Okello Oculi
28 August 2008
analysis
Nairobi — The August 6, coup that deposed President Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdallah of Mauritania was vigorously and punitively rejected by most public bodies. The African Union, the political head prefect of the continent, suspended Mauritania's membership, the European Union expressed alarm and the US withheld $20 million Sh140 million in "humanitarian aid".
The central themes of these reactions were, first, the defence of political authority achieved through constitutionally endorsed procedures-- that is, primarily elections seen to have been "free and fair" and therefore valid expressions of the popular will of the majority of the electorate.
Second, the rejection was premised on the rejection of the use of military force in African countries to effect a change of government and, thereafter, hold on to power.
Having witnessed and most likely profited from numerous military desecrations of election-anchored authority (often accompanied by brutal murders of politicians), former Cold War financiers of coups in the international diplomatic market have withdrawn their services particularly since Africa is no longer in danger of being swallowed up by a dead Soviet Communism.
The situation in Mauritania has, however, raised dilemmas: Elections are seen as expressions of spontaneous popular will but so are ecstatic widespread celebrations of a successful military coup against a dictatorship. President Abdallah had been elected in March 2007 for specific election promises he made, including facilitating the return of over 60,000 black Mauritanians that were, according to media reports, brutally deported to Senegal "at gunpoint" by Ould Taya's government. Abdallah is also accused of dishonouring key aspects of his promises barely after 18 months in power.
Squandered public funds
One issue he was accused of backtracking on was the fight against graft. His wife was seen to be corruptly getting access to, and squandering public funds. Three journalists were detained and brutally beaten up for reporting on corruption perpetuated by three judges.
The former president also failed to control rising food prices. In a ploy to keep power, he turned to Islamists and people who had served in the much detested 21-year rule of former President Ould Taya. Both groups of politicians were seen to support the continuation of slavery in Mauritania and seeking to reverse a law passed by parliament in August 2007 making ownership of slaves a crime punishable by 10 years in prison.
SOS Esclaves, a non-government organisation that has campaigned against slavery in the face of brutal harassment and terms in prison, claims that there are up to 600,000 slaves in Mauritania, constituting 20 per cent of the population.
The final blows that ruptured the patience of the regime's critics were: a vote of no confidence by parliament; the withdrawal of 49 members of parliament from Cheikh's party after he appointed as many as 12 cabinet ministers from among those who had served in the much detested regime, and his dismissal of top generals from the army, including General Mohammed Ould Abdul-Aziz, the man who had led the coup in 2005 that allowed elections to be held in 2007.
The African Union may well have thrown its weight behind the empty shell of Abdalla's government after the moral and legitimate policy contents, for which it was elected, had been betrayed and trampled on.
Having abandoned the immoral notion of "non-interference in the internal affairs of member states", the AU, may need to revisit the notion of preventive state-brotherhood by which African leaders can anticipate the growth of bad, oppressive and repulsive governance in a member state and intervene through direct consultations with affected parties in government, opposition parties, intellectuals and political activists. Such intervention could reverse degeneration leading to explosions as victims turn to desperate options.
Such intervention would supplement the New Partnership for Africa's Development (Nepad's) Peer Review sessions. However, this is always bound to be a very controversial issue, considering that NATO countries now behave like un-tethered wild bulls in a pasture full of weak African and Asian cows. The anxiety shown by the British to drown Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe in his own tears, preferably extracted by British interrogators, has been fuelled by a wish to cover up their betrayal of an agreement signed at Lancaster House in 1980.
Under the agreement, the British were obliged to buy back land from white settlers for distribution to land-starved Zimbabweans. The excuse that Mugabe was giving land only to his cronies is a cynical ploy for fighting a man whose political boldness in grabbing back land and empowering his people is seen as a threat to economic interests of whites in South Africa and Namibia. The British tactic discredits outside interventions generally. Yet an African-owned intervention that guarantees freedom, justice and human dignity must be possible.
With regards to Mauritania's cancer of slavery, the AU must note that President Abdallah and parliament had, in August 2007, enacted a law that made slavery a punishable crime. By flirting with the previous regime (that had failed to root the evil out despite a 1905 ban that had no legal teeth and a presidential decree of 1981 that banned it). By appointing throwbacks from a rejected regime, Ould Abdallah was practising cynical opportunism with the critical issue of human rights and human dignity.
The return of "good governance" in Africa must always go beyond empty rituals that wear hunger-stained and pain-drenched banners draped around "democratically elected governments".
This legacy of slave economies also lies at the heart of relations with the Arab sector of the African Union.
After the recent African Union summit, an angry Colonel Muammar Gaddafi roared in his impatient denunciations of countries that have severe doubts about rushing headlong into a United States of Africa.
That he has frequently paid monthly salaries of civil servants in quite a number of countries in the West African region does not help in liberating the Libyan strongman from his worst prejudices.
But even if only for the unfortunate reason that such attitudes make it sensible to hold back from being lead along the hallowed road, first laid out by giants of Pan-Africanism like Kwame Nkrumah and Modibo Keita, it is a good indicator that the AU must develop creative programmes for curing this cultural cancer.
There are those who believe that the Arab League and its largest members on the African continent, namely: Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria are sluggish in pushing for the end of civil wars in Southern Sudan, Darfur and Somalia are to be blamed for race-tainted diplomatic priorities.
Former UN Secretary General, the Egyptian Boutrous Boutrous Ghali has written that Egyptian diplomats regard being posted to African countries as punishment by their superiors. They certainly do not hold a monopoly of prejudice on this matter when compared with other African diplomats.
This attitude has, however, meant that the business of a North-South charting out the future of Africa's development has been left to dollar-loaded little countries like Dubai, Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Okello Oculi writes on Afican issues from Abuja, Nigeria.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 The Nation. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
