Opinion: The problem with sit-tight Presidents in Africa

Yahya Jammeh is seeking a fifth presidential term in the December polls. The 50-year-old President of Gambia took over the reins of power in a bloodless coup in 1994 at the age of 29. He has since held on to power in the small African country, winning successive elections reportedly marred by massive irregularities.

But he is not alone.

President Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea is the longest serving President in Africa. The man came to power on August 3, 1979 after deposing his uncle in a violent coup d’état. He has ruled for 32 years in power; not as a king.

President Jose Eduardo Dos Santos has ruled Angola for 32 years. The “quiet dictator” as he is called, came to power in September 1979, after Angola’s first president, Agostinho Neto.

Then there is the very outspoken anti-western President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe was supposed to be breath of fresh air to his people when he led his Zanu party to victory at the elections in February 1980. Today, the man has grown out of favor – his administration has been criticized around the world for corruption, suppression of political opposition, mishandling of land reforms, and economic mismanagement. He has ruled for 31 years.

President Paul Biya of Cameroon came to power in November 1982 after Cameroon’s first post-independence leader, Ahmadou Ahidjo, formally resigned due to ill-health, and handed the presidency to him, being the nation’s then Prime Minister. Today is 3rd March, 2016, 29 years after, and our dear Biya is still in power.

How can we forget His Excellency, the President of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni? An ex-army officer, Museveni led his National Resistance Army into Kampala in January 1986 to seize power. Since then He has overseen the affairs of poor Uganda for 25 years managing to win 4 elections simply and solely on his own terms.

The list goes on, but I shall stop here.

The entire landscape of Africa is dotted by sit-tight, non-monarchy leaders who continue to direct the affairs of their respective countries like a family business. For most of these characters, there is a fundamentally warped understanding of governance as evidenced in the manner in which they have conducted the affairs and resources of their nations.

Sit-tight leaders in Africa seem to have a common belief – one that is the basis of their perennial and unrepentant cling to power – that they are the Messiahs of their nations. That no one else is better suited or qualified to lead the country and that if ever such “aberration” came to be, they would be held responsible (by themselves really) for the “catastrophe” that may befall their nation.

So these leaders see themselves as the protective big brother for their sheepish countries. They believe the country needs them and cannot survive without their active involvement (or interference) in the governance of the nation.

This line of thought is flawed in more ways than one. For one, it is rather unthinkable, almost to the point of absurdity, to think that just one man in a nation of millions is solely qualified and best suited to govern. No country can truly and confidently claim that its President at any given time was the best they could have had.

There will always be other alternatives; persons who by age, experience, education, political savviness and understanding of the country’s problems outclass the Leader, but who did not stand for election or engage in any process that could put them in power [[charge of their nations]].

In addition, sit-tight Presidents undermine and outrightly stifle the rise of new leaders. They, by virtue of their continued stay in power, kill fresh ideas in governance and limit the growth and development of their nation. Their omnipotent and “omniknowest” posture to issues affecting their nations serve to undermine the introduction of fresh ideas and approach to solving these problems.

Zimbabwe today is a victim of its leadership. The country’s economy is in tatters and poverty rate has continued to rise. Rather than allow the infusion of fresh and better ideas into governance, by stepping down, admitting failure and conducting a credible election for a younger, dynamic and better suited person to emerge, Robert Mugabe has clung to power and even vowed to leave only when he dies. For many in Zimbabwe, the prayer could not be simpler and more direct.

Sit-tight Presidents are poor economic managers and annoyingly wasteful. When Paul Biya, traveled to the United Nations general assembly in September 2008, a member of his entourage was caught as he tried to escape from Biya’s Geneva hotel with a bag filled with 3.4m Swiss francs (about $6.8 million) in cash.

Biya also reportedly booked himself and his entourage for a $1.2m three-week holiday at the French resort of La Baule. They took 43 rooms in two luxury hotels costing $60,000 a night, went on shopping sprees and splashed cash on casino nights. A cursory look at the economies of the nations under such leadership points to an agonizing lack of economy mastery. For many of these nations, meaningful growth and development seem more of a distant illusion than reality.

When leaders perpetuate themselves in power over a long period of time with no real development to show, it is the people, the citizens that suffer. These leaders live extravagant lives, plunder the collective patrimony of the nation, and kill local industries.

They underfund schools and hospitals, deliberately fail to develop the capacity of the citizens, and institutionalize corruption. They also weaken the electoral system, victimize the opposition and even use the military to suppress the people and keep themselves and loyal friends in charge of the nations’ affairs and resources. Unless in very unusual cases like the Arab spring, the people are left to groan perpetually under the weight of bad governance.

In the end, these leaders force their people to go violent as they seek for freedom and quality leadership. This is evidenced in the violent overthrow of Ghaddafi in Libya, removal of Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast, Hosni Mubarak who was forced to resign after days of protest against his government, among others. The challenge with this method is that violence is never the answer.

The situation in Libya is a telling narrative of the adverse and unsavory effects of violent depositions of governments. Since the removal and killing of Ghaddafi, several people – even diplomats – have perished in Libya due to the bloody rivalry between militant groups loyal to late Ghadafi and other vested interests.

Indeed, the road is long and there is really no end in sight to sit-tight governments in Africa. If anything, their citizens should console themselves with the knowing that when life remains, hope remains. Or better still, take their destinies in their own hands and adopt civil means to end the protracted reign of terror.

————

Op–ed pieces and contributions are the opinions of the writers only and do not represent the opinions of Y!/YNaija

Gbenga Sogbaike is a Writer and Entrepreneur. He is a Co-Founder at Time&Ink – a Content Management company – where he leads content development. You can connect with him on Twitter via @gbengasogbaike

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

cool good eh love2 cute confused notgood numb disgusting fail