The norm for an election exercise in Africa has been to end in chaos and disorder. We have been primed to expect terrible upheavals, instead of renewed hope and optimism. The recent Nigerian election and the subsequent peaceful power transition from the incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan to his opponent Muhammadu Buhari (Gen.) made Africans everywhere express their delight.
Millions of Africans exhaled a sigh of relief to learn that an incumbent president had gracefully conceded his defeat. That was perceived as a monumental achievement for the continent as a whole.
Had this same election taken place somewhere in the West, the talking points would have revolved around the candidates’ policy differences. People would have been interested to know why voters wanted a new leader and change in direction.
We have also talked about why the challenger’s message resonated with voters. Unfortunately, when it comes to Africa, we are not used to seeing peaceful elections. The excitement on a successful election in one country in Africa reflects how low people’s expectations are on the continent’s democratisation.
African leaders often complain about foreign intrusion into their domestic politics. Obviously, that is not always without its merits, but more often than not, it is an excuse. Africans themselves do not have much faith in their leaders and the democratic process let alone the West; because experience has proven that African leaders hardly uphold the law. They amend their constitution time and again to remain in power and dictate the destiny of their people.
Take for example the disgraced former Burkina Faso President Blaise Campaoré, who ruled the country beginning in 1987. Apparently, 27 years being in power was not enough; back in October, the country’s parliament was preparing to vote on a constitutional amendment that would prolong the President’s stay in power. Angry protesters set the parliament on fire and chaos ensued. The army took control and the President resigned and left the country.
Many of us who might not know as much about former President Campaoré would find it easy to disavow him. It would sound absurd for anyone to vouch for a man who has ruled the country for 27 years, to continue to rule.
Now consider Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame, a charismatic leader who has turned Rwanda into one of the fastest developing countries in the continent. He is popular with his people and a well-respected leader in the international community. When his predecessor, President Pasteur Bizimungu resigned in 2000, the then Vice President and Minister of Defense, Kagame rose to the helm of the country’s leadership. The former commander of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) that ended the Rwandan genocide was then elected president in 2003 and in 2010 for a second term.
President Kagame seems to be hinting that he might support constitutional amendment that would allow him to run for a third term. When asked whether he would support the idea, he responded, “. . . let’s wait and see what happens as we go. Whatever will happen, we’ll have an explanation.”
Even while serving as vice president from 1994 to 2000, Kagame was considered as the de facto leader. So in essence, he has been in power for more than 15 years. By the end of his second term in 2017, he will have ruled Rwanda for more than 17 years as a president alone.
If President Kagame decides to push for constitutional amendment in order to run for a third term, he will have a lot of support, not only within Rwanda, but even beyond its borders. In their defense, supporters will say, if he is fit to lead and if the process is democratic, they will have no problem amending the country’s constitutional term limit.
This is democracy’s one fundamental problem in Africa. People rest their faith on strong individual leaders, allowing them to slowly consolidate power at the expense of building solid institutional foundations.
Term limit is important as it gives citizens an opportunity to choose their leaders in an equal playing field. Long serving incumbent politicians have decidedly unfair name recognition and fund raising advantages over their opponents. Furthermore, it makes it easier for incumbent candidates to corrupt and rig an election and ultimately erode public confidence in the process.
Some argue that term limit denies voters an opportunity to choose their visionary and competent leader once again. Certainly, every individual leader has his or her own unique qualities and might not be possible to replace them with a person of the same caliber. However, it also speaks volumes about a leader in power.
If a leader is not able to produce other leaders who can replace him, then, we ought to notice the leader has failed at one of his top responsibilities, inspiring and producing other leaders. A country also benefits from disruptive leadership, that is to say a new leader reinvigorates the process with new ideas and new energy.
Most democratic countries’ constitutions limit a country’s leader to two terms in office. The logical reason behind it is that being in power for two terms should be long enough for a leader to share his vision and shape his country. The excuse that some people make against it, citing lack of equally competent leader for replacement, is absurd. To suggest countries with millions of people would not have other leaders capable enough to lead their country into new heights is an insult to the whole population.
A country’s constitution should be upheld in the highest regard possible. It is not something that should be amended as frequently as self-serving leaders want it to be. Then and only then shall we be surprised when the system fails us, not when it works the way it was meant to work.
These points equally apply to Ethiopia. Bringing in new a generation of leaders is crucial if Ethiopia is going to reach middle-income country any time soon. Leaders must be willing to step aside and give other dynamic individuals a chance to lead. There must be political commitment to do more, than just shuffle top political technocrats from one position to another. Political leaders must listen to their opponent’s voices. We hope to see winners of the next election embrace Ethiopia’s diversity and for the country’s leadership to reflect that diversity.
As Africans, we must all stay firm in favour of a system and democratic process above the strength and competencies of individual leaders. Only then would we have changed people’s perspectives and expectations. We must raise the standards, sacrifice to keep them there and reap the benefits.
Leave a Reply