It is not yet uhuru in most of Africa!
Jan 28, 2004
On Tuesday night Tory (not Tony) Blair ‘won’ the second reading for a controversial Bill on Higher Education (popularly known as University Top- up fees) by a margin of 316: 311
Thursday Postcard
By Abdul Raheem Tajudeen
On Tuesday night Tory (not Tony) Blair ‘won’ the second reading for a controversial Bill on Higher Education (popularly known as University Top- up fees) by a margin of 316: 311.
For a government which won a re-election, just over two years ago, with a landslide of more than 160 absolute majority to be reduced to a majority of five in parliament on a bill on which the prime minister staked his personal authority, prestige and power is very significant for Blair, his government, his party and his country.
The international community’s interest in Britain is largely no longer because of economic, geopolitical or military strength but due to the loyal lieutenant role it has assigned to itself in relation to the rest of the world in dealing with Washington especially the provincial hawks in power at the moment who seem unable to communicate with anybody else internationally.
This so-called special relationship has helped a declined former imperial power to remain relevant far above its greatly reduced economic and military power. Britain is today a tired ex-this ex-that country which is boxing above its weight internationally by pretending to be in a joint ride with its former colony, now global power, the United States of America (USA).
Under Clinton, it was easy for Blair to do his public relations job for the US but with the Bush gangsters too much incredulity has set in. However, Blair has displayed a remarkable capacity to identify with anything from Washington that his government, party and country are embarrassed by it. Iraq was of course the deciding event.
Against party and country and most of the international community Blair stood ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with Bush. Even after the Bush gangsters have stopped repeating the same mantra of ‘imminent and present danger’ and the global threat posed by Saddam’s alleged possession (now proven to be false and deliberately so from the start) of weapons of mass destruction Blair the poodle continues to insist that ‘they will be found’.
He is the only person left in the wide world who believes that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. His waning authority internationally has strengthened his political opponents at home both within his party and outside it and also the country at large.
He can only go down, not up anymore. It is a question of when, not if Blair leaves. His career is very much similar to that of his adopted mother, the milk-snatcher-turned-iron -lady otherwise known as Margaret Thatcher.
She gained notoriety by going against the grain and became consumed by her passion for doing the impossible that she woke up everyday looking for what war to fight with whatever social group her whims dictated.
It was fine for a while but she tested the British to the limits and provoked social discord and riots on the streets. She became a divisive factor and her party got rid of her before the country got rid of them. In a situation like that in most of Africa (but hopefully irreversibly changing now) the only alternative would have been a military coup because of the weaknesses of our party system and political institutions.
In how many countries in Africa would the kind of legislative power exercised by the British House of Commons have been exercised? Yes, Blair got his way, at last but not without sweat, contrition, dialogue, give and take and assurances about further possible concessions.
The legislators in general but those rebels in his party in particular showed that loyalty to principles, the party and the country is not the same as being a stooge of the leader. In many of our countries the concept of ‘loyal opposition’ is still unacceptable because we see opposition as ‘enemies’ who have to be destroyed.
Thus, instead of opposition we see ‘traitors’, ‘enemies’, ‘saboteurs’ , ‘security risk’ and other terms which criminalises dissension thereby impoverishing our democratic culture.
By no means are these anti- democratic culture specifically African though. Ask any thinking American since 9/11 and he/she will tell you how any doubt no matter how reasonable, about Bush, is now treated as ‘treason’, sympathy to terrorism’ and ‘unpatriotic’.
There are many lessons for us in Africa about Blair’s unhappy times. One, a single tree does not make a forest therefore no matter how smart leaders believe (or are told) they are they should listen and consult.
Two, democracy is about building coalitions and respecting the legal and political boundaries of checks and balances of the system not riding roughshod over other sectors of governance.
Three, legislators have the obligation (whether they are from ruling party or opposition) to hold the executive accountable to the voters. Along with a fearless judiciary and a very vibrant media and active citizenry, the democratic space can both be defended and expanded.
It is also crucial that in a competitive electoral democracy to have democratic political parties and democratic members that do not consider disagreement ‘treasonable’ and are empowered to dissent on principle without fearing loss of position, status, economic opportunities or worse still, a knock on their doors at night.
Finally, the true test of a democratic system is the capacity of the citizens at elections or party members in congresses or conventions or elected representatives in parliament, to get rid of a leader who has passed his or her sell-by date.
On that score it is not yet Uhuru in most of Africa but the ceiling of tolerance for ‘elective dictators’, ‘benevolent dictators’ and other undemocratic leadership is getting higher for the leaders to be complacent.
By Abdul Raheem Tajudeen
On Tuesday night Tory (not Tony) Blair ‘won’ the second reading for a controversial Bill on Higher Education (popularly known as University Top- up fees) by a margin of 316: 311.
For a government which won a re-election, just over two years ago, with a landslide of more than 160 absolute majority to be reduced to a majority of five in parliament on a bill on which the prime minister staked his personal authority, prestige and power is very significant for Blair, his government, his party and his country.
The international community’s interest in Britain is largely no longer because of economic, geopolitical or military strength but due to the loyal lieutenant role it has assigned to itself in relation to the rest of the world in dealing with Washington especially the provincial hawks in power at the moment who seem unable to communicate with anybody else internationally.
This so-called special relationship has helped a declined former imperial power to remain relevant far above its greatly reduced economic and military power. Britain is today a tired ex-this ex-that country which is boxing above its weight internationally by pretending to be in a joint ride with its former colony, now global power, the United States of America (USA).
Under Clinton, it was easy for Blair to do his public relations job for the US but with the Bush gangsters too much incredulity has set in. However, Blair has displayed a remarkable capacity to identify with anything from Washington that his government, party and country are embarrassed by it. Iraq was of course the deciding event.
Against party and country and most of the international community Blair stood ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with Bush. Even after the Bush gangsters have stopped repeating the same mantra of ‘imminent and present danger’ and the global threat posed by Saddam’s alleged possession (now proven to be false and deliberately so from the start) of weapons of mass destruction Blair the poodle continues to insist that ‘they will be found’.
He is the only person left in the wide world who believes that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. His waning authority internationally has strengthened his political opponents at home both within his party and outside it and also the country at large.
He can only go down, not up anymore. It is a question of when, not if Blair leaves. His career is very much similar to that of his adopted mother, the milk-snatcher-turned-iron -lady otherwise known as Margaret Thatcher.
She gained notoriety by going against the grain and became consumed by her passion for doing the impossible that she woke up everyday looking for what war to fight with whatever social group her whims dictated.
It was fine for a while but she tested the British to the limits and provoked social discord and riots on the streets. She became a divisive factor and her party got rid of her before the country got rid of them. In a situation like that in most of Africa (but hopefully irreversibly changing now) the only alternative would have been a military coup because of the weaknesses of our party system and political institutions.
In how many countries in Africa would the kind of legislative power exercised by the British House of Commons have been exercised? Yes, Blair got his way, at last but not without sweat, contrition, dialogue, give and take and assurances about further possible concessions.
The legislators in general but those rebels in his party in particular showed that loyalty to principles, the party and the country is not the same as being a stooge of the leader. In many of our countries the concept of ‘loyal opposition’ is still unacceptable because we see opposition as ‘enemies’ who have to be destroyed.
Thus, instead of opposition we see ‘traitors’, ‘enemies’, ‘saboteurs’ , ‘security risk’ and other terms which criminalises dissension thereby impoverishing our democratic culture.
By no means are these anti- democratic culture specifically African though. Ask any thinking American since 9/11 and he/she will tell you how any doubt no matter how reasonable, about Bush, is now treated as ‘treason’, sympathy to terrorism’ and ‘unpatriotic’.
There are many lessons for us in Africa about Blair’s unhappy times. One, a single tree does not make a forest therefore no matter how smart leaders believe (or are told) they are they should listen and consult.
Two, democracy is about building coalitions and respecting the legal and political boundaries of checks and balances of the system not riding roughshod over other sectors of governance.
Three, legislators have the obligation (whether they are from ruling party or opposition) to hold the executive accountable to the voters. Along with a fearless judiciary and a very vibrant media and active citizenry, the democratic space can both be defended and expanded.
It is also crucial that in a competitive electoral democracy to have democratic political parties and democratic members that do not consider disagreement ‘treasonable’ and are empowered to dissent on principle without fearing loss of position, status, economic opportunities or worse still, a knock on their doors at night.
Finally, the true test of a democratic system is the capacity of the citizens at elections or party members in congresses or conventions or elected representatives in parliament, to get rid of a leader who has passed his or her sell-by date.
On that score it is not yet Uhuru in most of Africa but the ceiling of tolerance for ‘elective dictators’, ‘benevolent dictators’ and other undemocratic leadership is getting higher for the leaders to be complacent.