AFTER weeks of negotiations and uncertainty, and facing the threat of a regional military intervention, Gambia’s defeated president Yahaya Jammeh finally agreed to step down over the weekend. Jammeh, who lost to Adama Barrow’s in the December polls, had ruled the Gambia for 23 years after usurping power via a coup. In the 23 years of his reign, he successfully led the tiny West African country to be amongst the top 20 poorest African nation worldwide. Albeit leading one of Africa’s smallest countries and economies, Jammeh had drawn outsize and infamous attention to himself by making bizarre and sometimes deeply troubling assertions.
At one time, he claimed he could cure AIDS with a mix of local herbs and had also stated that he would rule The Gambia for a billion years. Such statements infuriated a lot of Africans, as well as Gambians, many of whom live in penury as Jammeh traveled around in a posh Rolls-Royce and is known to be an avid buyer of real estate in choice countries around the world. Hence, many Gambians have been trying to escape the biting economic hardship in the country by becoming migrants abroad. As at October last year, in a country of less than 2-million people, more than 10,000 Gambians had arrived in Italy in 2016 after crossing the Mediterranean from North Africa, according to the Office of the U.N.
High Commissioner for Refugees. Gambia was the fifth-largest source of refugees in all of Africa, despite having one of the smallest populations. Before Jammeh disputed his rival’s election victory, many African heads of state have attempted, in some cases successfully, over the past few years to remain in power beyond their legal mandate. In some African countries, elections have been disputed amid deadly violence and clashes, as was the case recently in Kenya, Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Togo and Gabon.
At times, it looked like Jammeh intended to remain in power by force. But as members of his administration and security forces resigned, and West African troops amassed at Gambia’s borders, he was given little choice but to step down. Deserved acclaim must be given to the ECOWAS bloc who stood united against Jammeh’s plan to remain in power. President Buhari should also be given kudos, who ensured that our fellow West African country abides by the tenets of democracy and Jammeh stepped down peacefully.
The African Union, other countries/presidents, the media and all international bodies who kicked against Jammeh’s sit put mentality must also recognized for their voices in ensuring that The Gambia didn’t plunge into violent crisis like many other African countries before it as a result of one man’s ambition. Most of us have heard of the common saying “absolute power corrupts absolutely”; it is one of the primary lessons in George Orwell’s popular classic, Animal Farm. Similarly, in trying to answer why power corrupts leaders, renowned psychologist Ronald Riggio alludes to two kinds of power: socialized power and personal power.
During elections we all hope whomever we chose/elect will possess more of the socialized than personal power. Socialized power is power used for the benefit of the broader society. On the other hand, individual power is used for personal gain, something many of us loathe in any leader, especially one in the political spectrum. These two forms of power are not mutually exclusive however. One can use his/her power for the benefit of society and still benefit personally. The challenge, as we have observed with some African presidents refusing to relinquish power, is the abuse of their position/power for personal gain.
Such presidents largely focus on consolidating power at all cost- even at the cost of the electorate. Ideally our leaders should be more inclined to social power than individual power as social power can help deter the suffering of citizens, opposition persecution and especially minimize gross corruption. In the top 10 biggest economies in Africa only Angola (from amongst the top five countries with longest serving presidents) is on the list. As earlier enumerated The Gambia as well as Zimbabwe is amongst the 20 poorest countries in the continent.
In comparison, Nigeria and South Africa- Africa`s two economic power houses have changed presidents three times in their recent democratic experience. Ghana who recently changed its president is one of the classic examples of true democracy within the continent. Is it possible to conclude that democracies are more beneficial then? One can observe the trend in dictatorships that has produced political uncertainty which makes investors nervous (Zimbabwe and Gambia are classic examples). Evidently a respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights relax investor tension while promoting innovation at the individual level.
As already observed within the continent, Presidents for life are most often not beneficial to the continent. In most cases than not, they stifle growth of the state at the expense of individual benefit. In countries were the Presidents for life mentality is prime, the manipulation of the constitution is usually done to accommodate/achieve their personal ambition. Hence, the major challenge we have in specific African countries where constitutions are manipulated, is the mere fact that the political parties and ultimately nations are governed by individual’s not institutional structures.
These “strong men” using their might have replaced institutions and laws, and whatever they say becomes law. Such presidents have been allowed to run rampage with agendas that most often trivialize the national agenda for personal agendas. Fundamentally, the African continent needs strong institutions with a clear separation of powers of the executive, legislative and the judiciary.
Without an organ keeping the executive in check or with the executive embodying law, the notion of state itself is lost. Also, these institutions need a free independent environment to exercise their functions. This coupled with an active citizenry that is not only concerned about the governance issues but also actively involved in the country politics whether by constructively criticizing it, applauding it or even by protest will enhance political and economic freedoms.
Henceforth, deliberate steps should be taken to sensitize Africans on the detriments and demerits of life presidencies and on the benefits of their involvement in state matters, matters that ultimately affect their livelihoods. The media will play an instrumental role in achieving this. As such, the judicial institutions should protect the media and in turn the media should do all it can to sensitize the country towards leadership that benefits the broader nation. An intrusion by the executive in any institution whose effectiveness depends on its independence is a nail in the coffin of real nationhood.
