 Published
February 15th, 2011
In an article published in several blogs and
newspapers including the African Herald Express titled,
Democracy Now: Laboratories, Incubators and
Nurseries of Democracy—the Party Primaries Rolling Off
on January 15,2011, and accessible through the above link,
this author had some pretty remarkable things to say
concerning democracy generally in Africa, but with
particular references to the dictatorships in Hosni
Mubarak’s Egypt and Muammar Quadaffi’s Libya, and elsewhere
in North Africa.
Without
much ado below is an excerpt from the said article:
“Emerging from its own
Dark Age of
military coups and jackboot dictatorships that seemed to
have terminally arrested her democratic growth after gaining
independence from colonial Europe, Africa south of the
Sahara has once again been caught in the throes of
democratic transitions. I say “south of the Sahara” because
the Muammar Qadaffis and Hosni Mubaraks of North Africa have
seemingly declared democracy
persona non grata
in that part of Africa, leaving Africa south of the Sahara
to assume the role of incubators of democracy on the
continent.”
That puts North Africa well behind Africa
south of the Sahara in the democratic equation and North
Africa should be playing the catch up game now because she
has been late to the game. Thank God for little mercies.
That is not to say that democracy has had a great time in
Africa south of the Sahara because it has not but to
underline the fact that it has had a head start in that
region. However, at the time the article was published nine
clear days before the Egyptian revolution got underway,
little did the world know or had reasons to believe that a
great wind of change was gradually building up in the North
African political atmospherics that would forever change the
political landscape of North Africa, and the greater Arab
world that had easily won the dubious title of the world’s
largest incubators of dictatorships and sanctuary of petty
despots.
Starting in Tunisia on December 17, 2010,
with the self-immolation of one Muhamed Bouazizi, a common
street vendor, in protest against the confiscation of his
merchandize by a Municipal female official which he
considered a humiliation, a fire was lit that grew into a
raging conflagration that was to consume the 23-year old
dictatorship of President
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali
28 days later. The dictator fled to Saudi Arabia—the
veritable home of dictators to save his neck on January 15,
2011, co-incidentally, on the same day that article was
published. But thankfully, it did not end there.
With the resounding success of the Tunisian
revolution the political wild fire aided by internet enabled
social networking quickly spread to Egypt leaving in its
wake the charred debris of the 30-year old Hosni Mubarak’s
dictatorship. He fell this morning, February 11, 2011 and I
woke up to the news of his apparent resignation with his
handover of the reins of power to the powerful Egyptian
military’s Supreme Council as announced by his hand-picked
vice president, Omar Suleiman, a former Egyptian
Intelligence chief despised for his despicable role in the
US sponsored terrorists rendition program under former
president GW Bush.
Even with certain lingering misgivings and
troubling signs that I shall touch on presently, I would
nevertheless hasten to join the people of Egypt in
celebrating Mubarak’s fall. Keep in mind, I said Mubarak’s
fall not his successors’ ascendance and that distinction is
critically important as we shall see later. He didn’t
deserve one day longer in office.
The fall of both North African dictators in
Tunisia and Egypt in rapid succession is an eloquent
testimony of the power of the people and the resilience of
the North African streets. However, these protests have not
only taught dictators a lessons and many of them should be
looking over their shoulders to see what is coming behind
them, but the exceptionally peaceful character of the
Egyptian protests provides a poignant lesson for African
peoples on how to prosecute political action in the streets.
Nigeria in particular, has a great lesson to learn from the
Egyptian model that builds on the earlier paradigm provided
by such giants as Mahatma Ghandi in India and Dr. Martin
Luther King Jnr. in the United States. And that is that you
don’t have to go burning down cars and buildings and making
bonfires in the streets to achieve revolutionary success.
You don’t have to go about forcing others to join your
protests against their wishes to make things happen.
The Egyptians who have not enjoyed democracy
all their lives seem to respect the rights of others more
than those who claim to be democrats in countries like
Nigeria by organizing and prosecuting their protests and
demonstrations in a most civilized and democratic manner
devoid of any kind of violence, compulsion or conscription
of fellow citizens to join the protests and demonstrations.
Protests and strikes are not and should not be compulsory
but voluntary based on true convictions of their merits not
forced, not hired area boys and miscreants. The Egyptians
protesters are well heeled, educated and enlightened enough
to respect the rights of others who might not have bought
into their demands for whatever reasons. And that is the
mark of civilized people. I respect them for that for
observing a critical element of civilized conduct in an
otherwise authoritarian clime.
As I wrote earlier in the week in the piece
Bloodless Revolution in Nigeria—Fall of the
Northern Oligarchs,
revolutions come in different shades and colors and they
don’t all have to be bloody or even happen in the streets.
The Egyptian revolution has not been associated with
violence and the little of it witnessed was sponsored by the
goons of the dying Mubarak regime who stormed the Liberation
square to chase out protesters last week.
Were this revolution to have taken place in a
place like Nigeria it would have left in its trail deaths
and destruction of monumental proportions including, of
course, serious economic and social dislocations and, of
course, terrible restrictions on movements. Did you see any
footage of bonfires in the streets throughout the duration
of the protests? Gosh! The Egyptians pulled this one off
with minimal effects on their economy and society as a whole
and nothing untoward happened for 18 solid days of pent up
anger that found expression in chants and sloganeering not
destruction of lives and properties. This is indeed a model
for Africa and the world to emulate. They have indeed taught
us a huge lesson on how to successfully prosecute pro-
democracy protests and demonstrations with tenacity of
purpose and single mindedness, with no fifth columnists,
sell outs, traitors and compromisers, who shout “Aluta
Continua!” in the day and be in bed with dictators in the
night, messing things up.
We know them in Nigeria and they know
themselves too. There is no need to mention their names
here, but the likes of professor Tam David West, Tom Ikimi,
senators Waku, Tony Anenih and Chukwumerije, now lecturing
us about democracy stand out as pillars of military rule in
the Abacha, IBB and Buhari military dictatorships
respectively. And there are many of their types in Egypt too
whose activities virtually made Mubarak life president;
people without conscience who shamelessly dine and wine with
dictators at the expense of the people and those too timid
to act and simply sit on the fence waiting for someone else
to do the job for them.
The glory of Mubarak’s peaceful ouster
therefore goes not to fence sitters and military apologists
but to the Egyptian streets and even more so to the Egyptian
military itself, at least on the face of it, that has taught
the world a big lesson on how to handle such protests and
demonstrations professionally by remaining totally detached.
And Egypt is a third world nation just like many others
whose militaries would have acted quite the opposite way.
African militaries, particularly the Nigerian military and
the other security agencies have a big lesson to learn from
this.
In fairness to the Nigerian military though
it seems to have been moving in that direction in the way
and manner it handled the very serious situation during the
Yar’Adua illness saga and the tension it had generated in
the polity. It acted professionally by not using that as an
excuse to strike and has accordingly earned praise from
several quarters on that account alone. But it was nothing
compared to what happened in Egypt which was a big test on
the country’s military considering the fact that Mubarak
himself came from the military, from the Egyptian Air Force
and had been backed by the military all along as indeed his
predecessors Abel Nasser, and Anwar Sadat his former boss,
who was assassinated 30 years ago making it possible for
Mubarak to assume power.
What has happened in the streets of Tunisia
and Egypt should send shivers down the spines of Muammar
Quadaffi of Libya, King Hussein of Jordan and the Saudi and
Kuwaiti monarchies, amongst others in the Middle East. It is
a signal that their end is near and not even the United
States will protect them when their streets erupt in
pro-democracy protests to end their dictatorial regimes just
as it has happened in Tunisia and Egypt. And when that day
finally arrives, not even their militaries, the so-called
“Royal Armies” will protect them seeing what their Egyptian
and Tunisian counterparts have done. Those monarchs will be
sleeping with one of their eyes wide open. I suspect they
will now begin to undertake some pre-emptive measures before
they get hit some day.
Yet even as we applaud the Egyptian military
High Command for displaying professionalism in its handling
of the revolution there is a gnawing suspicion of its real
motives which could not be deciphered from the surface
during the protests. It is not at all clear if the
resignation of Mubarak was forced by the military or
voluntary. It would be a sad day indeed if the resignation
was forced by the military and sadder still if the military
had had an understanding with Mubarak to hand over the
country to them on a platter and go on vacation while his
country is thrown into needless confusion and acute
uncertainties. On the other hand, it would be terrible if
the military had had some understanding with the protesters
to get Mubarak out and take over power ostensibly to
institute democracy in Egypt thereafter as it has promised.
And that begs the question: Was the constant
profession of support for the demands of the protesters
streaming forth from the Egyptian military High Command
meant to encourage the street to remain steadfast in the
their number one demand for Mubarak’s ouster just so the
military could step in as has indeed happened? Or am I
reading too much than warranted into the action of the
military?
Asked differently, was the Egyptian military
sending repeatedly signals to and indeed encouraging the
protesters to hang tough in the face of the many concessions
granted by Mubarak including but not limited to his transfer
of presidential powers to his vice to enable it take over
power from Mubarak?
These questions have become necessary in view
of the fact that the protesters were openly calling on the
military to take action and get rid of Mubarak on their
behalf. Well, they got what they wanted. Didn’t they? And
they’re jubilating. Aren’t they? But see where that has
landed Egypt—in the warm embrace of military rule.
And that further begs the question: Were the
protesters only interested in the ouster of Mubarak and
could care less about democracy itself when it rejected
overtures for orderly transition to democracy? Why was it
not considered reasonable to negotiate an orderly transition
to democratic rule with or without Mubarak?
If the protesters’ demand for the immediate
ouster of Mubarak meant that elections would have been held
within 60 days from the date of resignation under the
Egyptian constitution, there would have been no question of
military takeover. The vice president would have been in
charge of the transition process right up to the elections
with presidential powers already ceded to him by Mubarak,
which the protesters, perhaps egged on by the open signals
from the military flatly rejected. If the protesters did not
like the face of the vice president due to his past
activities and close ties to Mubarak couldn’t they have
insisted on a more credible individual to midwife the
transition process that could have included members of the
opposition in Egypt such the Nobel Laureate as El-Baradei?
Mubarak is gone and Cairo’s Tahrir Square has
fallen silent and protesters are now going home to sleep
after daylong celebration of the fall of Mubarak. Now what?
Military dictatorship in the place of Mubarak? Sad to say
but the answer is a big YES! Egypt has transited from one
party dictatorship to full blown military dictatorship
literarily overnight, no thanks to the protesters.
But perhaps the greater issue is this: Was
the transition executed through a military coup executed
through the back door as was the case in Nigeria when
General Sanni Abacha got Ernest Shonekan to resign as
Chairman of IBB’s Interim Government and assumed power
through the back door, which was, in fact, a palace coup
dressed up as resignation? Hard to tell but all indications
point to that probability given the way and manner the
military had been carrying on since the protest began, which
to the uninitiated civilians like us had appeared to be
professionalism for which the military was lauded.
The fact that the military has made no public
commitment to democratic transition within a given timeframe
48 hours after taking over should worry Egyptians and all
lovers of democracy including the international community
and the protesters too. The most that has been said was the
expression of commitment of the military to free and fair
elections with no timelines indicated in the statement
issued by the military. What does it take to make such a
public announcement on national television that it has taken
so long in coming? Already it is being reported that the
protesters want such an announcement from the military that
has remained taciturn like Nigeria’s own former maximum
ruler, the late Sanni Abacha. This loud silence from the
military cannot but bode ill for Egypt and democracy and it
betrays ulterior motives in taking over power. All of a
sudden the protesters seem to be having a new enemy in their
hands. What a pathetic situation! What a betrayal!
If my hypothesis holds true as it appears to
be the case at the moment, then Egypt might not be out of
the wood yet. And that would be a terrible thing indeed.
There is no way a military coup could be regarded as
liberation of the people from dictatorship because military
rule is the very definition of dictatorship. Hard to
believe but all those impassioned protests and
demonstrations; all that hard work and sleepless nights; all
that adrenaline rush has ended up achieving no better
results than putting the military from where Mubarak came
back in power without firing a single shot.
Honestly I don’t know whether this is
progress or retrogression and I would want someone to tell
me it is progress and explain to me why it is because right
now it seems to me to be anything but progress. And that’s
why people must be careful when they talk glibly about
revolution because no one knows where it might end and by
their very nature they’re not always well planned and
executed. The jubilation of the protesters at the demise of
Mubarak is already turning into ash in their mouths with the
way the military is handling the situation after taking over
barely 48 hours ago. Granted it is rather early in the day
but putting out a transition timetable or even promising to
put out one in the next few days shouldn’t be such a big
deal on the part of the military given that it is what the
people have been fighting and dying for.
Perhaps the reaction of one Egyptian
American, who happens to have been born in Egypt and now a
Mayor of a small New Jersey town epitomizes the dilemma
Egyptians have suddenly found themselves facing, not the
ones jubilating in the streets at the ouster of Mubarak.
When asked by a radio anchor man what he thought about the
fact that although Mubarak is gone Egypt has relapsed into
military rule with Mubarak’s ouster, and all of a sudden he
waxed defensive. And all he could say was “Well the military
is on the side of the people and is well respected by the
Egyptian people.”
Hmm! Good talk indeed. Military is on the
side of the people and respected by the Egyptian people! But
is that the issue? Are we talking about how much Egyptians
respect their military or about democracy? Who cares if the
military is well respected and on the side of the people for
now? Is that a reason for taking over power? That sounds to
me like a justification for military rule right there and it
would be troubling if that represents the thinking of fellow
Egyptians, which is not, thankfully. It amounts to removing
a bad ring from one finger and putting it on another finger
of the same hand and call that change. It doesn’t sound to
me like such a great idea, anyway. Yet the gentleman could
not help but admit that it would take Egypt at least one
full year to hold elections and he turned right round to
blame Mubarak for not building democratic institutions like
political parties and the sorts to hasten the transition.
But hello! This is not about Mubarak anymore.
Power had already slipped out of his hands before he finally
bowed out. You can’t blame the man for the failure of the
revolution. It’s not about Mubarak but about the whole
question regarding the management of the revolution itself
which apparently had no discernible leadership that could
have competently and nimbly steered the revolution to the
desired democratic transition rather than simply dumping the
nation in the waiting hands of the military and call that
change or revolution.
There is no question that many Egyptians
other than the protesters are extremely happy at the demise
of Mubarak, but I’m not too sure they’re exactly jubilating
in the streets at the fact of the military take over and all
the uncertainties it brings no matter how much gloss we try
to put on it to make it look less ugly. The facts on the
ground today are extremely ugly and nothing close to what
the average Egyptian had been fighting for, for decades.
Like it or not, the Egyptian military have
surreptitiously sneaked back to power, this time around not
through the front but through the back door, riding freely
on the backs of youthful but inexperienced protesters that
it had either struck a deal with on the cheap or manipulated
to achieve its secret agenda of power grab.
To be honest with you this cannot bode well
for the continent of Africa that is only just emerging from
military dictatorships. Now African militaries have been
presented, at least potentially, with a backdoor opportunity
to presidential palaces across the continent and get in the
game like their Egyptian counterparts. Wherever there are
large street protests the military could easily exploit that
to stage coups in African nations by encouraging more
protests and demonstrations that are calculated to sack
democratic civilian administrations. And Africa could be
back to square one. That is the new danger that is presented
by the poorly managed Egyptian revolution, which has
begotten the unwanted child of military rule.
Events are still unfolding in Egypt and the
following weeks and months will reveal more about the real
intentions of the Egyptian military and the direction the
country is headed. But under what authority is the military
governing? Handing over the military invariably means the
suspension of the country’s constitution because there is no
place for military rule under the constitution. The military
cannot therefore proceed to conduct elections within 60 days
as provided for under the Egyptian constitution because it
is not and cannot purport to be operating under that
constitution.
What is more, the Egyptian military is not
vested with the power and authority to hold elections under
the Egyptian constitution. So let’s get the Egyptian
constitution out of the way for now and perhaps forever. The
entire constitutional order has been overthrown by the
revolution. That is the legal and factual effect of the
revolution. And this is where the whole thing gets tricky
and uncertain.
For all the seeming success achieved by the
revolution that we are all celebrating presently, Egypt
might turn out to have moved backward rather than forward
if, God forbid, the military begins to play games with its
hold on power. And if that happens, it could mean that the
protesters merely played into the hands of the military, who
would become the greatest beneficiaries of the revolution.
And the only saving grace would be swift conduct of
elections which is a highly unlikely proposition and in fact
next to impossible.
The Egyptian American Mayor referred to above
couldn’t have been wrong then when he stated that election
might not hold in less than one full year from now. And I
might add that that is even putting an optimistic face on
it. Even with the best of intentions, conducting elections
in a country that big with decades-old repressive laws and
little democratic culture is not a walk in the park. Egypt
has been in military hands since 1953 and has no clue about
what it takes to get on the democracy track.
Right now Egypt is not in the least prepared
for general elections and it is a long way from coming to
that point. We’re probably talking about years not months of
military dictatorship in Egypt before power is finally
returned to the civilians. At the minimum it requires
constitutional conference that would draw up a new
constitution just like it was in Iraq and Afghanistan. And
that alone is talking years not months in addition to the
building of democratic structures before elections are held.
Whichever way one looks at it, it is the
reality that should begin to dawn on not just the protesters
but on the international community as well. It explains why
authorities in the United States have reacted with seeming
resignation because Mubarak might be gone but Egypt is far
from having democracy or anything remotely close to it. And
there are no guarantees either that that elections conducted
by the military will be free and fair. What if the military
head is interested in contesting the election or interested
in the outcomes? The history of Egyptian leadership is the
history of the transmutation of its military leaders into
civilian dictatorships. And history and tradition are
powerful forces to break with.
Given these scenarios one is beginning to
have some serious misgivings about the direction Egypt is
currently headed even as the streets of Egypt have erupted
in wild jubilation over the demise of President Hosni
Mubarak. This is not where I had expected the revolution to
lead but this is where it has landed.
The revolution has clearly misfired. You just
can’t trade one dictator for the other and call that change.
It makes absolutely no sense to me, and frankly speaking, it
is profoundly counter- productive. It represents a
fundamental betrayal of the democratic yearnings of the
Egyptian people. Egypt is no nearer democracy today after
Mubarak’s ouster than it was yesterday before his suspicious
ouster by the Egyptian military Supreme Council.
And this unpalatable result has come about
due to the fact that the protesters focused all their
attention on Mubarak rather than on finding ways and means
of building viable democratic transition. And Egyptians are
discovering rather belatedly that Mubarak’s ouster does not
exactly translate to the democracy that they had been
longing for and were legitimately looking forward to with
the revolution. If anything, they’ve got quite the opposite.
And that must be galling and heart wrenching indeed to
millions of Egyptians, no matter how much they respect their
military. Respecting the military when it is not in power is
one thing, but having them in power is quite a different
kettle of fish altogether. Both worlds do not meet.
This might sound uncharitable to the
protesters and the military still basking in the euphoria of
these revolutionary moments in Egypt, but I’m looking beyond
these moments well into the future of Egypt in terms of the
institution of democratic rule not decades from now but
now! Had the protesters worked out something of a
transitional government headed by a civilian rather than the
military with members of the opposition on board it might
have been a whole lot better that putting khaki men in
power.
Regrettably, that is not the case and Egypt
has been thrown into grave uncertainties about what lies
ahead. The international community should be worried. Sad to
say but the streets have lost the initiatives and the
revolution to the Egyptian military with whom they are no
longer in a position to negotiate and to whom they can no
longer dictate terms.
I one might ask, with whom might the
protesters contend the next time around should the military
prove unwilling or insincere in their pledge to return Egypt
to democratic rule? The same tanks that were used to ring
the square to enable them continue their protests unmolested
could be turned against them if they begin to push the
military too hard against their wish and agenda. Will they
return to Cairo’s Tahrir Square to chase out the military?
That is the reality of military rule the world over and
Egyptian military rule cannot be any different. I hope they
are and that would be welcome exception.
All the
world can hope and pray for is for the military to
demonstrate sincerity and honesty of purpose and hand over
power to democratic civilian administration in the shortest
timeframe possible. But with the conditions in Egypt that
could be light years away. My heart bleeds for Egypt as she
descends into the abyss of the unknown. No thanks to a
derailed revolution.
Perhaps
there is no more fitting quote to end this piece than this
from a protester, a pharmacist
named Ghada Elmasalmy, 43, at the Liberation Square
as reported by Reuters:
"The army is with us but it must realize our
demands. Half revolutions kill nations."
With due respect to Ghada Elmasalmy, this is
worse than half revolution, it
is a derailed revolution. And by the way, who says the army
is necessarily with you? The army might have just used you
to get to power after all and kick your butts thereafter
with jackboots, guns and military tanks. But let history,
not me, be the ultimate judge. For now though, Egypt has
moved squarely into the column of military ruled nations,
well, just like Muammar Quadaffi’s Libya next door; no
thanks to a derailed revolution.
From the stable of –Cutting-Edge
Analytics—More than a blog, it’s a learning experience.
Franklin Otorofani is an Attorney and Public
Affairs Analyst.
Contacts:
mudiagaone@yahoo.com,
http://franklinotorofani.wordpress.com/
|
