It is disheartening to state that leaders of 14 African countries have held onto power for more than two terms after evading term limits. This continues a pattern of term limit evasion observed since 2015, reversing an evolving trend of term limit adherence between 2000 and 2015.
Another eight African countries have endured military coups that suspended or disrupted their constitutions since 2015.
In none of these cases have the military authorities demonstrated a commitment to relinquishing power, thereby effectively eliminating term limit provisions that had been in place. Combined with an additional eight countries that do not have any existing term limit restrictions, 30 out of 54 African countries are operating without functioning limits on an executive’s time in power.
Notably, it is only 18 African countries that are actively upholding term limit norms, including the noteworthy case of Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari who stepped down after his two terms in office. Another six countries have term limit restrictions on the books, though these have yet to be applied.
The evasion of term limits is directly responsible for the prolonged tenures of certain leaders. Ten African leaders have been in power for 18 years or longer. All of these have evaded term limits or are in countries without them. Notable examples are Paul Kagame, Paul Biya, Sassou Ngeusso, Obiyang Obasoko. The evasion of term limits has broader negative consequences for democratic governance in Africa. The median score on Freedom House’s Global Freedom Index, which measures the upholding of civil liberties and political rights, is 65 for African countries that uphold term limits (on a scale of 0–100) whereas in countries where leaders have evaded these limits, the median score is only 21. Professor Omrico Gadwell says that this stark variation in governance scores accentuates that term limit evasions are rarely isolated events. Rather, they are typically part of a pattern of leaders undermining the rule of law and restricting civil and political liberties. The median ranking on Transparency International’s 180-country Corruption Perceptions Index is 83 for African countries that have upheld term limits. This compares to a median ranking of 142 for countries where those limits were evaded, a 60-place difference. In addition, term limit evasions are linked to other serious governance failures.
According to Gaswell just under 40% of countries where leaders have evaded term limits or term limits do not exist are in conflict. In contrast, just 11% of countries that have upheld or retained term limits are in conflict (i.e., two out of 18 countries, with Nigeria and Mozambique being the exceptions).
From this, one can safely argue that the erosion of term limit norms is a problem. In a recent analysis, Candace Cook highlights that the erosion of term limits does not happen in isolation, but is part of a broader pattern to weaken democratic checks and balances and evade the rule of law. In fact, once leaders have debilitated judicial and legislative institutions sufficiently to prolong their constitutionally limited time in office, there is little that stands in their way for further abuses of power and this is typically what usually happens. The erosion of term limit norms since 2015 is an outcome of term limited leaders calculating that domestic checks and balance are too weak and that international actors are too indifferent to stop the incumbent’s power grab. In other words, the costs to these leaders are just not high enough to stop them from trying.
Countries where African leaders have evaded terms are significantly less democratic, more corrupt, and conflict-prone compared to African countries where term limits have been upheld. Seen in this way, the erosion of term limits is a linchpin to democratic deterioration in Africa. Reasserting term limit norms, therefore, needs to be a focal point for democracy promotion efforts on the continent.
As a way of reversing this norm, a priority for democracy advocates, then, is to dramatically ratchet up these costs. It is worthy to note that there has been domestic organised resistance to the evasion of term limits in every African country where this has occurred since 2015 even though in most cases this resistance has been met with brutal repression. Citizens should work hard against a stacked deck dealt by the ruling executive. It is also crucial for regional and international democratic actors to do more to support citizens attempting to protect their democratic rights and their gains to make it costlier for incumbents to even try to evade term limits. This can take a variety of escalating steps, from public warnings to sanctioning key individuals and their families, to cutting off non-humanitarian assistance and discouraging private investment given the deterioration in the rule of law and the likelihood of increased instability. Blocking access to international financial networks and withdrawing recognition of these governments are also options.
Evading term limits must be treated as a red line by regional and international democratic actors. And there needs to be severe, predictable costs if incumbents cross this line. Sadly, in Africa the regional and international democratic community has taken its eye off the term limit ball in recent years. They in most cases rationalise that evading term limits is a domestic issue, a legal issue to be decided by the courts, or that there is a trade-off between security and democracy. Experience shows, however, that evading term limits is all about the abuse of political power and hijacking the democratic process. These regimes become increasingly unstable and anti-democratic over time. This outcome has regional and international implications, not just domestic. Absent strong pushback, Africa is on track for a return to de facto presidencies for life and one-party rule.
