There aren’t too many of them left now. Robert Mugabe was chased out and Jose Eduardo dos Santos retired, both in 2017. Paul Biya of Cameroon is still around, 42 years into his term. Same with Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea, 39 for him. And there’s Denis Sassou Nguesso from The Republic of the Congo, at a casual 36 years.
As a whole though, most African countries have been moving away from the dictator model. Most African countries have robust constitutions, that are being consistently honoured. The age of African Kleptocracy is almost over.
From Ghana to Djibouti, via Namibia between 1957 and 1977 forty-one new countries emerged from the ashes of the second great European Imperial adventure. The early years of independence were fraught with complications. These new countries were very poor and had very little in terms of capital or infrastructure. The world was in the grips of the Cold War – an intense ideological struggle over the right form of political economy in a nation-state: capitalism or communism.
These new countries were also new inventions that did not reflect the realities of the people living there. Nigeria, for example, has over one thousand different ethnic groups and languages. These new states had to manage the dual processes of economic development and nation-building.
Some leaders, like Julius Nyerere (leader from 1964-1985) in Tanzania emphasized nation-building over economic development. He actively pursued a concept known as Ujamaa, which amongst many other things stressed Tanzanian nation-hood. Tanzania has 125 different ethnic groups, yet there now exists an overarching sense of Tanzanian-ness.
Conversely, neighbouring Kenya actively pursued economic development over nation-building. The first president, Jomo Kenyatta (1963-1978), favoured his own ethnic group – the Kikuyu. To this day Kenya is dogged by ethnic strife, favouritism and corruption, as exemplified by the explosion of violence along ethnic lines in 2007.
This is not to say Tanzania is a bastion of economic development, nor impervious to corruption – it is more to stress how challenging nation-building and economic development is. Canadian nation-building, for example, actively excluded the Indigenous population.
The first independence leaders realized quite quickly how weak their new nation-states were. In almost every case an active decision was made to establish one-party systems in an attempt to control and structure and develop these new nations. From Kenneth Kaunda in Zambia (1964-1991) to Leopold Senghor in Senegal (1960-1980), many of the independence leaders centralized authority and ruled for decades.
With the Cold War in full swing, these leaders were given massive sums of “foreign aid” from either the United States or the Soviet Union with no questions asked aside from: capitalism or communism? The case of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is especially instructive. The independence leader, Patrice Lumumba was an avowed socialist and was supported by the Soviet Union – at least nominally. He was overthrown in a military coup and his eventual successor, Mobutu Sese-Seko (1965-1997) was firmly in the pockets of the Americans. Ideology trumped development for the international community.
These new leaders also realised that they had tremendous power in these new modern nation-states. With money flowing in from either the East or West, there was no need to rely on taxation for revenue – as most Western nations do – which left many leaders unconcerned with accountability to their citizens. However, over the last twenty-five years there has been a renewed push from civil society within African countries to redress this unbalance. Sometimes it results in a coup or an international intervention – such as the case of Libya or Somalia. Sometimes it takes a much darker turn – such as the genocide in Rwanda. Coles notes: one ethnic group controlled the country since independence, and the other ethnic group retaliated. The world watched.
The story isn’t over though, and there are a few of them left.
———————————–
Around a year ago a septuagenarian world leader changed the constitution in his country so he could run for office again. He came to power in the mid-1980s amidst a popular revolt against a succession of repressive and corrupt regimes. He was lauded in the West as the face of a new African political leadership. One that would be democratic and accountable, honouring the rule of law. He said it himself after his ascension in 1986:
“The people of Africa, the people of Uganda, are entitled to a democratic government. It is not a favour from any regime. The sovereign people must be the public, not the government.”
Yoweri Museveni.
For the first ten years of his reign, he emphasized economic growth and development. Indeed, Uganda was a darling of the donor community, boasting economic growth rates near ten percent a year. He heartily embraced structural adjustment and liberalisation – a strong rejection of his Marxist routes. My own father recalls teaching him back in the late 1960s at the University of Dar. He was a staunch anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist. At one point he ran off to the jungle in Mozambique to receive Guerilla training.
He rejected party politics, claiming that political parties split the country along ethnic and religious lines, and that was the reason for Uganda’s continued instability since independence.
The Ugandan constitution – the one he wrote in 1995 – imposed a two-term limit on the Presidency. He amended it in 2005, clearing the path for a lifelong Presidency. But there was still the pesky age limit. Nobody could run for President past the age of 75. So he changed the constitution again in 2017. He’s 73 now, and planning on running for office again in 2021. Each of the last four elections have been marred by accusation of voter fraud and intimidation. He’s been the President of Uganda for 32 years.
There have been a number of challenges to his iron-fisted rule over the years. There’s the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) – a guerilla insurgency in the jungle – famous in the West for its use of child soldiers and a tremendously misguided American NGO’s Kony2012 campaign. Seasoned observers of Ugandan politics are keenly aware of the impotence of the LRA. They simply serve as a convenient device – what better way to continue your rule than to have a madman running around the remote jungle kidnapping children. It’s textbook authoritarian statecraft.
More recently, however, there are concerted efforts from Ugandan civil society to challenge Museveni.
——————————————
Robert Kyagulanyi, better known as Bobi Wine is a Ugandan pop-star. He was elected to parliament a year ago, campaigning on an anti-corruption ticket. He is tremendously popular with the youth of Uganda, as he’s just 36 himself. He has roundly accused Museveni of being a “dictator”. A charge Museveni hilariously refutes. Because changing the constitution to make yourself President-for-life is a totally normal and democratic thing to do.
Both Museveni and Bobi Wine were in the Northern town of Arua. There was a scheduled bi-election, and Bobi Wine threw his support behind the opposition candidate. Now here’s where it gets murky.
According to the President’s office, Museveni’s car was pelted with rocks by protestors. The President’s office claims Bobi Wine was behind the protests. On Twitter, Bobi Wine shared a picture of his driver. Dead. Killed by the security forces. A few hours later, Wine and four other opposition MPs were arrested by the Ugandan military and accused of treason, rape, terrorism and illegal possession of guns. A few hours later, the deputy prime-minister mentioned that Wine was in the hospital. Wine and his supporters claim he was beaten. Museveni denies it.
Wine was recently moved to a secure medical facility for treatment. But he wasn’t beaten. Obviously. He made a brief public appearance in front of a civilian court and wasn’t able to walk under his own power. As of right now, Bobi Wine is still in custody and stands accused of treason. Treason is a capital offence in Uganda. If convicted, he stands to be executed.
So what’s Bobi Wine’s real crime?
Uganda has one of the highest fertility rates in the world. The population of the country has grown by over twelve million people in the last decade. The economy is stagnating, corruption is rampant, and the majority of the population is young and restless. Bobi Wine speaks for them.
Just listen to a couple lines from one of his songs:
“This is a message to the government, expressing what’s exactly on the people’s mind / we are fed up of those who oppress our lives / and everything that takes away our rights / Uganda seems to be moving backwards / this is almost making us hate our own nation.”
Bobi Wine is young, charismatic, passionate and popular. He is a direct threat to Museveni’s oligarchy. The mere fact that Wine’s driver was murdered while he was in the same car is staggering. Wine was arrested moments later. He’s been in custody since. Museveni is losing grip on his power. That much is clear.
Mugabe didn’t leave peacefully. He was forced out by his own oligarchs. Simply because he was functionally senile and couldn’t possibly act as President any more. Museveni still appears to have all his faculties. Uganda has never truly had a democratic election in its entire history. This doesn’t bode well for Bobi Wine. However, in an age of interconnectivity and social media, there is an opportunity here. Wine’s supporters believe his arrest and assault simply confirm the repression of Museveni’s regime. They believe this will lead to long-term change.
I’ll leave you with a song by Bobi Wine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cpY_mMDLcc
Tuko Pamoja,
Rashid
