Dr Muhammad Dan Suleiman: Ten other names we can call Democracy in Africa

When a concept has so many names, it means it is as important as it is ubiquitous. Democracy is as ideal a governance system to some as it is controversial to many.

The ambiguity inherent in this form of government has led several scholars and experts to give it many names: some to exonerate it and others to indict it. Some of these names include Illiberal Democracy, a term coined to describe systems where democratic elections occur but civil liberties and political freedoms are restricted.

There is also Afro-democracy, which describes a form of democracy that blends traditional African governance systems (such as councils of elders or chiefs) with modern democratic practices.

Other names range from ambiguous descriptive usages like Hybrid Regimes and Delegation Democracy to oxymorons like Democratic Autocracy, Authoritarian Democracy, and Military Democracy. Notably, these usages are academic exercises that usually excel in the pages of scholarly journals rather than in the corridors of Government House.

In my view, many of these terms attempt to give relevance to a struggling government ideal that should give way to a better replica of itself. They are, in many respects, euphemistic acts of sophistry and apologia. Below are ten other names we can call democracy in Africa. While not as sophisticated as the above, they draw from them. And I dare say that many Africans will agree that these ten names better capture the kind of democracy they witness daily.

1. Ad Hocracy

A retired Army General used this term in an interview with him in 2028. This refers to governance that is spontaneous and improvised. It is where decision-making is reactive rather than proactive. Governments adopting ad hoc solutions often do so to address crises without the long-term institutional structures necessary for sustainable democracy. For instance, during electoral violence or political instability, African governments sometimes set up temporary commissions or bodies to “resolve” these crises. However, the lack of consistent policy results in repeated cycles of the same issues. Rather than undertaking comprehensive reforms, decisions are often made on a case-by-case basis.

2. Mimicracy

Derived from “mimic,” this term suggests that many African democracies imitate Western democratic forms without fully adapting them to local needs and contexts. African countries may adopt Western-style institutions like parliaments, elections, and courts, but the actual functioning of these institutions may not reflect local realities. Ghana and Kenya, for example, have been heralded for their democratic systems modelled after the West. Yet the political culture still faces issues such as ethnic-based politics and entrenched elites that are not typical in Western democracies.

3. Isomorcracy
   Coined from isomorphism, Isomorcracy refers to the tendency of African governments to replicate foreign democratic structures without considering whether these structures are compatible with local realities. This term echoes Mimicracy but emphasises institutional mimicry in terms of laws, policies, and systems. For instance, the push for federalism in countries like Ethiopia and Nigeria mirrors the federal systems of the U.S. or Germany but often fails to accommodate the unique ethnic and regional dynamics present in these countries.
4. Donorcracy

This term reflects the heavy influence of international donors on African democratic processes and governance. Many African countries are highly reliant on foreign aid, and this dependence can skew policy priorities towards the preferences of international organisations or donor countries, often at the expense of local needs. Donorcracy was notably seen in Liberia and Sierra Leone post-civil war, where donor-driven agendas prioritised certain governance reforms, sometimes bypassing the democratic voice of local communities.

5. Blameocracy
   This term captures the frequent tendency of African governments to blame external actors—such as former colonial powers, foreign governments, or international organisations—for their domestic challenges. Sometimes, it works in the form of incumbent governments always blaming previous governments for failing to do their job. Governments may shift responsibility to external forces rather than addressing internal governance failures. Zimbabwe, under Robert Mugabe, for example, was accused of attributing the country’s economic collapse to Western sanctions, deflecting responsibility away from poor governance and corruption. Blameocracy reduces the focus on domestic accountability and encourages a narrative of victimhood.
6. Couptocracy

Couptocracy describes a political system where military coups are a constant threat or military leaders frequently transition into civilian leadership, eventually undermining the democratic process. This has been common in countries like Mali, Chad, and Burkina Faso and across the entire continent, where the military has stepped in as a temporary or long-term ruler. Even in cases where democratic elections follow, the military retains substantial influence, making the democratic process fragile and highly susceptible to manipulation.

7. Electocracy
   In an Electocracy, the focus is on holding regular elections as the sole indicator of democracy, but without broader democratic principles like accountability, transparency, or genuine public participation. Countries like Uganda and Cameroon hold regular elections, which are often marked by manipulation, fraud, and lack of genuine opposition participation. Electocracy prioritises the procedural aspects of democracy (elections) while ignoring substantive democratic governance.
8. Patroncracy

Patroncracy is a system where political power and resources are distributed through patronage networks. Rather than a merit-based democratic process, power is maintained by rewarding loyal supporters with jobs, contracts, and resources. In countries like Nigeria, where patronage networks dominate politics, the democratic process is subverted by leaders who maintain power by satisfying their political “godfathers” and distributing resources to supporters, undermining true representative governance.

9. Pseudocracy

Pseudocracy is a term for a fake or pseudo-democracy, where the trappings of democracy—such as elections, legislatures, and courts—exist. Still, they are controlled or manipulated by those in power. The outward appearance of democracy is maintained to appease both domestic and international audiences, but in practice, the system is designed to entrench the existing elite. In pseudocratic countries, elections are held, but the opposition is systematically suppressed, and institutions are heavily controlled.

10. Gospel According to St. Europe

Apologies to the saints of the New Testament for canonising Europe. However, the often-unquestioned promotion of European-style democracy as the ideal model for African countries makes Europe a Saint. Many African states are expected to adopt democratic systems modelled after Europe without enough consideration of their unique historical, cultural, and social contexts.

The imposition of this “gospel” often leads to democratic institutions that look good on paper but are disconnected from the lived realities of African citizens. This critique is evident in discussions around the neo-liberal democratic reforms promoted by institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in African countries during the 1980s and 1990s. These reforms often ignored local political cultures, leading to widespread disenchantment with democracy, and poverty.

As governments continue to fail their citizens and Western democracy continues to concede defeat across the continent, African countries must commit to addressing situations where the theory of democracy often contrasts sharply with its practice, to the detriment of most Africans.