Introduction
In the vibrant yet turbulent landscape of African
politics, democracy often feels like a delicate dance by many governments.
Since the wave of independence in the mid-20th century, many African
nations have adopted constitutions that promise free elections, separation of
powers and the respect for the rule of law. However, despite these
pronouncements and provisions in the law, there is a persistent shadow that
looms; the imperial presidency in many African states. Imperial presidency is a
term that describes a system where the president has almost total control and
power over the government. In such a system, the president often ignores or
weakens other important institutions like parliament and the courts. They do
this by sidelining the courts and preventing checks on the power that they possess.
It echoes the unchecked authority of ancient emperors especially in Africa, but
in the modern world—as shaped by colonial legacies as well as the post-independence
struggles in many African states.
This article explores how the imperial presidency
undermines democracy across Africa and draws on examples from diverse countries
including Zambia. The article will exemplify key concepts like despotism and
gerrymandering by bringing to the fore insights from African scholars on the
aspect of election adjudication and constitutionalism. The article argues that
true democratic progress demands not just elections, but robust institutions that
will tame executive overreach. By examining these patterns, we see both the
perils and the forward pathways for the needed change and progress in Africa.
What is an Imperial
Presidency?
At its core, the imperial
presidency refers to a leader who concentrates power in the executive branch of
government. This often done at the expense of democratic balance in a country.
The president perpetuates acts such as the control of national budgets, appointment
of judges, or amendment of the constitution so as to extend their rule. The
author argues that this is not mere strong leadership as opined by imperialists
themselves, it is actually a system where one person becomes the state itself.
In Africa, this phenomenon took root during colonial
times when European powers imposed centralized rule to extract natural resources
in their colonies. However, it is seen that these structures have been
inherited and amplified by post-independence leaders who faced fragile nations that
were divided by ethnicity and poverty just after attaining independence from the
colonial rulers. Constitutional scholar Ben Nwabueze, in his seminal 1974 work
Presidentialism in Commonwealth Africa, warned that the presidential system
that was adopted by many African states—inherently risks imperial tendencies if
it is not balanced by strong parliamentary oversight and an independent judiciary.
As Nwabueze observed, the presidential system has placed immense power in the
hands of one individual who in this case is the president. This dynamic has fueled executive dominance across
the continent as many African states continue to face the problem of executive dominance.
Scholars like Melvin Mbao have argued that African
constitutionalism must draw from lived realities to prevent a common growing
system of presidential monarchies which are often disguised as democracies. The
result of this phenomenon is that presidents who act like kings will use state
resources to reward their loyalists and crush dissenting views in the country.
It is observed that this is a common occurrence on the African continent where
presidents imprison the opposition and bar them from contesting elections on charges
that are in most cases frivolous and vexatious. This in turn erodes the trust
of the public in this kind of regime as citizens see elections as merely theatrical
actions rather than opportunities for the transformation of the country.
Despotism: The Dark Heart of
Unchecked Power
Despotism refers to a system
of governance in which absolute power is concentrated in the hands of a single
ruler or authority. This ruler exercises control of the state without any
meaningful legal or institutional limitations. Such leadership is often characterized
by the use of fear, force and favouritism to maintain their dominance. To illustrate
this, imagine a shepherd who not only herds the flock but owns the land they
graze on, the water they drink and the very thoughts of the sheep, they cannot
do anything freely as he has captured their entire being. In political terms,
despotism thrives when institutions fail to hold leaders accountable which then
turns governance into personal fiefdoms. This results in the suppression of
individual freedoms and the absence of accountability within the political system
as a state is now treated like a personal territory.
African scholar Mahmood Mamdani, in his groundbreaking
book Citizen and Subject, traces this to colonialism’s decentralized despotism.
Mamdani argues that the legacy of colonialism in Africa was a despotism with
racial discrimination and that indirect rule set the pace for Africa. Under
indirect rule, colonial powers empowered local chiefs as despots over the natives, while at the same time granting
urban elites limited rights. This diverged system of having rural subjects
under arbitrary rule and urban citizens with partial freedoms—persisted after
independence and fueling post-colonial strongmen. Mamdani warns, “It is this
common state form that I call decentralized despotism.” This has highlighted
how this system fragments society and entrenches the dominance of the executive
in Africa.
Constitutional expert Charles Manga Fombad builds on
this aspect in Separation of Powers in African Constitutionalism, stressing
that despotism flourishes when separation of powers is nominal, allowing
presidents to co-opt legislatures and the courts. In practice, despotism
manifests in leaders who jail opponents, loot public coffers or deploy security
forces against any protests against their rule. It not always about open violence.
Sometimes leaders control people in quiet ways like controlling the media or
deciding who receives any aid or resources. This creates a cycle in that when
the economy is weak, leaders claim that they need more power to fit the ailing
economy. However, it is seen that strong control actually prevents real
economic progress.
Gerrymandering: Redrawing the
Map of Power
Gerrymandering is a sneaky
form of electoral sabotage where ruling parties redraw voting district
boundaries to tilt outcomes in their favor. In simple terms it is the political
manipulation of electoral district boundaries so as to advantage the ruling
party within that constituency. The term originated in America in the year 1812
and is named after a salamander-shaped district drawn for Massachusetts
Governor Elbridge Gerry. The odd shape of the district which resembled a
salamander was part of the redistricting plan to benefit his party. The essence
of such actions is universal as many ruling governments around the world have
been seen to manipulate maps to pack opponents into few districts so as to diluting
their votes or spread them thin across many districts so as to crash their
influence.
It is observed that in Africa,
gerrymandering is a phenomenon that is less common as the African context is
usually characterized by outright vote-buying or intimidation. However, it
appears to be more prevalent in countries where multi-party systems exist. For
instance, in Nigeria, which is one of the most populated nations in Africa. The
Independent National Electoral Commission was often accused of ruling-party
bias during the 2019 redistricting as they are said to have adjusted boundaries
in the oil-rich Niger Delta to favour the incumbent regime All Progressives
Congress (APC). This fragmented the strongholds of the opposition and led to
the dominance of the APC in key assemblies. The same is the case in Kenya,
where post- the 2010 constitution, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries
Commission has faced allegations of gerrymandering constituencies to
underrepresent urban opposition-leaning areas like Nairobi, thereby amplifying
the rural strongholds of the ruling president.
These tactics are seen not to just rig results but
also distort representation, making democracy feel rigged from the start. In
many countries boundaries are seen to entrench power as the marginalized groups
who are often ethnic minorities or the urban poor are said to lose their voices,
thereby deepening divisions in the political sphere and the country at large.
Imperial Presidencies in Action: Lessons from Across
the Continent
The imperial presidencies in Africa are as varied as
its landscapes. By observation, it is seen that common threads bind them
together. These common frames are constitutional tweaks for term extensions, capture
of the judiciary for election validation and patronage networks to buy loyalty.
All the above practices are common in many countries on the African continent.
In Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta’s 1960s rule epitomized the
imperial model. This was manifested in the form of concentration of power in
the executive and unlimited exercise of presidential authority. He amassed
land, appointed tribal allies to cabinet and used the constitution to detain
rivals without trial. His successor, Daniel Arap Moi, extended this by creating
a one-party state in 1982, which was only undone by the 1990s protests. Today,
under William Ruto, it is seen that these echoes persist in executive overreach
on budgets and security.
Uganda offers a stark case under Yoweri Museveni, who
has been in power since 1986 and is seeking another term in the next election
stating among other things that he is left with a few other projects to
complete. He lifted term limits in 2005 via parliamentary vote—widely seen as
bought and again in 2017, amid arrests of political opponents. Museveni’s
control over the military and judiciary ensures elections favor him, as in 2021
when he won 59% amid claims of fraud in this election. This blends despotism
with electoral theater, where opposition figures like Bobi Wine face violence
and imprisonment as the other of the day.
In Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe’s 37-year reign (1980–2017)
weaponized the presidency against land reform foes and economic rivals. He
amended the constitution 17 times, culminating in the 2013 charter that
ironically, limited terms to the presidency—yet he clung on to power until a
2017 coup. Grace Mugabe’s quip, “We are in a democratic space,” rang in vain
amid hyperinflation and repression of the citizens. The amendment to the
constitution of Zimbabwe is seen as a constant assault on democracy and
constitutionalism. The executive and the legislature in this country saw it fit
to amend the constitution a record 17 times since independence. This in itself
is very telling on the acceptability of such a constitution on society undermining
the principle of legitimacy.
In Cameroon president Paul Biya is one of the longest-serving
leaders in Africa and has been at the helm of the country since 1982, making
him president for 43 years. Critics argue that this in itself exemplifies quiet
despotism as one leader cannot be at the helm of the country that long in a
democratic country. He rigs elections through voter suppression in Anglophone
regions and controls the Constitutional Council, which rubber-stamps his 70%+
victories. In 2018, it invalidated opposition votes despite the claims of
election irregularities by the opposition. On 27th October, 2025
Paul Biya was announced as the winner of the controversial election that took
place on the 12th of October, 2025 marking his eighth term as
president. The Constitutional Council which is composed by individuals
appointed by Biya himself and accused of being deeply embedded in the ruling
establishment dismissed all complaints made by the opposition before announcing
Biya as the winner of the election.
On the flip side, Zambia provides a poignant example,
where the imperial presidency has swung between one-party dominance and contested
multi-party transitions. The founding president Kenneth Kaunda ruled the
country for 27 years from 1964–1991. He
consolidated power in the executive through the constitutional amendment of 1972
that established a one-party state under his United National Independence Party
(UNIP). This allowed him to control elections and suppress dissent, embodying
Nwabueze’s critique of presidentialism as a vehicle for authoritarian
consolidation. More recently, president Edgar Chagwa Lungu who ruled from 2015–2021 faced accusations of
imperial overreach.
Critics argue the existence of executive overreach including
attempts to extend term limits and the accusations of using state institutions
to harass opponents during the 2016 and 2021 elections. The accusations of control
over the judiciary by his administration and the suppression of the media drew
parallels to despotism, as Fombad notes in analyses of executive-judicial
entanglements. In election of 2021, there was a peaceful power shift to
Hakainde Hichilema of the United Party for National Development. This marked a
democratic rebound, but lingering patronage networks highlight the presidency’s
enduring imperial pull. It is observed that old systems of favouritism and political
loyalty still remain accusations that the current regime have strongly
dispelled. This shows us that the presidency in a way still holds a lot of
powerful, almost king-like influence in the country.
These cases show us that imperial presidencies are not
isolated; they feed on weak institutions, ethnic patronage and economic
fragility.
African Voices on Election Adjudication: The Courts as
a Battleground
Elections are the heartbeat of democracy, but
adjudication—the process of resolving disputes—often reveals the grip that an imperial
president has on institutions of the state. African scholars emphasize how
captured judiciaries validate fraud and continue to perpetuate despotism.
Constitutional scholars O’Brien Kaaba and Charles Manga Fombad in the 2021 volume Democracy, Elections and
Constitutionalism in Africa, dissect this in their chapter “Adjudication of
Disputed Presidential Elections in Africa.” They argue that courts, often
appointed by executives, frequently prioritize stability over justice, as seen
in Zambia’s 2016 election where the Constitutional Court upheld Lungu’s narrow
win despite the irregularities of the election. Kaaba warns that, such rulings
risk fanning the flames of potential unrest in a country. This underscores the
role of the judiciary in either
reinforcing or challenging imperial rule in Africa. Charles Fombad, extends
this to broader constitutionalism, noting that effective adjudication requires genuine
separation of powers so as to prevent presidents from treating courts as
extensions of the executive.
Nic Cheeseman, a leading expert on African elections,
argues that citizens crave fair contests, but leaders exploit virtue narratives
to justify rigging. On adjudication, he notes: “Elections have long been seen
as a way to foster democracy but certain ways of rigging are as old as
democracy itself,” including the manipulation of the judiciary. Cheeseman
observes that in many African countries, presidents stack the judiciary with
their close allies in order to obtain favours. This turns them into democratic
despots as the courts dismiss petitions on mere technicalities so as to advantage
incumbents. This was the case in Zambia, were the Constitutional Court
dismissed the 2016 election petition of Hakainde Hichilema on the basis of
technicalities and did not proceed to hear the matter on its merits. Mamdani ties adjudication back to despotism.
He argues that colonial courts adjudicated for the empire and not justice
echoing the happenings of today where courts resolve disputes to preserve
executive rule. It is seen that the vast majority of African citizens want democracy,
but without the impartial adjudication of electoral disputes, elections become
tools used by despots to remain at the helm of power.
Toward a More Resilient Democracy: A Reasoned Path
Forward
The negative effects of the imperial presidency in Africa—where
presidents hold too much unchecked power—are clearly visible. This kind of rule
slows economic growth, increases inequality and often leads to instability, as
seen in the seven coups that occurred in Africa between 2020 and 2023. Many of
these uprisings were driven by young people frustrated with corrupt and unfair
systems. However, despite these challenges, there are positive examples that
show us that democracy is still alive on the continent.
For instance, Senegal’s peaceful transition of power
in 2014 under former president Macky Sall to the current president Bassirou
Diomaye Faye proved that term limits can work when properly enforced. This
outcome makes Senegal’s democracy and institutions stand out in a region prone
to coups and violent upheavals. Similarly, Ghana’s 2024 opposition victory
reflected citizens’ growing impatience with leaders who overstay their welcome.
The same was the case in Zambia in the 2021 elections were a change of
government from Edgar Lungu to Hakainde Hichilema also demonstrated that active
citizen participation can break cycles of excessive presidential control. These
peaceful transitions of power have given hope to democracy on the African
continent.
Meaningful reform in Africa requires coordinated
action at different levels. First, constitutions must be redesigned to spread
power more evenly and reduce the dominance of presidents. Models like
federalism in Ethiopia and Nigeria, as discussed by scholars such as Yash Ghai
and Charles Fombad, show how decentralization can help balance authority.
Second, electoral commissions and courts must be truly independent, this can
only happen if they are protected by fixed terms and diverse appointments, to
prevent election manipulation and political interference. Third, civil society
organisations especially youth groups like those behind Sudan’s pro-democracy
protests and Nigeria’s #EndSARS movement—must continue to demand openness and
accountability. This echoes views of Melvin Mbao who postulates that
constitutional reform must include active public participation.
Ultimately, democracy in Africa is not collapsing, it
is transforming under the weight of historical and institutional challenges. The
key to sustainable democracy in Africa is balancing strong presidential leadership
with strong and accountable institutions so as to prevalent executive overreach.
If African states draw lessons from their experiences and apply these insights,
they can create systems of governance where presidents serve the people rather
than dominate them. Democracy may face setbacks, but with consistent reform and
civic engagement, it can still secure a freer and fairer future for all.
Conclusion
The struggles of Africa with the imperial presidency is not a hopeless struggle but an ongoing process of democratic growth. From Kenneth Kaunda’s one-party rule in Zambia to Paul Biya’s long-standing rule in Cameroon, the same pattern appears—too much power in the executive, supported by weak legislatures, compromised courts and manipulated electoral boundaries. These conditions have often reduced elections to mere formalities and weakened the influence of citizens. Nevertheless, Africa has many reasons for hope. Peaceful transitions of power in Senegal, Ghana and Zambia have shown that when citizens stay alert, the courts act with integrity and cycles of authoritarianism can be broken. A plethora of African thought leaders have reminded us that democracy is not only about holding elections—it depends on strong institutions that make constitutional promises real. The road to genuine democracy is complex and gradual, but African scholarship and experience show us that power should exist to serve the people and not to elevate presidents above the law. In the end, the goal is not to eliminate strong leadership, but to ensure that every leader remains subject to constitutional limits and public accountability.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article are solely mine and do not represent any organisation with which I am affiliated.
The views and opinions presented in this article or multimedia content are solely those of the author(s) and may not represent the opinions or stance of Amulufeblog.com.