Africa News blog

Will 2012 see more strong men of Africa leave office?

By Isaac Esipisu

There are many reasons for being angry with Africa ’s strong men, whose autocratic ways have thrust some African countries back into the eye of the storm and threatened to undo the democratic gains in other parts of the continent of the past decades.

For those who made ultimate political capital from opposing strongman rule in their respective countries, it is a chilling commentary of African politics that several leaders now seek to cement their places and refusing to retire and watch the upcoming elections from the sidelines, or refusing to hand over power after losing presidential elections.

In 2012 one of the longest strong men of Africa, President Abdoulaye Wade’s country Senegal is holding its presidential elections together with other countries like Sierra Leon, Mali, Mauritania, Malagasy, and will be shortly followed by Zimbabwe and Kenya.

Yoweri Museveni and Paul Biya of Cameroon , who are among the longest-ruling leaders of the Africa , won their respective presidential elections and continue to have a stronghold on their respective countries, albeit with charges raised of serious election malpractice. Eduardo Dos Santos of Angola, Denis Sassou Nguesso of Congo Republic and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe will in one or two years face the electorate in an effort to further cement their authoritarian leadership.

What happened in the second half of 2011 in North Africa and more specifically in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya does not seem to have had any kind of effect on other Sub-Saharan African Leaders.  In fact, they have strengthened their stronghold on power and in some countries even harassed and jailed opposition leaders.

Lessons learnt from Ivory Coast

TV images of an incredulous Laurent Gbagbo being forcibly evicted from power this week by United Nations- and French-backed Ivorian soldiers send an unequivocal message to other leaders across the continent: outstay your welcome and it could be you next.

Monday’s storming of his Abidjan residence by troops loyal to Alassane Ouattara – whom the rest of the world months ago recognised as winner of the Nov. 28 election – came after Gbagbo was disowned by even his closest African peers.

So the lesson learnt is, as one U.S. official put it early on in the crisis, that the era of stealing elections in Africa is over?

Unfortunately not quite.

While Gbagbo’s fate will no doubt dissuade leaders from being caught red-handed in the act of election theft, some will be drawing up a more cynical “lessons learnt” list along the lines that follow:

Lesson 1: Don’t even entertain the prospect of elections unless you are sure – absolutely sure – of victory. Gbagbo’s mistake was to think that supporters of Henri Konan Bedie would rally to him in the second round. They didn’t. If you’re not certain of victory, best to delay the elections citing technical problems. 

Lesson 2: If you get a heads-up that the result is not going your way, don’t let it get out. To be fair, Gbagbo allies did their best in this department, even snatching the results from the hands of the election commission official who was reading them out. However they were caught unawares shortly afterwards when the commission chief then walked unscheduled into a media-packed hotel and gave news of Ouattara’s eight-point victory to bemused journalists. From then on, the cat was out of the bag.

Are “African Solutions” right for the continent’s democracy push?

“This is an African solution to an African problem,” was African Union chief Jean Ping’s reasoning for another round of negotiations to resolve Ivory Coast’s bitter leadership dispute.

Regional leaders and the outside world had been uncharacteristically swift to condemn Laurent Gbagbo’s bid to cling onto power. The AU itself wasted little time suspending the West African nation from the bloc.

Gbagbo lost the presidential election in November last year, according to U.N. certified results, but he has refused to hand over power to rival Alassane Ouattara, citing fraud.

That has left regional powers, the AU and the United Nations all up against the same problem: how to convince Gbagbo to exit gracefully?

Ouattara’s camp have called for a military intervention. But talk of a military option opened up divisions within the AU.

Uganda votes: Fighting talk

Ugandans love to talk. And, unlike in some other African countries, few people are afraid to be heard talking politics. Cafes and bars in Kampala and elsewhere hum to the sound of politicians being loudly verbally skewered.

The politicos themselves are not much different. Rhetoric is being ratcheted up ahead of elections on February 18.  And the opposition are not holding back.

Kizza Besigye, the only man with any chance of unseating 25-year President Yoweri Museveni, is leading the charge with predictions of Tunisia and Egypt-inspired public protests should his party, for the third time in a row, say an election has been rigged.

“In our case it’s even more likely that we can get chaos because remember, no leader of our country has ever handed over power peacefully to another leader,” he told Reuters in an interview when asked if Uganda could follow the examples set in North Africa.

“Every president of Uganda has been bombed out of office. As long as there is repression that is sustained for a long time, that pent up anger builds and at some point explodes.”

Uganda is, he has since said, a “ruthless dictatorship.”

Strong stuff, indeed.

One step forward, a few steps back

One of the few positives of Sudan’s elections, dubbed to be the first open vote in 24 years but marred by opposition boycotts and accusations of fraud, was a tiny opening of democratic freedom in Africa’s largest country.

Direct press censorship was lifted from Sudan’s papers and opposition politicians were given an albeit limited platform to address the population through state media.

Still, it seemed for the biggest international observer missions, such as the Carter Center and the European Union, the best they could say about the elections was 1): That they happened and 2): That people were not killing each other for once in this nation devastated by decades of multiple civil wars. (At least not because of the vote anyway).

They all agreed that the crack of democracy opened during the polls must be allowed to continue. And more progressive members of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir’s ruling party agreed. Presidential Adviser Ghazi Salaheddin told me he did not think they could go back on the democratic gains.

But it seems just one month after the vote, Sudan is sliding back to its old ways.

In Darfur, where Bashir is accused by the International Criminal Court of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the Sudanese army took control of West Darfur’s Jabel Moun – which has been a key rebel stronghold pretty much since the conflict began in 2003.

It’s an impressive range of hills making it an ideal base to defend against attack. It’s also an area where the U.N.-African Union peacekeeping mission (UNAMID) has enjoyed little access because of almost constant military clashes and bombing.

Yar’Adua death leaves succession wide open

The death of Nigerian President Umaru Yar’Adua is unlikely to plunge Africa’s most populous state into crisis, but it intensifies what was already shaping up to be the fiercest succession race since the end of military rule.

Yar’Adua has been absent from the political scene since last November, when he left for medical treatment in Saudi Arabia, and his deputy Goodluck Jonathan has been running the country since February and has since consolidated his position.

Yar’Adua’s death now piles pressure on the powerbrokers in the ruling People’s Democratic Party to resolve the impasse over who should succeed him.

According to the party’s constitution, power should rotate between Nigeria’s geographical zones, and there is an unwritten agreement that the presidency should alternate between the Muslim north and Christian south every two terms.

The conventional thinking was that should Yar’Adua — a northerner — die during his first term, as has happened, Jonathan — a southerner — would pick a new northern vice president and the pair would finish the unexpired term.

That northern vice president would then stand as the ruling party’s presidential nominee in the next election.

A string of northern names has been bandied around in the media and by political analysts as possible candidates to serve with Jonathan and then run at the next election.

One step forward. How many back?

Sudan has witnessed the end of what was supposed to be a historic event.

 The first multi-party polls in almost quarter of a century to elect leaders on all levels, including the presidency held by Omar Hassan al-Bashir for 21 years.

But far from joy in the streets or pride in a job well done, there was just a sigh of relief.

Most people’s eyes were on Bashir’s National Congress Party in the north, who were accused of rigging the elections before the five-day vote even began.

But the elections were also a key test of the democratic credentials of the semi-autonomous south, which may become Africa’s newest country in a few months with a referendum on secession.

It’s not clear it passed.

The voting was without major violence, except for hazy reports of the killing of at least five of Bashir’s ruling party officials in the remote south, details of which are yet to be confirmed. In the heavily armed south this relative lack of violence was a major feat.  

When is an election boycott not an election boycott?

When it takes place in Sudan.

Preparations for Sudan’s general elections — due to start tomorrow — were thrown into confusion over the past two weeks as opposition parties issued contradictory statements over whether they were boycotting the polls.

Some announced a total withdrawal, protesting against fraud and unrest in Darfur, only to change their minds days later. Others pulled out from parts of the elections — presidential, parliamentary and gubernatorial votes are taking place at the same time — then changed their minds days later. Others left it up to individual candidates to decide.

Even a day ahead of voting in the divided oil-producing state, serious questions remain.

These confusions are more than mere technicalities.

They will hinder the ability of Sudanese voters to make clear choices when they start queuing up for their first multi-party elections in 24 years.

They could also fuel legal challenges to the results when they are finally announced later this month, stoking tensions in a country already weighed down by ethnic divisions and conflict.

To observe or not to observe?

This is likely to be the question hotly debated in the more self-aware international observer missions covering Sudan’s elections, due to start on Sunday and marred by a wave of boycotts and claims of fraud.

Sudan’s first multi-party polls in almost quarter of a century had promised to be fiercely contested until revelations of irregularities caused boycotts by several parties.

The two largest parties and incumbent President Omar Hassan al-Bashir’s only real two contenders both withdrew, saying the ruling party had fixed the polls.

As evidence of fraud continued to emerge, the use of government presses to print presidential and gubernatorial ballot papers, and voter registration books was the final straw. The boycotts have raised serious questions about the credibility of the presidential polls especially.

Bashir, wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, had hoped to win legitimately, in defiance of the warrant.

This week Sudanese civil society groups asked the international observer missions from the Arab League, African Union, China, Japan and the European Union among others to leave, saying they served only to legitimize a flawed election.

They all arrived in time to observe the voting and counting, while the Sudanese activists said the major fraud began with a flawed 2008 census, demarcating the constituencies followed by the voter registration last year. 

A new dawn for Sudanese press freedom?

Hosting a rare debate between Sudan’s much-maligned National Elections Commission (NEC) and opposition parties, the privately owned Blue Nile television was taking a risk broadcasting live to the nation.

In a country where, ahead of April’s first multi-party elections in 24 years, party political broadcasts are pre-recorded and censored, the evening promised to be fun.

As the NEC sat on stage in a hall full of opposition politicians, most of whom accuse the NEC of bias towards the ruling National Congress Party, the panel began a long explanation of the history of the elections and the preceding census.   After 15 minutes, nerves began to fray.    Even the five-second delay in transmission was not enough to cover up a walk-out sparked by the last democratically elected Prime Minister’s daughter, Mariam al-Mahdi, as it became clear the “debate” was more of a lecture.

After semi-whispered discussions, the other main opposition parties followed her lead, leaving a lonely few government employees, independent candidates and other stragglers to fill up the empty seats up front.

The “debate” was somewhat derailed by the walk-out and the raised voices outside the hall as organisers frantically tried to rescue the programme.

“They are not serious,” al-Mahdi, from the opposition Umma Party, complained as she stormed out of the building.