Can the winds of change, perennially seen as superseding political barriers, truly transcend?
Can authoritarianism, cloaked in the thin veil of democracy, continue to deceive both a willing world, and the unwilling, unlucky participants caught in the crossfire?
Can power and vested interests, when so firmly entrenched, ever yield?
Recent history paints a startlingly contrasting answer to this multifaceted question; but we must ask-why does this work for some, and not for others? Why id Mugabe still firmly in control of Zimbabwe, and country he has devastated, while Mubarak is being wheeled into trial in a nation in which he oversaw at least some measure of progress and human development enhancement?
What are the tools that are used to preserve power?
What is the threshold of ruthlessness that must be crossed in some, but not other nations?
And why is this threshold permitted to be crossed with some populations, while violent upheavals and revolutions result in others?
What is the dividing line of humanity, what is the tipping point of collective action?
The BBC's Jimmy Kainja states that, "...an African Spring in the exact fashion of the Arab Spring would signify a step backwards - not a step forward...I previously argued that "the protagonists of the Arab Spring have more to learn from their sub-Saharan Africa counterparts than the other way round. The majority of sub-Saharan African countries peacefully did away with one-party-rule in the 1990s.""
The majority of countries in the region "did away with one party rule in the 1990's." This statement is both true and completely false; truth, a thin veneer painted on top of a reality of lies. The tide towards authoritarianism is increasing with time; the initial movements away from one party rule were in response to Western demands, back by structural adjustment loans and financing; they were not indigenous revolutions, indigenous movements; and thus, they have never been more than thin lip service. The governmental systems in most nations exist to serve the vested interests of a few; democracy and democratic elections acts as a trough for political patronage, not for the distribution of public goods to the majority of citizens. These vested interests are also the ones reaping the fruits of the newly energized economic growth of the continent, not the ordinary citizens, who continue to the blindly neglected and untouched by the hand of the state. And how? Governments have become adept at limiting the coordination goods, the ability of opposition groups to coordinate and scale dissent through strict media and political controls. What we have in nations such as Rwanda, Uganda, and Ethiopia, is not democracy; development and progress, but surely not democracy. What we have in nations such as the DRC, Zimbabwe, and Angola is kleptocracy, not democracy. What we have in nations such as Mozambique and Kenya is limited progress, with vastly entrenched vested interests reaping the fruits of economic growth; democracy, with very limited development.
I agree with Kainja that developing strong democratic institutions is the best way forward to establishing true democracy; however, this is simply not happening, has not happened, and is promising not to happen in many nations (there are certainly exceptions, Ghana and Liberia come quickly to mind). What, then, is the answer to a Mugabe, who shows no sign of relenting?
