CNN: Can Democracy Thrive in Africa?

[M-A Lagrange]

And from M-A...
Of course it is. The idea that colonizers have no responsibility for the current state of affairs is equal nonsense. If nothing else, the egregiously perverse "national" boundaries inherited from the colonial age constitute a massive obstacle to progress.

All people, everywhere, have to gradually sort out the political identities that suit them, and to find ways for the entities they define to coexist without destroying each other. In Europe this process required centuries of almost continuous bloodshed. In the colonies the process was delayed by foreign occupation. That doesn't mean the process was made harder or easier, more or less complex, it was just delayed. When the colonists left the process picked up where it had stopped. It's going to be messy, as it has been everywhere else.

Dayuhan,

Sengor was saying, Africa will have finally deal with slavery the day African will recognise their responsability in it. It is the same with colonisation. Through, I am not saying that Europeans did not do it and had only positive influx. This is a very racist position which I reject in block without taking time to discuss it. Europ had a responsability in it and Europ had bad influence. Now, please, we are 50 years later in most of the sub saharian countries. (And what about US influence in Liberia...)
My point is that even in Europe, Boundaries were imposed on the people: look at Yugoslavia, Poland that disapeared for centuries, the German minorities in Poland... The question is not there. Also, my experience is that people have true nationalist feelings in the Great Lake region for exemple. A congolese is a Congolese and he denise the right to be Congolese to Rwandese. The same with people from Burundi, South Sudan... Their personal history within those "artificial" boundaries in the last 50 years has shaped their national perception. The true problematic is TOO MANY SEE AFRICA HAS ONE SINGLE ENTITY. It is NOT. And then, the political use of ethnicity by all political actors, internal and external. Do you really think that coming from Bourgogne I have anything in comun with someone coming from Alsace or Provence part from a language and a school teaching?
It is the same with ethnicity. Yes it is stronger in Africa than in other places but as much as anywhere else. What makes it so artificially importante is the use politicians did and still do of it. But I know more and more individuals who just do not care from which ethnic group you are, what is important is that you come from the same country. (With some bemol, I accept that).

Does it make any more sense to expect that Africans should be able to bypass stages in their political development that every other region has had to pass through just because we find those stages distasteful?

No but if it can be minimised, then it should. Political evolutionism is no reason for social darwinism.

With this I agree... if they do it in a single generation that would actually be a quite remarkable achievement. I would expect several.

Let say I am optimistic. But still, please, when it comes to Africa, do not forget that it is a continent with countries as different as Tunisia and Zimbabwe. Do you really think the political and maturation process in Ethiopia is the same as in Swaziland?

[Dayuhan]

My point is that even in Europe, Boundaries were imposed on the people: look at Yugoslavia, Poland that disapeared for centuries, the German minorities in Poland... The question is not there. Also, my experience is that people have true nationalist feelings in the Great Lake region for exemple. A congolese is a Congolese and he denise the right to be Congolese to Rwandese. The same with people from Burundi, South Sudan... Their personal history within those "artificial" boundaries in the last 50 years has shaped their national perception.

Certainly true. My point is simply that Africans are in the process of defining their political identities and affiliations. The state of this process and the manner in which it is carried out will of course vary considerably from place to place. Sometimes it may even be peaceful. It must, though, be worked out by Africans: no outside power can come in and decide what people should be part of what nation, where national boundaries should be, and how these emerging nations should interact with one another.

The process has involved violence and will involve more violence, as it has everywhere else. Africans have had to endure and will still have to endure absolutely horrible governance... just like everybody else has had to. The extent to which the outside world can change this is, I fear, quite limited.

No but if it can be minimised, then it should. Political evolutionism is no reason for social darwinism.

Agreed... we must do what we can. There are quite severe limits, though, to what we can do... and if we try to alleviate misery by taking charge ourselves, we may do as much harm as good. Our efforts to "fix" other places have not always been entirely successful.

[M-A Lagrange]

Kenya’s PM party distances itself from Bashir’s visit as more details emerge on trip

We would like to point out to Kenyans and the international community that this was indeed a very unfortunate visit that could put into question the commitment of the government to implement the Constitution of the second republic in letter and spirit

Nyong told a news conference on Saturday according to Capital FM website.

As we maintain cordial relations with our neighboring countries, we must not forget or disregard our equally important adherence to international conventions and commitments,”

Nyong said.

This is definitely not a good beginning to compound a new Constitution with an act of impunity

Orengo said adding that besides the explanation, Kenya had to take full responsibility.

We first have to give an explanation to ourselves because we broke our law that is supreme, besides violating an international agreement that we are a signatory.

http://sudantribune.com/spip.php?article36107

[JMA]

[QUOTE=M-A Lagrange;105763]Kenya’s PM party distances itself from Bashir’s visit as more details emerge on trip

We would like to point out to Kenyans and the international community that this was indeed a very unfortunate visit that could put into question the commitment of the government to implement the Constitution of the second republic in letter and spirit,” Nyong told a news conference on Saturday according to Capital FM website.

As we maintain cordial relations with our neighboring countries, we must not forget or disregard our equally important adherence to international conventions and commitments

Nyong said.

This is definitely not a good beginning to compound a new Constitution with an act of impunity

Orengo said adding that besides the explanation, Kenya had to take full responsibility.

We first have to give an explanation to ourselves because we broke our law that is supreme, besides violating an international agreement that we are a signatory.

http://sudantribune.com/spip.php?article36107

One needs to bear in mind that repercussions arising from the 2007 post-election violence in Kenya itself may well lead to ICC indictments for those currently serving within the current government.

Now looking at Mugabe's sheltering of another criminal, Mengistu, probably in so doing setting the example of "African solidarity" for the potential of he himself needing to seek shelter from justice at some point in the future.

The same could possibly be said of those Kenyans who may need a sanctuary safe from the ICC in the future. Bashir would no doubt return the favour. (Or at least they would be banking on it)

Look even that club of dictators and thieves who make up the AU would have to start to take the Rome Statute seriously if:

1) The US ratified the Rome Statute,
2) There was international pressure to comply and sanctions if they don't.

Note: This would offer a golden opportunity for the Brits to get out of the expense of the use of Kenya for near to valueless military training.

[JMA]

Dayuhan,

Sengor was saying, Africa will have finally deal with slavery the day African will recognise their responsability in it. It is the same with colonisation. Through, I am not saying that Europeans did not do it and had only positive influx. This is a very racist position which I reject in block without taking time to discuss it. Europ had a responsability in it and Europ had bad influence. Now, please, we are 50 years later in most of the sub saharian countries. (And what about US influence in Liberia...)
My point is that even in Europe, Boundaries were imposed on the people: look at Yugoslavia, Poland that disapeared for centuries, the German minorities in Poland... The question is not there. Also, my experience is that people have true nationalist feelings in the Great Lake region for exemple. A congolese is a Congolese and he denise the right to be Congolese to Rwandese. The same with people from Burundi, South Sudan... Their personal history within those "artificial" boundaries in the last 50 years has shaped their national perception. The true problematic is TOO MANY SEE AFRICA HAS ONE SINGLE ENTITY. It is NOT. And then, the political use of ethnicity by all political actors, internal and external. Do you really think that coming from Bourgogne I have anything in comun with someone coming from Alsace or Provence part from a language and a school teaching?
It is the same with ethnicity. Yes it is stronger in Africa than in other places but as much as anywhere else. What makes it so artificially importante is the use politicians did and still do of it. But I know more and more individuals who just do not care from which ethnic group you are, what is important is that you come from the same country. (With some bemol, I accept that).

No but if it can be minimised, then it should. Political evolutionism is no reason for social darwinism.

Let say I am optimistic. But still, please, when it comes to Africa, do not forget that it is a continent with countries as different as Tunisia and Zimbabwe. Do you really think the political and maturation process in Ethiopia is the same as in Swaziland?

Ignorance of Africa mixed in with the arrogance of "the smartest guy in the room" makes for a lethal cocktail. I have a friend who served in the USMC and later Rhodesia as an officer who went on to teach college in Virginia and has said that he constantly has to explain and re-explain that Africa is a content of 52 sovereign countries and not one country.

I read recently of a person who introduces himself as coming from Yorubaland but since the British colonization has become a Nigerian (for better or worse). Now considering all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about colonial borders does anyone else find it strange that the AU (and the OAU before) refuses to consider realigning colonial boundaries which cut peoples/tribes/nations in half? If they are not going to do anything about it why spend all the time complaining?

Then there are 2,000 languages in Africa (250 in Nigeria alone). I wonder if all this worries/concerns/matters to some whiz-kid from an Ivy-league university who runs the Africa Desk at the state department? Don't I get a good laugh when asked if I speak African... you bet.

In east Africa the Arabs were the middle men in the slave trade. They bought from the local chiefs and then sold on to the Portuguese or whoever. If the demand rose the local chief brought slaves back from his raids as they were worth more alive than dead. Never heard anything about the role of the local chiefs of the dominant tribes (other than from Sengor) and not much said about the Arab middlemen/wholesalers. Strange isn't it. Especially when it works differently when it comes to the drug supply chain where the users are seen as victims and the middlemen and producers are routinely interdicted. Then again its the old producers argument of "if there was no demand there would be no incentive to produce and supply". You go figure.

It is sheer ignorance of Africa in most cases that makes western/foreign actions such a joke. If there are problems in Africa dig a little and you will find and ethnic/tribal/clan or religious issue at the source. Yet the "smart guys" half a world away make decisions oblivious of the issues and underlying circumstances. Made all the worse when the decisions result in death and suffering often on a massive scale.

I can remember in post apartheid South Africa when the Zulu nation wanted a federal system as opposed to a unitary state system. Guess what, the US and the West said they could not support the Balkanisation of South Africa. When challenged by saying the the federal powers wanted were less than other afforded to the states in the US the US representative just said ... "Oh!"

Yes the various areas of Africa vary greatly from each other. Realising this and accepting it is the first step towards success. Thereafter one can begin to try to understand the specifics of the particular areas of interest. Can there ever be an Africa expert? No, but there are certainly people who have a great understanding of Africa (mostly Africans themselves) and know where to find the specific on a particular area quickly.

It was always all about social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) until the colonisers arrived. Then we saw a switch to the more biblical "the meek shall inherit the earth (in literal translation). If the Brits had not intervened/colonised the south area of Africa and defeated the Zulu, the Ndabele and the Ngoni there would certainly not have been too many of the minor tribes in South Africa around, not the Shona in Zimbabwe nor the Chewa in Malawi.

We can go on and on... but lets leave it there for now.

[Rex Brynen]

I wonder if all this worries/concerns/matters to some whiz-kid from an Ivy-league university who runs the Africa Desk at the state department? Don't I get a good laugh when asked if I speak African... you bet.

On the other hand, I imagine the folks in the Bureau of African Affairs get a good laugh when anyone suggests there's a single guy on an "Africa Desk" at the Department of State.

[jmm99]

the present Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Johnnie Carson ("Here's Johnnie"):

.... served as desk officer in the Africa section at State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (1971-1974) .....

Not an Ivy-Leaguer though.



Mike

[JMA]

the present Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Johnnie Carson ("Here's Johnnie"):

Not an Ivy-Leaguer though.



Mike

I wonder if he speaks African?

[JMA]

On the other hand, I imagine the folks in the Bureau of African Affairs get a good laugh when anyone suggests there's a single guy on an "Africa Desk" at the Department of State.

A single guy running the "desk"? I was talking about the guy in charge. But smart comment anyway. Now... do you have something of value to add?

[M-A Lagrange]

JMA,

Last time I went to US (20 years ago) I was asked if Berlin was still the capital of France. Let say I took it as a joke.

But I believe we were talking about the path to democracy. Look at what our good old friend Museweni is doing:
Uganda's president wants to extend his rule to 30 years
http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/ar...le-to-30-years

As a colleage of mine from the Great lakes was telling me: yes, I have idears on what my country needs and what I want. But can they listen to me?

I gess not.

[Dayuhan]

Ignorance of Africa mixed in with the arrogance of "the smartest guy in the room" makes for a lethal cocktail. I have a friend who served in the USMC and later Rhodesia as an officer who went on to teach college in Virginia and has said that he constantly has to explain and re-explain that Africa is a content of 52 sovereign countries and not one country.

I read recently of a person who introduces himself as coming from Yorubaland but since the British colonization has become a Nigerian (for better or worse). Now considering all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about colonial borders does anyone else find it strange that the AU (and the OAU before) refuses to consider realigning colonial boundaries which cut peoples/tribes/nations in half? If they are not going to do anything about it why spend all the time complaining?

Then there are 2,000 languages in Africa (250 in Nigeria alone). I wonder if all this worries/concerns/matters to some whiz-kid from an Ivy-league university who runs the Africa Desk at the state department? Don't I get a good laugh when asked if I speak African... you bet.

In east Africa the Arabs were the middle men in the slave trade. They bought from the local chiefs and then sold on to the Portuguese or whoever. If the demand rose the local chief brought slaves back from his raids as they were worth more alive than dead. Never heard anything about the role of the local chiefs of the dominant tribes (other than from Sengor) and not much said about the Arab middlemen/wholesalers. Strange isn't it. Especially when it works differently when it comes to the drug supply chain where the users are seen as victims and the middlemen and producers are routinely interdicted. Then again its the old producers argument of "if there was no demand there would be no incentive to produce and supply". You go figure.

It is sheer ignorance of Africa in most cases that makes western/foreign actions such a joke. If there are problems in Africa dig a little and you will find and ethnic/tribal/clan or religious issue at the source. Yet the "smart guys" half a world away make decisions oblivious of the issues and underlying circumstances. Made all the worse when the decisions result in death and suffering often on a massive scale.

I can remember in post apartheid South Africa when the Zulu nation wanted a federal system as opposed to a unitary state system. Guess what, the US and the West said they could not support the Balkanisation of South Africa. When challenged by saying the the federal powers wanted were less than other afforded to the states in the US the US representative just said ... "Oh!"

Yes the various areas of Africa vary greatly from each other. Realising this and accepting it is the first step towards success. Thereafter one can begin to try to understand the specifics of the particular areas of interest. Can there ever be an Africa expert? No, but there are certainly people who have a great understanding of Africa (mostly Africans themselves) and know where to find the specific on a particular area quickly.

It was always all about social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) until the colonisers arrived. Then we saw a switch to the more biblical "the meek shall inherit the earth (in literal translation). If the Brits had not intervened/colonised the south area of Africa and defeated the Zulu, the Ndabele and the Ngoni there would certainly not have been too many of the minor tribes in South Africa around, not the Shona in Zimbabwe nor the Chewa in Malawi.

We can go on and on... but lets leave it there for now.

An impressive slaughter of the straw men, but you're responding to points that nobody here has made.

I'm still wondering what you wish to see done, and who you think should do it..

[Tom Odom]

This one is refreshing. Hopefully the ideas will continue to blossum.

Tom

Why Africa needs 'cheetahs,' not 'hippos'
By George Ayittey, Special to CNN
August 27, 2010 6:37 a.m. EDT

Editor's note: George Ayittey is a Ghanaian economist and the author of several books on Africa, including "Africa Unchained" and the forthcoming "Defeating Dictators in Africa and Around The World." In 2008, Ayittey was listed by Foreign Policy magazine as one of the "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" of our time. He writes for Africa 50, CNN's special coverage looking at 17 African nations marking 50 years of independence this year.

(CNN) -- Currently, Africa -- a continent immensely rich with mineral resources and yet mired in poverty -- suffers from a catastrophic leadership failure or monumental deficit of leadership.

Since 1960, there have been 210 African heads of state, but just try to find 10 -- just 10 -- good ones among them. Names like Mandela, Nkrumah, Nyerere easily come to mind but then rapidly fall off.

But there is hope in what I call the "Cheetah Generation."

The Cheetah Generation refers to the new and angry generation of young African graduates and professionals, who look at African issues and problems from a totally different and unique perspective.

[M-A Lagrange]

This one is refreshing. Hopefully the ideas will continue to blossum.

Tom

Tom,

Yes it is refreshing. Remember the 80/early 90. We were all looking for the young dynamic African entrepreneur. Yes it was a white elephant as it was done through development aid but he finally came. Let say, it is time for him to take over power. At the only condition that he does not turn into a Ravalomanan.
And I do admire the Madagascar people who have been able to push him out of power (for the best, what ever their situation is now) without extreme violence.

[JMA]

This one is refreshing. Hopefully the ideas will continue to blossum.

Tom

George Ayittey is seen as positively dangerous to the current AU member state leadership and hence the local propaganda generally portrays him as an Uncle Tom.

See why below...

====================================

On July 24, 2005, in the TV program Wide Angle, Professor Ayittey discussed social, political and economic development in Africa with Anchor, Bill Moyers:

GEORGE AYITTEY: In Africa, we see our governments as the problem. In fact, one Lesotho traditional chief said as much back in 1989, “Here we have two problems, rats and the government.”

BILL MOYERS: Rats and the government?

GEORGE AYITTEY: Yes, it is because Africans see government as the problem. In fact, we call them vampire states because they suck the vitality out of the people, their own people. A vampire state is a government which has been captured or hijacked by a phalanx of bandits and crooks who use instruments of the state to enrich themselves, their cronies and tribesmen and exclude everybody else. It’s called the politics of exclusion.
Now, if you want to understand why America is rich and Africa is poor, ask yourself, how do the rich in each of these areas make their money?
Take the US, for example. The richest person is Bill Gates. He's worth something like $64 billion. How did he make his money? He made his money in the private sector by selling something, Microsoft computer software. He has something to show for his wealth.
Now, let’s go to Africa. Who are the richest in Africa? The richest in Africa are African heads of state and ministers. How did they make their money? They made their money by raking it off the backs of their suffering people. That is not wealth creation. It is wealth redistribution.

BILL MOYERS: By stealing the money?

GEORGE AYITTEY: By stealing the money!

BILL MOYERS: But you see, that’s what troubles those of us who are looking for a way to be helpful to Africa. Why and how would they steal money given to AIDS programs and money given to build a civil society?

GEORGE AYITTEY: It’s because they hold the key institutions in the state. They control the military. They control the media. They control the judiciary. They control the electoral commission. They control the civil service. They control the central bank. This is why it is very important to take these institutions out of their hands.

BILL MOYERS: Jeffrey Sachs, who’s advising Kofi Annan at the UN on how to solve poverty and develop the third world, says, “The poor are poor because of failing infrastructure, poor energy sources, geographic isolation, disease and natural disasters that inevitably conspire to foil progress.”

GEORGE AYITTEY: Well, if you go to an African village and tell them this, very few villagers will believe you because they clearly see where the problem is. If you want to understand why Africa is in such a rut, there’s one word which describes it. And that’s ‘Power’.
Power is what describes the condition of Africa. The inability, or the adamant refusal, of African leaders to relinquish or share power has been the bane of development in Africa. Zimbabwe would have been saved if Mugabe were willing to step down or share political power. Isn’t it ironic that a continent with so much, actually has so little. That a people blessed with such an abundance of natural resources are, in fact, poverty stricken and deprived of even the slightest bit of wealth.”