Currently, Africa contains more sovereign nations than any other continent, with 54 countries compared to Asia’s 47. Africa’s tumultuous political history has resulted in extreme disparities between the wealth and stability of its countries. For example, populous and industrialized South Africa has a gross domestic product more than 530 times that of the Comoros. Despite its cultural and economic diversity, Africa contains only four different types of government: presidential and parliamentary republics, semi-presidential republics and monarchies.
1. Presidential Republics
The most widespread form of government in Africa is the presidential republic. In a presidential republic, an elected official, the president, operates independently of the legislature as the executive authority. In Africa, presidential republics vary in regards to the level of power entrusted to the electorate. Some countries, such as Nigeria, operate as true constitutional republics, with transparent elections and leaders beholden to the people. Others, such as Angola, function as virtual autocracies, with presidents who maintain power through force or coercion. Presidents on the continent have sometimes been installed by military coup or civil war rather than elections. Twenty-six African nations, including Zambia, Sudan, Kenya, Chad, Republic of the Congo and Zimbabwe, have presidential republic governments.
2. Parliamentary Republics
Seven African nations possess parliamentary republic governments. Parliamentary republics differ from presidential republics in that executive authority resides in a cabinet of ministers, rather than the president. These ministers come from the elected legislature, which provides popular oversight to the cabinet’s power. Some African nations, such as South Africa, maintain parliamentary systems first established under the colonial rule of Great Britain. Other African parliamentary republics include Ethiopia, Somalia, Botswana and Mauritius. Libya instituted a provisional parliamentary government in the aftermath of the 2011 revolution that overthrew Muammar Gaddafi.
3. Semi-presidential Republics
A semi-presidential government combines elements of presidential and parliamentary systems. Semi-presidential governments have popularly elected presidents that serve as heads of state, and also cabinets beholden to the legislature. A widespread form of government in Africa, semi-presidential systems exist in 17 countries. In Egypt, a semi-presidential government developed in the aftermath of Hosni Mubarak’s downfall and represented an attempt to curb the power of the presidential position. Algeria, Madagascar, Niger, Mali, Rwanda, Tunisia, Djibouti, Uganda and Equatorial Guinea all function as semi-presidential republics.
4. Traditional Monarchies
Monarchies, once widespread throughout Africa, now exist in only three countries. Lesotho, a landlocked sovereign nation entirely surrounded by South Africa, functions as a constitutional monarchy, with the king as the head of state and a prime minister as head of government. Another constitutional monarchy, Morocco, also has a hereditary king who shares power with an elected parliament. Swaziland, a small country in southern Africa, became a nation under the mid-19th century rule of King Mswati II. The king of Swaziland, the last absolute monarch in Africa, oversees all aspects of his country’s economy and military, and appoints a prime minister and cabinet to serve as advisors.
This is an interesting table that I found from Wiki. It sums up the entire African Continent and the different types of governments that exist in our continent.
State
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
parliamentary unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential federal republic
| |||
semi-presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
semi-presidential unitary republic
| |||
semi-presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
semi-presidential federal republic
| |||
semi-presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
semi-presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
parliamentary unitary constitutional monarchy
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
parliamentary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential republic
| |||
semi-presidential unitary republic
| |||
parliamentary unitary constitutional monarchy
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
semi-presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary federation
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
semi-presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
semi-presidential federal republic
| |||
semi-presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential federal republic
| |||
presidential federal republic
| |||
unitary absolute monarchy
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
semi-presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
presidential unitary republic
| |||
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESS OF THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT
PRESIDENTIAL REPUBLICS
Supporters generally claim four basic advantages for presidential systems:
- Direct elections — in a presidential system, the president is often elected directly by the people. This makes the president's power more legitimate than that of a leader appointed indirectly. However, this is not a necessary feature of a presidential system. Some presidential states have an indirectly elected head of state.
- Separation of powers — a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. This allows each structure to monitor and check the other, preventing abuses of power.
- Speed and decisiveness — A president with strong powers can usually enact changes quickly. However, the separation of powers can also slow the system down.
- Stability — a president, by virtue of a fixed term, may provide more stability than a prime minister, who can be dismissed at any time.
Critics generally claim three basic disadvantages for presidential systems:
- Tendency towards authoritarianism — some political scientists say presidentialism raises the stakes of elections, exacerbates their polarization and can lead to authoritarianism (Linz).
- Political gridlock — the separation of powers of a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Critics argue that this can create an undesirable and long-term political gridlock whenever the president and the legislative majority are from different parties, which is common because the electorate usually expects more rapid results from new policies than are possible (Linz, Mainwaring and Shugart). In addition, this reduces accountability by allowing the president and the legislature to shift blame to each other.
- Impediments to leadership change — presidential systems often make it difficult to remove a president from office early, for example after taking actions that become unpopular.
PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
- Boasted about advantages includes but not limited to the fact that it’s faster and easier to pass legislation. The executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the legislative branch and often includes members of the legislature. Thus, this would amount to the executive (as the majority party or coalition of parties in the legislature) possessing more votes in order to pass legislation.
- In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided. It can also be argued that power is more evenly spread out in the power structure of parliamentarianism. The prime minister seldom tends to have as high importance as a ruling president, and there tends to be a higher focus on voting for a party and its political ideas than voting for an actual person.
- Parliamentarianism has been praised for producing serious debates, for allowing the change in power without an election, and for allowing elections at any time
Disadvantages include:
- Can lead to instability. Unlike a President, the prime minister is elected by the majority party, and can be removed at any time if the majority party loses confidence in that person as leader. Additionally, prime ministers may lose their positions solely because they lose their seats in parliament, even though they may still be popular nationally.
- that there is no truly independent body to oppose and veto legislation passed by the parliament, and therefore no substantial check on legislative power
- Critics of parliamentary systems point out that people with significant popular support in the community are prevented from becoming prime minister if they cannot get elected to parliament since there is no option to “run for prime minister” like one can run for president under a presidential system.
SEMI-PRESIDENTIAL REPUBLICS
Advantages:
- It relies on a chain of mutual dependence. Using the French Constitution of 1958 as an example, one of the presidential powers is that they can appoint the prime minister whose role as the head of government is to oversee the everyday running of state affairs, such as "governmental, administrative, and information services." This means that as the head of state, the president, needs the cooperation of the prime minister, and the prime minister needs the cooperation of the president in order for France to achieve an efficient government
- The president and legislature have a fixed term in government which prevents the creation of an autocratic executive.
Disvantages:
- According to the UK Essays published on March 23 2015, one of the disadvantages is the contested nature of semi - presidentialism which makes the classification of a semi - presidentialist states more difficult and therefore comparison more complicated. For example Iceland is arguably not a semi - presidential state because the president has more of a ceremonial role. Similarly Russia may also not be classified as a semi - presidential state because the Russian president has too much executive power.
- There is the potential for gridlock.
TRADITIONAL MONARCHIES
Connect US - The Global Blog, lists the advantages of Traditional Monarchies, as
- There is continuity. The monarch has no limited terms, so being the head of state is a lifetime position. This is advantageous because it allows the country to develop strong ties with other nations, unlike in other governments where the leader is replaced every four years or so.
- The preservation of history, culture, and tradition. Aside from a political role, the monarch provides a sense of history, culture, and tradition to the people and can act as a visible symbol of unity.
- There is a balance of power.The king or queen in a constitutional monarchy serve as a symbolic and non-political head of state, while the political power and decision-making lies on the parliament. This is a good thing because it can prevent monarchs from becoming power hungry. It also encourages a more cohesive form of government as the Prime Minister and advisers are there to guide the monarch in making governing choices. The monarch still has three political rights, which are the right to be consulted, the right to be advised, and the right to warn. And the parliament isn’t necessarily free to just do whatever they want because the monarch can hold formal powers. These can include dissolving the parliament or giving Royal Assent to the legislation.
The Blog goes on to lists the disadvantages as:
- It makes progression more difficult. Since the monarchical system is deeply engraved in the tradition and customs of a country, it can be more challenging to create internal political changes. Whatever changes will be suggested must be carefully considered in deference to the royal family.
- The monarch cannot be removed. Because it is a lifelong position, the king or queen cannot be removed no matter how unworthy or poor they are in performing their duties. Also, since the monarchy is passed on by blood rather than by votes or appointment, there can be instances when a child who is still unfit to rule will be put on the throne. This has already happened several times in history.
- It promotes class privilege. Not everyone can be born into a royal family, so there are only a limited few who can become ruling monarchs of a country. This can further push the idea that success can be achieved based only on your social class instead of your hard work and determination. Another issue is that the maintenance of the lifestyle and the security provided for the royal family is an unnecessary expense for taxpayers.
SOLUTIONS TO THE CHALLENGES GOVERNMENTS ARE FACING IN THE REGION
My solution is ONE for all the forms of government, POWER TO THE PEOPLE! Africa needs to TOTALLY divorce colonisation legacies from its policies to its governance systems.
Each and every single African citizen in its African country needs to have a say in what is going on in his/her country. Every head of state or head of government needs to be held accountable for their administration alongside their cabinet.
We need to do away with Monarchies in Africa. We need a change of power constantly. Africa needs to do away with dictators who rule autocratically and wants the power for themselves and not the total liberation of its citizens more especially those still suffering from colonisation after effects, which are the natives.
Those wishing to contest elections and serve as the Head of State need to have constant report backs to those that voted them in. They need to come back to those who waited in long lines hoping to see a better future for their respective states. They need to remove all the red tapes and be accessible to the public that voted them in.
Leaders must LISTEN to the people. It’s useless to lead people yet you not listen to that. Grenada, can be used as an example of this, whereby the people used democracy in the way that suited them and gave it a new meaning.
