Africa back to old ways

Author argues that former liberation movements claim entitlement and cling to power while trampling on democratic principles

Back in the 1960s, the war for Africa’s liberation from colonial rule was in full swing as the African continent sought to free itself from the manacles of imperial powers such as England and France, relationships which were defined by racial bigotry, as well as military, political and economic domination and marginalisation by the intruder. Among the vanguard of the first wave of the liberation of Africa, military movements were Front for National Liberation ( FNL) of Algeria, the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola ( MPLA), the West African People’s Organisation ( SWAPO) of Namibia, the Front for the Liberation of Mozambique ( FRELIMO), the Zimbabwe African National Union ( ZANU), the African National Congress ( ANC) of South Africa and the African Party for the Independence of Guinea- Bissau and the Cape Verde ( PAIGC). The second wave of the liberation of Africa came about in the 1970s “… as the expressions of widespread discontent with the unfulfilled promises of the regimes, which inherited the colonial state apparatus,” says Berouk Mesfin who is Senior Researcher, Direct Conflict Prevention Programme in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Among the military movements that came about as the result of unfulfilled promises by the independence governments, were the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front ( EPLF), the Tigray People’s Liberation Front ( TPLF) of Ethiopia, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement ( SPLA) of South Sudan, the Rwandan Patriotic Front ( RPF) and the National Resistance Movement ( NRM) of Uganda. According to Mesfin, the leaders of the second wave were just like those of the colonial era, undemocratic in their inclination. Both liberation movements have contributed much to defeat decaying and oppressive regimes and thus paved the way for appreciable change. Discipline, enormous sacrifices, an admirable sense of determination mainly account for the liberation movements’ capacity to endure hard times and then successfully attain political power. This is according to Mesfin. In his view, the liberation movements were also mostly inspired by Marxism, “a combative political ideology which stresses massoriented political mobilisation, aims to effect socio- political changes by force of arms if necessary, and ascribes a vanguard role for a hegemonic movement hierarchically organised along democratic- centralist lines.” However, he continues, the idealised sense of mission of all these liberation movements gradually expired.

“In fact, it has become increasingly clear that it is nothing but the manifestation of the ambitions and interests of a small and ideologically driven elite group. This elite group, which is led by secretive and ruthless leaders who tend to see enemies everywhere, simply seeks to maintain a privileged status at the expense of other groups which, in turn, become increasingly frustrated at not receiving what they consider to be their fair share of national resources and key posts in government,” he added.

According to him, although the leaders had a keen sense for political timing and tactics even as they display inflexible and undemocratic tendencies as compared to a normal civilian leader in the mold of Mali’s former president, Alpha Oumar Konare. All of them have, uniformly, an indisputable ‘ penchant for self- righteousness’, and forget that they have ‘ an expiry date, at least biologically’. Beyond this cliché, a clear- headed analysis shows that these leaders are only interested in protecting their own wellbeing and physical security at all costs and by any means.

“Indeed, they have been holding office for decades by establishing a system of secrecy and a culture of impunity, characteristics reminiscent of the struggle years. For them, the security of citizens is subservient to state security. They lay claim on the monopoly of the truth, believing to know the virtues of the masses and what is good for them without even listening to them. The state should always be considered right and its opponents, usually dubbed sellouts,” observed the author.

According to him, the leaders pack senior and middle- level posts in the civil bureaucracy, the military and the security apparatus with former fighters who are evidently immune from critical evaluation and even institutional scrutiny. The writer further points out that the liberation movements retain power through networks of political allies, security forces and business partners.

“Having engineered a system of indoctrination and loyalty, forcing the bureaucracy, military and security services into closer alignment with its political formula, the leadership of liberation movements usually surrounds itself with a very small stratum of officials and advisers,” notes the author.

According to him, the leadership seriously fears confident civilian and military professionals who have the proper training and experience in government and public policy. “It also fears in- depth change in the distribution of power that might negate its hegemony, and make scant efforts to solve differences or conflicts through consensual means rather than manipulation and intimidation,” states Mesfin. He notes that, despite variations, liberation movements have not been transparent because there would be no effective legislature checking their activities. According to him, there would be autonomous judiciary ensuring adherence to the rule of law, and sometimes not even a constitution. Furthermore, the leaders, according to the articles stubbornly resist involving civil society organisations in their states’ political process, including the electoral process and the monitoring of human rights.

Put bluntly, he observes, that the unfair practices of liberation movements, which have little to show for their sacrifices and have fallen back to the conflict- ridden politics similar to that of their predecessors, are bound to be extremely dangerous.

“This is because one form of oldfashioned authoritarianism will be replaced by a new form of veiled authoritarianism that could potentially lead to the establishment of third wave liberation movements. In such a context, a smooth transition to democracy and prosperity is unimaginable, leaving African states and citizens worse off at a moment when they face political, social and economic problems of monstrous proportions,” adds Mesfin. In his view, liberation movements must be de- linked from the state and put on equal par with the other political parties. “In concrete terms, this means that leaders must yield to a different logic of political power that involves durable institutional checks and balances. This also means curtailing the centralisation of power, the expansion of unrestrained corruption, the capture of security forces and the irresponsible impairment of the legislature, the judiciary, civil society and the media,” he concludes.