Africa: prosperity or poverty?

IN A world defined by brands and products, Africa’s identity will continue to be shaped more by its challenges than by its promise.
Africa still has to make its mark in the business of history but as we mark the end of 2006, we cannot escape reflecting on the past 15 years during which Africa was privileged to be represented at the helm United Nations (UN) Secretariat.
Koffi Annan, the first Sub-Saharan African to be Secretary General of the UN, ended his ten year term last week by passing the torch to the first Korean Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon.
Africa’s contribution to history of mankind is not only controversial but complex. Even among Africans there is no consensus on the precise role of Africa in shaping global events and history not only because of the generally accepted notion that there is a global conspiracy to keep Africa and its people down but because of a lack of a visible and enlightened leadership to move the agenda of Africans forward at a supranational level. Of the African icons, Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Mandela, and many others stand out but Annan remains the only Sub-Saharan African to us the UN as an address for 10 years and I have no doubt that history will accord him a special place as a first African achiever whose contribution to African civilization and hope is yet to be fully digested and told.
The UN system is nothing but an attempt by governments of the world in the post-World War II, to create a platform where global security (or insecurity?) and development can be the focus of human endeavor.
After more than 60 years of existence, the UN still continues to be challenged by Africa’s condition and its apparent inability to extricate itself from poverty and underdevelopment. At a time when the world is challenged by other issues including the threats to human civilisation posed by nuclear proliferation, unequal trade regime, climate change, global pandemics, or terrorism, African agenda has to be competitive and relevant.
In an increasing challenging and challenged global environment, we have seen many leaders in the developing world positioning themselves as new warriors against what they rightly or wrongly perceive as the new global threat i.e. the abuse of the international system of governance at the UN level by a few rich nations. Against a backdrop of a global environment that is unequal and undemocratic, the prospect for Africans escaping from the control of dictators is remote. Indeed, many leaders have now responded by extending their terms either through democratic manipulation or through sheer force.
After the Iraq debacle, the excuses by illegitimate leaders often presiding over failed states to remain in power are many. The world today is more unsafe and lacks the leadership that would discourage power intoxicated leaders from releasing their subjects from humanly created bondage. What is even more ironic is that the same leaders who fail to exhibit democratic credentials in their home states are the very champions of reforming the UN to make it more democratic and accommodating of the poor and globally disenfranchised majority of nations. I could think of no better topic to pay tribute to Annan than to take an extract from his farewell speech on his insights into what the world in general and Africa in particular should take from him.
I have chosen what Annan classified as the third lesson he learned at the helm of the UN as follows: “Both security and prosperity depend on respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Throughout history human life has been enriched by diversity, and different communities have learnt from each other. But if our communities are to live in peace we must stress also what unites us: our common humanity, and the need for our human dignity and rights to be protected by law.
That is vital for development, too. Both foreigners and a country’s own citizens are more likely to invest when their basic rights are protected and they know they will be fairly treated under the law. And policies that genuinely favour development are more likely to be adopted if the people most in need of development can make their voice heard.
States need to play by the rules towards each other, as well. No community anywhere suffers from too much rule of law; many suffer from too little – and the international community is among them. This we must change.”
In as much as Annan has learned that there is a causal and direct relationship between human progress and security with respect for human rights and the rule of law, there are many Africans who genuinely believe that African can develop with leaders who believe in the rule by law and not in the rule of law and equally believe that the human rights doctrine is nothing but a conspiracy by the developed countries to push their regime change doctrine. While it is commendable that Annan acknowledges the importance of the rule of law and respect for human rights, it is also regrettable that he failed to use his position as the SG of the UN to push this agenda. Indeed, the UN has not only been reduced to a spectator of the onslaught perpetrated by many of the African governments against their citizens but has become irrelevant in the quest for a new deal for Africans founded on the principles on which the UN was established. If one were to grade Annan’s performance on the defining issues of human rights and rule of law in Africa, I am not sure whether the UN under his leadership will pass the mark.
Under Annan, we have seen the UN lose focus while the P5 countries (permanent members of the Security Council) fight over supremacy at the same time a new force emerging in Africa and other developing countries determined to undermine the consensus that the rule of law is a fundamental sine qua non for development. On the Zimbabwean issue, the UN was tested and found wanting. It is interesting to observe that during Annan’s last week at the UN, developments in Zimbabwe, if any, confirm the reverse logic to what Annan believes to be important for development.
Yes, it may be true that President Mugabe is the only one uniquely positioned to ensure a united Zanu PF and provide a defense against the regime change practitioners i.e. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, and, therefore, the constitution of the country should be changed to protect the ruling party against disintegration. It has been argued in Zimbabwe that harmonisation of the Presidential and parliamentary elections that will see the mandate conferred on President Mugabe by the people of Zimbabwe ending in 2008 only to be replaced by a mandate from the parliament that was elected by the people of Zimbabwe who were not aware that by electing this special parliament they had surrendered their right to elect a President of their choice for a two year period.
In the case of Zimbabwe, the main constituency of New Zimbabwe.com, the proposed changes that have been approved by Zanu PF at the just ended Goromonzi conference are quite significant for any opposition party that may have the mistaken impression that there is going to be a change of government in 2010. By reversing the reforming the constitution of Zimbabwe through the back door i.e. having a President elected by Parliament, Zanu PF has effectively responded to the key issue that led to the formation of the opposition party, MDC, by now making a President accountable to Parliament. Under the current constitution of Zimbabwe, President Mugabe is accountable to the people of Zimbabwe who in any event elected him.
However, under the proposed changes, President Mugabe will have to be accountable to Parliament from 2008 through 2010 and thereafter it seems likely that the President will be elected by Parliament. Under this scenario, Zanu PF will no longer need a powerful leader but a powerful party and the prospect for individuals however popular from ever becoming Presidents of Zimbabwe will be remote. It may not be surprising to see the emergence of a Prime Minister also elected by Parliament coming back into Zimbabwean life after 2010 with the proviso that President Mugabe as the founding father will retain his powers during the transitional period after the people’s direct mandate will have ended.
It is important to note that technically there is nothing illegal or constitutional about what Zanu PF is proposing to do. It is instructive that the genesis of the constitutional changes appears to come from President Mugabe. Having decided that his legacy was not safe with a change of guard, he then managed to start where any leader facing the same challenge would i.e. his club (Zanu PF). The President was generous enough to inform Canadians first through an interview and this was then followed by Nathaniel Manheru in a state newspaper where in his weekly column he presented the prospect of a constitutional change as fact. This was then followed rightly by the provincial Zanu PF structures that passed resolutions to endorsing the wish of the President. The resolution was then passed at the conference and the notion that there is no vacancy in Zanu PF is real and nothing should be read to mean that Zanu PF is saying that there is no vacancy at the national level.
All that was said that is that in Zanu PF, members of the club are fully aware that in the face of regime change agendas and a fragmented foreign inspired opposition as described by Zanu PF, there is no better leader to see the party through the turbulence than President Mugabe. On the face of it, there is nothing undemocratic about this and the opposition forces are free to choose their own leaders and organise themselves accordingly. However, because Zanuj PF has a two third majority in Parliament, there is nothing to stop the constitutional amendments being effected. In the circumstances, there is nothing that the opposition can legally do to stop Zanu PF from making the changes. If one assumes that the elections were free and fair to elect the current parliament, then under the constitution of Zimbabwe, the power to amend the country’s constitution is vested in the parliament. In as much as the opposition may not like the development, there is nothing at law that they can do.
Some may argue that the attention paid by both the domestic and international market about the Zanu PF conference goes a long way towards confirming that the party is the only deal in Zimbabwe and the opposition is irrelevant. Equally some argue that by focusing attention on the succession issue in Zanu PF, the market indirectly influenced the party to come up with a strategic defense initiative in the form of a poison pill. The revisiting of the constitution, has effectively positioned the party to remain relevant while benefiting from President Mugabe’s anti-imperialist rhetoric.
The real victim ultimately of all the machinations may end up being the people of Zimbabwe whose prosperity has been sacrificed in the interests of political expediency. It would be interesting to get Annan’s comments on the developments in Zimbabwe and locate the role of the UN in aiding and abetting the outcome. It is true that Zimbabwe is not on the agenda of the UN and it is unlikely that there will be any basis on which a sovereign nation purely acting within the confines of its own laws would be a subject of international discussion. The crafty manner in which Zanu PF has managed to deal with the succession issue will undoubtedly provide a demonstration case for other leaders and parties that may face the same challenges. In the end, Africans will be the football while the players continue to play a game that has no rules and developmental focus.
Zimbabwe has the global name recognition and, therefore, deserves the attention of Africans not only because the issues are transportable but because it has emerged as a theatre where there is a perception that citizens are inherently incapable of deciding what is in their interests to the extent that any opposition is labeled as a surrogate of imperialist forces who are determined to effect regime change for their own strategic interests. In the fight for what is vaguely defined as sovereignty, it is argued that the respect of human rights and the rule of law must be subordinated. If this logic is accepted as demonstrated in Goromonzi, then Africa and Africans will continue to pay the ultimate price in form of declining standards of living, unemployment, decaying institutions, dysfunctional systems, and failed states.
Zimbabwe’s economy like many African economies continues to be in the intensive care while political expediency takes a centre stage. It is important to recognize that Zanu PF endorsed Murerwa’s allegation regarding the poisonous actions of the RBZ. There is now a new term in the Zimbabwe i.e. quasi, quasi, quasi referring to the outsourcing of the government functions to the RBZ with no accountability measures in place. It is also interesting to note that the confidentiality premise on which many governments operate has been permanently damaged by the RBZ by publishing confidential correspondence in the media in defense of partisan positions.
It is also instructive to learn that although Reserve Bank governor Gideon Gono, in his defence, appeared to be saying that he was only acting on instructions from Murerwa by what appears to be reckless spending of the nation’s resources outside the budgetary framework, he nevertheless defended the interventions as if to suggest that he orchestrated President Mugabe to direct Murerwa to put instructions in writing in anticipation of using the same correspondence later in defense. Many have argued that Murerwa could not issue instructions to Gono without President Mugabe knowing.
Already the President has confirmed that he believes that the economy is under siege and, therefore, textbook solutions are unwelcome. In the circumstances, the rule of law cannot be expected to be respected in the manner described by Mr. Annan. It appears that Zimbabwe according to Gono and President Mugabe requires a different medicine and the role of parliament, political parties and the judiciary will need to be fine tuned to reflect the imperatives of the time. In the final analysis the people of Zimbabwe still have to pay when two elephants fight for supremacy. In the case of Zimbabwe, the President has defined the two elephants as President Bush representing the regime change platform and him representing the sovereign right of Zimbabwe to decide its own destiny.
As Africans approach the festive season and prepare for the New Year, I hope that they will take time to reflect on the challenges being presented by Zimbabwe to governance, rule of law and human rights. In the end it is not Zimbabweans who are exclusively affected but all Africans who will have to be judged by actions of a neighbor and friend who makes choices that have multigenerational implications and consequences. The choice to make Africa live up to the expectations of its citizens lies with Africans themselves and within nation states like Zimbabwe lies with all who believe that a functioning Zimbabwe is indeed an African priority.