The Legacy of Longevity: The Erosion of Term Limits and the Rise of 'Groomed' Dictators in Africa

The issue of term limits in Africa is multifaceted and complex, deeply intertwined with the continent's post-colonial political development, democratic aspirations, and persistent challenges of governance. While ostensibly designed to prevent the concentration of power and promote democratic rotation, the implementation and circumvention of term limits have profoundly shaped the political landscapes of numerous African nations. Some African leaders have either adhered to, manipulated, or outright rejected term limits, with significant and, most times, catastrophic implications for their respective countries' stability, human rights records, and economic development.

The concept of term limits in Africa emerged mainly in the wake of the "third wave of democratization" that swept across the continent in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Before this period, many African nations were characterized by one-party states and leaders who often ruled for life, a legacy of both colonial authoritarianism and the early post-independence struggles to consolidate power and build national unity. The push for term limits was fueled by a growing international consensus on democratic governance, coupled with internal pressures from civil society, opposition movements, and a populace weary of autocratic rule, its associated corruption, and lack of accountability. The underlying rationale was that regular changes in leadership would foster greater transparency, reduce opportunities for entrenched corruption, encourage policy innovation, and ultimately strengthen democratic institutions. However, the path from constitutional amendment to actual democratic practice has been fraught with challenges, as many leaders have demonstrated a strong reluctance to relinquish power, often employing a range of tactics to extend their stay in office. This resistance highlights a fundamental tension between the normative ideals of democratic rotation and the pragmatic realities of power politics in Africa.

The post-independence era in Africa saw a rapid decline in multi-party democracy, with many newly independent states quickly transitioning to one-party rule or military dictatorships. Leaders like Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya, and Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, while often revered as liberation heroes, consolidated power, effectively eliminating political opposition and establishing systems where their rule was largely unchallenged. Arguments of national unity frequently justified this trend, the need for strong leadership to overcome developmental challenges, and the perceived unsuitability of Western-style multi-party democracy for African contexts. The Cold War further complicated matters, as both superpowers often supported authoritarian regimes that aligned with their geopolitical interests, providing financial and military aid that further entrenched these leaders.

The late 1980s and early 1990s marked a significant turning point. The collapse of the Soviet Union, coupled with growing internal dissent and pressure from international donors, created a conducive environment for democratic reforms. Many African countries, facing economic crises and popular uprisings, began to adopt new constitutions that included provisions for multi-party elections and, crucially, presidential term limits. These limits were often set at two five-year terms, mirroring practices in many established democracies. The expectation was that these constitutional safeguards would prevent the emergence of new "presidents for life" and usher in an era of more accountable and responsive governance. However, the enthusiasm for term limits was soon met with the reality of deeply entrenched power structures and leaders unwilling to cede control. The subsequent decades have witnessed a continuous struggle between those advocating for adherence to constitutional term limits and those seeking to amend or circumvent them.

Mobutu Sese Seko's rule over Congo, later Zaire, from 1965 to 1997, stands as a stark example of a leader who not only disregarded term limits but also actively dismantled any semblance of democratic governance to establish an absolute personalistic dictatorship. Mobutu came to power through a military coup, overthrowing the democratically elected government of Patrice Lumumba and later consolidating his authority by eliminating political rivals.

Initially, Mobutu presented himself as a modernizer and a unifier. Still, his regime quickly devolved into one characterized by rampant corruption, human rights abuses, and the systematic weakening of state institutions for personal gain. He established the Popular Movement of the Revolution (MPR) as the sole legal political party, effectively eliminating any political opposition. The constitution was repeatedly amended to concentrate power in his hands, and elections, when they occurred, were mere formalities designed to legitimize his continued rule.

Term limits were never a meaningful constraint on Mobutu's power. His rule predated the widespread adoption of term limits in Africa, and even as the democratic wave swept the continent in the early 1990s, Mobutu resisted any genuine reforms. While he eventually bowed to international pressure and allowed for a multi-party system and a national conference, these moves were largely tactical, aimed at buying time and maintaining his grip on power. He skillfully played various factions against each other, and his regime continued to be characterized by political repression and economic mismanagement.

Mobutu's longevity in power was facilitated by several factors: the vast mineral wealth of Congo, which he and his cronies plundered with the support of Western powers, particularly the United States, which viewed him as a bulwark against communism in the region, plus his ability to cultivate a cult of personality through propaganda and the suppression of dissent. The consequences of Mobutu's rule were catastrophic for Congo. The country's infrastructure crumbled, its economy was devastated, and its institutions were hollowed out. When he was finally overthrown by Laurent-Désiré Kabila in 1997, the country was left in a state of profound instability, leading to years of devastating conflict that continue to plague the Democratic Republic of Congo to this day. Mobutu's legacy serves as a cautionary tale of how the absence of adequate checks and balances, including term limits, can lead to prolonged authoritarian rule and national decline.

Yoweri Museveni's presidency in Uganda, which began in 1986, presents a more nuanced but equally concerning case study regarding the issue of term limits. Museveni came to power as a liberation hero, promising to restore democracy and good governance after decades of brutal dictatorships under Milton Obote and Idi Amin. His initial years were marked by significant progress in economic recovery and the establishment of relative stability.

However, Museveni's commitment to democratic rotation has been increasingly questioned over time. Uganda's 1995 constitution initially included a two-term limit for the presidency. This provision was widely seen as a crucial safeguard against the re-emergence of authoritarian rule. However, as Museveni approached the end of his second term in 2005, a controversial constitutional amendment was passed by parliament, removing the presidential term limits. This move sparked widespread criticism from opposition parties, civil society organizations, and international observers, who viewed it as a significant setback for Uganda's democratic development.

The arguments put forth by Museveni's supporters for the amendment often centred on the idea that he was still indispensable for Uganda's stability and development, and that removing term limits would allow the people to choose their leader freely, regardless of the length of their service. Critics, however, argued that the amendment was a cynical power grab, designed to entrench Museveni's rule indefinitely. Allegations of bribery and intimidation of members of parliament also marred the process of amending the constitution.

Following the removal of term limits, Museveni has continued to win successive elections, often amidst accusations of electoral irregularities, suppression of opposition, and the use of state resources to his advantage. In 2017, another constitutional amendment was passed, removing the presidential age limit of 75 years, further paving the way for Museveni to rule for life, potentially. This move was met with even greater public outcry and violent clashes.

The consequences of Museveni's prolonged rule have been mixed. While Uganda has achieved some economic growth and maintained relative stability, particularly in comparison to its turbulent past, concerns about democratic backsliding have increased significantly. The political space for opposition has shrunk, human rights abuses, particularly against political opponents and critics, have been documented, and corruption remains a persistent problem. The institutionalization of democracy has been hindered by the continued dominance of one individual, raising questions about the country's long-term stability once Museveni eventually leaves the political scene. Uganda's experience highlights how even a leader who initially champions democratic ideals can succumb to the temptation of indefinite rule, often by manipulating constitutional provisions and weakening democratic institutions.

Paul Biya's presidency in Cameroon, which began in 1982, is another prominent example of a leader who has successfully circumvented term limits to maintain power for decades. Biya inherited the presidency from Ahmadou Ahidjo, Cameroon's first president, who had ruled the country since its independence in 1960. Initially, Biya presented himself as a reformer, promising to liberalise the political system. Cameroon's 1996 constitution included a two-term limit for the presidency. This provision was seen as a crucial step towards democratic consolidation in the country. However, as Biya approached the end of his second term in 2008, his ruling party, the Cameroon People's Democratic Movement (CPDM), initiated a process to amend the constitution and remove the term limits.

The arguments for removing term limits were similar to those heard in other African countries: that Biya was indispensable for national stability and development, and that the people should have the right to choose their leader without artificial constraints. Critics, however, viewed the move as a blatant attempt to entrench Biya's rule indefinitely and stifle democratic competition. The constitutional amendment was passed by parliament amidst widespread protests and accusations of political manipulation. Since the removal of term limits, Biya has continued to win successive elections, often with overwhelming majorities that opposition parties and international observers have questioned. The electoral process in Cameroon has been criticized for its lack of transparency, fairness, and suppression of opposition voices.

Biya's long tenure has been characterized by a highly centralized political system, limited political freedoms, and persistent issues of corruption. While Cameroon has maintained relative stability compared to some of its neighbors, particularly in the face of regional security challenges, its democratic institutions remain weak, and the ruling party dominates the political landscape. he lack of genuine political competition and the absence of a clear succession plan raise concerns about the country's future stability. Biya's case illustrates how a leader can utilize institutional power and a compliant legislature to erode constitutional safeguards, thereby prolonging their tenure in office and hindering the development of a robust multi-party democracy.

Yahya Jammeh's rule in The Gambia from 1994 to 2017 provides a stark illustration of a leader who initially came to power through a military coup and subsequently manipulated the political system, including term limits, to maintain his grip on power, eventually leading to a dramatic and internationally brokered exit. Jammeh overthrew the democratically elected government of Dawda Jawara, who had been in power since independence.

Upon seizing power, Jammeh promised to restore order and fight corruption. e initially established a transitional government, and a new constitution was adopted in 1996, which included a two-term limit for the presidency. However, Jammeh quickly moved to consolidate his power, transforming the country into an authoritarian state. Despite the constitutional term limits, Jammeh ran for and won multiple elections. I 2002, a controversial constitutional amendment was passed, removing the presidential term limits. T is move was widely condemned by human rights organisations and international bodies, who saw it as an apparent attempt by Jammeh to rule indefinitely.

Jammeh's regime became increasingly repressive, characterised by widespread human rights abuses, including arbitrary arrests, torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings. Freedom of expression was severely curtailed, and political opposition was brutally suppressed. He also made outlandish claims, such as being able to cure AIDS and other diseases. T turning point came in the 2016 presidential election. To the surprise of many, Jammeh lost the election to Adama Barrow, a relatively unknown opposition candidate who had united a coalition of opposition parties. Initially, Jammeh conceded defeat, but then dramatically reversed his decision, rejecting the results and plunging the country into a constitutional crisis.

The international community, particularly the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), intervened decisively. Af er weeks of diplomatic efforts and the threat of military intervention, Jammeh was eventually pressured into stepping down and going into exile. The Gambian case is significant because it demonstrates that even in the face of a leader determined to cling to power indefinitely, a combination of internal democratic forces and robust international pressure can lead to a peaceful transfer of power. It also highlights the dangers of removing term limits, as it can embolden authoritarian tendencies and lead to prolonged periods of repression.

Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo's presidency in Equatorial Guinea, which began in 1979, represents the longest-serving non-monarchical head of state in the world. His rule is a quintessential example of a leader who has systematically eliminated any checks on his power, including the concept of term limits, to establish an absolute and hereditary dictatorship. Ob ang came to power through a bloody coup, overthrowing his uncle, Francisco Macías Nguema, whose regime was one of the most brutal in African history. Equatorial Guinea's political system under Obiang has never genuinely embraced democratic principles, and term limits have been largely irrelevant to his rule. While the country has adopted several constitutions over the years, these have primarily served to legitimise Obiang's continued hold on power and concentrate authority in his hands.

In 2011, a new constitution was adopted, which ostensibly introduced a two-term limit for the presidency. However, this amendment was widely seen as a cosmetic change, as it also included a provision that reset Obiang's term count to zero, effectively allowing him to serve two more terms from that point onwards. This manipulation of constitutional provisions ensured that Obiang could continue to rule for at least another decade, if not longer. Obiang's regime is characterised by extreme authoritarianism, widespread corruption, and severe human rights abuses. Despite Equatorial Guinea being one of Africa's largest oil producers, the vast majority of its population lives in poverty, while the ruling elite, particularly Obiang's family, has amassed immense wealth. Political opposition is virtually non-existent, and dissent is brutally suppressed. Elections are widely considered to be shams, designed to provide a veneer of legitimacy to Obiang's perpetual rule.

The international community has largely condemned Obiang's regime for its human rights record and lack of democratic governance. However, the country's oil wealth has often shielded it from more robust international pressure, as various foreign powers have economic interests in maintaining relations with the regime. Obiang's case underscores how the presence of natural resources can enable a leader to defy democratic norms and maintain power indefinitely, even in the absence of genuine popular support or constitutional legitimacy. The manipulation of term limits, even when nominally introduced, serves as a tool to perpetuate a dynastic form of rule, with his son, Teodorín Nguema Obiang Mangue, widely expected to succeed him.

Isaias Afwerki's rule in Eritrea since its independence in 1993 is unique among African nations in that the country has never held a national election. It has never implemented a constitution with term limits. Afw rki led the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF) to victory in the war of independence against Ethiopia, becoming the country's first and only president. Upon independence, a transitional government was established, and a constitution was drafted and ratified in 1997. This constitution included provisions for multi-party democracy and presidential elections. However, the constitution was never implemented, and elections have never been held. Afwerki has consistently argued that the country is not yet ready for multi-party democracy and that national unity and development must take precedence.

Eritrea under Afwerki has evolved into one of the most authoritarian and isolated states in the world. The government controls all aspects of life, and there is no independent media, civil society, or political opposition. Human rights abuses are rampant, including arbitrary arrests, detention without trial, torture, and forced conscription into indefinite national service. The country is often referred to as the "North Korea of Africa" due to its extreme isolation and repressive policies. The absence of term limits, or indeed any constitutional framework for democratic governance, has allowed Afwerki to consolidate absolute power. His rule is based on the legacy of the liberation struggle and a highly centralised, militarised state apparatus. The government maintains a constant state of alert, citing external threats, particularly from Ethiopia, as a justification for its authoritarian policies and the indefinite suspension of democratic processes.

The consequences of Afwerki's indefinite rule have been severe. Eritrea suffers from a chronic brain drain, as many of its citizens, particularly young people, flee the country to escape forced conscription and lack of opportunities. The economy is mainly state-controlled and underdeveloped, despite the country's potential. The lack of political freedom and the absence of any mechanism for peaceful leadership change create a highly volatile situation, with long-term implications for regional stability. Eritrea's case highlights the end of the spectrum, where term limits are not just circumvented but are absent from the political discourse, leading to prolonged and unchallenged authoritarian rule.

The case studies of Mobutu, Museveni, Biya, Jammeh, Obiang, and Afwerki collectively illustrate the profound challenges associated with term limits in Africa. The circumvention or absence of these constitutional safeguards has several overarching implications for the continent's political development:

Democratic Backsliding and Weakening of Institutions: The most immediate consequence is the erosion of democratic norms and institutions. When leaders manipulate constitutions to extend their stay in power, it undermines the rule of law, weakens the legislature and judiciary, and signals that power, rather than constitutional principles, is the ultimate arbiter. This creates a cycle where institutions are designed to serve the incumbent rather than the populace.

Increased Political Instability and Conflict: The absence of peaceful mechanisms for leadership change can lead to increased political instability. When avenues for democratic transition are blocked, opposition groups may resort to extra-constitutional means, including protests, civil disobedience, or even armed rebellion, to challenge entrenched power. The cases of The Gambia (where international intervention was needed) and the DRC (where Mobutu's fall led to prolonged conflict) are stark reminders of this danger.

Corruption and Economic Stagnation: Prolonged rule without accountability often fosters rampant corruption. Lead rs and their cronies can entrench themselves in positions that allow them to plunder state resources with impunity. This diverts funds from public services, discourages investment, and ultimately hinders economic development. The vast wealth accumulated by leaders like Mobutu and Obiang, while their populations remain impoverished, is a testament to this phenomenon.

Human Rights Abuses: Authoritarian regimes that disregard term limits often resort to repression to maintain power. Freedom of expression, assembly, and association are curtailed, and political opponents, journalists, and civil society activists face arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, and even death. The Human rights records of the regimes discussed are replete with such abuses.

Lack of Policy Innovation and Stagnation: Long-serving leaders, particularly those who have eliminated political competition, may become resistant to new ideas and policy reforms. This can lead to policy stagnation, as the same approaches are recycled, even if they are ineffective. The absence of fresh perspectives and accountability mechanisms can stifle innovation and hinder a country's ability to adapt to changing global and local challenges.

Cult of Personality and Weak Succession Planning: Leaders who rule for decades often cultivate a cult of personality, presenting themselves as indispensable national figures. This makes it challenging to develop robust succession plans, as the entire political system revolves around a single individual. The eventual departure of such a leader, whether through natural causes or external pressure, can create a dangerous power vacuum and lead to further instability.

Erosion of Citizen Trust and Political Apathy: When elections are repeatedly manipulated and constitutional provisions are disregarded, citizens lose faith in the democratic process. This can lead to political apathy, disengagement, and a sense of powerlessness, further entrenching authoritarian rule.

The response of regional and international actors to the circumvention of term limits in Africa has been varied. Regional organisations, such as the African Union (AU) and ECOWAS, have at times taken strong stances against unconstitutional changes of government, including the manipulation of term limits. ECOWS's intervention in The Gambia is a notable success story. However, the AU's principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of member states has sometimes limited its effectiveness, and its responses have been inconsistent.

International donors and Western powers have also played a complex role. While often advocating for democratic governance and term limits, their actions have sometimes been contradictory, particularly when strategic interests (such as counter-terrorism efforts or access to natural resources) have taken precedence over democratic principles. This has, at times, provided a lifeline to authoritarian regimes.

Civil society organisations, both within Africa and internationally, have played a crucial role in advocating for adherence to term limits and exposing the abuses of long-serving leaders. Their sustained pressure, often in collaboration with opposition movements, has been instrumental in raising awareness and pushing for reforms.

The issue of term limits in Africa remains a critical barometer of democratic progress on the continent. While the initial wave of democratisation in the 1990s saw many countries adopt these constitutional safeguards, the subsequent decades have been marked by a persistent struggle between the aspirations for democratic rotation and the realities of entrenched power. The cases of Mobutu, Museveni, Biya, Jammeh, Obiang, and Afwerki vividly illustrate the diverse tactics employed by leaders to extend their rule, ranging from outright rejection of constitutionalism to subtle manipulation of legal frameworks.

The circumvention or absence of term limits in Africa has profoundly impacted democratic development, leading to democratic backsliding, increased political instability, corruption, human rights abuses, and a lack of policy innovation, as exemplified by the prolonged and often authoritarian rule of leaders like Mobutu Sese Seko, Yoweri Museveni, Paul Biya, Yahya Jammeh, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, and Isaias Afwerki. The persistence of these challenges underscores the ongoing need for robust constitutionalism, strong democratic institutions, an active civil society, and consistent international pressure to ensure that power transitions are peaceful, democratic, and in line with the will of the people. The nature of democratic governance in Africa hinges significantly on the continent's ability to uphold and enforce these fundamental principles of limited tenure and accountability.