Ibrahim Al-bakri Nyei
Introduction
Reconciliation as an institution and function of the transitional justice system is done with contrition and forgiveness based on the conviction of the parties involved. There have been numerous discourses to explore possibilities of genuine reconciliation in the absence of justice. Justice comes in two forms, restorative and retributive. Restorative justice calls for the reconciling of the forces involved in a conflict to restore and build broken relations without punitive actions against perpetrators. On the other hand, retributive justice prosecutes and punishes guilty perpetrators for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
In all cases, transitional justice examines the two – restorative, through truth commissions, and retributive through tribunals or courts. In the transitional justice process none is a substitute for the other, and individuals searching for the truth, or prosecuting perpetrators are to have no connections with the conflicts and its associated problems. A tribunal can succeed a truth commission or any of them can be duly implemented. Other countries like Sierra Leone and Rwanda have experienced some forms of the two. While South Africa, Ghana, and some states in the United States resolved their internal conflicts with only truth commissions.
The post-conflict situation in Liberia is challenged by numerous occurrences and expectations. The effort to establish the actual causes of the Liberian Civil War is on-going through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission established under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that finalized the brutal aspects of the Civil War. The process as a whole is transitional and needs to be handled carefully in the absence of biases and prejudices. This paper is an attempt to critically examine the ability and will of the commission to effectively propel the shattered and traumatized people of Liberia towards the achievement of genuine reconciliation in the midst of blunders, glaring deficiencies, oversights, contradictions, claims, counterclaims, rebuttals and propositions and limited human, material and financial capacity. The argument therefore does not attempt to dismiss the strides made by the commission in executing its mandate.
Historical Distortions and Empirical Contradictions
History as the account of events of the past built on political and socio-economic occurrences can not be evaded in reality. What history suffers is distortion and biases from academicians who deliberately write to satisfy clique or individual interests. However the case with Liberia, it is empirical that the written history of Liberia is replete with errors and deliberate distortions. Written Liberian history texts taught in schools have no details on the contributions of many sectors to the growth of the state, some are humiliating to the tribal communities, and many with glorifications for the settlers. Today, eyebrows, and questions are being raised about the reality of the existence or actual occurrences of some incidents in Liberian history, the Matilda Newport and Canon situation is one of such.
Every event of today must have some connections with precedence from the past. The present can not therefore be decided without references and linkages with the past just as the future can not be determined in the absence of acquaintances with the past and the present.
This issue of deliberately prejudicing and slicing the contextual issues of our history does not only pose a challenge to our reconciliation process, but also retains a declassified mentality of the Liberian psyche for a significant part of our population. Our reconciliation process is therefore highly challenged to clarify the contradictions.
One of the mandates of the TRC is to ‘conduct a critical review of Liberia’s historical past, with the view to establishing and giving recognition to historical truths in order to address falsehoods and misconceptions of the past relating to the nation’s socio-economic and political development’ [Article IV (d) TRC ACT]. With varying and controversial accounts of our history, one wonders critically as to whose writing may be considered the falsity and whose writing the truth by the TRC.
The Commission, according to its Act is to investigate occurrences between the period January 1979 to October 14, 2003. We will have to be told by common logic whether an incident that occurred on January 1, 1979 have no unbalance force that precipitated its occurrence from December 31, 1978 backward. The causes of events can not be evaded in a reconciliation or prosecution process, and a problem can not be addressed without using its causes as a prime variable. These are necessary to further expound in the discourse and sharpen the contradictions in our reconciliation process because the Act did not mandate the Commission to go into events preceding 1979. The Commission will only thread into such incidents based on an application by any person or group of persons.
Critically, the Twin Battles, the issue of the Fernando Po Crises, the Matilda Newport Situation (whether True of False), the 1951 and 1955 incidents, the numerous raids of natives by the LFF and many more incidents are not within the stipulated mandate of the Commission, except by the interest of a group or an individual who may by inquisitiveness request the Commission to do so.
Questions of Neutrality and Independence
If we are all to be at the Great Judgment Day, those to prosecute or ask us questions are those who never live with us on earth. There hands are cleans of all worldly deeds, whether good or evil. They therefore morally fit to mount the podium, enjoy the requisite independence, and characteristic neutrality to ask anyone a question and declare you fit for either heaven or hell.
Transitional justice or conventional judicial systems require independence of juries, panelists, judges, and commissioners, etc. This independence is required to render unbiased and impartial decisions that will set a peaceful trajectory for progress and avoid, by the conscience of the participants –perpetrators, victims as well as witness- a relapse into chaos. Does our institution of reconciliation, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission possess the characteristics of independence, impartiality, neutrality with reference to our civil war, and our political evolution as a nation-state in connection with varying ideologies? This question is puzzling and raised another critical one of the possibility of x-raying every Liberian to find the most neutral to lead the reconciliation drive. Is there any of us, so unique and without stains from the causes and consequences of the conflict? Let the search begin. So help us God!
Since the process began many questions of such have emerge from key actors as well as victims. Some members of the Commission, however the case, were connected to either the cause or the consequences of the civil conflict. Some are from the political institution which many of the witnesses have condemned for being responsible for our national woes. Will they now resign and put out public defense for their party. At the same time, some are from various activist organizations, and student groups that agitated in the country thereby necessitating the change that led to the war. What can they also say of their roles? One may wonder whether they will build their defense in their report, or possibly, there may be a compromising report to satisfy the apparently opposing forces on the Commission.
Claims and Counterclaims
We are seeking to have genuine reconciliation. This desire, if fervent and ardent to our quest for peace and development must be guided by principles of truth and judgment of morality. In this effort, we must speak nothing but the whole truth since indeed we have decided to speak of our roles and reconcile our socio-political and economic disparities that will lead to the possible consolidation of peace among us as a nation and people.
It is the importance of the truth to the process of reconciliation that all witnesses are required to take oath before explaining their roles. But if the witnesses are fiendish enough and have no reverence for the process, their testimonies become clothed with lies, errors and contradictions, thereby making a buffoonery of the process.
The hearings of our Truth and Reconciliation Commission since its inception in January 2008 have been characterized by claims and counterclaims which expose the possibilities of falsities and distortions in the testimonies of witnesses. With these ensuing, it ponders our consciousness to think with exegeses about the prospects of achieving genuine reconciliation when the truth or the whole are allegedly not been told.
In fact, the first testimony that was made before the Commission on the first day of public hearing still remains an issue of serious controversy. The accused perpetrator has mustered all courage to challenge the testimony against him on the basis of its inaccuracy as he alleged. That testimony also lifted the floor mat and dragged the public attention to a claim that it was done under a conspiratorial supervision of one of the Commissioners.
In recent occurrences, the pages of newspapers and headlines of major news have been focused on the thematic hearings of the Commission, but regrettably, rebuttals and counterclaims and street discussions are challenging those testimonies continuously, and are simultaneously posing more encumbering challenges to the overall process of genuine reconciliation, since the parties involved in the cross-claiming scenarios are not submissive to accepting what have been said under oath vis-à-vis there is no barometer to test the testimonies and determine the lies form the truths, or no means of avoiding witnesses from lying under oath.
General Expectation versus Capacity
The general expectation of the people of Liberia is to live in perpetual peace and economic prosperity. Toward this end, the people are committed to whatsoever initiative that can reconcile the past, build the peace and improve both the governance and the economy. This is generally demonstrated by the people’s support to major activities in the country – the Elections, the Reconciliation process, etc.
At present, the vicinity of the Centennial Pavilion that has been over the years an abandoned and quiet area is fully active and paying host to Liberians from all orientations who assemble daily based on their inherent interests to follow the reconciliation process of their country. At the bottom of their heart is to have PEACE and DEVELOPMENT, though many persons suggest different ways of reaching that ultimate desire. For some a War Crime Tribunal is the best way to solve the problems of our civil crisis and bring perpetrators to justice. But others believe that reconciliation through the TRC should remain the only channel of addressing national anguish and tragedy. Yet, there are some who believe that ‘sleeping dog should lie’, so that ‘we can not dig out old wounds’.
However, the road to achieving genuine reconciliation to meet the general expectation of the people need to be matched with the capacity of the state, its institutions of governance and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The capacity of the Commission- human, material and financial needs significant support and effective monitoring till the end. The Commission at one time went comatose as a result of limited funding to the extent that statement-takers launched series of strikes.
People are recommending, in regards to the alleged connections of some members of the Commission to the conflict which undermines their neutrality, that foreigners be hired to write the report and actual history of the country based on the data gathered by the Commission. With the ongoing expectations of the public, the need to empower the commission in finance, human and material resources needs not be overemphasized. In the absence of such capacity building to ensure efficiency in its work, the people’s expectation will be cataclysmically defeated and the reconciliation process will remain illusive.
Conclusion
The process of attaining genuine reconciliation in a post-conflict nation is as delicate as the process of making and keeping the peace. Our quest to have a nation reconciled with its people in harmony and economic prosperity must be treated with much delicacy and reverence for basic principle of transitional justice.
The truth and Reconciliation Commission, the transitional justice institution championing our reconciliation agenda, is threatened by many challenges that may erupt controversies after the process have concluded. These challenges are manifested in the structure, mandate and targets of the commission as have been made public during its period of
Hearings. The process has witnessed accusations from major actors on the independence and neutrality of Commissioners, on the credibility of witness and so forth.
The people are now in their consciousness, diagnosing the possibilities of achieving genuine reconciliation amidst the deliberate distortion of historical facts and claims of falsities and witch-hunting, and limitations or inadequacies on the part of the Commission itself.
However, the Liberian people are committed to seeing their nation peaceful in booming with economic opportunities, and a spirit of trust and confidence in the system of governance. This resolve of the people to reconcile and build peace have been manifested to their courage and support given to all national initiatives.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
CRITICAL ISSUES OF NATIONAL CONCERN (II)
On Constituency and Representation
Ibrahim Al-bakri Nyei
The dynamism of our country in all sectors is faced with the problem of meeting the challenges of globalization and development. Since the end of the civil war, attempts to make strategic reforms in all sectors to set proper national development agenda have not been realistic and effective. The leakages have primarily been due to the unavailability of relevant statistics and data to tell the total number of people in the country, and give the actual composition of our resources and mosaic- social, geographic and economic information.
With the conduction of the 2008 Census, the discourses have extended with appendages to all ends. National development agenda, according to development specialists is drawn and implemented according to population distribution in a given community. Our reform and development strategies, therefore, will have to consider with priority those counties that are highly populated before those with fewer populations. Our representation in the legislature, also, has to be redistributed on the basis of population per county in continuation of the reform process and in consonance with the Constitution.
In terms of parliamentary composition and structure, particularly a bicameral legislature, members of the House of representatives are practically and theoretically drawn from the people in numerical consideration of their population, while members of the upper house or senate, are equally divided to represent the political subdivisions. That is why it has been conceptualized that the representatives represent the people, and the senators represent the political subdivision.
Like the United States, from whose system we formulated our system of government, membership in the House is based on each state’s population, and the size of the House is therefore not specified in the Constitution. But for the Senate each state is entitled to two that is why Rhode Island, the smallest state, with an area of about 3,156 sq. km. has the same senatorial representation as Alaska, the biggest state with an area of some 1, 524, 640 sq. km. Regardless of population, every state is constitutionally guaranteed at least one member of the House. At present, seven states – Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming – have only one representative. On the other hand, six states have more than twenty representatives, and California alone has fifty-two.
The European Union parliament has 732 members apportioned among the EU’s 25 countries on a modified population basis. The most populous country, Germany, has 99 seats and the least populous, Malta, has five seats.
The ongoing debate in the Liberian legislature on the issue of constituency and representation should be an anathema if indeed we are constitutionalists and pragmatists. But unfortunately, people are ignoring the mobility of the population as indicated by the census result to claim that there are attempts to disenfranchise their people. Who then are the people? Let it be clear that where ever the people are there were they should be represented from in the House. So wherever the people moves, they literally take there seats with them there. It is on the basis of accepted threshold that our constituencies are carved, and subdivisions that do not meet the accepted threshold are given some guarantees to be represented with specific amount of representatives.
The results of the 2008 census tell that we are a little over 3.5 million with some counties densely populated and some sparsely populated. If the 20, 000 provision is to be adhered to, then we will have to open up for a constitutional referendum or revision, but where in the constitution provided that the legislature can adjust the representation in the House to a number not exceeding one hundred, it is prudent that the given threshold of 45,000 per constituency be used and that every county be guaranteed with at least 2 seats regardless of populations. The number of representation per county is not in any way an indicator of development or economic growth for such county; it is the quality of the representation which is underpinned by the integrity, political-will and competence of the representative occupying the seat that makes the lawmaking effective and credible.
In fact, there are arguments now that the more there are people on a decision or lawmaking body, the less functional and effective it becomes in making executive and influential decisions, and conversely. That is why conservatives are robustly challenging the proposals of increasing the members of the United Nations Security Council from 15.
Finally, this era must be considered as an era of reformation, and we must now begin to put forth arguments and proposals that will benefit the national interest, instead of thriving on trivialities on the basis of regional divides. I hope that one day we will all make laws and say that this will benefit the country and not the county.
-In the Cause of Democracy and Social Justice, the Pen shall never Run Dry-
Ibrahim Al-bakri Nyei
The dynamism of our country in all sectors is faced with the problem of meeting the challenges of globalization and development. Since the end of the civil war, attempts to make strategic reforms in all sectors to set proper national development agenda have not been realistic and effective. The leakages have primarily been due to the unavailability of relevant statistics and data to tell the total number of people in the country, and give the actual composition of our resources and mosaic- social, geographic and economic information.
With the conduction of the 2008 Census, the discourses have extended with appendages to all ends. National development agenda, according to development specialists is drawn and implemented according to population distribution in a given community. Our reform and development strategies, therefore, will have to consider with priority those counties that are highly populated before those with fewer populations. Our representation in the legislature, also, has to be redistributed on the basis of population per county in continuation of the reform process and in consonance with the Constitution.
In terms of parliamentary composition and structure, particularly a bicameral legislature, members of the House of representatives are practically and theoretically drawn from the people in numerical consideration of their population, while members of the upper house or senate, are equally divided to represent the political subdivisions. That is why it has been conceptualized that the representatives represent the people, and the senators represent the political subdivision.
Like the United States, from whose system we formulated our system of government, membership in the House is based on each state’s population, and the size of the House is therefore not specified in the Constitution. But for the Senate each state is entitled to two that is why Rhode Island, the smallest state, with an area of about 3,156 sq. km. has the same senatorial representation as Alaska, the biggest state with an area of some 1, 524, 640 sq. km. Regardless of population, every state is constitutionally guaranteed at least one member of the House. At present, seven states – Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming – have only one representative. On the other hand, six states have more than twenty representatives, and California alone has fifty-two.
The European Union parliament has 732 members apportioned among the EU’s 25 countries on a modified population basis. The most populous country, Germany, has 99 seats and the least populous, Malta, has five seats.
The ongoing debate in the Liberian legislature on the issue of constituency and representation should be an anathema if indeed we are constitutionalists and pragmatists. But unfortunately, people are ignoring the mobility of the population as indicated by the census result to claim that there are attempts to disenfranchise their people. Who then are the people? Let it be clear that where ever the people are there were they should be represented from in the House. So wherever the people moves, they literally take there seats with them there. It is on the basis of accepted threshold that our constituencies are carved, and subdivisions that do not meet the accepted threshold are given some guarantees to be represented with specific amount of representatives.
The results of the 2008 census tell that we are a little over 3.5 million with some counties densely populated and some sparsely populated. If the 20, 000 provision is to be adhered to, then we will have to open up for a constitutional referendum or revision, but where in the constitution provided that the legislature can adjust the representation in the House to a number not exceeding one hundred, it is prudent that the given threshold of 45,000 per constituency be used and that every county be guaranteed with at least 2 seats regardless of populations. The number of representation per county is not in any way an indicator of development or economic growth for such county; it is the quality of the representation which is underpinned by the integrity, political-will and competence of the representative occupying the seat that makes the lawmaking effective and credible.
In fact, there are arguments now that the more there are people on a decision or lawmaking body, the less functional and effective it becomes in making executive and influential decisions, and conversely. That is why conservatives are robustly challenging the proposals of increasing the members of the United Nations Security Council from 15.
Finally, this era must be considered as an era of reformation, and we must now begin to put forth arguments and proposals that will benefit the national interest, instead of thriving on trivialities on the basis of regional divides. I hope that one day we will all make laws and say that this will benefit the country and not the county.
-In the Cause of Democracy and Social Justice, the Pen shall never Run Dry-
The American 2008 Elections: What Can Africans Do? And Why?
Ibrahim Al-bakri Nyei
INTRODUCTION
The United States plays a dominant role in the political and economic governing systems of the world. Since the collapsed of the Soviet Union or the virtual end of the Cold War, the
The
The fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold marked by the apparent success of the U.S. Doctrine of Containment saw the emergence of the
The United States, in its quest to sustain its role and remain influential in all aspects of world politics and economy have established trade and military missions around the world, and at the same time striving to dismantle potential threats against its existence as a superpower. At present, it leads the world in an ‘anti-terrorist’ war and donates huge sums of money in building ‘democracies’ in other nations. The U.S in 2003 led a coalition of forces and dethroned the government of Saddam Hussein in
In the continual effort of exerting itself as a world power, it plays major roles in developing world torn nations and disadvantaged countries. The United States Agency for International Development and other U.S funded institutions currently work on major development and peace building programs around the world.
This control and direction of the world by this one nation (the
The U.S. President, A world Emperor
The president of the
The major foreign policy doctrines executed by the U.S were the makings of the presidency. And these policies have forced other countries, mainly third world countries like
However, the
In the pursuit of the policy of Globalism, President Harry Truman sent
Let the 21st Century (the present) be our concern now at this point. The beginning of this century has indeed witnessed international development and the grandiloquent influence of the
The Bush Presidency has introduced a tradition, and his retirement is of global focus as the race for his successor is portraying. He actually accentuated and exerted himself as a world leader in many instances by issuing ultimatums. In March 2003 he mandated that “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave
CONCLUSION: What Can
This inquiry may sound laughable. But it is important to take note of the above exposé, though abridged, of what the U.S does and what its presidents do, and in relations to the current world unipolar political order.
Africa, from all aspects of developments, is affected by decisions made in the
Using
The
With the level of progress taken place on the African Continent, Western Media focused mostly on the worst side of
Than all other things, African leaders and technocrats must get themselves set for the new order that may result from the ensuing elections. The result may have the proclivity to chart a different course on the continent. Changes on the right side of the plane must be accepted, while those to left that undermine African cultures and systems must be rejected with decisiveness. Africans must also follow the electoral process with curiosity to understand how a mature system works without organized fraud that stimulates violence and casualties. It will also be good to learn from the lapses of the process and build on ours.
The Question of Democracy in Africa
First Published May 2008
Ibrahim Al-bakri Nyei
Every century in Africa brings a new challenge to its socio-economic and political developments. This 21st century is witnessing mass campaign for the democratization of the continent, and a free market or capitalistic economy. As it has always been, the western powers or the colonial masters of pre-independent Africa are the leading proponents of this campaign through intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. But can they really succeed in democratizing the continent as they succeeded in plundering its resources during colonial and imperial dominance? Or is the western democracy a model so strange to African political lives and cultures that Africans found difficulties in adjusting their lives and ways of governance to its tenets; or is it that the Western-support democracy and capitalism are canopies to continually submit Africa to imperial dominance? These are questions African politicians and technocrats need to consider in their efforts to unite the continent; and must also be careful of the numerous demands of the Western powers in securing certain interest. Because it has become commonplace that when these demands are not met, and when certain interests are not achievable, African leaders are quickly branded as ‘predators of democracy’, ‘human rights violators’, and so forth.
Early this year (2008) the People’s Daily (Chinese Communists newspaper) carried an editorial that claimed that western democracy is the cause of some of the violent conflicts in Africa . That article was a commentary on the then post-election violence in Kenya . This claim could be one side of the complex problems facing Africa . But there are more that the leaders of the continent need to understand and make both legal and institutional reforms in their styles of governance. This may save succeeding generations from ideological misconceptions and undue submission to pseudo-imperialism.
But what remains empirical and doubtless is that Africa ’s major political crisis is centered on the quest for wealth creation and class or sectarian interest promotion against that of the masses. African leaders have most often used their offices as industries of profiteering and neglecting the conditions of the people they serve. This is evident by the gross underdevelopment of the continent and the many corruption cases against African leaders. But most often, those that fall in the anti-corruption dragnets may not necessarily be hooked because of the crime, but because of an inherent malice in their successors or attempts to eliminate or degrade a particular class.
These practices of selective justice and cronyism are bad omens in the efforts to democratize Africa . The West has affirmed a resounding commitment in fighting corruption in Africa . The World Bank and other Breton Wood institutions, and major donor agencies and nations are setting benchmarks that nations should meet before they are qualified for grants, aids or loans. Among these benchmarks are ‘rule of law’, ‘good governance’ and ‘transparency and accountability’. But how trustworthy is the commitment of those institutions and nations to support the growth and development of Africa in the wake of conspicuous hypocrisies and prejudices- something already branded as ‘neocolonialism’. Some African leaders whose regimes have poor human rights records are succeeding in getting aids due to their submission to the whims and caprices of those institution and nations, while others that are bent on repelling ‘neocolonialism’ are left to be strangulated economically, thereby creating political instabilities in their countries.
With the numerous raw materials and physical human resources, democracy is possible in Africa if the leaders can efficiently exploit the resources and support home-base economic development and empower their citizens to become movers and shakers of their own economy. Western and foreign industries and merchants have from time immemorial played decisive roles in the governance of African states. Realistically, their interests had never been in the development of the continent and its people, but clever methods of using African heads-of-states to partner with them in pillaging the resources of the continent. If Africans become permanent movers of their economy, their chances of determining their governance become higher, thus the leadership and governance will be left in their own hands, and neocolonialism may extinct and live only as a concept in the minds of its agents.
As the adage goes, ‘Man best servant is himself’, the West and any other powerful group of nations can not succeed in building durable democracy in Africa without the Africans as the forerunners. The success of democracy in Africa is dependent upon the leaders of Africa and their people. In recent time three unfavorable situations have occurred in Africa that are seriously threatening the survival of democracy on this continent. The ongoing electoral crisis in Zimbabwe is one among the three that demonstrate the archaic egoistic nature of African leaders to remain in power until their death. The possibility of having a democratic re-run election reflecting the true will and voice of the people of Zimbabwe is a razor-thin due to the continuous fears and harassment against opposition supporters by the ZANU- PF and its pro-militias. President Mugabe’s assertion that oppositions will never taste power until his death is sufficient to express that he is the ‘one and only one to decide for that nation’, and that the popular people of Zimbabwe have no stake in determining who leads them. Even if he really wins the popular vote of the people, expressions by senior security officials and actions against oppositions can render the process incredible because the people’s true decision is not only the vote, but the level of freedom they have to express themselves truly determines the presence of democratic governance. But it is a challenge to the African Union and the Southern Africa Development Community to move with genuine and decisive interventions and insure that the true voices of the Zimbabweans are reflected through their votes fearlessly.
The Kenyan post-electoral crisis was a frustration to many who see Kenya as a success story in Africa where incumbent Kibaki and his PNU allegedly rigged the elections. The controversies surrounding the announcement of results and international opinions on its incredibility ignited massive protests that took away thousands of lives and destroyed millions of dollars worth of properties. This undemocratic practice open a new page in the lives of all Kenyans with the sowing of seeds of tribal conflicts, and the vivid expression that no African nation can boast of peace due to the uncontrollable rapacity of its leaders. Nigeria had the same case in 2007 with the reelection of the PDP taking no glory of credibility and fairness from independent observers. The PDP arrangement and status quo, still at the helm of power maintains the result of what was generally declared as ‘fraudulent’. More of such cases, coup attempts ( Liberia , Malawi , Comoros , etc), and ceaseless civil wars ( Darfur , Somalia , etc) are reported yearly around the continent. So this is 21st century Africa in the struggle for democracy.
To succeed in this advocacy of democratizing this continent, Africans need massive education of African culture of politics before the colonial period. The study of traditional African ways of governance is essential to know how the Africans governed themselves before their ‘masters’ came, because Julius Nyerere, the Mwalimu, had said that “the traditional African society, whether it had a chief or not – and many, like my own, did not – was a society of equals and it conducted its business through discussion… ‘They talk till they agree’. That gives you the very essence of traditional African democracy”.
This strive of democratization must also consider as secondary, the building of an African regulated market system to enable the continent become self-sufficient, and not only as a source of raw materials, but also a market of finished products. The numerous partnerships foreigners are building with Africa are intended to build their markets and strengths in the competition to control Africa’s resources, and to establish allies in Africa for support in future conflicts that may erupt among them as they all strive to control the continent. It is another challenge to the African leaders and the African Union or other regional bodies in Africa to strengthen their members and citizens politically and economically in building democratic governance which is the prime ingredient of sustaining peace on the continent, and liberating it from the wave of neocolonialism. Again, the need for fiscal probity in governance, and the self-sufficiency of the continent are very vital to the process of democratizing the continent, because the vulnerability of the African people to ‘everything that comes’ has been underpinned by uncontrolled avarice and corruption in governance, the insufficiency of basic commodities and the economic hardship face by the people.
Ibrahim Al-bakri Nyei
Every century in Africa brings a new challenge to its socio-economic and political developments. This 21st century is witnessing mass campaign for the democratization of the continent, and a free market or capitalistic economy. As it has always been, the western powers or the colonial masters of pre-independent Africa are the leading proponents of this campaign through intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. But can they really succeed in democratizing the continent as they succeeded in plundering its resources during colonial and imperial dominance? Or is the western democracy a model so strange to African political lives and cultures that Africans found difficulties in adjusting their lives and ways of governance to its tenets; or is it that the Western-support democracy and capitalism are canopies to continually submit Africa to imperial dominance? These are questions African politicians and technocrats need to consider in their efforts to unite the continent; and must also be careful of the numerous demands of the Western powers in securing certain interest. Because it has become commonplace that when these demands are not met, and when certain interests are not achievable, African leaders are quickly branded as ‘predators of democracy’, ‘human rights violators’, and so forth.
Early this year (2008) the People’s Daily (Chinese Communists newspaper) carried an editorial that claimed that western democracy is the cause of some of the violent conflicts in Africa . That article was a commentary on the then post-election violence in Kenya . This claim could be one side of the complex problems facing Africa . But there are more that the leaders of the continent need to understand and make both legal and institutional reforms in their styles of governance. This may save succeeding generations from ideological misconceptions and undue submission to pseudo-imperialism.
But what remains empirical and doubtless is that Africa ’s major political crisis is centered on the quest for wealth creation and class or sectarian interest promotion against that of the masses. African leaders have most often used their offices as industries of profiteering and neglecting the conditions of the people they serve. This is evident by the gross underdevelopment of the continent and the many corruption cases against African leaders. But most often, those that fall in the anti-corruption dragnets may not necessarily be hooked because of the crime, but because of an inherent malice in their successors or attempts to eliminate or degrade a particular class.
These practices of selective justice and cronyism are bad omens in the efforts to democratize Africa . The West has affirmed a resounding commitment in fighting corruption in Africa . The World Bank and other Breton Wood institutions, and major donor agencies and nations are setting benchmarks that nations should meet before they are qualified for grants, aids or loans. Among these benchmarks are ‘rule of law’, ‘good governance’ and ‘transparency and accountability’. But how trustworthy is the commitment of those institutions and nations to support the growth and development of Africa in the wake of conspicuous hypocrisies and prejudices- something already branded as ‘neocolonialism’. Some African leaders whose regimes have poor human rights records are succeeding in getting aids due to their submission to the whims and caprices of those institution and nations, while others that are bent on repelling ‘neocolonialism’ are left to be strangulated economically, thereby creating political instabilities in their countries.
With the numerous raw materials and physical human resources, democracy is possible in Africa if the leaders can efficiently exploit the resources and support home-base economic development and empower their citizens to become movers and shakers of their own economy. Western and foreign industries and merchants have from time immemorial played decisive roles in the governance of African states. Realistically, their interests had never been in the development of the continent and its people, but clever methods of using African heads-of-states to partner with them in pillaging the resources of the continent. If Africans become permanent movers of their economy, their chances of determining their governance become higher, thus the leadership and governance will be left in their own hands, and neocolonialism may extinct and live only as a concept in the minds of its agents.
As the adage goes, ‘Man best servant is himself’, the West and any other powerful group of nations can not succeed in building durable democracy in Africa without the Africans as the forerunners. The success of democracy in Africa is dependent upon the leaders of Africa and their people. In recent time three unfavorable situations have occurred in Africa that are seriously threatening the survival of democracy on this continent. The ongoing electoral crisis in Zimbabwe is one among the three that demonstrate the archaic egoistic nature of African leaders to remain in power until their death. The possibility of having a democratic re-run election reflecting the true will and voice of the people of Zimbabwe is a razor-thin due to the continuous fears and harassment against opposition supporters by the ZANU- PF and its pro-militias. President Mugabe’s assertion that oppositions will never taste power until his death is sufficient to express that he is the ‘one and only one to decide for that nation’, and that the popular people of Zimbabwe have no stake in determining who leads them. Even if he really wins the popular vote of the people, expressions by senior security officials and actions against oppositions can render the process incredible because the people’s true decision is not only the vote, but the level of freedom they have to express themselves truly determines the presence of democratic governance. But it is a challenge to the African Union and the Southern Africa Development Community to move with genuine and decisive interventions and insure that the true voices of the Zimbabweans are reflected through their votes fearlessly.
The Kenyan post-electoral crisis was a frustration to many who see Kenya as a success story in Africa where incumbent Kibaki and his PNU allegedly rigged the elections. The controversies surrounding the announcement of results and international opinions on its incredibility ignited massive protests that took away thousands of lives and destroyed millions of dollars worth of properties. This undemocratic practice open a new page in the lives of all Kenyans with the sowing of seeds of tribal conflicts, and the vivid expression that no African nation can boast of peace due to the uncontrollable rapacity of its leaders. Nigeria had the same case in 2007 with the reelection of the PDP taking no glory of credibility and fairness from independent observers. The PDP arrangement and status quo, still at the helm of power maintains the result of what was generally declared as ‘fraudulent’. More of such cases, coup attempts ( Liberia , Malawi , Comoros , etc), and ceaseless civil wars ( Darfur , Somalia , etc) are reported yearly around the continent. So this is 21st century Africa in the struggle for democracy.
To succeed in this advocacy of democratizing this continent, Africans need massive education of African culture of politics before the colonial period. The study of traditional African ways of governance is essential to know how the Africans governed themselves before their ‘masters’ came, because Julius Nyerere, the Mwalimu, had said that “the traditional African society, whether it had a chief or not – and many, like my own, did not – was a society of equals and it conducted its business through discussion… ‘They talk till they agree’. That gives you the very essence of traditional African democracy”.
This strive of democratization must also consider as secondary, the building of an African regulated market system to enable the continent become self-sufficient, and not only as a source of raw materials, but also a market of finished products. The numerous partnerships foreigners are building with Africa are intended to build their markets and strengths in the competition to control Africa’s resources, and to establish allies in Africa for support in future conflicts that may erupt among them as they all strive to control the continent. It is another challenge to the African leaders and the African Union or other regional bodies in Africa to strengthen their members and citizens politically and economically in building democratic governance which is the prime ingredient of sustaining peace on the continent, and liberating it from the wave of neocolonialism. Again, the need for fiscal probity in governance, and the self-sufficiency of the continent are very vital to the process of democratizing the continent, because the vulnerability of the African people to ‘everything that comes’ has been underpinned by uncontrolled avarice and corruption in governance, the insufficiency of basic commodities and the economic hardship face by the people.
CRITICAL ISSUES OF NATIONAL CONCERN (II)
ON CONSTITUENCY AND REPRESENTATION
Ibrahim Al-bakri Nyei
The dynamism of our country in all sectors is faced with the problem of meeting the challenges of globalization and development. Since the end of the civil war, attempts to make strategic reforms in all sectors to set proper national development agenda have not been realistic and effective. The leakages have primarily been due to the unavailability of relevant statistics and data to tell the total number of people in the country, and give the actual composition of our resources and mosaic- social, geographic and economic information.
With the conduction of the 2008 Census, the discourses have extended with appendages to all ends. National development agenda, according to development specialists is drawn and implemented according to population distribution in a given community. Our reform and development strategies, therefore, will have to consider with priority those counties that are highly populated before those with fewer populations. Our representation in the legislature, also, has to be redistributed on the basis of population per county in continuation of the reform process and in consonance with the Constitution.
In terms of parliamentary composition and structure, particularly a bicameral legislature, members of the House of representatives are practically and theoretically drawn from the people in numerical consideration of their population, while members of the upper house or senate, are equally divided to represent the political subdivisions. That is why it has been conceptualized that the representatives represent the people, and the senators represent the political subdivision.
Like the United States, from whose system we formulated our system of government, membership in the House is based on each state’s population, and the size of the House is therefore not specified in the Constitution. But for the Senate each state is entitled to two that is why Rhode Island, the smallest state, with an area of about 3,156 sq. km. has the same senatorial representation as Alaska, the biggest state with an area of some 1, 524, 640 sq. km. Regardless of population, every state is constitutionally guaranteed at least one member of the House. At present, seven states – Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming – have only one representative. On the other hand, six states have more than twenty representatives, and California alone has fifty-two.
The European Union parliament has 732 members apportioned among the EU’s 25 countries on a modified population basis. The most populous country, Germany, has 99 seats and the least populous, Malta, has five seats.
The ongoing debate in the Liberian legislature on the issue of constituency and representation should be an anathema if indeed we are constitutionalists and pragmatists. But unfortunately, people are ignoring the mobility of the population as indicated by the census result to claim that there are attempts to disenfranchise their people. Who then are the people? Let it be clear that where ever the people are there were they should be represented from in the House. So wherever the people moves, they literally take there seats with them there. It is on the basis of accepted threshold that our constituencies are carved, and subdivisions that do not meet the accepted threshold are given some guarantees to be represented with specific amount of representatives.
The results of the 2008 census tell that we are a little over 3.5 million with some counties densely populated and some sparsely populated. If the 20, 000 provision is to be adhered to, then we will have to open up for a constitutional referendum or revision, but where in the constitution provided that the legislature can adjust the representation in the House to a number not exceeding one hundred, it is prudent that the given threshold of 45,000 per constituency be used and that every county be guaranteed with at least 2 seats regardless of populations. The number of representation per county is not in any way an indicator of development or economic growth for such county; it is the quality of the representation which is underpinned by the integrity, political-will and competence of the representative occupying the seat that makes the lawmaking effective and credible.
In fact, there are arguments now that the more there are people on a decision or lawmaking body, the less functional and effective it becomes in making executive and influential decisions, and conversely. That is why conservatives are robustly challenging the proposals of increasing the members of the United Nations Security Council from 15.
Finally, this era must be considered as an era of reformation, and we must now begin to put forth arguments and proposals that will benefit the national interest, instead of thriving on trivialities on the basis of regional divides. I hope that one day we will all make laws and say that this will benefit the country and not the county.
-In the Cause of Democracy and Social Justice, the Pen shall never Run Dry-
Ibrahim Al-bakri Nyei
The dynamism of our country in all sectors is faced with the problem of meeting the challenges of globalization and development. Since the end of the civil war, attempts to make strategic reforms in all sectors to set proper national development agenda have not been realistic and effective. The leakages have primarily been due to the unavailability of relevant statistics and data to tell the total number of people in the country, and give the actual composition of our resources and mosaic- social, geographic and economic information.
With the conduction of the 2008 Census, the discourses have extended with appendages to all ends. National development agenda, according to development specialists is drawn and implemented according to population distribution in a given community. Our reform and development strategies, therefore, will have to consider with priority those counties that are highly populated before those with fewer populations. Our representation in the legislature, also, has to be redistributed on the basis of population per county in continuation of the reform process and in consonance with the Constitution.
In terms of parliamentary composition and structure, particularly a bicameral legislature, members of the House of representatives are practically and theoretically drawn from the people in numerical consideration of their population, while members of the upper house or senate, are equally divided to represent the political subdivisions. That is why it has been conceptualized that the representatives represent the people, and the senators represent the political subdivision.
Like the United States, from whose system we formulated our system of government, membership in the House is based on each state’s population, and the size of the House is therefore not specified in the Constitution. But for the Senate each state is entitled to two that is why Rhode Island, the smallest state, with an area of about 3,156 sq. km. has the same senatorial representation as Alaska, the biggest state with an area of some 1, 524, 640 sq. km. Regardless of population, every state is constitutionally guaranteed at least one member of the House. At present, seven states – Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming – have only one representative. On the other hand, six states have more than twenty representatives, and California alone has fifty-two.
The European Union parliament has 732 members apportioned among the EU’s 25 countries on a modified population basis. The most populous country, Germany, has 99 seats and the least populous, Malta, has five seats.
The ongoing debate in the Liberian legislature on the issue of constituency and representation should be an anathema if indeed we are constitutionalists and pragmatists. But unfortunately, people are ignoring the mobility of the population as indicated by the census result to claim that there are attempts to disenfranchise their people. Who then are the people? Let it be clear that where ever the people are there were they should be represented from in the House. So wherever the people moves, they literally take there seats with them there. It is on the basis of accepted threshold that our constituencies are carved, and subdivisions that do not meet the accepted threshold are given some guarantees to be represented with specific amount of representatives.
The results of the 2008 census tell that we are a little over 3.5 million with some counties densely populated and some sparsely populated. If the 20, 000 provision is to be adhered to, then we will have to open up for a constitutional referendum or revision, but where in the constitution provided that the legislature can adjust the representation in the House to a number not exceeding one hundred, it is prudent that the given threshold of 45,000 per constituency be used and that every county be guaranteed with at least 2 seats regardless of populations. The number of representation per county is not in any way an indicator of development or economic growth for such county; it is the quality of the representation which is underpinned by the integrity, political-will and competence of the representative occupying the seat that makes the lawmaking effective and credible.
In fact, there are arguments now that the more there are people on a decision or lawmaking body, the less functional and effective it becomes in making executive and influential decisions, and conversely. That is why conservatives are robustly challenging the proposals of increasing the members of the United Nations Security Council from 15.
Finally, this era must be considered as an era of reformation, and we must now begin to put forth arguments and proposals that will benefit the national interest, instead of thriving on trivialities on the basis of regional divides. I hope that one day we will all make laws and say that this will benefit the country and not the county.
-In the Cause of Democracy and Social Justice, the Pen shall never Run Dry-
The American 2008 Elections: What Can Africans Do? And Why?
Ibrahim Al-bakri Nyei
002315694498 / pericle925@yahoo.com
INTRODUCTION
The United States plays a dominant role in the political and economic governing systems of the world. Since the collapsed of the Soviet Union or the virtual end of the Cold War, the United States controls a unipolar world with all power, including those of continental and regional economic and political groupings, directed by the dictates of the U.S. This control of the world systems by the U.S. has created a de facto world empire with its president being the de facto world emperor. The critical question or issue this fourth edition of this series seeks to address is the role of Africans, mainly Liberians, in the ensuing elections of November 2008. Plainly this paper intends to critically know ‘what should be the role of Africans (Liberians) in determining the leadership of this de facto world empire’. It began by briefly citing cases of the United States and the activities its presidents in directing the world to their whims.
The U.S. As A World Empire
The fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold marked by the apparent success of the U.S. Doctrine of Containment saw the emergence of the United States of America as the superpower of the world since 1991. This supremacy by the U.S. is not just based on military dominance. It extends to the economy, currency, lifestyle and the product of mass culture. In the exertion of its role as a supreme power in world’s affairs, the U.S. contributes about 22 percent of the budget of the world governing body, the United Nations. As such it claims a position of unlimited power to act, and to defy any resolution that restricts it in pursuing its foreign policy objectives and goals. This status of unchallenged dominance and economic supremacy has given the U.S. a considerable edge in deciding the policies of the U.N. and the future or destinies of its members - sovereign states of the world.
The United States, in its quest to sustain its role and remain influential in all aspects of world politics and economy have established trade and military missions around the world, and at the same time striving to dismantle potential threats against its existence as a superpower. At present, it leads the world in an ‘anti-terrorist’ war and donates huge sums of money in building ‘democracies’ in other nations. The U.S in 2003 led a coalition of forces and dethroned the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. In 1994 the U.S. forced the military ruler of Haiti to relinquish power to the democratically elected president they had overthrown. A U.S. peacekeeping force later followed to oversee the return of democracy in Haiti. Towards its emergence as the sole superpower in 1989, U.S. troops invaded Panama and overthrew the government of Gen. Manuel Noriega, whom it had accused of aiding international cocaine trade.
In the continual effort of exerting itself as a world power, it plays major roles in developing world torn nations and disadvantaged countries. The United States Agency for International Development and other U.S funded institutions currently work on major development and peace building programs around the world. Liberia and many African countries are typical beneficiaries.
This control and direction of the world by this one nation (the United States) makes it an imperative for every other nation, sovereign or independent, to be very circumspect and concerned about political development in that one nation.
The U.S. President, A world Emperor
The president of the United States is the custodian of its sovereignty and director of its foreign policy. With such a domineering role in global politics and economy, the President assumes the role of a ‘world leader’, or a ‘world emperor’.
The major foreign policy doctrines executed by the U.S were the makings of the presidency. And these policies have forced other countries, mainly third world countries like Liberia and its African neighbors to take directions that suit the activities of the foreign policies of the U.S. It had also caused contraction, congestion or expansion of our policies, and sometimes leads to utter failures due to the incompatibility of the policies, the environment and the practical reality. But in all, successes have been reported in some instances.
However, the U.S. presidency had been concerned with pursuing foreign policy objectives that will to the best of all, secure U.S. domestic and international interests in trade, military and political diplomacy. Immediately after independence, President George Washington declared a policy of isolationism, a policy built on the principle of avoiding formal military and political alliance with other countries. But this policy was abandoned in 1941 when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The U.S. then embraced the war against the Axis Power and adopted a policy of Globalism, the idea that the United States should be prepared to use military and economic force around the globe to defend its political and economic interests.
In the pursuit of the policy of Globalism, President Harry Truman sent U.S. troops in Greece in 1947 to counter the Communist guerilla war against the people of Greece. That was directly a way of containing communist expansionism against the interests of the United States. President Truman then propounded his famous doctrine as he strived to be a world emperor: “The U.S. must support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or pressure.”
Let the 21st Century (the present) be our concern now at this point. The beginning of this century has indeed witnessed international development and the grandiloquent influence of the United States as the growth of a ‘world empire’, and the president, George W. Bush, a ‘world emperor’. His policies, both domestic and foreign, have in some particular way, affected every nation, particularly those of the third world category-Liberia and her African neighbors. His declared war against ‘terror’ had kept the world political system busy with confrontations and rough diplomacies; and the economy fluctuating among recession, collapse and stabilization, while social values erode invariably.
The Bush Presidency has introduced a tradition, and his retirement is of global focus as the race for his successor is portraying. He actually accentuated and exerted himself as a world leader in many instances by issuing ultimatums. In March 2003 he mandated that “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours, their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing”. Saddam’s refusal led to that conflict and it is ongoing with uncountable casualties to both sides, and at the expense of the world economy. In July of the same year, after several efforts had failed to end the bloodletting in the city if Monrovia (Liberia), Bush intervened strongly by declaring: "In order for there to be peace and stability in Liberia, Charles Taylor needs to leave now." That intervention probably brought an end to the street fighting between government militias and rebel forces. With what his presidency introduced, every African has been concerned as to what happens after him, thus everyone will want to know exactly what are the qualities of his successor and what level of impact will there lives be affected with. What are his plans for Africa? More to that are questions like ‘will there be a diversion, modification, or adjustment to the Bush style of leadership’.
CONCLUSION: What Can Africa Do?
This inquiry may sound laughable. But it is important to take note of the above exposé, though abridged, of what the U.S does and what its presidents do, and in relations to the current world unipolar political order.
Africa, from all aspects of developments, is affected by decisions made in the U.S. mainly as the world becomes a global village with the U.S controlling the strongest global financial institutions – the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Using Liberia as a point here, it is important to note that Liberians use both the U.S Dollar and the Liberian Dollar as legal tenders with the U.S. Dollar valued very high and considered with preference. U.S local policies affect Liberia. There are thousands of Liberians living on incomes earned by families residing in the U.S.
The U.S. diversity Visa program makes thousands of Africans to travel and settle in the United States every year. Some who called themselves ‘the totally successful’ in the program abandoned their nationalities for U.S. citizenships. But these people maintain regular ties home. They have roles to play in the elections. These people will have to join a campaign for a president that will help, using the traditional influence of the U.S. presidency, bring relief to the peoples of Africa by advocating and implementing sound policies that will lead to progressive development in Africa. Africans home are also to call on their relatives in the U.S. to join a side, a side that is an African-focused side, because this side will be concerned about developments in Africa rather than aid. That could lead to a U.S development package for Africa as the Marshall Plan was there for Europe after World War II.
With the level of progress taken place on the African Continent, Western Media focused mostly on the worst side of Africa thereby giving the world a terrible look at the continent. This is to explain how the media works in making things look their way. African media houses will have to join the elections and give more coverage to the side that will help give Africa a good look on the International scene. Media houses must carry more advertisement and publicity to capture the people’s attention on the candidate most needed now to take the problem of the African peoples at the workings of American bureaucracies.
Than all other things, African leaders and technocrats must get themselves set for the new order that may result from the ensuing elections. The result may have the proclivity to chart a different course on the continent. Changes on the right side of the plane must be accepted, while those to left that undermine African cultures and systems must be rejected with decisiveness. Africans must also follow the electoral process with curiosity to understand how a mature system works without organized fraud that stimulates violence and casualties. It will also be good to learn from the lapses of the process and build on ours.
002315694498 / pericle925@yahoo.com
INTRODUCTION
The United States plays a dominant role in the political and economic governing systems of the world. Since the collapsed of the Soviet Union or the virtual end of the Cold War, the United States controls a unipolar world with all power, including those of continental and regional economic and political groupings, directed by the dictates of the U.S. This control of the world systems by the U.S. has created a de facto world empire with its president being the de facto world emperor. The critical question or issue this fourth edition of this series seeks to address is the role of Africans, mainly Liberians, in the ensuing elections of November 2008. Plainly this paper intends to critically know ‘what should be the role of Africans (Liberians) in determining the leadership of this de facto world empire’. It began by briefly citing cases of the United States and the activities its presidents in directing the world to their whims.
The U.S. As A World Empire
The fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold marked by the apparent success of the U.S. Doctrine of Containment saw the emergence of the United States of America as the superpower of the world since 1991. This supremacy by the U.S. is not just based on military dominance. It extends to the economy, currency, lifestyle and the product of mass culture. In the exertion of its role as a supreme power in world’s affairs, the U.S. contributes about 22 percent of the budget of the world governing body, the United Nations. As such it claims a position of unlimited power to act, and to defy any resolution that restricts it in pursuing its foreign policy objectives and goals. This status of unchallenged dominance and economic supremacy has given the U.S. a considerable edge in deciding the policies of the U.N. and the future or destinies of its members - sovereign states of the world.
The United States, in its quest to sustain its role and remain influential in all aspects of world politics and economy have established trade and military missions around the world, and at the same time striving to dismantle potential threats against its existence as a superpower. At present, it leads the world in an ‘anti-terrorist’ war and donates huge sums of money in building ‘democracies’ in other nations. The U.S in 2003 led a coalition of forces and dethroned the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. In 1994 the U.S. forced the military ruler of Haiti to relinquish power to the democratically elected president they had overthrown. A U.S. peacekeeping force later followed to oversee the return of democracy in Haiti. Towards its emergence as the sole superpower in 1989, U.S. troops invaded Panama and overthrew the government of Gen. Manuel Noriega, whom it had accused of aiding international cocaine trade.
In the continual effort of exerting itself as a world power, it plays major roles in developing world torn nations and disadvantaged countries. The United States Agency for International Development and other U.S funded institutions currently work on major development and peace building programs around the world. Liberia and many African countries are typical beneficiaries.
This control and direction of the world by this one nation (the United States) makes it an imperative for every other nation, sovereign or independent, to be very circumspect and concerned about political development in that one nation.
The U.S. President, A world Emperor
The president of the United States is the custodian of its sovereignty and director of its foreign policy. With such a domineering role in global politics and economy, the President assumes the role of a ‘world leader’, or a ‘world emperor’.
The major foreign policy doctrines executed by the U.S were the makings of the presidency. And these policies have forced other countries, mainly third world countries like Liberia and its African neighbors to take directions that suit the activities of the foreign policies of the U.S. It had also caused contraction, congestion or expansion of our policies, and sometimes leads to utter failures due to the incompatibility of the policies, the environment and the practical reality. But in all, successes have been reported in some instances.
However, the U.S. presidency had been concerned with pursuing foreign policy objectives that will to the best of all, secure U.S. domestic and international interests in trade, military and political diplomacy. Immediately after independence, President George Washington declared a policy of isolationism, a policy built on the principle of avoiding formal military and political alliance with other countries. But this policy was abandoned in 1941 when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The U.S. then embraced the war against the Axis Power and adopted a policy of Globalism, the idea that the United States should be prepared to use military and economic force around the globe to defend its political and economic interests.
In the pursuit of the policy of Globalism, President Harry Truman sent U.S. troops in Greece in 1947 to counter the Communist guerilla war against the people of Greece. That was directly a way of containing communist expansionism against the interests of the United States. President Truman then propounded his famous doctrine as he strived to be a world emperor: “The U.S. must support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or pressure.”
Let the 21st Century (the present) be our concern now at this point. The beginning of this century has indeed witnessed international development and the grandiloquent influence of the United States as the growth of a ‘world empire’, and the president, George W. Bush, a ‘world emperor’. His policies, both domestic and foreign, have in some particular way, affected every nation, particularly those of the third world category-Liberia and her African neighbors. His declared war against ‘terror’ had kept the world political system busy with confrontations and rough diplomacies; and the economy fluctuating among recession, collapse and stabilization, while social values erode invariably.
The Bush Presidency has introduced a tradition, and his retirement is of global focus as the race for his successor is portraying. He actually accentuated and exerted himself as a world leader in many instances by issuing ultimatums. In March 2003 he mandated that “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours, their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing”. Saddam’s refusal led to that conflict and it is ongoing with uncountable casualties to both sides, and at the expense of the world economy. In July of the same year, after several efforts had failed to end the bloodletting in the city if Monrovia (Liberia), Bush intervened strongly by declaring: "In order for there to be peace and stability in Liberia, Charles Taylor needs to leave now." That intervention probably brought an end to the street fighting between government militias and rebel forces. With what his presidency introduced, every African has been concerned as to what happens after him, thus everyone will want to know exactly what are the qualities of his successor and what level of impact will there lives be affected with. What are his plans for Africa? More to that are questions like ‘will there be a diversion, modification, or adjustment to the Bush style of leadership’.
CONCLUSION: What Can Africa Do?
This inquiry may sound laughable. But it is important to take note of the above exposé, though abridged, of what the U.S does and what its presidents do, and in relations to the current world unipolar political order.
Africa, from all aspects of developments, is affected by decisions made in the U.S. mainly as the world becomes a global village with the U.S controlling the strongest global financial institutions – the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Using Liberia as a point here, it is important to note that Liberians use both the U.S Dollar and the Liberian Dollar as legal tenders with the U.S. Dollar valued very high and considered with preference. U.S local policies affect Liberia. There are thousands of Liberians living on incomes earned by families residing in the U.S.
The U.S. diversity Visa program makes thousands of Africans to travel and settle in the United States every year. Some who called themselves ‘the totally successful’ in the program abandoned their nationalities for U.S. citizenships. But these people maintain regular ties home. They have roles to play in the elections. These people will have to join a campaign for a president that will help, using the traditional influence of the U.S. presidency, bring relief to the peoples of Africa by advocating and implementing sound policies that will lead to progressive development in Africa. Africans home are also to call on their relatives in the U.S. to join a side, a side that is an African-focused side, because this side will be concerned about developments in Africa rather than aid. That could lead to a U.S development package for Africa as the Marshall Plan was there for Europe after World War II.
With the level of progress taken place on the African Continent, Western Media focused mostly on the worst side of Africa thereby giving the world a terrible look at the continent. This is to explain how the media works in making things look their way. African media houses will have to join the elections and give more coverage to the side that will help give Africa a good look on the International scene. Media houses must carry more advertisement and publicity to capture the people’s attention on the candidate most needed now to take the problem of the African peoples at the workings of American bureaucracies.
Than all other things, African leaders and technocrats must get themselves set for the new order that may result from the ensuing elections. The result may have the proclivity to chart a different course on the continent. Changes on the right side of the plane must be accepted, while those to left that undermine African cultures and systems must be rejected with decisiveness. Africans must also follow the electoral process with curiosity to understand how a mature system works without organized fraud that stimulates violence and casualties. It will also be good to learn from the lapses of the process and build on ours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
