|
Is it the beginning of greater commitment to lasting democracy in Africa or the deepening of hypocrisy?
2008-07-21 08:57:14
By Felix G.N. Mosha
In a recent visit to my former dentist in New York to attend to an emergency tooth problem (she had been my dentist for over 20 years from the time I started at the UN in New York), the first question she asked me (incidentally she is in her early 70s) was ``What is this thing about Mugabi.`` I then told her that the name is actually Robert Mugabe.
``Whatever the name,`` she shouted back, ``he should get the hell out of there.`` Her reaction pretty much represented a prevailing international position and shows the extent or the success to which Robert Mugabe has now been demonised.
The purpose of this article is not to support Robert Mugabe. Rather, to look into the circumstances in which Mugabe has been singled out for demonisation.
The real question is why just Mugabe. By now, we should have had quite a few on the line.
Is it possible that from now on, African leaders will ensure full compliance to democratic standards in every election in an African country?
In the same vain, will non-African countries particularly the USA and the EU demonstrate in future similar commitment and concerns to elections in other African countries, as they have shown on Zimbabwe; or is there a danger that after Mugabe, Africa and its development partners will revert to another era of selective condemnation?
Finally, what are the lessons, which Africa and the rest of the world draw from the Zimbabwe experience?
The case against Robert Mugabe is not just that his policies have achieved exactly the opposite effect by ruining Zimbabwe`s economy and imposing terrible suffering on his people, but that he ``cheated`` in the 2004 Presidential elections in order to remain in power as the country evolved more and more toward economic collapse.
No factual figures were given as to the extent of his alleged ``cheating.`` We may never get to know the facts.
But clearly, the elections had been held against a background of considerable suppression and intimidation of the activities of the Opposition, particularly, the Movement for Democratic Change under Morgan Tsvangarai.
But it is the second election of March 2008 that positions within and outside Zimbabwe have moved from being confusing to truly absurd.
First, the Opposition in a ``Winner takes All Seats than Mugabe`s ZANU - PF.`` It is inconceivable that the latter could not have ``cheated`` or rigged in order to give the Opposition more seats.
However, the major area of contention was on the Presidential votes.
Again, a greater percentage of the electorate reportedly gave its votes to the MDC candidate Morgan Tsvangarai that enabled him to pull ahead of Robert Mugabe, but reportedly, fell short of an outright majority that is required to avoid a run-off.
MDC claimed victory and the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission said - though rather belatedly, it is not true and that a run-off had to take place.
The claim that the Opposition should have won the Presidency the same way it won a Parliamentary majority has been dismissed by some analysts on the grounds that the Opposition voters were divided among the three Presidential candidates Robert Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangirai and Simba Makoni; unlike on the Parliamentary candidates where the electorate was divided between two groups only.
Again, if at all there had been ``cheating`` it is not clear why Mugabe`s government would not have ``cheated`` sufficiently for his outright victory so as to avoid the mess they clearly knew would be associated with the run-off election? We may never get to know the truth.
As expected, the Presidential run-off of 26th June following Morgan Tsvangirai`s withdrawal and the reported violence, intimidations and unspecified death toll, became a disaster, and much of the world is up in arms.
The initiative for a United Nations Security Council Resolution by the G8 that the UK and USA finally circulated at the UN Security Council is unprecedented.
Some selective sanctions against Zimbabwe and the Mugabe leadership in particular are already in place by a group of countries.
But what has been happening in Zimbabwe is not significantly different from the events associated with elections in many countries, including a number of the former Soviet Republics or even recently Mongolia, not to mention the current situation in Myanmar (Burma).
In the recent elections in Mongolia, a nation of a people, who by any standards had always been docile, the Opposition Party claimed victory; and, the governing party which is still communist except the name, also claimed victory - saying that it was in fact the Winner!
Violence and physical fighting descended into the streets.
At least five people were officially reported to have been killed. A State of Emergency was declared. Thank goodness, Robert Mugabe wasn`t involved.
Otherwise, the whole world wouldn`t have kept so quite - because if it had involved Mugabe, some kind of Head of State Summit might have been hurriedly convened and a circulation of a Draft UN Security Council Resolution immediately initiated!
In Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi`s party - The National League for Democracy (NLD) won a land slide victory in the country`s elections in 1990.
Not only that the military Junta declined to hand over power to her, but it alternately put her in prison or detention prior and after that election to the present.
Recent ``Cyclone Nargis`` killed more than 140,000 people and misplaced more than 2 million.
The Junta was not just reluctant to get help for its people, but actually delayed the help.
In a suppression of opposition protest in 2007 it killed at least 13 people and has continued to raid homes and monasteries.
Even if Robert Mugabe has committed all what he is claimed to have committed, his actions clearly pale in comparison to the Junta in Burma.
True, the US and EU have maintained some selective sanctions against the Junta.
But there has been no UN Security Council Resolution banning the Burmese leadership the way it is doing for Zimbabwe.
But more importantly, aside from these similar situations in some other countries in the world, with very few exceptions, violence, irregularities and disorganized elections under conditions that do not adhere to free and fair elections, has been very common in elections in African countries.
But only in Zimbabwe have attempts been made to raise issues at the Security Council level.
Start with Egypt, where the AU had Mugabe on the carpet. One may recall that when former US Secretary of State Gen.
Colin Powel took the so called democratic initiative to the Middle East, Egypt was the first to warn that the US had misread conditions for democracy in the Middle East.
Needless to say, the idea didn`t get anywhere.
Egypt itself has always been characterised by pre-and-post election problems very often involving arrest and detention of opposition leaders.
Over the years, Egypt has found it necessary to ban a major political group (the Moslem Brotherhood) from participating in elections at all - for perhaps understandable security reasons.
Put differently, whatever the merits to its security, and may well be real, which has made Egypt to exclude some groups in the electoral process, the fact remains that it has not been possible for the country to conduct a free and fair elections of the type the leaders at Egypt`s Sham El Shelk were calling for Zimbabwe.
In Algeria, the Islamist Party was widely believed to have won the elections, but the government of the day, did not hand over power to that Party.
It is often stated - wrongly, that the Algerian government cancelled the elections.
No. The elections took place and there has never been a credible denial that the Islamist Party was leading.
But the government, acting in accordance with what it considered to be in the vital security and stability interest of its State, decided otherwise.
True, the OAU then operated under extremely restrictive conditions, and there is nothing it was able to say or do, beyond standing with a government of a member state - and a key one for that matter.
But the non-African countries that have been on the fore front in Mugabe`s condemnation, and Security Council action, quietly accepted the reality of the Algerian situation and went on with business as usual.
Of course, Algeria subsequently achieved a measure of democratic elections.
But its problems and rightly so become a Security Council issue.
The current President of Madagascar Marc Ravalomanana settled the electoral dispute in a virtual civil war in which his predecessor Didia Rastiraka lost out in the fight and fled the country leaving Ravalomanana to climb to the presidency.
True, some kind of Judicial Commission came up with figures (much the same way as the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission had done) indicating that Ravalomanana had led in the disputed counting of the votes.
But this happened at a time the two sides were still fighting it out, with each claiming that it had won.
The fact remains that if Rastiraka had won in the military confrontation, he would have retained the Presidency and, Africa and the rest of the world would have accepted him in the same manner in which Ravalomanana has been accepted.
In fact, after the military showdown, far from a talk of any legitimacy, Madagascar was given a lot of aid to help it get on its feet.
In Congo Brazzaville, President Dennis Sassou Nguesso disputed the results of the May 1993 elections in which the then President of the country Prof. Pascal Lissouba was declared the winner.
Endless tension and violent clashes continued between the Lissouba and the Sossou Nguesso Camp who, after stepping down from the Presidency had, in fact, retained his own militia force.
The runner-up to the Presidential elections that were scheduled from 1997 was marked by so much tension and violence that armed conflict erupted between the two camps, which destroyed much of Brazzaville before the Angolan troops moved in to support Sassou Nguesso and the Lisouba forces were defeated.
In the elections, which Sassou Nguesso organised in March 2002 (Lisouba and his Prime Minister Collealas having been tried in absentia and convicted in 2001) he (Sassou Nguesso) was declared the winner.
Not only that the legitimacy of Sassou Nguesso was not questioned, rather, he proceeded to become the Chairman of the African Union.
One should perhaps add that Congo Brazzaville is an oil producer.
Kenya is the most dramatic case where tragically, an election became a disaster.
The opposition, Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) said it won.
The government Party of National Unity said it is actually the one that won.
Its President Mwai Kibaki was then sworn-in hurriedly at night; unlike Robert Mugabe who was sworn-in not at night, but during day-time - otherwise, had he been sworn-in at night, the anger that has been orchestrated against him would have reached a boiling point.
The most interesting aspect )of what was clearly a terrible tragedy in Kenya), is that few within and outside Africa disputed that there was massive and wide spread rigging in Kenya`s election, and the consensus was that ODM actually won the elections.
The death toll and internally displaced were terribly high.
But, and perhaps rightly so, no source of any consequence, in or outside Africa embarked on the demonisation of Kenya`s Mwai Kibaki - much less a talk of UN Security Council Sanctions - the way they are dealing with Robert Mugabe.
Then, another group of leadership the Clinton Administration had referred to as the Stars of Africa.
These were President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, President Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, President Yesias Afrework of Eritrea and President Paul Kagame of Rwanda.
Africa and the rest of the world disregarded the path i.e. bloody civil war through which each of these leaders (some exception must be made of Kagame) had come to power.
This was disregarded because of the troubled past of the respective countries each of them had individually inherited.
However, the expectation, of both Africans and non-Africans was that each of these leaders would usher in a lasting era of democracy in their countries.
What can one say has been the record of ``these Bright Stars`` - in the context of elections, let alone the complex aspects of statehood in which perhaps only Rwanda appears to have overcome its trouble past?
In Uganda, there were no multi-party elections for some 15 years.
Not for lack of the existence of political parties or their willingness to participate; rather, because these parties were not allowed to compete in the electoral process as individual political parties.
In effect, the elections that had taken place in Uganda then cannot be said to have been free and fair.
Fortunately, the situation changed, and multi-party elections were allowed.
But the last two elections in Uganda were characterized by claims of intimidation of the Opposition Parties and marred with irregularities.
Immediately after the first multi-party elections, Dr. Besigye fled the country and ran for his life.
In the second and most recent elections, there was so much intimidation and frequent arrest of the opposition leader that it was doubtful he would be made available to participate in the elections because, at one time the Uganda High Court ordered his release, and Uganda`s para-military re-arrested him out side the High Court.
Needless to add, that Africa and the world simply ignored claims by the oppositions that there had been serious election irregularities and rigging and accepted the situation.
Ethiopia, for a long time did not have a real multi-party election.
When that finally came - in their last elections, at least 45 people (opposition parties` claim the number was twice or more) were officially reported killed in street clashes in Addis Ababa following claims and counter claims by the opposition parties and the governing party that each won the elections.
Obviously, both could not have been right. At any rate, massive arrests and court cases involving treason charges followed the violent street clashes. Opposition leaders claimed that the charges were framed.
All the same, some of the leaders were convicted, others were released, but the electoral dispute has persisted.
Africa and the rest of the world accepted Ethiopia`s official version of events and Prime Minister Meles Zenawi proceeded to form a government that did not include the opposition.
In Eritrea, some of the leaders who fought alongside President Yesais Afrework in their country`s war of liberation and subsequently called for changes through democratic elections in their country were arrested and many still be in prison.
Others fled the country and ran into exile for their lives.
Africa and the rest of the world have accepted the situation in Eritrea or the version of events as presented by its government.
In Rwanda, after suffering the tragic pain of the genocide, they succeeded to organise elections earlier than most observers would have assumed. All the same, the Opposition claimed foul.
In the end, some Opposition contenders (though not of the same standing - in terms of the level of support - as MDC in Zimbabwe), withdrew from the elections.
Indeed, the electoral tension and dispute is believed to have evolved into the arrest and the subsequent conviction on treason charges of Rwanda\'s former President Bizimungu.
Throughout the claims and counter claims that took place prior to and after Rwanda`s election, Africa and the rest of the world had to settle for the official version of the government and encouraged Rwandese leadership to continue with their building of national reconciliation and stability.
More and more cases can be cited on Africa. In countries like Central African Republic (CAR), the Sudan, Chad, Guinea Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, and to a lesser extent Cameroon and Togo, the world rarely follows or even takes interest in the chaotic nature of their elections, and very often, settle for the results the governing parties i.e. those in power say are the results!
It should be pointed out that nothing that has been said above makes Robert Mugabe right.
The mistake of others cannot be construed as having made his actions correct.
And for all his extraordinary intellect and heroism, he has clearly made some serious errors of judgment.
He has looked at the world the way he would like it to be; rather than the way it is.
He needed to have recognised that to reduce the suffering of his people, even when he may have felt he is right, he should have found a way of working with those whom he clearly knew are capable of destroying his economy.
Other leaders usually accommodate such realities - not because they like it, but because the bottom line is the survival and progress for their people.
But even when allowance is given to these considerations, there must be some reasons why he has been singled out by the international community, in particular some specific countries in the West.
Continues tomorrow
Felix G.N. Mosha worked for the United Nations for almost a quarter of a century during which he also served as an aide to General Olusegun Obasanjo; a UN Advisor and Envoy to the late Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere on the Burundi Peace Negotiations; and, a Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Somalia.
(This article was originally published by THIS DAY)
|
