This question, which we consider legitimate in view of current events in the Maghreb countries, in Côte d’Ivoire, as well as for the upcoming elections on the African continent, provokes great anxiety among all those who benefit from our dictatorships.
At the end of our last column entitled “The underbelly of the decay of the Ivorian post-electoral crisis,” we mentioned the negative stances towards the desire for democracy in Africa by some participants at the last Davos summit, as reported by the Tribune de Genève.
According to The New York Times, several Western observers also express reservations about the revolutions in the Arab countries and the desire for democracy in Africa in general. For a long time, the dominant thought among Western powers was to say that “Africa is not yet ready for democracy.” In fact, “it’s better to have a controlled dictatorship than an uncontrolled democracy in which Islamists could emerge and threaten their freedom and that of Israel.”
President Jacques Chirac said a few years ago that “democracy was not made for African peoples.” The intellectuals from African countries then collectively rose to vehemently protest against this statement by the former French head of state. Are some peoples, therefore, incompatible with democracy?
The revolutions of the youth in Arab countries seem to provide an initial answer. Now, everything seems possible. The youth of the African continent, increasingly facing job uncertainty, must become the architects of their own future and destiny. Thanks to new information and communication technologies, in just one click, an information piece, a directive, a movement can become a formidable weapon, which autocratic powers on the continent seem to begin to integrate.
-In Tunisia, the self-immolation of a young man was enough to create a political earthquake in the Arab world.
In Côte d’Ivoire, the killing of several women by L. Gbagbo’s defense and security forces could be a trigger for a movement towards democracy and individual and collective freedoms. This barbarity again turned the spotlight of international media on this country in full disintegration.
“Incestuous” relationship between African dictatorships and Western powers
The idea that “it’s better to have a controlled dictatorship than an uncontrolled democracy where Islamists could emerge and threaten Western freedoms and that of Israel” is completely demagogic and anti-democratic.
This line of thought has allowed African dictators, especially from the Maghreb, to extend their power by manipulating this fantasy, which suited Westerners well in their business relations with these corrupt regimes. Remember, in 1992, no one bet on the Islamist victory in Algeria during the legislative elections. This election, organized by those in power, was conducted according to democratic rules. To everyone’s surprise, the Islamists won. Their victory was simply annulled under the pretext that they posed a threat to democracy.
But a threat to whom? To Westerners? To Israel? Or to the majority of Algerians who wanted, in a democratic protest movement, to punish the corrupt powers in place since independence, which was gained in pain and blood? By depriving these Islamists of their honestly won victory at the polls, didn’t it encourage their radicalization and scorn the democratic expression of the majority of the Algerian people? In their electoral campaign program, these Islamists openly announced their intention to review the various oil and gas contracts with their Western partners. Perhaps the key to this democratic denial can be found in this intent, interpreted by Western powers as a threat to their economies and profits.
The same scenario also occurred in Congo in 1997. President Pascal Lissouba came to power through universal suffrage, regularly defeating the dictator Sassou N’guesso. He too wanted to revise his country’s contracts with the ELF-Congo company. This legitimate desire sparked a civil war, allowing Sassou N’guesso to return to power. As a result, the contracts his adversary wanted to renegotiate in favor of his country were maintained in ELF’s favor. According to The New-York Times, this election, which ended years of dictatorship of Sassou N’guesso’s first presidency, was “the deadliest conflict since World War II.”
This macabre observation sends chills down the spine. These “incestuous” relations between African dictatorships and Western powers continue to enable the exploitation of these countries’ resources without any control. The presidential regimes in place in Africa are akin to monarchical regimes where “the sovereign,” in his absolute omnipotence, has all the rights, without any parliamentary or other national institution control.
These rebellion movements and the desire for democracy, therefore, create uncertainties about the outcomes of these revolutions and changes in mentality, causing terrible anxiety in certain Western circles.
Concerns of emerging countries, called BRICS
Today, it is the so-called “emerging” countries, known as B.R.I.C.S (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), which are using their influence on the continent to establish their power and geopolitical positioning on the international stage. They are even more ruthless than the former colonial powers who exploited our resources to their advantage with a sense of unhealthy affection and benevolence.
These new “predators” are all permanent (Russia and China) and non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Their power in terms of economics is often decisive in the council’s resolutions.
Do countries like Russia, China, or India really have an interest in seeing genuine democracies emerge in Africa, at the expense of their numerous investments favored by these dictators?
In the Ivorian post-electoral crisis, one can see how much South Africa has become a key player in the crisis resolution. Jacob Zuma’s recent visit to the Élysée as part of the G20 consultations, of which his country is a member, allows him to play his own “positioning card” on the international stage through this mediation, which looks more like a sham. Jacob Zuma seems to be raising the stakes by giving the impression of supporting L. Gbagbo against the international community. This strategy can allow him to better negotiate for a Permanent Member seat at the UN Security Council. For this, he knows he must have France’s support, which advocates a “Permanent Member seat” for a country on the African continent. Thus, one can imagine that he might raise the stakes very high to obtain what he wants. This double strategic game by South Africa confuses and raises tension in Côte d’Ivoire.
-Result: local actors no longer hope for anything from this mediation, which they experience as a sham, and seem to have decided to find their own crisis resolution.
Unfortunately for the Ivorians, the military solution seems today the only possible way to enforce the results of universal suffrage. Each camp remains fixed on its positions while the UN troops, supposed to protect the population, remain powerless and humiliated.
