Democratic Governance, White South Africa and Superpower Rivalry: What Future for Africa?
Bola A. Akinterinwa
Sooner than later, Africa may be another Russian-Ukrainian or Israel-Palestine conflict zone simply because of disagreement over democratic governance, impending conflict between the White South Africans struggling for independence, and deepening rivalry between Russia and the United States in the use of Africa as a proxy battle ground. For instance, the more the African Union, and particularly the ECOWAS, is talking about zero tolerance for unconstitutional change of government either in the ECOWAS region or in the whole of Africa, the more the unconstitutional changes of government that now characterise governance in Francophone Africa.
Many questions arise in this regard: why are the coups only occurring in Francophone Africa? Democracy was not allowed in the succession processes when the Chadian president, Idris Déby Itno, died in the battle field. The military council simply stepped in to impose the succession of his son for the purposes of continuity. The coups in Mali, Guinea, Burkina Faso and Niger occurred thereafter. When the coup d’état in Niger took place, everyone thought no one would contemplate coup-making again. The coup in Gabon not only occurred, an attempted coup took place again in Benin Republic last week. All the countries with military junta in power are former colonies of France. Why are the coups restricted to the Francophone countries? What really is the problem? What is the problematic?
The problem is democratic governance which is generating political controversies. The problematic is the conflict between the African Union’s zero tolerance for unconstitutional change of government and the quest of the peoples in the various coup-states to stop French neo-colonialism in all ramifications in their countries. The two interests are conflicting, and therefore, are not only under-developing Africa but also directly militating against the cardinal objective of continental unity and integration as envisaged in 1963 and particularly as articulated in the 1980 Lagos Plan of Action and the 1991 Abuja Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community. But what really is the situational reality with democratic governance and African Unity in light of Africa as an object of international rivalry?
Democratic Governance and Coups
Democracy has always been a major issue in the political governance of Africa since the time of general independence in the 1960s. By that time, coups d’état were the features of political governance in the former British colonies. For example, four of the countries having the highest number of military coups since 1952 were said to be English-speaking countries: Sudan led with 17 coups. Ghana and Sierra Leone followed with 10 coups each, while Nigeria recorded 8 coups.
The thinking then was that the military coup mentality was a resultant from British style of colonial direct rule as distinct from France’s policy of assimilation. France’s former colonies were then considered revered democracies. In fact, there was a type of centrifugal rivalry between the Francophone and Anglophone African countries that led to mutual suspicions. France came openly to support the Francophones while Britain kept its distance cautiously. The Francophones were thinking and acting together. They gave active support to the testing of French atomic bombs in the Reggane area of the Sahara while the Anglophone Nigeria and Ghana were vehemently opposed.
But true enough, when France reportedly brought foreign mercenaries to invade Togo in 1963 and President Sylvanus Olympio was killed in the process, Nigeria was brought into direct confrontation with France, prompting Nigeria’s formulation of exceptions to the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other sovereign States. With the French-assisted attack on President Olympio, France became the first country to oust an elected government in Africa. In spite of this, the Francophone countries were still reputed thereafter to be peaceful and democratically well oriented. But this would not be so for too long. Even though French President, François Mitterrand, made democracy, in his statement at the 16th Franco-African Summit held in La Baule-Escoublac in southern France, a conditionality for development assistance and dictatorship was completely jettisoned in principle, democratisation was hardly complied with in practice. France that initiated the principle eventually made a nonsense of it and coup-making never stopped.
In the past few years, Mali, Chad, Burkina Faso, Guinea, and Niger recorded coups d’état. Considering that the sanctions taken by the ECOWAS against Mali, Burkina Faso and Guinea did not appear to have weakened them, the ECOWAS decided to take more serious sanctions against the coupists in Niger. The sanctions included land and air border closures, attachment of Niger’s financial assets in ECOWAS countries, suspension of Niger from the activities of the organisation and threats of military invasion of Niger. A 7-day ultimatum was even given but all to no avail. In spite of the stiff sanctions, and probably because of the non-implementation of the threat, the Gabonese coup was organised after that of Niger.
Unlike others, the rationale for the Gabonese coup appeared to be more of opposition to the evolvement of a presidential monarchy and incapacity. It should be recalled that Ali Bongo was first elected in 2009 and the legitimacy of his election was queried. Most Gabonese believed that André Mba Obame won the election. Again in 2016 when Ali Bongo stood for re-election against former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jean Ping, he reportedly won with 64% of the votes but only narrowly won in the Haut Ogooué region considered to be the fiefdom of the Bongo family. The problem with the announced results was that he did not only prevent international observers from monitoring the polls, but also ensured that the polling station records of which he purportedly won massively were destroyed. The opposition parties rejected the results and the military intervened, claiming that the election ‘did not meet the conditions for a transparent, credible and inclusive ballot so much hoped for by the people of Gabon,’ to borrow the words of Paul Melly, a consulting Fellow with the Africa Programme at the Chatham House in London, as quoted.
When Ali Bongo was planning for a third term earlier this year, the issue of his state of health was raised, having suffered a stroke in 2018. His father, Omar Bongo, had ruled Gabon for more than four decades. Allowing another term gave the impression of perpetuation of Bongo dynasty to which the Gabonese were opposed. This is how democracy is managed in Africa and people are complaining.
And perhaps most disturbingly, there was still another coup plan scheduled to take place on Friday, 4th October, 2024 but nipped in the bud on Tuesday 01st October 2024. As reported, an ex-Sports Minister, Oswald Homeky, was caught while handing over six bags of money to the commander of the Republican Guard, Elonm Mario Metonou. The report also had it that Colonel Djimon Dieudonnée Tevoedjre was being bribed not to resist the coup d’état being planned in Benin Republic and designed to take place the following Friday. Some suspects have been detained. They included Mr. Olivier Boko, a businessman and friend to President Patrice Talon who had reportedly indicated interest in contesting in the next presidential elections in Benin. In essence, the coup plan was quickly nipped in the bud.
That the coup was nipped in the bud is not important. What is important, but disturbing, is the will and quest to still want to change power by unconstitutional means which raises many questions. Who really are those interested in political dictatorship in Africa? Are there foreign powers instigating dictatorship? Can the people of Africa not stop French neo-colonialism without the use of force? Can the foundational principles of France’s special and privileged relationships not be renegotiated? Why should the ECOWAS and the African Union be seeking to sanction people for seeking to liberate themselves from recolonization or from neo-colonisation? Is the position of the African leaders not anachronistic?
Whatever is the case, democracy has become a political burden rather than an asset in Africa. It is in the name of democracy, especially democratic freedoms, that national constitutions are also abused, that presidential terms are tampered with, and that Africa now has a category of sit-tight presidents and presidential monarchies. Without any jot of doubt, liberal democracy is on a gradual decline even in the United States. The role of former US president, Donald Trump, sitting down comfortably in the White House to watch his supporters violently attacking the US Congress is unbelievable but true. It was the most unacceptable type of coup against democracy.
As at today, records have it that 78% of the 27 coups d’états that have taken place in Sub-Saharan Africa since 1990, took place in Francophone Africa. Francophone Africa that used to be a beacon of democracy is now the leader in coup-making, not necessarily for purposes of regime change, but essentially to protest against French re-colonisation. And this brings us to the issue of current and impending socio-political problems and the likely intervention of the great and super powers in the resolution of the problems.
White South African Autonomy: Quo Vadis?
Africa is currently challenged by four main problems of political governance: how to respond or permanently prevent coup-making, how to respond to the struggle by White South Africans seeking independence, how to stop foreign-supported leadership attitude towards democracy, and how to prevent the likely intervention of foreign powers, especially that of the great and superpowers.
First, on how to respond to coup-making, answers must first of all be found to the issue of the Commander of Presidential Guards. Is it possible to have people who be reliable to the tune of 50% and not politically very ambitious? This is a major and critical causal dynamic of coup making. It is, more often than not, the guards that are officially assigned to protect a democratically-elected president that are also compromised and used to oust the elected President. When the commanders of brigade of guards are much friendly with their principals, coups are generally not bloody. Presidents are allowed to go and rest without much qualms. When the contrary is the case, blood stains can always be expected. The Tchiani coup in Niger, the Joe Garba coup against General Yakubu Gowon in Nigeria, etc. are good illustrations of this point.
Additionally, can there not be an alternative arrangement to presidential guards in the quest to protect the president? This year alone, there have been two attempts to kill former President Donald Trump. Attempts to kill are other forms of coup d’état at the individual level. This means that the life of any leader cannot but always be at stake. Killing the leader of a government and taking over his power forcefully or otherwise is largely either a resultant of bad governance or sustaining bad governance by foreign powers which, in most cases, engenders the oppression of those opposed to the foreign-supported leader of the country. Thus, how to always ensure good governance is one antidote but which does not guarantee that presidential guards would not have presidential ambitions.
With the current situational reality in Africa, it appears that democracy does not have an internationally standardised punitive measures for leaders that disregard democratic values. On the one hand, the advanced democracies purportedly encourage the promotion of democratic values but also, on the other hand, simultaneously aid and abet bad governance and reckless dictatorship. France is on record to have always supported all pro-French governments in Africa and ignoring the people’s complaints against the government.
In Chad, for example, the constitution requires the leader of the National Assembly to organise elections within six months following the unavailability of the President of Chad. However, Chad’s military council completely disregarded the constitutional provision and simply facilitated the succession of the son of the late president. Not only France, but also the African Union, closed their eyes to the breach of the Chadian constitution. France similarly condoned President Alassane Ouattara of the Côte d’Ivoire when he manipulated his country’s constitution to enable a third term. France could not have behaved otherwise in light of Ouattara being a dependable ally of France.
Secondly on South Africa, the white South Africans want the Cape Province declared autonomous and independent. They want a separate identity. For me, there is nothing wrong with that since the lies often told as from the time of arrival and settlement of the Indo-Europeans into the Cape Province was that there was no resistance by the indigenous people, the Khoikoi/Khoisan people and that the indigenous people, who they even claimed did not exist there, were further inland and further up the West coast of Africa. On this basis, Indians, Europeans, etc. began to arrive in mass in the Cape Province on the wrong belief that the Cape area was a terra nullius. The Cape could not have been a territory without ownership. South Africa is too far away from Europe for it to be owned by people from India and Europe.
In this regard, how should the African Union, and Nigeria in particular, respond to this problem? Is there any good basis to help defend black South Africa? During the struggle against apartheid and racial segregation in South Africa, Nigeria adopted the policy of ‘no compromise with apartheid,’ and nationalised British assets in Nigeria because of Britain’s decision to sell Nigeria’s crude oil to South Africa contrary to Nigeria’s policy stand. Nigeria chaired the UN Committee Against Apartheid for more than 98% of the time. And true enough, the role of Nigeria in the struggle led to the international recognition of Nigeria as one of the ‘Frontline States.’ However, many uninformed South Africans, black and white, mischievously argued that what Nigeria did was for her selfish economic motivations only, ignoring the fact that salaries of Nigerian workers were deducted to give to the liberation fighters and also ignoring that scholarships were given to South African students to study in Nigerian universities.
Now, the white South Africans are already using manu militari means to achieve their objective to begin with, meaning that total war cannot be ruled out in the foreseeable future. What is Nigeria’s policy response? What will be the basis for the United Nations for accepting the demands? Will the principle of self-determination be applicable in this case? If the UN has not been encouraging disunity in its Member States until now, why should it be expected that the White South African case will be different?
Without whiff of doubt, there is the need for a geo-political redefinition of Africa to enable the use and adoption of ‘Black Africa.’ The international politics of permanent membership of the UN Security gives priority to South Africa and Egypt in the possible allocation of permanent seats to Africa. The policy of France and the UK is that they would support any candidate nominated by the African Union. The United States prefers Egypt. Candidates from Africa will not represent their countries but the whole of Africa on a rotational basis unlike the incumbent Permanent Members. China has indicated readiness to support Nigeria. The real politik is that the preference for Egypt leaves Nigeria and South Africa to vie for the other seat. Because of the white population in South Africa, there is no way Nigeria would not be technically knocked out regardless of her roles and active participation in UN Peace Support Operations. Black Africa has always not benefitted much from UN allocation of regional offices, hence the need for Africa of black people.
On superpower rivalry, there is no way White South Africa will not enjoy some support from countries like France, United Kingdom and the United States. South Africa also has warm ties with Russia. During the August 1-10 protests in Nigeria, Russian national flags were displayed by some protesters which angered the Government of Nigeria. The carriers of the flags were arrested for investigation. Russia not only distanced itself from the strikes but has accused the United States and the United Kingdom of creating taints in Nigeria’s good relationship with Russia. As Kremlin put it in its letter to the Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and shared by Yury Paramonov, the official press secretary of the Embassy of Russia in Abuja, ‘statements by US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, former Director of the British Council in Nigeria, David Roberts, and the Ambassador of Ukraine to Nigeria, Ivan Kholostenko, have shamelessly and baselessly suggested that the use of Russian flags during recent protests is evidence of Russia’s interference and have further warned that this could happen again in the future.’
More interestingly, the Russian Embassy ‘categorially rejects such accusations and reiterates that the Russian Federation neither had any involvement in the protests that occurred in the recent past, nor does it have any connection to potential future demonstrations or unrest.’ Russia says it has a foreign policy of respect for Nigeria’s sovereignty and always adheres to the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries. Russia appreciated its high level ties with Nigeria and has reassured of its ‘unwavering support for the leadership and the people of Nigeria’ in its letter to the Government of Nigeria. To what extent can Russia come closer to Nigeria and the United States will opt to observe without complaint? Can Nigeria under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu act the way the Niger of Abdulrahamane Tchiani reacted to the US Department of State’s delegation to Niamey when the delegation told the military junta not to have anything to do with Russia and Iran?
As regards how to stop foreign-supported leadership attitude towards democracy, or being foreign stooges and how to prevent the likely intervention of foreign powers, especially that of the great and superpowers, Nigeria should simply engage in the promotion of citizen diplomacy in Africa, re-introduce Nigeria’s policy of non-acceptance of foreign military bases in Africa, redefine liberal democracy in the mania of Africana, and also à la Nigeriana, as well as rejig Nigeria’s foreign policy beyond the policy of the 4-Ds. The need to accredit Plenipotentiaries has become a desideratum.
