Explore the evidence.
Understand the reach.

Africa continues to witness sustained conflicts owing to a number of different reasons. Already, evidence shows that a majority of these conflicts have been driven by long-standing social- political and economic reasons. Yet a closer look at the conflicts reveals that they have not only transformed, but are now sustained by different actors, methods, and have different objectives. Traditionally, conflicts in Africa have been driven by issues such as natural resources and struggles for political and economic power. However, there are now new factors that are significantly fueling and sustaining violence and conflicts in many parts of Africa. The paper focuses on why there have been such sustained conflicts in Africa and largely categorizes them into two main classes- old and new. Kadlor’s New War Theory helps explain and distinguish these two categories of conflicts by pointing out the salient features in each. However, what cannot be categorized is the effects that these conflicts have previously had and continue to leave in the countries and populations in which they occur. These are also briefly discussed which highlights the implications - both short-term and long-term that these conflicts have in Africa. Through these discussions, perhaps a new way of conceptualization of the nature of conflicts in Africa can be developed. This guides the approaches and means to be used in their mitigation and ultimate resolution.

Trust in public institutions has become a central governance concern in Southern Africa, where post-apartheid constitutional reforms were intended to strengthen accountability, protect rights, and consolidate democratic rule. South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Malawi offer contrasting trajectories of reform and institution-building, shaped by varying political settlements, judicial independence, and citizen expectations. Despite formal advances such as enhanced human-rights protections, electoral reforms, and new accountability institutions, survey evidence suggests declining public confidence in core state structures. This paper examines how constitutional reform episodes influence trust in institutions using a country-year panel from 2000–2020, drawing on Afrobarometer, V-Dem, and the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index. A difference-in-differences design identifies changes in institutional trust following reform events, while a synthetic control approach provides additional insight for early adopters. The analysis indicates that reforms improve trust only where rule-of-law institutions function credibly and where reform implementation is consistent. The results highlight the importance of judicial performance, electoral management capacity, and local governance quality. The paper concludes that future reforms must prioritise implementation and institutional coherence to restore trust across Southern Africa’s democracies.

This paper examines Kaldor’s New War Thesis and locates it in the context of Central and West Africa where a plethora of burgeoning evidence provides ground for its validation. Kaldor notes that New Wars, as she puts it, occur in the era of globalization. The core argument fronted by Kaldor is that New Wars are different from ‘Old Wars’. The paper is thus founded on this central locus and discussions advanced in here are crystalized around this distinction. Drawing evidence from countries located in West and Central Africa, the paper argues the case for the validity of this theory to the African context. It is also fair to point out that Kaldor’s New War Theory does not escape the anxious thrusts of criticism. In spite of this welcome critiques – it is quite evident that it is applicable to the African context and this also erases most of the common arguments that such theories are highly Western or foreign and thus have limited applicability to the African context. The paper provides one of the contemporary contextualization’s of this theory and aims to form a basis to build up more discussions on why Africa still reels from wars and conflicts and the new perspectives that are now applicable. Finally, it is hoped that this discussion provides more documentation and evidence that can support better policy, evidence-based decision making and advance regional peace and security in West and Central Africa and to the rest of the continent.

This paper critically examines the consolidation of executive power in Africa through constitutional amendments, often referred to as “constitutional coups,” and its correlation with the resurgence of military interventions. The study’s objective is to explore how the removal of presidential term limits, electoral law manipulation, and similar structural changes contribute to the erosion of democratic norms, institutional accountability, and political stability. Using a conceptual and theoretical analysis grounded in recent case studies, the paper demonstrates how these tactics entrench aging political elites and deepen systemic challenges such as corruption, poverty, and tribalism. It highlights how gerontocracy and ethnically skewed political appointments generate exclusionary governance structures that monopolize key institutions, including the judiciary, legislature, and the military, within dominant ethnic factions, thereby intensifying political marginalisation and social unrest. The paper argues that when peaceful mechanisms for political transition are closed off by such legal manipulations, the likelihood of mass protest and military coups increases. As a policy response, the study recommends the codification of African Union norms on constitutional amendment procedures, the enforcement of term limits, and the strengthening of continental early warning systems. These measures are vital for restoring institutional checks, deterring authoritarian entrenchment, and safeguarding democratic governance across the continent. The paper thus contributes to the discourse on constitutionalism and political accountability in Africa by offering practical, policy-relevant strategies for reform.

The Anglophone Crisis in Cameroon exemplifies the severe consequences of governance failures in managing historical grievances and socio-political diversity in a postcolonial African state. Rooted in colonial legacies and intensified by centralized governance, systemic corruption, and political exclusion, the conflict reflects the state’s failure to constructively address calls for equity, recognition, and reform. This paper argues that the government’s coercive responses to legitimate corporate revendications, particularly in education, legal systems, and regional autonomy, have eroded trust and escalated tensions, resulting in entrenched conflict and humanitarian distress. Multinational corporations operating in resource-rich Anglophone regions have further contributed to instability by prioritizing profit over social responsibility, deepening socio-economic inequalities and environmental harm. Drawing on recent academic research and policy analysis, the article examines how political centralization, elite-driven economic governance, and shrinking civic space have prolonged the crisis. It affirms the urgent need for decentralization, inclusive governance, and corporate accountability while highlighting the role of local agency and participatory peacebuilding. Situated within broader discourses on governance in conflict-affected settings, the paper offers practical insights for policymakers, corporate actors, and civil society. It concludes with targeted recommendations to promote transparency, equitable development, and inclusive dialogue as foundations for sustainable peace in Cameroon and similarly divided societies. This study synthesizes insights from recent academic research and policy analyses to explore how governance failures, both political and corporate, have exacerbated the crisis. It argues for the urgent need for decentralised governance frameworks, corporate accountability mechanisms, and inclusive conflict resolution approaches that prioritize local agency and stakeholder participation. Situating the Anglophone Crisis within broader discussions of governance in fragile and conflict-affected contexts, the article offers valuable lessons for policymakers, corporations, and civil society actors committed to preventing similar conflicts. It concludes by outlining targeted recommendations focused on fostering meaningful dialogue, ensuring transparency in governance practices, enhancing corporate social responsibility, and building robust accountability frameworks to sustainably address grievances and promote enduring peace in Cameroon and comparable settings.

Trust in public institutions has become a central governance concern in Southern Africa, where post-apartheid constitutional reforms were intended to strengthen accountability, protect rights, and consolidate democratic rule. South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Malawi offer contrasting trajectories of reform and institution-building, shaped by varying political settlements, judicial independence, and citizen expectations. Despite formal advances such as enhanced human-rights protections, electoral reforms, and new accountability institutions, survey evidence suggests declining public confidence in core state structures. This paper examines how constitutional reform episodes influence trust in institutions using a country-year panel from 2000–2020, drawing on Afrobarometer, V-Dem, and the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index. A difference-in-differences design identifies changes in institutional trust following reform events, while a synthetic control approach provides additional insight for early adopters. The analysis indicates that reforms improve trust only where rule-of-law institutions function credibly and where reform implementation is consistent. The results highlight the importance of judicial performance, electoral management capacity, and local governance quality. The paper concludes that future reforms must prioritise implementation and institutional coherence to restore trust across Southern Africa’s democracies.

This paper examines Kaldor’s New War Thesis and locates it in the context of Central and West Africa where a plethora of burgeoning evidence provides ground for its validation. Kaldor notes that New Wars, as she puts it, occur in the era of globalization. The core argument fronted by Kaldor is that New Wars are different from ‘Old Wars’. The paper is thus founded on this central locus and discussions advanced in here are crystalized around this distinction. Drawing evidence from countries located in West and Central Africa, the paper argues the case for the validity of this theory to the African context. It is also fair to point out that Kaldor’s New War Theory does not escape the anxious thrusts of criticism. In spite of this welcome critiques – it is quite evident that it is applicable to the African context and this also erases most of the common arguments that such theories are highly Western or foreign and thus have limited applicability to the African context. The paper provides one of the contemporary contextualization’s of this theory and aims to form a basis to build up more discussions on why Africa still reels from wars and conflicts and the new perspectives that are now applicable. Finally, it is hoped that this discussion provides more documentation and evidence that can support better policy, evidence-based decision making and advance regional peace and security in West and Central Africa and to the rest of the continent.

The Anglophone Crisis in Cameroon exemplifies the severe consequences of governance failures in managing historical grievances and socio-political diversity in a postcolonial African state. Rooted in colonial legacies and intensified by centralized governance, systemic corruption, and political exclusion, the conflict reflects the state’s failure to constructively address calls for equity, recognition, and reform. This paper argues that the government’s coercive responses to legitimate corporate revendications, particularly in education, legal systems, and regional autonomy, have eroded trust and escalated tensions, resulting in entrenched conflict and humanitarian distress. Multinational corporations operating in resource-rich Anglophone regions have further contributed to instability by prioritizing profit over social responsibility, deepening socio-economic inequalities and environmental harm. Drawing on recent academic research and policy analysis, the article examines how political centralization, elite-driven economic governance, and shrinking civic space have prolonged the crisis. It affirms the urgent need for decentralization, inclusive governance, and corporate accountability while highlighting the role of local agency and participatory peacebuilding. Situated within broader discourses on governance in conflict-affected settings, the paper offers practical insights for policymakers, corporate actors, and civil society. It concludes with targeted recommendations to promote transparency, equitable development, and inclusive dialogue as foundations for sustainable peace in Cameroon and similarly divided societies. This study synthesizes insights from recent academic research and policy analyses to explore how governance failures, both political and corporate, have exacerbated the crisis. It argues for the urgent need for decentralised governance frameworks, corporate accountability mechanisms, and inclusive conflict resolution approaches that prioritize local agency and stakeholder participation. Situating the Anglophone Crisis within broader discussions of governance in fragile and conflict-affected contexts, the article offers valuable lessons for policymakers, corporations, and civil society actors committed to preventing similar conflicts. It concludes by outlining targeted recommendations focused on fostering meaningful dialogue, ensuring transparency in governance practices, enhancing corporate social responsibility, and building robust accountability frameworks to sustainably address grievances and promote enduring peace in Cameroon and comparable settings.

This paper critically examines the consolidation of executive power in Africa through constitutional amendments, often referred to as “constitutional coups,” and its correlation with the resurgence of military interventions. The study’s objective is to explore how the removal of presidential term limits, electoral law manipulation, and similar structural changes contribute to the erosion of democratic norms, institutional accountability, and political stability. Using a conceptual and theoretical analysis grounded in recent case studies, the paper demonstrates how these tactics entrench aging political elites and deepen systemic challenges such as corruption, poverty, and tribalism. It highlights how gerontocracy and ethnically skewed political appointments generate exclusionary governance structures that monopolize key institutions, including the judiciary, legislature, and the military, within dominant ethnic factions, thereby intensifying political marginalisation and social unrest. The paper argues that when peaceful mechanisms for political transition are closed off by such legal manipulations, the likelihood of mass protest and military coups increases. As a policy response, the study recommends the codification of African Union norms on constitutional amendment procedures, the enforcement of term limits, and the strengthening of continental early warning systems. These measures are vital for restoring institutional checks, deterring authoritarian entrenchment, and safeguarding democratic governance across the continent. The paper thus contributes to the discourse on constitutionalism and political accountability in Africa by offering practical, policy-relevant strategies for reform.

Africa continues to witness sustained conflicts owing to a number of different reasons. Already, evidence shows that a majority of these conflicts have been driven by long-standing social- political and economic reasons. Yet a closer look at the conflicts reveals that they have not only transformed, but are now sustained by different actors, methods, and have different objectives. Traditionally, conflicts in Africa have been driven by issues such as natural resources and struggles for political and economic power. However, there are now new factors that are significantly fueling and sustaining violence and conflicts in many parts of Africa. The paper focuses on why there have been such sustained conflicts in Africa and largely categorizes them into two main classes- old and new. Kadlor’s New War Theory helps explain and distinguish these two categories of conflicts by pointing out the salient features in each. However, what cannot be categorized is the effects that these conflicts have previously had and continue to leave in the countries and populations in which they occur. These are also briefly discussed which highlights the implications - both short-term and long-term that these conflicts have in Africa. Through these discussions, perhaps a new way of conceptualization of the nature of conflicts in Africa can be developed. This guides the approaches and means to be used in their mitigation and ultimate resolution.