A Classic case of failed despotism 

Africa, Governance, Human Rights, Peace, Politics

This is the cardinal rule of African politics (per most African politicians):

An incumbent does not lose an election!

 Unless:

  1. The incumbent is a normal human being i.e. to say, s/he concedes defeat (like a Goodluck Jonathan or a John Dramani Mahama) and vacates office. As a normal human being, the incumbent is not power hungry, and does not envision life-long rule. S/he recognises that leadership is not entrenched in holding political power but in the ability to serve and influence positively; real leaders know they do not need to be called Mr. President or Madame President to lead.
  1. The margin of loss, against the incumbent, is so irredeemable that, not even “meticulous verification” over a six week period assisted by “clever” judges can make the process malleable to manipulation in the incumbent’s favour.
  1. In his/her entrenched, but misplaced, sense of arrogance and assurance, the incumbent falsely believes that, by giving the chief of the elections body unsolicited perks, victory will be guaranteed.
  1. The incumbent lives in a country where rules are made to be obeyed e.g. Ghana, Namibia, Tanzania; where saying no to the people’s will is inconceivable.

It seems one man missed the memo:

His (former but never really excellent) Excellency

 Sheikh

           Professor

                       Alhaji

                                 Dr. (who claims to cure AIDS)

                                             Yahya

                                                          AbdulAzziz

                                                                       Jemus

                                                                                    Junkung

                                                                                               Jammeh

                                                                                                           Babili Mansa

jameh

Like a bwauss: Yahya Jammeh: Credit BellaNaija.com

Jammeh made three tactical errors:

  1. He assumed he would win the battle, did not build a strong fortress to protect his interests (also known as rigging machinery) and went to war without the necessary armoury breaking every rule of The Guide on Despotism by African Rulers,2016, 50th Edition.
  1. He publicly conceded defeat, abandoned the No Retreat No Surrender rule, as explained in The Guidebook to Stealthy Electoral Theft authored by R.G. Mugabe and A. Bongo, 2012, 1st Edition. Did the cabal forget to tell him never to openly admit to losing an election?
  1. He publicly congratulated his opponent for his win and wished him well: Blasphemy 101 according to The Book of Political Eels: A slippery way to hang on to power!3rd Edition with contributors from Cameroon, Angola, Uganda, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Egypt and Zimbabwe.
  1. He publicly professed that the election was free and fair and that the result reflected the legitimate free will of The Gambian people: Another blasphemous act as expounded in Chapter 1 of the Book: Never Say Die, 2008, Eds R.G. Mugabe, P. Biya and Y.K. Museveni

Verse 2: And then Jammeh changed his mind after a few days. Wrong move, the birds were already out to catch the eel!

eeels

Picture Credit: The Daily Mail UK

He not only shot himself in the foot but also in the balls!

As things stand the world  is witnessing a battle of wills:

  1. Jammeh vs the people of The Gambia who vehemently rejected him as their leader and are waiting for their new elected leader to step into his leadership roleon January 19.
  1. Jammeh vs Adama Barrow who has sworn to be sworn inon January 19.
  1. Jammeh vs ECOWAS which has threatened military action to remove him from power if, on January 19 , he refuses to vacate office- threats he has laughed off  .
  1. Jammeh vs AU which, in its Communique declared that it will no longer recognize him as the legitimate leader of The Gambian peoplefrom January 19. The second paragraph of the Communique is key to comprehending the enormity of the claustrofuck that is Jammeh’s back-pedalling on the election result. The AU Peace and Security Council said:

[The PSC] Recalls Article 23 (4) of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance. Council further recalls communiqué PSC/PR/COMM. (DCXLIV) adopted at its 644th meeting held on 12 December 2016, in which Council strongly rejected any attempt to circumvent or reverse the outcome of the presidential election held in The Gambia on 1 December 2016, which is a clear expression of the popular will and choice of the Gambian people,  and called upon outgoing President Yahya Jammeh to keep to the letter and spirit of the speech he delivered on 2 December 2016, in which he welcomed the maturity of democracy in The Gambia and congratulated the presidentelect, Adama Barrow.

Where was Robert when Yahya needed him?

But on to more serious business: what does the AU’s nonrecognition of Yahya mean?

The recognition of a government and its leadership is the hallmark of its legitimacy. Recognition of leadership is hard ball diplomacy and the distinction between the practice and the rhetoric of democracy. Recognised leaders, presumably, carry a legitimate mandate while those not recognised do not. A leader’s recognition makes him/her an integral member of the international system in which his/her state is represented. In the case of the AU, recognition of leadership includes:

  • the right to attend AU summits and represent one’s country through the Assembly of Heads of State and Government;
  • the chance to be elected chairperson of the African Union;
  • the mandate to appoint recognised ambassadors representing the state’s interests in key political organs of the AU such as the Permanent Representatives Committee, the Executive Council and the Peace and Security Council.

Non-recognition of leadership is one of the key strategies of the AU to deal with unconstitutional changes of government i.e. where individuals take over power through unconstitutional means including coups, rebellions, insurgencies, amendments to constitutions.

Effectively the AU’s position means from January 19 Jammeh:

  1. Will become a rogue.
  2. Will no longer be welcome at AU summits.
  3. Will no longer be the legitimate representative of The Gambian people’s political will.

 This bold step by the AU is commendable; and hopefully will be carried through to effect.

Admittedly, the AU has, recently failed to take decisive action to address specific unconstitutional changes of government. In the DRC, the incumbent, Joseph Kabila attempted to entrench his power by amending the constitution so he could extend his mandate. This has cost lives, with the AU taking on soft diplomacy to resolve the crisis. In Gabon, – the incumbent Mr. Ali Bongo Ondimba “won” the election by a narrow margin of 5,594 votes, securing 49.8% of the vote to the opposition leader Mr. Jean Ping’s 48.2%.  To secure this win, one of the incumbent’s stronghold, Haut Ogoogue, recorded an unbelievable 99.9% votes cast, a disparate figure from the national average of 59%. The AU did not query nor act in the face of this blatant thievery.

Similarly, on 29 March 2008, Zimbabwe held its parliamentary and presidential elections. The parliamentary results were announced within a week but the elections body, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC), took six weeks to announce presidential election results, in what is arguably, one of the most brazen acts of undermining a vote in the history of the continent. When ZEC eventually announced the results, on 2 May the opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai had won 47.9% of the vote and Robert Mugabe, the incumbent 43.2%, necessitating a presidential election run-off set for 27 June 2008. The AU did not question the so called “meticulous verification” of results in the face of parallel vote counts that claimed Morgan Tsvangirai had won the election with a clear majority.

Clearly, the African Union (AU) has grappled with boldly condemning election theft and constitutional amendments; two forms of unconstitutional changes of government that are insidiously undermining efforts to democratise Africa. As the AU seeks to re-brand and set itself apart from its predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU); moving away from the OAU principle of non-interference and preaching non-indifference, the extent to which the continental body can interfere in the internal affairs of a member state without violating fundamental principles of statehood; namely sovereignty and territorial integrity, remains unclear.  The uncertainty is steeped in the history of the AU itself, given member states’ past struggle for independence from the shackles of colonialism and their current struggle for full sovereignty and integrity from neo-colonialism.

The idea that the AU could possibly err, by choosing the wrong side in an internal electoral or constitutional dispute, and damage its credibility, has seen the AU adopting an overcautious approach, urging peace and calm and almost always without exception, taking incumbents’ botched results as the final, official and credible outcome of the election. Where incumbents have not conceded defeat and like the true despots they are; clung to power by manipulating electoral systems and declaring themselves winners, quickly swearing themselves in and continuing business as usual, the AU has remained cautious.

The failure to always act decisively in the face of such treachery has been detrimental to the AU; leading to its loss of credibility as a strong institution capable of resolving Africa’s political problems. To gain credibility, the AU must be prepared to boldly take concrete action against incumbents; even when they do admit or accept that they have lost.

Unfortunately for Jammeh, he forgot to read paragraph 2/12/2016 of The Book of Political Eels: A slippery way to hang on to power which states, “You snooze, you lose”. The rules by which the AU has failed to act in the past do not exist in his case. He may have thought he could get away with his actions, but his public admission of loss as an incumbent is a loss that the AU cannot ignore; as much as his knee-jerk attempt to reject that loss as an afterthought comes at a cost that the AU cannot afford. Inaction by the AU would reverse all efforts to democratise the continent; for, what worse thing could an incumbent do than lose an election, admit to the loss and still refuse to leave office?

January 19 could not come sooner; it feels like Game of Thrones Season 7!

 

When it happens in Africa

Africa, Democracy, Governance, History in the making, Politics

When it happens in Africa, tyranny and poverty is newsworthy; democracy and development isn’t. Is that the Western media’s interpretation of Africa and African-ness?

On 24 July 2012, the President of the Republic of Ghana, John Atta Mills passed away. He was 68. It is suspected that he died of cardiac arrest. He came into power through a democratic election which, albeit marred by some challenges, left the majority of Ghanaian citizens relatively satisfied with the meaning and significance of elections as a means of putting in place their leadership. Indeed Ghana’s political stability made it the country of choice for Barack Obama’s first visit to Sub-Saharan Africa in 2008. President Atta Mills will be remembered for his role in consolidating democracy in Ghana, strengthening institutional integrity and entrenching constitutional rule of law. That success could not have been more aptly expressed than in the success and swiftness of the transition that followed his death, reflective of the resilience of Ghana’s democracy.

A few hours after President Atta Mills was officially announced dead, Mr John Dramani Mahama, who was the vice president, took the oath of office as the new President of Ghana- in line with the principles of Article 60 (6) of the Ghanaian Constitution. A new President is set to be elected in December in line with the terms of the current Ghanaian Constitution.

The transition was one of the most significant achievements in the historic development of African democracies. Indeed many African states should draw the following lessons from the Ghanaian example:

  • Constitutional guarantees of transfer of power in the event of the death of the President are an effective way of preventing power vacuums which could lead to political instability;
  • The ability of a country to live by its constitution is one of the best guarantees for peaceful transitions; and
  • The respect of constitutional sanctity and rule of law is one of the best ways of ensuring peace and development in any country

Given the significance of this transition, I would have thought the international media would grow hoarse shouting about this very positive and amazing development on the African continent. One Gillian Parker of Time Magazine went to great lengths to relay this message, celebrating the fact that “although Mills’ passing was sudden, the encouraging sign was the smoothness with which Ghana’s democratic processes kicked into gear.” But for the rest of the BIG news agencies; news that a dead rat had been discovered on the doorstep of President Obama’s bedchamber would have made headlines above this amazing piece of news. For a whole day the news was mentioned as an aside with Atta Mills’ achievements for Ghana mentioned in passing and the swift transition, hardly celebrated for the achievement that it was.  In some reportage the smooth transition was even forgotten.

Those who remembered it chose to refer to it as an ‘unusual experiment,’ in my view a very cynical analysis of the uniqueness of Ghana’s stability despite the fact that it is located in a very tumultuous region. That clearly, at least to me, also reflected a selective memorialisation of the development of the world’s democracies. Here is why I say so, centuries of bloody civil wars, despotism and tyranny characterised Europe’s history before it became the so called ‘ideal democracy’ that it is today-varying of course from country to country. Indeed Africa can not emerge as a strong democracy overnight when it took Europe and America centuries to do the same. Hence as Africa goes through the transition of democratising its institutions, such efforts must be criticised constructively but not denigrated and belittled to the levels of ‘experiments.’

I am still asking myself why the international media was not as excited about this development as they are when there is a coup, an uprising, a rigging of an election or such other negativity on the African continent. Is it the role of the international media to relay only the negative developments on the African continent as the hallmark of African-ness and hence anything positive is not theirs to make noise about?  If that is the case then the Western Media should stop preaching the gospel of ‘independent’ and ‘objective’ media when they themselves are neither independent nor objective. Yes I may sound like a brainwashed Zimbabwean feeding into the Mugabe propaganda right now, but anyone who religiously followed the reportage on the crisis in Mali, the crisis in Madagascar and then the scenario in Ghana, with the same intensity as I did would agree with me that it seems the approach of the international media in reporting situations in Africa is to sing like a chorus from a song book every negative thing but mumble under their breath positive developments such as the  Ghana transition. What a farce!

I can agree with the solution proposed by a colleague of mine that African media (including us as bloggers) have the responsibility to champion positive African developments in the news and depicting to the world Africa as we know it and not as others tell us it is. And hence I am making my pronunciation with this blog that the Ghanaian transition was a groundbreaking event and deserved proper coverage from any self respecting, media house interested in fair reporting and an accurate portrayal of Africa.