Mugabe and Mubarak deserve each other

I am not sure that this Donor-driven Pan Africanism is desirable or sustainable. But I am very certain that long after donor priorities have changed and their mercenary grantees retreat from Addis, there will still be Africans engaged with the AU because it is politically important to do so. Their influence is bound to increase in coming years. It is our institution and we have to build it and staff it with genuine Pan Africanists, not the largely bureaucratic careerists of the moment who, consider themselves bosses instead of being servants of the African people. As things change in the various countries in favour of more democracy and accountability the quality of those we send to Addis and those recruited to serve in the organisation will also improve.

The few times that I have missed the OAU/AU I have always felt guilty wherever I was. I regret the shifting dates that prevented me from being at some of the key pre-Summit activities this year but I also found myself not really keen to be at the Heads of State summit. And worse still I am not even feeling guilty about it. Could it be because I am growing tired of the Executive catwalk or the parade of usual suspects, prima donnas and old boy/girl cliques in the political and NGO/CSO meetings?

I do not think so. The pomp and pageantry are part of the buzz. The Summits provide an opportunity to see Africa in its compelling diversity. Whatever cynics and Afro-pessimists may say, the AU Summits are more open than the OAU though bureaucrats of the Union are doing their best to deny or manipulate the access of CSOs, NGOS and other stakeholders. They are abusing their positions to turn into privilege what is an essential right for African citizens in a ‘people-driven’ Union. That’s an ongoing battle that the anti-people bureaucrats of the Union will lose as more and more Africans become engaged in domesticating the AU agenda in our national affairs.

So what was responsible for my underwhelming enthusiasm for the Sharm el Sheik Summit? I must admit it has all to do with the leader and country hosting the summit. Independent CSOs, NGO activism and even democratic opposition in Egypt are treated like traitors and intimidated on all fronts by the Mubarak regime. He has been in power for almost 30 years brooking no opposition and not tolerating even the mildest criticism.

I am not quite sure how much of NGO/CSO activism one can do when one's local colleagues are not able to participate fully. What is the point in bringing other Africans to talk to themselves? These questions apply not exclusively to Egypt as many African countries are guilty of same. Sadly it applies to Ethiopia too. We have to start raising these questions openly and question why the AU should be based (or hold summits) in a country that does not allow freedom of association for its own citizens.

I cannot remember the last time that Mubarak attended an AU or OAU summit since he got lucky in Addis in the mid 1990s. Egypt is theoretically a big power in the AU by virtue of its geopolitical significance in the North of Africa and the Arab world. But it is a weight that has been felt mostly negatively over the years. Egypt cares only for Egypt and most of the time prefers to deal bilaterally with other African countries. For instance Egypt has historically maintained friendly relations with all the countries that have the River Nile running through them no matter how narrowly. These countries include genocidaire Rwanda which it armed with weapons to kill its own people; the murderous Idi Amin of Uganda or Mengistu of the Ethiopian killing fields of Ethiopia and the plethora of governments in Khartoum. Egypt’s main interest in these countries is to retain the unfair Nile agreement ‘negotiated’ to its favour by the British. It has semi colonial relations with Sudan and has always had a different agenda and rival initiatives from the rest of Africa on anything concerning Sudan typically demonstrated by its divisive and diversionary tactics on the continuing genocide in Darfur.

Egypt is supposed to be one of the Pillar countries of NEPAD along with South Africa, Nigeria and Senegal but it is a very silent partner. Therefore Egypt's role in Africa is more in terms of potential and nostalgic expectations of the bygone years of Gamal Abdel Nasser who was very proactive in the formation of the OAU and one of the Key actors in the Bandung conference that led to the Non-Aligned Movement.

That’s a long time ago. Today Egypt sees itself more as a dominant Middle East player than a major African country. No one is asking that Egypt or any of the North African countries choose between the Arab/Middle East and Africa but the balance of loyalties (except for Libya in recent years especially since 1999) is often too tilted in favour of the latter.

If Egypt is not very keen on playing its presumed role in Africa why are we desperate to deliver Africa to it? How do we want to be taken seriously when we force ourselves on an unwilling country? President Mubarak’s longetivity in power and public secret of scheming for his son to succeed him is hardly a walking advert of good leadership in Africa.

It is about time we started choosing countries where the AU summit is held in a more discerning way, as a way of rewarding good members and sanctioning errant states. This will require the revision of the practice of zoning between regions and also the 'cash and carry' approach that makes it possible for any state willing to pay to host the summit.

Standards also need to be upheld and membership rules enforced. For instance Morocco withdrew from the OAU, and never acceded to the AU yet it continues to maintain diplomatic relations with African states. It participates in African sports and other African multilateral activities while actively seeking EU membership. It does not suffer any sanctions for not being part of the AU. Why should anybody respect or take such an organisation seriously?

As if to add insult to injury President Mugabe, against SADC and AU pressures went ahead to run against himself and ensured that the votes were counted in record time for him to be sworn in, in time for the summit. The results of the fist presidential election could not be released for weeks but his one horse race results came in a matter of 2 days! Mugabe's brazen theft of democracy and the inability of the AU to sanction him immediately will make Sharm El Sheik rhyme with sham and Shame.

However rather than see this as yet further evidence of Africa's failure, we should use it for driving a reform agenda that should make it impossible in the future for leaders to contravene the constitutive Act of the AU with impunity. In 1999 the OAU outlawed coups. Cynics did not believe it could be enforced but now it is impossible for a Coupist to take his seat in the AU. General Gueye provided the first test and both ECOWAS and the AU stood firm. Then Madagascar and Seychelles followed and more recently Togo. The new principle wobbled a bit on Mauritania but generally it is upheld.

Similarly, even if it is politically more challenging, it is possible to begin to isolate leaders who ignore the democratic wishes of their peoples. We must begin to create a new political culture of shaming leaders who routinely thwart the wishes of their electorate. They are as undemocratic as the military coupists.

Mugabe needs the AU more than the AU needs him. If the AU can stand up to Mugabe it will be a serious warning to other guilty vote robbers that Africa will no longer tolerate them.

*Tajudeen Abdul Raheem writes this column as a Pan Africanist.

*Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/