Untold Story of Africa’s Internally Displaced Persons

Perhaps I should start by addressing the title. Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) are people that have been forced to flee their homes but unlike refugees, IDPs remain within their country’s borders. While refugees are eligible to receive international protection and help under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, the international community is not under the same legal obligation to protect and assist the IDPs. This make the IDPs the most vulnerable group among the human race.

According to Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), the IDPs often have no or only limited access to food, employment, education and health care. The IDMC further states:

“…large number of IDPs are caught in desperate situations amidst fighting or in remote and inaccessible areas cut-off from international assistance. Others have been forced to live away from their homes for many years, or even decades, because the conflicts that caused their displacement remained unresolved.”

IDMC estimates that there are 27.1 million IDPs around the world. Of this figure, nearly 11.6 million are in Africa. This makes Africa the most affected continent. The statistics are bad enough; what is even worse however, is the fact that these are not just figures; they are human beings. It is hard enough, if not impossible for me to imagine their daily routine while sitting in front of my computer with a cup of tea by my side.

It is absolutely appalling that African Union (AU) and its discarded predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) never bothered to address this issue for their combined 46 years of existence. The AU finally brought the issue on the agenda last year at a special summit that took place in Kampala, the Ugandan capital on 23rd October 2009.

The summit resolved that African governments will have to look after their displaced citizens. Perpetrators of violence that force civilians out of their homes will be liable for prosecution by domestic courts. The summit also took a strong stand against armed rebel groups and promised that the rebel groups will equally be answerable for the displacement of the people. The summit called for special protection and assistance for women, children and other vulnerable people.

This sounds very good and promising if not for the recent report(s) of women in the DRC being raped under the noses of United Nations peace keeping forces and the subsequent apology by UN’s Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon. Promise is only a comfort to a fool, so they say. Indeed, according to the Economist, the only serious current affairs publication to report on the October 2009 AU Kampala Summit, the Ugandan president, Yoweri Museveni described the resolutions as a “start.” Arguing: “a piece of paper would not bring immediate relief to displaced women in Darfur.”

Museveni is right. But the cynicism of his observation owes a lot to the fact that if the resolutions of this summit were to be implemented Museveni himself may be reliable for persecution for his failure to protect an estimated 2 million people displaced by the Lord’s Resistance Army in northern Uganda. Rightly or wrongly, critics questioned the logic of having this summit in Uganda in the first place.

Perhaps the major challenge to the implementation of the agreements of the summit is get all African countries to sign the agreement. Until today Sudan has not done so, yet Sudan is a crucial country insofar as the issue of IDPs is concerned. The country has nearly 50 percent of IDPs in Africa and the largest than any single country in the world.

Of course figures presented here include people displaced by natural disasters, but the displacement of people that has taken place in Kenya and Zimbabwe in recent years, for example, is man-made and avoidable. While the International Criminal Court (ICC) are dealing with the Kenyan case, the AU have done very little in Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe, the Zimbabwe president was indeed among the delegates to the Kampala Summit.

The first step to sorting out any problem is to acknowledge its existence. African Union have done well to finally recognise the plight of the IDPs. Now the organisation must leave by its own words and sort out this issue once and for all. It is not a simple task, yes, but it is not an impossible one. Mozambique has no IDPs today, only 18 years after atrocious 15 years of civil war that revenged the country. It can also be done elsewhere. To do this, the organisation must forgo the current culture of impunity and punish all the perpetrators of these atrocities.

Malawi needs more than ‘fresh generation of leaders’

Africa is a home to some of the oldest leaders in the world, from Robert Mugabe in the South to Hosni Mubarak in the North. Malawi is among this flock of ageing rulers. Its leader, Bingu wa Mutharika is 76 years old and the country’s opposition leader, John Tembo is 78 years old. These two leaders belong to minority group of over 65 year olds that comprise only five percent of the nation’s estimated 14 million inhabitants.

John Tembo has made it clear that he intends to run for the presidency in 2014 – he will be 82. And there are high chances that his main competitor will be Mutharika’s younger brother, Peter – he will be 74 years old. There has been some discomfort about the ageing leadership among younger Malawians for some time. Tom Likambale, a Malawian political commentator, thinks that the best way of taming the situation is to encourage new generation of political leaders. Likambale has published an online a ‘petition’ entitled “Seeking a Change Agenda for Malawi via a Fresh Generation of Leaders.”

The ‘petition’ is, however, not an open invitation to all young Malawian politicians; it is an ‘urge’ to Atupele Muluzi – a 32 years old parliamentarian and a son of Malawi’s former president, Bakili Muluzi. Likambale wants Atupele to consider running for the presidency in 2014. His reasons for the choice of Atupele include the fact he is young, of course. But also, using the pronoun “we”, Likambale says Atupele understands the tenets of democracy, and that he is experienced enough for the job. He has a point – Atupele would be more experienced in 2014 than Barak Obama and David Cameron were when they assumed leadership of their respective countries.

Atupele Austin Muluzi

The ‘petition’, though no doubt well intentioned, is a very good example of what is wrong with Malawian democracy: there is too much emphasis on the individual. Leaders are not chosen on the strength or weakness of their policies at both national and party levels. It is who you are, how much money you have, and what political party(s) sponsors you that gets people elected.

Obama and Cameron may have spent less time in the political chambers of their respective countries than Atupele, come 2014, but then Obama and Cameron had policies. They individually stood up, presented their policies and the electorate elected them based on their policies. Electorates of these two countries rightly expect their leaders to fullfill their electoral pledges. This has never been the case in Malawi and this ‘petition’ is proposing a repetition of the status quo.

Getting rid of the ageing leadership is definitely a forwarding thinking idea, Likambale deserves kudos for starting the debate. But what is needed is to encourage a politics where elections will be won or lost over policy issues, not glorification of individuals – young or old. If age is the most pertinent issue affecting our democracy (and there is no evidence on this) why not campaign for a presidential retirement age? History reminds us that Atupele’s father, Bakili Muluzi, was 51 years old when he came to power. He did his ten years, via re-election, then hand-picked and campaigned tirelessly for 71 years old Bingu wa Mutharika for presidency. This was clearly undemocratic – United Democratic Front (UDF) members did not chose Mutharika, Bakili did. Bakili had become too popular that his followers could not question his decision. This is what personalising politics can do.

You can fool some people sometimes, but you cannot fool all the people all the times, so they say. Sure, a few people within the party disagreed with Muluzi’s undemocratic act, most notably the late Aleke Banda and Justine Malewezi, who both deserted the UDF. Ironically, the late Banda and Malewezi are today held in very high esteem by many Malawians.

The departure of these two members and Mutharika’s candidature marked the beginning of the fall of the UDF. Today the party is only a shadow of the giant it once was. I am not trying to compare Atupele with his father; they are very different characters, the intervening years have shown that. The point is, if Malawi is to catch-up with the international community on how it conducts its politics, as the ‘petition’ wishes, then Atupele must come forward with his policies, win the confidence and endorsement of his party’s members and present himself as the 2014 presidential candidate. Being young is a good attribute but this alone is not enough. After all, there are a lot of young Malawians that will be 36 years old in 2014.Why Atupele? His polices must answer to this.

Such a process would give any aspirant a foundation to build on. It would also tremendously improve one’s chance of winning elections. This would not only be beneficial to individuals, but the country as well. It would also help make leaders more accountable to the electorate. This is unlikely to be the case when one is being elevated as charismatic and the only one, without necessarily having to prove it. Sociologist Max Weber warned of the dangers of having charismatic leaders. He noticed that charismatic leaders are difficult, if not impossible to succeed. They are unpredictable and they tend to become autocrats. True to this word, UDF has not truly replaced Bakili, as a leader. On the other hand, Bakili’s handpicked successor, Mutharika is increasingly becoming autocratic, as the ‘petition’ and the recent Catholic Bishop’s Letter would attest.

**I have used names Bakili and Atupele not Muluzi to avoid confusion, as they are father and son.

Tanzania Thrives on Julius Nyerere’s Legacy

On Sunday, 31st October 2010 Tanzania voted for president and legislative members. The East African country’s elections have passed relatively unnoticed, this is untypical of many African elections. While there have been reports of unease between a section of the media and the government (something African governments clearly need to clean out), the elections lacked the “usual” tribal and ethnic tensions that make most African elections “newsworthy” for the most international media.

The Guardian had two paragraphs on the Tanzania Government’s threats to the media, albeit quoting a press release published by AllAfrica. The BBC (fair play to them) had 2 minutes and 3 seconds voice-over interviews with Tanzanians to find out why there were no ethnic and tribal tensions attached to these elections. The interviewee’s dominant answer was that they were all Tanzanians. One interviewee pointed out that the tribal harmony that exist in Tanzania today was the legacy of the country’s founding president, Julius Nyeere’s.

Indeed. Nyerere’s emphasised on national building over personal interests, “UJAMAA”, which can loosely be translated as familyhood (Swahili speakers may translate this better) – one person for another. This formed what has come to be know as African Socialism; an ideology that has never been popular with most westerners, whose idealism and economic model(s) Nyerere objected. Consequently, Nyerere is mostly portrayed in negative terms: a socialist dictator. His association with communist China only cemented his reputation as “anti British” and “anti European.”

As explained here, Nyerere took strong international stands on African economic and political independence. In particular, he supported freedom struggles in South Africa, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), Angola and Mozambique. He dared to speak against the CIA-backed corrupt dictator, Mobutu Seseko and sought a better a administration in Mobutu’s Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo). Nyerere also picked fights with IMF as they sought to impose free market economic policies on Tanzania.

These were “crimes” Nyerere committed. He stood up for his country and his African folk. Interestingly, Tanzania faired far much better, politically, socially, and economically, under Nyerere than his critics would have the world believe. According to Raya Dunayevskaya (1973)

“…Tanzania achieved the highest literacy rate in Africa (83%) and also experienced major advances in health care. The single party system Nyerere founded under the Tanzania African National Union (TANU) was hardly undemocratic, since open debate and competitive candidacies were permitted. Nor did Tanzania experience the pervasive corruption of so many post-independence African states.”

They say “bad news is good news.” This rings true on how African affairs are covered in the western mainstream media. This cliche may well explain lack of coverage for Tanzania elections. The elections are devoid of tribalism and ethnic tensions, which would qualify it as “newsworthy”. Given that tribalism has been a constant feature in the region’s (east African) elections, Kenya and Rwanda, in particular, the lack of ethnic tensions in Tanzania is an interesting development – a development that would interest not only media organisations but historians and social scientists alike. Therefore this is a genuine story, a newsworthy material. Kudos to the BBC for their attempted coverage.

The real problem with this story is that it is difficult for much of the international community to highlight these ethnic tension-free elections without giving credit to Julius Nyerere. Meanwhile, Nyerere remains dear to the hearts of many Tanzanians; whether one likes it or not, Tanzania today thrives on Nyerere’s legacy.

Julius Nyerere: 1922 – 1999, RIP

Why Unrecognised Somaliland is a Model for African Democracy

Anyone who has followed African politics, especially the last fifteen years when most countries turned democracy, will be familiar with the pattern of African democracy. Its processes is well standardised across the continent and it is very predictable.

Here is the pattern: elections take place, a ruling party and its candidate are declared as winners, opposition parties protest and refuse to recognise the results; they go to court; they lose the court case and wait for another election to repeat the same process.

Recently, Ghana broke with the tradition and it has become an exception to the standard. In 2008 an opposition party led by Ghana’s incumbent president, John Atta Mills, came to power after a closely contested elections that needed a re-run to decide the winner. Ghana had managed what no democratic African country had done before: change governments peacefully through the ballot.

The Economist in 2009 observed that elections in sub Saharan Africa only change the elite. Indeed, the statistics on African elections confirm this observation. In 2009 alone, there were 24 scheduled elections across sub-Saharan Africa, none of these elections resulted in a change of government.

Sadly one African country that will not appear on the African elections calendar is Somaliland, an unknown but a thriving country in the horn of Africa that broke away from Somalia in 1991. Somaliland has managed to match Ghana’s feat by becoming the only second African country to peacefully change governments through the ballot.

This is a feat that has eluded some of the influential and model democracies in the sub-Saharan Africa including South Africa and Botswana. In South Africa only the ANC wins elections and they have no credible challenge, which puts the whole democracy theory to a test. Botswana is still ruled by the party that won the country its independence, under Sir Seretse Khama in 1966, and now the country is ruled is by Ian Khama, Sir Seretse’s son.

We all witnessed post elections violence that erupted in Kenya after the December 2007 elections. Yet unrecognised Somaliland has just conducted elections that all observers, including its neighbours, Djibouti and Ethiopia have admitted were “free and fair” and the losing parties have accepted defeated.

Meanwhile, Somaliland’s incoming president, Ahmed Mohamed Silanyo has vowed to fight for recognition from the international community. He told AFP: “during my tenure as president I will vigorously fight for the recognition of Somaliland. The world must recognise our democracy.”

Conspiracies theorists and cynics will argue that Somaliland is only conducting itself this way to buy the recognition from the outside world and everything would change after getting their wish. Well I believe it is good to be cynical after all it is a human nature that we are mainly motivated by self interests. This may be true; after all, the age of Jesus Christ and Mahatma Ghandi, who will suffer for others is long behind us. But is is only a conspiracy and it cannot be dweled upon.

Somaliland ought to be recognised. If Ghana is accepted as model of African democracy, why not Somaliland when it is the only country that has achieved the same feat as Ghana? Why is the international community, and yes, including the media, are so quick to accuse when things go wrong but they will not give credit where it is due? If anyone thinks democracy is taking roots and thriving in Africa then on this evidence, Somaliland alongside Ghana, are the torchbearers of it.

Mo Ibrahim Prize and the Plight of African Democracy

Plato once observed, “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” This point has all the connotations of any Sub-Saharan Africa country where democracy (only if it means voting alone) has generally been accepted and it is taking roots even though The Economist reminds us that the ruling party has never lost elections in the region.

Democracy, as the entire politics, is a popularity contest. You win the people’s hearts; you get their vote. But as Plato says: bud guys do not always play by the rules, if they are not popular, they will always come up with various strategies to cling to power.

The consequences of such situations are dire and it is always the innocent people that are on the receiving end. It is this side of politics that gave birth to apartheid in South Africa. The minority white government had to discriminate against the black majority as a way of holding onto power. Zimbabweans have suffered both under Robert Mugabe and the international community because they dared to think differently.

This is why I dread politics. I only talk about it because, as Peter Tosh, a reggae singer pointed out: “we suffer the consequences.”

A number of factors make leaders in Sub-Saharan Africa to cling to power. Among them is greed and corruption. Once in power for example, leaders tend to indulge in so much corruption that they are afraid of prosecution once out of office. Given the corruption trials that ex-leaders in this region have undergone, this theory is carries much weight. Examples include Fredrick Chiluba of Zambia who was recently acquitted of corruption charges by a Zambian high court despite having been found guilty of the same charges by a London court in 2002. Malawi’s ex-president Bakili Muluzi has a corruption case pending. One would not be surprised that these two men also hold a similar record of trying to change their respective constitutions to allow themselves to continue as presidents when they had served their terms.

When these two men failed to change their respective constitutions, they both hand picked their successors. The late Levy Mwanawasa in Zambia and Bingu wa Mutharika in Malawi. Again, the two ex-leaders were ensuring their safety once out of power, but the opposite happened.

With this background, one would not be surprised that Mo Ibrahim Foundation could not find an ex-president in Africa to win its ex-leader’s prize only three years after its introduction. The previous winners are Festus Mogae of Botswana and Joachim Chisano of Mozambique. This is even more shocking given the fact that Africa holds more elections than any other time in her history.

The Economist observes that this year alone, Sub-Saharan Africa is scheduled to hold twelve elections, there will be a total of seven elections next year and by 2014 nearly every country will have had elections. The Economist’s analysis is that these elections only change the elite at the top, as the case of African National Congress in South Africa. The same is the case in Malawi, there are politicians at the top that have served in every administration, swapping portfolios. This begs a question: what is the point in elections when they hardly change anything?

Mo Ibrahim has had to defend himself against allegations that the Mo Ibrahim Prize bribes leaders to do what they are supposed to anyway by arguing that the critics “are failing to take into account how central governance and leadership are for Africa’s development”. He points out that while in Europe leaders retire and go on to hold different roles or give speeches for a fee, there is nothing to do for African leaders.

A very interesting point indeed! Perhaps that is why African leaders are never the ones to retire. On the other hand, it raises an interesting point on the suitability of western-style democracy in Africa. Perhaps the system is not as compatible on both ends of the world as the current models want us to believe. Which way for African democracy then?