This story begins with a personal anecdotal flashback. As a young journalism student in Cameroon, my internship with The Herald, the leading Anglophone newspaper in the country, ushered me into the corridors of the political affairs unit (PAU) at the Ministry of Territorial Administration (MINAT). If one has ever lived in an oppressive society, in which the politics of fear, mistrust and uncertainty trump over the politics of candor, openness and dialogue, they would certainly recognize the role of the PAU. This is where papers underwent the test of compliance with the art of authoritarian flattery. The Herald went to MINAT at the same time as it went to press, because of the deadline constraints in publishing a tri-weekly newspaper, within a pseudo-democratic context. There were times when a news story was censored while it was on the presses. So it came to the reader with black streaks running diagonally from top-right to bottom-left of the page. That was a time which has fed my indelible passion for legitimate, accountable and representative leadership in Africa.
Those memories flooded me, when I saw the image of the Mail & Guardian Newspaper in the Republic of South Africa with a red band labeled “GAGGED” across the story. The injunction came down from the J’burg High Court Thursday, after the paper had already gone to press.
What was at issue with the story? Last week, the Mail & Guardian published a story now infamously referred to as “Oilgate.” In this story, they allege that the oil management company Imvume, paid the leading African National Congress R-11 million (approx. US$1.7 million) of taxpayer’s money, before last year’s elections. Judge Vas Soni ruled that Imvume, and its boss Sandi Majali’s right to privacy, dignity and reputation, trumped both freedom of expression and the public’s right to know about the conduct of their elected government. Hence the issue was not the veracity of the information, but the privacy in the economic dealings of private corporation and a public official entity. I am not sure what South Africa law says about this. If it provides blanket protection to the publicly elected official, then only the electorate can be called upon to sanction him.
Nevertheless, the ruling sets a troubling precedent in a South Africa still trying to shake off the vestiges of over a century of oppressive and divisive leadership. In the interest of accountability and disclosure in the democratic process, the ANC should be urged to come clean on the charges. Within a democratic context, such charges are bound to affect governmental credibility, which is a cornerstone of good governance. It may also be time for campaign finance reform in South Africa.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Eyadema II: Oppression Continues…
No – elections do not a legitimate leader make. When Gnassingbe Eyadema died on February 5, 2005, the monthly Afrique Asie ran a cover story titled, “Togo: The End of the Eyadema Empire.” That cover story could not have been farther from the truth in its failure to analyze the role of Eyadema’s two sons, Commander Rock Gnassingbe and Faure Eyadema, in the politico-military future of the country. After a shot gun paternal succession process, the amorphous “international community” expressed its outrage and called for immediate elections.
The quality of the elections seemed unimportant, so long as they were held immediately. The electoral process was a dog and pony show. The electoral law remained ambiguous as to candidate eligibility until a month before the April elections. Then, Eyadema II’s main opponent, Gilchrist Olympio, was not allowed to submit his candidacy for the presidency. (It would have been fun to see 2 sons tussle for a presidency once occupied by their daddies ;-).
Now all eyes are averted from Lome, where the Togolese people are responding to police and military brutality with displacement to Benin. As Togo’s political polarities failed to bridge their differences in Abuja a week ago, the future of the nation hangs in a balance.
Despite Eyadema II’s pledge to for a single term of political and economic reform in Togo, his lack of control over the forces of oppression is evident. Sporadic voices have emerged calling for a resort to arms against government sanctioned politically motivated assassinations, mass disappearances and rape.
A nation with 6 million inhabitants, Togo straddles two emerging African democracies, Ghana – to the west and Benin – to the right. However, the tendency has been for fleeing populations to flee towards Benin, because of the shared francophone linguistic heritage. The situation in Togo presents a security risk for an already precarious West African region. The Eyadema Empire stroked back.
The quality of the elections seemed unimportant, so long as they were held immediately. The electoral process was a dog and pony show. The electoral law remained ambiguous as to candidate eligibility until a month before the April elections. Then, Eyadema II’s main opponent, Gilchrist Olympio, was not allowed to submit his candidacy for the presidency. (It would have been fun to see 2 sons tussle for a presidency once occupied by their daddies ;-).
Now all eyes are averted from Lome, where the Togolese people are responding to police and military brutality with displacement to Benin. As Togo’s political polarities failed to bridge their differences in Abuja a week ago, the future of the nation hangs in a balance.
Despite Eyadema II’s pledge to for a single term of political and economic reform in Togo, his lack of control over the forces of oppression is evident. Sporadic voices have emerged calling for a resort to arms against government sanctioned politically motivated assassinations, mass disappearances and rape.
A nation with 6 million inhabitants, Togo straddles two emerging African democracies, Ghana – to the west and Benin – to the right. However, the tendency has been for fleeing populations to flee towards Benin, because of the shared francophone linguistic heritage. The situation in Togo presents a security risk for an already precarious West African region. The Eyadema Empire stroked back.
Pretoria to Tshwane: What lies in a name?
Honestly, not a great deal is locked in a name. When the late Joseph Desire Mobutu changed his names to Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Gbendu Wazabanga and the Democratic Republic of Congo to Zaire, he was unleashing nationalistic zeal into Zaire’s politically ideational redefinition. His attempt represented a break from a colonial past into a more indigenous present. However, that indigenous present failed to translate into a secure future for most Zairois. Today, the Congolese from Kinshasa take offense at being referred to as Zairois. Once again, a name is used to break with a nauseous past, while still predicting an uncertain future.
However, with SA still seething in the racial legacy of the Apartheid era, the move from Pretoria to Tshwane might be more than just a name change…it might be an attempt to reclaim the city from its colonial past and recast the city underneath its pre-colonial shadow. You wish….:-) Long Live Tshwane...but is it time for a name change in Baghdad?
However, with SA still seething in the racial legacy of the Apartheid era, the move from Pretoria to Tshwane might be more than just a name change…it might be an attempt to reclaim the city from its colonial past and recast the city underneath its pre-colonial shadow. You wish….:-) Long Live Tshwane...but is it time for a name change in Baghdad?
Extraditing Taylor: A Security Dilemma
To extradite or not to extradite – that’s the question. Almost 2 years since he was cajoled out of power in Liberia and into asylum in Nigeria, Charles Taylor still looms large over the prospects of a sustainable peace in West Africa. The most recent controversy surrounding Charles Taylor is his extradition to Sierra Leone to face the charge of crimes against humanity. The line in the sand has been drawn. It epitomizes the debate which cuts in the middle of inherent dichotomies between legal and reconciliatory conflict resolution methodologies.
Charles Taylor escaped Liberia through a politically construed Machiavellian deal – a deal which favored the lesser of two evil options as the most tenable option for conflict de-escalation. The deal made nonsense of the atrocities committed by Taylor’s National Patriotic Front of Liberia militia and the NPFL-supported Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone.
The Sierra Leone conflict led lasted 8 years, ending in over 50,000 casualties and over 2 million internally and externally displaced individuals. The spiraling conflict collapsed an already fragile economy (plumetting to a growth rate of -8% between 1991-1997) and destroyed the meager infrastructure Sierra Leone had mustered through 30 years of independence.
At stake here present in an individual, is a security dilemma, with far-reaching consequences on future peace agreements in Africa. Opponents to Taylor’s extradition point to the internationally-brokered Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Accra, Ghana on August 18, 2003 as his statute of refuge. This deal guaranteed an exit for Charles Taylor in exchange for the cessation of hostilities between the Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy and the Movement for Democracy in Liberia and the Government of Liberia (or whatever was rest of it after 14 years of civil war - 1989-2003).
However, they forget that the deal did not make mention of the atrocities committed by Taylor-supported RUF forces in Sierra Leone. When international leaders speak against Taylor’s extradition, they condone the wanton killing of civilian populations in times of conflict. They promote rebel leaders holding out long enough to make deals which would give them a blank protection from prosecution. They set a nefarious precedent in an international legal framework which fails to explicitly protect civilian populations in times of intra-state conflict.
It is as simple as this: Charles Taylor is not above international humanitarian law. He needs to be held accountable for his actions in Sierra Leone, even if he has been left off the hook in Liberia. While totally aware of the potential resurgence of conflict which may arise from Taylor supporters in the event of his prosecution by the International Criminal Tribunal for Sierra Leone (ICTSL), such violence remains until then, only HYPOTHETICAL.
The Filibuster: Exposing GOP 2008 Presidential Hopefuls
Never a dull moment in Washington D.C. The truce reached by a bi-partisan Senate cohort to save the filibuster, protected the American legislative process from future logjams. However, it fell far short of providing a long term solution to the partisan wrangling over the appointment and confirmation of nominees into lifetime judicial positions. The implications of the debate on the American legal system were lost in the vitriolic accusations and counter-accusations which pervaded the filibuster process. Meanwhile some senators came out looking very presidential as they jockeyed for positioning in the crowded field of GOP presidential hopefuls (which include some good-looking gubernatorial hopefuls).
The media has been quick to declare a GOP Armageddon opposing the “centrists” and the “Christian conservatives.” (Whatever those clichés mean). Reading through the pages of a reputed newspaper, I think I even saw something about the “McCainists.” These would be the supporters of Sen. John McCain, one of the architects of the bi-partisan truce to save the filibuster. This same plan led to the recent Senate confirmation of Justice Owen and the possible Senate confirmation of Justice Rogers Brown of California and Judge Pryor of Alabama.
However, this truce segued right into the agenda of Sen. Bill Frist, who is purported to represent the “Christian conservative” wing of the GOP. Sen. McCain emerged as a consensus building legislator. Sen. Frist emerged as a steadfast advocate of his cause.
A few weeks ago, Sen. Frist took the hard line, making his case in a televised address to a huge chunk of the GOP base – “Christian Conservatives.” I spoke with a registered GOP friend about this appearance, and she made me understand that Sen. Frist was “nuts,” in putting himself out there. What she seemed to forget that he was a man on a mission. There are two tiebreakers in Fall of 2007. The first tiebreaker is an individual the outgoing president George W. Bush (of course, depending on his approval rating at the end of his lame duck season). The second tiebreaker will be the party’s base (which counts for a lot given the highly polarized nature of the contemporary political landscape).
In earning the confirmation vote on three federal judgeships, which have evoked riotous contention for 4 years, Sen. Frist has put the President and the Christian Conservative base in debt. That is a debt which will come in handy when the decks are stacked in a potentially tight field of the GOP’s primaries.
Sen. Frist emerged from the filibuster showing evidence of character, conviction and courage to stay the course. Through the entire process, he sounded more like a caring doctor tending to the inherent frailties within the legislative patient. Two days after the “Filibuster Truce,” he got his first wish, the senate confirmation of Justice Priscilla Owen to the US Court of Appeals 5th Circuit. In the coming days, he will win the confirmation of Juctice Rogers Brown and Judge Pryor and then, he will push for more. What does all this mean for the Democrats (Dems)? How do these mutations affect their chances in the mid-term elections? All these questions are definitely for another blog and in another thought. In the meantime, Sen. Frist is one up ahead of the pack.
To avoid another major defeat in the mid-term elections, the Dems need to go back to the drawing board after delivering a solid victory to the GOP base. Within a game theoretical dynamic, the truce which ended the Filibuster Showdown amounts to a lose-lose situation for the Dems (I know many who contest this assertion, which will only gain acceptance in hindsight). The GOP threat to eliminate the filibuster led to a deal which saved the filibuster and lead to the possible Senate confirmation of 3 ultra-conservative and polarizing judges. The GOP makes no apologies of polarizing the American electorate to strengthen its base. Looking down the pike, there is bound to be many more showdowns, many more threats and many more concessions to be made.
The fitting end to this commentary is “…to be continued.”
The media has been quick to declare a GOP Armageddon opposing the “centrists” and the “Christian conservatives.” (Whatever those clichés mean). Reading through the pages of a reputed newspaper, I think I even saw something about the “McCainists.” These would be the supporters of Sen. John McCain, one of the architects of the bi-partisan truce to save the filibuster. This same plan led to the recent Senate confirmation of Justice Owen and the possible Senate confirmation of Justice Rogers Brown of California and Judge Pryor of Alabama.
However, this truce segued right into the agenda of Sen. Bill Frist, who is purported to represent the “Christian conservative” wing of the GOP. Sen. McCain emerged as a consensus building legislator. Sen. Frist emerged as a steadfast advocate of his cause.
A few weeks ago, Sen. Frist took the hard line, making his case in a televised address to a huge chunk of the GOP base – “Christian Conservatives.” I spoke with a registered GOP friend about this appearance, and she made me understand that Sen. Frist was “nuts,” in putting himself out there. What she seemed to forget that he was a man on a mission. There are two tiebreakers in Fall of 2007. The first tiebreaker is an individual the outgoing president George W. Bush (of course, depending on his approval rating at the end of his lame duck season). The second tiebreaker will be the party’s base (which counts for a lot given the highly polarized nature of the contemporary political landscape).
In earning the confirmation vote on three federal judgeships, which have evoked riotous contention for 4 years, Sen. Frist has put the President and the Christian Conservative base in debt. That is a debt which will come in handy when the decks are stacked in a potentially tight field of the GOP’s primaries.
Sen. Frist emerged from the filibuster showing evidence of character, conviction and courage to stay the course. Through the entire process, he sounded more like a caring doctor tending to the inherent frailties within the legislative patient. Two days after the “Filibuster Truce,” he got his first wish, the senate confirmation of Justice Priscilla Owen to the US Court of Appeals 5th Circuit. In the coming days, he will win the confirmation of Juctice Rogers Brown and Judge Pryor and then, he will push for more. What does all this mean for the Democrats (Dems)? How do these mutations affect their chances in the mid-term elections? All these questions are definitely for another blog and in another thought. In the meantime, Sen. Frist is one up ahead of the pack.
To avoid another major defeat in the mid-term elections, the Dems need to go back to the drawing board after delivering a solid victory to the GOP base. Within a game theoretical dynamic, the truce which ended the Filibuster Showdown amounts to a lose-lose situation for the Dems (I know many who contest this assertion, which will only gain acceptance in hindsight). The GOP threat to eliminate the filibuster led to a deal which saved the filibuster and lead to the possible Senate confirmation of 3 ultra-conservative and polarizing judges. The GOP makes no apologies of polarizing the American electorate to strengthen its base. Looking down the pike, there is bound to be many more showdowns, many more threats and many more concessions to be made.
The fitting end to this commentary is “…to be continued.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)