The addictive nature of power

By Dr. Hassan B. Sisay, Guest Writer, Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA.

The Obama administration has had a spate of activity in Africa. The jury is still out on what the actual policy pronouncement is towards the continent. In their recent visits to Africa, President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton pleaded for an end to corruption and rule by “strong men”. Both emphasized how corruption undermines good governance, and posited that Africa does not need strong men but good democratic institutions. Their message seems to have fallen on deaf ears, as more and more African heads of state have removed or amended constitutional provisions to enable them to stay in power indefinitely. The list of such nations is long and easily available in various media outlets.

Even Muammar Gaddafi, who has never held an election since 1969, and renowned as the world’s third longest-serving head of state, dismisses with disdain the crucial need to impose constitutional term limits on African leaders. “Why should a leader relinquish power when he is doing good things for his people,”? said Gaddafi in a visit to Uganda, adding, “there are people who talk about term limits… A constitution is simply a document drafted by people. A leader should only leave power by the will of the people.”

These are political buzz words that may sound reasonable. Gaddafi left unanswered some key questions: who determines the so-called “will of the people,” how is respect for law and order developed and maintained if leaders have power to unilaterally disband parliaments and constitutional courts? what should be done to those who defy the will of the people and rule with impunity.? After ruling his country for 40 years, Gaddafi has become the chief advocate of indefinite “presidencies.” He shamelessly embraces African leaders who have refused to leave office for decades such as, Tedoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea, 30 years, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, 29 years, Jose Eduardo Dos Santos of Angola, 30 years etc. He has twice advised Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni to rule for life.

A new convert to this absurd notion of life presidency is President Mamadou Tandja of Niger, who has ruled his impoverished country of 14 million for over 10 years. Faced with term limits, he attempted to re-do the constitution through a referendum to remain in office. The constitutional court declared the proposed referendum illegal, unless first approved by parliament. When Tandja realized that getting the three quarters majority in parliament was virtually impossible, he disbanded both the constitutional court and parliament, and assumed emergency powers. Thereafter, he reconstituted the constitutional committee by reducing its membership from 100 to 5, and appointed his justice minister to be a member of the new committee, and asked them to review the old constitution.

The committee quickly recommended the controversial referendum which took place on August 4th, resulting in the elimination of the two term limit to enable Tandja to run for a third term. This process also gave rise to a new constitution, which would give Tandja authority to name one third of a new 60-seat senate, and the right to continue staying in office for an additional three years beyond the December expiration date for his presidency. The referendum was conducted by persons close to the administration and known supporters of Tandja. The result of this exercise was therefore predictable. According to the government, the referendum was approved by a vote of 92.5%, based on a 68% turn out, but opposition groups claimed that the turnout was actually dismal and no more than 4%.

Through massive political scheming and intrigues, Tandja demonstrated the true nature of POWER, which is “the ability to get what you want,” or as stated by scholar Kenneth Bouldin, “the ability to change the future.” Tandja has radically changed Niger’s future single-handedly without the participation of opposition groups. Some have described the president’s many undemocratic moves as tantamount to a “slow –motion coup.” Equally ineffective is the international community’s response to Tandja. As usual, the focus has been primarily on withholding foreign aid, a tactic used many times before and proven to hurt mostly the children, poor and the needy, and not the leaders themselves. Tandja claims to be clinging to power to fulfill the wishes of his people. In an interview with the Associated Press he elaborated on why he disbanded parliament and the constitutional court: “the old constitution does not permit me to stay… that is why the people demand a new one…I won’t let anyone prevent me from achieving a useful goal for the people of Niger,” he said. The above can only come from someone who is authoritarian, egotistical, and severely delusionary.

Why is a 72 year old man who has been president for over 10 years so determined to extend his rule? What is responsible for his insatiable lust for power? And why is it so difficult for Tandja to recognize that no one is good enough to stay in power forever. Mahamane Ousmanne, former leader of Niger’s parliament may have provided the best answer to the above when he said; African leaders like Tandja “can’t imagine a normal life outside the palace. They say, will I be in exile? Will I be in prison? What will I do?” Tandja is a classic example of a leader who is addicted to power and is afraid of losing it. While he may have good intentions for Niger, like an addict, he is willing to “break established rules and laws” just to get his high. “ And when the high eventually wears off, the person needs a fresh infusion of power – or a higher position of power – to regain the high,” said Dan Bobinski, an expert on the seductive nature of power. Sadly, this addiction to power is widespread among African leaders, and “if you are in a position of power, you are not immune from the seductive dangers of addiction.”

To minimize the “Tandja effect”, leaders must surround themselves with people who are willing and capable of telling them the truth. At first, it may hurt or seem disrespectful to be held accountable, but nothing is more effective in curbing the addiction and arrogance of power than the maintenance of checks and balances and an effective inner circle of independent advisers . This group should assist the leader in making strategic decisions aimed at solving major national issues rather than supporting policies motivated primarily by a leader’s fear of losing power. People in authority like Tandja who are obsessed about power, often adopt extra legal and provocative measures aimed at inflaming and manipulating ethnic and political rivalries in order to stay in power. Dictatorships and “life presidencies” are caused by the love of power, constant fear of losing it, a brutalized and submissive population, and a loyal army.

As stated earlier, reactions from the international community to the series of undemocratic developments in Niger are mostly ineffective. The African Union (AU) and Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), opted to send delegations to Niamey to discuss the crisis. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that Tandja’s actions had “made it extremely difficult for the country’s democratic institutions and the constitutional court to play their roles as guarantors of the rule of law.” According to the EU, Tandja’s behavior “raised serious questions about the amount of aid the bloc is prepared to give the country.” But Tandja does not need aid to stay in power, nor require international approval of his questionable referendum result. Whether his people are fed or not is secondary to his political ambitions. His mentor Gaddafi, and current chairman of the African Union had earlier advised African leaders to reject foreign aid, because it comes with “strings” attached including the adoption of “electoral democracy and multiparty systems.” Such institutions “work in the West but not in Africa,” Gaddafi added. Accordingly, Tandja’s response to Western nations’ threat to withhold aid to his government was swift and defiant : “if you want to give it, give it, but there can be no black mail.” In an address to the nation, Tandja boldly declared that he was not president to “serve international opinion;” and that his primary focus was to be the leader of his people, and not to satisfy demands from the international community.

Why is Tandja so insistent on staying in office? Why does he seem to be unruffled by negative opinion from the international community ? Simply put, he has learned a lesson from the experiences of other African dictators regarding their dealings with the international community. When the search for protection of national investments and the pursuit of democracy collide, the latter is usually conveniently ignored or de-emphasized. In short, human rights, and the lofty ideals of democracy can be sacrificed when national economic interests are at stake. Despite the horrendous atrocities committed by African leaders such as Idi Amin, Samuel Doe, Mobutu Sese Seko, Jean Bokassa and others, some members of the international committee provided creative excuses to justify continued extension of diplomatic and financial support to these leaders.

As noted in a recent BBC article, threatening to withhold aid from Tandja’s regime is futile since his government stands to reap far more from western and Chinese investments than receipt of direct foreign aid. Estimates of projected international investments in Niger include a “US$5 billion (euros3.5 billion) deal with China to build an oil refinery and extract new crude from the desert, a US$1.7 billion (euro1.2 billion) accord with French nuclear giant Areva to build the world’s second biggest uranium mine and a hydroelectric dam financed with US$50 million (euro35 million) from the Islamic Bank.” With all of the above and many more mammoth investment projects worth billions of dollars anticipated in Niger, who needs foreign aid. Besides, while western nations may be occupied with the promotion of democracy and human rights, China is more interested in trade and profits.

With competition among nations for investment opportunities in Africa so intense, only patience, resolve and assistance from developed nations will prevent African leaders from overrunning their democratic institutions as is currently happening in Niger. Stop sending mixed messages to Africa about democracy, human rights and the rule of law. If these are important to you, why not provide leadership to facilitate their implementation in African countries . When the military in Honduras recently overthrew that country’s elected civilian ruler, the West was quick to condemn the new regime and withheld its recognition. Contrast that to western response to autocratic leaders in Africa who abrogate their constitutions, conduct fraudulent elections and subject their citizens to immeasurable pain. Developed nations should stop providing easy avenues for our despots to escape international scrutiny and accountability.

Tandja’s insistence on staying in power despite widespread international condemnation may provide encouragement to other African leaders –especially those who may be tempted to emulate his horrible human rights record and shameless grab for political power. Notwithstanding warnings by President Obama, and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Tandja may in fact be on the verge of setting the stage for the emergence of more “strongmen” in Africa. Already, Uganda’s Museveni has ignored massive protests by opposition forces and re-appointed a controversial electoral commissioner, who allegedly contributed to his victory in the 2006 presidential elections. In responding to a petition filed by the opposition protesting the way the previous elections were conducted, Uganda’s Supreme Court maintained that there was “non-compliance with the provisions and principles of the Constitution… disenfranchisement of voters by deleting their names from the voters register or denying them the right to vote and in the counting and tallying of results.” Further, the judges were concerned about “the continued involvement of the security forces in the conduct of elections where they committed acts of intimidation, violence and partisan harassment.”

However the Supreme Court failed to nullify the election results as demanded by the opposition, and thus Museveni became president. For Museveni to now persist in using the same electoral commissioner criticized by the supreme court for ineptitude in the counting and tallying of the previous presidential results defies logic, and creates needless tension between him and opposition forces. Some of his detractors have even intimated that once again Museveni may be planning on winning the impending presidential elections by employing the usual questionable and highhanded methods.

Like Niger’s Tandja, and Uganda’s Museveni, Guinea’s military head of state Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, seems to be changing his mind about clinging to power. Earlier, he said he was not going to run in the elections scheduled for the end of the year. But lately, he has embarked on muzzling the press and imprisoning civilian politicians, whom he accused of “trying to force the military to leave power too early.” Aly Manet, spokesperson for a new pro-military group with the tantalizing slogan of “Dadis Must Stay,” is now calling on the current leader to remain as president and contest the 2010 elections. Manet claims that all of the “healthy” and “patriotic” sections of Guinean society are supportive of Camara’s continued rule. We do not know Camara’s links to the above group, or the extent of its national influence. So far he has failed to discourage or publicly disassociate himself from their stated objective. Time will tell whether or not Camara will leave office in December as promised, or succumb to the addictive nature of power.