Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book

Politics in West Africa

Rate this book
The focus of Professor W. Lewis' study is the single-party system in West Africa.

90 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1982

Loading...
Loading...

About the author

W. Arthur Lewis

51 books16 followers
Sir William Arthur Lewis was a Saint Lucian economist and the James Madison Professor of Political Economy at Princeton University. Lewis was known for his contributions in the field of economic development. In 1979, he was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
2 (40%)
4 stars
2 (40%)
3 stars
1 (20%)
2 stars
0 (0%)
1 star
0 (0%)
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Profile Image for Dika.
12 reviews10 followers
March 30, 2022
In this monograph, Lewis argues against the idea (widespread and taken seriously enough in early post-colonial West Africa) that the single-party system provides an ideal, stable and representative form of government for West African states. His arguments are straightforward: focusing on Sekou Touré's Guinea and Kwame Nkrumah's Ghana his case is that the internal antagonisms of West African societies make it such that the single-party system is bound to fail in all of its claims; it cannot represent all the people on account of the region's profound heterogeneity; it cannot maintain free discussion or provide stability in government; it cannot reconcile century-old differences between various regional groups. Lewis then argues against patterning political institutions in these countries on those of Britain and France, as West Africa (so he argues) is not a class society but a plural society. What is good for a class society is bad for a plural society, as the zero-sumness of class society politics (the doctrine that the majority shall have its way; what I win you lose, and so on) translated to a plural society becomes not only irrelevant, but immoral, destructive, and impracticable. *4.5 stars, rounded up because of its accessibility (written for lay readership, not cognoscenti) and its sometimes unbelievable prescience.
Displaying 1 of 1 review