What are African Leaders So Scared Of?

Last year, as a board member for NYU Wagner’s Student Alliance for Africa (WSAFA), I had the pleasure of organizing a panel of journalists whose main topic of focus was Africa. The journalist, who came from a variety of backgrounds and career paths, shared their experiences as journalists working on the ground in African nations. One particular story that one of our journalists shared stuck with me though, and has since made me seriously reflect on the role of journalism in African democracies. I have not gotten this young man’s permission to tell his story on this blog (I hope to have an interview with him at a later date), so details must be kept vague.

In a quest to promote journalistic freedom in his country, he was repeatedly jailed and beaten, often having to be bailed out by his newspaper’s chief editor. He was forced out of his country after covering a protest march against his country’s military junta leadership which turned violent after the members of the junta began firing into the crowd of peaceful protesters. For this young, educated, and well-connected young man, it would have to take much more than a pen and paper (or in this age, a computer) to challenge the status quo in his country.

Sadly, what happened in this man’s country is far from an isolated incident. This past Christmas, I traveled to Sierra Leone where freedom of the press is also restricted, though it is must better than many other African countries. Though Sierra Leone has made major developmental strides given the fact that its brutal civil war ended just shy of one decade ago, it is still deficient in some basic necessities – namely, water. In the capital, where I stayed, clean water is a hassle to come by for the majority of people, regardless of socioeconomic class. There are wells scattered in neighborhoods throughout Freetown, many of which have long lines as soon as dawn arrives with families anxious to start their days. And, incredibly, in some areas, perfectly good water floods the streets, due to broken pipes, pointing to the weak overall infrastructure within the country, most of which was destroyed during the war.

As I was told, the government mandated several years back that water be provided free of cost to Sierra Leonean citizens, which was a great move on their part. They commissioned one company with the disbursal of this water. Employees of the company turned around and sold it, and they still do until this day (this I observed with my own eyes). About two years ago, a man within the company decided to publicly speak out against the corrupt practices of the water company. He was promptly murdered. The twenty-two people charged in his murder were all set free. In any other “democratic” country, this man’s death would have caused an outrage. In Sierra Leone, it did not. A quick internet search reveals very little of this man’s death – just a quick conversation on an old website. Where was the press? Where were the journalists? Some perhaps in the back pockets of these companies, but most of them, I would say, suppressed by fear. And who could really blame them?

This week, The Daily Nation, is reporting that the government of Congo-Kinshasa switched off two broadcasters linked to its opposition leader, one of which was run by the Roman Catholic Church. When interviewed about the matter, a program officer for the Catholic TV station declared that he did not know why the station’s signal had been stopped. To me, it’s clear that this claim was driven by a survival instinct. In his mind, cutting off the station’s signal may very well have been just the beginning. Where could it possibly end? Feigning ignorance was the best option.

Journalism is an essential feature of any nation that has dedicated itself to democratic ideals. Any nation that calls itself democratic (and receives money from the international community to build and strengthen their democracy) must have freedom of the press. Freedom of the press should be protected by that country’s government, and in cases in which it is not, the international community should withhold funding to that country’s government until its conditions are met. Detractors of this suggestion might say that to intervene in another country’s affairs violates its sovereignty. Perhaps, but the international community is meant to keep countries accountable to each other and to their citizens. (Note: I fully recognize that all countries are not on equal footing. That’s another blog posting for another day). Others may argue that withholding aid will keep money away from those citizens who need it most. This is a solid argument, and to that I say, directly fund internationally approved NGOs and civil society organizations (CSOs) – NOT the government, and still take measures to keep them accountable. Cut out the corrupt middleman. Have them tighten their belts and direct siphoned money to its originally intended location.

To the African leader, I ask: Why are you so scared? If you are a good leader, a decent individual, why not be publicly accountable to your people? In the coming months I’ll be monitoring this issue, which will be very pertinent as several African countries will be having elections this year, therefore making it a time in which freedom of the press is most crucial. Stay tuned.

Rest In Peace, David Kato

Unfortunately, it took me roaming around the New York Times to find out who David Kato was. Today marks one year since his brutal murder in his home. In the final weeks of his life, Kato, perhaps the most outspoken LGBT activist Uganda has seen, had been lobbying for the Ugandan parliament to shelve an anti-homosexuality bill. The bill would have required that all Ugandans report all individuals they knew to be gay, and would have required the dealth penalty for gay Ugandans living with HIV. The bill was in fact shelved, but not after Kato was bludgeoned to death in his own home at the age of 46.

Kudos to you Mr. Kato and may your soul rest in perfect peace. This ignorance needs to stop.

Gay Rights in Africa: The UK takes a stance

This week, Prime Minister David Cameron of the UK sent a stern warning to Sierra Leone and other African countries – refuse to recognize gay rights and risk losing aid from the UK.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, have certain inalienable rights. It is not arguable that Africa and many other parts of the world, including parts in the West, have a very long way to go in terms of recognizing the rights of gays and lesbians.

Sheka Tarawallie, the Deputy Information Minister of Sierra Leone, responded to Cameron’s warning with a curt: "It is not possible that we will legalize same sex marriages as they run counter to our culture." Tarawallie’s sentiments have been echoed by leaders throughout the continent – a staunch rejection of any rights for gays and lesbians on the account that homosexuality is “un-African.”

However, the question arises: Could the UK’s attempt to take a moral stance against homophobia in Africa backfire? The UK will have an uphill battle in bringing about policy reform on gay and lesbian issues. If the UK decides to call African nations’ bluff and actually withhold aid from them, it may find that more problems may be created from this decision than problems solved. Withholding aid from Sierra Leone, for instance, could end vital programs in health care, financial aid, and election assistance, the last of which is particularly necessary as 2012 is the next election year in the country. Problems like these could be recreated throughout the African continent, especially in areas that are very dependent on British aid.

The battle for gay rights is a worthwhile one to fight. However, if the UK wants to effectively fight this battle, it should find another way to do so. Its current approach could have negative consequences for all parties involved.

An Opportunity for Wall Street in Nigeria

Wall Street has been getting a lot of slack in the past several weeks in the Occupy Wall Street Protests. Now it's back in the headlines for another profit-making venture that it wants to undertake.

This morning, the New York Times is reporting that Wall Street firms such as Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan Chase are all trying to get into the Nigerian oil business. That is, these institutions are courting Nigerian government ministers and other officials with the ultimate aim of getting a piece of Nigeria's oil portfolio which could ultimately be worth billions of dollars. If they are successful, the Wall Street firms win because they will get another source of major, long-term profit and Nigeria wins because it gets even more money by investing their oil profits into stocks, bonds, and other global assets.

Well, at least that's how it's supposed to work out.

It's no secret that foreign companies don't exactly have the best interests of the people they work with at heart, especially when they work in the the third-world. Nigeria is no stranger to this. It discovered oil in the southeastern region of the country almost 50 years ago but the Niger Delta region, where most of the oil is located, is still rife with poverty, corruption, violence, and environmental destruction. Meanwhile, Western oil companies such as Shell take most of the profit and share it with their cronies in the Nigerian government to maintain the status quo.


In Nigeria, Wall Street has an opportunity to temper its reputation as being run by greedy lowlife capitalists and actually DO something for the most impoverished in the country. I do understand that these Wall Street firms exist to make profit. That's not going to change. But, does profit always have to mean taking away from someone else? Especially from those who can't afford it?

C'mon Wall Street, you have a chance here. Let's face it. At the very least, you're going to need the good PR for a while to come.

Muammar Qaddafi Was A Hero

Yeah, I don't get it either. However, in the aftermath of Qaddafi's capture and death, many of my young African peers have emerged saying just this.

A Nigerian friend of mine, let's call her Jennifer, posted on Facebook: "Very sad about Gaddafi is dead, I would have preferred he negotiated with NTC and agree on transitional date. He was one of the few African leaders that used the country's wealth to develop the country and for the good of the people. Well, he got his wish and fought till the end." After being challenged by a friend of hers, also Nigerian, who responded "After stuffing his own pockets, you mean," Jennifer then responds with "I wish our leaders developed our country like that and still stuff their pockets! We won't be where we are will we?"

Another friend of mine, let's call her Eve, lamented on Facebook: "Another HERO gone!!!!" She too was challenged by several of her friends, but one "Joseph" adamantly took her side. Joseph, who is also African, listed a number of statistics that illustrated the improvements Qaddafi made to Libya, and another person, "Andrew," challenged him saying: "Social development doesn't mean any thing when democracy and freedom of expression lack." In response, Joseph wrote: "[S]ocial development means everything!!! All those other things you just mentioned can be viewed as 'bonuses'... The fundamental thing we want for ourselves and our kids is food and job security, medical care and education.. When you have that, then you can start expressing yourself, and go to vote, etc etc."

::blank stare::

I... I can't.

I mean what good is living in a developed country where you have no rights? It's like living in a mansion with everything you need, but the owner tells you that you can't leave. Pretty soon that mansion is going to start feeling like a jail. Also, I wasn't aware that the streets of Libya were paved with gold. The average Libyan lives on $2/day while Qaddafi's own assets numbered $200 BILLION when he died. So why are these people (and many others) saying Qaddafi developed his country and Africa when he clearly put his desires before the needs of his own people. And, Jennifer's statement that she wished Nigerian leaders developed their country and then stole was particularly disheartening because it shows that many Africans just plainly accept corruption. Furthermore, did they even consider the fact that Qaddafi funded some of the most bloody conflicts on the African continent, including the wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone?

Even though my friends' statements kind of infuriated me, no comment bothered me more than "Joesph's" assertion that democracy and freedom of expression are "bonuses" and that social development is a predecessor of a people claiming their rights (self-expression, voting, etc). This notion exemplifies the traditional African mentality that people should be ruled rather than rule themselves. It is the same notion that fuels Africa's worst tyrants, including Qaddafi, and that keeps Africans at the bottom of the developmental totem pole. But I had to wonder, are Africans content with a dictator - as long as they perceive him to be benevolent? Sure does seem like it.

I do want to believe that my friends' views are justified in some way - after all these are educated people. Qaddafi definitely stood up to the West, which is a trait Africans tend to appreciate, especially because many of their leaders pander to Western leaders. Maybe he did develop Libya in substantial ways. Maybe he did do more for Africa as a whole than any contemporary African leader. Maybe I just don't know enough. But even if Qaddafi did do good, his deeds will forever be overshadowed by the iron fist he used to keep Libya under his control for 42 years. The disappearing dissenters, the public executions, the bodies of those who challenged him rotting in public view for days just so he could instill fear in his people -- it is clear now that none of these things were far from the minds of the Libyan people.

Perhaps the ultimate irony is that, according to reports, Qaddafi was shot with his own golden gun by a 20-year-old Libyan rebel. He was so hated by his own people that they handed him the ultimate insult and paraded his body in the streets for all the world to see.

Muammar Qaddafi a hero? I think not.

Allow Me To Reintroduce Myself...

To those of you who have or who will follow this blog, it's probably evident that I fell off for a couple of years. During this time, I moved to the Big Apple, the Concrete Jungle Where Dreams are Made Of, the City So Fly They Had to Call it the Same Thing Twice (this is clearly paraphrased) - New York, New York - to complete my Masters of Public Administration (MPA) at my now most-recent alma mater, New York University's Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service. Now that I've graduated, recuperated, and ventured out into the real world, I am ready to get back to discussing with you the most important issues facing Africa and development today.

For those of you who don't know me - here's a brief recap. I am an American of Sierra Leonean parentage. I graduated from Harvard with an AB in Government and as aforementioned received my MPA from NYU Wagner where I studied International Public and Nonprofit Management and Policy. I've worked for the US Congress, the United Nations, and in the private sector, all with the aim of gaining the necessary skills to help me pursue my passion - to improve the lives and circumstances of those in the third world, particularly Africa. Now, at the risk of this sounding like a 'statement of interest' - back to the blog.

Ahem. This is not your granddaddy's blog. Why? Mainly because blogs weren't around in your granddaddy's day, but mostly because there will be no mincing of words here. This blog will always remain tactful and respectful; however all ideas pertaining to Africa and development will be thoughtfully considered - even the unpopular ones! So put your thinking caps on and get ready to discuss! After all, it is our collective goal to move Africa and Africans ahead. So let's do it!

To my old followers - welcome back! And to my new ones - Welcome to Africa Forward!

Effie

The Dark Cloud over the South African Elections

On May 9th, Jacob Zuma was sworn in as the fourth President of South Africa since the end of the apartheid era. Though the campaign for the presidency was contentious, the elections were peaceful. South African icon Nelson Mandela gave Zuma his blessing. South Africans all over the country celebrated Zuma's inauguration. Everything seemed good. What should have been a celebration of good governance and peaceful democratic elections in an African nation by the international community has instead been overshadowed by the dark cloud of corruption. In the last five years, Zuma's political career has been marred by scandal - first, because of his involvement in a controversial arms deal, and second and more troubling, because of allegations of rape.

In 2005, a 31-year old HIV-positive woman claimed that Zuma, who is married (albeit to three women) raped her at his home in Johannesberg. Zuma contended that the sex was consensual. What is most troubling about this case, however, is Zuma's justification for his actions. He claimed that the young woman had worn a short skirt, which he understood as inviting him to take sexual action. When asked whether he feared contracting HIV from the woman, as he had unprotected sex, Zuma responded that he would not be infected because after having sex, he took a shower.

In any other country (I would hope), the mere uttering of the word "rape" and "presidential candidate" in the same sentence would mean an automatic disqualification from the race and political ostracization for a candidate. However, for Zuma, the allegations seem to have had little effect on his presidential aspirations. Though a large number of South Africans protested Zuma and his actions, a considerable number of Zuma's supporters blamed the Zuma's victim, even going so far as burning her image while chanting "Burn the bitch!"

If this is the kind of leader that South Africa has chosen, I worry for the future of the country. South Africa has long been one of the most stable nations in the continent, but what kind of example does this new president send to its people and the world?

What kind of message does Zuma's adulterous actions send to wives in South Africa? South Africa has a tremendously high HIV/AIDS rate. What kind of message does its president send to his people by claiming to have protected himself from the virus by showering?

What kind of message do Zuma's supporters send to rape victims all over South Africa? That rape is the fault of the victim and not the victimizer? That those who have been raped and who speak out can be abused by their communities?

Issues like these run too deep for comfort. Injustices and prejudices are defeated not in days, months, or sometimes even years, but in generations; Zuma's election has undoubtedly impeded women's rights in South Africa by showing that injustices against women, such as rape, are socially acceptable. So, though South Africa may have embarked on a new path on May 9th, the road the nation will travel in the future will be nothing more than bittersweet.