As I watched Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe and the country's opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai sign a ‘Power Sharing Deal’, I was struck that Kenya, we who introduced the ‘power sharing deals’ to cover up election debacles, might have done a greater dis-service to Kenyans, Africa and the world at large in terms of the very concepts enshrined in the word ‘Democracy.’
Our instant coffee solution to problems might have served to temporarily create an illusion of peace, but in the long run things will pop up again, (Naivasha giving us a whiff of the future?), and so will the situation in Zimbabwe.
One does not need to be a prophet to see that the concertina effect of these two actions will spread to most African countries currently ruled by despots not intent on giving up power. Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni’s humorous speech during the power sharing celebrations in Nairobi where he welcomed Kenya to the ‘Movement’, a form of ‘African Democracy’ which according to him works better than ‘Multi Party Democracy’ should be a pointer to the mentality of most African Presidents.
This is just the beginning of sham elections Africa Wide. Vote, fight, then let the two opponents sign a power sharing deal with the status quo being maintained for as long as a Prime Ministerial post is created for the opponent.
As most Kenyans are asking now, what is the purpose then of voting?
While the Kenyan situation might be excusably understandable, (which in no way means it was right) given that Mwai Kibaki had his fair share of popularity and wasn’t a despot of Mugabe’s magnitude, the Zimbabwe power sharing is totally criminal.
Mugage is a dictator who doesn’t apologise for it. Tsvangirai did not even contest the run-off claiming it wasn’t legitimate. So who are sharing power?
In Kenya Raila Odinga actually served in Kibaki’s government and the two could meet eye to eye, it is thus easier for them to form a coalition government and work together. Mugabwe has venomenous hatred for Tsvangirai, Tsvangirai has often irritated Mugabe to unimaginable degrees, I doubt if the two can actually work together.
If they can, well and good. But the bigger question is how is Democracy in Africa going to survive after this?
If Mugabe, international pariah, can actually remain in power, legitimately so after an illegitimate farcical process, who else will ever let an election kick them out?
Africa, what a sad day.
Democracy, what a horrible day.
Kenya, look what we gave the world: Power sharing as a process for the sanitization of violence, arrogance, election malpractices, and impunity.
Allowing dictatorships to thrive under the guise of putting signatures to deals the people shed blood not to have, is no cause for jubilation.
| 
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
Kenya & Zimbabwe are unique to the extent that power-sharing deals have been struck after much blood-letting. However, grand coalition governments are not new either in Africa or elsewhere.
South Africa formed a grand coalition government after the 1994 to forestall bloodshed from and by any number of losing parties - Nationals, Inkatha etc.
Consociational democracy (all on government) has been used to minimise the risks of violent conflict in divided societies.
The genesis of this grand unity form of governance can be traced to the Low Countries of Europe i.e. Belgium & the Netherlands where various schisms - ethnic in the former, and class/religious in the latter - threatened to tear apart their countries. Austria is also a relevant example.
The power of grand-coalition arrangements lies in their ability to minimise the stakes in case of electoral losses.
In societies where ethnicity poses a risk to state existence, the bargaining is left at the elite table - not on the streets where genocide & other murderous tendencies are easily stoked and played out. After all, democracy is about organised bargaining to avert violence. This is in fora such as Parliament, Cabinet, & the Courts.
Democracy is thus not about having a single winner with sole rights to dictate policy. It is about selecting individuals who represent their constituents, and bargain with other representatives to secure the best for their own groups, and the nation.
The idea of democracy as contestation i.e. removable leadership is narrow to the extent that it assumes contestation alone suffices to grant legitimacy to regimes. Where ethnicity is an salient , it is possible to have free contestation but permanent exclusion for minority groups.
Ngigi