FALL OF POLITICAL DINOSAURS

IN the wake of the fall in rapid succession of Algeria and Sudan strongmen, Abdelaziz Bouteflika and Omar al-Bashir respectively, is there hope that Africa will one day be rid of tin pot dictators responsible for reducing the continent with unsurpassed mineral riches into a basket case of destitution, poverty and disease?

Both fallen leaders were the remnants of Africa’s ugly post-colonial history that saw former liberation heroes transform into cold-blooded murderers and persecutors of their political enemies as they clung onto power past their welcome. And as fate would have it, Bouteflika and al-Bashir were toppled not by the military but by civilian insurrections that proved that people’s power was far mightier than armies and guns. In the case of Algeria, students were in the forefront of massive month-long protests while the Sudanese civilian revolution that lasted for almost four months was spearheaded by the Sudanese Professionals Association. And in both situations, the military tried to seize the moment by grabbing power once the respective presidents had been isolated but the protesters would have none of that and demanded immediate civilian rule.

About a decade ago when some of the long time dictators were brought down in what was commonly referred to as the Arab Spring, the fall of Bouteflika and al-Bashir has brought new hope that finally Africa no longer has the appetite for strongmen and dictators. However, that optimism may be misplaced if the posture of the African Union (AU) in the midst of the popular uprisings in the two countries and the ensuing interregnums is anything to go by. As usual, the AU appeared to be posturing at a time when decisive leadership was needed to explicitly throw its weight behind the peoples of Algeria and Sudan.

As I see it, the AU, which replaced the then post-colonial Organisation of African Unity (OAU) at the turn of the century, has found it difficult, if not impossible, to shed the image of its predecessor as an old boys club for being soft on despots and dictators. Instead of maligning and isolating dictators, the AU often rewards these leaders with the leadership of the continental body. A recent case in point being Rwanda’s Paul Kagame who was bequeathed the chairmanship of the AU when he should have been under censor for the atrocities he routinely visits on his political nemesis and abject record on human rights.

One of the important organs of the AU, the Commission on Human Rights, is hosted by The Gambia, a country that for decades was under dictatorship whose then leadership had outlawed political opposition and trampled on people’s human rights without being censored. If the AU had hoped to convert the leadership into human rights champions then this trust was misplaced because it did nothing to entrench a culture of respect for human rights. And how could The Gambia have censured other countries which had no respect for human rights when she was the first offender, is mystifying but goes to show African tolerance for dictatorships.

As we well-know dictatorships are birthed by a penchant by leaders putting themselves ahead of national imperatives manifested by wrong choices and decisions often leading to the collapse of their countries’ economies thus turning their populations into poverty-stricken beggars. Unlike Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, African leaders have one option and that is to get corrupted and put themselves in the Forbes list of the richest people in the world and leave their people with nothing when they should be serving their nations to put their countries in the list of the best economies in the world. Consequently, these leaders blame the sorry state of the economies of their countries, indeed Africa, on the West and former colonial powers.

While that might be so, the West and former colonial masters exploit the inherent weaknesses of the African leadership collective to further their goals. How often do we hear our leaders talk about adding value instead of shipping out raw mineral resources? Often this benefits the same leaders instead of the wealth filtering down to the people. This is the story of post-colonial Africa where often the same leaders who loot their economies lend their cash-strapped governments money to get by. Looting of their countries’ economies is probably the single cause why post-colonial Africa fell into the hands of despots and dictators. 

As I see it, African leaders should be embarrassed by the wealth and lavish lifestyles they live while  the majority of their people live in abject poverty and are susceptible to and ravaged by disease. As aptly expressed by Confucius; “In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.” The question is where does this the Kingdom of Eswatini fit in this equation especially given the backdrop that approximately 63 per cent of the population live below the international poverty datum line that in turn ranks this country among the poverty stricken nations of the world. And, declared Aristotle, poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.  

While the removal of political dinosaurs in the mould of the Bouteflikas and al-Bashirs may be a welcome break from a ruinous past this nonetheless does not alter the African political landscape since new dictators are coming to the fore through amending their national constitutions to make themselves lifetime presidents.

That is the situation in Uganda and Burundi with Egypt appearing to be on the brink of following the same well-trodden path. If and when this occurs the civilian populations cannot be said to be victims but complicit in nurturing and supporting dictatorships for as long as they remain quiet and complacent. Africa of the 21st Century deserves better than to be continuously saddled with self-serving leaders.

   

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: