Last Monday (July 7, 2025), the Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana) launched the Democracy Capture Index report, a project I have been involved in.
The findings make one wonder whose interests democracies on the continent serve.
Is it democracy for all or democracy for the few? Even more concerning are the identified actors actively deploying various tactics to get democratic institutions to bend to their will, narrow and personal.
Methodological note
Without burdening readers with the technical details of how the study was conducted, here are a few quick things to note.
The report covers 10 countries – Benin, Botswana, DR Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania. Using a carefully constructed and comprehensive democracy capture questionnaire, country experts had the arduous task of documenting a) actions considered as capture, b) actors behind those actions, c) motivations for attempting capture, d) methods used for capture, and e) the purpose of seeking capture.
Country experts documented the above-described activities across various types of democratic institutions whose work focuses on responsibilities such as accountability, regulation, enforcement or policy making. Across the 10 countries, experts covered 370 institutions in all.
The report describes those engaged in democracy capture as perpetrators.
Lastly, there were four levels of capture, when examining institutional decisions, of interest to the study – a) not subject to capture, b) some actions taken on behalf of perpetrator, c) regularly takes actions on behalf of the perpetrator, and d) most actions taken on behalf of the perpetrator.
What the report tells us
In reading the report, it is quite instructive to see the extent to which there are active attempts to get democratic institutions to bend, not to the will of citizens, but rather to the will of narrow personal interests.
As the report showed, 60 per cent of agencies covered are subject to varying levels of capture.
More worrying is the fact that country experts believe institutions and agencies are vulnerable to continued and future capture. Even among institutions where the current level of capture is “no actions taken on behalf of perpetrators”, 47 per cent are deemed to be vulnerable to continued and future capture attempts.
In essence, democracy capture is here to stay.
At least until there is active pushback by well-meaning citizens and people working in these institutions.
The footprints of the President or Prime Minister dominated the capture landscape of the countries examined and emerged as the main perpetrator.
This underscores the fact that democracy capture is driven by the very institutional actors who are supposed to ensure that institutions work to serve the interests of all citizens.
There were four notable exceptions to this.
In Ghana and Mozambique, the political party emerged as the main perpetrators of democracy capture.
In South Africa, it was businesspeople and in Tanzania, influential individuals.
This means that in any efforts to push back against democracy capture, paying attention to non-state actors is a must.
Democracy capture does not unravel in a neatly arranged sequence of events. And that is one of the strengths of the democracy capture index.
It has succeeded in unpacking the many intricate ways in which democracy capture happens, made evident in the institutional and country variations observed.
Also, the index helps in identifying all the various activation points of democracy capture.
What this does is that in efforts designed to fight this phenomenon, there is a full awareness of the fault lines and how to strategically allocate resources.
From what country experts documented about the “end game” of perpetrators, two things emerged – increasing partisan control and achieving material gain.
At first glance, it is easy to conclude that perpetrators do not want to destroy democracy. Rather, they seek to pervert democratic institutions in a way that serves their personal interests.
But when one thinks of some of the commonly deployed tools in capture efforts – a) financial inducements/bribes, b) political pressure and c) threat of removal from office, the medium to long-term effect cannot be positive for democracy.
It is not a stretch to argue that continuous democracy capture will have the effect of weakening institutions and further eroding any confidence citizens have in them.
And what if democracy capture not only continues but intensifies to the point where democratic institutions are viewed by the citizens as serving no broad national interests?
This, to me, is the point that perpetrators of democracy capture and those who enable it fail to appreciate.
Call to action
What this report reveals is more than just an attempt to document democracy capture in Africa, starting with these 10 countries.
It is a call to action. It places a unique burden on us to resist democracy capture in all the ways and places it shows itself.
The writer is the Project Director, Democracy Project.
