Jarus:

http://www.dailytrust.com.ng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=145991:how-long-is-long-enough&catid=6:daily-columns&Itemid=6

By Mahmud Jega

In the wake of the death last Thursday of Libya’s long-reigning ruler Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, one question being asked all over Africa is, how long is long enough for an African ruler to rule over his country, with how much power, with what purpose, and all to what end?
Four years as stipulated in most constitutions.

One of the glaring contradictions of the Gaddafi episode is that, apart from longevity and some human rights abuse issues, many Africans don’t agree with the Libyan rebels about the vices of Gaddafi, and not too many Africans think that his vices outweigh his usefulness, to Libya and to Africa. Many Africans were not knowledgeable about the many crimes and lies of the Ghadaffi regime so this is a moot point

It is only with respect to longevity that Gaddafi’s alleged vices outweigh those of every other post-colonial African ruler. Trouble is, regarding sit-tightism as a vice is new to the African experience, where we are used to kings and local chiefs that rule for up to 60 years. we were not used to it as the Igbo and many fiercely independent people will tell you. For the rest of us, we simply had no choice in the matter. Now, We do.

In the first three decades since Italian, German, British, French, Belgian, Spanish and Portuguese colonial rule ended in most African countries, sit tight rulers were the norm all over the continent. Except in Congo Kinshasa, Togo, Algeria, Nigeria and Ghana where the pioneer rulers were overthrown within 5 years of independence, many of the early African rulers went on to rule for two or even three decades.

They include Malawi’s Hastings Kamuzu Banda [1964-94], Niger’s Diori Hammani [1960-74], Cameroun’s Ahmadou Ahidjo [1960-82], Senegal’s Leopold Senghor [1960-80], Ivory Coast’s Felix Houphouet-Boigny [1960-93], Zambia’s Kenneth Kaunda [1964-91], Gambia’s Sir Dauda Jawara [1962-94], Tunisia’s Habib Bourguiba [1960-87], Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere [1962-85] and Djibouti’s Hassan Gouled Aptidon [1977-1999].

In many African countries, the second or third generation post-independence rulers also stayed on for many decades. They include Sierra Leone’s Siaka Stevens [1967-85], Togo’s Gnassingbe Eyadema [1967-2005], Benin’s Mathieu Kerekou [1972-91, 1996-2006], Algeria’s Hoari Boumediene [1965-78], Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe [1980-date], Egypt’s Anwar Sadat [1970-81] and Hosni Mubarak [1981-2011], Burkina Faso’s Blaise Compaore [since 1987], Ethiopia’s Mengistu Haile Mariam [1976-91], Guinea’s Ahmadou Sekou Toure [1958-84], Zaire’s Mobutu Sese Sekou [1965-97], Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni [since 1986], Angola’s Eduardo Dos Santos [since 1979], Comoro’s Albert Rene [1977-2004], Nigeria’s Ibrahim Babangida [1985-93] and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, 1969-2011.

Longevity however is the only quality that lumps all of these African rulers together. Some proved to be much more useful to their countries and to Africa than others. Some of the sit-tight rulers were benign dictators. Some others combined sit-tightism with corruption only, while a third category of them combined sit-tightism with corruption and despotism. All three categories however bore no automatic correlation to socio-economic transformation, Africans’ traditional measure of tenure success.

In all cases, it was a travesty permitted only by the fact that they were useful to the different protagonists in the ongoing cold war.

While many sit-tight African rulers ruined their countries, some such as Botswana’s Sir Seretse Khama [who ruled 1966-80] and Cote D’Ivoire’s Felix Houphouet-Boigny developed their countries’ economies admirably. Julius Nyerere sat tight for 25 years, but he is widely regarded in Africa as saintly, given his wisdom, his austere lifestyle and his commitment to African unity, give or take conspicuous errors such as recognising Biafran independence.

That still doesnt neglect the fact that they must have killed certain people to remain in power and one of the basic unspoken principles of democracy is that one life is as important as a hundred. Hence they are just as bad as the rest of them. Cote d'ivoire by the way is still in the boonies. and Zambia is not japan yet, so you can't tell us having dictators did not retard those countries.

Among the second generation sit-tight rulers too, performance in office differed markedly. Dos Santos transformed Angola in the decade since the end of UNITA’s rebellion. Gaddafi too greatly developed key infrastructure in Libya, as did Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.
Spare us these too. Liberation in all spheres of life is the right of everyhuman. Life is not all about bread.

It is not impossible to be sit-tight, authoritarian or even despotic, and yet transform your country socio-economically. The great Asian sit-tight rulers such as Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew [1959-90], Indonesia’s Suharto [1968-98], South Korea’s Park Chung-hee [1963-79], Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamed [1981-2003], Taiwan’s Chiang Kai-shek [1950-75], and maybe also North Korea’s Kim Il-Sung [1948-94] and Pakistan’s Zulfikar Ali Bhutto [1971-77] all achieved great socio-economic expansion of the kind Africans rate as successful.

North Korea is existing on food supplied under duress by south korea so it is not a success. Suharto's indonesia is only surpassed by nigeria in its decay and kleptocracy. They are so alike that they are jointly the butt of indo-nigerian jokes comparing contractors in both countries (Indonesians build the road halfway, the nigerian ones simply dont build it.). South Korea developed because of their keiretsu-style companies not because of that general. Malaysia is still one of the homes of terrorism and therefore doesnt even deserve mention. All you can say is that they have not been as ruthless or manic as our own thieves

In Latin America, the sternly authoritarian Generals who ruled Brazil in the 1960s to 1980s were recording an average annual economic growth rate of more than 10%. A lot of Turkey’s economic transformation was achieved under the rule of authoritarian Generals. In the 1970s, Iran under the Shah was recording the world’s fastest economic growth rate, 15% annually. So, it’s not like dictatorships or even monarchies do not pay some dividends.

But can any of these countries compare with Norway or even Japan where people not only record better growth than those places but also live freely. why should it be one or the other? why argue for dictators?

The greatest socio-economic miracle of the late 20th Century, namely the transformation of China, was accomplished by Deng Xiao-Ping and the Chinese Communist Party in conditions that were [are] both sit-tightish and authoritarian. This is not to mention the rapid industrialisation of the Soviet Union in the years 1924-1952 by Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Communist Party in conditions often summarised as despotic.

Indeed. and thats why russian men are dying of vodka while life has returned to its common denominator. Yes dictators can motivate massive action but sustained progress requires a bedrock of liberty.

Since the Cold War ended in 1989, Westerners have forced Africans, as well as Asians and Latin Americans, to evaluate all rulers principally with respect to democracy and human rights. These new parameters are disorienting to Africans. Many Nigerians, for example, regard General Murtala Mohamed as our best ruler ever, and not because he ruled for only six months. Murtala was not democratic by any means. He wasn’t despotic, but he certainly breached the rights of some people, especially the thousands of sacked public servants. Yet he is widely seen as Nigeria’s best ruler.

Yes, they have forced us by the sheer beauty of their cities. the simple and attractive rationality of many basic attributes of their lives. the near-familial attention they pay to civil liberties(sometimes). The opportunity they give their citizens to live out their lives without fear of running foul of a dictator's whims.



Now, the fact that thousands of Libyans who were not even trained soldiers took up arms against Gaddafi clearly means that they have very deep-seated grievances against his rule. Their grievances are hardly visible to other Africans, who instead see the key infrastructure and elaborate welfare system that Gaddafi built up in Libya.

We only see ghadaffi's propaganda. he has controlled the narrative so we cant see the other side. he fell because he lost control of the narrative. The truth spread by mobile phone and satellite tv. the force of truth overcame every dictator's lifeblood/weapon (fear-inducing lies).


Certainly he was a megalomaniac; everyone could see that. That’s not a character trait that endears you to people. In Nigeria here, while Olusegun Obasanjo’s 8-year rule as civilian president outpoints the tenures of Umaru Yar’adua and Goodluck Jonathan in terms of socio-economic initiatives, not many Nigerians will rank him as a better ruler than either Yar’adua or Jonathan. This is most probably because the latter two are much less arrogant fellows. Much less arrogant?!! I prefer basically incompetent.

How I wish, personally, that General Yakubu Gowon had been a General Park Chung-hee when he ruled Nigeria in 1966-75, or that General Ibrahim Babangida had been a Suharto in 1985-93. Nigeria would have been a very different place by now.

We would all be in different countries now if that had been the case.

Right now, while the Libyan rebels are celebrating the death of Muammar Gaddafi and they are promising to democratise their country within a few months---the same promise that Field Marshal Tantawi and the Egyptian Generals have made--- it is important for all Africans to ponder on three issues.

Number one: where sit-tight rulers have to be chased out, what method should be used and what is the acceptable price to pay in terms of human lives and infrastructural destruction? The Tunisian revolution that drove out Ibn Ali and the one in Egypt that drove out Mubarak were accomplished with minimal bloodshed and minimal destruction. They look okay to me.

So whose fault was it? who was responsible for making the uprising bloody? who refused to step down like Mubarak and ben ali did?

That’s probably because the Tunisians and Egyptians were somehow lucky that their sit-tight rulers were not completely megalomaniacal and were not willing to destroy the whole country in order to rule it. But, faced with a stubborn dictator such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Yemen’s Ali Abdallah Saleh or Syria’s Bashar al-Assad is it wise to take up arms and risk the destruction of thousands of lives and of decades of infrastructural achievement, as happened in Iraq and now Libya?
Totally. Those who would not allow peaceful change, leave the populace no option but violent revolution.

Number two: would you want to encourage the UN Security Council to adopt hypocritical resolutions to “protect civilians” in a hapless country such as Libya, when the people that need protection the most, such as Afghan and Palestinian civilians, are left to their own devices?

It worked much better than having troops on the ground or waiting months for countries to form coalitions while Ghadaffi massacres his enemies at leisure.

Number three: is it clever to invite foreign military intervention, especially a cowardly one like NATO, to rain bombs and cruise missiles at your country from high up in the air and far out at sea?

Very clever. Its the age of leverage. the age of doing more with less. or doing it at a distance. of doing it at little personal cost and high margin of safety. A world where it is not cowardly to end your enemy's life at a distance with a sniper rifle. A world where war is not about bravery or glory but about expedient attainment of political goals. Cowardice is the campaign-song of terrorists and brigands the world over who wish NATO would be stupid and give them something to shoot at.

Let us think about those issues before another “National Transitional Council” steps up to ruin another African country.

Sit back and buy some popcorn boss, more councils-in-training in africa. more on the way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------