Robert Mugabe saga has once again exposed the weakness of African leadership and illustrated how the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) and the African Union continue to huff and puff over the desputed elections that constitutionally removed President Mugabe from power, the pan-African body agreed to allow both parties negotiate a power-sharing deal that would allow the country’s strongman, to stay in power for another term while granting the opposition a share in runing the Harare government.
This is Africa’s democracy. Why a power-sharing government? Its supporters argue that power-sharing is the best way to maintain national unity and restore constitutionalism in Zimbabwe.
This is political hypocracy and a failure by SADC and the African Union leadership to assert their authority on Robert Mugabe.
Take, for example, the negotiations that took place in Accra to resolve the 2003 impasse in Liberia. While the men were busy with political horse-trading, the women were kept waiting outside the conference hall.
And the discussions inside were not about how to move the country forward. No, the delegates where busy arguing over how to share the spoils of the high office to which they were aspiring.
Lessons from Liberia confirm that there were two sets of power-sharing governments in Liberia in a space of 15 years that never worked. Instead, Liberia plunged further into political and economic turmoil.
Take the case of Kenya, the power-sharing government, which is now in place, is being accused of not serving the interest of the country. As soon as the legislators had the first opportunity to do their work, they immediately voted themselves huge salaries while ignoring civil servants, and teachers who had not been paid for months or who have had to subsist on below-poverty salaries.
Sierra Leone, too, toyed with the idea of establishing a power-sharing government while President Tejan Kabbah was in exile in Guinea in 1997/1998. But this was really an underhand ploy by defeated politicians to worm their way to power.
Even in Nigeria, where the democratic process has been slowly gaining ground, there was a national conference to map out a new route for politics in the country with delegates hand-picked the process will be remembered as being the most undemocratic.
The concept of power-sharing in Africa is undemocratic and is designed to offer short-term measures to supress popular desent while restoring power to clubs of political elites. After all, the electorate does not vote for the establishment of a shared government.
A power-sharing government is handpicked by a select few to benefit a a few. It is a backdoor avenue for failed and corrupt politicians to gain power. It is part of the problem of governance in Africa – that should be rejected.
The fact of all this, is that power-sharing has been the means by which Africa’s privileged politians have contrived to maintain their hegemony over the majority of the people for so long and paint Africa as being undemocratic.
I regreat not having voted in the December 27 presidential elections which technically and constitutionally succeded in removing president Mwai Kibaki from power even though today he still holds the constitution office of president by default-largely blamed on the inability of the Electoral Commission of Kenya to know who won the desputed presidential vote. The mere fact that Kibaki lost more than a half of his entire cabinet led by his then second in command Moddy Awory amounted to a people-driven vote of no confidence.
The people of Kenya had spoken and the verdit was clear that Raila Odinga of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) had won the election with a popular majority. Its this fact that has refused to go away, its the same fact that led Kenyans to face off with each other and forced Kibaki to share power with Raila Odinga. Its on this facts that neither Kibaki nor Raila are in power proper. Infact, this will be remembered as the worst presidency in Kenya’s history.
Its now a fact that ECK’s Samuel Kivuitu is bearing the brunt and has publicly called for the resignation of Mwai Kibaki and the entire parliament who as a matter of fact, are the beneficiaries of a fraudent process that was supervised by Kivuitu and for which he has been send packing. The only fact that both the findings by the Krigra report and the Waki report will be seeking to confirm is that Kenyans fell short of electing their leaders and are now being governed by an illegal, illegitimate, corrupt and blood tainted regime that is in the name of power-sharing.
This is a far cry from elections in many African countries where it is so blindingly obvious when politicians lose touch.
And this is where the opportunity for intimidation and dictatorship arises. Why should we continue claiming that we have a government in place when the open truth is that no body indeed won the elections? This is the problem with the electorial process in Africa that permits unpopular regimes to take charge despite having lost the people’s mandate to govern. Its constitutional dictatorship impossed on the people by the political elite.
Now take the case of Guinea where soldiers have grabed power from another civilian government and are facing international criticism for their undemocratic action, how do you respond to such censure?
Similarly, the renged army in Mauritania have proved that military options are acceptable where genuine democracy is threatened after they announced the release of ousted President Sidi Cheikh Abdallahi who has been under house arrest.
The failure of AU to safeguard democracy and refuse to denounce any unconstitutional changes of governments is sliding the continent further to turmoil. At a summit of the organisation’s forerunner, the Organisation of African Unity, in Lome in 2000, the continent’s leaders decided that they would not recognise military coups.
However, l remember when an AU delegation faced Col Vall in Nouakchott to read him the riot act, the soldier delivered a knockout punch. He catalogued the various violations of human rights by the Taya regime that gave rise to the coup.
This is what the AU’s report said: “The Chairman of the CMJD, while recognising that ‘to change the institutions by force is execrable,’ added: ‘We have not carried out the coup d’état against the institutions. We are rather carrying a counter coup to restore the institutions in our country.’
“These were some of the problems, which confirmed the danger in which the country was sinking. Faced with this impasse, there was only one alternative: allow the authoritarian drift to take root and head for civil war or opt for change.
The armed and security forces, unanimously effected the change, convinced that it was the expectation of the Mauritanian people. As if to convince himself, the Chairman of the CMJD added: ‘You are free to meet all those with whom you want to discuss, they will confirm [this] to you.’”
Indeed, when the delegation met civil society groups, the organisation was lambasted for turning a blind eye to the excesses of the ousted regime and for daring to claim the moral high ground. The AU reported that “the Mauritanian Bar supported the change because it was the expression of the people’s will and that of the civil society”.
And “because the programme put forward by the CMJD met the aspirations of the Mauritanian people”. The lawyers took the delegation to task for “the passive attitude of the OAU/AU to the sufferings of the Mauritanian people”. This was the tone of the other meetings. The report noted that “the condemnation by the AU [of the coup], judged by some as an insult to the Mauritanian people, was the subject of most vitriolic criticisms. The reference to the painful times which marked the political history of Mauritania and the drift of the former regime described by almost all the speakers confirmed the unanimous legitimacy of the use of force, which some called “the coup d’etat of recovery ”.
It was not surprising that after this major setback, the AU delegation recommended that the military be allowed to stay on in power. After all, according to the report, the coup was “peaceful”. So it is obvious that if a coup is “peaceful” and civil society accepts the military rulers, an unconstitutional change of government will be allowed to stand.
However, a more important lesson has been learned from the Mauritania-AU encounter: that is, African leaders are only out to look after their own interests. It is obvious that not all “democratically-elected” governments abide by the rule of law. But when the OAU came up with its unconstitutional change of government declaration, the continent’s leaders were thinking only of their own security.
