From Gabon to Tanzania: What election numbers say about Africa

Do numbers tell us stories?  In one place, the winner garnered 95 per cent of the vote on a 70 per cent turnout. In another, it was 90 per cent on 50 per cent turnout.  In yet another, we had 57 per cent on 76 per cent. Then there was 53 per cent on 87 per cent.  And now, 98 per cent on 87 per cent.  Not forgetting 54 per cent on 58 per cent. What are we talking about? 

These are presidential election results for six African countries in 2025. First, Gabon, where the Bongo dynasty was overthrown, a new constitution written and the transitional leader (Bongo’s cousin) assumed office. Second, Cote D’Ivoire, where the incumbent constitutionally tinkered himself into a controversial fourth term. Third and fourth, Seychelles (after two rounds) and Malawi, where “wantam” incumbents were tossed out on high voter turnout.  Fifth, neighbouring Tanzania, where the incumbent secured a first full term. Finally, Cameroon, where the world’s oldest President secured an eighth term of office. As we are often told, Africa is not a country! 

Or is it? Not if we speculate using the extremes in this data; at one end, close elections in Seychelles and Malawi with results “reflecting” the will of the people; at the other end, nothing close to a free and fair election in Tanzania, with the others in between. Of course, the missing variable here is how many people didn’t register to vote, beyond the registered who didn’t vote.  The good news, however, is there is still an Africa where leaders can be democratically ousted. 

Yet, getting to protests, because this is where Africa is becoming a country, how many protestors actually registered as voters? This is not to explain away credible reports of extreme intimidation and unconscionable violence against the people in the Tanzania election (and remember we’ve also had violent protests in Cameroon and Cote D’Ivoire in their own elections in October).  It is instead to ask a different question; why participate in elections if they don’t make a difference? 

Because, to varying degrees, this is where Africa is. Political elites, especially incumbents, sit pretty in ivory towers plotting to overcome (or carry out) “post-election” protests after, invariably, rigged elections. But, as we have seen in the past 2-3 years, people, especially Gen Z/Youth, can’t wait for elections; today it’s “between election” protests (like Kenya or Morocco or Madagascar), or even, “pre-election” and (in Tanzania’s current case) “in-election” protests.  

And, as Madagascar has shown, the journey from civil unrest to regime change is not a lengthy one. Yes, we’re seeing these things in other parts of the world too, but there is a historical context of hopelessness translating into anger that is much deeper in this part of the world. That there is a strong youth element to this anger is natural. But we spend far too much time painting nice pictures with donors that extol our potential “demographic dividend” instead of considering homegrown ways in which to defuse our once possible, now probable “demographic time bomb”. 

It is easy to narrow down today’s picture to the age-old chicken-and-egg debate around democracy versus development.  In other words, as is argued, should we have developed, then democratized, and not vice versa?  This is the underlying argument we see now – that Africa needs stable, long term development leadership with a necessary pinch of dictatorship, before we get to serious democracy.  That the West developed before democratizing; and the East that were our peers three generations ago have followed a similar path.  Political kingdom then economic kingdom, or vice versa?  Resource and wealth generation (economy) or resource and power access, sharing and distribution (politics) which comes first?  The logic of “either/or”! 

It is a convenient argument for incumbents promising the people heaven from today’s hell.  After all, how many of us seriously track Rwanda’s election – they’re developing quickly, right? Hey, why do we need all of this when we can unite as one into a “broad-based government” or other coalition arrangement? Unity here being among the political elite, not everyday you and me.  

The corporate and business elite, and private sector at large, are not averse to this thinking.  We will hear that stability and predictability are necessary preconditions for investment.  Did you notice how quickly parts of our media rushed away from stories about violence inflicted on people in Tanzania to lost work and business for Kenyans?  And surely, seeing how Rwanda is becoming the “New Switzerland” how on earth will Kenya ever become the “New Singapore” with our noisy zero-sum politics and permanent electoral campaigns? These are not easy questions. 

Today is not a day for answers, but there is a sense in which our political elite miss the point of these Gen Z/Youth protest moments.  Thinking in defensive mode, as we have seen across East Africa, we see leaders frightened by the electoral thought of “me versus the people”.  On the other hand, the people face a choice between “anyone but you (incumbent)” and no choice.  If we are not careful, Kenya in 2027 looks like it might be a particularly “choiceless election”.  

Yet, isn’t the whole point being made to the leaders is “me (leader) with, not versus, the people”?  That, at the end of the day, the real call is for a people-focused leadership, even a political elite, of ambition?  And that it is incumbent upon this leadership to align this ambition with the people?

That’s where Africa is a country, and the trendline looks like it’s getting worse, not better. 

To repeat again, something is broken here. As someone commented on X, Tanzania might have been the quarter final, Uganda next year the semi-final and Kenya in 2027 the final. God help us!