation, it is doubtful whether elections and debate
are freer in a one-party state. Many would claim that elections there are often
rigged.18 Although there is freedom to stand for election, there will obviously
be some restrictions and controls by the party. Even freedom to speak in parlia­
ment is a dubious option. Restrictions on party members' freedom at the time
of election and in parliament also exist in a single-party system because any
ruling group will not want to display disunity which may lead to loss of credi­
bility and loss of power. In this way a one-party system does not facilitate
democracy anymore than a multi-party one.19
14
15
16
17
18
19
(Note 2)
Nyerere
Mubako
Mubako
Busia (n
Mubako
150.
Democracy and the Party System 4-7 as cited by Mubako (n 3) 81.
(n 3) 81; Busia (n 2) 125-126.
(n 3) 81.
2) 126-127.
(n 3) 82; Busia (n 2) 140; contra Eze (n 12) 58-59.
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012.)
The demise o f one-party states in Africa
169
It is for these reasons that Lewis concludes that the single party fails in all
its claims:20
It cannot represent all the people, or m aintain free discussion; or give stable govern­
m ent; or above all reconcile the differences betw een various religious groups ... It
is partly the product of the hysteria of the m om ent of independence, w hen som e m en
found it possible to seize the state and suppress their opponents.
By far the most fundamental argument against the one-party system is that it
limits a person's freedom of association, since although freedom of debate is
allowed, no member may speak against the policy of the party. Even though
certain members of the party may in some countries like Kenya and Tanzania
lose the election, the electorate is limited in voting. They can only vote for the
candidates of the one party; 'they therefore can choose persons, but there is
not a choice of policies or programme or leadership'.21
The one-party system virtually leads to one-man rule. Since it imposes unity
of purpose among the party, the assembly and the government, the president
becomes the political power in the country, presiding over the state and the
party as the chief executive, legislator and party boss. As one Ivory Coast poli­
tician said,22 'this is why you find at the head of the government a chief,
Houphouet Boigny; at the head of the elected bodies a leader, Houphouet Boigny; at the head of the party a president, Houphouet Boigny'. Moreover, the
one-party system leads to a party dictatorship where the legislature is reduced
to a mere rubber stamp.23
This system also leads to a caste of rulers, who perceive themselves as in­
dispensable, and a class of perpetual underdogs, who have no access to power.
This often results in difficulty to change government in a constitutional way
and consequently precipitates coups which have so much been a feature of
Africa.24 A one-party system, therefore, does not offer democratic stability.
Although even in multi-party systems democratic instability may be experienced,
in one-party states it is even worse. This is not to eulogise a multi-party sys­
tem, but simply to point out that despite its deficiencies, it offers a better alter­
native than the single-party system.
The one-party state and stability and development
Sometimes the contention is raised that a single party is aimed at promoting
stability and development. This is equally spurious. Disunity and tribalism are
not the products of a two-party system; they occur even where there is a single
party only. Disunity is often caused by the struggle for power with all the
paraphenalia and economic benefits that go with it. The experience of coun­
tries like Ghana and Uganda bear eloquent testimony that one-partyism is not
synonymous with national unity, stability and security. The introduction of a
single party, despite some advantages it may have, is per se not a prescription
20 As quoted by Busia (n 2) 123.
21 Busia (n 2) 139; Mubako (n 3) 82.
22 Quoted by Nwabueze Constitutionalism in the Emergent States (1973) 139. On the phenome­
non of presidentialism in Africa see Nwabueze Presidentialism in Commonwealth Africa (1974).
23 Nwabueze Constitutionalism (n 22) 173 et seq.
24 Ibid.
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012.)
170
1991 SA Publiekreg/Public Law
for national integration and political stability. Nor is there evidence that the oneparty system is more conducive to development than a two-party system.25
The criticisms which have been levelled against a multi-party system in favour
of a one-party one must therefore be rejected as unconvincing. Although it has
been said that a one-party system violates the individual's freedom of associa­
tion it must be pointed out that freedom of association is relative and not abso­
lute even in western democracies.26 What distinguishes Africa, however, is that
this right is often almost completely abrogated. It is also striking that in none
of these states was the one party system adopted by popular will, but by coer­
cion, elimination of opposition leaders through detention and execution and
by outlawing opposition parties. The adoption of one-party rule was therefore
not a natural development. As Busia points out,27 single-party regimes
have been achieved through various w ays in different countries, by m ergers, disso­
lution, absorption, or suppression of opposition parties ... Single-party pow er w as
seized, not granted by voters.
In the light of the background of Africa, this is not surprising. Personal eco­
nomics and other considerations have played a role. In the words of Welch:28
For most men, short-term personal interest is m ore palpable than potential, long-term,
national interest. Those in pow er w ish to retain control. In any system dom inated
by a self-perpetuating group, be it a single party or not, the 'in s ' can readily slam
the door shut on the 'o u ts'. Special steps m ust be taken to prevent this. Those at
the top m ust press for continuing renew al o f the political bloodstream ; they require
- as the International Com m ission o f Jurists has recognised - a vigorous press, an
ind ep en den t judiciary and inform ed public opinion. Conditions of this sort lie out­
side the right of association, irrespective of the legal term inology in w hich it is ex­
pressed. A right on paper becom es an actuality only w ith strong w illing, and con­
tinuous encouragem ent and leadership.
It is definitely beyond dispute that democracy, or at least the European model
of democracy, has failed in Africa.29 The demise of the one-party system in
Africa raises the question whether multi-party democracy will now flourish in
Africa.
Evaluation
There is no doubt that one partyism has no future in South Africa. It has failed
elsewhere in Africa and Eastern Europe and there is no valid reason that it will
succeed in a future South Africa. To attempt it will be disastrous. It is clear that
a one-party state is not a solution to tribal and other divisions. Those divisions
continue even in the presence of a one-party system. The major problem is that
a single-party system is essentially undemocratic. Democracy, on the other hand,
is what we are striving for in a future South Africa.
Although the African leaders have attempted to justify a one-party system
on the basis of tradition, this argument does not hold water. What is intriguing
25
26
27
28
29
Mubako (n 3) 83-85.
Welch (n 1) 655.
(Note 2) 123.
(Note 1) 656.
Bockel 'O n Democracy in Africa' 1985 (2) Codicillus 7-8.
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012.)
The demise o f one-party states in Africa
171
is that the idea of a one-party state is nothing new in Africa. It was introduced
by the white people during the colonial era. Black people were excluded from
political participation on the basis of colour or race. As a result only one party,
the white party, was permissible. Although a semblance of democracy was main­
tained in the white community in that whites could belong to various political
parties, it essentially remained one party or a party representing white interests.
By excluding the black majority it was undemocratic.
Although a one party state is undemocratic, it does appear that having a mul­
tiplicity of small parties is also counter-productive. Experience in Africa has
shown that parties tend to be formed along tribal lines. This in turn creates a
problem for a government that is eager to move to non-racialism and that is
concerned with nation building. For this reason some African academics30 have
recommended that whereas a one-party system is unacceptable as being un­
democratic, too many parties are also equally unacceptable for the reasons al­
ready mentioned. What is recommended as a better option is to have at least
two or three big parties. This allows freedom of association but curbs the for­
mation of parties along tribal lines.
The experiences of African states provide good examples for us in South Africa
to enable us to avoid the mistakes committed elsewhere in Africa. The demise
of one-party states demonstrates that a one-party system is not a solution to
problems which we may experience in future. However, the failure of one-party
states in Africa does not mean that multi-party democracy will easily flourish
in South Africa. South Africa may well be in a fortunate position in that there
may be factors conducive to the development of multi-party democracy. But
its full development will depend on the effort of all those who cherish democracy.
c
30 Nwabueze 'Multi-party Democracy in African States' Paper presented at the Conference
of the Newick Park Initiative held in the United Kingdom in June 1990 at 34 et seq.