We are pleased to bring you this 2001 edition of African Issues—a double issue that represents our initiation as the journal’s editors. This edition is devoted to an examination of ethnicity, arguably the most resilient and resurgent paradigm in African studies. The authors have explored the activation, manipulation, uses, and abuses of ethnicity in the context of competitive elections and struggles for power in Africa. We have assembled a nice mix of articles suggestive of the complexities inherent in the notion and practices of ethnicity, from Mauritania to Kenya, from Ethiopia to Cameroon and points in between. We hope that these articles will stimulate discussion and greater appreciation of the intersection of ethnicity, constitution making, recent competitive elections, and democratization around the continent.

Ghana opened a new chapter in its checkered political history when in December 2000 the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) was removed from office by means of the ballot box. The New Patriotic Party (NPP) won half the parliamentary seats and its presidential candidate, John A. Kufuor, triumphed with something to spare in the second round of balloting. Although there were some violent incidents that marred the proceedings, the assessment of most observers was that the polls were well conducted and that the final result accurately reflected how Ghanaians had actually voted.

Kenyan politics have long been among the most “ethnic” in Africa. From the battles over the constitutional formula for independence to the waning days of the one-party regime in the late 1980s, Kenyan politicians sought support from their ethnic or subethnic groups, and citizens perceived most political battles to be about dividing the “national cake” among the constituent ethnic groups. Political liberalization since 1991 has not fundamentally changed this atmosphere. Most obviously, it has allowed ethnic politics to reemerge into open, public debate. Ruling and opposition parties represent primarily all, some, or coalitions of ethnic groups. Ethnically marked electoral violence, largely instigated by the ruling regime, has come to be expected, though not accepted, as part of the campaign season. Leaders are far more prone to make appeals to the state for resources in openly ethnic terms than they dared to do in the one-party era.

For nearly half a century politics in Côte d’Ivoire had been dominated by a single individual, Félix Houphouët-Boigny; a single political party, the Democratic Party of Côte d’Ivoire (Parti démocratique de Côte d’Ivoire, PDCI); and roughly the same cohort of politicobureaucratic elites. This rare combination of regime longevity and elite cohesion had produced considerable state competence and impressive economic growth which, in turn, fostered relative peace between the different classes, the various ethnic and religious groups, and indigenous Ivorians and foreign residents. Thus, Côte d’Ivoire was heralded as an oasis of peace and prosperity and a haven for immigrants seeking refuge from economic impoverishment and ethnic or civil strife at home.

Many sub-Saharan African countries find themselves engulfed in chronic ethnic tensions that often erupt into violent conflicts. In addition to the human costs, these conflicts have contributed to the further depletion of the meager financial resources of African countries. They have also disrupted economic activity and contributed to the region’s growing marginalization in the global economic system by discouraging the flow of foreign capital into the continent.

Since the establishment of party politics in colonial Mauritania, and especially since independence in 1960, the Mauritanian political arena has been marked by ethnic tensions. The best example is certainly the ethnic violence that occurred at the end of the 1980s between the Arab-Berbers (Bidhan) and the “Black Africans.” But in Mauritania, as in other countries marked by ethnic tensions and conflicts, it would be an analytical mistake to overlook other forms of group solidarity and other forms of conflict. Often, tensions based on ethnic differences unfold in conjunction with political struggles within ethnic communities, with accommodation across ethnic boundaries, and with debates about the type of political regime. These dynamics must be taken into account if we are to understand the significance of ethnicity as a political variable.

The issues of ethnicity and democratization and the prospects for development in postcolonial Africa have long preoccupied scholars. When most African countries gained independence from the colonialists in the 1960s, the ruling elites who inherited state power insisted that Africa could not afford the luxury of democracy because of its potential for exacerbating ethnic pluralism and political conflict, which would be detrimental to the more pertinent projects of development and integration/nation building. The ideology of development and national integration in postcolonial Africa thus became the justification for one-party rule, autocracy, and military dictatorship.

Since independence Cameroon has been a hegemonic state, evidenced by the 1966 introduction of a single party, the Cameroon National Union (CNU), which was purportedly created to foster national integration. This focus on national integration led to a de-emphasis of all other issues such as fundamental human rights. And because a select elite assigned itself the task of imagining the form the nation would take, this process was naturally accompanied by a contraction of the political space. Because the national integration project had paid minimal dividends after more than two decades, Cameroonians refused to legitimize it. They had realized that it simply served as a ruse for the ruling class to convert the state into a patrimonial one. Hence, people sought to regain their voices and participation through the democratic process. Reluctantly, the state capitulated to demands for political pluralism, passing the so-called Liberal Laws of 1990. However, by allowing multiparty politics, the government ruptured the facade of cohesion of the ruling class, which resulted in elites becoming increasingly preoccupied with maintaining their power and losing interest in the national integration project.