Comparative Media Studies in Africa: Challenges and Paradoxes

  • Susana Salgado


Drawing on previous work on the role of the media in the democratization processes of the Lusophone African countries (Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, and São Tomé and Príncipe), this chapter addresses the challenges and paradoxes of conducting comparative research focused on contexts where there are constraints to democratic development (although at different levels and gradation), and on which reliable information on key indicators is often missing. These are societies with different cultural expectations of democracy and political leadership, which do not fit neatly into most Western world conceptualizations. The research looked into the news media functions in democratization contexts and the role that different types of media, including new media technologies, have in creating and supporting the necessary conditions of democracy and in shaping the type of democracy that is actually being built. Finally, by examining the relation between media and politics and the dynamics of media, political, and social change, the research outlines the most important media uses and effects in these democratization contexts.


  1. Berger, G. (2007). Media legislation in Africa: A comparative legal survey. Rhodes University, Grahamstown: UNESCO. isbn:9780868104423. Retrieved from
  2. Bratton, M., & van de Walle, N. (1997). Democratic experiments in Africa: Regime transitions in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chabal, P., & Daloz, J.-P. (1999). Africa works: Disorder as political instrument. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dahl, R. (2000). On democracy. London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Diamond, L. (2002). Thinking about hybrid regimes: Elections without democracy. Journal of Democracy., 13(2), 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diamond, L. (2008). The spirit of democracy: The struggle to build free societies throughout the world. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
  7. Doig, A., & Theobald, R. (Eds.). (2003). Corruption and democratisation. London and Portland, OR: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  8. Esser, F. (2013). The emerging paradigm of comparative communication enquiry: Advancing cross-national research in times of globalization. International Journal of Communication, 7, 113–128.Google Scholar
  9. Esser, F., & Hanitzsch, T. (2012). On the why and how of comparative inquiry in communication studies. In F. Esser & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), The handbook of comparative communication research (pp. 3–24). New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Finer, S. E. (1970). Comparative government. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  11. Gurevitch, M., & Blumler, J. (1990). Political communication systems and democratic values. In J. Lichtenberg (Ed.), Democracy and the mass media (pp. 24–35). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hallin, D., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems. Three models of media and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hallin, D., & Mancini, P. (2012). Comparing media systems beyond the western world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Herbst, J. (2000). States and power in Africa: Comparative lessons in authority and control. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Huntington, S. (1991). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hyden, G. (2006). African politics in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lindberg, S. I. (2006). Democracy and elections in Africa. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. The American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lipset, S. M. (1994). The social requisites of democracy revisited. American Sociological Review, 59(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mancini, P., & Hallin, D. (2012). Some caveats about comparative research in media studies. In H. Semetko & M. Scammell (Eds.), The Sage handbook of political communication (pp. 509–517). London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Merkel, W., & Croissant, A. (2004). Conclusion: Good and defective democracies. Democratization, 11(5), 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morlino, L. (2004). What is ‘good’ democracy? Democratization, 11(5), 10–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morlino, L. (2008). Hybrid regimes or regimes in transition? (Working Paper 70). Madrid: Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior (FRIDE). Retrieved December 14, 2011, from
  24. Pitcher, A., Moran, M., & Johnston, M. (2009). Rethinking patrimonialism and neopatrimonialism in Africa. African Studies Review, 52(1), 125–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Salgado, S. (2012). The web in African countries. Exploring the possible influences of the Internet in the democratization processes. Information, Communication & Society, 15(9), 1373–1389. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Salgado, S. (2014). The internet and democracy building in Lusophone African countries. London; New York: Routledge; Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  27. Salgado, S. (2017). Histories of the Internet and political communication in Lusophone Africa. In G. Goggin & M. McLelland (Eds.), The Routledge companion to global internet histories (pp. 490–504). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Wiseman, J. A. (1990). Democracy in Black Africa: Survival and revival. New York: Paragon House.Google Scholar
  29. Wiseman, J. A. (1996). The new struggle for democracy in Africa. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susana Salgado
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto de Ciências Sociais - Universidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations