Kampala — Fellow Africans, Another ritual for the African Union ended in Addis Ababa early this week. As expected, outgoing Chairman, Jakaya Kikwete handed over the baton to the incoming Chair, Muammar Gadaffi of Libya.
As usual, Gadaffi's flamboyance and showmanship almost overshadowed the main event; what with traditional rulers from a few countries in the continent hanging on his coattails chanting, "King of Kings! Hail the Chief! Hail Gadaffi"!
Like him or hate him; Gaddafi makes more sense in Africa than a myriad of despots who hardly manage to run the affairs of their countries in the interest of their nationals. At least in Gadaffi's empire; there are no rampant reports of corruption and oil is actually benefitting Libyan nationals even if Gaddafi may be the main beneficiary.
Compared to countries like Nigeria, Sudan and other oil- producing countries in Africa, Gadaffi can be considered a lesser devil when it comes to distribution of national resources. And yes, his generosity transcends Libyan territories. If you are in doubt, ask his disciples in 22 African countries together with his new-found friends in traditional rulers. They have benefitted financially from Gadaffi's humanitarian good neighbourliness.
However, now that Kikwete is out of the AU hot seat, how will Africa judge his performance? Has he moved the continent an inch from where John Kufuor left? Or was his, merely a play-safe-be-good-to-everybody then leave the office? It must be remembered that Kikwete took over the AU chairmanship at a very trying moment in Eastern Africa.
Kenya was immersed in unprecedented political crisis. Darfur in Sudan was still burning despite the AU and UN interventions. Somalia was volatile as usual with a besieged president unable even to use a handful of Ugandan and Ethiopian soldiers to sustain him in power.
Down South, the kleptocratic Bob Mugabe was still clinging to power despite losing the elections. Attempts to force him to share power failed for the better part of Kikwete's chairmanship despite prodding by the African Union, the European Union and the United Nations General Assembly not to mention the United States.
To tell you the truth, there is not much that Africa will remember Jakaya Kikwete for apart from being at the Peace Accord-signing ceremony in Nairobi in April last year following the election fiasco that Kenya went through. Even then, he came more or less as a messenger of super powers to coerce belligerent opponents into striking a deal because time was running out.
Kikwete has left Africa largely as he found it. He ruffled no feathers in Zimbabwe, Sudan or Mauritania. He turned a blind eye to the two coups that took place during his chairmanship. In other words, he was a perfect diplomat at the continental chair.
But perhaps the reason Kikwete behaved the way he did was because he had too many distractions back home in Tanzania. With spiraling corruption scandals popping up now and then; he became a besieged president at home trying to salvage his discredited regime. In so doing, he lost the entire cabinet, his prime minister and central bank governor to corruption.
For this reason, he spent the better part of 2008 not in Dar-es-Salaam running the government but in the regions mending fences with Tanzania's rural communities.
Now that Gadaffi has taken over, what should Africa expect in the next 12 months? I think Africa has reason to be optimistic and expect a lot. If for no other reason except that Gadaffi comes to the office with a clearly stated mission and vision for the continent. He has the vision to obtain a union government for the continent. His dream is to see Africa competing on equal footing with the European Union, the United States , India and China; the four super economic powers when it comes to domestic market self-sustainability.Gadaffi, like all of us, knows that of the 53 states in Africa the majority of them are not self-sustaining. These banana republics need to merge together to share resources and responsibilities to compete on the global arena.
Gadaffi knows that for 53 African states to sustain 53 missions in major world capitals is a waste of scarce resources they hardly have. Yes, one year is too short for Gadaffi to realise his goals but we know in that one year, he will push a defined agendum that he has unveiled to us.
Comments 1 to 5 of 13 Post a comment
Thank you, Jerry Okungu,for your very accurate analysis of Kiwete's chairmanship and Ghadaffi's prospects. Kikwete did as well as he could considering his problems at home. Ghadaffi, it is hoped, will continue his increasing grasp of objectivity as chairman.
That's right.
I agree with Mr. Okungu. The Libian leader can bring about so many far reaching changes to the african continental association.
As the writer said it, President Ghadafi has demonstrated his leadership capability at home. He organised the libian sociaty and economy in a much more sustainable efficiency than what other petroleum producing states like Nigeria or Sudan did; notorious countries known for civil war, human right abuse, corruption, social and economic chaos at their respective homes.
Mr.Ghadafi can defend african interests on international stage in so many ways (fair trade, equitable international relations, equal visa and travel right for nationals of the African Union vis-a-vis the rest world). Todate Africa is poorly represented in almost all international affairs, mostly because many african leaders behave absolutely like loyal servants to their industrialised nations' counter parts.
The new OAU chair ist independent, has a higher self-esteem more than any body in the club. Mr. Ghadafi doesn't bow and scrape for the sake of receiving lamentable charity handouts. He is some body capable of courage to demand the legimate african rights and dignity.
But, obviously a single one year presidential term is too small to see any visible positive change.
Wake up african reformist forces !
This is a nobrainer. The analysis is like comparing apples and oranges. There are no political freedoms in Libya. There is hardly 6 million Libyans while there are close to 150 million Nigerians.
It would make much more sense to compare (Gaddffi) Libya which has a population of 6 million with (Bongo) Gabon which has a population of less than 2 million, and possibly Angola with a population of 12 million. These have no semblance of political freedoms - comparable to Nigeria - even if they are just as oil rich.
Gaddaffi is using oil wealth for only showy purposes; for buying glitz instead of investing in the future of the country. For example there isn't much of an infrastructure to talk for in Libya, a country with such a small population and making so much money from oil sales.
Maybe Gaddaffi can impress the "traditional" leaders whose political and economic powers have been eviscerated by modern constitutional dispensation. Even his clientile of corrupt dictators - for example Mugabe and Museveni - are having cold feet over Gaddaffis ambitions of a united Africa under him.
The irony is Gaddaffi overthrew a king now he realises the only way to remain geopolitically - especially after having been squizzed out of the west and middle east - relevant is to appeal to the marginalised traditional leaders.
It is backdoor route to power that has no place in modern politics and will lead no way and only more frustrations and heartache for Gaddaffi.
In any case Africa is too diverse to encourage, indulge, and wallow in autocratic dispensations.
To be honest Gaddaffi would be better as a businessman - trading oil - than a politician trying to build an African Kingdom.
I think the aouthor of this article has overlooked some of the issues Mr. Kikwete has done for Africa. He is a good diplomat which is the implication of the African Union chairmanship so to speak. He has managed to achieve peace accords as you have pointed out starting from Kenya, Zimbabwe and removing to power military regimes in Comoro.
It might be that you wanted him to push for African government but you have to remember many wants Africa to unite but not in a rush like Mr Gaddafi which you praise wants. But perhaps Gaddafi wants it for his political and economic ambitions and show off rather than godwill. We havent forgotten his tendency to support dictators like Idd Amin and Mugabe. So to him African government is the only political card he has to justify his position.
i know that many despots presidents were agains the khadafi options to united africa,all those who have been in power since more than 10 years,like musevi of uganda, omer bongo ,sassou of congo etc.... they are afraid to lose their power and privileges corruption ,depotism and so on i also know that they are some colonial master behind them because they lose most of their interest in africa ,note that tog ether we are strong but alone we vulnerable to those neocolonilist sorry my english is not perfect lybian president is great man like or not he is above all these despots,the young are with mr khadafi thanks
See All Comments