Sarkozy to the Rescue: Lessons to Unlearn By Abimbola Lagunju

Sometime at the end of October, a plane with a group of 6 French Aid Workers, 3 French journalists, 2 Spanish pilots and 4 members of crew and a Belgian were arrested while trying to fly out 103 children who the Chadian authorities claim to have been abducted by the French aid workers.

As the story unfolded, it was found out that the children were not Darfuri orphans as claimed by the aid workers, but Chadian children with living parents and relatives. It turned out that these aid workers had, under false pretences, convinced the parents of these children to entrust them to their care for education in nearby towns.

While the drama of arrest of the group was going on in the town of Abeche, unsuspecting French foster parents of these “orphans” were waiting anxiously in the airport for the arrival of the plane bearing their foster children. Each of these foster parents had indeed been made to pay some money in advance by the “charity association” for the “logistics and administration” of bringing the children over from Africa.

There is no doubt that this looks and smells like an advanced case of 419. Not having famous section in their Criminal Code, the Chadian authorities immediately charged the group with “abduction,” “kidnapping” and “conspiracy to traffic” children. In Nigeria, the group would also have been charged under the 419 code in addition to the two Chadian charges. In the spirit of good neighbourliness and African fraternity, Nigerian authorities will do well in sharing this famous code with their Chadian counterparts in order to increase the burden of guilt on future adventurers.

Enter the French president! On hearing the case, Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy acted the judge. He said “I think they were wrong to do what they did.” This gave a cue to his Chadian counterpart, who delved into history books and declared “they treat us like animals….it is dreadful, I am revolted. I cannot accept it….here is the truth about this Europe that portrays itself as helping, this Europe which seeks to give lessons to Africa.” He vowed that the culprits would be punished according to Chadian laws. Mr. Idriss Deby also acted the judge.

About a week after the incident occurred, Mr. Sarkozy went to Chad and by the evening of the same the day he was flying back to France via Spain with seven of the detainees – three journalists and four Spanish hostesses. Somehow, the two judges in a private Ndjamena court session, probably over lunch, decided on the case. They acquitted some and decided to review the case of the others at a probable next sitting. Mr. Sarkozy, apparently the senior judge, later declared that the others would be released whatever the outcome of the sidelined Chadian courts. According to BBC, the French president said he would go again to Chad “and bring back those who stayed behind, regardless of what they have done.”

It is indeed laudable that a president passionately seeks to protect its citizens in any part of the world “regardless of what they have done,” however the behaviour of Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy in the management of this crisis needs an analysis in the light of the utterance of Idriss Deby that Europe seeks to give lessons to Africa. Here, there are some examples of lessons which have to be unlearnt. Firstly, the French president usurped the role of courts of law. He became the law himself and pronounced the group of sixteen guilty. Then he appealed his own judgement and reversed his decision about the collective guilt. Mr. Sarkozy acted as if France did not have any institutions in place to handle the matter.

Secondly, not satisfied with usurping the role of the President of the Supreme Court of France, he also took over the role of the Ministry of foreign affairs. He became the Ambassador and the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the same time. He personally took the four hostesses to Madrid and ceremoniously handed them over to the Spanish Prime Minister. This was not the first time that Monsieur Sarkozy would assume all these roles. The whole world was astonished when a few weeks after assuming office, he was able, through his ex-wife, to secure the release of 5 Bulgarian nurses and one Palestinian doctor who had been accused of infecting over four hundred Libyan children with HIV virus and had been sentenced to death. The six medics were also flown in the French presidential jet to Sofia. Even the European Union was surprised.

It beats the wildest imagination that any African president, whose citizens have been found to have contravened the laws of a western country will fly to the country to directly “negotiate” the release of the citizens. He will probably meet with a very junior official without an office space. And he will be given loads and loads of lectures on the respect of the rule of law to take back with him on his return trip. Is it imaginable that an African president, under any circumstances, whether in a foreign land or in his own country, could have taken these Sarkozy steps without being flayed by the world press for not respecting the rule of law? He would have been given names like “strongman,” or “dictator” to transmit the image that he tramples over all the institutions in his country. One cannot help but think of Monsieur Sarkozy as a strongman too. An international strongman, that tramples not only upon the institutions of his own country, but also of other countries, and in this case, the institutions of a poor African country to which “Europe seeks to give lessons.”

The Mo Ibrahim Foundation African Leadership Prize – An absurdity By Abimbola Lagunju

Created in October 2006, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation launched a five-million dollar prize for “good governance” for leaders of African countries. This African Leadership Award has as its potential beneficiary, any elected African leader that voluntarily steps down at the expiration of his term. Mo Ibrahim says the prize is to discourage African leaders from clinging to power at all costs, to encourage good governance and discourage corruption.

Three key words/phrases, namely “elected,” “good governance,” and “step down” figure prominently in the qualification requirements for this award. “Elected” presupposes an election process, an exercise during which the people of a country decide who they want to lead them. It is a ceremony of the signing of a contract; an employment contract with the conditions that the leader, the employee of the people will, during his term of office deliver goods of public interest to his employers. A condition sine qua non for the validity of any contract, its monitoring and successful execution is that both signing parties fully understand the conditions of their agreement. This is a mandatory first step in signing any agreement. Herein lies the root of good governance. In Africa, it is generally presumed that the mere process of going to the polls in the presence of observers, both local and international implies that the employer and the employee fully understand their duties and obligations in the contract. The Constitution, a complicated document only interpretable by the best minds in the legal profession and often written in the adopted official European language of the country is put on the table as the people’s conditions for the contract with a would-be leader. In a largely illiterate population, it goes without saying that the people, the employers, have no notion of the terms of their own contract. Needless to say that they do not have an informed knowledge of what steps and procedures to undertake when their employee flagrantly breaches the conditions of the contract. They are invited out in a jamboree, in the name of “democracy” to put their hands on a document which they do not understand; and by so doing, the beneficiary of this manipulative exercise claims his dubious legitimacy. The employee, armed with the foreknowledge that his employers have little or no idea of the terms of his employment, buys out the vocal dissenting few through juicy appointments or outright bribery and then puts the majority at his mercy. The international community then comes to the “rescue” of the employers when the employee betrays them. In the process of the “rescue,” very often, the employers are sidelined by the rescuers and the people do not understand the role of the “rescuers”. The “rescuers” may be seen by the historically traumatized majority as interfering in their internal affairs or having a neo-colonizing agenda. The plundered employers then take sides with their merciless employee.

The use of any form of inducement, financial or international recognition to supplicate the leader (employee) not to mangle his employers (the people) does not solve the basic problem of lack of understanding of the conditions of the contract by the employers. The employers need to be assisted to fully understand the duties and obligations of their employees and must be empowered to take appropriate actions against defaulting employees. Mo Ibrahim’s prize does not address this fundamental need. Rather it seeks to reward the employee according to its own criteria. It is not clear if this prize is supposed to represent the gratitude of the people for the execution of a contract of which they have no notion. Or is it a token of appreciation of the foreign arbiters of democracy? Or is it a belated reward for unchecked economic predation under the guise of “liberalizing the economy”? This huge sum, (which some African States crawl on their faces to get from creditors) can strengthen democracy by empowering the people. And one way of doing this is to translate the Contract agreement (the Constitution) into diverse languages of the different nations that make up our continent, so that people in the remotest rural villages will understand the duties and obligations of their leaders, and will be able to clearly differentiate rights from privileges.

“Good governance” is not a gift that the employee bestows on his employers. It is not a privilege to be given or withdrawn at the whims of the leader. It is a right of the people. It is the very foundation of the contract that links the people with their leader. Rewarding a leader for “good governance” reduces the concept to a prerogative of the leader; to be bestowed or not. It confuses right with privilege; and reinforces the existing confusion of these two concepts, not only in the minds of the leaders, but also in the minds of the people. If there would be any prize at all for good governance, it should go to the people for demanding this right from their leaders and for ascertaining that the leader does not confuse his obligations and duties with “benevolence” as is the case in contemporary African “democracies.”

The Mo Ibrahim Foundation African Leadership Prize also seeks to discourage corruption by African leaders. In Mo Ibrahim’s words, “few Africa States can afford to provide their ex-leaders with money to enjoy a comfortable retirement,” and his prize seeks to redress this! In order to discourage African leaders from dipping their hands in to the public purse, Mo Ibrahim Foundation will provide comfortable retirement funds for them!

Firstly, it is not the responsibility of a corporate mogul to reward a former employee of the people. If the leader serves the people according to the letter of the contract of his employment with them, then he and his family will forever enjoy the goodwill of the people after the leader has stepped down. Julius Nyerere, Thomas Sankara and Samora Machel are such examples of leaders whose children, grandchildren and generations to come will always enjoy the goodwill of African peoples. The recent 20th anniversary of the death of Thomas Sankara that attracted thousands and mobilized the solidarity of millions beyond the borders of Burkina Faso is a good example. Mo Ibrahim Foundation’s extravagant five million dollar prize can never buy this goodwill.

Secondly, the targeted leader is not the only public servant that at one time or the other will have to go into voluntary or forced retirement. So what happens to the others? The prime ministers, the governors, the ministers, the district administrators and the whole army of the civil service? Do they not deserve “a comfortable retirement” too? By singling out the president for this award, this Foundation has reduced the whole democratic process to the person of the leader only. The leader is the embodiment of democracy! Everything begins and ends with the president. This reductive prize contradicts the spirit of democracy itself.

Thirdly, how much will the dangling of the carrot of this prize in the faces of serving African presidents influence them to facilitate their nations’ markets for Celtel of which Mo Ibrahim is the chairman and an important shareholder in expectation of this lavish prize? It is an indirect way of currying favours with serving African leaders. The Mo Ibrahim Foundation may be accused of what it claims it wants to eradicate.

Corporate social responsibility is not an investment in a serving or in an ex-leader. Provision of useful social services, the strengthening of democratic institutions and the true empowerment of the people constitute some useful examples of corporate social responsibility.

The Mo Ibrahim Foundation African Leadership Prize should be scrapped. The people come first, not their employees.

World Social Forum Nairobi 2007. My views.

World Social Forum 2007 - My thoughts on the Slogan "Another World is Possible"

I couldn’t help but to think that many governments must have been wondering why the idea of social forum has not died and what the teeming masses of “representatives” of the oppressed peoples of the world gathered at the World Social Forum in Nairobi between 20th and 25th January 2007 were actually discussing. They must have been asking the same question that we ask them: “Do these civil society groups have the legitimacy to speak or act on other peoples’ behalf?” A big question by all means. A question of legitimacy versus legitimacy. A question of “relativeness” - who is more legitimate, the civil society without a flag or the governments with their flag of democracy and their delusory consent of the governed?

The banners were many, indeed of many sizes, colours and with strident messages on as many diverse issues: minority rights, slum dwellers’ rights, children’s rights, women’s rights, religious rights, gay rights etc. and even the civil society’s rights. Interestingly, there was no banner on “majority” rights –the very argument, from which “democratic” governments claim to derive their illusory legitimacy. When all the banners (which I suspect, if stitched together will stretch all the way from Nairobi to Washington) and their messages are added together, then the question of where the so-called “consent of the governed” taunted by these governments came from arises. This generalized discontentment brings the practice of democracy under question. It appears that democracy has taken on a new definition: the government of the people by some people to the detriment of the people. Indeed, there is something fundamentally wrong with the democracy structure. The legion of discontentments of the governed (not only from “oppressive” and "underdeveloped" countries, but also from “functional democracies”) manifested at the WSF underscores the irresponsibility of those entrusted with power. Political responsibility towards the governed has become only a malleable rhetoric. Goods of public interests are ignored at will, and the general welfare of the governed and their environment are sacrificed for a variety of reasons, ranging from poverty in the south to security in the north. If those in power had any legitimacy at any point at all, they have squandered their representation-legitimacy capital and have no moral right to claim the contrary under any guise.

An analogy can be drawn between their democracy and a building: Imagine for a moment a beautifully painted multi-storey building with the windows falling out, the walls cracking, the plumbing rotten and leaking, the electrical system short-circuiting, the doors broken and a part of the roof caving in. The tenants are in an uproar. The guards ignore them, and with their state of the art digital cameras, the guards take pictures of the edifice from a distance, touch up the images on their computers, and print out very fanciful post cards and brochures, which they sell to unsuspecting willing and unwilling prospective tenants. These brochures do not mention the state of the building. The state of the building continues to deteriorate. There is no doubt that there is an urgent need to do something before many lives are lost. Firstly, there is no doubt that the contractors and the builders did a shoddy job and must be sent to jail for a very long time. They pose a threat to the society. So also, the con artists called guards. Their charges? Conspiracy to commit murder, 419, abusive use of power in compelling unwilling tenants to occupy the edifice. Secondly, the tenants should be evacuated from this about-to-collapse edifice. Thirdly, after having taken the contractor, the builders and the guards out of circulation, a serious assessment of the building should be undertaken and a decision be reached on the viability of the edifice. If it can be repaired, mentally sound contractors and builders should be found by the tenants to undertake the repair job. If it cannot be repaired, then the edifice should be brought down and another erected in its place. The tenants must have a say in the elaboration of the plan, in the identification of the builders, in the choice of building materials, and they must supervise the building at each step. The new building does not need to have as many floors as the previous one. Indeed, it needs not be painted. What all the tenants want are functional utilities, security and comfort for all.

And the civil society? The civil society cannot be accused of having squandered any representation-legitimacy capital. They did not obtain one in the first place, but people tend to ally themselves to one cause or the other which the civil society represents. Civil societies appear to do more good than harm (see the abolition of slavery), whereas, those entrusted with power tend to do more harm than good. Committed members of the civil society are the guardians of morality and values that tend to check the tendency of those in power to steer humanity towards the savage state of nature where brute force is paramount – a world, where the survival of the fittest becomes the rule.

The disdainful claim of lack of constituency and thus representation-legitimacy of the civil society by those in power is a puerile attempt to discredit and discourage any form of organized challenge to their perilous-to-humanity power-driven excesses and negligence. If they would pause for a minute, they would remember that the social contract that binds individuals into a state allows for only one social contract with the government for their wellbeing. When individuals no longer trust those entrusted with power, they seek new alliances and form new social contracts. The emergence of these new contracts is the beginning of the end for any government – small or big, strong or weak, rich or poor. It is an unmistakable sign of a major crack in the edifice of the state, a sign that social relations between individuals and between groups of individuals and their governments have to be redefined.

There is no doubt that another world will emerge when those multitudes gathered at the World Social Forum in Nairobi become armed with the representation-legitimacy from the majority which they represent. A new social edifice in the place of this non-functional, and irresponsible one will emerge.

“Another world is possible” was the slogan for Nairobi World Social Forum. When this new world comes, those in power today shouldn’t claim that they did not have enough warning.