The biggest stumbling block in post-colonial Africa’s progress towards democracy has been the steadfast refusal of its dictators to relinquish power. Much of this can be attributed to the fact that should they be forced to relinquish power they are, more likely than not, going to be facing charges of genocide, crimes against humanity or a multitude other unspeakable acts which they perpetrated during their rule.
South AfricanPresident Jacob Zumain discussion with Rwandan President Paul Kagame at the World Economic Forum confirmed that immunity would be the way to ease Africa out of its dictators.
“The world has changed, therefore let us do things differently and not emphasise punishment. If you are saying: ‘Okay move out, but tomorrow we will deal with you,’ then you are causing a problem with somebody saying: ‘Why should I leave when I still have power? I had better remain here.’
“The leadership of Africa today must come very boldly and deal with these issues. It’s not for our sake as leaders, it’s for the sake or our people, for the sake of our continent,” Zuma said.
In a perfect world I would be right up there with the rest of those who would seek justice for the victims of these monsters but as we have seen time and again, they are not only going unpunished but cling to power which makes a bad situation infinitely worse.
This results in the people of countries like Zimbabwe having their own security forces act as hostage takers owing loyalty to the dictator concerned and not the people.
The world in its turn then sanctions the country concerned which occasions untold suffering and hardship for the people while the elite ponder their fate — in the lap of luxury of course — for years.
Zuma is suggesting a get-out-of-jail-free card in order to expedite the transfer of power in these situations.
Subject to it being a once-off offer never to be repeated it is definitely the lesser of two evils. Rather the thugs walk free than entire populations starve while the planet plays the politics of expedience.
Trust me that is what the starving majority in those countries would want.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, June 14th, 2009 at 12:51 pm and is filed under News & Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
62 Responses to “Zuma must be supported in his accord for dictators”
But the problem we have with african dictators is that, almost all of them are friends to “The Big Man at Shell House”…even Omar Al Bashir is our latest colleague.
So, it doesnt help to remove one dictator in power, because our dude would make himself an available friend to aid another one. It’s just like Facebook, you get rid of some people and you invite more friends.
For example, the thrown away former tiny tyrant of madagascar is moving up & down the corridors of our nation; in fact his predecessor, the juvenile dj, would soon join the bunch of many friends we host. Just watch this space.
“The Big Man at Shell House” is inviting the whole lot.
Either way, the dictators get away with murder. If they are not prosecuted after leaving office and given immunity, they are praised with golden handshakes to bribe a dictator not to behave like a dictator at the tax payer’s expense.
I think Zuma and yourselves misdiagnos the root problem. The problem is not that dictators cling to power because of fear of prosecution and any comebacks.
The Zimbabwean security apparatus that is propping up Mugabe, was offered many assurances by Morgan last year that they won’t be prosecuted. They still did not abandon their terror on civilians.
It is mainly that dictators want a monopoly on powers as well as economic interest. That is why Gono will be the governor of the reserve bank as long as Mugabe is in power in order to finance Mugabe’s sustainance. You confuse CAUSE and EFFECT - dictatorship exists before prosecution.
Thabo Mbeki sought the third term presidency of the ANC, not because of fear of prosecution but because he liked power and influence. There has never been any evidence of any crimes against humanity that Mbeki would have been taken to answer for at the ICC.
Gaddafi, Mubarak and Co are not under a threat of prosecution by anyone but they still hold on to power. Al Bashir committed genocide in Dafur before anyone wanted to prosecute him. He committed genocide to consolidate his grip on power.
Then what is to stop dictators from saying to themselves, I have not been offered amnesty yet, perhaps I need to follow the example of those who are being offered amnesty?
Or is the intention to make all leaders above the law, so that they do not HAVE to commit atrocities in order to get off scott free?
Traps what are you smoking? The next generation of dictators would see the lack of accountability and pick up where they left off. You can’t enforce it as a once-off.
The leadership of Africa should realize that they are in power to benefit their people. Unless this ‘epiphany’ occurs the same old story will unfold
In short - Africa’s leaders need a dose of morality
Interesting take - the “pragmatic” versus moral approach - “the end justifies the means”.
It may possibly be true that granting immunity may encourage some despots to relinquish power, but surely the other side of this coin is that if a new leader knows that any acts of “genocide, crimes against humanity or a multitude of other unspeakable acts” will go unpunished, he will have less disincentive to commit such acts in the first place?
It (a guaranteed indemnity) could even be considered to be an open invitation to commit unspeakable acts, in the sure knowledge that there will be no retribution or consequences.
Criminologists and Economists have long identified a strong negative correlation between the crime rate and the effective positive prosecution rate - ie the less likely you are to be caught and punished, the more likely you are to commit a crime.
It is interesting that you encourage us to support President Zuma’s views on the matter of African leaders relinquishing power.
Before the election, Zuma is on public record as stating he is a one-term president who will not seek or make himself eligible for re-election.
Post election, his public position is now “this is an ANC matter for the ANC to decide”.
A not-so-subtle change in stance.
Should we not rather be promoting multi-party democracies for Africa, and coalitions, where if you do not perform, you are voted out?
Anyone notice a lack of rhetoric from Mugabe lately since the advent of GNU?
Remove all criminal sanctions from Afro-dictators and EVERY African leader will become an Afro-dictator. Whyever not? Nothing to lose by pillaging and brutalising your nation? The “Zuma Plan” has purchased your total immunity.
In principle there should be no problem with this; personal vindictiveness should always be set aside for political necessity. That is why De Klerk and Buthelezi are walking free instead of serving hard labour as they deserve.
However, there are problems. One obvious one is to ask who constitutes the dictator? Note that according to Barack Obama, Omar Bongo, the vicious dictator of Gabon, does not count as a dictator. Kagame is himself a dictator. If we leave the decision on who must be deposed and who must not be deposed to the West, then pro-Western dictators will be left in power regardless of their crimes (as Mobutu was) whereas anti-Western dictators will be condemned and there will be a big push to have them removed.
The other problem is that there is a bad record in this respect. Taylor of Liberia stepped down on the strict understanding that he would not be prosecuted. Then the Americans made the Nigerians hand him over for war crimes trials, as a PR stunt. The fact is that any dictator who trusted such a deal would be a fool.
The deal would have to be an internal one; for instance, if an effectual opposition existed in Equatorial Guinea, it could broker a deal with the President for him to step down. Zuma might be able to facilitate such deals. But South Africa should not get involved with Western-backed guarantees in this sphere. There are too many ulterior motives.
As I am aware, most African dictators who have reliquished power have done so kicking and screaming generally with their own (previously loyal) armed forces baying for their blood.
I believe that to date only Charles Taylor, of all African dictators, has got close to facing a court of law. Others died bloody deaths or hung on to power so long that their bodies gave up (Mobutu); while some survived and fled into exile (Amin & Mengistu) only to be protected by other dictators.
By giving an existing African dictator or even a lowly flight sergeant with aspirations of greatness the opportunity to believe that they will have the chance to get away with their madness after a few years in power is telling the world and the citizens of our continent to accept that dictators have legitimate place in African politics.
Apart from the interesting idea of a White SA telling the Black African Millions of peasants what it is they want,
Could I just point out that every other continent is making efforts (successfu or otherwise) to bring dictators to justice, whilst Africa wants to send a message that they get off scot free.
Do you think that this is anything to do with why Africa has so many corrupt politicians wanting to give themselves imunity and why African countries are on average the most corrupt in the world?
And when were you (as a SA White man) planning on asking the Black African peasants what they want, because then you might notice that most other sources of information astate that the Average African Peasant hates the avreage African Poitician and wants rid of them far more than the average White liberal.
Since the average White Liberal doesn’t suffer so much at the hands of the Average Black Politician as the average African peasant does.
I hope he (Zuma) id doing it in good faith, without a foresight of intending to use it as he would have grown to be like them in the next 10 years. While the intention is noble premafacie, its also analyse how presidents can be bred into being future dictactor with a provision to get away with it. Its good that our president spoke and we can have the debate go on. For me, its of-course a NO.
Traps get someone to check your fuses. I think the one in the circuit marked ‘logic:cause and effect’has blown.
“Subject to it being a once-off offer never to be repeated”
And just HOW are you gonna make that daydream happen? Amnesty is carte blanche to do it again, but worse with the next crop.
Instead: Offer footsoldiers amnesty - in exchange for full declarion - evidence to hang the bastards who gave the orders, closure for victims. Offer minor officials a plea bargain - full disclosure and a suspended sentence. Offer the next tier conditional short sentence (with perks for the boss’s head - like a suspended sentence) and relatively minor punitive confiscation of looted assets, with a time factor - each day you wait, the penalty gets worse. And the boss and inner circle? The ultimate penalty, no negotiation about it - BUT assets punishment starts - today - with their personal assets. After that, attack the proceeds and beneficiaries of his crimes: In other words these bastards hold the people to ransom as they care nothing for them - all we can do is hold their families to ransom. If they stick around… we’ll get to the point where any more than the national minimum wage in possession of any of their beneficiaries is assumed to be the proceeds of crime.
Without footsoldiers who can’t escape, and minor functionaries, all of these rats will start running. Without family and crony support, they’re toast.
Make those who offer support -Mkbeki - liable too.
I really find it difficult to agree. Yes, it would provide an “easy way out” for dictators that Africa needs to rid herself of, but by the same token, it also gives the same despotic rulers carte blanche to perpetrate whichever atrocities take their fancy.
First, would complete forfeiture of the audited millions (billions, even in USA dollars?) looted by the dictators and their military/police supporters be a non-negotiable condition of the proposed amnesty?
Second, who would have to give the assurance that no further amnesties would ever be allowed; which countries would that assurance cover; what credibility would such assurance have?
An interesting thought, and not one I’d previously considered. Put like that, of course, you’re absolutely right. It’s not about whether or not Mugabe is punished. It’s actually about saving an entire nation, and in the light of that, one man’s exoneration is a very small price to pay.
“Trust me that is what the starving majority in those countries would want.”….says who? Is that not what all criminals want?
Strong talk, coming from a man who escaped serious court action on a technicality. Is he preparing for his own future?
How powerful must the criminal dictator be to be eligible for this amnesty and walk away scot free from his barbaric acts?
Goering, Goebels, Hess, Eichmann, Saddam and many others would have loved to live in peace forever thereafter. We could close the international court for war criminals and stop wasting money on these processes. Just a pension for life and a luxury villa with chauffeur driven car would do fine.
The least we can demand is that he/she will be confined to his country and without the protection of body guards. This would allow people who disagree with “what the starving majority in those countries would want” an opportunity to express their opinion in whatever form.
Why not make this subject to a referendum to confirm that such an amnesty is indeed “what the starving majority in those countries would want”.
B^%#@$&%. Imagine if the world had decided that this was the ideal solution for dealing with the likes of Adolf Hitler. Do you really think that this will discourage the next round of dictators.
This proposal is nothing less than an admission by current african leaders that they are not prepared to take the hard decisions to deal with some of the worlds most ruthless criminals. Because that is what they are given that they steal from and murder their own people.
it’s a good idea in practice, but i honestly don’t see the lion queen [that would be chantal biya] quietly going away into the sunset. grace mugabe either, even though — for a split second — it seemed like she was willing to do exactly that. nor do i see the obiang matriarch saying “yeah, we’re done here.”
it’s a nice idea, but i suspect they would all try to interfere from the sidelines in the same way that the shoe guy did. of course, he ended up getting arrested and put on trial. now *that* is the real once-off, never to be repeated.
WTF, Traps? Where is your logic? Would you have endorsed a similar deal for Hitler in 1945? After all, the world had been subjected to 8 years of war thanks to him. At least 70 million people died, 20 million in the USSSR alone thanks to Hitler. Surely the suffering he inflicted is comparable to the past 40+ years of dictatorships across Africa? If the Allies had sued for peace on the grounds of amnesty for Hitler and his Cabinet, would you have endorsed it?
Zuma’s “get out of jail free card IS THE POLITICS OF EXPEDIENCE –NOT THE ANTIDOTE TO IT!
Just as your proposed ‘political’ solution to Zuma’s long list of criminal charges was political expedience!
One must wonder why, for example, Milosevic should be held accountable for HIS genocide but not Al Bashir?
Is there a different moral standard for white dictators, Traps? If so, there is a subtle racism behind your endorsement of amnesty for African dictators.
Not to mention that every major dictator who has ‘retired’ has done so with an impunity that amounts to amnesty! They live in opulence whether in their own countries or in ‘retirement in exile’, so what’s the difference for the ‘masses’?
And what guarantee would there be that one the dictator’s henchmen would not take the big dick’s place? Amnesty is not the solution, Traps, it’s the problem.
Madoda is certainly right and we should not get carried away trying to find wisdom, still less morality, in Zuma’s proposal, which is not original in any case.
The reason it is made at all is that prior to his election it suited Zuma to let it be assumed he would ‘act’ over Mugabe where his rival would not. Zuma has no more means than Mbeki to rid Africa of despots and no more intention of trying to. Mbeki had ‘quiet diplomacy’ to cover his inaction; this preachiness is Zuma’s pitch.
The morally superior suggestion that these people are deserving of a humaniity they deny to others -’The world has changed .. let us do things differently and not emphasise punishment’ - must be especially hard to stomach for all who suffer under Mugabe and the rest’s cruelities.
you need to check your facts. the shoe guy was still meddling in liberian affairs. a condition of his exile was to not interfere. basically, he violated parole.
[”parole,” by the way, means “word”. not as in “there are six words in the previous sentence,” but as in “you have my word that i will not interfere in liberian affairs from this nice pad in calabar you guys are giving me.”]
This is a nuanced position which argues for the greater good against what may be an abstract concept of justice. Frankly, it makes a lot of sense. If it benefits the ordinary people of Africa, creates the opportunity for a ‘new start’, and takes away the ‘fear’ motive from dictators clinging to power, it’s worth it. It would not get rid of the ‘greed’ factor though. Realpolitik is justified.
Perhaps we could separate two issues: the justice that should apply (not to mention who should apply it), and the truth (inclusive of facts).
Truth is a prior issue: how do we determine what should happen to dictators if we can’t even NAME them as such? When will legitimate African leaders call a spade a spade?
I’m thinking of Mugabe; and wondering (again) why South Africans fail to understand him. Can’t we see how VAIN he is? His ego? Even when he refuses to close unaffordable and pointless embassies because of the “humiliation” that would bring? And yet, last year we could not bring ourselves to say “you are not the legitimate President, we don’t recognise your election, no more diplomatic privileges for you!”. That alone would have made an enormous difference, sending a message to ordinary Zimbabweans, but instead we pandered. We held his hand.
If we can’t bring ourselves to hold a mirror before African dictators, it’s pointless debating their hypothetical fate. Inability to plunder state resources or use violence to extort assets, would be a fate worse than imprisonment for some, since they know no other way and like to live well. VERY well. And then, there’s the knotty question of recovering the ill-gotten gains that were salted away overseas…
Before I take Zuma at his word, I’d like some indication that he’s addressing the entire problem of corrupt and violent leadership and doing something - anything - about it.
When exactly are we as Africans going to demand accountability to those in power? What Zuma is suggesting will not solve the probleem but exacerbate it. It is dealing with a symptom rather than the root cause of the problem. Very short sighted by Mr. Zuma.
Have I misread something, or did Traps say ists a “one time only” amnesty? If that is the case, I sat ‘go for it!’ Wheas democracy as a system of government is a tousands old Greek concept that seemed to work well in their so called ‘city states’ where people of a common background and culture decided how the city should be run. In SA we are not a people of a common cultue nor background as in perhaps teh most part of sub-Saharan Africa. In this case I would preach for a BENIGN DICTATORSHIP UNTIL, AFTER MANY GENERATIONS WE BECOME A TRUE NATION WITH A COMMON BACKGROUND. dEMOCRACY IS FAR TOO PRECIOUS TO SQUANDER ON
Next it will be OK to grant gang leaders, drug lords and rapists terrorizing whole communities immunity because all the starving majority wants is to be rid of them.
Grow some balls, stand up to them, convict them, set an example for wannabe dictators and corrupt government officials and send a message to international investors that we are serious about cleaning up our act. Good governance is the only solution to Africa’s problems because without good governance there will be no real foreign investment (unless you count be dictated to by China) and without foreign investment Africa is incapable of hauling itself out of the mess it has created.
The whole idea of immunity is a load of crock.
It’s no wonder Africa is the socio economic cesspool of the world.
Traps
You don’t really believe this do you?
Got a good number of responces though which was probebly your intention.
My thoughts are that why should European desposts be prosecuted and let African ones get amnesty - are Africans ‘children of a lesser god?
Something needs to be done about politicians who abuse their people of that there can be no doubt. What the something should be has yet to be worked out in each case but total exemption from prosecution is definitely not an option as it would only exacerbate the problem as one generation of dictators was followed by the the next.
All dictatorships manage to go on because they have support; within their country, within the region or with the connivance of one or some of the powers. This is the reason they get away with murder and don’t have to have any regard for their citizens. The point of allowing them to slip off the thrown without any fear of reprisals is therefore skirting the issue.
I’m a little confused here dear. And, what about other criminals who run riot in their communities? Are you suggesting we offer them amnesty if they will please retire with all crimes excused. If its good enough for the president, its good enough for me. And being a democratic country which stresses equality under the law, should we not be encouraging the same of our fellow nations, as in the universal drive for true democracy. To give these monsters freedom in order to evict them, seems to me to be very small thinking indeed. It simply perpetuates the problem, like ransom for kidnapping.
This issue highlights what the problem is in Africa. Once elected the main focus is the welfare of these guys. Just when will the interest of the people come into focus? Also a bad message is being sent that implies that leaders can do anything and no one can touch them. Besides what will stop the next person going the same way? If such a plan was implemented it will create a precedence for forgiving these despots.
Now is the time to stand up for the rule of law no matter who you are! Efforts must be directed towards removing these bad elements and reversing the damage they have done. In fact we need to see more ex-leaders taking responsibility for their actions. What better way to stop these guys who take people for granted. We need one set of laws for all citizens!
This is a crazy notion. It would mean that the dictators could rape and pillage as much as they want and then gracefully “retire” with their ill-gotten gains with Zuma’s proposed amnesty. What he is saying effectively is that he condones their behaviour and we should feel sorry for the people they have robbed and allow their now plundered and impoverished countries to be rebuilt by some charitable Western countries. Would this be in preparation for the next generation of dictators?
I bet TRAPS is laughing his head off saying GOTCHA !
He wrote this article to get massive responses and up his ratings as the most read author.
Come on people - it is satire laced with irony.
The article is ludicrous in its entirety.
Would Jewish people condone genocide perpetrators ever ?
If the author was an African (racist old me again) I would not regard it as satire. I would attack it vociferously piece by piece as well as the author whomsoever.
OOPS - did Traps suffer mind conditioning controlled by remote control from Shell House ?
Is there a CIA around when I need one fast ?
Old, female, paleface on June 16th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Am disagreeing with Creator when he says Kagame is a despot,how did he arrive to that conclusion?if thats the case then every President is a despot since all of them not every situation they arrive by consensus.Can you please enlighten me why you think Kagame is a despot?May be you know something that i dont!
A sober ans well-thought out idea from Zuma. The African self-made billionaire and philantropher, Mo Ebrahim has already initiated a financial incentive scheme for African leaders who during their reign promoted good governance and did not overstay their terms of office. The Mozambique and Botswana former Presidents have been beneficiaries of this scheme. Sadly for our former President who was being touted as the next beneficial left his position under a cloud and he is thus no longer eligible for this prestigious benefit.
I will assume that when Zuma made this comment/proposal in his mind he had people like Omar Bashira of Sudan and Mugabe. I do hope that when we make our comments on this noble proposals we would climb down from our ivory towers and do think of the ordinary people of Sudan and Zimbabwe who have become pawns in the survival strategies of the ruling elites.
C’mon dude, smell the coffee. Dictators are, by their very nature, megalomaniacs. Offering them a bit of spice to retire is never going to work. We don’t have to use military force (we don’t have any) but can use diplomacy and trade sanctions to force them out as best we can.
This accord is all very nice but is practically useless. A bit like Communism.
I would like to delete my remarks above. I retrospect - If this is satire which I doubt; it is RACISM of the worst degree !
IT IS THE AFRICAN SOLUTION !
Are not to be held accountable or responsible but forgiven ?
SO EXPECT LESS FROM US SAVAGES ?
BLACK, AFRICAN Dictators act according to the nature of their people.
“” We are savages, subhuman, living by our own cultures.”" DO not judge us !
viz - Do NOT hold us up to Western Standards of Civilisation ?
Expect less from us as we are lesser humans ?
We should be accepted with all our cultural beliefs.
NO court can try us.
Is that what Mr.Zuma and Mr.Trapido are saying because that is exactly how I interpret their statement.
Old, female, paleface on June 17th, 2009 at 10:39 am
STOP THE PRESS!
Traps, your beloved guardian angels of the Constitution, the ANC, have just tabled an amendment TO THE CONSTITUTION to allow Parliament to legislate in contravention to the Constitution.
This is in response to the Nyathi case where Parliament was directed to amend the law which prevented a successful litigant against the State from attaching State property. Now, your beloved party wants to do away with the ability of a citizen to take the State to court and prosecute his case, win, and be effectively compensated instead of waiting for a beaurocrat to pay him out.
An essential ingredient for effective democracy is being destroyed by the ANC.
And the 2/3rds “wasn’t all that important”?????
Here Zuma is trying to grant human rights abusers amensty whilst seeking to dismantle his own citizen’s rights.
The irony is chilling Traps.
In your defence of the ANC pre-election you stood on the foundation of the ANC being the best for the poor, fine. But this amendment flies directly in the face of this as the poor will have the most to lose - just like the late Nyathi.
Deal with this one Traps, face up to what you’ve voted into power despite the warnings of the cynics.
Amensty for dictators outside our borders is one thing, but what about the warning bells our citizens should be hearing from our own government?
I would love to see the back of the dictators, thieves and despotic leaders in Africa and it is tempting to offer amnesty and get rid of them for good.
Some good points have been made in the responses to your article above.
I like what Dave F has to offer in his response - I go with that more than complete amnesty. If amnesty is offered, it is imperative that these guys do not retire in opulence courtesy of all the millions they have stolen over the years. Additionally it is vital that in exchange for amnesty they make a full disclosure of their dirty deeds…….
Then send the bunch of them off to an inaccessible, remote island from which there is no escape - no communication with the outside world, no phones, cell or otherwise - give them a bunch of seeds, a couple of cows, goats and sheep, some implements and let them get on with living survivor style.
We must also remember that most if not all dictatorships in Africa were entrenched by the Western powers and and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Soviet Union is understandable as it was a dictatorship itself. The Western countries, however, need to account for their role to keep the Mugabes, Mobutos and others in power for longer than needed. They created these monsters. It is only when these monsters started defying them that they began to talk about dictators, human rights etc. For instance Mugabe remained the darling of the British long after ordering the killing of thousands of Ndebele people in Matabeleland. No mention of human rights was made.
Zuma is correct we need a once-off amnesty for the dictators to reliquish power to expedite democracy in Africa. As South Africans we have seen how having a strong democratic basis have helped us avoid civil war, overthrow of government, chaos and other ills that are gripping Africa.
Traps I agree with you 100% on this. There are the obvious hurdles like ensuring that they do not get prosecuted once they relinquish control of their armies.
Most of them are wealthy old men, who have probably not been responsible for the deaths of more people than your average global multinational CEO.
Besides, its a small price to pay for the democratization of millions of poeple.
This Zuma and Mo Amins ideas are good but i also think its also good to warn future dictators they should also think that military means by like minded nations can be used and the then dictator when caught he and co should suffer the most painful panishment and death televised for all to see.I know i may sound uncultured and inhuman but this despots are not human themselves why then should they be accorded human treatment?human treatment is for those who want to repent.It should be made Samuel Doe’s death look like toy game.FEAR AND INDUCEMENT can be good deterrent like the way we have hell and heaven!!!!!!!
Everyone needs to think out what is being offered to these powerful and brutal people.
If it is a bribe to leave office, it would have to be a bribe, pure and simple - no disagreeable conditions can be attached to it or it will not be accepted. If it is not a bribe, then the ‘offer’ must in some way be backed by a penalty - if you do not accept this, harsh consequences will follow.
But no consequences follow anything these tyrants do - that is the point. They know they enjoy impunity.
This is a proposal from people who are not able or prepared to do anything else about it. The idea is unoriginal, undesirable and, worst of all, unworkable.
Paul, it would be workable if the majority of African Leaders, particularly those who follow tyrants relinquishing power with a “bribe”, were genuinely committed to democratic government and determined to implement it in their countries. “It’s the principle…….” will kill millions more people as time marches on. Democratic African Leaders are often between a rock and a hard place – take Mugabe for instance – in the March election, 48% of Zimbabweans who voted put the tick next to his name – SAFM had a phone in vote prior to the election and 98% of the callers ‘cast their vote’ for Mugabe – It’s a mystery really! It isn’t just the leaders but the people themselves that must be convinced of the efficacy of democracy. For that to happen they have to experience the positive, concrete effects of it in their lives.
That said, Africa has journeyed far with regard to democracy and it will get better as time goes on, particularly if South Africa can be written up as a success story in the long term. If we can continue along the democratic path whilst at the same time eradicate corruption and crime (some at least) and most importantly, have the majority of our people living decently and with dignity – then our success could be the catalyst for other African Leaders to really “come on board” the democracy train.
There is a rite of passage to genuine, meaningful democratic government - has any country made it all the way as yet?
Yeah, now the impressionists and the opportunists will come out and show favour for the new regime and its expressed views of life and law… JZ has always had a different way of thinking. I wait by the borderline and await the next ‘pardon’ scheme, and then I will make my comment - afterall, dont we all have a bit of dictatorship in us.
Agreed, both - especially that ‘the people themselves must be convinced of the efficacy of democracy.’
Achieving democracy is not a top down, but a bottom up process. Govts. do not and cannot make people ‘free’ - they are at best only instruments towards it. ‘Democracy’ has to be exacted - if not actually wrenched - from rulers.
There is no mystery about ‘African democracy’ or the lack of it. It is that society in Africa is not democratic at this period. Leaders cannot run ahead of that fact even if they wanted to - and mostly leaders are quite happy to leave things where they are until it blows up in their faces, as it did eventually for friend Mugabe.
Zuma was not talking about Zimbabwe in particular. He was talking directly to the dictator sitting in front of him. That dictator is Paul Kagame who has more blood on his hands than Hitler. So, he wanted to see if Kagame understands that democracy must take its course. Knowing Kagame’s intelligence or lack thereof, this all probably went over his head. Kagame is a bigger dictator than Mugabe. He has been in power for 15 years and freedom of speech and press is better in Zimbabwe than it is in Rwanda.
Dictators espectially brutal ones, whether friendly to the West or not should understand that people will rise up and stand up to all of them like every continent. Zuma should support those efforts like he did in Burundi and tell Kagame and all other African dictators that their days to face justice are coming.
The majority of opinions expressed point out that complete immunity would set a bad precedence and encourage would be dictators to be thus with impunity. Blanket amnesty to all is a hard sell, rather take each case individually and use the circumstances of each case to encourage retirement of the dictators-and grant some form of immunity where meritable. Mugabe was offered a chance of immunity to retire and be granted immunity as a father figure-he refused to take it-why? Because a dictatorship involves a whole bunch of people and security apparatus and hangers on who benefit from it. An option would be crafting an all encompassing exit deal with all and sundry involved, which is something boardering on impossible. The real power lies in the peers of the dictators-regional leaders who like someone said, need to have the balls to hold a mirror in the dictators’ faces and withdraw all diplomatic support. For as long as islands of support still remain from other leaders, dictators will still act with impunity. That coupled with Dave F’s suggestion can work.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
Themba Maseko, the spokesperson for the Cabinet, today confirmed that the government is committed to accommodating the views expressed during public h...
Professor Steven Friedman in an article in Business Day says that the media has it wrong about secrecy law’s victims and that the failure of the med...
On Saturday, Pat Boone, a conservative political commentator, Christian activist, writer and preacher, put the entire American cat population among th...
As the National Prosecuting Authority bask in the afterglow of having obtained a conviction against former top cop Jackie Selebi in Johannesburg on We...
Once upon a time in a land at the southern tip of Africa, there lived a people so adept at making the rest of the world scratch their heads until thei...
Loading ...
But the problem we have with african dictators is that, almost all of them are friends to “The Big Man at Shell House”…even Omar Al Bashir is our latest colleague.
So, it doesnt help to remove one dictator in power, because our dude would make himself an available friend to aid another one. It’s just like Facebook, you get rid of some people and you invite more friends.
For example, the thrown away former tiny tyrant of madagascar is moving up & down the corridors of our nation; in fact his predecessor, the juvenile dj, would soon join the bunch of many friends we host. Just watch this space.
“The Big Man at Shell House” is inviting the whole lot.
(Report abuse)