Doctoral Dissertations

Date of Award

5-1999

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy

Major

Political Science

Major Professor

Robert L. Peterson

Committee Members

Rosalind Hackett

Abstract

In the early 1990s, democratic movements simultaneously emerged in most of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Some of these movements led to successful democratic transitions, while other movements became derailed. Still, in some countries, political liberalization occurred, but without regime change. These developments underlie the questions raised in this study. That is, why did transitions in some countries in sub- Saharan Africa result in the installation of democratic regimes, while, in other countries, the outcome was continued authoritarianism? What factors account for the differing transition trajectories? What are the prospects that those countries undergoing transition will reach the final phase of the democratization process - democratic consolidation? What factors facilitate or obstruct the transition-consolidation process in the region? In the context of these broad questions, this dissertation examines the difficulties that countries face in their attempts to create and maintain democratic institutions and values. Using Kenya and Zambia as primary case studies, the dissertation explores the factors that either facilitate or obstruct both the democratic transition and democratic consolidation process. Within the framework of the democratic transition-consolidation theory, the study comparatively analyzes the impact of historical, systemic/contextual, and external factors on the democratization processes in sub-Saharan Africa. Particular emphasis is given to delineating the factors that account for differing democratic transition trajectory outcomes in the region.

In this dissertation, it is argued that the democratic transition-consolidation processes in Kenya and Zambia can be explained by the inter-play between three sets of factors, some historical, some systemic/contextual, and some external. In particular, the study proposes that the differing outcomes of the democratic transition processes in these cases can be explained by an examination of the impact of seven inter-related variables. These variables include: colonial legacy; legacy of prior regimes; socioeconomic conditions; state-civil society dynamics; modalities of the transition process; international context; and donor conditionality. This study found that socioeconomic preconditions alone do not convincingly account for the differences in democratic transition trajectories in sub-Saharan Africa region. However, when socioeconomic conditions are combined with political actions of individuals and groups such as civil society organizations, a clear picture of why the Zambian transition resulted in successful outcome and the Kenyan transition ended in stalemate emerges. A close examination of historical factors also reveals that they had an enormous impact on the systemic-contextual factors, and therefore on the transition process itself in both cases. Similarly, external factors also played a significant role in democratic opening in both countries. However, it seems that aid conditionality played a greater role in the Kenyan case than it did in the Zambian case.

Moreover, the study found that the most compelling explanation for divergent transition outcomes in these cases center on political and socioeconomic factors. Worsening socioeconomic conditions undermined the resource base of the authoritarian regimes, and created legitimization crisis. This gave impetus to civil society groups and other opposition leaders, who through political actions launched both countries on the transition path. Therefore, failure or success in these cases can be explained in terms of the three sets of variables presented above. Therefore, in order to account for divergent transition outcomes in the African context, we need to examine the nature of colonial rule, the structure of the previous regimes, socioeconomic conditions, the nature of state-society dynamics, and the modalities of the transition process itself. We must also bring into the analysis external factors, and examine how they impact on the contingent actions of the key actors as well as on the actions of mass protesters. Specifically, this study found that much of the variation in the democratic transition outcomes in these two cases (and to an extent cross-nationally in the region), can be explained by reference to the preceding set of variables including, historical factors, systemic/contextual factors, and external factors.

Download
Files over 3MB may be slow to open. For best results, right-click and select "save as..."

Share

COinS