30/12/2007
The Challenge of
Realizing Lasting Peace and
Stability in
Africa: A Point of View
by Tesfaye Habisso
" Africa has become an attractive and profitable dumping ground for
nations and arms manufacturers eager to get rid of weapon stocks made superfluous
by the end of the Cold War or by technological developments."
Africa has been
judged to be "the most warring region on the planet." [World Views].
During the four decades between the 1960s and the 1990s, there have been about
80 violent changes of governments [Adedeji 1999,3] in the 48 sub-Saharan
countries. During the same period many
of these countries also experienced different types of civil strife, conflicts,
and wars. [Ibid] Indeed, the names of
many African countries continue to evoke images of horror, elemental suffering,
destruction and death: Congo (Zaire),
Biafra (Nigeria), Angola, Mozambique, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Uganda, Chad,
Guinea Bissau, Burundi, Rwanda, Somalia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Algeria, etc.
[Sam G. Amoo 1997,1]
During the decade of the 1980s alone, it is estimated that conflict and
violence claimed over 3 million lives with 160 million Africans living in
countries in the throes of civil war.
The figure of three (3) million deaths could be well over four (4)
million if we factor in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, in neighbouring Burundi,
and the protracted waste and destruction in Liberia. Since 1960, more than 19 full-fledged civil wars have been fought
in Africa; and eleven genocides and politicides occurred in Africa between 1960
and the late 1980s, compared with twenty-four elsewhere in the whole
world. At the beginning of 1990,
Africans accounted for 43 per cent of the global population of refugees, most
of them fleeing from political violence, and many dying from famine, exposure
and diseases. The majority of these
were women and children. According to
UNICEF, between 1980 and 1988, 850,000 children who would otherwise have lived
died as a result of only two of Africa's major wars, in Angola and
Mozambique. Thus, more than four
decades of post-independence Africa have, indeed, been frittered away in
conflicts; they have been the squandered years, the lost time, so to speak.
[Ibid]
Today, we Africans
have made a strong resolve unto ourselves, a solemn oath and a pledge to our
peoples through strengthening the African Union and its various organs such as
the NEPAD, the African Human Rights Commission, the African Peer Review
Mechanism and many other structures to achieve two fundamental freedoms
simultaneously: democracy and development.
These are the two fundamental freedoms Africans have longed for, for a
very long time. The challenge of
effecting both an economic and political transformation at the same time seems
quite a formidable challenge and a daunting task/mission for Africans, a sort
of "mission impossible",
owing to a number of endogenous and exogenous factors and causes. Endless interstate conflicts caused by claims
over borders (e.g. Algeria and Moroco, 1964/5; Ethiopia and Eritrea
(1998-2000), intra_state or internal
conflicts (rebellion to overthrow a government, secessionist rebellion, coup
d'etat, urban violence and conflict, rural conflicts over resources), religious
extremism, authoritarianism and human rights violations, abject poverty, hunger,
diseases and the HIV/AIDS pandemic, colonial legacy and the unsustainable debt
burden, etc, are some of the major debilitating conditions of Africa today.
Nature and people seem to have conspired to cripple Africa and render it
a battle-ground for survival. The
continent is prone to droughts that have contributed to its people being unable
to produce food for themselves.
Whatever the reasons for the poor state of the continent, these are the
facts:
·
Half the population
lives on less than $1 a day.
·
More than half the
population has not access to safe drinking water.
·
More than 2 million
infants die annually before reaching their first birthday.
·
The mortality rate of
children under five is 140 per 1000, and life expectancy at birth is only 54
years.
·
The rate of
illiteracy for people over 15 is 41%. There are only 18 mainline telephones per
1000 people in Africa, compared with 146 for the world as a whole and 567 for
high-income countries.
·
In 1998, sub-Saharan
Africa's debt stock was estimated at $236 billion and that of the entire
continent was over $300-billion Africa's debt burden is twice that of any other
region in the world__it carries 11% of the developing world's debt, with only
5% of its income GNP per capita in sub-Saharan Africa is $308 while external
debt per capita stands at $365. ["Time for a NEPAD Reality Check",
The Star, Tuesday September 9,2003, p.13].
Under these distressing conditions and circumstances no theme is more
pressing than the issue of peace and stability__peace and stability for Africa
"to be at peace with itself and to realize its immense human and natural
resource potential for the benefit of her peoples."
The main prerequisite and condition for the fulfillment of Africa's many
different potentials is indeed peace and stability. As democracy supports peaceful relations between states, economic
prosperity and fuller development of people, peace and stability make possible
the development of stable political institutions, more productive economic
activity and a more civilized and enlightened social life. Without establishing a stable climate of
peace, human rights cannot be safeguarded, democratic institutions cannot
function effectively, prosperity cannot flourish, and human beings cannot
discover their higher capacities for external achievement and inner
fulfillment. Peace is imperative for a
thriving development and democracy and, in fact, for our very survival.
It is like the proverbial question about the chicken and the egg: what
comes first? Economic development or a peaceful Africa? It may be argued that there can be no
development and economic prosperity without first attaining peace. Yet it may also be argued that poverty
breeds conflicts and war. To support
this point, virtually all countries that are in conflicts are in the developing
world, where countries are struggling to attain economic development and high
standard of living for their people based on social justice. On the other hand, developed countries are
islands of peace and economic prosperity.
In this paper, I shall attempt to throw a few thoughts on factors that, I
believe, are deemed to undermine peace and stability in our continent and on
what are felt to be some of the crucial points that need to be addressed in our
efforts to find lasting solutions to these conflicts.
Forty-four years ago (in 1963), when the Founding Fathers of the
Organization of African Unity (OAU) gathered in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to
establish this continental organization, they were " inspired by a common
determination to promote understanding among our peoples and cooperation among
our states in response to the aspirations of our peoples for brotherhood and
solidarity, in a larger unity transcending ethnic and national differences." They were also fully convinced that, in
order to translate this determination into a dynamic force in the cause of
human progress, conditions for peace and security must be established and
maintained. They did not fail to
understand that there was a critical link between peace and security, political
stability and development. If there was
no peace and security there could be no political stability and consequently no
sustainable development; without development conditions would deteriorate and
there would be no peace and security.
These lofty ideals were based on the assumption that social forces could
be subjected to collective human designs to achieve common human
aspirations. The Founding Fathers
thought that collective human effort guided by human reason could achieve the
common good of the African peoples.
Developments in the African continent since then, and even more so in the
past few years, have not been so encouraging.
Indeed, the peace and security situation of our continent has, in a few years
time, gone from bad to worse. The
earlier interstate conflicts have now degenerated into intra-state
conflicts. These conflicts have
"cast a dark shadow over the prospects for a united, more prosperous and
more undaunted Africa which we seek to create." It is as though we have reverted to a condition of a state of
nature as described by the great political theorist, Thomas Hobbes, in the
early seventeenth century, who observed:
" ---a general inclination of mankind, a perpetual and restless
desire of power, that ceases only in death.
And the cause of this is not always that a man hopes for a more
intensive delight, than he has already attained to; or, that he cannot be
content with a more moderate power; but because he cannot assure the power and
means to live well, which he has at present, without the acquisition for
more."
The causes which motivate civil strife and conflicts in our countries
could be, in our present age, to secure or assert benefits or rights already at
hand, or to impose illegitimate and authoritarian rule, or some form of social,
economic, political or religious dogma over others; or to restore benefits or
rights that are denied; our conflicts are better described than explained
anyway. All the same, these conflicts
have certainly made the lives of our people very much the same as observed
correctly by Hobbes__that "every man is at war against every man";
that " the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
It is as though Hobbes was narrating the behaviour of our elites, our
governments, towards each other and towards their peoples in the Congo (Zaire),
Angola, Mozambique, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Uganda, Chad, Burundi, Rwanda,
Somalia, Liberia, Sierra Leone and in many others across the continent of
Africa. What happened in these
countries (and still happening in some of them, such as Cote d'Ivoire, Darfur
in the Sudan, Somalia, Congo Zaire etc.)
has torn and bled our hearts. It
is challenging our collective wisdom, conscience and values as well as
civilized behaviour. It demands our
collective action, and it is time to respond to this mind-numbing human
tragedy.
If we are to meet this challenge, we need to define our goals and to
combine our efforts to achieve them.
When trying to identify our common goals, the prevalence of peace and
stability naturally captures our attention.
And, indeed, as C. Lucas has aptly stated,
" It is only when Africa is at peace with itself that it will be
able to recognize and explore its human and natural resource potential."
This is the goal set for the OAU (now the AU) by its Founding Fathers.
However, when we define peace as our collective goal, we need to
recognize the fact that it can disguise economic, social and political
injustice. Peace which is not based on justice could disguise violence. This type of peace is only transient and
cannot last long and, indeed, it cannot solve our problems.
Hence, when we set peace and stability as our common objective which we
want to achieve through our collective will, determination and effort, we need
to be clear in our minds that it is peace and stability based on social,
economic and political justice to all our citizens that we are set to
attain. Unfortunately, this type of
justice cannot be dispensed with by a sovereign or a leader deciding what is
just for all. This type of justice is
something that is defined, pursued and attained by the peoples themselves. Accordingly, peace which is based on justice
necessarily refers to a situation where individuals and groups can freely define,
pursue and attain their goals without affecting the freedom of other
individuals and groups to do the same.
A system is peaceful and just only where it guarantees this freedom and
provides procedures for the peaceful resolution of differences between individuals
and groups. As the causes of
differences are many and diverse, we cannot prescribe the same goals or
solutions to all; we can only hope to agree upon the rules to be followed in
pursuing different goals and solutions.
And we need to be willing and courageous enough to face this reality and
to gather sufficient will and strength to enforce such rules.
Thus, I believe, as Hobbes then believed, that our peoples should, and
can, be liberated from the state of nature to which we seem to have reverted. But while Hobbes saw the liberation of man
in a state of nature in forfeiting his rights in favour of a sovereign body
exercising absolute power over him, I see the liberation of our peoples in
their complete empowerment __in recognizing, in words as well as in deeds, the
peoples themselves as the sources of all power and authority; in the peoples
themselves being able to form or dissolve and to give or deny power to their
governments. The emancipation of our peoples
from illiteracy, disease, hunger, abject poverty, apathy and helplessness, and
creating an enabling political, economic and social environment whereby the
peoples themselves shall have the courage to assert their rights and demand
their privileges must be the main objective of Africa's governing elites if
lasting peace and stability is to be realized in Africa. Beyond hollow declarations and empty
platitudes, African elite governments must work hard towards strengthening
democratic institutions and civil society, respecting and upholding press and
media freedom, and thus enabling their peoples to be in control of their own
destiny and to shape their history and ways of life according to their own
values and aspirations. African
governments must eliminate their misrule and commit themselves to democratic
transitions, good governance and prudential economic reforms instead of
continuing to subjugate their own peoples to the extent of total submission to
authorities at all levels, and stop manipulating democratic rules and
procedures with the sole motive of perpetuating the rule of elite dictatorships
in the name of the broad masses and democracy.
I strongly believe and argue that as long as African peoples are
alienated from participating in all matters which directly or indirectly affect
them, and so long as African governments try to perpetuate political systems
that subjugate the poor majority who count only during elections and during
times of war against foreign invasion, there cannot be any meaningful, stable
and sustainable peace, democracy and development in Africa.
Sadly, Africa is still cursed with leaders who make wonderful and
passionate speeches at various fora, at home and abroad, on the
indispensability of peace and stability for their peoples>
security and for their countries> development and democracy but
who unashamedly resort to perpetrating gross human rights violations,
undermining the rule of law, manipulating elections, suppressing press and
media freedom, infringing upon group rights and civil liberties of their own
subjects, and also enriching and developing themselves, their family members
and cronies at the expense of the greater public good thus undermining the very
tenets and pillars of peace, stability, democracy and development. It is not strange at all to observe some
leaders who recklessly hurl their own people into senseless wars and conflicts
by pursuing aggressive and hostile policies towards neighbouring countries, by
harboring and supporting opposition or rebel groups in one or more of the
neighbouring countries in the name of national interest. This is a destabilizing and self-defeating
policy, a policy clearly counter-productive to any one nation's national
interest. It inevitably leads to
retribution by the targeted country (or countries), which then offers support
to similar rebel or opposition groups in the country (or countries) that
initiated the problem in the first place.
This tit-for-tat tactic, or the policy of considering the " enemy
of one's enemy as a friend" will only increase instability throughout the
region. It is a futile and
counter-productive policy as well as a misguided and costly venture. All these maladies afflicting African
societies across the continent have to end if we are to secure peace and
stability, and work hard toward the eradication of poverty and the realization
of sustainable democracy and development in Africa.
Moreover, lasting peace and stability is dependent on the development of
people and development in the ultimate analysis means human development. And, the human problem of development is
essentially the problem of providing a modicum of safety and security, basic
services such as food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare; insuring
employment, freedom and peace to each individual and family on a progressive and
incremental basis without negatively impacting upon the environment. It also implies improving the capability of
the population to assert and to stand up for its rights and demand its
privileges without prostration but with full confidence and assertiveness, and
one of the best ways of achieving this is to make the people literate. Without near total literacy, no nation can
make the transition from authoritarian rule to democracy, from underdevelopment
to development, and to extricate itself from the yoke of elite dictatorship,
abject poverty, hopelessness and helplessness.
Africa is the poorest continent in the world by all standard social and
economic indicators one chooses to use.
The heart of the challenge of lifting Africa out of abject poverty and
rebuilding Africa is a correct and realistic development policy. The African economy is in serious
crisis. Where and how do we begin the
urgent task of eliminating poverty, misery and diseases in Africa?
The collapse of rural African village economies is the root cause of the
massive economic crisis of most African countries. Africa is unable to feed herself. Agricultural productively has fallen below what it was in the 1960s. What the South African Deputy-Minister of
Trade and Industry, Lindiwe Hendricks, said of South Africa, applies to most of
Africa: "Our recent survey finds that one out of two people in rural South
Africa do not have food to consume in a day." [Business Day, 21 November
2000, p.2]. Most African countries are
not only at a very low level of economic development, but the economic
well-being of the average member of society is actually deteriorating. A recent leading article in the New York
Times Magazine states as follows:
"Each year most nations in the region grow poorer, hungrier and
sicker. Their share of global trade and
investment has been collapsing. Average
per capita income is lower now than in the 1960s, with half the population
surviving on less than US 65 cents a day ... During the past decade or so, the
poorest of Africa's poor have suffered as rarely before... hunger has become a
chronic problem throughout the region, often occurring even under the best of
weather conditions. The World Food
Programme (WFP) warns that nearly 40 million Africans are struggling against starvation,
a "scale of suffering" that is "unprecedented." Coincident
with the hunger is HIV/AIDS, which has beset Sub-Saharan Africa in a
disproportionate way, cursing it with 29.4 million infections, nearly
three-quarters of the world's caseload. [New York Times Magazine, 13 July 2003,
p.3]
We cannot address this problem correctly, unless we first deal with a
serious problem in our own thinking about economic affairs in Africa. Present-day economics, as it exists in
Western society and in our universities, is a reflection of the economic
experiences of the Western cultural community, which is industrialized,
developed, and urban. The concepts,
theories and intellectual language used by economists trained in our universities
are about this community experience. We
in Africa need a new economics, which is going to be a reflection of both the
economic experiences, and the community experiences, of the overwhelming
majority of African people. As of now,
the vast majority of African people live their lives in rural areas, largely
involved in self-subsistence economic activities. The African economies discussed in modern economic literature are
those which Professor Guy Mhone (Wits University, South Africa) calls "enclave
economies"; these are industrial and commercial activities in Africa which
are linked to the Western industrial economy. They are " enclave
economies" because they exist in Africa as islands, in a vast sea of
African village and informal economic activities neither linked to the "enclave
economies", nor to the international economy. Between 70 to 80 per cent of African people are not effectively
involved in the commodity economy.
This largest sector of African society does not feature prominently as
buyers and consumers in the modern market economy. An axiom of modern economics is that the consumer demand and
buying power of the majority of society members are the driving engine of the
modern economy. The vast majority of
African people, who live in rural areas, are outside the modern economy. The African consumer market is simply too
small, and is, therefore, not a powerful magnet for foreign investments. Foreign investors who come to Africa are
largely drawn by mining or oil; they do not come to start manufacturing firms
which produce for the African market.
The biggest challenge we face, then, is to develop the African domestic
market, as the Chinese leadership, for example, has developed a Chinese
domestic market which attracts foreign investors. We must begin where the majority of African people are, in rural
areas. African governments and world
economists, using economic concepts and theories reflecting Western industrial
economies, have, since independence, adopted wrong development models and
policies for Africa. They have failed to
make the development of African agriculture and rural communities the starting
point of their development strategy.
Every major, revolutionary turning point in Chinese economic history has
focused first, on the countryside: this has gone a long way towards developing
a large Chinese domestic market.
The prelude to the successful emergence of capitalism, in the West,
consisted of major socio-economic transformations of the European
countryside. Africa has not gone
through that experience. The Industrial
Revolution in the West was preceded by an Agricultural Revolution. Africa has not had her Agricultural
Revolution, hence the food crisis in Africa.
Therefore, Priority Number One for us in Africa today should be the
initiation of the African Agricultural Revolution and Rural Development. This shall lift the 70 to 80 per cent of the
African people out of underdevelopment, and provide the "take-off"
thrust for the rest of the African economy, thereby incorporating the
overwhelming majority of African people into the modern economy.
We must also recognize democracy as the shared value of our peoples. And as the shared value of our peoples, we
must be able to guard and protect it for it is now clear that if we fail to
promote democracy as the common value of our peoples and if we fail to protect
it we will revert to a situation where conflicts are resolved by the use of
force__to the primitive procedure of self-help back to the state of
nature. And in the present era,
reversion (or regression) back to the state of nature may, at worst, lead to
the total liquidation of a people, a nation, or a state; or it may, at best,
lead to the imposition of force under the rule of dictatorship.
Assumption of power by force and the rule of dictatorship can never lead
to the prevalence of peace, stability and security. Power assumed by force can only be sustained by force, and groups
or factions which gather sufficient counter force can sooner or later claim it. As the former South African Prime Minster,
Pik Botha at one time said:
" If you take power by violence, you rule through violence and you
can only be removed from power by violence."
Seizure of political power by force and through violence and attempts to
seize power in this method are, therefore, the major symptoms of social and
political upheavals, strifes and conflicts.
This procedure of assuming power must be brought to an end by the
concerted efforts of the peoples of Africa and their continental organization,
the African Union, and the international community. It must be condemned and made illegal by the peoples of Africa,
the African Union and the international community. Instead, the peoples of Africa, the African Union (AU), and the
international community should exert their combined efforts in promoting and
sustaining the democratic procedure of assuming power and of arriving at
decisions affecting peoples.
Here, I must admit that the nature and meaning of the term
"democracy" and "the democratic procedure" could give rise
to philosophical and academic arguments and controversies. Indeed, I recognize that many dictators and
tyrants have been causing much human misery and pain in the name of "
democracy."
However, nowadays, there has emerged a consensus at least on the broad
parameters of "democracy," so much so that dictators and tyrants can
never hope to disguise their dictatorships and tyrannical rule and legitimize
them.
The basic premise and assumption of democracy is the ability of the
populace to participate effectively in the determination of their lives for
themselves directly or through their elected representatives. A strong democratic society will be marked
by respect for human rights, particularly the "democratic rights", of
freedom of opinion, expression and association, the right to take part in the
conduct of public affairs, and to vote and be elected at genuine and periodic
elections held by secret ballot. It
will be characterized by a strong and vibrant civil society, and active,
independent media, an independent judiciary, and a high level of public
understanding of and participation in the political process. Unlike other types of government, democracy
claims to allow the people themselves to rule, to make the decisions that
governor affect their lives. The people
are to decide their own destiny through their participation in the political
process__ participatory democracy.
In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Joseph Schumpeter offers a
minimalist, empirical definition of representative democracy as: "--- that
institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which
individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for
the people's vote." By giving no
place in democracy to the citizens and their aspirations except for a
numerically insignificant vote in a competition, Schumpeter accepts that
democracy generally entails government by elites.
Samuel P. Huntington, in his recent book, The Third Wave, relying on
concepts enunciated earlier by Joseph A. Schumpeter, adopts the procedural
definition of the term "democracy". He defines:
"--- a twentieth century political system as democratic to the
extent that its most powerful collective decision makers are selected through
fair, honest, and periodic elections in which candidates freely compete for
votes and in which virtually all the adult population is eligible to
vote."
Huntington holds that that political system that denies voting
participation to part of its society cannot be said to be democratic. Similarly, he writes:
"--- a system is undemocratic to the extent that no opposition is
permitted in elections or that opposition is curbed or harassed in what it can
do or that opposition newspapers are censored or closed down, or that votes are
manipulated or miscounted."
These, incidentally, are practices of legitimization which are bent more
on the use of force rather than on fair play and which, by their very nature,
sow the seeds of discord for the use of counter force for conflicts, whether
overt or covert.
Huntington also adds that: "so defined, democracy involves two
dimensions__contestation and participation." He stresses that thus
defined, "democracy implies the existence of those civil and political
freedoms to speak, publish, assemble, and organize that are necessary to
political debate and the conduct of electoral campaigns."
This procedural definition of democracy is, of course, based on the basic
assumption that a society which is characterized by political contestation and
participation enjoys a full measure of individual and group rights which are
guaranteed and protected by the system.
Here, I need only add that a democratic system cannot guarantee peace if
it fails to recognize, uphold and safeguard minority rights (ethnic, religious,
cultural-linguistic, etc.) and the rights of ethnic groups or nationalities and
linguistic-cultural communities to manage their own affairs by themselves at
the level of their territorial homelands (self-rule) and participate in the
governing affairs of their own countries or states at the central level (shared
rule), in short, the right of self-rule and power-sharing under federal
arrangements, or other devolved and decentralized power structures, accompanied
by local democratization which will involve not only local elections but the
involvement of local interests, groups and civil associations in the process of
local governance. In this paper, the
terms "ethnic group", "nationality" and
"linguistic-cultural community" are to be understood as denoting a
national group forming part of the political nation. As there is no agreed meaning for them, I have decided to use
this simple dictionary meaning as a working definition.
The modern conception of democracy in multi-ethnic, multi-national
multi-cultural and multi- linguistic societies consists in recognizing the
rights of ethnic groups and nationalities to determine their own affairs by
themselves. One fundamental aspect of
democracy is the recognition of individuals as equals and as subjects of
certain inalienable rights. This
conception of democracy has further developed and has recognized ethnic groups
or cultural-linguistic communities and nationalities as equals with one another
as subjects of certain inalienable rights.
As we all know, one way or another most countries in the world and in
Africa in particular (except Somalia and a few others) are multi-ethnic and
multi-cultural societies containing numerous ethnic, religious or linguistic
groups that have common bonds to their own heritage, culture, values and ways
of life. States need to find accommodative
and democratic ways of forging national unity amidst this diversity. Gone are the days of unitary states and
pursuing policies of homogenization through assimilation. The democratic
alternative to this ideology is cultural pluralism and consociationalism, based
on a multi-national or multi-ethnic <consensus>
state [James G. Kellas 1991,7] Thus, in the context of ethnic, linguistic,
cultural and religious diversities which characterize most of the countries of
Africa, recognition and protection of minority and group rights must be a
fundamental aspect of our shared values and ideals. This point is well articulated by the Nobel Prize-winning
economist Sir Arthur Lewis, as quoted at length as follows:
"Especially in plural societies__societies that are sharply divided
along religious, ideological, linguistic, cultural, ethnic, or racial lines
into virtually separate sub-societies with their own political parties,
interest groups, and media of communication__the flexibility necessary for
majoritarian democracy is absent. Under
these conditions, majority rule is not only undemocratic but also dangerous,
because minorities that are continuously denied access to power will feel
excluded and discriminated against and will lose their allegiance to the
regime. In plural societies, therefore,
majority rule spells majority dictatorship and civil strife rather than
democracy. What these societies need is
a democratic regime that emphasizes consensus instead of opposition, that
includes rather than excludes, and that tries to maximize the size of the
ruling majority instead of being satisfied with a bare majority: consensus
democracy."
Ethnic heterogeneity and ethnic self-identification is an African
reality; it cannot be wished away or made illegal by a decree as some countries
have tried in vain, or neglected except upon great peril for the incumbent
regime and the whole nation. It is only
through enlightened institutional arrangements and accommodative measures that
we can reconcile and manage ethnic diversity today.
It must be clear at the outset that the right of self-rule or
self-determination can only be meaningful as a guarantee for the equality of
ethnic groups and nationalities and for the preservation of their cultures and
identities. The goal must be to radically
transform Africa so that all ethnic groups and nationalities have equal
opportunities in all respects; that no group, whether ethnic, religious,
cultural or linguistic, dominates any other group in any way whatsoever. It is expected to be a genuine democratic
method for achieving true unity between all ethnic groups and nationalities
based on a bond of mutual trust and brotherly/sisterly cooperation between
them. It is hard to imagine how this
right of self-determination can have any meaning and substance otherwise than
in the context of inter-dependence between ethnic groups and nationalities
within the framework of African countries forged on the basis of the voluntary
unity of all their peoples and ethnic groups.
When all groups feel that their rights are protected and that their
economic interests can be fulfilled, they may not resort to any conflicts and
may not have the drive to break away and assert a claim to full
self-determination or secession. And if
the latter is inevitable to separate peacefully without any bloodshed and
chaos.
In this regard, therefore, all concerned must exercise maximum caution so
that the concept of self-determination may not be overstretched and ethnicity
taken as an end in itself.
Self-determination does not and cannot mean ethnic fractionalization or
exclusiveness; neither does it mean the balkanization of countries nor the
dismemberment of their nations into mini-states. National self-determination
does not at all mean "other-extermination" as witnessed some years
ago in Rwanda, Burundi, Yugoslavia and elsewhere. It does not also mean tribalism and looking after one's own
tribal members first in national life and becoming tribal chiefs instead of
national statesmen. Self-determination
does not, in any way, entertain nepotism, patronage and corruption. It is simply arranging a democratic way of
life for peaceful coexistence based on interdependence, equality and justice
for all. Here, it must be made clear
that any process which sees itself as "purely" ethnic or national can
hold catastrophic contradictions. No
people or ethnic group can be entirely self-sufficient. Contemporary society resembles a woven
fabric and this is a characteristic common to different peoples and ethnic
groups, with different languages, customs and beliefs. National interests must go hand in hand with
social and economic rights and with democracy, if they are to escape being
hollow and shallow. Nationalism and
religion must be made or kept as tolerant as possible for peaceful co-existence. We have no choice but to live together in
peace and this naked truth must guide us towards a form of integration which
will, at the same time, allow for the full development of each constituent
group, language community, nationality or people based on mutual benefits and
interdependence.
I also need to add here that a system of individual and group rights
cannot have much meaning and substance unless the rule of law prevails in our
societies.
Again, I realize that, like the term "democracy," the concept
of the "rule of law" has been given different definitions by
different jurists. I will, therefore, have to be content with a broad statement
of its essential elements. Rule of law
encompasses both the right to equality before the law or equal protection of
the law and due process. What this
means is that, firstly, whether rich or poor, ethnic majority or minority,
religious majority or minority, political ally of the state or opponent__all
are entitled to equal protection before the law; the state should be required
to deal evenly and equally with all its people; secondly, no one is above the
law and all people submit to the law as makers of the law; and thirdly, due
process of law whose essential requirements are;
· "No one's home can be broken into and
searched by the police without a court order showing that there is good cause
for such a search. The midnight knock
of the secret police has no place in any democracy.
· No person shall be held under arrest without
explicit, written charges that specify the alleged violation. If the court finds that the charge is
without justification or the arrest is invalid, the person must be released
immediately, under the doctrine known as habeas corpus.
· Persons charged with crimes should not be
held for protracted periods in prison; they are entitled to a speedy and public
trial.
· The authorities are required to grant bail,
or conditional release, to the accused pending trial if there is little
likelihood that the suspect will flee or commit other crimes.
· Persons cannot be compelled to be witnesses
against themselves.
· Persons shall not be subject to double
jeopardy; that is, they cannot be charged with the same crime twice."
Implicit in the concept of the rule of law, and in the whole concept of
democracy for that matter, is the notion that the powers of government are
limited and that elected decision-makers do not exercise absolute or total
power.
Those briefly then are, in my belief, the values which we cherish and
which we need to promote, expand and protect.
These are the rules which we need to enforce. The enforcement of these rules inevitably requires our collective
and effective intervention in situations where they are broken. The modalities of effecting intervention are
matters which require technical studies and considerations by all African
governments, the African Union (AU) and the international community.
We know for certain, for example, that in a member state where a person
or a group of persons takes state power without the consent of the people,
conflicts are bound to occur and develop sooner or later. Do we have to wait until law and order break
down and humanitarian disaster occurs in this member state? Should we not
persuade/encourage those in illegally-usurped power to hand over that power to
the elected representatives of the people within a given period of time? Should we not apply different forms of
pressures including economic sanctions to persuade those in power to heed to
our collective determinations?
We also know for certain that conflicts are bound to erupt in a member
state where a democratically-elected government starts exercising dictatorial
powers and perpetrating gross human rights violations. Do we wait until conflicts occur and claim
substantial tolls of human lives and material damages?
What do we do when a group refuses to accept the verdict of the people in
an election certified to be free and fair? Or, when a group starts armed
conflict to overthrow a democratically-elected government? Or, when a member state invades another
member state? What do we do when a
member state or states, covertly or overtly, extend material and political
support to rebel groups and countries in conflict? These are tough and sobering questions that demand timely and
resolute responses from the African Union (AU), all African governments and the
international community.
Undoubtedly, attempts to seize power and to sustain power or to resolve
conflicts through the force of arms and through undemocratic procedures
invariably lead to the disruption of peace and the eruption of further
conflicts. Prevention as well as
resolution of conflicts must, therefore, be tackled through democratic and
peaceful methods and pressures.
Collective intervention becomes more meaningful if it is effected at
these stages of the situation. As
Dennis Jett asserted:
"Much of what plagues Africa today can be attributed to the failure
to resolve conflicts except through the force of arms. By its very nature, democracy provides the
means of conflict resolution by ensuring that all points of view are aired and
reflected---be it at the ballot box, in the parliament, or through the
media---"
Our collective intervention can assume different forms and degrees. It can include formal expert investigations
which may lead to formal, collective determination of guilt followed by
informal and formal representations addressed to the party (parties) at
fault. Such procedures can develop to
official condemnation and warning and to the imposition of regional,
continental and international sanctions, and intervention by the AU when
genocides or gross human rights violations occur in a member state. Nothing had more tested the significance of
the Organization of African Unity (OAU) than the OAU's impotence before the
Ugandan massacres during Idi Amin's brutal rule (1975) and the recent years>
genocides in Rwanda (1994), Burundi (1972/1988) and elsewhere.
Africa must be able to make it clear that any government which seizes
power or tries to sustain power by force cannot survive regional and
international action. It must be able
to convey to all that any undemocratic government is an outlaw and will be
treated as such.
Finally, we should not fail to understand that "the former colonial
masters of Africa and other external powers have detonated the fields of all
Africa, having mined earlier, and thus are actively and openly engaged in
exploding them so that they could fish in the troubled waters." [Gebru
Mersha 1985,2]. Hence, all African governments
and peoples must consciously guard against it.
In order to protect themselves from this tragedy, they must urgently and
jointly build transport, communication and other necessary infrastructures and
speed up the process of regional economic integration (RECs) through sound
policies and strategies and render all state boundaries as irrelevant as
possible thus facilitating the free movement and integration of their peoples
and the unhindered flow of material goods, instead of trying to rearrange or
negotiate or even fight over these colonially-imposed artificial state
borders. This will eventually lead us
to realize the United States of Africa that was the agelong dream of many
Africans of the post-colonial period.
It is only when we are able to do this and also able to eradicate
poverty that Africa will be able to be at peace with itself and to realize its
immense human and natural resource potential for the benefit of her peoples and
to bequeath a better liveable Africa for future generations.
Email:<habisso@yahoo.co.uk>