Lessons From Tunisia, Egypt and Sudan

By Dr Said Adejumobi,  Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

‘What we want are bread, freedom and dignity’ – Egyptian demonstrator!

AS the ‘bigwigs’ of the PDP (Nigeria’s all conquering political party) gathered in Abuja in the second week of January 2011 (precisely Thursday, Jan. 13, 2011) to pick a presidential candidate for the party, two other important events were taking place simultaneously elsewhere on the continent.  In Tunisia, the ‘people’s power’ was at play in which what seemed to have been a minor incident triggered the pent-up anger of the people leading to the ousting of a 23-year political dictatorship of president Ben Ali. At the same time, in Sudan, a referendum was going on for the secession or otherwise, of the South of the country. As we now know, the results of both events in Sudan and Tunisia proved positive – the peoples’ power held sway. South Sudan has overwhelmingly voted for independence, which would kick off in July.

Barely did the torch of freedom light up in Tunis, the domino effect was felt in Cairo. Cairo’s popular Tahrir Square became the counterpoint of peaceful political resistance against a 30-year dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak, boosted by the West and sustained by an edifice of political repression. Eighteen days into the resistance – exactly on Friday, February 11, 2011, Hosni Mubarak made a shameful exit from power, ending the prospects of a Mubarak political dynasty, which he was nurturing.  Dictatorships by their internal logic are weak and cowardly – they require determined resistance to crack and disappear.

But what is the common denominator in the events in Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan and the presidential candidacy selection of the PDP in Nigeria?  All these events are about the acquisition, management, and mismanagement of political power and its consequences. The PDP may not be a one-man dictatorship, but it is an organised political dictatorship, which has ruled Nigeria for 12 years, and its principals boasting openly that whether the Nigerian people like it or not, they will rule the country for 60 years uninterrupted.  Unchecked political power in Tunisia, Egypt and Sudan, as it is in Nigeria, led to a culture of impunity in which the voice and vote of the people did not count; in which the leadership gloated and pretended that all was well; in which wisdom was absolutised by a few; and in which corruption flourished, unhindered.

The difference between Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan and Nigeria, is that for the former three countries, the process has run full cycle and the dare consequences have matured and unfolded; in Nigeria, the cycle is yet to be completed – the contradictions are fast building up, and the process of change is in incubation! As such, the recent events in Tunisia, Egypt and Sudan should be of interest to those who manage political power in Nigeria, especially the PDP, as an organised political force in the country.  There is major paradox in the cases of Tunisia and Egypt as the site of a peoples’ revolution in the 21st century in Africa. Both countries, though ruled with iron fist have recorded remarkable economic progress, with qualitatively better social and human conditions, incomparable with that of Nigeria or most Sub-Saharan African countries. These countries are amongst the few countries in Africa that are likely to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of halving poverty in their countries by 2015 – Nigeria is far from it!

Tunisia’s economy grew at an average of about  five per cent from the 1990s; inflation was squarely under control, and foreign direct investment flowed in. The World Bank in an assessment of the Tunisian economy in 2004, noted, “Tunisia has one of the fastest growing economies in North Africa and the Middle East since the mid-1980s. It has progressed from being a lower to a middle income country with a per capita income of $2,240”. Literacy rate in Tunisia is about 80% with the right of education codified in law in July 2002.  The percentage of six-year old in school was 99.2% in 2008/2009.  Female education and empowerment is a major priority in Tunisia.  The percentage of female students in secondary school was 58% and that in higher education – 60% in 2010.  About 30% of women occupy decision-making positions in the country. Under the country’s Code of Personal Status of 1956, polygamy was outlawed, and women given equal rights in marital relationships.

Health care services are free, qualitative, and accessible, while access to potable drinking water is about 94% and electricity about 99% for the population in Tunisia.  Given these indicators, life expectancy is very high in the country – 76.2 years for women, and 74.6 years for men, compared to the African average of about 42 years.  Tunisians live a much better life than Nigerians can ever imagine!

Egypt is not as lucky as Tunisia. Although its economy grew at an average of about 6% from 2005-2010, inflation rate was about 17% in 2009, while youth unemployment continue to soar. About 40% of Egyptians live on less than $2 per day. In spite of this, life is much better in Egypt than it is in Nigeria. Over 70% of Nigeria’s population lives in groaning poverty. Even as the demonstrations were going on in Tahrir Square, electricity was regular in the neighbourhoods.  Was it to be in Nigeria, all the protesters may have been shot by the police under the cover of darkness!  But the better living conditions in Tunisia and Egypt could not hold back the process of change.  Although bread may be available, freedom and dignity were absent!  The people fought to reclaim their freedom and dignity!

In Sudan, the people of Southern Sudan have existed as second class citizens in their country right from independence in 1956, and successive governments in Khartoum have cemented that.  Sudan like Nigeria has had a chequered political history with coups, military rule and counter-coups. Two major regimes, both of a military nature, have in succession dominated power in Sudan. The first is that of Colonel Gafaar Mohamed el-Nimeri who ruled from 1969-1985, and the second that of Omar Hassan Ahmed al-Bashir, 1989-present.

These two leaders rather than reform Sudan, to erase the colonial legacy of divide and rule between the North and the South, exacerbated it. Religion, ethnicity and race were invoked as instruments of political legitimation, which furthered the marginalization of the South in national life. The consequence was a protracted civil war, which eventually ended with the signing of a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) on 9th January 2005 after three years of painful negotiations. A major part of the agreement is that after five years a referendum would be held for self-determination by the South. The assumption was that in five years the wounds would have been healed, mistakes corrected, and a united Sudan emerged.

This never happened! South Sudan has now completed its final rites of independence.

What are the lessons of Tunisia, Egypt and Sudan for Nigerian leaders? When the leaders deny their people bread, freedom and dignity, resistance and revolution are inevitable.  We rarely need the prophesy of an Atiku or the lamentations of a Ben Nwabueze to know that change is inevitable in Nigeria. But what we do not know is when, how, and in what shape and form the change would be?

Our leaders have planted the seeds of change in the society. Graduate unemployment in Nigeria is over 50%, poverty rate – of less than $2 per day is over 70%, basic infrastructures have completely collapsed – electricity, water, good roads, etc, there is general insecurity,  and an oil exporting country imports refined petroleum for its local use so that oil buccaneers can live off the sweet of the people. Nigeria runs perhaps the most expensive civilian government in the world – the National Assembly consumes significant percentage of the national budget; some past leaders, who were virtually broke before luck smiled on them with state power now own private jets that they travel in; and some others who have little or no knowledge about the oil industry now own oil wells, which they sell for raw cash. The picture is that of a jungle.

Power, as shown in Tunisia, Egypt and Sudan ultimately belongs to the people. It may take long but the people will invariably rescue it from their tormentors. If Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak had premonition about how things would turn out, they would probably have done things differently. Nigerian leaders have the opportunity to change course, initiate progressive reforms and restore hope for their people. If this is not done, there are signposts already of what the future holds for them!

This article first appeared in The Guardian (Lagos) 21 February, 2011.
Share

How Far Will African Dictators Go to Quell The New Wave of Popular Uprising?

Protests in Algeria

African countries are going through a dynamic change, a change that the regimes cannot curtail even with the oppressive state apparatuses that have been employed over the years vehemently hold power. Two leadership casualties have been recorded so far; Ben-Ali of Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. These protests which regimes describe as social unrest are mainly driven by the use of the internet. Apart from the police brutality and killing of innocent protesters, the main tool with which these leaders are responding to these live demonstrations is the shutting down of the internet. Algeria’s President Abdul-Aziz Bouteflika and Moumah Ghaddafi are examples at point. Will shutting down the internet stop the revolt?

While the Algerians have been on the streets for a few weeks, their Libyan counterparts just joined the ‘wave of protest’ or revolution blowing across the continent. In Libya, Bengazi, one of Libya’s largest cities, is playing host to the uprising just like the Tahir Square in Egypt. The people of Libya have endured the reign of terror under president Ghaddafi in connivance with state security agencies for over four decades amidst numerous human right abuses. Suppression of opposition parties and silencing dissent voices has been the order of the day. But how long will Ghaddafi and his cohort continue to repress the popular uprising from same people they have maimed, traumatized and killed over the years?

One thing about these popular protests or revolution on the continent is their regional spread. The Maghreb states (Egypt not inclusive) that have been under the leadership of ‘Iron-fisted’ leaders are the most affected. The latest trend, however, shows a departure but the same message is the same as Tunisians and Egyptians gave to their erstwhile leaders: Reform government, Change your ways, Give us freedom.

The waves are gradually trickling down to other parts of Africa where people are experiencing similar inhuman conditions. This is a clear demonstration of the fact that basic human needs are the same: freedom and dignity, and that, African leaders are the same also. Therefore, I believe the popular uprising will leave no country untouched except the leaders learn fast to improve the condition of lives of the suffering millions and revitalize their economies, promote fair and balanced elections and respect election results as well as stop human-right abuses.

In line with Obama’s assertion in his speech in Ghana last year, ‘Africa does not need strong men; rather, it needs strong institutions’ that would bring the desirable development the people are yearning for’. African leaders who are not ready to shape their countries for good will be shown the way out by the people. The era of absolute dictatorship is gradually becoming extinct.

[ad#Adsense-200by200sq]

Share

Egypt/Zimbabwe: Zimbabweans Cannot Outsource Their Revolution (opinion)

Jacob Dlamini

 Johannesburg (South Africa) – The year is only 34 days old and already it has seen the absolute demise of one dictatorship (Tunisia), the near collapse of another (Egypt), the rattling of a third (Jordan), the likely ruin of a fourth (Yemen) and the possible failure of a fifth (Algeria). That, by any measure, is a good start to what may be the most fundamental political change in the Middle East since 1948, when the state of Israel was founded.

The drama of the past 34 days was enhanced by the fact that two of the dictatorships either to fall (Tunisia) or flirt with downfall (Egypt) were, until recently, considered, especially by the US government, the most stable and least likely to fall.

In fact, US strategy in the Middle East has rested largely on an expensive peace between Egypt and Israel bankrolled by the US. It is largely because of this peace, brokered by former US president Jimmy Carter back when he occupied the White House, that Egypt is one of the top three recipients of military and other aid from the US, after Israel. The peace rested on a firm understanding between the Americans, Israelis and Egyptians, whose state is the largest and most politically significant in the Middle East, that the other Arab-led dictatorships in the Middle East posed little existential threat to Israel so long as Egypt honoured its side of the Camp David agreement.

But Egypt now looks likely to fall, meaning Egypt as we know it could change dramatically as Egyptians, fed up with corruption, neglected by a statistically impressive but empirically hopeless economy, and fed up with a leader, Hosni Mubarak, who seemed to think he was fated by history to rule, take to the streets to demand his ousting.

But it is not only Mubarak’s Egypt that is likely to go into the proverbial dustbin of history. The US policy of making nice with Mubarak while ignoring his brutality against his political opponents and, occasionally, using Mubarak’s apparatus of repression for the “rendition” and torture of enemy combatants, will also have to change.

The last thing the US wants is to, again, find itself backing the wrong side in the wave of protests sweeping the Middle East. The US made that mistake by backing a coup against a democratically elected government in Iran in the 1950s, supporting Saddam Hussein and even plying him with arms in the 1980s while he fought against the hated ayatollahs of Iran, and abandoning, in Afghanistan, the mujahedeen, who had helped the US give the hapless Soviets a taste of Vietnam. That is why the US has been treading gingerly on this. That is why US President Barack Obama has been frantically trying to sound allied to both prodemocracy protesters and Mubarak at the same time. Obama wants to be able to claim some credit should Egypt be delivered finally from dictatorship.

But what is the lesson of the recent events for southern Africa? In particular, what lessons does the wave of protests sweeping the Middle East have for Zimbabweans?

The most important lesson to come out of Egypt and Tunisia, it seems to me, is that revolutions cannot be outsourced. There has been something rather obscene about the ways in which some human rights activists, Zimbabwean and non-Zimbabwean, have presented the problems in Zimbabwe as if they are entirely SA’s or, to be exact, Thabo Mbeki ’s. One got the impression sometimes that these activists wanted Mbeki and South Africans in general to march on Harare. Some even suggested SA invade Zimbabwe.

What these hysterical calls did was absolve the prodemocracy movement in Zimbabwe of the responsibility to take the lead in the fight against Robert Mugabe’s dictatorship. Why is it, for example, that none of us who want to see Mugabe out of office and on trial for all sorts of crimes have bothered to ask why the Movement for Democratic Change, whose roots are supposedly in Zimbabwe’s labour movement, has yet to organise a successful strike, stayaway or other form of popular protest?

None of this is to ignore the brave men and women, journalists, lawyers, farmers and ordinary citizens who have protested against Mugabe’s rule and paid with everything from their lives to their limbs and property. The actions of these people must be recognised and honoured. But they cannot and should not be the exception.

Zimbabweans cannot outsource their revolution. They cannot leave the fight for their freedom to others. Sure, they need support, solidarity and the knowledge that the rest of the world is on their side. But they cannot expect the fight to be led by outsiders. That, for me, is what the Egyptians and the Tunisians have taught us.

Mubarak has one of the most formidable repressive machineries in the world but that has proved worthless in the face of popular protest. Voting with their feet, as the millions of Zimbabweans have done by moving to SA, Zambia, Botswana, Canada, Australia, the US and the UK, must have been a difficult thing to do. But it is by no means courageous. Courage is staring down a dictator, telling him to go and standing your ground. That is what the North Africans have done. Let us hope Zimbabweans learn from them.

*Jacob Dlamini is a South African writer.

Share