Paper short abstract:

The paper revisits the creation of 9 West African constitutional courts with a strong institutional heritage from France. We explore the differences and similarities among these courts using two theories: diffusion and insurance. We ask where and why did strategy prevail over imitation?

Paper long abstract:

The paper compares two alternative theories explaining the creation of constitutional courts (CC): diffusion and insurance as strategic action. Francophone West Africa is a methodologically appropriate area to study the comparative strengths and lacunae of these theories. On the one hand, the region is relatively homogeneous with regard to its political history. Its strong relationship to France implies diffusion to originate from the French model ("mimétisme constitutionnel;" Gaudusson, Fombad, Reyntjens, etc). However, if West African courts were merely Gallic blueprints, strictly speaking, alternative models should not have been considered. On the other hand, at least Benin's CC has attracted attention for its outstanding powers that obviously exceed French standards. Thus, the variance might be better explained with the insurance theory (Ramseyer, Hirschl, Ginsburg).

Our outline: First, to what extent do the formal institutional bases of these courts vary from the French model? We therefore collected systematical data on the formal institutions that govern the CCs in 9 West African countries (former AOF including Togo). Second, we analyze the courts' creation to assess the diffusion theory. Third, we reassess the shape of political competition in the decision-making process. Can we find evidence supporting the insurance theory based on political competition data? We use document analysis and original data from various field trips in the region. Finally, we will evaluate if and why some post-colonial states have been more strategic and draw preliminary ideas on the consequences of the respective differences.