Multi-Party Democracy In Africa: An Imperialist Tool For Conflicts, Divisions And Civil Wars

Battles broke out between protesters and soldiers
 in Nigeria's northern city of Kano as President Goodluck Jonathan
was declared the winner of the 2011 elections

By Honourable Saka

Case study: Kenya, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Burundi, Ethiopia… 

The 20^th century saw many conflicts in Africa, breaking out along ethnic divisions. For instance, according to an African researcher Abdalla Bujra, it took only the Ibos to start a major civil war in Nigeria – a highly fractionised  society. The Ibos were cohesive and well organised. Besides, the civil wars in Uganda, the Sudan, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone were and are being carried out by rebel movements which are organised across ethnic lines. Therefore the influence that tribalism and ethnicity have had on many conflicts in Africa some years ago, cannot be in doubt. Yet, many researchers hold different views about the true nature of conflicts in Africa today.

Dr Anke Hoeffler, a researcher at the Centre for the Study of African Economies, at the Oxford University suggests that from the 1990s, Africa has seen a reduction in the prevalence of civil war and that some countries with long and devastating civil wars are now at peace. Angola, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Rwanda are said to be such examples.

However, in the past few years, conflicts and bloodshed are beginning to show up their ugly heads across the continent once again. The causal factors have been attributed to the search for “democracy”, the holding of political elections, bad economic policies, boundary and territorial disputes, among others.

 Some causes of conflicts in Africa

It is believed that political and economic development failures have been the root cause of Africa's political instability. Others also suggests that the rising conflicts in Africa are as a result of bad economic policies which are often imposed and directed from abroad, notably Washington, London and Paris.

Oil in flames: Thousands of Nigerian protesters clashed with
 police during a fuel subsidy removal protest that led scores
dead and many others wounded

An example is the recent IMF imposed policies of fuel subsidy removal which almost threw Nigeria and other West African countries into chaos. Although the situation was finally put under control at some point, it can be remembered that the clashes between the people and the security forces left scores dead and many others wounded.

Conflicts have also broken out between many African countries as a result of the artificial boundaries created by the colonial rulers which often put some neighbouring countries at odd with each other. Some examples include: the Eritrean–Ethiopian War that took place from May 1998 to June 2000. The tension between North Sudan and South Sudan, Africa's longest civil war, where countless people have died is another clear example.

In spite of these, the globalist and their corporate mainstream media, also try hard to link conflicts in Africa with climate change. The BBC recently reported: “Climatic factors have been cited as a reason for several recent conflicts. One is the fighting in Darfur in Sudan that according to UN figures has killed 200,000 people and forced two million more from their homes”.

Even though some of the above-listed views regarding conflicts in Africa are to some extent credible, they are just a tip of the iceberg, especially when one critically looks at the emerging bigger picture: wars of democracy and electoral disputes in Africa.

 The Bigger Picture

For the past 15 years, the most dangerous and most frequent cause of conflicts, divisions and wars in many peaceful African countries have not been as a result of tribalism nor ethnic divide as the media would have us believe.

Ouattara's rebel forces massacred an entire
 christian community at Duekoue, Ivory Coast, 2011

However, many of the civil wars recently seen in Africa have been as a result of “democracy”, electoral disputes and political clashes which often left tens of thousands of people dead and many others wounded. A few list of the countries which has experienced electoral disputes/clashes  where many people were reported to have lost their lives are: Ethiopia (2005), Kenya (2007), Zimbabwe (2008), Burundi (2010), Guinea (2010), Ivory Coast (2011), South Sudan (2011), DR Congo (2011) Uganda (2011),  and many more.

Nigeria's elections that were held in April (2011) were hailed by many as the fairest in the nation's history. Yet, at least 800 people were killed in campaign violence. The presidential election set off rioting amidst sectarian killings in northern Nigeria that left more than 800 dead. Also in Rwanda, intolerance of political opposition was unchanged since the 2010 elections. Many were reported to have died as a result of the electoral violence.

Obama, a strong force that stood behind his
cousin Odinga in the 2007 Kenyan elections

Recently in Liberia where the elections were boycotted by the opposition, many feared that the situation could even give way to civil war again.

Although the elections in South Sudan  (2011) was relatively peaceful, government forces attacked civilians in the disputed border area of Abyei and in two other states that lie north of the border with the South (Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan). The Sudanese government was again accused of attacks on civilians in Darfur. This is one of the reasons why President Omar al-Bashir currently faces an outstanding arrest warrant from the "kangaroo court" ICC- the  International Court of Criminals.

Election violence in Kenya left thousands dead

Meanwhile the thought of the clashes in Kenya and recently in Ivory Coast sends a cold shiver down my spine. The images were too gruesome and very disturbing. But these were as a result of the so-called democracy. After the Kenyan massacre, it took the mediation process, facilitated by the then Ghanaian President and African Union Chairman John Kufuor, and Kofi Annan, then UN Secretary General to end the bloodshed, with a power-sharing deal that saw Odinga become the prime minister and Kibaki serving as the president.

What about the Congo? Ethiopia? Even that supposed success story for African Democracy, Senegal, saw blood in the streets.

Wars That Sought To Establish Democracy:

Apart from those wars that broke out in the mist of elections disputes, many brutal and more aggressive wars have been launched in other African countries under the guise of establishing democracy. There was the Mozambican Civil War (1977), Liberia (2003), Uganda (1990s), Libya (2011) and many more. These have resulted in untold deaths, destruction of societies and to a larger extent the destabilization of Africa.

Take a look at Libya where over 100,000 people were slaughtered by NATO all in the name of “Multi-Party Democracy”.  After completely destroying the   jamahiriya system, what has been the result? Are the Libyan people better off? What aboutthose suffering in cages and the chaos that will forever follow the periodic elections?

Those who propose Western multi-party democracy as the way out for Africa have argued that it promotes peace and stability, and fosters national unity at the same time. However, Western “democracy” in Africa creates just the opposite. In Kenya, the Kikuyu, an ethnic minority installed in power by the departing British Empire has to win the election or risk losing everything to their larger tribal rivals, the Luo. What was the result? Elections were held, thousands died and hundreds of thousands displaced. This upcoming election may see even worse, writes Thomas C. Mountain an independent journalist reporting from Eritrea.

Africa, What Are Our Priorities?

The  concept of democracy  has been given a misplaced priority over other more serious and important human necessities in Africa, whilst African indigenous democracy such as that in the Libyan Jamahiriya, are brutally opposed by Africa's former colonial occupiers.  Take a look at Liberia and Nigeria; they have Plenty “democracy”, but No electricity. Poor African countries spend billions of dollars every 4 years on political elections, yet they don’t have billions for healthcare, education and other social needs. 

Guiniea worms, malaria fever and many diseases are killing our people because “there is no money”, yet billions are always available for democracy. Our healthcare systems are in complete jeopardy because money is not available. As a result, even our leaders, who are the major stakeholders of our various countries, have NO confidence in our healthcare. Many of them therefore always travel overseas to seek medical treatment and some of them even die there. 

Take a look at President Umaru Yar'Adua the former president of Nigeria who passed away in Saudi Arabia (2010) whiles receiveing medical treatment. Again, Levy Patrick Mwanawasa,   the third President of Zambia died in France (2008) whiles receiving medical treatment. Also in Ghana is the former finance minister, Honourable Kadwo Baa Wiredu, who passed away while receiving medical treatment abroad. Many of the women also travel abroad just to have their babies safely delivered because they have no confidence in the healthcare system. Yet, whiles we continue to cut the budget on healthcare and education, the amount allotted to holding elections continue to increase every year. What are our priorities?

Even in Ghana where the people were hailed by the Obama administration as a shining example of democracy, the country was on the brink of civil war when many opposition leaders threatened incited their supporters to rise up and occupy the electoral commission. Members of the opposition were directed to arm themselves with machetes, cutlasses, and all forms of weapons and be prepared to turn Ghana into “Kenya”, if their expectations of winning the elections were dashed by the outcome of the official results. Thousands besieged the electoral commission's head office with anger chanting war slogans.

The AFP puts it:

“Dozens of angry protesters (in Ghana) wielding machetes and sticks attacked passing vehicles and local journalists after partial results from the run-off vote gave the opposition candidate a lead”.

It took the maturity of the then political leadership to put the love for the nation ahead of political aspirations, to help prevent a potential civil war.

In fact, the coming 2012 elections in Ghana is an exercise that poses a serious threat to the peace and security of Ghanaians as a whole with some opposition leaders already declaring war in the country. Therefore the question that needs to be asked is: what kind of system is it that always puts African nations on the brink of civil wars every 4 or 5 years? For how long must the ordinary Africans continue to die as a result of election conflicts because of political differences, and for the benefit of some corrupt, puppet politicians who seeks to enrich themselves at the expense of the masses? How could these cycles be avoided and to ensure national unity?

Nkrumah’s Proposal: a One-Party State Democracy

After considering the case of Ivory Coast where election contest ended in war, one point became clear: If Gbagbo and Ouattara were both members of the same party (one-party state), any competition for president would have unlikely led to a war. Because regardless of whoever wins, their party would emerge as the winner and the followers of either candidate would see themselves as members of the same party. The situation would be exactly as Republicans in America, voting to elect a leader. Whether the winner is Ron Paul or Mitt Romney, will never result in any conflict among the supporters. The supporters would always emerge united because they would see themselves as members of the same party. But in the case of the current multi-party system, the competing sides see themselves as  two opposition groups or “enemies”. Also, the current practice of “winner takes all”, makes the competition a do-or-die affair. Therefore when one candidate wins, the losing side can easily mobilize his people against the winning side as was the case in Ivory Coast, Kenya and currently Russia. In such a situation, it also becomes much easier for any foreign influence to manipulate the opposition groups against the winning side. After all they’re different candidates, different parties and with different motives.

However, if Ivory Coast were to be a one-party state, the conflict between Gbagbo and Ouattara would not have happened. Because as members of the same party, they would always find a way to work together, regardless of whoever wins. Also, their followers would see themselves as the same people with the same vision. They would see the bigger picture: like soldiers of the same army. Each candidate may have a different ideology, but at the end of the day, the people and the party are one.  Under such a system, national unity can easily be forged better than the current multi-party system where the people have been divided along political differences. The members of the same party cannot easily be fighting among themselves as they would with an opposition party. This system, according to Kwame Nkrumah is what Africa needs; not the current multi-party system which has brought about divisions and conflicts between different political groups which takes the entire nation on the brink of war every 4 to 5 years.

Therefore in his book "Consciencism" (pg.100) Nkrumah states:

A people’s parliamentary democracy with a one-party state system is better able to express and satisfy the common aspirations of a nation as a whole, than a multiple-party parliamentary system, which is in fact a ruse for perpetuating, and covers up, the inherent struggle between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’.

The globalists and their imperial powers know this fact. Therefore they used the old tactics of divide and conquer strategy for their imperial objective. First, they divided Africa into many smaller and weaker nations. Then they divide the nations into many political groupings, manipulating one group against the other. There is no doubt that multi-party democracy is the new strategy that is been used to promote this "divide and conquer" strategy. But in the case of Africa, the division is becoming bloodier and much more dangerous. Africans need to wake up to this reality.

Qaddafi’s Proposal: a No-Party State Democracy

On the other hand, Libyan revolutionary leader Mu'ammar Qaddafi, who drew on the experiences of other revolutionaries before him including Kwame Nkrumah, proposed a more traditional style of democracy, in fact completely doing away with political parties. Instead, in 1977 the Libyan people were all given local People's Congresses where they themselves became the legislators, thus also doing away with politicians.  Government administration and departments were replaced by People's Committees, which were nominated from the Congresses and accountable to them. All proceedings were broadcast live across the nation, long before the west dared to broadcast the embarrassing images of their politicians who misbehave and make a mockery of those who voted for them.

"The Green Book" was penned by Qaddafi to explain this original concept of direct participatory democracy, and a new word was invented to describe the "self-governing masses society" or "state without a government" or "people's authority": Jamahiriya. These ideas are taking root among many not only in Africa but around the world, with anInternational People's Conference Organization providing information on this "jamahiri" democracy, and an International Green Charter Movementadvocating it along with other rights and freedoms which were originally legislated by the Libyan people in their People's Congresses during their June 1988 sessions.

No matter whether one advocates "one party" or "no party" democracy in Africa, both are clearly more suited to African history and culture, where consensus and participation are traditional values in society, rather than delegation and representation, which are the pillars of the more remote style of "democracy" which European colonial powers developed and then imposed upon their former colonies around the world. Even now in European countries, the people have apparently had enough of the spectacle of this style of democracy, which excludes them whilst essentially serving elites: the recent political developments across Europe are testimony of this.

They too are looking at alternatives, some advocating "one party" democracy under the ideology of communism, with others (greens, anarchists, and a wide range of other ideas) advocating a "no party" democracy. So far, both groups are united on protests against the state, which is seen as benefiting wealthy elites at the expense of the masses of the people, leading to increasing instability in Europe.

 NOTES:

1. Kwame Nkrumah (1964) "Consciencism". Panaf Books: London
2. http://notunprojonmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/African-Conflicts-Their-Causes-and-their-political-and-social-env.pdf

Honourable Dr Saka

The author is a regular writer and a political analyst on African affairs, and a well-known social commentator in Africa. He is the editor of “The Doctor’s Report”, your most reliable source of critical analysis on African affairs. Please visit his blog at: http://honourablesaka.blogspot.co.uk/  He is a strong Pan-Africanist, a youth activist and the founder of the “Leaders of Tomorrow”, a transformational and inspirational group of possible future leaders. He can be reached on Email: honourablesaka@yahoo.co.uk

THE CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHT, TERRORISM AND THE DOUBLE STANDARDS

A Syrian "activist" with anti-aircraft missile

By Honourable Dr Saka

In recent times, the West has made so much noise about their so-called democracy and human right credentials and the need for others to emulate. They have on many occasions criticised Iran, Syria, Libya, Zimbabwe, North Korea, even Russia, China and Venezuela of ‘human right violations’ and their lack of ‘democracy’. At the same time, the West find themselves in bed with many brutal dictatorial regimes like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Uganda, and many others whose human right records are highly questionable. This is hypocrisy and double standards.

The Fraud of Constitutional Rule

In the 21^st century, the principles of constitutional rule and democracy, however nice they appear on paper; is nothing but a sham; far from reality. You want answers? Look no further. Under a democratic/constitutional rule, which law is supposed to be the supreme law of the land? The constitution. We're told that the constitution is the "supreme law" of the land and that ''any other law'' found to be "inconsistent with this constitution" shall to the extent of its inconsistency be "null and void". These are clear and explicit terms with specific emphasis on 'any law' that contradicts the constitution. Of course the constitution recognizes other laws passed by parliament/congress. But the key issue is 'inconsistency'- laws that clearly violates ANY provision in the constitution. 

In the US, the constitution recognizes the powers of the judiciary, guarantees fundamental human right, the right to fair trial, the right to a lawyer/attorney, etc. Suddenly, NDAA has been passed, and this law subsequently nullifies constitutional provisions; a direct violation of Article II of the Constitution. In effect, a provision in the NDAA, has trashed the constitutional provisions mentioned (above). Is the NDAA subservient to the constitution or vice versa? Which of these two provisions; those in the constitution or the NDAA are valid? Yet the NDAA is shamelessly been enforced by the US government! Therefore this principle of "constitutional rule/democracy"; isn't it a sham? Where is the respect for the constitution which the president and the congress swore to uphold and defend? Should there be the need for such provisions in the NDAA, then why wasn't the constitution first amended to accommodate it? Yet, Washington has been lecturing every country, especially Africa and the Middle East on human right and democratic path.

Despite promising otherwise, Barack Obama committed U.S. military resources to overthrow Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi without any kind of congressional authorization whatsoever and without citing any evidence that Libya under Gaddafi was a threat to the security of the United States. Furthermore, Obama shamelessly undermined the power of Congress by insisting his authority came from the UN Security Council and that Congressional approval was not necessary. “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question,” Obama churlishly remarked writes Paul Joseph Watson.

The Selective Justice System

As of today, the brutal murder of Muammar Gaddafi by NATO (NATO warplanes attacked Gaddafi’s convoy at 8:30 a.m before he was captured by the rebels), some of his children, the plot to murder Assad and his family by the rebels and many human right atrocities against the Palestinians have not even received the attention of Washington’s numerous human right NGOs, the so-called international community and the “International Court of Criminals”. How about the massacre of the Iraqis and the Afghanis, the bombing of civilian pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in August 20, 1998 by the Clinton’s administration,  the women and the children of Pakistan, and  Somalia, brutally murdered by drone attacks? These and many horrific crimes are being carried out on a mass scale, yet the sufferings of these victims and their demand for justice have always escaped the headlines of the corporate media. Because of these, the corporate media and the so-called human right institutions have become nothing but exist merely as imperialists’ tools to serve the selfish and barbaric agenda of the New World Order.

Since its inception, the ICC has targeted many African Leaders who firmly stood against the dictates of the West, and a few African warlords as its main victims while deliberately paying a blind eye to crimes committed by other leader in America, Europe and some dictators in the Middle East.  

According to the ICC, Saif Gaddafi is wanted for "Crimes Against Humanity". But, what is a crime against humanity? The recent "war crime exhibition" held in Malaysia revealed very horrible and graphic images of serious war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan which led over 1.2million innocent people dead in Afghanistan and over 800,000 people slaughtered in Iraq by NATO. Yet, ten years on, the ICC has not found anybody in NATO to be guilty of "crimes against humanity" in Iraq nor Afghanistan.  In the Libyan war, the Gaddafis are already accused by the ICC. What about the massacre by the rebels and their NTC leaders? How about the ethnic cleansing of black people in Libya by the NTC? How about Hilary Clinton who openly called on the rebels to assassinate Gaddafi? As if that was not shocking enough, Hilary Clinton rejoiced live on TV (CBS) with “we came, we saw, he died hahaha”. So tell me, what do you think would have happened if it was an African diplomat, or a diplomat from the third world that exhibited the exact attitude as Hillary Clinton did? Of course, one would expect to hear a series of press conferences followed by sanctions from those who have declared themselves the world leaders, as they would lambast and condemn such actions, if it had been exhibited from elsewhere. The ICC and those human right institutions should spare us these double standards on what they often refer to as human right violations and crimes against humanity.

Today, any leader who stands up to the west is demonized and tagged a terrorist. Take a look at Nelson Mandela, the man most Africans look up to as the hero of our time. Did you know that for many years, the US considered Mandela as a terrorist and banned him from travelling there even when he became the president of South Africa? Did you know that it was until 2008, that Mandela's name was finally removed from the US terrorist watch list? But of course, when Michele Obama visited South Africa in 2011, she called Mandela "a man of inspiration for many" in Africa and across the world. Mind you, she spoke in her capacity as the first lady of the United States and of course she was on official government trip. So what changed all of a sudden about Mandela's personality within these 3 years that Obama came to power? Was she implying that Mandela became a "symbol of inspiration and a hero" within the last two years?  The man who was for many years considered a terrorist is now a hero and an inspiration all of a sudden? With all these contradictions, one sometimes wonders what exactly the West often refers to as "terrorist". Indeed for a man like Mandela to be declared a terrorist by the West, when the same leaders were seen cheering on the rebels in Libya and those terrorist groups in Syria is quite hypocritical.

Today, even Wikileaks is seen to be "a terrorist organisation" by the very people that hold the freedom of the press in high esteem. So again, what exactly is the true definition of a terrorist?

Responsibility To Protect and the Al-Qaeda Fraud

With the United States and its allies in the police world, the right of interference obviously always belong to the strong against the weak, and never the reverse. Does Iran have the right to intervene to save the Palestinians? Does Venezuela have the right to intervene to end the bloody coup in Honduras? Russia has the right to intervene to protect the Bahrainis? Yesterday they killed thousands of Libyan civilians “to protect them,” and tomorrow they will kill civilians in Syrian or Iran or Venezuelan or Eritrea “to protect them” while the Palestinians and all other victims of ‘Strong’ continue to suffer dictatorship and massacre - (michelcollon.info).  Today, the rebels in Syria can defend themselves but the Palestinians cannot.

In Libya there were 26,000 NATO air strikes yet “no civilian casualties”! Yet even though Gaddafi never dropped a single bomb on the rebels, the human right groups were able to count thousands of casualties to which the UN blamed on Gaddafi. So what exactly do we often mean by "humanity"? It tells you that some people mean nothing, especially those of us from the third world.  This is why l feel very ashamed of the African leaders who sold out Gaddafi in their individual closets. Anytime an African country had been colonized, it was always done with the collaboration of some black men (African stooges), who call themselves African leaders. As for the UN itself, I need not remind anybody of how corrupted it has become. An institution which was founded with the sole responsibility to promote global peace and security has now turned out to be a war-making institution. To quote Charles Abugre, (allafrica.com) "My greatest disappointment and shame, was to see the United Nations Secretariat always beating the war drums and cheering on the battle rather than sing the songs of peace".

The fact is whenever the West bombs a defenceless country, they call it intervention. When they arm terrorists groups to topple ‘dictators’ they call these rebel groups “revolutionaries”. Meanwhile when peaceful protestors (the Occupy Movement) take to the street to make some demands, they’re domestic terrorists and radicals. I am yet to imagine anywhere in Europe where a government will stand aside and watch some armed groups take to the streets and terrorize civilians as they’re currently doing in Syria and see if the corporate mainstream media would call them “revolutionaries” as they call those in Libya and Syria. Let us just imagine some rebel fighters operating near the US-Mexican border, calling on the UN to establish a “buffer zone” for them to take refuge as they’re doing in Syria. Since September 2001, the whole world has been made to believe that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. In fact, the US and NATO invaded Iraq to get rid of Al-Qaeda. But today, even though Bin Laden “is dead” Al-Qaeda is still hanging around in the Middle East and now North-Africa toppling dictators with NATOs support. Perhaps the shocking part is that Al-Qaeda now appears to be a NATO ally. For the first time in history, we have seen the West fighting on the same side as Al-Qaeda in Libya and in Syria. But isn’t Al-Qaeda supposed to be a terrorist organisation that poses a threat to global peace and security?

The War on Terror and The Case of Syria

Over the past one year, terrorists groups have been destabilizing the peace and stability in Syria, killing both civilians and security forces, and dumping their bodies in the gutters.   It is sad that these terrorists have been recognized by the West as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. But isn’t this strange? The world was told that the rebel fighters which include Al-Qaeda elements and other terrorists groups who are responsible for terrorists’ activities in Syria have a right to “defend themselves”. In this regard, we saw a few NATO states, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, US and France calling for arms to be delivered to the rebels  for them to defend themselves when in fact the rebels are the very terrorist groups that are killing many NATO soldiers in the Middle East and now turning Syria into chaos. Even Britain pledged to give the Syrian rebels more funds for training. Meanwhile when these Al-Qaeda terrorists  strike in any of the NATO countries, a war on terror is declared. So on what basis will one justify that terrorists groups, which include Al-Qaeda rebels, which have killed thousands, blown up gas pipelines and continue to do so on a daily basis, have a right to defend themselves against a government? To the extent that under the watch of the UNSC and the international community, many NATO member states have held summits, calling on one another to contribute weapons to help Al-Qaeda fighters to defend themselves against a regime. As a result, many sophisticated weapons; including anti-aircraft missiles have been delivered to Al-Qaeda rebels to defend themselves in Syria. Al-Qaeda which is supposed to be a threat to the world, now has a right to defend itself against a regime?  Is it because the regime in question is not an ‘ally’? So if tomorrow, Al-Qaeda were to declare a war on any of the NATO member states like Turkey, Israel, Britain, etc just as we saw the recent shooting incidence in France; would the UN allow those terrorists access to such weapons in order for them to “defend themselves” against the French government? This is hypocrisy!  But some of us are not surprised. Because Hilary Clinton recently admitted that it was the US that created the Taliban. Besides, according to Stephen Lendman, author and radio host, "Al-Qaeda itself was a CIA creation and America uses Al-CIAda strategically as both enemy and ally as and when necessary". And there is no better example as Libya and now Syria. It is a positive sign that gradually, the people are realizing the truth. Also thanks to NATO especially France and Qatar for their kind gesture. Today all those sophisticated weapons they poured on Libya have finally arrived in Nigeria for the next Al-Qaeda operation in the West African sub-region, which will as usual be blamed on Boko Haram.

Democracy, Is It Discriminatory?

Today, democracy is good for Syria and Libya, but it is not good for Saudi Arabia, Qatar nor Bahrain. The Western press and their democratic NGOs have repeatedly advocated for democratic reforms in Syria but completely remain silent on Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. They show us dictators in Zimbabwe but they have been blind on Uganda. The rebels in Syria who claim to be fighting for democracy have a right to “defend themselves” but those in Uganda who are equally fighting for democracy do not have any right to self-defence. It is always one set of rules for “our allies”, another set of rules for the others. Just take a look at the one-horse race (elections) that was recently held in Yemen- an election which was not even contested. The whole thing made a complete mockery of democracy. Yet the West hailed this ‘elections’ as acceptable and applauded the country for their new ‘democratic government’. But can anybody imagine what the West and the mainstream press would have said, if such an election were to be held in Syria by Assad? Just imagine Assad or his chosen candidate holding elections in a one-man contest. The whole elections would have been declared illegitimate. The sanctions that would have followed such elections would have been enormous. But because Yemen was a case of one of “our allies”, everything is okay.

But that shouldn’t be a problem for as long as international law and sovereignty is respected. Therefore for those in the international community who accept that international laws are made to be broken and accept that the law of the jungle should be applied, where the strongest bullies the rest by force, there is one thing you need to understand: your days are numbered because NO empire will survive for eternity. It happened to the Romans, the Germans, the Japanese and others. Charlie Chaplin (The Great Dictator) has assured humanity that: so long as men die, liberty will never perish.  In the near future, the people will be free. And all these double standards will end. “The near future will also show that with courage and determination, wrongs can be righted and the criminal elements in the international justice system, whoever they are, will be brought to justice.” (Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey)

Honourable Dr Saka

The author is a regular writer and a political analyst on African affairs, and a well-known social commentator in Africa. He is the editor of “The Doctor’s Report”, your most reliable source of critical analysis on African affairs. Please visit his blog at: http://honourablesaka.blogspot.co.uk/  He is a strong Pan-Africanist, a youth activist and the founder of the “Leaders of Tomorrow”, a transformational and inspirational group of possible future leaders. He can be reached on Email: honourablesaka@yahoo.co.uk