Democracy or Stability: A Choice in Africa?

In a continent where contested elections often lead to violence, can the two go together or is stability, at the sacrifice of democracy, more important to African development right now?

Earlier this year, Equatorial Guinea's long standing president announced he will be joining a number of other African presidents who are seeking a further term in office. Whilst others appear to be trying a more legal way, if it can even be called that, by changing the constitution, President Teodoro Obiang Nguema announced that he has won party support to run again, despite having been in power for 36 years. In April, President Nguema won the vote and although controversial, stability has triumphed.

Meanwhile next door in the Congo, President Denis Sassou Nguesso won a bid in July to change the constitution to allow him to extend his 31 year rule. Similar things are happening in the DRC (President Joseph Kabila, 14 years), Rwanda (President Paul Kagame, 14 years), and Burundi (President Pierre Nkurunziza, 10 years) with varying levels of opposition.

Whilst many are not happy about the situation, it does beg the question of what is more necessary in a continent where conflict is regularly seen as a go to option: democracy or stability. As history shows, when a president decides that he is not ready to leave office, against the will of the people, it usually does not bode well for the country. Violence almost always follows, plunging the nation into years of civil war that sets it back decades.

Of course, democracy is a key factor in any nation and citizens have every right to be outraged when a president twists the constitution to suit his own needs so that he might run again. However, in cases when a country is progressive under a specific leader, perhaps even just peaceful, maybe stability is better than true democracy.

The Kenyan Example

Although he was only running for his second term, President Mwai Kibaki won the Kenyan election in 2007 in what was a questionable poll. The opposition, under Raila Odinga, boycotted the result and called on Kenyans to take to the streets to protest. What followed was three months of ethnic violence sparked by the Kibaki's win, leading to over 2000 deaths. Fast forward to 2013, and Kenyans once more went to the polls. Uhuru Kenyatta, of the same tribe as Kibaki, won in what again was a questionable election. This time, however, there were no protests. The extent of opposition was limited to Odinga’s appeal in the courts which failed. Kenyatta was declared president and a wary Kenya moved on. A common statement at the time was that they had sacrificed democracy for peace and stability.

It does, of course, depend on the president. When they are a brutal, murdering, genocidal, country destroying, corrupt despot, there can be no room for question: they have to go. Yet when they have produced some kind of progress for the country, or at least stability that allows people to develop, then perhaps there is an argument for allowing them to stay.

Rwandan 'Democracy'

This might just be the case for Paul Kagame, president of Rwanda. A Rwandan referendum recently passed a constitutional amendment that will make an exception for Kagame and allow him to run for a third term, .  With Kagame at the helm, Rwanda has come a long way since the 1994 genocide that rocked the country. The Global Competitive Report, when ranking the most efficient governments, put Rwanda 1st in Africa and 7th globally. According to the World Bank, its life expectancy has risen dramatically in the last ten years and huge improvements have been made in education, economics and infrastructure.

On the other hand, Kagame is not the biggest supporter of press freedom and there is certainly not a lot of room for government criticism in Rwanda. As for the legitimacy of his electoral victories, there is clearly some doubt and there have been allegations of government harassment of opposition. And his attempts to create an air of reconciliation between the two ethnic groups involved in the 1994 genocide have been moderate to say the least.

Overall, he’s a controversial character. Yet there is no denying that he has done a lot for Rwandan development and could possibly do a lot more. But could a challenge to his third term bid result in a similar scenario to 1994 and plunge Rwanda back twenty years? It’s possible which is why one might be inclined to choose stability over democracy.

As to the other African dictators, none have nearly as good a record for development as Kagame. But again, could a challenge to their leadership only lead to conflict? Perhaps some leaders aren't as progressive or inspirational as we hope but as long as they promote stability and peace, then there is certainly room for development, even if it is only at a grassroots level. Not democratic development of course, but perhaps peace and stability are more important in Africa right now.

What once was to idolise is now to debate

The changing concept of statues and their place in our society

It is important to remember that as times change, so the outlooks and meanings change with them.

The ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ debate has captured the attention of the world because it has a raised a controversial argument over the role of once celebrated figures and their places in history today. Cecil John Rhodes, a victorian empire builder who made his fortune in Africa, has been at the centre of this debate. A campaign, which began at the University of Cape Town to see the iconic statue of him there removed, has now spread closer to Rhode’s own home, as protesters seek the removal of another statue of Rhodes at the University of Oxford.

The movement is growing, however, and is spreading beyond Rhodes to other controversial figures who also hold legacies bound in the university such as Christopher Codrington, a seventeenth century West Indies plantation owner and notable slaver who also holds a statue in All Souls College at Oxford.

Whilst I do not in any way condone the awful and unsympathetic actions of historical figures who have achieved fame and fortune through the brutalisation and subjugation of others, I think it is important to understand how the concept of statues and legacies, and their meaning and use has changed dramatically through the ages.

Whilst studying History at the University of Manchester, I took a module that looked at the concepts of heroism and how the way we not only celebrate heroes has changed, but also the way we look to so called heroes of the past has changed. Whilst the idea of raising statues of figures was, at point, simply to celebrate their deeds, triumphs and accomplishments, nowadays they serve an entirely different purpose in society, namely to remind and create debate over how and why those supposed accomplishments were earned and what legacy they leave behind, be it bad or good.

In Rhodes’ case, it is obvious that statues of him were created to celebrate the triumphs of one of Britain's most successful empire builders. Today, however, those statues of him exist to serve purposes on several levels. On a more simple level, they remind us of a controversial colonial legacy that was built through the subjugation of others and the pillaging of resources and cultures of societies all over the globe, a legacy that is it important not to forget.

With regard to this first purpose, to remove a statue is an attempt in itself to sweep away a nation’s history and has dangerous implications, for that history, however uncomfortable it may be to remember, is a glue that shapes the culture of a particular nation. It is more important to remember and ask why then it is to forget and not ask at all, for in doing so, you risk repeating history.

On a more complicated level, however, statues serve to create debate over the roles, controversial or otherwise, of people like Rhodes and their contributions to the legacy of a nation, however uncomfortable that may be, and to understand how the ideas of hero-worship are constantly changing through the years, as is so much in society.

So to the protestors of the movement I say that we do not look upon Rhodes and other statues with awe and inspiration. We look instead to be reminded of how the concepts surrounding the uses of statues and of the worship of public figures in general have and will continue to change. For if that is not true, and we set a dangerous precedent by removing his statue, then we’d all better put our notepads away and get our hammer and chisels out, for we have a lot of work to do, the world over.

A Protest For Life

Why the South African student protests are the perfect spark for students around the world.

In the last week, the world has witnessed South African university students stand together to say that they will not accept the proposed fee increases. For those in the UK, these protests hark back to British students own days of protests when, in 2010, they also stood together to fight the fee rise. They were, however, unsuccessful. But maybe with South Africa’s stand taking the world by storm, it’s the perfect opportunity to do the same elsewhere.

The question over whether tertiary education should be a right or a privilege is one that has been asked frequently as universities the world over impose higher fees. Students in Britain, Chile, Hong Kong, Quebec and others have taken to the streets to demand subsidized, cheaper and even free tertiary education. And now South Africa has joined them.

Just as they did in London 2010, things have turned violent. Police clashing with student protesters, tear gas and rubber bullets fired and journalists flocking to hear the stories. And yet, the situation seems more positive in South Africa than it ever did in the UK.  Pressure is mounting on the South African government, from within and without, to propose a solution that would help to subsidize fees.

I spent 3 years at the University of Manchester and witnessed calls for students to rally against fees and proposed hikes. But the response was limited: compared to South Africa, it was like a village protest against a proposed change to the church roof. Certainly in 2010, things were much grander as over 30 000 students marched through London’s streets, but London was the focal point, whereas in South Africa, the protests are spread through various cities, and are having a much larger impact.

Perhaps it is because things are so much more desperate for South African students, for whom the cycle of poverty is more familiar than it is for those students in Britain, who have the comfort of benefits to cushion their fall. In a country where over 12 million people live in extreme poverty and many more in some form of poverty, the proposed fee increases on 10% to 12% mean that many poorer black students will be excluded from tertiary education, a tool so important in pulling people out of poverty. Another factor lies in student loans which are not as widely accessible to students in South Africa as they are in the UK, where most British students are entitled to a loan. In South Africa, it is not so much a protest for lower fees as it is a protest for life.

So with more on the line, maybe South Africa is the perfect environment for students to stand up and say enough is enough. If the value of tertiary education is greater to poverty stricken students there, perhaps the impact can be much larger. But more importantly what can success in the South African protests mean for the rest of the world?

Maybe this is just the perfect spark students worldwide need, to make them to go back to their governments with an answer to that heavily debated question: that answer being that tertiary education is not a privilege but a right.

The Migrant Crisis: a gigantic solution for a gigantic problem

They are calling it the largest mass migration of people since the Second World War and it is without the doubt, the biggest issue currently facing Europe. The apparent solution: to allow each European country to take a specific number of refugees.

Of course, we cannot sit back, close the borders and ignore the plight of these thousands. From countries such as Syria, Libya, Sudan, Eritrea and more, many of these people have left conflict-ridden zones in search of peace. Turning them away would be tantamount to executing them ourselves.

Yet at the same time, Europe cannot support the weight of the millions who will come if they know they can find a better, safer life there. For now, each country is prepared to take a specific amount but how many can Europe really support? Taking these refugees is humane, and it's a solution, but it's a short term one. Europe cannot take the whole world.

What is the long-term answer then? How can Europe help these people and at the same time turn them away? The answer surely lies at the source of the problem: the places that they are fleeing from.

There are two major reasons why people are heading to Europe. Security and economics, and sometimes both. Europe offers stability and prosperity. And yet the migrants undertake a treacherous and frequently fatal journey to reach the supposed Nirvana that is Europe. With this in mind, if the potential migrants were offered some form of peace and economic prosperity in their own land, it seems likely that they would not leave.

The solution then is to create both practical and economic stability and safety. Easier said than done. But with Europe’s resources, it is possible. I call it country twinning. For now, let us limit this to Africa.

The idea would be that each European country would be twinned with a specific African country and challenged, with that country, to create infrastructure, peace and economic safety that would encourage the citizens of the African country to stay. They would aim to create a peaceful and stable environment, and economically, to develop infrastructure and a basic welfare system based upon those that exist in Europe today which provide subsidised healthcare, education etc.

This idea could take place on various levels: at the top, the specific European government would work with the specific African government to reach these goals, helping financially and practically. At the bottom, citizens of the European country could be encouraged to spend one year in the twinned nation helping to build the infrastructure, develop the local inhabitants skills, and to use their own, for example, medical staff/students to work in hospitals etc.

The danger of this idea is obvious. Too strict on the part of the European country and it looks like neo-colonialism. Not strict enough and the endemic of corruption may prevent progress. For example, Germany gives Chad money to build infrastructure and it disappears down the pipeline of corruption. But if Germany takes that money and directs every part of the development, then it looks colonialist. The answer lies in cooperation and transparency. For example, Chad knows how many hospitals it wants but Germany can offer guidance on how best to run those hospitals. Furthermore, as part of the deal, every penny given by Germany and spent must be accounted for by Germany.

Yes, this scheme is filled with more challenges than can be imagined, and yes, maybe it is a complicated form of babysitting. But the important aspect is that there is something in it for all involved: a long-term solution to the migrant crisis for Europe and development for Africa. And that's just for one continent. Imagine if you could apply this around the world- ‘More Economically Developed Countries’ twinned with ‘Less Economically Developed Countries’.

Is it naive to imagine such vast, global cooperation? Perhaps. But in a world slowly spinning out of control, growing more divided and selfish and creating even bigger and crazier problems, maybe what’s needed is an even bigger and crazier solution. Country twinning may not sound catchy or impressive but maybe, just maybe, with a little imagination, it’s not only plausible but also possible.

Je Suis Charlie vs. I am Baga

The Argument for Africa.

“Je suis Charlie”. Three simple words that enlisted the world in showing solidarity in the face of the terror attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine. Thousands marched in cities across the globe to deliver a message to the terrorists: that they shall not be successful in their attempts to cow the West.

“Je suis Baga”. “Je suis Borno”. “Je suis Nigeria”. None of these sentences were uttered around the world in defiance of terror. None of these encouraged thousands to march in a show of opposition. And yet, there was another attack that same week as the Paris events. This attack was similar in nature, committed by an Islamist terror group. The only difference? The number of casualties. Paris: 12. Baga, Nigeria: Anywhere between 700 to 2000 dead, an estimate put forward by Amnesty International.

The attack in Baga took place on the 8th of January, the day after the Charlie Hebdo attack. Boko Haram, the militant Islamist group in control of much of North Eastern Nigeria, attacked the town after overrunning the nearby military base. They torched much of it, and killed hundreds of the inhabitants. The population of Baga, previously estimated at 10 000, was described as “virtually non-existent” in the wake of the raid.

The media coverage, however, didn’t paint quite the same picture. It took me several days to hear about the attack, and even then it was not from global media corporations such as the BBC, but from a local African website. Meanwhile, television, radio and the internet were collapsing under the weight of analytical reports, angry or confused comments and detailed narration on the Paris attacks and the perpetrators. Baga featured a few minutes of the daily roundup.

This is not to say that what happened in Paris isn’t hugely significant or alarming to the world. The fact that a gun attack took place in the capital city of a country with a top rate security force and intelligence agency and furthermore that the gunmen managed to escape for a period of time, is extremely worrying and harks back to 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings. Also, granted, it was much more difficult to report on the Baga massacre (due to kidnapping fears and bad communication in the area) than it was for the Paris events.

‘It happens all the time over there.’

But when some news does get out that up to 2000 people are massacred, their bodies strewn along the streets, killed for the same ideology that was used in Paris, why isn’t the world leaping to show mass support? Because of the old excuse of “Its Africa, and these things happen all the time there.” Unfortunately one does not need to look far for evidence to support this awful statement: Rwanda, Sudan, DRC, CAR, Somalia... the list goes on.

Just as with the extensive media coverage of Syria whilst a deadly war raged in the DRC uncovered, the world has little interest in the motives for such genocides, putting them down to the consequences of post-colonialism, something the West is keen to forget about.

But the world should worry. If not for the 2000 lying dead in Baga, then for the fact that if Boko Haram establishes its goal of creating an independent Caliphate in Western Africa, the consequences for Europe could be far reaching and dangerous. Boko Haram is not a fan of the West, the name itself means “Western Education is forbidden”. So if it succeeds in capturing most of Nigeria, the group is unlikely to stop there and the possibility of a government who use tactics of terror on civilians in the name of religion, to bring down the West could become a scary reality.

The world needs to come to terms with the fact that a European life is not worth more than an African life. We should be as deeply shocked by terror killings in Nigeria as we are by those in Paris, and global media coverage, in the age of all powerful globalisation, should reflect that. Terrorist activity is on a new high, not just in Europe, but the world over: Nigeria, Indonesia, Colombia, Kenya, Canada, and it cannot be ignored in any location, no matter how backward that country may seem.

People need to know about Baga. The media needs to tell them so that around the globe, millions will send a message to Boko Haram: They cannot continue to slaughter thousands of innocents and the world will not stand by if they do. But more importantly, they will send a message to Nigeria and to Africa: The world has not forgotten about you. I am Baga.

Hey - Africa’s over here!

While the world watches Syria, a new world war could develop in Africa.

Syria. That has been the international crisis word for the past two weeks as the superpowers debate what position to take while the global media documents every move. But is the world completely distracted from a decade long situation which is as bad, if not worse, than the issue of Syria? And the bigger question: how long can they continue to ignore the problems in the DRC, which are set to spiral into a major conflict involving more than a few badly armed rebel groups?

The conflict in the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo) has been nicknamed ‘Africa’s World War’ and over the last ten years has involved countless rebel groups, as many as nine countries and the largest peacekeeping force the UN has ever had costing 1.5 billion dollars a year. Since 1998, a conservative estimate  puts the death toll due to the conflict at nearly five and half million people and despite many returning home, there are still one and a half million refugees.

Of course we all know that it is the nature of the press to get as much out of a story as possible and then move on and at certain times the DRC conflict has had its international attention, but the coverage has been nothing compared to the Syrian issue which has the world enraptured. Granted, there is an international crisis in Syria and the use of chemical weapons should definitely attract an international response. Yet small arms have accounted for millions of deaths in the DRC but it is unlikely that the President of the USA has ever considered sending rocket attacks to strike at any side in the conflict.

Could this all be about to change? Recently, the fighting has simplified slightly, involving one particular rebel group known as M23 against the DRC government who are backed by a UN force, 3000 strong, with a tough mandate to ‘restore government authority’. However, the UN has declared that it has strong evidence to show that the neighbouring country Rwanda could be backing M23 and has openly accused them of it. Rwanda has denied the charges and in return accused the DRC of backing a Rwandan rebel group.

The situation escalated recently when mortar shells hit a Rwandan town killing two civilians. Rwanda responded with a statement saying that more shelling “would be tantamount to crossing a red line” (sound familiar?) and said it would be “forced to intervene” as it blames the shelling on the DRC and the UN. This brought forward the prospect of a direct conflict between the two nations in which the UN could be put in a precarious position with its offensive force, especially after all the backing it has given to the DRC government.

The prospect of an international conflict involving African governments has huge repercussions for the world. Certainly, Rwanda and DRC would not be the only two involved as other African countries would quickly choose sides. As for the rest of the world, a new Cold War scenario could emerge, similar to the situation in the mid-20^th century involving Israel and the surrounding Arab region in which the US and the USSR chose sides.

The difference is that it would be more likely to be between the West and China. And the incentive for the superpowers to take sides? Firstly, regional dominance and secondly, the mineral wealth that the area around the conflict is rolling in - Cobalt for one which is a major input for cell phones etc. And to add to the confusion, where does this leave the UN force? Either backing a side, running from the war or ‘trying to keep the peace’, something they are not renowned for.

For now, this doomsday scenario is still preventable and tensions have since cooled between the two nations. But it still leaves a situation where the world must either start paying attention to the DRC issue as much as they have to Syria; or accept the possibility of a future involving a war that could spiral to drastic proportions and cause them to rue the day they didn’t open up the Atlas to find out where Goma is.