 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 6 - 12 January 2000 Issue No. 463 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 6 - 12 January 2000 Issue No. 463
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Heritage Millennium Features Profile Living Travel Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters General takes up position
By Gamal Nkrumah
Christmas Day was a very dark day indeed for Africa. To the rest of the world it was just another military upheaval in a long string of coups past. But this time, it took place in one of Africa's most constitutionally-minded countries -- one which had not experienced a coup since independence in 1960.
Every time the word "coup" hits the headlines, my heart skips a beat. I still cannot get over the February 1966 coup that toppled my father's government. So it was with much trepidation that I followed news of the coup that took place in Ivory Coast this past Christmas Eve. Of course, soldiers like nothing more than to stage surprise takeovers on festive occasions, like New Year's Eve (Ghana 1982), simply to ruin the festivities.
The Ivory Coast coup that overthrew Henri Konan-Bedie was particularly disturbing, not just because of its timing, but because it happened right under the nose of the 500 French troops armed with state-of-the-art weapons and permanently stationed in the relatively prosperous former French colony. There are over 20,000 French nationals resident in the Ivory Coast and the country has long been considered the economic powerhouse of French-speaking West Africa. Not so long ago, the French would have mercilessly quelled the rebellion and returned the ousted president to office, as they had done on countless other occasions in the Ivory Coast and other colonies. Not so now. The question is: Was French inaction merely extraordinary ineptitude on the part of Paris? Or was it a sign of growing disenchantment with, and disinterest in, Africa?
Few were surprised at yet another African military takeover. I find this, too, slightly worrying. The world, it seems, has become too numb to Africa's many problems. Even so, some expressed concern; or rather, dispensed advice. There were two voices joining in last month's vociferous condemnation of coup-leader General Robert Guei, and two meanings in the chorus: On the one hand, there was the somewhat cynical but undoubtedly well-intentioned advice of fellow Africans. On the other, the self-serving admonition of the West; any pretext to safeguard their protectionist interests, tighten the economic noose around the necks of a hapless African people and make a general nuisance of themselves throwing their weight about.
The Western powers warned: "Democratise and return to civilian rule, or face the consequences -- international ostracism, the cutting off of development assistance and probably economic sanctions."
"Follow in our footsteps and don civilian attire," urged former African military rulers, those who had cast off their uniforms and been rightfully elected in the last decade or two. In any case, neither threats nor counsel were heeded by Guei or the Ivoirian people, who generally applauded the ousting of Konan-Bedie.
The vast majority of democratically-elected presidents in Africa are former military leaders. One, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, is a former military ruler of the country that did an about-face and joined the democratic movement and human rights activists. He was imprisoned during the dictatorship of yet another former military strongman and was then subsequently elected as the country's head of state last May. Another example is former Flight Lt Jerry Rawlings of Ghana. After executing three former Ghanaian military rulers and scores of fellow army officers and civilians, Rawlings proceeded to institute a reign of terror that lasted from 1982 to 1992, when he apparently decided that it was time to slip into something a little more comfortable -- his expanding waistline must have looked somewhat ungainly in his old air force uniform. He no longer cut a dashing figure, but he had gained many admirers in the West when he became the star pupil of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund -- propounders of the notorious structural adjustment programme (SAP) in Africa.
Not only did Rawlings pioneer the SAP in Africa, but he presided over economic liberalisation and privatisation that amounted to selling off practically anything from gold-fields and timber concessions, to chocolate factories, hotels and hospitals. For this, he was handsomely rewarded. US President Bill Clinton and Britain's Queen Elisabeth II paid official visits to Ghana, and Rawlings became a star attraction at numerous African and international economic forums. Rawlings promises to step down after his statutory two terms later in the year.
Then again, even one or two civilian leaders withdrew into the bush and raised their own militias before storming or closing in around their capital cities. Presidents Charles Taylor of Liberia and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda are examples. However, there are no clear rules to what type of usurper is a darling or a foe. The United States was hostile at worse and lukewarm at best towards Liberia's Taylor, even after he won a landslide election in 1996. US animosity towards Taylor stems in part from his special relationship with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. Meanwhile, the US specially favours Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who refuses to hold multi-party elections and espouses a non-party form of democracy that strangely enough has not incurred Washington's wrath. Perhaps the chief reason for Washington's favouritism is that Museveni, like Rawlings, has become a favourite of the World Bank and the IMF.
Guei, the 58-year-old former Ivoirian army commander who toppled Konan-Bedie on Christmas Eve, has hinted that he might go for the Obasanjo-Rawlings option, especially prevalent in West Africa. Guei set up a nine-man National Public Salvation Committee, but chances of the country's credibility being salvaged look slim. Its reputation as Africa's most politically stable country is shattered and the flow of foreign aid is expected to slow down to a trickle. Guei has undoubtedly put himself and his country in the doghouse, so far as the international community is concerned. But, the causes of the coup must not be overlooked: The deposed president played a dirty game.
Ivory Coast, like neighbouring Ghana and Senegal, was scheduled for presidential elections in 2000. As an election campaign gimmick, ousted president Konan-Bedie charged his leading opponent Alassane Outtara with having foreign roots. This has become a particularly popular charge for discrediting political rivals in Africa. Last year, Zambia's president, Frederick Chiluba, charged Zambia's founding father and former president Kenneth Kaunda with being a foreigner. The sad fact is that this trend comes at a time when Africans are becoming increasingly aware of the critical importance of continental unity for economic development.
I first met Konan-Bedie in Sirte, Libya, last September, at the extraordinary meeting of the Organisation of African Unity. We were in the airport VIP lounge. He was warm and affable, one of the few heads of state present to bring along a large delegation of businessmen. Everyone was scurrying to fly out of Sirte and back to Tripoli; with 45 heads of state participating, there was a shortage of presidential jets and a mad rush to board the handful of available planes. Konan-Bedie was taking his time and he seemed to be enjoying seeing new faces and making new friends. He was singing the praises of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and commending his call for African unity. In the meantime, with all this talk of African unity, Konan-Bedie was drumming up xenophobic hysteria at home. Few took note of the irony.
The relatively prosperous Ivory Coast has been a magnate for people from impoverished neighbouring countries. A third of the country's 19 million people are estimated to have originated in neighbouring countries. Many key sectors of the economy, such as cocoa and coffee, are utterly dependent on foreign labour -- both seasonal and permanent migrants mainly from the drought-ridden Sahelian countries to the north of Ivory Coast.
Konan-Bedie would have won this year's presidential elections -- Africa has a long-standing tradition of returning the incumbent to power. Konan-Bedie's predecessor, Houphouet Boigny, had ruled Ivory Coast with an iron fist and French guardianship and largesse for almost four decades. French presidents starting with General Charles de Gaulle were first his "brothers", and then his "sons". Boigny, the grand seigneur of African political intrigue and known simply as Le Vieux (The Old Man), hand-picked the diminutive Konan-Bedie, largely because he appeared totally unthreatening and disarmingly charming. Rampant corruption, first instituted by the authoritarian Boigny, reached unmanageable proportions in Konan-Bedie's far less despotic times. Under the free-and-easy Konan-Bedie, the country degenerated into a chaotic free-for-all. At the time of his overthrow, Konan-Bedie could not account for $36 million of European Union funds that were supposed to be allocated to the ministries of health and infrastructure. The IMF and EU promptly suspended all development assistance. Canada followed suit after Guei's putsch.
The immediate cause of the coup, though, was that Konan-Bedie committed the faux pas of not paying his armed forces' salaries for several months. Guei turned an army mutiny into a military takeover. The army went on a rampage, with soldiers looting shops in the capital, Abidjan, and ransacking plush five-star hotels, business districts and opulent mansions. Luxurious cars on display in car shows were stolen and those in the garages of the wealthy were either smashed or confiscated. Guei obviously made much political capital out of the general chaos and disorder.
Understandably, in a desperately poor continent -- the poorest by all measures -- personal enrichment appears to be the overriding concern of rulers. Holding on to power indefinitely seems to be the surest way of making big money for African heads of state, their families and hangers-on. But a self-delusional style of self-serving rule -- one that ignores the bigger picture -- inevitably produces underachievement. It also engenders the kind of economic quagmire that coup-makers love to wallow in.
Military coups are, unfortunately, not a matter of the past. They shall inevitably remain a constant feature of the African political scene in at least the first two decades of the 21st century. It is easy to understand why the military find it very tempting to step out of the confines of their military barracks, and civilian politicians might resent the military's knack of ingratiating themselves with the general populace; but as long as the democratically-elected politicians are incapable of presenting the people with a viable agenda for radical change -- a blueprint for national survival -- the population at large will at best, at least initially, welcome military intervention in the political arena. At worst, people will become indifferent to a military takeover, especially one undertaken by a charismatic strongman reiterating the populist slogans they have long become accustomed to.
