Opinion / Columnist
In 2015 is Africa zeroing on dismal failure?
18 Jun 2015 at 05:01hrs | Views
The African Union (AU) meetings that were held in South Africa (11-14 June 2015) have implicitly highlighted on two important historical political decisions which, for a foreseeable future will support Africa's lack of coherence and agreement as failure to respecting neither human rights nor constitutional tenets in the supremacy of the rule of law. On another hand the failure in complying with the rule of law by the AU expressing disagreement on whether or not to hold President Bashir of Sudan in South Africa is in part an ugly admission to Africa failure on upholding democratic processes.
No one can for certainty say that Africa disagrees on the role of International Criminal Court (ICC) except when it comes to arresting and putting to trial the African leaders. Irrespective of the fact that many of such leaders have fallen out of favour with majority of the citizens in their countries, military threats and force over masses has carried the order of poor governance in many African states. An impression has remained painted in the minds of international communities that these tyrants have support of citizens in their countries.
Regardless that African scholars are on record condemning the failure of rule of law on the continent on leadership styles than on tradition and culture, no audience to this scholarly view has seriously merited the support from either United Nations or the African union. A theory also propounded by those who regard Africa a vessel of poor political culture nursed on lack of appreciating rule of law as a concept based on freedom whose tenets rests on the morality of the separation of power is failing to finding acceptance by nationalist leaders on the continent.
Checks and balances between the Executives, the Legislature and Judiciary, founded on the supremacy of the constitution have been denigrated by people like President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, now Chairman of the Organization , casting doubt on the need for constitutional succession based on terms of office for presidency on the continent. While President R G Mugabe lacks credibility on failure to comply with constitutional terms of office in his country, his term of office as Chairman of the AU will receive support from sitting presidents and upcoming dictators since he urges for dictatorship rein behind discrediting of constitutional terms of office for presidency on the continent.
With Burundi president Pierre Nkurunziza aspiring to overthrowing the constitution to extend his office beyond limits stipulated, Mugabe remarks on presidential terms are unwise and a flying of executives in the face of law. Exceeding more than two-five years terms as advocated by President Mugabe is deliberately selfish to justify his overstaying in power in Zimbabwe. On face value though and to many Africans it is likely to be understood as though Mugabe has a burden to see democracy thrive by rejecting attempts of imperial western powers imposition of colonial constitutional presidential terms on Africa.
Invariably President Mugabe is morally a wrong person to preside on the delicacy of establishing the will of the people through constitutional terms of office. Having stayed and rigged elections in Zimbabwe to retain power for the last thirty six years makes him ineligible to pass an impartial opinion on the matter. Africa faces great political dilemma and in that even though condemnation of dictatorship is relevant and a growing requirement among the generality of people on the continent; there is limited political will power among leadership to condemn and arrest dictatorship. Instead there is much report of tyrants dying while those still in power appearing as though they are reviving the Pan African spirit
The first precedent at the 25 AU Sessions in South Africa was that African agenda on tyranny and dictatorship remained a talking point only. There is fear growing among African leaders when it comes to accusing one another on matters of poor governance. The legal position on the constitutional terms of presidential office remains in the balance since indications for the future are for removing this constitutional caveat on the continent.
The possibility in President RG Mugabe using arbitrary authority now that he has mandate over Africa and pass AU by-law prohibiting countries to take to task presidential candidates who wish to extend their terms in office is greater now since there are many silent rulers who are equally zealous to extent their terms in office. Would it be ingenuous to argue that as a transition Africa is falsely longing for a traditional political system whose norms and values are to justify her dictatorial and therefore anti-democratic processes in institutionalizing tyranny on the continent?
Is 2015 witnessing Africa retrogressing and therefore going back to tradition through the back door? Back door in the sense that here both objectivity in choosing a candidate and subjectivity in taking traditional values of chieftains are seen interwoven to suite a backward system for the 21st century. Objectivity is when it is assumed the presidential candidates will have a story of qualification and history of accomplishments while the traditional route will be that once elected the candidate risk staying in power for a life term like the British monarch?
Experience has proven that such tendencies breed monarchical behaviours that cut short the road to an electoral democracy of one man one vote on choosing of leaders aimed at transitioning Africa away from tribes and tribal wars. While these centrifugal forces exist they are employed at the mercy of tyrants to justify the stay of their tribes in control of means of production as well as political power. African history is on kingdoms from Ghana to Southern Africa-the Ashanti, Kambaka, Zulu Lobengula-Tshaka and Munhumutapa kingdoms siting only few out of many kingdoms.
The ascension from kingdoms to state government while it was not by negotiation and agreement among the African kingdoms has worked well towards the ideal of African Union. The intra-conflict tendencies from the imposition of the western style of government, no doubt contributed more good than negatives but was improperly harnessed by reluctant nationalists who wanted to enjoy both the traditional and modern style of presiding over kingdoms at national levels with overriding authority without however the knowhow to transcend tribal barriers into unity as the case with Julius K Nyerere of Tanzania.
In this context Africa can be viewed as one with weirdest philosophies based on the obsession that the post-colonial influence of the west is to recolonize Africa again even though this argument is short down when considered nationalists made this political claim mainly to justify their ban and persecution on individuals engaged into opposition politics on the continent. Despite that in the last fifty two (52) years of AU formation multiple military coups have been staged on the continent reversing the gains of democracy and electoral processes, African leadership argue against the need to identify corruption and human rights abuse among its ranks of leadership by ICC as racial and to justify fulfilling the objectives stated earlier above.
The claim is that the west is advancing racism. By arresting African leadership against the best judgement of citizens of African who chose them into office they belittle sovereignty of Africa into colonial days when they governed Africa. The argument is fought with danger since time and again either military coups or civil insurrections are militarily quelled to maintain tyrants in power by force of arms with many civilians dying.
The second act of presumption during the AU meetings in South Africa is a deep seated dislike of ICC in the hearts of many African leaders. That ICC is a European social profit organization with its origins and head office in Europe, even though its values are supported by most of the African Countries (34) of whom are signatories to its formation charter, her pursuit to litigate on poor leadership on the continent is misconstrued as racism.
The attempt to have Africa run her court of justice indeed is a welcome development although cases such as the failure to uphold the SADC Namibian housed land tribunal ruling on Zimbabwe land issue by Zimbabwean authorities undermines the effectiveness of anything set up on the African soil. The talk on Judicial court on Africa to try miscarriage of justice on countries promises that many decisions by AU Judicial court will remain on file and never upheld. There is nothing as threatening to African future on Union and good governance like the lack of political will on upholding technical decisions made by institutions set up by the AU or SADC.
The fact that South African courts upheld ICC decision is good irrespective of the fact that Africa gathering failed to respect rule of law. The puzzle in this behaviour lies in why Africa watches citizens butchered by their leadership in self-preservation acts so nakedly full of cult veneration and personal glory on individualism than upholding the constitution? This is where contention arises and works strongly against the failure by Africa to uphold law in favour of putting claims historically backed as negative and racist.
When President Bashir of Sudan north was smuggled out of South Africa in fear of court ruling pending on his arrest, the moral courage of South African judiciary should be complemented by all well-meaning citizens of the continent. We need that moral courage to uphold what is right irrespective of how we may not prefer it politically. As correctly observed by lawyer's fraternity in South Africa, after all we are all members of the United Nations and the ICC, why not observe the law and cooperate.
If African leadership are bending on setting wrong precedence based on their fear of guilty do they think that citizens of Africa will keep watching them getting away with this flagrant flight in the face of international law?
Alternatively the African communities need arise to contribute strongly on change so as to influence leadership away from schoolboy mentality of skipping the headmaster punishment-ICC and African leadership. Time is come for empirical research to prove case by case if ICC was created to police Africa only or is it a defense mechanism exaggerated and now undermining even African countries' internal judiciary systems therefore creating lack of transparency in governance.
--------------------
Andrew Manyevere <zimbopoitics@gmail.com
No one can for certainty say that Africa disagrees on the role of International Criminal Court (ICC) except when it comes to arresting and putting to trial the African leaders. Irrespective of the fact that many of such leaders have fallen out of favour with majority of the citizens in their countries, military threats and force over masses has carried the order of poor governance in many African states. An impression has remained painted in the minds of international communities that these tyrants have support of citizens in their countries.
Regardless that African scholars are on record condemning the failure of rule of law on the continent on leadership styles than on tradition and culture, no audience to this scholarly view has seriously merited the support from either United Nations or the African union. A theory also propounded by those who regard Africa a vessel of poor political culture nursed on lack of appreciating rule of law as a concept based on freedom whose tenets rests on the morality of the separation of power is failing to finding acceptance by nationalist leaders on the continent.
Checks and balances between the Executives, the Legislature and Judiciary, founded on the supremacy of the constitution have been denigrated by people like President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, now Chairman of the Organization , casting doubt on the need for constitutional succession based on terms of office for presidency on the continent. While President R G Mugabe lacks credibility on failure to comply with constitutional terms of office in his country, his term of office as Chairman of the AU will receive support from sitting presidents and upcoming dictators since he urges for dictatorship rein behind discrediting of constitutional terms of office for presidency on the continent.
With Burundi president Pierre Nkurunziza aspiring to overthrowing the constitution to extend his office beyond limits stipulated, Mugabe remarks on presidential terms are unwise and a flying of executives in the face of law. Exceeding more than two-five years terms as advocated by President Mugabe is deliberately selfish to justify his overstaying in power in Zimbabwe. On face value though and to many Africans it is likely to be understood as though Mugabe has a burden to see democracy thrive by rejecting attempts of imperial western powers imposition of colonial constitutional presidential terms on Africa.
Invariably President Mugabe is morally a wrong person to preside on the delicacy of establishing the will of the people through constitutional terms of office. Having stayed and rigged elections in Zimbabwe to retain power for the last thirty six years makes him ineligible to pass an impartial opinion on the matter. Africa faces great political dilemma and in that even though condemnation of dictatorship is relevant and a growing requirement among the generality of people on the continent; there is limited political will power among leadership to condemn and arrest dictatorship. Instead there is much report of tyrants dying while those still in power appearing as though they are reviving the Pan African spirit
The first precedent at the 25 AU Sessions in South Africa was that African agenda on tyranny and dictatorship remained a talking point only. There is fear growing among African leaders when it comes to accusing one another on matters of poor governance. The legal position on the constitutional terms of presidential office remains in the balance since indications for the future are for removing this constitutional caveat on the continent.
The possibility in President RG Mugabe using arbitrary authority now that he has mandate over Africa and pass AU by-law prohibiting countries to take to task presidential candidates who wish to extend their terms in office is greater now since there are many silent rulers who are equally zealous to extent their terms in office. Would it be ingenuous to argue that as a transition Africa is falsely longing for a traditional political system whose norms and values are to justify her dictatorial and therefore anti-democratic processes in institutionalizing tyranny on the continent?
Is 2015 witnessing Africa retrogressing and therefore going back to tradition through the back door? Back door in the sense that here both objectivity in choosing a candidate and subjectivity in taking traditional values of chieftains are seen interwoven to suite a backward system for the 21st century. Objectivity is when it is assumed the presidential candidates will have a story of qualification and history of accomplishments while the traditional route will be that once elected the candidate risk staying in power for a life term like the British monarch?
The ascension from kingdoms to state government while it was not by negotiation and agreement among the African kingdoms has worked well towards the ideal of African Union. The intra-conflict tendencies from the imposition of the western style of government, no doubt contributed more good than negatives but was improperly harnessed by reluctant nationalists who wanted to enjoy both the traditional and modern style of presiding over kingdoms at national levels with overriding authority without however the knowhow to transcend tribal barriers into unity as the case with Julius K Nyerere of Tanzania.
In this context Africa can be viewed as one with weirdest philosophies based on the obsession that the post-colonial influence of the west is to recolonize Africa again even though this argument is short down when considered nationalists made this political claim mainly to justify their ban and persecution on individuals engaged into opposition politics on the continent. Despite that in the last fifty two (52) years of AU formation multiple military coups have been staged on the continent reversing the gains of democracy and electoral processes, African leadership argue against the need to identify corruption and human rights abuse among its ranks of leadership by ICC as racial and to justify fulfilling the objectives stated earlier above.
The claim is that the west is advancing racism. By arresting African leadership against the best judgement of citizens of African who chose them into office they belittle sovereignty of Africa into colonial days when they governed Africa. The argument is fought with danger since time and again either military coups or civil insurrections are militarily quelled to maintain tyrants in power by force of arms with many civilians dying.
The second act of presumption during the AU meetings in South Africa is a deep seated dislike of ICC in the hearts of many African leaders. That ICC is a European social profit organization with its origins and head office in Europe, even though its values are supported by most of the African Countries (34) of whom are signatories to its formation charter, her pursuit to litigate on poor leadership on the continent is misconstrued as racism.
The attempt to have Africa run her court of justice indeed is a welcome development although cases such as the failure to uphold the SADC Namibian housed land tribunal ruling on Zimbabwe land issue by Zimbabwean authorities undermines the effectiveness of anything set up on the African soil. The talk on Judicial court on Africa to try miscarriage of justice on countries promises that many decisions by AU Judicial court will remain on file and never upheld. There is nothing as threatening to African future on Union and good governance like the lack of political will on upholding technical decisions made by institutions set up by the AU or SADC.
The fact that South African courts upheld ICC decision is good irrespective of the fact that Africa gathering failed to respect rule of law. The puzzle in this behaviour lies in why Africa watches citizens butchered by their leadership in self-preservation acts so nakedly full of cult veneration and personal glory on individualism than upholding the constitution? This is where contention arises and works strongly against the failure by Africa to uphold law in favour of putting claims historically backed as negative and racist.
When President Bashir of Sudan north was smuggled out of South Africa in fear of court ruling pending on his arrest, the moral courage of South African judiciary should be complemented by all well-meaning citizens of the continent. We need that moral courage to uphold what is right irrespective of how we may not prefer it politically. As correctly observed by lawyer's fraternity in South Africa, after all we are all members of the United Nations and the ICC, why not observe the law and cooperate.
If African leadership are bending on setting wrong precedence based on their fear of guilty do they think that citizens of Africa will keep watching them getting away with this flagrant flight in the face of international law?
Alternatively the African communities need arise to contribute strongly on change so as to influence leadership away from schoolboy mentality of skipping the headmaster punishment-ICC and African leadership. Time is come for empirical research to prove case by case if ICC was created to police Africa only or is it a defense mechanism exaggerated and now undermining even African countries' internal judiciary systems therefore creating lack of transparency in governance.
--------------------
Andrew Manyevere <zimbopoitics@gmail.com
Source - Andrew M Manyevere
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
