Wounded lion on the rampage

Burundi President Pierre Nkurunziza.

THERE is a wounded lion on the rampage in Africa. Before the attack on him, President Pierre Nkurunziza of Burundi and his pride had killed at least fourteen people, injured over two hundred and sent tens of thousands scampering into exile especially on the shores of Lake Tangayika and into Rwanda. I was in neigbouring Rwanda, and there was a lot of concern about the situation in Burundi

and the influx of refugees. But on Wednesday May 13, 2015, the news of a coup to topple Nkurunziza spread. I was worried that it was the Army, because, in African history, the Army, which is generally neo-colonial, complicates matters. More so in Burundi where it had been split a decade earlier.

The coup attempt, led by General Godefroid Niyombare, failed and a triumphant Nkurunziza rode into Bujumbura, seeking and exerting his pound of flesh. Even unarmed protesters were treated as armed rebels.

Any country I visit, I have a habit of talking with various strands of society. When I was in Bujumbura in January 2014, I tried to probe into the political under current, and discovered that political tension was not far from the surface. Yes, there were attempts at reconciliation and national rebirth, but it was a far from settled polity. That was why I thought that the President’s divisive decision to run for another five-year term which resulted in mass protests from April 26, was ill advised.

As we say, in this part of Africa, it is clear that Nkurunziza has ‘no home training’ or ‘was not properly brought up’. Indeed, the models of leadership in the Africa of the late 1960s to the early 1990s were mainly cranky soldiers who after seizing radio stations, shot their way into the presidential palaces.

But why do so many African leaders cling to power even if it is detrimental to the interests of their countries? Some have argued that the post-independence model of Western democracy we adopted, is alien to African culture. That Africa tends to be monarchical. Indeed there are many African leaders with the mindset of ancient monarchs; people who want to rule to eternity and then get power passed to their sons. These are the cases of Gnassingbe Eyadema in Togo who ruled for thirty eight years, with his son, Faure taking over; and Omar Bongo who ran Gabon for forty one years before his son Ali, took over.

There was of course the farcical drama played out in the Central African Republic where on December 14, 1977 at the Bangui Stadium, President Jean-Bedel Bokassa changed the country into an ‘Empire’ and crowned himself the Emperor. He sat on a golden throne shaped like an eagle with wings outstretched, wearing a crown with a 138-carat diamond worth $2 million, and apparels costing $5 million. The entire ceremony set the impoverished country back by some $20 million. Three years later, the clearly demented man was overthrown.

Despite these, it is untrue that Africans are wedded to monarchism because we are not more monarchical than the Europeans.

On the other hand, Nkurunziza may be suffering from messianic hallucinations; that is, leaders who believe that without them, their countries cannot survive. This may be why we have dinosaurs as leaders in many countries. Leaders like Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Angolan, Jose Eduardo dos Santos, Paul Biya of Cameroun and Uganda’s Yowerei Museveni who have ran their countries, an average of 33 years apiece, abound. But the example of Nelson Mandela who despite his cult-like followership spent only one term in office, smashes the myth of messiahs.

The Third Term Disease which President Olusegun Obasanjo tried to infect Nigerians with, is actually an Ebola-like infection. This is why African leaders who were quick to condemn the coup attempt, also have the duty to call Nkurunziza to order. Why would a leader endanger the good health and well being of his country by clinging to power? But I am not confident that they or the African Union (AU) would be willing or courageous enough to tell him the truth.

Although the AU has removed the clause of ‘Non- interference’ in the internal affairs of member countries, but the mindset has not changed. In practice, the military intervention of Tanzania under Mwalimu Julius Nyerere in Uganda in April, 1979 which sent clownish Field Marshall Idi Amin into the dustbin of history had destroyed that provision in the OAU/AU Charter.

So why don’t African leaders tell themselves the truth? Jeramogi Oginga Odinga, one of Africa’s outstanding post independence leaders told me in an interview I had with him in Zanzibar twenty two years ago, that the OAU is actually a trade union (club) of African leaders where they protect themselves from the African people.

Burundi which became independent on July 1, 1962 has been quite unfortunate. Its political volcano erupted in September 1972 during which between 200,000 and 300,000 Hutus were killed and another 300,000 fled into exile. Sixteen years later, some 150,000 Hutus were massacred in clashes with the army. The 1993 assassination of President Melchior Ndadaye, led to a decade civil war which the February 28, 2005 Constitution tried to resolve. It was under that constitution that the then Good Governance Minister, Pierre Nkurunziza became president for a five-year tenure. He was re-elected five years later for a final second term, now he insists on a Third Term. His reason is that it was the Parliament, not the general electorate that elected him president for his first term.

Nkurunziza may be technically right or wrong in his argument for a Third Term, but is it worth so much bloodshed and instability for his country? Is his ambition worth the blood of Burundians? An Idi Amin might have insisted in running, no matter the costs, but definitely, not a Nelson Mandela.

One reason why leaders like Nkurunziza fester on the African continent, is the lack of Social Movements comprising workers, students, the informal sector, conscientious intellectuals and other progressive forces who can bring pressure to bear on the AU or any African leader.