Distance lends enchantment to the view�
Michael Dingake | Tuesday March 8, 2016 14:50
If you happen to have the book I recommend you re-read chapter six, titled, ‘The Good, The Bad, The Greedy’ in which he dissects three former African presidents: Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, Samuel Doe of Liberia and Daniel arap Moi of Kenya.
Although in the chapter, Kaunda symbolises the Good, Harden characterises him in these words, “His amiable mendacity dramatises the logic of personal rule in Africa. For him to remain in power, as his misrule continues to coddle a tiny elite and beggar the rest of the populace, the gap must continue to widen between Kaunda the God-fearing humanist who insists he is a ‘democrat through and through’ and Kaunda the steely-eyed Big Man who brooks no challenge…” Of Samuel Doe he writes: “What the Americans ended up buying was neither stability nor democracy. They paid, instead, for Doe’s legitimacy: weapons to coerce loyalty, money to rent it. The skinny backwoods sergeant was more cunning than he looked. Repeatedly, he outfoxed the State Department. He promised to return to his barracks, …he did not. He promised a free and fair election which he rigged. He promised financial discipline, which he faked. For his every promise, the US government rewarded him with aid….” “…Moi is not a buffoon like Doe or a dreamer like Kaunda. He does not sanction the public mutilation of his enemies, nor does he write books about African utopia. Instead he is a stolid, slow-speaking, not-very-dynamic Big Man who deftly uses the tools of his trade – payoffs and coercion – to stay in power. At first blush this does not seem so destructive….”
The common denominator in all three is, ‘staying in power!’ All three loved power, perhaps in varying degrees for slightly dissimilar individual objectives, but all loved power passionately and abused it. They made a fuss about the ‘people,’ but to them the concept ‘people’ meant themselves, their families and close friends on whose behalf they looted the public purse and neglected the majority.
Reading Harden’s work, any keen observer of African politics will agree with him about the outrageous and ruinous style of leadership Africa inherited from colonial masters. Having spent four years in various parts of Africa, one could say the author knew what he was writing about.
A Westerner, he also exposes the role, his own country the US, and other Western countries played in feeding the rapacity and anti-democratic stance they imposed through the agenda of economic aid. Having written this monumental expose of the character of African leadership, one would have hoped Harden will go further: do more research, write about the Western countries complicity in contributing to the regressive, stunted development of the continent by allowing African political conmen to take them for a ride. All these men knew the West’s fear of the East, so they exploited the fear to make possible, the exploitation of their own people.
The quarrel I have with Harden’s work is, he paints Botswana in different and more agreeable colours. He writes: “Nearly all of Africa has been shepherded into penury and dissolution by leaders who do not stand for election. Only three countries in black Africa (Botswana, Senegal and the Gambia) allow multiparty elections that give voters a voice in choosing the head of state.
Not one African head of state, even in nations that tolerate a measure of democracy, has permitted voters to end his reign.” One immediately sees a contradiction in the author’s assertion of the three countries as exceptions. Experience by the opposition in Botswana is that indeed, even Botswana which ‘tolerates a measure of democracy’ (regular five-yearly elections), voters are not permitted to end the ruling party’s reign.
In Botswana, through political intrigue and manipulation of the election process the ruling party ensures the opposition doesn’t win elections easily: it denies the opposition public party funding; monopolises the state media - an undisguised insurance to make its rule unassailable; tenaciously refuses to adopt Proportional Representation (PR) electoral system to stop the gerrymandering of constituencies delimitation in their favour; retains, nay entrenches the provision of specially-elected members of Parliament and local Councils for the same purpose; the incumbency factor enables the ruling party to employ state resources for electioneering. The ruling party has always had more trickery up its sleeve!
Harden continues his admiration of Botswana as an exception to the sick African tradition: “....country has a rare blessing in Africa – ethnic, linguistic and cultural homogeneity… Botswana’s leaders haven’t used their power to steal the public purse.….” Mama, mia! Obviously he hasn’t heard of the atrocious treatment of CKGR Basarwa nor Mosu story, a replica of Nkadla ‘scandal’; he doesn’t know the ruling party has strenuously resisted public importunities and demands to allow parliament to enact the ‘Declaration of Assets and Liabilities law……!’ Why would the public authorities object to such an anti-corruption law for the last 20 years unless they were corrupt and planning uninterrupted corruption?
Would the author continue to hold the opinion he holds about Botswana if he knew extra-judicial killings happen in Botswana? He doesn’t know University professors can be deported for publishing research papers that do not project the administration in good light. If he knew what Batswana know, he would know Botswana isn’t exceptional but typically African!
The adage ‘distance lends enchantment to the view ,’ is pertinent here. The author has been watching Botswana through a telescope with broken tinted lenses!