The late Professor Sam Aluko, a Nigerian economist, once
defined economics as “common sense that is not common”. Nigeria’s first
president, a quintessential political grandmaster, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe,
also posited that only a fool would argue with an armed man.
These aphorisms are applicable in politics, especially in the developing nations of Africa still moving in measured steps as they struggle to embrace the democratic system as a governance process. In more civilised climes, when there is a change in leadership, courtesy and protocol demand that an incumbent, who still wields the reins of power, authority and
influence, retain and enjoy all the rights and privileges of the office until the process is concluded with the incumbent handing over formally to the incoming leader.
The opposition in The Gambia did not quite assimilate this simple order of things that is now threatening to hurt their ambition to effect a change in the leadership of that tiny West African country. They did not appreciate, sufficiently, the fact that, in African politics until the Nigerian example in 2015, it is not enough to be declared winner. Victory is usually as defined by the man still in the saddle.
The president-elect and the presumed winner in that country’s
recently concluded election, Adama Barrow, and his coalition members are
beginning to behave as if they urgently need to enrol in the school of
common sense before assuming the presidency of their nation. When Yahya
Jammeh, after one of the perceived biggest election upsets West Africa
has ever seen, graciously conceded defeat even before the final result
was announced, Gambians who had expected him to cling to power were
pleasantly surprised at his decision. Just as apprehension persisted,
considering the president’s power-thirsty propensities, many around the
country and outside were, however, willing to give Jammeh the benefit of
the doubt, in the hope that democracy was beginning to take hold on the
continent and that incumbent losers are disposed to concede.
But in changing his mind, Jammeh may have responded to the first law of nature – the law of self-preservation – when the president-elect started threatening him and his family with a probe. When the opposition started threatening that as soon as they took over power they would probe his administration, Jammeh must have been naturally and genuinely rattled. The victors went on to promise that, to ensure that he did not escape, the borders would be closed and he and his cohorts would be arrested and tried. Barrow was also reported to have referred to Jammeh as a “soulless dictator” and promised to reverse some of his key actions. That threat of prosecution that went beyond speculation, under a new government, must have prompted Jammeh and the security and military leaders (who still took orders from him) to make a volte-face.
It is possible that the president did not intend to hang on to power. If actually he was interested in remaining in office, like most African leaders, he knew what to do before the results were published. He would not have waited, conceded defeat and then changed his mind.
Barrow and the opposition clearly have shown extreme immaturity. They have proved that they do not have what it takes to be magnanimous in victory. Demonstrating these weaknesses even before having the opportunity to take over the instruments of power and authority is, to all intents, not real-politick. Everywhere, not just in Africa, it is always painful for an incumbent to lose an election. It takes great statesmanship and love of country to concede.
It is pertinent to point out that opposition candidates defeating incumbents is an admirable new phase in African politics. This should be encouraged by all concerned. When the opposition in one African country wins, it should not behave in a way that makes it difficult for sitting presidents in other African countries to concede. That is exactly what Barrow is trying to do to Africa. But we advise him to retrace his steps. He should face the enormous task of rebuilding his country. That was why he was voted in; he was not voted in to probe his predecessor.
In any case, Barrow may soon find out that probing his predecessor could become a vicious cycle. And he would have wasted precious time and his hard-earned mandate at the end of it all.
These aphorisms are applicable in politics, especially in the developing nations of Africa still moving in measured steps as they struggle to embrace the democratic system as a governance process. In more civilised climes, when there is a change in leadership, courtesy and protocol demand that an incumbent, who still wields the reins of power, authority and
influence, retain and enjoy all the rights and privileges of the office until the process is concluded with the incumbent handing over formally to the incoming leader.
The opposition in The Gambia did not quite assimilate this simple order of things that is now threatening to hurt their ambition to effect a change in the leadership of that tiny West African country. They did not appreciate, sufficiently, the fact that, in African politics until the Nigerian example in 2015, it is not enough to be declared winner. Victory is usually as defined by the man still in the saddle.
But in changing his mind, Jammeh may have responded to the first law of nature – the law of self-preservation – when the president-elect started threatening him and his family with a probe. When the opposition started threatening that as soon as they took over power they would probe his administration, Jammeh must have been naturally and genuinely rattled. The victors went on to promise that, to ensure that he did not escape, the borders would be closed and he and his cohorts would be arrested and tried. Barrow was also reported to have referred to Jammeh as a “soulless dictator” and promised to reverse some of his key actions. That threat of prosecution that went beyond speculation, under a new government, must have prompted Jammeh and the security and military leaders (who still took orders from him) to make a volte-face.
It is possible that the president did not intend to hang on to power. If actually he was interested in remaining in office, like most African leaders, he knew what to do before the results were published. He would not have waited, conceded defeat and then changed his mind.
Barrow and the opposition clearly have shown extreme immaturity. They have proved that they do not have what it takes to be magnanimous in victory. Demonstrating these weaknesses even before having the opportunity to take over the instruments of power and authority is, to all intents, not real-politick. Everywhere, not just in Africa, it is always painful for an incumbent to lose an election. It takes great statesmanship and love of country to concede.
It is pertinent to point out that opposition candidates defeating incumbents is an admirable new phase in African politics. This should be encouraged by all concerned. When the opposition in one African country wins, it should not behave in a way that makes it difficult for sitting presidents in other African countries to concede. That is exactly what Barrow is trying to do to Africa. But we advise him to retrace his steps. He should face the enormous task of rebuilding his country. That was why he was voted in; he was not voted in to probe his predecessor.
In any case, Barrow may soon find out that probing his predecessor could become a vicious cycle. And he would have wasted precious time and his hard-earned mandate at the end of it all.
No comments:
Post a Comment