What happened in Guinea can be termed as an unceremonious exchange of a relay baton from one dictator to another. It is also a wakeup call to African leaders, who are leaving under the illusion that military rule is no longer fashionable and therefore it has been consigned into the dustbin of politics. It happened in Chad, Mali and now Guinea. Where next, is only a matter of time if African leaders do not wake up to the call for good governance.
IT is no longer news that Col. Mamady Doumbouya declared himself the new leader of Guinea after he led Special Forces into the Presidential Palace and deposed the country’s 83-year-old President, Alpha Condé, on September 5, 2021.
It has been alleged that Doumbouya slipped away from the United States military instructors who had been working with him and other Guinean service personnel who were training them in counterterrorism techniques, and to help them prop up their civilian government, while they were asleep, to mount the early Sunday coup.
Doumbouya, once a close ally of Condé, is a familiar figure to American forces who have been in the country since July to train a group of about 100 Special Forces members led by the Colonel and have worked with him for years. The United States government has distanced itself and its soldiers from the coup.
In their usual manner under the circumstances, leaders of the African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) have called for the release of former President Condé, who remains under military detention, and the return to “constitutional rule”.
Typically, a coup is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction, the military, or a dictator. Many scholars consider a coup successful when the usurpers seize and hold power for at least seven days. That, in itself, does not make a military coup legal. Any government that comes to power through a coup will continue to be an illegitimate government no matter how long it is in power.
Unfortunately, what happened in Guinea can be termed as an unceremonious exchange of a relay baton from one dictator to another. It is also a wakeup call to African leaders, who are leaving under the illusion that military rule is no longer fashionable and therefore it has been consigned into the dustbin of politics. It happened in Chad, Mali and now Guinea. Where next, is only a matter of time if African leaders do not wake up to the call for good governance.
When AU and ECOWAS leaders therefore insist on return of the country’s constitutional order, the questions they have not answered is: which constitutional order? Pre-Condé’s third term constitutional amendment order or post Condé’s constitutional amendment order? It is high time AU and ECOWAS leaders stopped this Ostrich hiding and face the reality. There is a difference between democratic governance and civil governance as opposed to military governance. Some African leaders lack democratic credentials and so what is taking place in countries where such leaders superintend upon is civil rule not democratic rule.
The reasons for military involvement in governance in countries in Africa are always almost the same. They include lack of respect for the provisions of the country’s constitution, lack of good governance, corruption, suppression of opposition and alternative views and abuse of the rights of citizens.
These reasons always endear military adventurers in political governance to the heart of citizens of affected countries. The average African, if not majority, see politics as an occupation for the predatory elite, who criminally plunder the wealth of the nation for their personal gains at the expense of the masses of the country. That is the main reason why the masses take to the streets in jubilation whenever there is a coup in any African country.
Col. Doumbouya, hours after leading his colleagues to seize political power, announced on national television that they seized power because of the action of former President Condé, whose popularity in the country has been declining for years. He accused the former President’s government of endemic corruption and trampling on citizens rights. This sparked up jubilation on the streets of Conakry, the capital of Guinea.
Like some current African presidents, the democratic credentials of Condé are doubtful. He became Guinea’s democratically elected President in 2010 and was re-elected in what was constitutionally his final term in Office in 2015. Rather than ensuring a smooth conduct of an election that will see another president emerge in line with the provisions of his country’s constitution; in 2020, he pushed through a new constitution that allowed him to run for a third term in October 2020.
The move triggered mass demonstration in the country, in which it was alleged that dozens of protesters were killed. Condé was declared winner in the election that followed, which the opposition called a sham. Many Guineans hold Condé responsible for the violence.
AU and ECOWAS leaders should stop playing the Ostrich as they are wont to do under the current circumstance in Guinea and put in place a peer review mechanism in order to ensure democratic practices in Africa. They must ensure respect and sanctity for the provisions of the constitutions of their countries, good governance, tolerance to opposition views, respect for human rights, welfare of workers and citizens, justice and fair play among other democratic principles if democratic governance is to be entrenched in Africa.
When AU and ECOWAS leaders therefore insist on return of the country’s constitutional order, the questions they have not answered is: which constitutional order? Pre-Condé’s third term constitutional amendment order or post Condé’s constitutional amendment order? It is high time AU and ECOWAS leaders stopped this Ostrich hiding and face the reality. There is a difference between democratic governance and civil governance as opposed to military governance. Some African leaders lack democratic credentials and so what is taking place in countries where such leaders superintend upon is civil rule not democratic rule.
Administrations in some African countries where the democratic credentials of those who are in the helm of affairs of those countries are suspect, and can only be described as civil rule. Civil rule because they did not enter into state houses, or whatever name it residences of heads of state are called, through the barrel of the gun but through dubious electoral processes. They are therefore not different from the Col. Doumbouyas’ of this world. I therefore declare that what happened in Guinea was an unceremonious exchange of the relay baton from one dictator to another.
AU and ECOWAS leaders should stop playing the Ostrich as they are wont to do under the current circumstance in Guinea and put in place a peer review mechanism in order to ensure democratic practices in Africa. They must ensure respect and sanctity for the provisions of the constitutions of their countries, good governance, tolerance to opposition views, respect for human rights, welfare of workers and citizens, justice and fair play among other democratic principles if democratic governance is to be entrenched in Africa.
