{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01621271076523995, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.246963562753036, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Economic Foundations of the Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy in Africa

Most countries of Black Africa started independence with the parliamentary democratic system. At the time, two versions of the system existed: the Westminster model and the Western European, typified by the French experience. While it is true that some regimes had been moving in the direction of pseudo-monopolistic arrangement, the tacit agreement between the nationalist and colonial elites was that the new rulers of Black Africa would accept and implement parliamentary democracy. The orthodox parliamentary system is typified by the Westminster model. At the formal headship of the system is a monarch whose functions are symbolic and integrative rather than political and administrative. Executive authority in the parliamentary system is invested in a council of ministers, also known as the government. A small and inner committee of this council, designated as the cabinet and comprising the most influential and intelligent ministers, is the effective forum for governmental authority. The cabinet as a structure, then, combines executive and legislative functions. At the head of the cabinet is the prime minister. Appointed nominally by the monarch but in reality by the majority party in parliament, the prime minister is the chief executive and chairman of the cabinet. Because he is conventionally the equal of his colleagues, the effective power of the prime minister over the cabinet is a function of his personality, intelligence, and experience.