A Dangerous Precedent for Africa?

This past winter, tragedy struck Eastern Africa, as Kenya, commonly heralded as being one of the continent’s best prospects for hope, found itself mired in chaotic political violence. The nation held its presidential election December 27th, and although virtually all third-party election monitoring organizations, including the European Union and the United Nations, decried it as being severely flawed, this did not stop the incumbent president, Mwai Kibaki, from declaring victory and immediately having himself sworn in through a sort of haphazard, shotgun ceremony. The leading opposition candidate, Raila Odinga, representing the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), declared that he did not accept defeat. And thus, literally overnight, chaos enveloped in many parts of Kenya, one of Africa’s most stable democracies. I myself was fortunate enough to have visited Kenya, along with neighboring Tanzania, in January of 2007. Thus, I was profoundly shocked and saddened in the days and weeks following the election, to watch this beautiful and peaceful country become entangled in such a rapid and senseless cycle of violence.

In many ways, Kenyan political parties are largely tied to ethnicities. Thus, much of the violence seen following the December 27th election involved groups of disaffected and enraged Luos (generally sympathetic to opposition leader Odinga) attacking innocent and unexpecting Kikuyus (generally sympathetic to president Kibaki). Retaliations occurred, generally in the notorious slums of Nairobi, and even in the rural Rift Valley region of the country. When the dust settled, 1,500 people had been murdered, and an estimated 600,000 people had fled their homes.

To clarify, this constitutes a crisis situation in a relatively pivotal country in the developing world. So what is an international community to do? With no immediate end to the violence in sight, one of the proverbial big guns of diplomacy was flown into Nairobi to help smooth things out: former UN secretary general Kofi Annan. Mr. Annan ended up staying in Kenya for over a month to facilitate negotiations between Kibaki and Odinga, and in the end, a deal was struck. A new “power-sharing” or “coalition” government was set up, with Kibaki staying on as president, and Odinga being granted a brand new position as “prime minister.” The national constitution was changed accordingly. Violence and rioting stopped. But, what next? Big questions follow. Will the opposition party actually be allowed to have a meaningful role in policy decisions? What exactly is the role of a prime minister, in relation to the existing president? In short, just how exactly is this “power-sharing” government going to work? From the outside, it seems that many of these tricky questions were pushed aside in a search of a short-term solution, attempting to pacify the opposition supporters and bring the immediate crisis to an end. It was certainly noble in its intention of ending the cycle of violence, which it succeeded in, but it still leaves the nation in quite a difficult spot moving forward.

More importantly, one could be forgiven for walking away from this hasty solution with somewhat of a bad taste in the mouth. After learning that the “coalition” government had been formally completed this past February, I remember thinking to myself, “What kind of a precedent does this set for Africa?” Let’s step back a second. According to the relevant international agencies involved in the monitoring of the election, the conclusion seems to be that Kibaki was in fact not clearly and legitimately reelected into office. Yet, in virtually no time at all, he has regained international legitimacy by capitulating to the idea of this new “power-sharing” government. So yes, it may be positive that the opposition party could theoretically have access to greater representation than they would have otherwise had in Kibaki’s government. Yet, what kind of message is this sending to the rest of the developing world? Do we really want to promote the notion that any dictator will be free to steal an election, while still enjoying the recognition of the international community, provided that dictator then agrees to formulate some nebulously defined “power-sharing” government to placate the opposition?

Unfortunately, as recent events unfolding in Zimbabwe are showing, this may be the case. Robert Mugabe, one of the world’s most infamous and megalomaniacal living dictators, has ruled over the nation with an iron fist for the past 28 years. Through corruption, nepotism, and general incompetence, he has managed to turn what was once one of Africa’s bright spots into the virtual poster child for the problems facing the continent. In Zimbabwe, the life expectancy is 39.7 years. Nearly 70% of the population lives below the poverty line. And to top it off, the country suffers from the practically unfathomable inflation rate of 2.2 million percent. So, in short, Zimbabwe is not in very good shape. Yet, Mugabe has successfully ensconced himself in power through a series of sham elections throughout the duration of his dark and repressive reign.

But this year, it could have been different. Morgan Tsvangirai, representing the Movement for Democratic Change, stepped up to provide this troubled nation with the first legitimate challenger to Mugabe since he has been in power. On March 29th, an election was held in which Tsvangirai almost certainly came out victorious. Only we were not to find out, officially, of course, as the national electoral commission, controlled by Mugabe, didn’t see fit to release the results. Days turned to weeks, and finally, Mugabe announced that a runoff election would be held, as supposedly the results were too close to call definitively. June 27th rolled around and the election was held, only this time with a little twist. Days before the election took place, Morgan Tsvangirai, the very symbol of hope and change to many in Zimbabwe, took refuge in the Dutch embassy, and dropped out of the race. He cited the countless instances of violence and intimidation inflicted upon his supporters, fellow party members, and activists (not to mention himself) on part of the police and thugs on behalf of the ruling ZANU-PF party, and conceded that there was no point in participating in the sham-to-be of an election. Tsvangirai encouraged his supporters to stay safe, and stay away from the polls.

Thus, Robert Mugabe was once again sworn in as Zimbabwe’s president, and the valiant opposition members were left to cut their losses. But now, it has recently been announced that a certain series of “power-sharing” negotiations will be taking place between Mugabe and Tsvangirai in South Africa. Hmmmmm. How to react to this? Might it not be true that some hypothetical deal could act as a sort of bridge, helping Zimbabwe to slowly but securely transition out of Mugabe’s rule? Perhaps. Yet, what I fear is that in the wake of the Kenyan solution, and in the name of reconciliation and unity, one of the world’s worst despots will be granted tacit legitimacy by the international community, provided he concedes to form one of these euphemistically termed “coalition” governments. As of now it is unclear whether these negotiations will amount to anything in the first place, and even if they do, the makeup and prospective implications would be unclear. Time will tell if such arrangements will eventually lead to successful democratic transitions in the long run. Yet, whatever happens, let us hope that these short-term political solutions are not setting a dangerous precedent for the future of African democracy in the meantime.

-Written by Jordan Allen