The African Union (AU) agreed last Thursday to substantially increase the size of its peacekeeping force in the troubled western Sudanese region of Darfur, officials said. AU Peace and Security Commissioner Said Djinnit told journalists after a meeting of the pan-African body's peace and security council in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, that the enhanced force would be in place by the end of September.

A group of 20 Burundian political parties said last Thursday they would not accept the revised electoral calendar issued recently by the Independent Electoral Commission. "The change of the electoral calendar by the commission is unconstitutional," Terence Nsanze, the leader of the Alliance Burundo Africain pour le Salut, said on behalf of the parties on at a news conference in Bujumbura, the capital.

More than 90 percent of the votes have been counted in Lesotho's local government election and the ruling party is set for victory, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) said on Tuesday. IEC spokesman Rethabile Pholo gave no breakdown of voting patterns and said more results were expected on Wednesday. "The results from 124 of the 129 councils have already been determined, and we can say that the ruling party [Lesotho Congress for Democracy] has so far been on top. We are awaiting the outcome of the remaining five councils and then we will release a statement explaining the results in detail," Pholo told IRIN.

With 24 hours to go before the UN Security Council meets to discuss peacekeeping needs in Cote d'Ivoire, a human rights group said that more troops needed to be urgently sent into the divided country, which is shuffling along the path to peace. In a report published on Tuesday, Human Rights Watch called for an immediate reinforcement of the UN mission in Cote d'Ivoire (ONUCI), warning that if the fragile peace process breaks down, "attacks against civilians could set off a sudden spiral of human rights abuses that would be difficult to control".

The course hosted by the Centre for Developmental Practice (CDRA) aims to un-pack pre-conceptions about planning, monitoring and evaluation; to put forward and stimulate the sharing of alternative and appropriate approaches and tools; and to provide guidance in applying these in rigorous, innovative and developmental ways. Through this course participants will explore and develop alternative approaches and methodologies to Logical Frameworks - approaches that enable planning, monitoring and evaluation processes to support rather than obstruct developmental field-practices.

Jubilee South Africa has described a Barclays bid for South Africa's ABSA Bank as "an insult to the people of South Africa, especially to those who suffered under the illegitimate Apartheid regime." Jubilee said Barclays was the lead defendant in a lawsuit brought in the United States of America by 87 South Africans (represented by the Khulumani Support Group and other civil society organizations) who had been subjected to gross human rights violations during Apartheid.

This paper from the Chr. Michelsen Institute in Norway describes the nature and extent of the role played by the courts in Malawian politics in the context of the 2004 presidential and parliamentary elections. The authors attempt to explain why the courts have come to occupy such a central position on the political scene in Malawi, looking at the recent history, as well as factors that explain why it has been difficult for the government to fully control the courts; what has motivated the judges to assume a political role; and what motivates the parties to bring political disputes to the courts.

Malawi is to receive substantial aid from the United States of America to fight corruption and improve fiscal accountability. The board of directors of the Millennium Challenge Corporation has approved Malawi's threshold programme concept paper, allowing it to receive the funding. The American government expects Malawi to fight corruption and improve fiscal management before the country qualifies for full Millennium Challenge Account assistance of 15bn dollars.

Outgoing British high commissioner Edward Clay says he has no regrets of his spats with the Government over corruption. He spoke as Swedish ambassador Bo Goransson, speaking separately, asked leaders to make their wealth public with or without a law requiring them to do so. Although he has been criticised for taking on the Government in the last months of his tour of duty, Sir Edward insisted that his move to expose corruption had rallied the country against the vice and led to good governance.

UNESCO, through its agency for Science and Technology, The African Network for Scientific and Technological Institutions (ANSTI) is announcing the availability of a self-learning course on how to develop e-content. The course entitled "How to develop electronic Content" version 1.2.1 is a valuable resource for any individual, department or university (or organization) that wishes to develop e-content to complement existing instructional techniques such as face-to-face.

I read your article in Pambazuka with interest because I think the issues you raise are not solely South Africa (obviously). Maybe my question is too big to answer right now, maybe you can point me in the right direction? In any case, here in Zimbabwe in some high density areas (used to be called townships under Smith) working class Zimbabweans are going several weeks without water whilst those more privileged people in low density areas experience intermittent water cuts. We now see people within these high density areas selling water to those without.

What can we do to change this? How do we apply pressure on a government that has just bought Chinese jet fighters and passenger aircraft yet can't see fit to fix the old water pipes/pumping equipment whose absence leaves people without the fundamental right to clean accessible water? How do we encourage and support working class people to collectively engage in work stoppages to highlight their plight?

And these questions are all framed in a country that is highly repressive.

As you might be able to tell I'm feeling very frustrated today!

Thank you very much for this continuous good and educative news. For me, this is very relevant as a lecturer because I get nearly all issues in the scio-economic and political arena for our continent of Africa. May God bless you a thousand fold as we continue to be educated by your newsletter. I will try to write back contributing to this great work. Thank you.

I would probably agree with most of Wanda's observations on what is wrong with the "New" South Africa and clearly the answer to his question is that NO the struggle for emancipation is not over yet. However, most people would probably agree with that for one reason or another. Even the most comfortable members of the black elite argue for more transformation rather than less. Even the leader of the ANC, president Mbeki publicly and very consistently calls for "a better life FOR ALL".

There may be some members of the ANC who think they have arrived and we cannot condemn them for that. The fact is that we did not all board this train at the same station nor are we going to the same destination. The maximum programme of the black bourgeoisie (a free and fair democratic system where a national bourgeoisie enjoys the right to exploit its proletariat and its natural resources) may well be the minimum programme of the working class whose station is further down the line. As the South African Communist Party says: Socialism is the future. There are even those who say that in a globalized economy a national bourgeoisie's patriotic spirit is of no value because it is now glorious to be rich, and comprador. That is for the capitalists to sort out among themselves.

The mistake that RE Wanda makes is that he soaks the ANC in red wine, as it were, and tries to render it socialist. Just examine the historical inaccuracy of his assessment that:

"It is clear that the ANC has abandoned its core roots and energy - the poor people. The ANC party was born socialist but later adopted capitalism and endorsed the neo-liberal agenda, whose fruit we know is exploitation of the people. The ANC's economic policy emphasis on market liberalization and tight government control on spending has meant that the working class and poor who are mostly black South Africans have to bear the cost of its conservative economic policy."

I am afraid it is not clear at all. In 1912 when the South African National Native Congress (SANNC), forerunner of the African National Congress (ANC), was founded it was a Pan-African movement representing the rights of all colonial subjects. It was led by chiefs, mission educated elites, village shop-keepers, maize and wool farmers and yes, petitioned the British Empire for the rights of the colonial working class as well.

But was the ANC born socialist? No way! If Cecil Rhodes and his cohorts had not been racist, if the 1913 Land Act had not destroyed the black farming elites in the rural areas, if the colonial society were based on class oppression and not mainly racial oppression there would have been NO NEED for an ANC. If Mahatma Gandhi and Sol Plaitjie had not been forced off the first class carriages because of their dark skins, the colonial working classes would have had to struggle for their rights on their own because the black elites would have been too comfortable from the start. Let us forget about the socialist ANC - it is a figment of our revolutionary imaginations, it has never existed.

It is up to COSATU to continue championing the rights of the South African working class. It is up to the Communist Party to complete its political programme and go beyond the bourgeois democracy that was achieved in 1994 and attain that socialist future. And it is up to the anti-privatization and anti-globalization movements to continue reconnecting poor people to the water and electricity mains by any means necessary, but it is not up to the ANC to build a socialist South Africa, that has never been the ANC programme.

So all those who call themselves socialist should focus their energies on strengthening the Communist Party and not undermining the ANC which has ALWAYS been led by the black elites whose maximum programme has ALWAYS been a capitalist democracy in which their agricultural and commercial interests are not undermined by a racist state. Let us know our history or we shall remain trapped in this old waiting room on this disused railway line complaining about the inefficiency of the national airline.

Thank you for articulating so clearly what many of us have been saying for years. That there were serious compromises made at the time of South Africa's independence; that the urban and rural poor in SA have nothing to celebrate after 11 years of so called freedom. The freedom in SA has been a freedom for the elite non-white population, for the business sector who have continued to make money off the lives of the poor and of course the white elite have continued in their prosperity and probably have gained most out of independence as they are now able to conduct their business operations freely with the rest of the world.

You ask the question "why are (Africa's) incessantly in poverty?" Because as you say the primary essence of democracy is absent from the continent and the World Bank/IMF and the NEPAD agenda have choked the continent into submission and poverty. The West and particularly the United States are not interested in a true democratic Africa but one that serves it's need in resources and security. (http://okrasoup.typepad.com/black_looks,

EDITORIAL: As Kenya looks to the future, Mukoma Ngugi warns politicians not to fall prey to their own personal ambitions at the expense of the people
COMMENT AND ANALYSIS: Gerald Caplan explores the ‘solidarity of sorrow’ between the Armenian, Jewish and Rwandan genocides
- Issa Shivji asks why Tanzanian election candidates aren’t discussing how to avoid Latin America’s negative experiences of the Washington Consensus
- April 27 was Freedom Day in South Africa. But Ronald Elly Wanda finds that the emancipation struggle may not be over
LETTERS: Charity or ‘development pornography’: your views
PAN-AFRICAN POSTCARD: Tony Blair will march right back to Downing Street for a third term, says Tajudeen Abdul Raheem
AFRICAN UNION WATCH: African countries are heading for a “long, nasty and brutal” battle over who gets to sit on the United Nations Security Council, writes Wafula Okumu
CONFLICTS AND EMERGENCIES: Links to news and reports on Burundi, Ivory Coast and Sudan
WOMEN AND GENDER: UN special envoy for AIDS Stephen Lewis gives an impassioned speech, saying the “world is off its rocker when it comes to women"
ELECTIONS AND GOVERNANCE: Togo violence in disputed poll
DEVELOPMENT: Report back from WB/IMF protest meetings in Washington; Global week of action activities in Zambia
AND…Browse for links to news and information in the Health, Education, Courses, Books and Jobs sections…

"We note with concern that EPA negotiations are being undertaken at a time when most African states are still reeling under the effects of the IMF-World Bank imposed Structural Adjustment Programmes leaving them with limited policy space and options to resist calls for further liberalization. Farmers in ESA countries who produce largely for domestic demand will be wiped out by import surges from the relatively cheap and subsidized EU products."

April 27 was Freedom Day in South Africa, a national public holiday to remember the first democratic elections held in the country eleven years ago. Celebrations took place country wide under the theme ‘Building a South Africa that Truly Belongs to All’. Ronald Elly Wanda visited South Africa last year. Here he reflects on his experiences and concludes that the country has a long way to go before it belongs to all of its people.

Earlier last year I was ill-fated for I missed an opportunity to meet up with some of Africa’s contemporary divas at Hammersmith’s world famous Shepherds Bush Empire (formerly Apollo theatre) in West London. Amongst the divas assiduously imported from rhythmic South Africa were two of my favourites; culturally electrifying Yvonne Chaka Chaka and politically inspirational and poetically soothing Miriam Makeba, the woman whom perhaps every right-thinking African school boy at some point tunefully fell for. Noticeably absent was Brenda Fassie owing to her poor health, she died three months after the event. She will be sadly missed by all who enjoyed her ecstatic and care-free style of music. The festivities were hosted by Republic of South Africa’s London consulate to honour the country’s 10th anniversary under Black rule and as a democratic state.

January of 2004 saw my first visit to South Africa or Azania, a place chock-full of political history and also social ills resultant from the devilish apartheid system. I had other prior rendezvous in Durban and later in Johannesburg, but as a political spectator I couldn’t resist the temptations of comparative politicking to try and weigh whether what the English professors have painted in their thrilling lectures and engaging books was actually anything closer to reality. I am not implying that what the armchair professors have reported are entirely wrong, but that it is sometimes qualitatively functional to hear the story from those who actually went through it. After all, Simeon Strunsky the essayist perhaps had me in mind when he remarked that “people who want to understand democracy should spend less time in the library reading Aristotle and more time on the buses and in the subways”.

My journey from London Heathrow to Johannesburg had been a fat circus right from the start. Day one, I missed my flight, due to Expedia’s (the internet travel agents) late communication to Virgin Atlantic who subsequently mishandled my E-ticket, not to mention the usual airport pressures.

Having spent a soporific night under the inept hands of Virgin Atlantic, I arrived at Johannesburg as scheduled. I was swiftly welcomed by the wonderful southern comfort (the weather not the drink!) that made me forget all about the horrible wintry English weather that I had left behind for the pitiable London inhabitants. Johannesburg airport’s layout, capacity and organisation are impressive and capable of giving one a counterfeit impression of having arrived in Amsterdam, Berlin or Venice and not geographically south of mother Africa.

Johannesburg, commonly referred to as the ‘city of gold’ is Azania’s biggest commercial centre; it is largely white and quite well to do. My stay at Sandton district was necessitated after a lengthy exploration that left me exhausted and disappointed in failing to find a place to stay in Johannesburg amongst “abantu” (people).

The neighbourhood of Sandton city (formerly Down-town) where I briefly resided boasts about everything that Soweto does not. Large and spacious houses, public parks which are not accessible to the general public, shopping malls, corporate headquarters, hotels and a large tax base to support ample amenities and services. Sandton city’s residents are predominantly white but one can find a few and occasional blacks who are considered better - off aka “Rand-lords”.

I didn’t have to walk very far from my transient residence to notice the huge electrified wall fencings that were supervised by Sandton’s very own police force. They reminded me of London’s city police, who keep watch over London’s fiscal constituency and are known for their brutality against ethnic minority communities. For a minute or so onward, I permitted my mind to wonder what it would have been like for me as a young black person or for that matter a black South African or just a black African caught by these largely white “heavy weaponry carrying” police force. Word has it that during the Apartheid regime the white dominated police force here when dealing with black people, were known to have employed a policy of “shoot first then ask questions later”. How times have changed, I thought to myself.

As elsewhere in Africa, the changes in South Africa came after a long and bruising fight by the people. Through liberation struggles, the working class, black women and the student movements amongst other groups of people fought a bitter war to liberate black people from the slaving system of apartheid. The outcome in South Africa was that Nelson Mandela in 1990 was released having spent 27 long years in prison, South Africa had its first ever democratic election that saw black people voting for the first time in 1994. Expectedly and unsurprisingly, Mandela and the ANC (African National Congress) won the elections overwhelmingly and Mandela became the country’s first democratically elected president. Having served his full term he was succeeded by the country’s vice president Thabo Mbeki in 1999, whose mandate got renewed in the middle of last year by the South African electorate.

Eleven years on, it is often common to come across books and discussion papers written by European and American armchair professors of African politics on how well South Africa is doing. I mean you walk into a library or a political or social forum and all you will see is; “The End of Apartheid”, “The fall of Apartheid”, “The politics of Apartheid”, “Mandela”, “Waiting: the White South Africans”, “The concise History of South Africa.”

I might upset some readers, but I am of the view that there were many concessions made in the run up to the political transition of 1994. Mandela and other leaders who led the liberation struggle abandoned the “real” fight for the people, that of social justice and equality of opportunity. For instance, the laws in South Africa today are formally ‘colour-blind’ and in some cases even promote affirmative action in favour of black people; however from what I saw in Soweto, and in Durban, the country remains an inequitable society. United Nations research has also categorised it as still amongst one of the most unequal in the world. Indeed, not so long ago a government minister was quoted as saying: “South Africa is sitting on a social time bomb”, clearly reflecting the concerns of the majority of poor black South Africans.

It is clear that the ANC has abandoned its core roots and energy - the poor people. The ANC party was born socialist but later adopted capitalism and endorsed the neo-liberal agenda, whose fruit we know is exploitation of the people. The ANC’s economic policy emphasis on market liberalization and tight government control on spending has meant that the working class and poor who are mostly black South Africans have to bear the cost of its conservative economic policy.

I recall one prominent South African panellist during a seminar in London that I chaired, noting that: “Post Apartheid policy makers drew all the wrong lessons from ‘international experience’, and hence have prepared to amplify rather than correct apartheid capitalism’s main economic distortions”.

The compromises made by the ANC government since 1994 has not delivered higher living standards and its systematic ideological conversion has pronounced many people who are already poor into further poverty. My former tutor Professor Heather Deegan in her book “The Politics of the New South Africa” agreeably notes that: “When it comes to education, the legacy of apartheid is still evident in many places. Many children continue to study under the tree, in dilapidated buildings and without appropriately trained teachers. Some schools are hollow shells without even the most basic equipment and few textbooks.”

For if we are to truly judge whether present day South Africa is democratic or not we need to look at the primary essence of democracy. The essential aspirations of democratic ideals are that decision ought to be taken by the people. Secondly, this means that the mass of the people should have some say in what they are going to be, and not just told what they are. Thirdly, this decision should be genuinely the peoples; it should not be manipulated by propaganda, misinformation and irrational fears. And fourthly it should to some extent reflect the peoples considered opinions and aspirations. In my view none of the above tenets are apparent in present day South Africa. This is because the only way we are going to fully realise democracy in Africa is when collectivism prevails, in other words a government by the people for the people.

In this light, it is easy to comprehend the argument of two amongst many of Mbeki’s critics, Professors Dani Nabudere and Patrick Bond – who have articulated that the persuasive powers of the World Bank and IMF - are partly to blame for the fact that a decades old liberation movement disappointed its constituents entirely reasonable aspirations within months of coming to state power.

The exchanges I received whilst in Soweto were enough to make me defend the view that the poor men and women in the townships have got no reason to be cheerful - in spite of ten years of Mandela and Mbeki neo-liberal regimes. For the poor are still poor and the Rand-lords as in Sandton are still getting richer. The liberation struggle ought to continue, free enterprise ought to be dejected whilst collectivism encouraged in order for Africa to fully realise egalitarianism. After all in terms of natural resources Africa is the richest continent in the world. Why are its inhabitants incessantly in poverty?

* Ronald Elly Wanda is a Political Scientist based in London, UK.
[email][email protected]

* Please send comments to [email protected]

From colonial resource exploitation to the negative impact of rampaging neo-liberalism, Africa has always followed behind the experience of Latin America. With general elections due to take place in late October in Tanzania, Issa Shivji asks why the candidates aren’t talking about how the country is going to avoid recent Latin American experiences with the Washington Consensus?

Latin America in the third world is a good barometer of what follows and what to expect in Africa, particularly in relation to economic policies. Being in the backyard of a superpower, Latin America’s experience tends to be more severe and so is the anti-imperial resistance of its people. The experience of imperialist-generated military coups that we had in Africa during the first two decades of independence was preceded by a similar wave of militarism in Latin America. US-supported Mobutus and UK-Israel supported Idi Amins, were pale shadows of the suppression, torture, and disappearances of the CIA-installed Pinochets.

The pillage of the resources of the DRC, the former Congo-Zaire, is a mirror image of the century old pillage of the timber, oil, mineral and other natural resources of Latin America by imperialism. Now that imperial powers have turned their attention to the African oil in West Africa, Sudan and possibly the Eastern seaboard, we may well be on the way to repeat that tragic episode in Latin American history. God forbid.

In Africa, our leaders tend to cower before our imperial paymasters. Somehow we seem to be so impervious to lessons of history, both our own and others’, that we tragically repeat it. Important substitution industrialization was tried out in Latin America long before we experimented with it. It failed. Yet we didn’t learn from Latin America’s failure. The free market and privatisation policies worked out by the IMF, the World Bank and US Treasury called the “Washington consensus” has been on in Latin America for some time now. The policy prescriptions of the IFIs (International Financial Institutions) for Africa were virtually carbon-copies of those imposed in Latin America.

I once downloaded some of the IFI-generated policy papers for Argentina and found that they were so similar to those for Tanzania; you only had to change the country name and currency denomination!

Argentina became the star of the Washington consensus. The IMF held it up as a showpiece. Water, electricity, telecommunications, gas, post office, the national airline and many other state companies were cut up and sold off within years. Foreign investment flowed in at the rate of US$800 million a month. The GDP grew by 10 per cent. Ten years into the reforms, Menem, once a populist president of Argentina, now wholly taken in by the “Washington Consensus”, went to the US declaring that his country had pulled off an economic miracle: hyperinflation had been brought under control, corruption was reduced and everybody was happy. The Argentinian middle class deposited their pesos in dollar accounts, thanks to easy convertibility.

Then came the great crash in 2001 as banks could no longer honour deposits and billions of dollars flowed out at a faster rate than they had flowed in. Within 5 days in July (2002) alone, 2.6 billion dollars left the country. By 2002 the GDP had fallen by 21 per cent, a performance similar to the depression years of the 1930s. Even middle class professionals, including engineers and bankers and white collar workers found themselves with begging bowls in the street. Some attempted to commit suicide while, once passive, society-women were out demonstrating in the streets banging their fancy, but empty, pots and pans. Governments changed every week. The ‘Washington’ baby collapsed like a pack of cards. Argentina threatened to default on its $141 billion foreign debt. The IMF pumped in more billions which came through the door and left through the window in the form of capital flight and debt servicing.

The rise and fall of the neo-liberal experiment in Argentina, which reduced a once prosperous country to economic ruins, thanks to the “Washington consensus”, made a great impression on the South American continent. A wave of backlash against the free market and privatisation set in. Left presidents have been elected in a number of countries through popular vote, the best example of which is Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. The American-backed attempt to overthrow him did not survive. He was out of the state house for two days but was literally reinstalled by massive demonstrations of the poor – the “wretched of the earth” - from the slums of Caracas. But the rich and middle classes did not give up. The imperialist media kept instigating and middle class opposition was mobilized to call for a referendum to overthrow Chavez. In August 2004, Richard Gott reported:

“To the dismay of opposition groups in Venezuela, and to the surprise of international observers gathering in Caracas, President Hugo Chavez is about to secure a stunning victory on August 15, in a referendum designed to lead to his overthrow. First elected in 1998 as a barely known colonel, armed with little more than revolutionary rhetoric and a moderate social-democratic programme, Chavez has become the leader of the emerging opposition in Latin America to the neo-liberal hegemony of the United States.”

In a recent speech Chavez finally declared.

"I am convinced, at this stage of my life - I am now 50 years old - after six years as a president, after nearly 30 years of political struggle, since 1997, when I had the idea of taking an oath from a small group of fellow countrymen, soldiers, to create the first nucleus - there were only about 5 of us then - of what later became the MBR-200 [Bolivarian Revolutionary Movement 200] ... after many readings, debates, discussions and many travels around the world, etc., I am convinced, and I think that this conviction will be for the rest of my life, that the path to a new, better and possible world, is not capitalism, the path is socialism, that is the path: socialism, socialism…Capitalism leads us straight to hell.”

The experiences of Latin America are passing us by in Africa. Our intellectuals and leaders continue swearing by the “Washington consensus” whereas we should be learning from history.

In this election year, we should be taking stock of the last twenty, particularly the last ten, years of neo-liberal reforms. In taking stock we should not only critically examine our own experience but also the experience of other continents which have gone through a very similar process. Regrettably none of this is happening. The so-called free media does not even report of such experiences like Argentina. Instead, editorial writers are busy positioning themselves to curry favours from the establishment. Some of them are more establishment-minded then the establishment itself.

Our aspirants for “serving the people” , for that is the cliché politicians use during the election season, are talking little of ‘service’ or ‘people’, and more about preserving “the good” done by the third phase government. But why don’t we also learn from the bad of the first, the second and the third phase and, indeed, from the effects of the global hegemony of neo-liberalism elsewhere?

Aren’t Argentina and Venezuela relevant to our people? Shouldn’t our aspirants be telling us what they have learnt from those experiences and how do they propose to avoid the Argentinisation of Tanzania?

© Issa Shivji. Shivji is Professor of Law at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

* Please send comments to

The people of Kenya should demand a constitution that recognizes inequality and poverty, that is committed to the liberation of women, that sees health and education as human rights, and that addresses land redistribution. Politicians, writes Mukoma Ngugi, should hold the interest of their people above crass political ambition in negotiating Kenya’s future.

When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir – "I Have A Dream" - Martin Luther King Jr.

Background

A constitution serves the simultaneous roles of laying the framework that will govern a society and laying in law the promise - the dream - that the society has for itself. It protects gained freedoms and guides and nurtures expansions of freedom. For a government to oversee the creation of a constitution that is both a foundation and a dream, and that is also in the interest of justice served not only for the now but for the future, it must be willing to commit political suicide. It must be willing to write itself out of office when its usefulness has ended. It, within its very own conscience, has to understand the people as the makers of their own destiny and consequently the true makers of history.

The NARC (1) coalition government does not see its role as the bridge to a new Kenya. It sees itself as the new Kenya. Instead of fighting for a constitution that binds future governments to the welfare of Kenyans, it is fighting within itself to safeguard the political fortunes of its constituent members. And KANU, the party that can single handedly claim to have ruined Kenya, is waiting, watching the fissures grow. It may soon find an opportunity to pounce.

If the NARC coalition government could find within itself the ability to rise to the challenge of developing a constitution that sweeps away the legacies of Moi's tyranny and that at the same time holds future governments accountable to the dreams of the people, it would have done enough. And if it can do more in creating the conditions in which the dreams can be achieved, all the better.

But as things stand - and this should be stated boldly and without mincing words - the NARC coalition is on the brink of failing Kenya. It will not be because it shall have done any worse than Moi (the last two years have done more for Kenya than Moi's 24), but because in place of putting Kenya first, it put its own political survival. NARC has become the space in which political egos are vying for power and somewhere, between getting rid of KANU and the elections of 2007, the idea of Kenya has been lost.

Alliance or Individual political Interests?

Perhaps this is the nature of coalition governments. In Kenya, a fractured opposition was unable to get rid of the Moi dictatorship first in 1992 and then in 1997. But it learned that there was not only safety but strength in numbers, and coalesced into NARC. Under the umbrella of NARC one found revolutionaries, liberals, disgruntled Moi-lets, power sycophants, etc, all with the single goal of ridding Kenya and themselves of the Moi government. In December of 2002 they succeeded. Instead of seeing this as the beginning, at the dinner table, they began their war over who was to get the choicest pieces of the nation - the presidency, the post of prime-minister, cabinet posts, parliamentary seats, etc. What of the Nation's future? It remained all but forgotten.

But let us be fair in our criticism – freedom of speech is a foundational right, a platform from which other rights can be demanded - and it exists in Kenya now. Free primary education, even though fraught with fits and starts, is an achievement. AIDS is in the national agenda. There is a debate over universal health: Those in favor of a gradual introduction won, but the debate (2) was there nevertheless. There is a debate over the rights of women. NARC government cleaned out the corrupt judiciary - a move that showed that the political will to do right by Kenya was there. Corruption, even though new and old scandals keep erupting, is at the very least being debated.

In good neighborliness, Kenya has been instrumental in facilitating peace in Somalia and Sudan. Internationally, the NARC government has refused to join Bush's pre-emptive wars. For distancing itself from the Bush government, NARC is facing threats of what amounts to undeclared sanctions. The withdrawal of 200 million shillings intended to aid in the anti-corruption drive, or the tourism advisories or terror alerts that warn Americans against traveling to Kenya, point to reluctance by the American government to support a Kenya that is not in toe with its agenda. Certainly the KANU leadership, with much less commitment to fighting corruption than NARC, got away with a lot more. And here, there are two things that need to be pointed out, the hypocrisy of the West that has never had qualms in supporting dictatorships throughout Africa and Latin America, but more importantly, the dependency of African countries to the West – a dependency so great that cleaning out corrupt officials from the government cannot be done without calling to the West.

These, nevertheless, are not small achievements. But for each of them, one can point to much more work that remains to be done. NARC did not inherit a floundering democracy with a flourishing middle class where liberal policies can hold the seams together – all avenues of hope and recourse had been gutted by the Moi government. NARC inherited a country wedded to neocolonialism and beholden to the IMF and World Bank, that flouted good neighborliness, where a human life could be lost at the whim of the government, and corruption and exploitation were the norm. Poverty is itself disenfranchising, and one needs only to travel from Dandora slums to Muthaiga Estate or walk from Mountain View Estate to the neighbouring slum of Kangemi to understand that the disparity between the rich and the poor will not be cured by free primary education.

Now, one of the ways that a government recognizes the enormity of the task ahead is by entrusting the burden of fulfillment to the people. It does this by facilitating the creation of a constitution which safeguards them against governmental excesses and at the same time holds the government accountable for the welfare of the people. Thus the government becomes accountable not only for the injury it might cause the people, but also for the injury its inaction causes.

Memorandum of Understanding

Yet it seems to me that the search for a new constitution was undermined by NARC even before it came into power. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which was signed behind closed doors and gave Kibaki the presidency and Raila (Odinga) the yet-to-be-created post of Prime Minister, should be considered as not legally binding to the Kenyan people. The MoU was a negotiated (3) settlement between several opposition parties before they were in power, and is not therefore representative of Kenyans. It was, as it were, an example of the carelessness with which the power elite holds Kenyans - that matters that affect the future of a whole nation can be negotiated behind closed doors. And no matter whether one finds merit with Raila or Kibaki, the future of Kenya should not be beholden to promises between two politicians. If Kenya has to have a Prime Minister, first let it be discussed and then justified by the Kenyan people. And if the Prime Minister is to have more powers than the President, then let the Prime Minister be elected by the people and not by the President, as the Bomas draft constitution (4) declares. Why should we practice a democracy twice removed? Elect a President who in turn elects a Prime Minister who is more powerful than the President? Simply put, who ever wields the most power should face the electoral public.

Again we are seeing these back-door negotiations that will produce more MoUs. The one/two-person mini-coalitions within NARC that are emerging give credence to the maxim that politics makes strange bedfellows. Who would have thought Charity Ngilu (5) and Raila (6) would play in the same team in this power game? Thus we have Ngilu and Raila on one side, and on the other, Kibaki supporters, all with one goal in mind - getting the most powerful seat in the nation.

And what of the party registration drive? Again, there are hidden hands with hidden agendas. NARC wants to conduct a registration drive that recruits individual members as opposed to registration through party affiliation. Once people register as NARC and not as members of the constituent political parties, then NARC becomes a single political party under a single leadership. The coalition thus coalesces into NARC. This in turn heavily favors Kibaki since he is in control of the party machinery, thus paving the way for his second term as president (never mind an MoU that gave the understanding that he was going to pull a Mandela and not run again). Or if the search for Kibaki's posterity prevails, his chosen successor is favoured.

With the same move, the Kibaki government is trying to undermine Charity Ngilu and wrest the position of party chair from her. Under the current NARC constitution, the sitting chair in the next general election is automatically nominated. This means that unless Ngilu is edged away from the NARC party chair, Kibaki would have to pit himself against her if he is to run under a NARC ticket in 2007. This is a move that would be very much welcomed by KANU which, without Moi's stick, will encourage a NARC implosion. Ngilu and Raila are definitely for a recruitment drive on individual party tickets. By maintaining party independence, they are setting the stage for other party coalitions outside of NARC to be formed. The scenario whereby either NARC implodes and spawns other coalitions or coalesces into one party under one leadership has been set. Under these circumstances of continuous political machinations, it is imperative that we the people refuse to honor any secret MoU's that bind a whole nation to the political goals of a few politicians.

The Constitution in Balance

Under this whirlwind of MoUs, alliances, and counter alliances within NARC, it is not surprising that the struggle for a new constitution also reflects the goals of political survival. Hence Kibaki passed a bill that allows for the Bomas Draft to be amended by a simple majority. Certainly the first clause to be modified if not all together deleted will be the one calling for a powerful Prime-Minister position. Kibaki, or at least his supporters, have no desire to see him essentially write himself out of office by curtailing his powers following his re-election in 2007. But with Kibaki running or not, there are those who do not want to see the powers of the presidency reduced.

Raila on the other hand will fight such a modification for with it go his chances of becoming the most powerful person in Kenya as a Prime-Minister elected by the President-elect in 2007. He does not command enough support to win the presidency on his own ticket but he does have enough support to throw a wrench into the NARC machinery. Because he cannot win alone, he will try to short-circuit his way into power by becoming the Prime Minister. And in this quest for personal power at the expense of the nation, the creation and implementation of a new constitution is in the balance.

Since the quest for a new constitution has become caught up in the politics of the day, since instead of the Nation's longevity and welfare our politicians are protecting their own longevity, it is imperative that we, the Kenyan people, first oppose MoUs made outside our consent and remain vigilant against other MoUs being signed with an eye on 2007 elections.

It is imperative that we demand a constitution that is cognizant of the vast inequality and debilitating poverty, that is committed to the liberation of women, sees universal health and education as human rights not as a privilege, and that addresses land redistribution.

In the Bomas draft, there is a Bill of Rights that recognizes the marginalized, the principle of devolution and the democratization of power, equality regardless of gender and many more. It is these aspects of the Bomas Draft that reflect our refusal to go back to where we have been and that nurture an egalitarian democracy that we must demand be kept above the fray of personal political ambition.

* Mukoma Wa Ngugi is the author of 'Conversing with Africa: Politics of Change' and Coordinator of the Africa without Borders Conference to be held in Durban, 2006. This article first appeared at

* Please send comments to [email protected]

Notes
1. After having attempted to defeat the Moi party, KANU as separate parties in 1992 and 1997, in 2002, the Liberal Democratic Party and National Alliance Party of Kenya came together to form National Rainbow Coalition (NARC). As a united front, they were able to defeat the Moi government with NARC getting 63% of the vote and KANU's candidate, Uhuru Kenyatta getting 30%.
2. See the article, Kibaki: We Cannot Afford Ngilu Plan by David Mugonyi. Daily Nation, April 7th, 2005.
3. For a good summary of how the MoU was negotiated, see Joseph Ojwang's article, Wrangles in Kenyan Government at www.change-links.org/MoU12.htm
4. For a complete history of the Kenyan constitution review process, visit http://www.kenyaconstitution.org/enter.htm
5. Charity Ngilu is currently the Minister of Health and the NARC Party Chair. In 1997 she ran against Moi for the presidency and finished 5th overall. As leader of the National Party of Kenya, in 2002 she allied with Mwai Kibaki to defeat Moi's candidate.
6. Raila Odinga allied with Kibaki and Ngilu in the 2002 elections. Before that, he had allied with the Moi government but left when Moi chose Uhuru Kenyatta as the KANU candidate. He had also been imprisoned by the Moi government for eight years. Until recently, the relationship between Raila and Charity Ngilu had always been rocky at best.

As the battle for permanent seats on a reformed United Nations Security Council heats up, Wafula Okumu treads the minefield of politics and internal dealings over the African contenders in the race. The battle ahead, he writes, is likely to be “long, nasty and brutal” and is sure to lead to increased tensions between African power brokers.

The campaign for the proposed new permanent seats in the reformed United Nations Security Council (UNSC), while producing fireworks around the world, has also opened up old historical wounds and heightened regional rivalries.

Although the hottest rivalries are in Asia, particularly between India and Pakistan, and between Japan, South Korea and China, Africa is also exhibiting deep divisions along regional and language lines as countries scramble for the coveted seats.

Senegal is the latest African country to put forth its name for a permanent seat on the UNSC, should the body be expanded. Other African countries jockeying for the permanent seats are South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt and Libya. The African Union (AU) is flummoxed as to which of its member states to endorse, and has yet to establish the criteria to be used for selecting African countries to the reformed Security Council. The entry of Senegal into the race has only increased the dilemma, and is an indication of the AU’s indecision. In creating this leadership vacuum, the AU is leaving the selection of who will represent Africa on the expanded UN Security Council to be determined by foreign busybodies and regional power struggles.

Among the criteria laid down by the UN ‘Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change’ (the Report on UN Reforms) is that the new members of the UNSC must have contributed “most to the United Nations financially, militarily and diplomatically,” particularly through contributions to United Nations assessed budgets and participation in mandated peace operations. The other conditions spelt out are that new members should represent the broader UN membership, increase the democratic and accountable nature of the Security Council, and should not impair its effectiveness. A working group that was appointed in January 2005 during the Abuja Summit of the African Union to come up with recommendations on the proposed UN reforms presented its report to the Foreign Ministers on March 7 in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, but was deafeningly silent on the selection criteria for Security Council permanent seats.

What the AU stands to gain from a reformed Security Council

According to the “Ezulwini Consensus,” which was adopted by the AU Foreign Ministers as Africa’s common position on UN reform, “Africa’s goal is to be fully represented in all the decision-making organs of the UN, particularly in the Security Council, which is the principal decision-making organ of the UN in matters relating to international peace and security.”

The UNSC is now more important than ever to Africa, particularly concerning matters of intervention in the conflicts occurring within the region. These decisions will become more legitimate and easier to implement if they are made through democratic processes.

The major criticism of the UN from the South has been that a few powerful members have dominated its policy-making process and frequently used the veto power to enhance their interests. This has been deemed undemocratic. It is now surprising that critics of this arrangement are now seeking to strengthen it rather than to reform the UNSC. It is a classic case of “Animal Farm” where the oppressed join the oppressors, and behave just like them.

The position of the AU

When the AU Committee was formed in January to propose a common African response, its terms of reference included consideration of the two models relating to the reform of the UN Security Council. These models were recommended to reflect the 4 global regions: Africa, Asia/Pacific, Americas and Europe.

Model A provides for six new permanent seats, with no veto being created, and three new two-year term non-permanent seats; bringing the total to 24. Africa would have 2 no-veto permanent seats and 4 two-year non-renewable seats. The balance of power would still tip in Europe’s favor as the UK, France and Russia would retain their veto powers as would the US and China. Africa would still be the only region without veto power.

Model B provides for no new permanent seats but creates a new category of eight four-year renewable-term seats and one new two-year non-permanent (and non-renewable) seat. All the regions would get 2 four-year renewable-term seats. Although Africa would get the most (4) of the two-year non-permanent seats, Europe and the Americans gain most, as they each get two four-year renewable-term seats. Additionally, all regions will have at least one member with veto power, except Africa.

AU has rejected both of these models and instead demanded “not less than two permanent seats with all the prerogatives and privileges of permanent membership including the right of veto.” Although the AU opposes, in principle, the veto, it strongly feels that it be extended to all permanent members “so long as it exists.”

The AU has also demanded the right to select African representatives to the Security Council and to set up its selection criteria for African members of the Council. In this regard, the AU seems to be overlooking the proposed UN selection criteria, in favor of some criteria of its own. According to “Ezulwini Consensus,” these criteria will be based on “the representative nature and capacity of those chosen.” However, these criteria have still not been explicitly defined.

The selection criteria of UNSC permanent seats

Taking into consideration the criteria of the Report on UN Reforms, some of the African candidates put forward so far are better qualified than others.

1. Contributions to the promotion of peace, security and stability in Africa

In the UN’s assessments of present troop contributions for peacekeeping efforts, Nigeria is ranked 7th, South Africa is 10th, Senegal 12th, Kenya 13th and Egypt 49th. However, taking the past into consideration, Kenya claims the distinction of being the second top African nation troop contributor to all UN missions. Libyan troops are currently not serving on any UN peacekeeping mission.

South Africa, Kenya, Senegal and Nigeria have all played crucial roles in promoting and maintaining peace and security in their respective regions. South Africa’s record in promoting peace on the continent includes playing leading roles to end conflicts in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and most recently in Ivory Coast. Nigeria has earned praises for playing leading roles in the peacekeeping missions in the Sierra Leonian and Liberian civil wars. In the case of Liberia, in 2003 Nigeria was instrumental in ending the conflict by offering beleaguered president Charles Taylor a safe haven.

Nigeria also played an instrumental role in reversing a coup in the tiny oil-rich nation of Sao Tome in 2003 and is currently leading the AU troops in Darfur. The Nigerian foreign minister has argued further that a permanent membership seat on the Security Council would ease the country’s burden of peacekeeping in Africa and inevitably reduce the pressure on resources to the benefit of all Nigerians.

Kenya played a central role in ending Sudan's 21-year north-south civil war, Africa's longest running conflict. The peace efforts in neighboring lawless Somalia have also been maintained through Kenya’s support as host, first to the peace negotiations, and subsequently the government in exile. Kenya’s foreign minister, Chirau Ali Mwakwere, in his announcement of Kenya’s candidature for the permanent seat in the Security Council, called for these achievements in the region to be recognized. He also cited Kenya’s peacekeeping efforts worldwide and peaceful nature as additional qualifications.

2. Are they democratic role models?

All the contenders have contributed positively to emerging African values and practices in peace, justice and governance. Senegal is selling itself as a model for religious tolerance and justice. South Africa was the first country to disarm its nuclear arsenal and has broken through the barriers to give Africa permanent access to the Group of Eight most industrialized countries. Both Senegal and South Africa have commendable records on democratic transitions and consolidation. Kenya also, in December 2002, underwent a democratic process that saw the defeat of an incumbent ruling party and peaceful handover of power to a coalition of opposition parties. Nigeria in April 2003 held national elections whose results were generally accepted. Libya and Egypt are not known to practice universally accepted democracy.

Nigeria’s biggest minus is its corruption reputation. Corruption has not only stigmatized the country as untrustworthy but also earned it a third ranking as the world's most corrupt nation on Transparency International’s corruption index. Despite President Obasanjo’s declared war on corruption, Nigeria has yet to sign the UN and AU conventions targeted at enhancing greater transparency in the fight against organized crime and corruption. In particular, Nigeria has refused to sign international conventions such as the 2003 UN convention on trans-national crime. Most damning is the fact that despite being the chair of NEPAD’s Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee (HSGIC), Nigeria has not ratified the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption. Only two HSGIC members, Libya and Rwanda, have ratified this convention. South Africa, Kenya Senegal and Egypt have also not ratified the AU convention on corruption.

3. Are they representative of Africa?

There has been much debate concerning what it means to represent Africa. This is often confused to mean to have a large African population. Nigeria, as the most populous African country would win on this count, even though, 7/8 Africans do not live in Nigeria, and would therefore be unrepresented. What is needed, however, is a selection that is not based on national size and composition. Whichever country is chosen to represent Africa has to see itself as African first, and seek to promote the interests of the whole continent equally.

It has been sarcastically noted that were it not for Egypt’s interest in the Security Council permanent seat, President Hosni Mubarak would never have attended an AU Summit. Egypt had very strong Pan-Africanist orientation during Gamel Nasser’s rule but has over the years paid more attention to Middle Eastern issues, particularly the Palestinian question, than to African problems. Many watchers of Egyptian African foreign policy have noted that it is mainly driven by its interest in the waters of the Nile. Many Africans also resent how Egyptians regard themselves as being “non-Africans.”

Nigeria, on the other hand, has played leading roles in the promotion of pan-Africanist ideals enshrined in the Conference on Security, Stability, Development and Cooperation in Africa (CSSDCA), NEPAD and the AU. Libya too has a strong claim to represent Africa. Libya’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi is widely regarded as the father of the African Union. South Africa has played an active role of promoting Africa’s development through the NEPAD initiative and heading the AU at its formative period. President Mbeki was the brain behind NEPAD and the first Chairman of the AU after hosting its inaugural summit in Durban in July 2002. Kenya has given shelter to refugees from many other African countries, and is currently hosting almost 300,000 refugees, not only from its war-torn neighbors, but from different parts of the continent.

4. Financial contributions to the UN

An indication of the various countries’ level of commitment to the UN is their fulfillment of financial obligations. The amount of the membership dues is assessed according to a country’s ability to pay. However, payments are often still not made on time. African countries are notorious for late payments and delinquencies only matched by the United States, which intentionally withholds payments as a way of exerting pressure on the UN or to make political points.

South Africa and Egypt have already paid their dues, $5,196,166 and $2,135,411 respectively, for 2005 by the end of January, as established by UN Financial Regulations Rule 5.4. Since 1996, South Africa has consistently paid its UN dues on time. Between 1991 and 2004, Egypt paid its dues in time six times, Libya two times, and Senegal once. As of 16 December 2004, South Africa, Senegal, Egypt, Nigeria and Libya had paid their full dues to the UN regular budget. While Nigeria has always paid late, Kenya has been chronically delinquent.

5. Financial Capability

Financial capability is not listed amongst the UN selection criteria, however it clearly cannot be ignored, and may end up as a de facto criteria unless adequate provision is made to enable poor countries to participate as permanent members of the Security Council. Among the qualities expected of a country to be an active and productive member of the Security Council are financial resources to enable it to staff its New York and Geneva UN Missions with adequate and highly qualified people. The resources needed to maintain and run a full permanent representation on the Security Council to match the other Big 5 are enormous.

The Favorite

South Africa is widely seen as a favorite to fill one of the “permanent seats” that will be set aside for Africa at the Security Council, should the UN adopt model 1. South Africa has credibility among the G-8 nations that the other contenders do not have. South Africa accounts for nearly 40 percent of Africa's economy, while Nigeria, with its vast oil reserves, is saddled with a national debt of $34 billion. Egypt’s $2 billion aid from the US has caused uneasiness on the continent as it is an incentive to kowtow to US agenda rather than promote Africa’s interests, which are in many cases at odds with Washington’s.

Libya, despite its oil wealth is still recovering from the UN isolation that ended in 2003. Kenya has a weak economy and is presently too bogged down in domestic politics to carry out a credible continental and international campaign. Senegal’s late entry will also be costly as it is already experiencing difficulties in selling itself on a continent where it is seen as a French proxy. These three seem to be positioning themselves as regional picks should model B be adopted.

South Africa’s emergence as the clear favorite has not been well received by its rival, Nigeria, which has emotionally invested enormous hopes in the “African permanent seat” on the Security Council. To check South Africa’s well-oiled diplomatic machine, Nigeria has launched a desperate and dirty campaign aimed at stemming what is appearing to be a sure victory. Davo Oluyemi-Kusa, a close confidante of President Obasanjo, has dismissed South Africa and Egypt as not being “black enough” to represent Africa, compared to Nigeria that has “true blacks.” Nigeria not only sees itself as “the only true African candidate” but is also prepared to back Egypt as “a compromise” should there be strong disunity over the “African candidate.”

International Connections

In view of the AU’s indecision to establish selection criteria and to endorse two candidates, some African countries have sought “strategic partnerships” with countries from other regions and on the Security Council. The African campaign for UN Security Council seats is being watched very closely and with great interest by other countries that want to trade their support with Africa’s to shore up their own interests. The other regional candidates, Germany, Japan, India and Brazil have declared their support for Africa to have seats with veto power and have indicated their willingness to engage in mutual backing for the seats in exchange for increased trade.

South Africa has gravitated towards a partnership with Brazil, India and Japan. Nigeria seems to be angling towards China and Russia while Egypt is banking on the US support. Senegal seems to have very strong backing from France but its candidacy will automatically be vetoed by China as it is one of the few countries in the world that has established diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Although the US has not endorsed any of the models it is openly supporting only Japan’s bid, with veto rights. While France and Russia have called for veto rights for all new members other Permanent Members have kept their counsel on the issue.

The new members of the Security Council must first be approved by two-thirds of the 191-member General Assembly. Then the Council’s five permanent members - the US, UK, France, China, and Russia - must ratify the decision. If the UN General Assembly is left to decide for Africa, its decision would be most favorable to South Africa. Nigeria, with a poor international image, would lose to Egypt.

In the Security Council, South Africa is guaranteed all of the votes while Egypt will have to rely on the US to muster the needed support. There is no doubt that the US would prefer Egypt over Nigeria, given its close historical relations and partnership in seeking solutions to the Middle East problems.
The US, in its effort to engage and include the Arabs in the world’s highest decision making body, has chosen a method and means that will be hard fought by Africans. In the process, it is guaranteed to increase conflict rather than to promote dialogue between civilizations in Africa.

Role of African Union

The AU has not only failed to pick candidates for potential African seats on the UNSC, but has also been unable to forge a consensus on how Africa should be represented at the top decision-making body. This indecision is only likely to increase the nasty undertones among those countries campaigning for the seat.

There is widespread concern on the continent that the fight for permanent membership would lead to bad blood between the leading African candidates - Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa - with many of the other countries choosing sides for reasons that would not promote Africa’s interests. It is because of this fear that the AU is being looked to for Solomonic wisdom to break the deadlock.

Traditionally, the AU decides such issues through regional and linguistic balancing. However, this is not an option that will be available in deciding on the UN Security Council seats. As a result of the failure of the African Union to resolve the issue of which countries should occupy Africa's two permanent seats on a reformed UN Security Council it is now inevitable that the campaign between South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt, Kenya, Libya and Senegal is going to be long, nasty and brutal.

* Dr. Wafula Okumu is a Canadian-based analyst of African Affairs

* Please send comments to