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!

 

Coup in Mali: The ‘Rats’ and ‘Dogs’ discussion continues

Africa, Democracy, Governance, Peace, Politics, Security, Terrorism

Another coup in Africa. Another decision by an elite group of citizens to take the fate of millions into their own hands.  Another threat to peace and security on the African continent.

Well here is the thing; it all begins with such events, a coup, a rebellion, a mutiny. Then it gets prolonged and for years we shall write about political instability in one or the other of the African countries affected. In the beginning, as is the case with Mali, the UN or the AU or both will make statements about how terrible it is for something like this to happen then bide their time to see if the situation will calm down.

The UN Security Council has called for the “immediate restoration of constitutional rule and the democratically elected government”. ECOWAS has said the soldiers’ behavior is reprehensible. The AU called it a’setback to the democratisation process in Mali.’

Then if the trouble continues for a while, the AU will suspend Mali’s membership and “continue to engage them to restore democratic governance.” And then the war with the rebels will continue and grow in intensity. One or such other Western powers will clandestinely give arms  to the Touareg separatists  to continue fighting the Malian government feeding their own economies on wars in Africa and then publicly condemn the protracted war and send peacekeepers to bring back sanity and ‘peace’ to the land of Mali.

Then maybe the UN Security Council will meet to decide if they should pass a resolution for action, either to intervene-which is rare- or to send the perpetrators of crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court. And then China or Russia or the US will veto that decision. Civil society organizations will make a huge outcry and continue lobbying for action.  Meanwhile thousands will be losing their lives. Then if lucky, the conflict will abate. Then some young and inexperienced European and American citizens, in a KONY 2012 style,  will come to Africa  as ‘experts’ on Demobilisation, Disarmament and Repatriation, Transitional Justice and Peace building to Africa, paid huge sums of money because they are in ‘risk zones.’ They will purport to bring peace to Mali and the process and the cycle goes on and on and on.

That has happened before and it could happen again in Mali. The reality is that for years, Africa has been riddled by these changes of government which are unconstitutional and chaotic. They chip away at any progress that could have been made in improving the governance patterns on our conflict and poverty ridden continent.

In this case, the coup by the military against the Malian government is said to have been started by the military’s anger and disgruntlement with the inadequacy of the government’s response to a rising separatist movement by Tuareg rebels in Northern Mali. This movement is alleged to have been boosted by the flow of arms remaining from the Libyan revolution. The rebellion began on 17 January. Many soldiers have been killed in the fighting and they claim that widows of the deceased have not been compensated.

Mali Coup- Credit Human Rights Watch

To refresh our memories a bit, in August 2011, when the Libyan- NATO assisted rebels took over Tripoli- Colonel Muammar Ghaddafi made a statement to the effect that the forces that defeated him were ‘rats’ and ‘dogs.’ I wrote an article questioning this statement and wondering who the real rats and dogs were.

Now, Ghaddafi is dead. NATO has left Libya. The Transitional Council is in power and all should be well in Paradise park isn’t? But really no. Why do I say so? The story that began as just a Libyan story and a Libyan civil war has now become a real threat to peace and security in the whole Sahel region and the recent coup in Mali is evidence of that.

On 19 March 2012, the African Conflict Prevention Programme of the Institute for Security Studies in their Daily Briefing gave a clear warning about the situation in Northern Mali and said;

“The demise of Gaddafi and the subsequent proliferation of arms in the region have fuelled rebellion and terrorist activities in West Africa and the Sahel region. One such negative outcome is the Touareg rebellion in Northern Mali, where the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) has launched an insurgency against the government in Bamako. It is believed that MNLA, made up of some 600 fighters, has been armed with sophisticated weapons acquired mainly from Libya or through the illicit arms proliferation channels that have emerged after the fall of Gaddafi’s regime in Libya… The rebellion has taken new threatening dimensions to the extent that MNLA is believed to have some territories under its control, as its fighters are well armed and better managed.”

Indeed their prediction was on point. However this coup has got me asking a lot of questions?

First, the warnings about the flow of arms from Libya to the Sahel region and warnings that this would lead to destabilisation of the region were widespread even before Gaddafi himself died and yet neither the NATO forces, the UN nor the AU Peace and Security Council took concrete steps to ensure the demilitarisation of this zone. Why was that?

Second, the irony of the coup having taken off immediately after an African Union Peace and Security Council Ministerial meeting, has got me wondering whether the African Union peace and security architecture is an effective tool for securing peace and security on the continent.

Third, the coup has got me wondering, how effective-if at all,  are Declarations by the AU such as the one it made tow days ago noting that the Sahel region is faced with multiple challenges, linked to terrorism and transnational organised crime, proliferation of weapons, illicit trafficking and latent armed conflicts. The PSC noted that these challenges were compounded by the Libyan crisis, in particular the influx of hundreds of thousands of returnees, as well as the inflow of arms and ammunition from the Libyan arsenal, which provided a source of armament to terrorist and criminal groups in the region. But why did they wait until these arms were being used to actually do something?

Fourth, how much real and tangible change do the Communiques such as the one passed by the  AU Peace and Security Council Ministerial meeting PSC/PR/COMM(CCCXI) bring to ensuring that the peace and security situation in Mali does not disintegrate further?

The coup itself is said to have been necessitated by the military’s wish to ‘defend the country’s security.’ Really? Can that be done? Can a coup restore the country’s security given Mali’s history?

A little history on Mali

  • 19 November 1968, Moussa Traoré led a bloodless coup, organised elections and subsequently became President after winning 99% of the votes.
  • Between 1979 and 1980, with Gen. Moussa Traoré in power there were 3 failed coups or coup attempts.
  • 26 March 1991, Amadou Toumani Touré led a coup together with 17 other military officers, suspended the constitution, formed a transitional committee as its head and spearheaded the move towards a civilian government.
  • 8 June 1992 Alpha Oumar Konaré won the election and became Mali’s third President
  • Today, yesterday and for an uncertain period to come as the success or failure of the coup has not been determined President Amadou Toumani Touré is being ousted by the military.

I keep wondering and never get concrete answers. The complexities of this world, the global politics, the toll on human suffering all seem like one big maze where nothing is ever what it seems. And so the ‘rats’ and ‘dogs’ in the equation remain unclear. Is it NATO? Is it the UN? Is it the AU? Is it the rebels? Is it the government of Mali? Is it the Partitioners of Africa who gathered in Berlin centuries ago? Is it the drafters of neocolonialism? Is it it just us as African peoples? How will we ever have peace in Africa?