DEMOCRACY AND GLOBALIZATION WITH SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA: A PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE

This paper focuses on how African national leaders can make global democracy relevant to sustainable development in Africa. Seeing the problem of sustainable development in Africa from the structural and functional angles, this paper begins with an introduction and a clarification of terms such as ‘democracy’, ‘globalization’ and ‘development’. It then analyzes the underlying foundations of global democracy and its implications to cultures of the African peoples. This paper tries to place the impact of global democracy on Africa in perspectives by weighing the pros and cons of global democracy. Tracing the genesis of functional and developmental problems in the post-colonial Africa to structural problems occasioned by Africa’s colonial experience, this paper however strongly contends that the main problem militating against sustainable development in the post-colonial Africa is bad politics and mismanagement of national resources. African peoples need to be taught that some of the African national leaders are responsible for the bad condition of underdevelopment in the global period because of bad political governance ranging from the inability of African leaders to calculate all the relevant factors in the making of their policies as well as failing to provide effective technologies and competent staff to deal with rigging of elections and other electoral problems in addition to corruption and mismanagement of public funds. There is no way for the African nations to survive without production of goods and services in terms of farming, agriculture and diversification of their revenue base. National leaders of the various African nations cannot avoid policies that enable the industrialization of African nations through the provision of the basic infrastructures and viable amenities for social, economic, and political development. They should however be wary of debt traps of International Monetary Fund and World Bank because borrowing nations are often given difficult conditions that often make it difficult for them to obtain the desired benefits in terms of sustainable development. The study recommends that for sustainable development to take place in Africa there is need for national leaders to embrace good political governance that places the people at the centre of development to be manifested in guileless electoral process and effective management of the resources. This paper contends that the realization of sustainable development in African nations requires moral, political, and economic integration. It concludes with perspectives for further research on the issue.


Introduction
There is the tendency for scholars from the Western world to praise the impact of globalization of democracy on this planet Earth since the end of the Cold War. They boast that liberal democracy as applied to political and economic systems of different nations of the world has shrunk space, integrated nations, promoted better exchange of goods and services between different countries and has also facilitated investments, employment opportunities, and the availability of goods such as the Internet and communication technologies in African countries and other parts of the world with little barriers to international exchange. Proponents of global democracy in Africa points to the fact that such exchange in economic matters have been extended successfully to political structures of different African nations and elsewhere even in developed worlds. Indeed, many African leaders believe that democracy with its free market breaks down national barriers at individual and collective levels, promotes cooperation between Africa and other continents of the world with the potentials for interaction, peace and development in international relations and business. This has been crystallized with the emergence of advanced communication system in this digital era that has made this world a global village.
 48  Critics of global democracy in Africa has amongst others pointed to its weakness in it terms of the clash of values that it generates between African cultures and Western liberal values. Such clash of values, they contend, has sometimes led to palpable conflicts in Africa in different ways. They further point to the fact that it has led to dependency on Western values and technologies. For such critics, it makes African nations to depend on powerful and affluent countries such as the United States, Germany, and China for political and economic solutions. They argue that it such dependency also affects Africa because it implies loss of freedom and identity for the African peoples. This problem of identity has often provoked the emergence of movements for emancipation in Africa and elsewhere in the world. Another point of criticism is that globalization has increased the gap between rich and affluent individuals and nations.
In the light of these problems, this paper sees the possibility of exploiting global democracy to Africa's advantage. It therefore tries to critically analyze the problems demonstrating how global democracy could be made relevant for sustainable development in Africa.

Conceptual Clarification of the Terms 'Democracy' and 'Globalization'
In the political sense, the term 'democracy' is often regarded as the ideal political order because of the currency of its usage in the contemporary world of government and politics. The etymology of the word 'democracy' comes from two Greek words 'demos' (people) and 'kratos' (rule) [Bassey & Udoudom, 2018, p. 3]. Therefore the word 'democracy' means rule by the people. The etymology of the word 'democracy' gives us a hint about its origin in the Western world and how it was practiced. The practice of democracy in the ancient Athens of Greece dated back from 500 BC to 330 BC. It was direct and engaged most of the adult male citizens of the city-state. According to Appadorai: "Ancient democracy was direct, primary. When the Athenians called their constitution a democracy, 'they meant literally what the word itself expressed -that the people itself undertook the work of government'. Their assembly, in which every citizen could take part, was the sovereign body in the State to decide national affairs, great and small. The opportunity for the citizen to take part in the executive and judicial administration of the state was considerable" [Appadorai, 1975, p. 187].
Appadorai here implies that the adult male citizens of the ancient Athens decided public issues of national interest in a direct manner. The corollary of such direct participation in that period was that sovereignty was vested on the adult male citizens of Athens. In the contemporary period the word 'democracy' at the national or state level is often practiced in an indirect way through representatives elected at periodic intervals. This means that democracy could be practiced in either direct or indirect manner. Azikiwe corroborates the above position as he defines democracy as: "The rule of the people by its majority inhabitants and includes a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation, usually involving periodically held free and fair elections" [Azikiwe, 1958, pp. 2-3].
The idea of periodic election implies that all the eligible adult citizens are allowed to exercise their franchise either as voters or candidates during such organized free and fair elections. One of the interesting features of Azikiwe's definition of democracy is that it is the rule by the majority of the people. This is what democracy appears to be in principle. However, in practice, the idea of majority rule of 'the people' begs some questions: "Who are to count as ' [McLean & McMillan, 2003, p. 139]. On the contrary, they have asserted that "the women, slaves, and resident aliens including people from other Greek cities had no right to participate" [McLean & McMillan, 2003, p. 139]. They have further noted that "citizens were thus less than a quarter of the adult population" [McLean & McMillan, 2003, p. 139]. They have however finally concluded that the word 'majority' simply mean more than fifty per cent of the adult population. This seems to imply that democracy in its forms as popular government is approximated as a matter of expediency. In practice, owing to the size of modern states, everybody cannot participate in the democratic process of political governance. On the contrary, every citizen is seen as having equal worth, fundamental human rights, equality before the law, and right to fair hearing and appeal before independent courts of the land.
Having said this, we want to discuss the main features of liberal democracy in modern states. According to Schmidt, Shelley, Bardes, Maxwell, Crain, and Santos, the principles of democratic government include: (1) The existence of universal suffrage: "All representative democracies rest on the rule of the people as expressed through the election of government officials" [Schmidt et al., 2009, p. 11]; (2) The rule of the majority: Since everyone's vote counts equally, the only way to make fair decision is by some form of majority will. However, to forestall the abuse of the notion and oppression, modern democracies also apply measures to guarantee minority rights of unpopular groups; (3) The provision of free, open and competitive elections: This provision enables the opposition to have "the opportunity to win elective office" [Schmidt et al., 2009, p. 11]. For such elections to be totally open, freedom of the press and speech must be preserved so that opposition candidates may present their criticisms of the existing government; (4) The existence of democratic constitution: Yet another key feature of liberal democracy is that it is based on the principle of limited government. Not only is the government dependent on popular sovereignty, but the powers of government are also clearly limited, either through a written document or through widely shared beliefs. Such constitution sets down the fundamental structure of the government and the limits to its activities. These mechanisms prevent political office holders from abusing political power. [Schmidt et al., 2009] Liberal democracy when applied to the economic aspect of life implies liberal capitalist economy. According to Azikiwe: "When a person lives in an economic system that is characterized by private ownership of capital goods, whose production, distribution and prices are determined by him, motivated solely by the profit he envisages to make in the bargain, in a free market and without unreasonable state interference, we say that such a person lives in a capitalist society" [Azikiwe, 1980, p. 11].
The analysis above implies that capitalism entails 'private ownership of capital goods' alongside the private control of production, distribution and price allocation to the goods with the aim of making profit in a largely free market. However, it appears that the analysis above fails to include the ownership of 'service' in addition to capital goods as being necessary for a complete definition of capitalism. We can therefore deduce from the above analysis that ownership of private property and its use to produce goods or service in order make profit in a free market is the hallmark of capitalism. The word 'free market' implies that government intervention in economic activities is reduced to the barest minimum as the market forces of demand and supply control the prices of goods and services.
According to Holton [as cited in Ikpe, 2000], the following are features of liberal economy: (1) Individual sovereignty: This means that individuals are free to make their own decisions about matters affecting them. On this score, government should not interfere arbitrarily with the affairs of individuals since interference is antithetical to human nature; (2) Self-interest:  50  Self-interest is a logical consequence of individual sovereignty. The individuals are free to articulate their self-interests or personal objectives as much as possible; (3) Rationality: This means that individuals are capable of knowing what their interests really are, and are free to pursue them; (4) Private property rights: This means that individuals have the private right over their property and can use it the way they like; (5) Self regulating market: The liberal capitalists see the price mechanism as controlling the market by bringing into balance the demand for goods and services and their supply too; (6) Spontaneous order: The market works well when individuals act as buyers and sellers accordingly. In selling commodities, the seller acquires the money needed to satisfy his needs. The sale of commodities leads to the purchase of other commodities, and the anticipated purchase of those commodities motivate the sale of products and labour. Now, we turn to the word 'globalization'. A conceptual clarification on globalization is necessary because it helps in the discussion and understanding of the main issue. According to Chumakov the term 'globalization' was introduced into lexicon by R. Robertson in 1983 [Chumakov, 2010]. However, it became popular only in 1990 after the era of Cold War that marked the collapse of communism and the beginning intensive furtherance of capitalism across the globe. Olowabi has therefore defined globalization as: "… the interpenetration and interdependence taking place among the divergent peoples of the world due to technological advances in the areas of communication and transportation. These innovations render ineffective the traditional barriers of space, time, national borders and sovereignty. As a result a sort of uniformity can be identified among the divergent groups that occupy the global space" [Olowabi, 2001, p. 72].
Owolabi seems to be saying that globalization implies the interpenetration and interdependence taking place amongst the different nations of the world due to advancements in technologies of transportation and communication. According to him, these innovations render the barriers to interpenetration and interdependence ineffective making a sort of uniformity available. Owolabi's definition of globalization above fails to explain what sort of interpenetration or interdependency taking place amongst the "divergent people" of the world due to technological advancements in transportation and communication. However, his subsequent detailed analysis of the issue in his articleshows that globalization transverses the economic and the political aspects of liberal democratic values that are integrated into the global system. According to Onyekpe [as cited in Efemini, 2011]: "Globalization may be defined simply as the processes of making anything, issue, idea, practice, development, etc, global, worldwide or universal. But from the international political economy point of view, it is the tendencies and processes towards achieving rapid integration of the world economies through the deliberate formulation and execution of policies and programmes focused on the defined goals of integration and through the corresponding construction of the relevant theories and ideologies to defend, uphold, and promote the integration process." [Efemini, 2011, Conceptual definitions, para. 1] Onyekpe's definition above implies that the aim of globalization transcends the production of material values to include the transmission of developmental values and integration of world economies to achieve set goals in a world system. However, we do not want to subscribe to Onyekpe's idea that globalization is the process of "making anything" worldwide or universal. Kukoč has, however, defined the term 'globalization' in a holistic sense:  51  "The common and indisputable trait of all its definitions is the view that globalization is a process of economic, social, cultural and political activity, which transcends nation-state borders, and that it pertains to the world as a whole. It is within this context that the multi-dimensionality of the globalization processes comes to the fore: the simultaneous activity of economic, political, ecological, cultural, and communication factors at the level of the world system. Globalization is, thus, a complex and controversial process of the building of the world as a whole by creation of global institutional structures and global cultural forms, i. e. the forms that have been produced or transformed by globally accessible means. It is disclosed as a) the free market-economic unification of the world with uniform patterns of production and consumption; b) democratic integration of the world based on common interests of humankind, such as equality, human rights protection, rule of law, pluralism, peace and security; c) moral integration of the world concerning some central humanistic values, essential for sustainable development of humanity" [Kukoč, 2009, p. 3].
The definition above is apparently all embracing because it captures the essential elements of globalization. It further sees the notion of globalization as the complex and controversial process of building the whole world by creation of global institutional structures and culture based on economic and moral values. However, the underlying values raise issues on the implication of globalization to other non-Western cultures. It is obvious that the modern values of the Western world are anchored on materialism and empirical science. Given this, they are more likely to define development in material terms alone than African nations that have predilection for traditional moral values based on customs and religion.
However, scholars like Walter Rodney, Claude Ake, etc., see it differently. So what is development? According to Rodney, at the level of the individual, it implies increased skill and capacity, greater freedom, creativity, self-discipline, responsibility and material well-being depending on the society, the era, social class, and one's personal code of what is right and what is wrong. However, at the level of social groups, Rodney has asserted: "Development implies an increasing capacity to regulate both internal and external relationships. Much of human history has been a fight for survival against natural hazards and against real and imagined human enemies. Development in the past has always meant the increase in the ability to guard the independence of the social group and indeed to infringe upon the freedom of others -some that often came about irrespective of the will of the persons within the societies involved" [Rodney, 2009, p. 2].
This shows that Walter's definition is based on the political dimension of development. It is true that political might is an essential element of developed state. Nevertheless, his definition of national development is not enough because it ought to include values and socio-economic security of an independent people. On the contrary, Ake has noted that development is not economic growth even though economic growth in large measure determines its possibility [Ake, 1996, p. 125]. He sees development as continuous process of activity for the purpose of realizing valuable economic and socio-political goals. Ake therefore asserts: "Development is the process by which people create and recreate themselves and their life circumstances to realize higher levels of civilization in accordance with their own choice and  52  values" [Ake, 1996, p. 125]. A point made by Ake is that development is located in the ability of a people to discover the root of their problems and thus create means of dealing with those problems for the attainment of a higher level of civilization based on their own policy choice and values. Ake's definition is encompassing because while placing the people at the centre, it includes cultural values, politics and economy as essential element of development.

Foundations of Liberal Democracy
In order to know the impact of globalization in Africa and how it can help in solving Africa's political, economic, and moral problems, it is important to discuss the fundamental assumptions of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy has its philosophical foundation in individualism. This implies the autonomy of every individual to pursue his / her self-interest in as much as he / she has intrinsic value and the right to make free choices as a self-governing entity. The worth of every individual has been highlighted by some philosophers such as Immanuel Kant. In his analysis of deontological moral rules as universal commands, Kant teaches us to act as to treat humanity, whether in our own person or in that of another, in every case as an end in itself, never as means only [Kant, 1993]. The intrinsic worth of every individual as enunciated by Kant is also the basis of liberal democracy which is the will of all; or which is rather approximated as the majority will. It is obvious that the gamut of liberal democratic values is anchored on protecting the rights and liberty of individuals.
Mill has for instance, noted that "[t]he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. This is because "[o]ver himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" [Mill, 1963, p. 310]. This shows that every individual is largely regarded as a self-governing autonomous being that has the right to freely pursue his / her self-interest without doing harm to others in society. Mill's idea of individualism can be perceived in democratic values such as liberty, individualism, subjectivism, and pluralism. It seems to establish the need for equal regard and consideration, tolerance of cultural differences and patience in the interaction amongst individuals. It also calls rational calculations of utility in terms of neutrality and respect for individual differences on the part of any individual and government in handling matters affecting each member of the state regardless of creed, tribe or religion. Liberal democracy thus allows a differentiation between the private realm and the public realm of life in the society. Every democratic government is expected to operate on the basis of both a deontological and traditional moral framework but compromises are normally necessary in the legislative process for the realization of the purposive goals of social utility.
There are some methodological issues regarding the foundations of liberal democracy. The first analysis concerns the process and the end (i. e. result) of democratic principles. While the second analysis concerns of both process and the end of liberal democratic principles in different societies. Connolly has noted that "[c]urrent liberalism cannot be defined merely through its commitment to freedom, rights, dissent, and justice. It must be understood, as well, through the institutional arrangements it endorses" [Connolly, 1984, p. 233]. In a sense, liberal democracy may be seen as from deontological ethical angle that emphasizes the due process of arriving at the good outcome such as tolerance of dissent views, freedom of speech and publication, minimal level of equality, and limited government. It is also teleological or purposive in the sense that it encourages the good outcomes of minimal levels of individualistic freedom, justice, rule of law, equality as well as the security of life and property. However, it seems inconceivable to sacrifice ends to means in real situation of political decision-making. The problem is amplified by the fact that sometimes two ends such the national security and the right of the individual members of the state may conflict. In this situation, what should a political office holder do? So all we can infer here is that a great deal of character is necessary for the sustenance of liberal democratic principles and methods. We want to assert here that definition of the due procedures or methods of democracy can help the government to realize the majority will as well as the political goals of the government when there is a genuine commitment to follow the rules.
The economic dimension of liberal democracy is synonymous with liberal economy. It is liberalism as applied to economic activities particularly in the market. Like liberal democracy as applied to politics, economic liberalism is as we have earlier discussed is largely rooted in the assertion of individualism and freedom, the pursuit of self-interest, and the use of human rationality in the pursuit of plural and subjective values in market transaction based on spontaneous order in independent of unnecessary governmental intervention. Globalization is therefore seemingly inseparable from the aforementioned liberal principles of democracy.
The liberal values of global democracy seems to conflict with some of the African cultures, and it is impossible separate the people from their cultural values since they provides the necessary framework for dealing with their personal, socio-political, and economic problems. Global democracy has made some impacts on African societies, and we shall now throw light on them.

The Negative Impact of Global Democracy on African Societies
Opponents of global democracy have criticized its roles in Africa. According to them, it has further created the conflict between African traditional values and Western liberal values that existed since the advent of colonialism in African societies [Bassey, Enang & Nwaeke, 2018]. After the emergence of independence from the European colonizers in Africa and the introduction of Western liberal democratic institutions and further growth of liberal principles through globalization, the African peoples are increasingly becoming more threatened and confused over the choice of values and structures necessary for reordering their societies. The traditional African ethics is hitherto built on community lifestyle that is rooted the extended family system. Nze has also supported this view. Nze throws light on the community lifestyle of the African people as he echoes: "Since this principle is the determinant of the African social organization, traditional African community tends to be communalistic. The claim here is reinforced by African traditional religion which is not primarily for the individual, but for the community of which the individual is an infinitesimal part. In this sense, African communalism is opposed to individualism" [Nze, 1989, p. 4].
An essential ingredient of Nze's analysis above is that in the traditional African community the individual is inseparable from his community. This is unlike the Western values of democracy that sees the individual as an autonomous being that has his own subjective choices to make, his life to live and his death to die. In this 21st century, owing to the impact of neo-liberalism and globalization in Africa, the height of moral crisis occasioned by subjectivity and pluralism of values has divided the African peoples on issues such as indecent dressing, prostitution, abortion, homosexuality, and the moral preference for good conduct over ill-gotten wealth and power in the society. A related problem is that this moral crisis creates the problem of a definite system of values that can provide the requisite framework for restructuring the social and governmental structures of different African nationalities muddled together 'the scramblers' for Africa. This is compounded by the fact that liberalism makes a distinction between the private and public spheres of life on the basis of a secular materialistic philosophy. This is one of the major sources of confusion associated with adapting the secular values of liberal democracy to African cultures. This problem is exemplified in the violent conflicts over the adoption of Islamic principles of Sharia law in the Northern part of Nigeria. In the meantime, globalization with its emphasis on self-interest and subjective values seems to be enhancing the problems associated with all manners of differences in Africa. Nigeria alone has more than 300 ethnic nationalities speaking 250 languages and 1000 dialects. In Nigeria, however, it is a known fact that there are three main ethnic nationalities -Hausa-Fulani in the Northern part, the Yoruba in the South-West, and Igbo in the South-East. In terms of religion, there are three dominant religions in Nigeria -Islam, Christianity, and African Traditional Religion. Ethnic and religious sentiments sometimes fuel violence, and often influence policies in Nigeria's politics. periodicals.karazin.ua/philosophy  54  Another point, according to them, is that it has caused the problems associated with identity and freedom. Dukor has contended that alienation culturally means a conscious rejection of one's identity and self, and a deliberate quest for newhorizons of life and experience. He has noted further: "Some have argued that Africa has no choice but to look forward towards here future in the direction of [W]estern culture and civilization. Whatever is the merit of this, a situation whereby the teaching of [W]estern civilization to African students turns into a disparagement of African civilizations and a recommendation of Europeanization of African culture is existentially calamitous" [Dukor, 2015, p. 210].
Two notions can be inferred from the position above: his discontentment with the disparagement of Africa's cultures and civilization and the consequent prescription of European lifestyle for Africans. The prevalence of emancipation movements in Africa and other third world countries against Western domination of African cultures is a clear testament to the reality of this problem.
Opponents of global democracy have also contended that it has increased the gap between the rich and the poor classes at both domestic and global levels. Azikiwe has noted the first argument against liberal capitalism is that of remuneration of labour [Azikiwe, 1980, p. 14]. He explains that it is maintained that under this condition, the worker does not receive a fair share of the fruits of his labour. Instead the lion's share goes to the management, shareholders, speculators, middlemen and other extraneous elements, who did not labour in order to produce what has enabled a business to operate at a profit. We want to add here that in this kind of situation the winners are the management, shareholders, speculators, middlemen and other strongly connected business elements while the likely losers are those who must either helplessly depend on the owners of capital goods and services unless they find other effective means to survive. This is what is happening in global politics, trade and economy between the affluent countries of the Western world and Africa. The affluent countries like the United States have a high level of cohesive structures at the domestic level to produce the required level of advanced technology, manpower, business environment, and finance to assume leadership position in political and economic matters, and are more astute to protect their national interests. The problem of the gap between affluent individuals and struggling individuals at the domestic level has increasingly led to untold crimes in the African nations.
Opponents also contend that global democracy has led Africa to a higher level of dependency on the affluent countries [Bassey, 2016]. It is a fact the leaders of global politics and economy are the affluent countries such as the United States, Britain, Germany, China, etc. Experience shows that they have more capabilities, more spending and bargaining power in all global affairs than those from African countries such as Nigeria, Egypt, and South Africa. This means that as a result of the new wave of development of capitalism started by the global superpowers, it seems that Africa must depend on the investments and technical assistance of great economic powers of the world in running their socio-political and economic affairs. However, it also seems that the gains of global democracy are bigger than the losses. In a related issue, Omoniyi has reported in The Guardian: "The policy of economic deregulation and liberalization pursued by the Obasanjo's administration through the National Council on Privatisation (sic) (NCP), and the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC), helped to open up new windows of opportunity to foreign investors who had the financial and technical capability to venture into Nigeria's often exceedingly risky terrain. This drastic step freed up the telecoms sector from  [Omoniyi, 2015, p. 79].
The account above shows that business investment by foreign investors into the telecommunication industry of Nigeria was a reality during Obasanjo's regime, and it further narrates that the policy freed the sector from corrupt and ineptitude managers. World Trade Organization (WTO) is saddled with the responsibility of overseeing tariffs and lessening trade barriers. However, on the issue of bargaining power, the problem is that the affluent nations have more powers than developing nations as Schmidt et al. has noted: "The work of the WTO has met opposition in many regions of the world. During the 2003 meetings in Cancun, Mexico, African nations walked out of the 'Doha Round' of negotiations because they disagreed with the more-developed nations over new rules for investment and cross border transfers. One of the areas of the areas of the greatest disagreement in the WTO is the treatment of agriculture. Most developed nations subsidize their own farmers and want to protect them from competition from other countries. The United States and Europe are currently at odds over the reduction of agricultural subsidies and further talks are stalled" [Schmidt et al., 2009, p. 618].
This shows that there are often disagreements over some policies regarding global transactions. This case of conflict of interests between the African nations and more-developed nations shows that globalization is seemingly controlled not only by market-forces but also by political considerations since most of the global institutions are controlled by the more-developed nations of the world.
Opponents of the global democracy assert that it has led to more ecological threats to the survival of the African people. Most transnational nations such as Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) have grappled with environmental challenges as a result of their oil explorations and other activities in the African nations. The emission and flaring of gas has led to untold environmental degradation and global warming. Schmidt et al. has noted that the US government is reluctant to deal with the issue of global warming as scientific predictions have shown that African nations are the most vulnerable groups to face its immediate and dire consequences [Schmidt et al., 2009]. The US government is rather more interested in its national domestic issues than in helping to deal with this external issue.
Another claim of critics of global democracy is that it has led to more problems regarding quality control of goods in the international market. There is often the problem of quality control of goods in the global free market. This is because the developed nations are often do not have time for such thorough scrutiny.

The Positive Impact of Global Democracy in Africa
Proponents of global democracy try to justify it on the following grounds: It has promoted better exchange of goods and services in Africa. The story of the transformation of the telecommunication industry in Nigeria as Omoniyi has shown in his report would not have been possible without the impact of global free enterprise [Omoniyi, 2015]. This has enabled huge international corporations to produce and sell their products throughout the globe. Nigeria, for instance, has produced oil resources which have been sold into the United States, while Nigerians buy Internet devices produced in the United States.
It has led to better advancements in communication and technologies. Global system of democracy has led to a better transformation of the way Africans communicate and interaction amongst themselves, in individual, social, national, and global interactions. Kissinger has echoed the same point: periodicals.karazin.ua/philosophy  56  "Thoughtful observers have viewed the globalizing transformations ushered in by the rise of Internet and advanced computing technology as the beginning of a new era of popular empowerment and progress toward peace. They hail the ability of new technologies to enable the individual and to propel transparency -whether through the publicizing of abuses by authorities or erosion of cultural barriers of misunderstanding. Optimist point, with some justification, to the startling new powers of communication gained through instantaneous global networks. They stress the ability of computer networks and 'smart' devices to create new social, economic, and environmental efficiencies" [Kissinger, 2014, p. 354].
It has accelerated the development of civil rule in Africa. There is no doubt that global democracy has promoted the rule by civilians instead of military dictatorship. In Nigeria, for instance, many informed minds believe that the worst civilian-led government is better than the best military regime. An event in Libya is evidence here.
It has changed the way African leaders deal with all aspects of their national life. Civil rule of democratic government has ushered in transformation in the way Africa deals with their challenges in relation to their different aspects of their national life and the international community. African leaders have embraced the methods of science and democracy in the quest for better ways of dealing with technical issues such as political governance, business management, job creation, gender issues, education, tourism and hospitality. It seems that the application of the methods of science and democracy is relevant here. On the issue of attracting tourism, for instance, Bakare has reported: "Globally tourism is a highly competitive industry; We cannot compel the potential tourist to visit any attractions by force, threat or decrees, but by creative persuasions; various sectors within the industry are yet to have adequate development in quantity, quality and standards that develop their tourist resources; and whilst funding remain an important factor in the development of this industry, it is critical to apply the required discipline to achieve the desired result" [Bakare, 2016, p. 41].
Critics have further noted that it has led to more development in terms of urbanization in Africa. Many villages in Africa have undergone transformation as a result of the development of infrastructure, social amenities such as electricity, quality roads, and the location of transnational corporation that attract the provision of social responsibility. Nnamseh has noted that over the years, 104 communities in the Niger Delta have been electrified under the joint venture integrated community development programmes as cited in Mobile Bulletin (2011) [Nnamseh, 2013]. It appears to that urbanization is at the heart of socio-political and economic policies of global democracy.
Supporters of global democracy has pointed that it has led to acceleration of regional partnerships and cooperation amongst African nations. African leaders have become more keen in their efforts to partner together to face the challenges of globalization and national development in their continent.
Finally, advocates of global democracy have opined that it has led to greater success for the African nations in global activities. African leaders have exploited opportunities in global trade, sports and scientific and technical development.  [Rodney, 2009]. He sees those enumerated problems as occasioned by slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism, exploitation and dehumanization of the African people. He is thus not just concerned with how Europe underdeveloped Africa, but also with the ravaging effects of colonialism and neo-colonialism. He has therefore "called for a break with the exploiting ravaging system in order to move forward and create a new world order" [Harding, 1981, p. xix]. It is certain that Rodney wanted the African peoples to vie for socialism.
However, since the end of the Cold War it seemed that capitalism is the only available option for the national leaders. As Sallie has noted that after the Cold War, there was a "consensus amongst national leaders across Three Worlds that further development will likely necessitate forms of capitalism and liberalism within their societies" [Sallie, 2001, p. 33]. This means that free market and democracy is seen by world leaders as the only alternative method to socialism for the realization of development in all the nations of the world including Africa. We largely agree with the position of world leaders on the issue of a feasible world order. However, there are issues that involve national interests of political character in the subject matter of global democracy.
While analyzing the term 'development', we have agreed with Ake that development is located in the ability of a people to discover their root of their problems and thus create means of dealing with them for the attainment of a higher level of civilization based on their own policy choice and values. We have therefore discovered that the problem of development in African nations is rooted in their colonial and post-colonial experience. In many Africa nations, people from different religions, tribes and nationalities were merged together by gunboat diplomacy and military-backed force. This implies that colonization of Africa by Europe was done by force. The result is that it structurally destroyed the traditional organization of African societies. This has made many African states or countries heterogeneous. African nations have to struggle with national integration even after many years of independence. It is indeed a critical issue that involves structural and functional problems.
However, regarding these problems there is still the possibility for the African nations to cease the opportunity offered by global democracy to achieve sustainable national development. The following are recommended for the realization of sustainable development in Africa: Africa needs to restructure their geopolitical settings where necessary. When Europe was facing similar problems about religion like Africa, they made concerted effort to redraw their geopolitical map. Kissinger has narrated how the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) went in Europe. He puts it this way: "A century of intermittent wars attended the rise and spread of the Protestant critique of Church supremacy: the Habsburg Empire and the papacy both sought to stamp out the challenge to their authority, and Protestants resisted in defence of their new faith" [Kissinger, 2014, p. 20].
He noted that the war led to a new definition of political sovereignty and the limitation of the powers of the papacy in Europe. This is because they sat together in a meeting that is known as the Peace of Westphalia to formulate rules for a new concept of world order. Similarly, in Africa nations with multi-cultural values, it is necessary to create states if possible for different ethnic groups. In Nigeria, for instance, there is the need to create structural balance by the creation of one more state in the South Eastern part. This will lead to balance of power between the Northern part and the Southern part of Nigeria. In addition, there should be a sort of structural balance between the Federal and the State government. More importantly, there is the need to evolve true federalism in the political structure of Nigeria to achieve the much needed political balance in the polity to enable state governors to reduce the emphasis  58  at the centre of the federation. This will enhance development from the grassroots level to the state and federal levels.
African national leaders should ensure peace and security in their lands to attract foreign investors. To avoid conflicts and discontentment in African societies, it is necessary for African national leaders to keep all the elements of their states happy and contented. Machiavelli has also prescribed this policy for the then prince of Florence [Machiavelli, 1999]. It is also necessary for the leaders to be well-armed to face all manners of insurgency like those of Boko Haram in Nigeria.
African political leaders should be those between the age of 30 to 60, who are healthy, reputable, adequately educated as degree holders and having some years of experience in either public positions or in entrepreneurship. There are social changes going on in different parts of the world regarding the development of mature youths as leaders. In other parts of developed world, government often hunts for youths with great abilities in order to bring them to limelight even in political scene. African governments should emulate this policy.
African heads of state should unite through the African Union (AU) to fight all manners of fraud, injustice and oppression against the African peoples. Freedom is necessary for survival. So Africa should unite when necessary to form a common front in order to protect their interests in the areas of values, policy formulation, and political strategy.
There is the need for African governments to seek modalities on how to diversify their national revenue base and on how to create employment opportunities. It is prudent for African governments to diversify their means of earning revenue to boost their national income. Effective taxation framework in addition to other means of earning revenue should be put in place. Similarly, they should prepare the grounds for the industrialization of Africa through the provision of basic social amenities and infrastructure. Our leaders need to find ways to promote some of our locally manufactured goods that bears the symbol of our cultures through Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMSE) and provision of incentives such as soft loans to farmers. New technologies should be explored for the enhancement of job creation for the African peoples.
There is need for improvement of the practice of democracy in the politics of the various African nations. For sustainable development to take place in Africa, all the political stakeholders should say no to rig electoral fraud. The head of government should adequately provide mechanisms to ensure that it is impossible to rig elections. The leaders should provide mechanisms that favour accountability and transparency as effective values of good political governance. This is because experience shows that countries in Africa with good electoral practices perform better in governance because they must be accountable to the people that elected them. Two examples are Ghana after the rule of Jerry Rawlings and South Africa.
There is the need for the African governments to provide enabling legislation for both the public and the private sector. This can be achieved if a body is set up to with the requisite administrative and oversight competence to manage private sectors that have the technical ability to realize the envisioned goals of the private sector. Like in all matters concerning human life and organizations, moral character, skill, commitment and transparency are necessary here for the realization of set goals. In addition, there is the need for our leaders to fight corruption. A blueprint for the fight against corruption is necessary for sustainable national development.

Evaluation and Conclusion
We have enumerated and discussed the problems associated democracy and globalization in Africa, and have also tried to provide the solutions to them. The protection of the sovereignty of African nations is necessary for Africa's development because the problems of Africa can be solved if African nations seek solutions to their problems within themselves. However, sensible partnership with great nations of the world could be helpful as a matter of necessity. The leaders of the United States and other affluent nations of the world cannot help Africa more than African leaders and peoples can help their respective nations and Africa as a whole. It is better if we as Africans rise up to the challenge of sustainable development. We want to assert in strong terms that if all the leaders of African nations show realistic commitment to end all forms  59  of electoral fraud and malpractices then most of the development problems of Africa nations will be solved. This is because credible political leaders can only emerge through the application of rule-based political process. However, in a situation where judges receive bribes to give bias judgement in a court of law over electoral cases, there is no hope for the realization of sustainable development through the electoral process. This is because candidates who successful ascend to power through unjust verdict are not likely to respect the rule of law and the development that it stands for. Verdicts should discourage rigging, gerrymandering and politically-induced violence. In a situation where a judge asks a plaintiff in an election trial to produce substantial evidence that his rival rigged election from one polling unit to the other, the future would seems so bleak for development. An incorruptible judge should rather ask: "What is the evidence and degree of such act of rigging election in the polling units of the state?" His judgement on such electoral matters should discourage the use of such fraudulent means in subsequent future elections.
Education is necessary for the acquisition of universally accepted philosophical and scientific knowledge to deal with the problem of values and sustainable development in Africa. African peoples need to be taught that some of the African national leaders are responsible for the bad condition of underdevelopment in the global period because of bad political governance ranging from the inability of African leaders to calculate all the relevant factors in the making of their policies as well as failing to provide effective technologies and competent staff to deal with rigging of elections and other electoral problems in addition to corruption and mismanagement of public funds. It is impossible for us to realize the set goals for sustainable development if the leader fails to make informed choices after calculations of all the necessary social, economic, political and strategic factors. In this sense, contemporary African education is necessary for the production of African leaders because it lays emphasis on the methods of science, democracy and the dynamic aspects of Africa's traditional values. Our educational system should make African Studies as a course of study compulsory from primary to the higher institutions. The dynamic aspects of Africa's cultural heritage of formal and informal education systems portray Africa's identity and must not be abandoned. In this sense, while the principles of democracy become peripheral to the African peoples, the various cultural values of the African peoples become the interior principles guiding the African peoples. This means that global democracy can enable the African peoples to better understand their elites and other peoples from other continents.
There is no way for the African nations to survive without production of goods and services in terms of farming, agriculture and diversification of their revenue base. National leaders of the various African nations cannot avoid policies that enable the industrialization of African nations through the provision of the basic infrastructures and viable amenities for social, economic, and political development. They should however be wary of debt traps of International Monetary Fund and World Bank because borrowing nations are often given difficult conditions that often make it difficult for them to obtain the desired benefits in terms of sustainable development.
The whole of the issue of this work boils down to two main issues -the problem of convoluted structures and functionality of the existing African states. African national leaders must evolve policies that can promote moral, political and economic integration amongst African nations. This implies that it is through good political governance that the problems will be solved and development sustained.
Finally, further research is required regarding the issue of how to educate the whole of Africa's vast population from the grassroots for enlightenment and sustainable national development. Another area for further studies is on how to raise the economic status of women and youths in Africa societies for sustainable development. Terrorism is rife in African countries like Nigeria. How can African national leaders respond to this issue in the quest for sustainable national development? Further research is required on how to curb terrorism and religious conflicts in the African continent.