There is a colonial trend that refers to published terms whose objective is to inferiorize the black race. The reference is fundamental. The trend is clear as a fact towards the maintenance of Western privileges in Africa and the colonization of African minds. Indeed, when it is a bad political practice then it is black, but when it is good political practice then it is white. We are on the concept of Afrodemocracy such as the power by the people for the people but in respect of our African values ​​(book Afrodemocracy, New African Order). By respect of our African values, I mean a return to the foundations of African societies where no one has ever heard a Western language spoken, where no one knows the presidency or anything about the supreme leader of a so-called republic. By African values, the concept of Afrodemocracy refers to our leaders only, and this by tradition, by region. It is a reminder of what authentic people are, a recall of what a real black Nation is, our true identity as the presidency never admits it. The presidency, as a colonial will which is also exposed and banned in the context of Afrodemocracy. Banning the presidency for regionalism as a fair distribution of wealth among citizens can never be supported by the so-called democrats. I noticed, however, that by attaching the prefix “Afro” to the term “democracy”, certain currents of thought demonizing the black race want Afrodemocracy to be worth what the evil of political powers of black republics is. This are controversies that the Afrodemocratic mind does not validate.

I quote that “Afrodemocratic criticism involves revealing a typically unusual behavior of a public figure that would highlight the existence of an influential colonial brand behind the public stage.”-Gael Clavis Johnson-. Having been conceived by an African mind, I position myself to give an Afrodemocratic voice as a certain and bright future for Africans. The controversies surrounding such a political model, in my opinion, only serve to warn Afrodemocrats that the West panics when it hears about it. The debate on Afrodemocracy which guides reflection on regionalism is what the settler hates. He is therefore activating media networks across Africa to undermine the Afrodemocratic concept as the rise of the black race or the end of Western hegemony in Africa. Indeed, when Mr. Olesegun Obasanjo, the former president of Nigeria, reminds Africans of the need for Afrodemocracy, they treated him wrong by the British colonial government of Nigeria. This was to prove, albeit wrongly, that there is blackness in Afrodemocracy. It is certain that there is a black seed of mind in the concept, but only rational black seed as such, contrary to what the enemy of the black race wants to assert. I point out the fact that it is heartbreaking to link Afrodemocracy to any dictatorship in Africa. The term Afrodemocracy is so radiant that I would not allow it to be associated with the futility of political powers as cases are in the vile republics of African countries under blackguardly and illegitimate presidents. Afrodemocracy goes beyond liberal democracy when it comes to the well-being of Africans.

“25 years of ‘Afrodemocracy’ in Nigeria” an article by SIMON KOLAWOLE, published on MAY 25, 2024 11:30 PM on TheCable (www.thecable.ng) as a reference. It is written, in the introduction,“Time flies. It does. Our latest experience of democracy is almost a quarter of a century old.” I notice that the idea is indeed based on democracy, but which then turns and becomes a reference to Afrodemocracy as “the bad practice of power”. If it turns out that the settler blames every sociopolitical failure on the black race, such as corruption, dictatorship, genocide, embezzlement, superficial elections, changing of the constitution for the extension of the presidential terms, then I submit that Afrodemocracy, as a bad practice of power as asserted in “25 years of ‘Afrodemocracy’ in Nigeria”, is simply misleading as an article, and contains a colonial brand in its development.

Far from any contradiction, let us note that the author of the article in question mentions the names of former Nigerian politicians, I quote: Olusegun Obasanjo; Alhaji Shehu Shagari. I wonder how reality can escape the awareness that this is democracy, and the model of governance under which these politicians acted. Obasanjo and Shagari exercised powers in the name of democracy and not of Afrodemocracy. Such an argumentative deviation prevents the spirit of truth from denouncing the total failure of democracy that the settler wants to maintain on us. We will not accept this colonial brand in media publications. I think that by saying that Afrodemocracy is a pseudo-democracy is in itself a colonized mind syndrome.
Indeed, if Afrodemocracy is such a pseudo-democracy, then would we also say that the dictatorship in Ivory Coast, under Allasane Ouattara who proclaims himself as a pseudo-president “in the name of democracy” is also a touch of Afrodemocracy in his inhuman political practices? Would we say the same thing about Sassou-Nguesso in Congo? I do not think so. It is about democracy, in the name of democracy they claim fighting for while they violate human democratic rights of citizens. Hereby is democracy that the West and its political puppets in Africa have caused to fail across the continent. We are in a pseudo-democracy. In a simple way: democracy is a failure in Africa. Juggling terms to the point of qualifying such a failure as Afrodemocracy is a drowsiness of the mind. I argue that democracy itself is a pseudo-democracy in an African context, and it is far from the precious term “Afrodemocracy” that one would like to attach unjustly to the failure of democracy. It is time for the African to pull himself together. In fact, democracy was imposed on us and then failed. Democracy has failed in practice due to Western political interference. Why then should we call it Afrodemocracy just to refer to “black” in practice? I don’t see what the point is, articles by black minds defending democracy, if not a perpetual destruction of African societies. It’s like wanting to support colonialism in Africa through a democratic ideology that does not obey our African values. I support that Afrodemocracy is the weakening of Western hegemony in Africa. As a concept, Afrodemocracy is so desired by African youth. This is for the good of the black mother and her child. Afrodemocracy therefore positions itself against democracy which in itself is a pseudo-democracy. I would like to remind that everything that the West imposes to Africans politically is harmful to black societies. To this end, Afrodemocracy is not a pseudo-democracy, but a counterattack to the pseudo-democracy as proposed to Africans then imposed on them by the colonist West.

Furthermore, The argument that “political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way characterize Afrodemocracy as “competitive authoritarianism” is colonist and misleading. It is a form of defense of democracy in all its failures. Who are they ? Non-Africans. What do they want? The impoverishment of Africans. Levitsky and Way add that this -Afrodemocracy- is where “formal democratic institutions are widely viewed as the principal means of obtaining and exercising political authority”. However, with a little reasoning, the exercise of political authority -in it’s most cruel way-, in the African context, is indeed under democracy. This is a known fact. Allasane Ouattara of Ivory Coast grabbed a third presidential term to safeguard so-called democracy and not Afrodemocracy. He was then applauded by the West. Sassou-Nguesso of Congo, through a civil war, claimed his armed return to power in the name of democracy, and as a democrat, not as an Afrodemocrat. He was hailed as a democrat by the West. Then followed the abuses of their political powers and authorities through the commands of their Western masters, and as a failure of democracy. Should this then turn into Afrodemocracy? I firmly disagree with that as a free thought. Levitsky and Way therefore avoid to denounce democracy as a total failure according to the truth of science publishing as scholars. Having seen that Western political interference in Africa has tarnished the notion of democracy, and to keep Africans to continue fighting for democracy, a fight that I think is just as political but sociopolitically aimless, there is therefore a principle to defend: the principle of democracy. Yet all I see is a failure. Because such a principle “is never the power of the people by the people” in Africa, but “the power of the colonist West through Africans and pseudo-democrats’ political authority” that pretend Levitsky and Way to clarify. I spare my words and contrary to the those of Levitsky and Way, and to the extent of my free thought, that in political science, the African should not consume any of the arguments of Western political scientists because all has been conceived to serve only Western privileges. Therefore, political science, African studies streamlines, still remains to be conceived by Africans themselves.