Home › Books & Reviews › Capsule Reviews › Africa's New Leaders: Democracy or State Reconstruction?; Hostile to Democracy: The Movement System and Political Repression in Uganda

Africa's New Leaders: Democracy or State Reconstruction?; Hostile to Democracy: The Movement System and Political Repression in Uganda

Marina Ottaway
Human Rights Watch
Reviewed by By Gail M. Gerhart
March/April 2000
Print Email
Login or Register to leave a comment.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.
Marina Ottaway
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1999
138 pp.
0870031341
$10.95
Human Rights Watch
Human Rights Watch
1999
173 pp.
1564322394
$15.00

In a cogent policy study, veteran Africa analyst Ottaway considers the politics of Uganda, Eritrea, and Ethiopia -- three impoverished countries emerging from years of warfare and authoritarian rule. Each has a dynamic national leader dedicated to economic development but less enthusiastic about multiparty democracy. Ottaway uses each country's history to develop an argument contrary to the West's standard recommendation that all African countries immediately adopt multiparty systems. In her view, such a step presupposes the existence of state power and authority, but collapsed states need to be reconstructed before competition for leadership is appropriate. In turn, state reconstruction requires strong leadership, which comes with the risk of a slide toward personal rule. Nevertheless, Ottaway argues, foreign donors can help establish the foundations of democracy (e.g., pluralism, the rule of law, and independent media) while waiting out the process of state reconstruction as part of a long-term effort to foster democratic outcomes.

Taking issue with this approach, Human Rights Watch makes the case for upholding the rights to free association and assembly in Uganda. In their view, President Yoweri Museveni's "no-party" system, which has imposed his own "movement system" as a government of national unity, has come to resemble a one-party state in all but name. Uganda's achievements in economic reconstruction and its efforts to promote human rights in other ways do not justify its suppression of political rights. Nor does it allow Western governments and multilateral lenders to turn a blind eye to this suppression. It is a serious debate with merit on both sides.

Related

Essay, Mar/Apr 1998
Africa's New Bloc
Dan Connell and Frank Smyth

Once the playground of tyrants like Uganda's Idi Amin, Ethiopia's Mengistu Haile Mariam, and Zaire's Mobutu Sese Seko, Africa is finally shedding its postcolonial heritage of despotism and chaos. In Uganda, Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Eritrea, a new generation of nationalist leaders with strong and disciplined armies is emerging to take control of the continent. Their fights against the old foreign-supported order have left them suspicious of anything that comes from abroad, especially from France. Still, they are far more accountable and egalitarian than their predecessors-and they want to get into the United States' good books.

Read
Essay, Apr 1970
Rumblings Along the Red Sea: The Eritrean Question
John Franklin Campbell

Twelve hundred miles south of Suez a struggle to control the farther entrance to the Red Sea is well underway. Though naturally overshadowed by the Arab-Israeli conflict to which it is not unrelated, the contest to the south involves substantial issues for great and small powers alike, who look to the future of the African Horn and the Red Sea basin. More than this, the problem of Eritrea, together with the related question of French Djibouti's future, is an intriguing one which, for all its complexities, recorded in past United Nations resolutions and every kind of East-West, North-South compromise, still may prove soluble short of major war. For the armed struggle along the Red Sea's southern rim is thus far a conflict of subdued violence and muted, if bizarre, ramifications.

Read
Essay, Apr 1978
Human Rights and Economic Power: The United States Versus Idi Amin
Richard H. Ullman

By the time this journal is in its readers' hands, the American Congress may have been called upon to decide whether Uganda's coffee should be barred from entering the United States. Its decision will hold great importance for Uganda, for the United States, and for the international system. At stake will be the issue of whether or not the richest and most powerful of sovereign states is justified in using its economic power unilaterally to force the government of a smaller and weaker state to alter the way it treats its own subjects. The questions raised come cascading forward: Why should rich North Americans interfere in the internal affairs of a poor African state? How would that interference relate to other American interests and policies - in Africa and elsewhere? What is the larger significance for the international system of such use of an economic instrument - a coffee boycott - for a political purpose?

Read