The Dynamics of Democratization in Africa: The Post-Mugabe Era

I am a liberal democrat and I abhor military dictatorship but extra-ordinary circumstances require extra-ordinary measures. In 1998, Gen Sani Abacha died and Gen Abubakar took control of the Armed Forces Ruling Council (AFRC) and assured the international community that he would run a transition which will usher in democracy in record time. The general kept to his word, constitutional conference was organised — although we know that it didn’t meet expected democratic ideals and reflected the true will of the people — and Nigeria returned to democracy in 1999. Former President Obasanjo was elected but he assaulted democratic tenets and ideals of the Nigeria people by adopting “do or die” politics which caused spike in political assassinations while rigging of election was widespread and epidemic. Towards the end of Obasanjo’s second term, he was already under the influence of sit-tightism which is a pervasive syndrome amongst African presidents. The Nigerian people mounted opposition to his aspiration and he was defeated at the National Assembly and Nigerians overwhelmingly rejected the idea that he continued for a third term. That was how we escaped the plight of many African countries such as Rwanda where the incumbent Paul Kagame is exploiting the history of his country, bolstered by boisterous approval from Western countries especially the United States, is seeking to remain as life president of Rwanda. Though he brought relieve and succour to the Rwandan people and set them on the path of prosperity putting the genocide which occurred in 1994 behind them but his latest anti-democratic tendencies which saw him re-elected with 99% vote of which he can remain in power till 2034 after leading the country for 17 years already has made him a tyrant and a burden to Rwandans.

Now this is where I differ with the democratization model of African countries. I am an advocate of the proportionate use of force to oust Africa presidents who thwart the will of the people, manipulate the constitution under the guise of democracy to elongate their stay in office. Elongating presidential terms beyond 10–14 years is already a betrayal of the ‘fiduciary duty’ of an elected politician to the people. The law of diminishing returns applies to governance. Two terms of maximum 10 -14 years is enough for any leader to make impact and set the direction for future development of any country. Those who wish to perpetuate themselves in further are power mongers, leeches and megalomaniacs that sacrifice the future of their citizens on the altar of avarice. The fact that a president will manoeuvre the citizens and orchestrate a constitutional change often carried out in terror of the opposition and the people bent to their whims and caprices and subjugating dissent, surpasses the evil of some manners of coup d’état. How do we justify an African president remaining in power for 20, 30 and 40 years? Is the presidency of that country a birth right? At the point where a leader spends over 20 years presiding over a democratic country nowadays, it’s no longer democracy but quasi-democracy & any means to possible to oust them by the people (Arab Spring) or army (Zimbabwe) after peaceful entreaties to step aside, is justifiable.

This brings me to the “bloodless transition” in Zimbabwe carried out by the army of which they have stated that this is not a coup but “to pacify a degenerating political, social and economic situation in our country which if not addressed may result in violent conflict.” The post-Mugabe era is necessary for Zimbabwe to move forward. It has become necessary to force a 93 years old nonagenarian who has refused to relinquish power out of office. He recently sacked his V.P. in a consolidation of power which is apparently to prepare for Grace Mugabe, the wife to take control of government making the governance of #Zimbabwe a family affair. Many are calling for the army to surrender to the constitutional constituted government of Zimbabwe. A delegation sent by the South African president has been turned back at Harare airport while Nigerian president has called for respect of democracy and return of power to civilians.

The pertinent questions we should ponder remains: is the democratization of African countries in which African leaders refuse to quit and stay in power through manipulation of the constitution and institutions of government the appropriate approach to enthroning ideal democratic governance? How do we justify a president that has taken his citizens hostage and remained in power for over 20 years with the country rife in corruption and retrogression while citizens wallow in poverty and lack amidst abundant natural and human resources? We have the Obiang of Equitorial Guinea (38 years) that is sitting on oil wealth while majority of citizens live below the poverty line; Paul Biya of Cameroun (33 years) that has refused to quit despite his ailing health, Nguesso of Congo (37 years) and Museveni of Uganda (31 years) amongst others. Santos of Angola after 39 years recently quit and I expected Mugabe and his cohorts some of which are mentioned above to leave the scene.

Provided that these power mongers continues to perpetuate themselves in power like Kagame of Rwanda, the military owe it to the people or the people owe it to themselves to institute regime change for democracy to evolve to that of regular elections and two terms of less than 15 years (4, 5 and 7 years single term). This is my position and I am of the opinion that the coup in Zimbabwe should not fail. Mugabe has to be ousted. He has become a problem to his country people. While I do not discountenance his giant strides in rescuing Zimbabwe from the clutches of apartheid and white subjugation and ensuring his people are not second class citizens in their country but it’s time to force him to quit just like the breast is taken away from a mischievous child that is biting at the mother’s nipple, Mugabe should go. If he genuinely loves Zimbabwe, he will step aside in the interest of peace and tranquility.