JUNK RUNTAH

AUTHORITARIAN TENDENCIES IN AFRICAN GOVERNMENT

AUTHORITARIAN TENDENCIES IN AFRICAN GOVERNMENT

Many have been wondering why most African leader's desire power so much that, they prefer to die as sit tight rulers. Even some foreign countries have accused many African leaders of this habit, something that prompted the intervention of some western countries in Cote D' ivore, thereby over throwing the sitting President Gbagbo in 2010 who supposedly lost an election.

Studies have establish that, the major reasons for the inability of many African countries like Nigeria, Ghana and others to operate an open, accountable and limited government has a long historical origin, beginning from the time of the slave trade, to the pre-colonial era where dictatorship and authoritarianism is the major.

It was observed that, as far as the present African leaders are concerned, there are three (3) immediate historical experiences they can appeal to:
1.     Pre-colonial time, where the Oba's,Emirs and other rulers combined both spiritual and political authority, therefore equated all opposition to them as sacrilegious.
2.     The colonial era, where the colonial governors as representatives after held legislative, executive and judicial authority in the colonies and preceded to treat as sedition's, all opinions and actions that tended to question the colonial domination and exploitation
3.     Finally, the post-colonial era, where the independent politicians were so desirous to inherit the privileges of the colonial masters that they did nothing to abolish the dualism of colonial rule.

Findings also show that, beyond these negative examples, younger Africans can also remember young majors and captains who rather than defend the sovereignty and integrity of their fatherland, decided to take upon themselves to ruin the land by looting the treasury and arrogating to themselves unwarranted privileges. Besides these, the present Africa youths on a daily basis watch with amusement, how their elected public office holder strample on their rights, appoint their children, friends and family members into various government positions, use the state resources to intimidate the citizens, prevent public demonstration with soldiers and security personnel, arrest anyone found in participation, tag the citizens with unpleasant names like nuisance, hoodlums, jobless etc.

With such a background even in this present dispensation, bad governance and authoritarian rule have been more visible and enduring precedents that contemporary African leaders can point to, and due to this, it may be difficult for African countries to put things right, unless quick action is taken by the present leaders to clean up the dirt.

From Nigeria to Ghana, Zimbabwe to Egypt and all across Africa, this subject is very visible. Even the African citizens themselves today join hands with outsider to oust a sit tight ruler. We can see the example of Libya, Egypt and so on.

But my question is,why is it still difficult for the colonial west to leave power to the African states, if they themselves are not to be referred to as sit tight masters?

Before i go into that proper, let's first ask, who is the leader of United Kingdom? Its the queen. A life time ruler. If United kingdom with all its civilization can accept the queen as its life leader,why bother about sit tight rulers in Africa? If Saudi Arabia can accept king as its life ruler, again, why bother about sit tight rulers in Africa?

Using Nigeria as a case study, if Britain, who claimed to have given Nigeria independent over 50 years ago still could not leave Nigeria alone to govern itself, what makes it different from an African leader who prefer to sit tight to power? Is the sit tight African leader not simply following the example of the colonial masters who initiated the sit tight ruler ship style of coercion and brutality?

It was on record, that Nigeria suffered greatly in the hand of Britain for over 50 years during colonialism, where all the work is being done by Nigerians, on the land owned by Nigerians, but the profits of the work done by Nigerians on Nigerian soil shall be transported to Britain. These went on for over 50 years, where Nigerian resources were channeled in to developing Britain at the detriment of the Nigerian people. But after the said Britain gave Nigeria independent in 1960, 50 years after, they still couldn't leave Nigeria alone to govern itself, but instead, continue to threaten the nation in so many ways and interfering in its internal affair like we saw recently about the anti-gay law passed in Nigeria. What could that be if not a sit tight master ship if I could use that word? Yes, sit tight rulers are not good, in fact, they are bad.But the intervention of any foreign influence in whatever disguise is even worst.

Point of note: if the African sit tight ruler favors the foreign western nation that is interfering, they would never interfere to oust the ruler unless for a greater benefit to their interest and not the interest of the African citizens, so why accept an intervention of a worst evil to oust a smaller evil?

Example can be seen in the recent bill of the Nigerian National Assembly, criminalizing same sex marriage which was threatened by Britain, U.S and others. If all these countries would not leave Nigeria alone to govern itself, how can Britain condemn an African sit tight ruler who is only following the path created by them and others?

History have it that, The Nigerian politicians who lead in the first and second republic where to take the major blame for the present situation. if the central and dominant figures holding executive positions in national policies had used their dominance in favor of the public good or to promote worthy national objectives and goals, Nigeria would have had worthy examples to follow,but this was hardly the case. The key figures of Nigeria's first and second republic were never certain as to whether they were acting as champions of their various regions and ethnic groups or as leaders of Nigeria. Thus, while each professed democratic inclinations in their speeches, few were willing to respect the opinion of the masses as well as follow the words coming from their own mouth, which is the replica of the British colonial ruler ship style.

In my opinion, independence was only taken from Britain, but the Nigerian people were still under the colony of those who inherit the colonial structures. If the Nigerians of today continue to follow the path of these old politicians, it would be difficult to achieve the aim of a united nation of a free citizen with developmental capacities.

These explain the reason why both the first and second republic collapsed for self-same reason, i.e. unwillingness of leaders to respect the will of the people at national and regional elections, the desire to remain in power despite the verdict of the electorates.

Another point of note: neither the nationalists who took over power from the colonial administrations nor the military officers who took over where prepared psychologically, politically, and economically to promote democracy and good governance, they were rather trained or schooled, the authoritarian style of the colonial masters.

The authoritarian nature of African leaders was schooled through the colonial masters, where the colonial masters coerced the Black Africans into forceful submission. Since these present African leaders inherit the structure of the colonialists, it is no surprise that they also inherit the sit tight nature of their then masters.

In my opinion, the sit tight rulers in Africa are merely imitating the western colonialists, because despite the independent given to most African countries, no African country has been loosed from the structural tie with its colonial masters as designed by them.

So, seeking the assistance of any western nation to intervene in time of any crisis, especially that which involve government, election and overthrow of government is a suicide mission. A means of giving legitimacy to those who are indirectly aiding or benefiting from the the crisis underneath.

At this junction, it is worth to note that, no foreign solution can solve a traditional problem; and every internal challenges can only be solved by an internal and all inclusive solution.

African reasons for supporting foreign intervention is simple, getting a solution to our present challenges, but no any foreign intervention had ever solved the challenges in the real sense, it instead escalate ethnic hatred, trigger internal struggle which would ensure that there is continuous crisis to always require their input for self-benefits.

We should learn to see beyond our present needs and challenges, but look into the future and the safety and development of our nation.

Article written by
Akinkuotu Joseph, 300L
Department of Political Science
& Public Administration

Available link for download