Dual Citizenship in a Post-Federation Era

African students outside of IBM Headquarters (Photo credit: citizenIBM)

Africans have been migrating to neighboring countries and overseas in greater numbers than before. They have been taking up citizenship in countries other than the country of their birth. This new African Diasporas are now increasingly calling for Dual Citizenship. Dual Citizenship is a situation where an individual can be a citizen of two countries. The call for Dual Citizenship has been growing in Africa from the African voluntary Diaspora over the past few years. The unprecedented voluntary movement of African people within the continent and outside the continent is being facilitated by increased access to mass transportation due to globalization. The African Diasporas voices have not fallen on deaf ears. Currently, nearly half of the African nations offer Dual Citizenship for their Diasporas. The African Union has  now also  officially recognized the economic and social benefits of engaging the African Diasporas. The AU has gone as far as to recognize that the involuntary African Diaspora that left Africa in bondage (i.e. African-Americans, Afro-Latinos, Afro-Caribbeans etc) is the sixth region of the African Union’s organizational structure.  In the spirit of Pan Africanism, countries like Ghana have extended citizenship rights to the involuntary African that wish to repatriate to Ghana. In Southern Africa, the call for Dual Citizenship can be heard in the countries that formally comprised the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, namely, Nyasaland (Malawi), Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), and Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe).

English: Map of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the 1960s Malawi was at the forefront of dissolving the colonial Federation that brought modern day Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi as one nation under British colonial rule. Whilst the hatred for this federation existed in all three countries, the resistance to the federation was heard the loudest in Malawi. Malawi was not a settler colony so Malawians feared white settlers moving in to its borders. Malawians were also being used as a source of labor for Zimbabwe and Zambia and this led to the underdevelopment of Malawi. Most of the farms and industries in the federation were being formed outside of Malawi’s borders. Therefore Malawians were very opposed to the federation. It was little Malawi, a country one third the size of both Zambia and Zimbabwe, that was persistent  and instrumental in successfully ending the forced federation by 1964. It is therefore very ironic that years later, due to globalization, the people of the same countries are all calling for Dual Citizenship - a distinct step towards becoming more unified. Migration between the three countries has been profound and large settlements of migrants from the other two countries can be found in each country. In Zambia, Dual Citizenship has already been tabled in parliament and the first draft of their constitution includes a provision for Dual Citizenship. In Zimbabwe, a constitutional overhaul was also supposed to usher in Dual Citizenship as an unalienable right. It appears that the provision has left aspects of Dual Citizenship open to subjectivity in the final draft of new constitution.  The draft constitution recognizes that Zimbabweans cannot lose citizenship by acquiring foreign citizenship but adds that  Dual Citizenship would be regulated by Acts of parliament. For the majority of Zimbabweans, it means that they can have Dual Citizenship. For Zimbabweans born outside of Zimbabwe though, it may be an area of concern depending on future acts of parliament.  Lastly, in Malawi, the call for Dual Citizenship is still in its exploratory phase for the government. No formal bill or constitutional amendment has been tabled to parliament although various organizations and individuals have promoted it in the past. The current call for Dual Citizenship there is being pushed forward by non-governmental advocacy groups. This includes the Campaign for Dual Citizenship, a transnational advocacy group based in the U.K. that has an online petition form and is also petitioning the government for Dual Citizenship. Half way across the globe, the Malawi Washington Association is also advocating for Dual Citizenship through the Movement for Dual Citizenship initiative.  The Malawian Diaspora hopes to have a  bill considered in parliament like in the case of Zambia and Zimbabwe. Dual Citizenship however is being promoted in all three nations, largely due to the persistence of their respective growing Diasporas.

English: Flag of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The concepts of citizenship and Dual Citizenship in particular, have become problematic for African nations under the nation-state system. Traditional African cultures in the region allowed for Dual Citizenship. During the pre-colonial era of kingdoms and chiefdoms traditional leaders had accepted Dual Citizenship. Belonging to a particular political unit was not as rigid as it was under the nation-state system that was introduced in the colonial era. As an example, if one was a Chewa through one parent, one would also be recognized as a Bemba through the Kingdom or Chiefdom of another parent. This means that multiple citizenship across groups were possible. The modern day movements toward Dual Citizenship for this region are therefore also rooted in pre-colonial African tradition. Relaxing of rigid citizenship laws for Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe is therefore a step towards addressing the malaise of the colonial borders in the region. Although the idea of the federation itself was not bad with respects to promoting unification of nation-states, the federation itself was intended to serve the particular interests of the colonial government. It was also forced the new political units in Africa that consisted of disparate people to in to yet another forced political unit. Dual Citizenship however, will serve the interests of the governments and citizens of the three countries respectively. It will also bring together Africans in a voluntary manner. Dual Citizenship can therefore be considered as a viable alternative to persistent calls to redraw Africa’s borders altogether. It will help strengthen the region’s economic viability. For the modern day nations of Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi, fighting against unification is no longer relevant in a globalized world where regional blocs are being formed. Taking steps toward Dual Citizenship is in the region is a step in the right direction.

The Way Forward for Africa? East or West

The Rhodes Colossus: Caricature of Cecil John Rhodes, after he announced plans for a telegraph line and railroad from Cape Town to Cairo. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

With China banging on Africa’s doors, the debate on whether Africa should lean towards the East or the West continues in many African nations. This is however a long standing debate that is not new to the continent. Africa has always been forced to decide between two seemingly opposing philosophies. Through historical events like colonialism, the Cold War, and now, neo-colonialism, African countries have time and time again been faced with the dilemma of choosing allies in a world where those allies are first and foremost looking after their own interests. This means that Africa has been reactive rather then proactive in deciding its future and alliance. Being caught between a rock and a hard place has meant that Africa has not benefited significantly from making these alliances and should not expect to in the future unless it chooses to lean towards Africa. The great philosopher and Pan Africanist, Kwame Nkrumah summed up the direction for Africa in a single statement: “We face neither East nor West; we face Forward”. Through these words, Nkrumah verbalizes where Africa’s focus should be – in Africa.In this new globalized world, it is ever more important that African countries look out for their own interest and that of their immediate neighbors. 

Every nation in the world looks out for its own interests - so does every continent. African countries should also be looking out for their own interests and that of their people. In the political economy, African nations have become perpetual pawns in foreign diplomacy. They have been forced to choose a side at times when they don’t want to and don't need to. During the Cold War African nations were under pressure to lean towards Russia or the global North In contemporary times, Russia has been replaced with China. This has made it seem like there are only two choices.  African countries should no longer have to make these tough decisions that don’t benefit them in the long run. They should band together so that they can speak with one united voice and so strengthen their bargaining power. There is always an alternative - a third choice when the options in laid out in front of us aren't good enough. There is no reason why Africa has to choose a side. Therefore African countries should consider not choosing at all! They can take a similar position as Switzerland and remain “neutral” in the current global world order if they want to improve their situation- but they can only do this together. African nations should create alliances with both the global North and the Global South and take a position of neutrality. We should embrace the relationships with China and embrace the relationships with the West. The West keeps pointing fingers at China and warning African countries about China, however, there was no one there to warn us against the West when it was scrambling for China. Essentially, we are swamping one sphere of influence for another. With regards to Africa, the decision to lean West or East does not make a significant difference if we are not looking out for Africa's interest.

China has done a lot for the continent, and we should not be forced to abandon this relationship. However, every African nation should be diligent about negotiating contracts with China so that it is a win-win situation. Similarly, with our long standing allies in the West, African nations should likewise be diligent in the forms of contracts it negotiates with them as well. We would be naive to think that our interests are best served by leaving the terms of the relationship up to others.

This approach however means that African nations will need to take an introspective look at their own nations and decide where they want to be in the future. They can then decide what nature of relationship they want with the East and the West. Then they can work towards achieving their visions when they sit at the bargaining table. It is up to the leaders and people of Africa to decide who their allies will be and what type of alliances they want to create. This begins by first mending alliances with their immediate neighbors so that they can cooperate on matters of common interest. Africa should not have to decide on whether to lean East or West – this is not the only option.

Madonna in Malawi: Material Girl Lacks Substance (pt 1)

Madonna in concert Image via Wikipedia

When the news that Madonna was going to get involved in Malawi came out, many Malawians were excited.  All of a sudden Malawi was on prime time news networks all over the world. Prior to her involvement, many Americans had no idea which one of the Hawaiian Islands it was, “Maui?? … Oh it’s in Africa? … Did you mean Mali?” Although there were people in the country that may have not heard her name, the ignorant clichés stating that Malawians had never heard of her prior to this are largely untrue and serve as ethnocentric commentary on the level  of ‘remoteness’ of a country that has never heard of the “Material Girl”. In fact, many Malawians were dancing to her hit song, “Holiday” in the 1980’s and her other songs thereafter. Therefore when she actually decided to take a holiday, Malawians thought, "it would be so nice". So it was no surprise that when Madonna’s inner Angelina Jolie came out, so did her Malawian fan base (this now included many new fans). Suddenly the whole country became one big musical. No, not Elvira; Madonna became Malawi's Nancy and David Banda became her Oliver! So Malawians did what came 'naturally', they went into song and dance with their laws in order to accommodate her. Naturally, she came back for an encore, "Chonde Sir, May I have some more?" and then came little Chifundo (err...Mercy for the sake of the countless English speaking editors who couldn't quite wrap their tongues around her real name, and took the opportunity to anglicize it when possible). Madonna's adoption all in all was met with  relatively little resistance. Malawians supported this – after all, she was just trying to help orphans and the logic of the public was straightforward - if the orphans needed parenting and someone was willing to take care of them, there was no harm.

Many Malawians ignored the voices of reason from civic society that cautioned the logic of circumventing Malawian laws on  technicalities in order to allow one celebrity adoption to happen. Malawian law at that time was that the adopting parent must have been a resident of Malawi for eighteen months. The judge ruled that she had established residency by owning property there and did not have to live there permanently.  Foreign adoptions had been illegal in Malawi because they have lead to child exploitation in the past.  Under the guise of foreign adoption, children become victims of human trafficking and are sold as sex slaves, are made to appear in pornographic videos, or have been sold as laborers on farms. Therefore the objections to the adoption were legitimate concerns. Does one subject a child to a childhood full of rationed portions of food in a poor African nation or does one subject a child to a limitless supply of sex in Europe's red light districts? The Oliver Twist type living conditions are an unfortunate reality for many African children (mainly girls) that get trafficked from these areas. Even in the absence of an international trafficking ring, I can recall the story of the Ethiopian girl, Hana, that was adopted by the Williams parents that punished her to death due to their Christian beliefs modeled after teachings of Pearl (Read Hana Williams story). She was left to sleep in the barn, not given food for several days, and was hit daily with a plumbing tool. Therefore, whilst not all adoption is bad, not all of it is good either.

Proud to be a Malawian (Photo credit: cajean2)

The other fear was that Malawi would be branded as a haven for orphans period. There was a fear that it may become fashionable to adopt a Malawian baby. Malawi would be branded as the next "place to adopt orphans" after Russia, China, and Ethiopia. As Oprah would say in a situation like this, "you get a baby! you get a baby! every-body gets a baby!" It is no coincidence that a few years later, in the show Grey's Anatomy, when Dr. Meredith Grey was looking to adopt, the writers chose Malawi as the birthplace of the baby (Incidentally, Grey's Anatomy is another popular show that comes on in Malawi, so please hold the narratives about the Grey's Anatomy writers writing a show about adopting a baby from a country that has never seen the show because people are too poor to own T.V's). I am not sure if the writers did their homework on that too. It is unclear if their intention was to highlight the plight of Malawian orphans or if they were trying to encourage adoptions from Malawi (for parents willing to splurge on $20K to home there for the purposes of establishing residency), or if that was just the first country name that came in to their mind, thanks to Madonna. They named the baby Zarah, an atypical name for a Malawian (..and please, its possible but not probable for a Malawian to be named Zarah, the writers corruption of Sahara perhaps?). Interesting to note as well is how little Chifundo is now being called Mercy by the Press (Mercy is the English translation of Chifundo, so this would be like calling a girl named Isabella "Beauty" due to a familiarity with the English version of her name). However, beyond the Malawian baby name games, it seems like the message is quite clear, "Want a Cute Baby. Go to Malawi".

Image via Wikipedia

The warning signs that all was not right with the whole spectacle were there from the start. Madonna fit right into the stereotypical situation of the unseasoned celebrities visiting Africa. She took photos with orphans. Check.  She raised funds for the her Charity "Rasing Malawi". Check. She wore a colonial hat. Check. She wore Khaki and Army pants (was she going to re-colonize us or join an imaginary freedom fighter group?). Check. She wore a Chitenje .Check Plus. She bought souvenirs. Check. She looked up Malawian adoption laws. Uncheck. Madonna publicly stated in interviews that, “Malawi didn’t have adoption laws”.  No adoption laws? Had she landed on Pluto I wondered? She played right to the stereotype of the “lawless “African country.  Needless to say, Malawi did have adoption laws but there were loop holes which her Malawian lawyer was able to exploit. The laws of course, were more easily exploitable because of her status as an influential celebrity from the global North. So when mother Madge wanted to literally “raise” Malawian children, she was met with a lot of resistance but more importantly, overwhelming support. Her Malawian fan base stirred so that Malawian orphan's stomachs could stir too. It was a hot topic on Malawian listserves, blogs … and the Facebook page, “Malawians in support of Madonna” went up instantly, consisting of Malawians in Malawi and Malawians around the world. Many Malawians even donated money to Raising Malawi. There were a lot of voices trying to weigh in from all ends but the loudest voice weighing in came from the Malawian government’s gavel. Therefore, Madonna ended up adopting a Malawian child, and then another - Raising Malawi. Check.

Then Madonna’s inner Oprah came out.

(Next: Part 2 )

‘Arab Spring, African Fall’: A Reawakening

Image via Wikipedia

Uganda's infamous dictator, Idi Amin

For some reason I thought it would be much easier to find a compiled list of African dictators online. Africa has been branded as the ‘continent of dictators’ along with Asia and Latin America since the waves of independence from foreign control. Even though the world’s dictators are spread across four continents (Europe’s dictators rarely ever get a nod), Africa is more often associated with dictatorial rule than its counter parts. Indeed, the continent has been home to its fair share of notorious dictators like Idi Amin, Kamuzu Banda, Al Bashir, Mengistu Mariam and Robert Mugabe. But African leadership is transforming. By looking online and trying to piece together a complete list of dictators, it looks like there are 17 dictators left out of the 48 countries on the continent:

• North Africa – Algeria, Chad, (North) Sudan, Morocco
• East Africa – Somalia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Eritrea
• West Africa – Guniea, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia
• Southern Africa – Angola, Zimbabwe, Swaziland
• Central Africa- Congo, Central African Republic

It should be noted that the classification of who is considered a dictator varies by definition and list (one analyst, went as far as listing the number of African autocratic states as 39). Even though Africa is commonly seen as the continent that wrote the ‘dictator’s handbook’, the majority of autocratic leaders today, are largely in Asia. Across different lists of autocratic governance and across different indices that measure levels of freedom enjoyed by citizenry, Asia seems to currently bear the brunt of tyrannical rule. This is even more so since Africa lost four dictators this year. It’s not often that Africa is given credit for teaching and/or upholding the ideals of democracy. Dictatorships in Asia, which have already been inspired by events in North Africa as seen in the ‘Arab Spring’, can (and should) continue to draw parallels and learn from the long history of anti-dictatorial revolts in Africa by its citizenry.

Image by cactusbones via Flickr

Arab Spring in Egypt was a paramount event.

African dictators have been falling this year. This year, Africans have witnessed the fall of Moburak, Laurent Gbaghbo, Ben Ali and now, Ghadaffi. Although some African leaders tried to hold out a candle for Ghadaffi, even the African Union has now conceded that the he is no longer the leader of Libya. By examining the list, it appears within the continent, North, East, and West Africa have a lion’s share of countries led by dictators. It is clear that at the beginning of this year, the numbers of dictators within Africa, were disproportionally in North Africa. In fact, according to Judy Smith-Höhn, a senior southern Africa researcher at a Pretoria-based think-tank the ISS Sub Saharan (SSA) countries like Malawi and South Africa, experienced the events witnessed in North Africa this year, in the 1990s and yet people are constantly trying to use protests that occurred recently in countries like Malawi, as southern Africa’s `Arab Spring’ (Irin News). As an example, in southern Africa (consisting of nearly 14 countries), Zimbabwe, Angola, and Swaziland are the last remaining dictatorships. So it is also fair to say that North Africa too should have been able to draw parallels and learn lessons from the history of anti-dictatorial movements in southern Africa by its citizenry. When protest led to Kamuzu Banda and De Klerk’s National Party left power, we should have also looked to North Africa asking, “is North Africa next?”

The events in the Middle East that began in North Africa have to an extent been unfairly called the “Arab Spring”, “Arab Awakening” or “Arab Uprising” which by description alienates African countries. Many of the participants are both Arab and Africans or are Africans who are simply not Arab. This terminology marginalizes the millions of people and perpetrates the stereotype that all North Africans are Arabs or the even more problematic one – the claims that Arabs are not Africans even though they are physically on the continent. It also means that when the ‘Arab Spring’ started, a large part of the world initially looked towards the East (Syria, Bahrain etc...) and not at what was occurring in neighboring countries in the South. African presidents though saw the connection. They knew that their disgruntled citizens could once again take to the streets. African presidents’ continent wide, reflected on their own governance, began to panic and preemptively protect the status quo – even the ones that were not dictators! In democratic Malawi, a university professor was even investigated and fired for comparing the conditions in North Africa to conditions in Malawi. African presidents knew that their sleepy (but not asleep) citizens would rise.

In SSA this year, we have seen an African reawakening happening in Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Djibouti, Ivory Coast, Gabon, Malawi, Mozambique, Senegal, Swaziland and Uganda to name a few. It could have easily been termed the “African Fall”. In fact, the successful revolutions this year, so far have only been on the African continent. However, the power of media attention to sustain a revolt is important to a movement, and without much international support, SSA revolts didn’t turn in to televised revolutions. Instead, the western international media gaze was focused on what their governments have been holding their breaths a long time for - regime changes in much of the Middle East. Although this inspiration to overthrow current leadership has largely been viewed as an impact of the Arab Spring it’s also important to note that many countries in SSA had been ridding themselves of their dictators or other unpopular leaders for a long time. Fighting for democracy on the continent is not something new – it has been only 50 years since the struggles against the colonial rule (essentially, foreign dictatorships) and many of those freedom fighters still remember those battles. The recent struggle for independence seeping across the continent is about gaining independence from our own home bred leadership. We are witnessing, what I hope is the reawakening of Africans and the start of an ‘African Fall’.

--A version of this article was published on African on the Blog

Red, Black, and Green: Why Oil Exploration on Lake Malawi May be a Bad Idea

The new scramble for Africa’s oil can aptly be summed up in the three colors of the Malawian flag, ‘Black, Red and Green’. Oil or ‘Black Gold’ in Africa, makes up about 10% of the world’s proven oil reserves, “Libya's 41.5 billion barrels of oil reserves and Nigeria's 36 billion barrels are both twice the size of China's proven reserves and just under twice the size of US reserves” (AfricatheGoodNews).  The current rush for Africa’s oil is proving to be lucrative for oil company investment.The oil exporting countries of Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Chad, Sudan, Nigeria, Congo Republic and Gabon alone have enjoyed an average GDP growth of 7,4% from 1996-2005. This means that there is plenty of Green money to be made - and green here doesn’t not mean environmentally friendly nor innocent.

It is no wonder then that with the current oil crisis that is on-going in Malawi, Malawians from many sides of the political arena are looking towards oil exploration as a positive solution to the current fuel crisis. Proponents of oil exploration have argued that it will bring prosperity, help improve infrastructure (build schools and hospitals etc…) and more importantly, end the fuel crisis that has been plaguing the country. Opponents of oil exploration are largely citing environmental concerns. Although environmental concerns are important, it is equally imperative that other factors are considered, particularly the political economy. There is need to have further public debate inclusive of social, economic and political concerns so that Malawi does not repeat mistakes made by other African countries that have experienced the ‘curse of oil’. Malawians need to be educated about what becoming an ‘oil producer’ really means so that they can make informed decisions about moving towards becoming an oil producing country. Oil discovery should not be simply seen as the great savior for Malawi’s socio-economic problems. One should not ignore the fact that the discovery of oil (like most mineral resources) in African countries has largely been a curse. Oil prosperity in Africa has been limited to a select few individuals and large oil companies. Studies have shown that in almost all countries where oil has been discovered in Africa, the average standard of living of the majority has gone down and oil corruption has risen (i.e Chad, Gabon and Nigeria). In Nigeria’s case, we should recall that it was revealed that Shell oil had infiltrated every level of the government in order to exert its influence on that country’s government. The practices of oil companies and their Nigerian counterparts have disrupted good governance in Nigeria, business, and civil life. Its discovery is often viewed as a ‘curse’ for many people in that country – Particularly, to the people that come from the oil producing region.

 Although governments argue that they will undergo the necessary environmental assessments, the reality is that assessments are often rubber stamped in the face of the potential for billions of dollars that oil company’s promise to bring or due to corruption (ie Russia’s Sakhalin project went through environmental impact basement but led to the depletion of fauna due to the corruption within the body charged with overseeing the environment). Even when thorough assessments are done, there are no safety guarantees because pipes often burst due to poor maintenance by oil companies. Oftentimes they use old pipes in African countries or just don’t maintain them due to cost or negligence. Oil spills in Nigeria’s Niger Delta region equivalent to the Gulf spill have been occurring yearly. Oil companies have failed to clean up their spills, often blaming sabotage by ‘rebels’ (angry villagers wanting justice and/or militia groups wanting money, many that were initially trained by the oil companies).  In the case of the recent court case that the Ogoni people in the Niger delta region won, it is estimated that the environmental impact is so large that it would take years to clean up. In an ocean, spills can spread for miles but it may only take one such spill to cover Lake Malawi with oil. One spill could potentially end aquatic life and livelihood for people that depend on the lake for generations to come. It will also mean the death to the lake-based tourism industry that is supposed to be one of the catalysts for Malawi’s development goals.

Although the continent is likely to attract $50 billion in investment in the oil sector alone by the end of the decade, Oil does not necessarily mean prosperity and development across Africa. Profit Sharing Agreements that are signed between governments and oil companies often mean that the oil company provides the capital and pays the government back only when they have recouped their costs. Often, crude oil is pumped out of the country and refined elsewhere as an export. Since there are no refineries in Malawi, Malawi would need to buy back its own oil at a premium such a situation would not resolve our fuel crisis. Rather it is reminiscent of colonial systems of mercantilism and extraction.  Oil companies have had years of experience in developing extractive practices that lead to underdevelopment in Africa – they have the resources, capital and lawyers to take on many poorer African governments or local bodies. There has been little or no development in the oil rich Niger-Delta region. The Niger-Delta is one of the poorest in the world since oil money doesn’t trickle down to the region.  In Gabon, oil has lead to mass importation of costly foreign foods at the expense and/or neglect of local agricultural industries. Most of these imported goods are too pricey for ordinary Gabonese to benefit from them even though the country can afford to import them – again, it is the poor that lose out. Thus a young democracy like Malawi would need to have above average governance in African terms to manage this resource. African countries have failed to manage resources in a way that benefits trickle down to the poor people due to internal and external factors. Malawi’s institutions would need to be mature enough to withstand global forces of globalization, neo-colonialism and western hegemony in order to prosper from oil money. 

Lastly, it should be noted that where there has been oil in Africa, there has been conflict or ‘blood oil’. This brings us to the last color- Red. The red blood of Africans has been shed continent wide over this resource. This includes on-going instability in Nigeria, Angola, and Sudan. It includes countries like Libya and Uganda where oil/oil exploration created environments conducive to government systems of central control. Malawian institutions would also need to be strong enough to withstand these internal forces. The amount of resources and wealth that oil brings makes for a good breeding ground for greedy dictatorships and militarism to rise within a government. Oil has the ability to turn politicians into oil mongers. Control of Oil may be a catalyst for future power struggles and war in peaceful Malawi. The Late President Kamuzu Banda, who ironically was a dictator, intentionally did not allow drilling on the shores of the lake because he knew it would bring instability to his government and to the country. Whether he did this purely to secure his own leadership or for the greater good of the country is debatable. Nonetheless oil exploration needs to be closely examined in 'Red, Black and Green'. . It’s important that the country looks at experiences of their neighbors and not repeat their mistakes so that Malawi’s fuel crisis doesn’t become an outright oil crisis.

-- A version of this article entitled, "Malawi's Potential 'Curse of Oil' " appeared in the opinoin column My Turn in the Malawi newspaper, The Nation on August 15th, 2011 - Ms Tinga

The R/Evolution in Malawi May Not be Televised, But it May be Tweeted!

The coverage of the protests in Malawi by the foreign (non-Malawian) press has left some Malawians wide-eyed and more cognizant of the international media climate. When the protests initially began on July 20th, 2011 (dubbed 20/11), the internet was ablaze with information from Malawians on the ground, in the diaspora, and friends of Malawi. In addition, many Malawians posted updates from various cities in the country providing eye witness accounts of the events as they were occurring.  These early reports proved to be vital for those seeking updates on the nationwide protests on both sides of the political spectrum due to limited coverage on Malawian Broadcasting Channel (MBC) & Malawi Radio which continued with its regular line-up that day. Private domestic mass media outlets like Zodiac Radio, Malawi Voice, Capital FM, Radio Joy, Nyasatimes and others were also successfully doing their utmost to provide detailed up-to-date coverage to the world until they started experiencing broadcasting difficulties. Due to their interrupted service, media coverage was left to private Malawian blogs, and the Malawi online community (including Facebook and Twitter) for parts of the day. A chronological account of the some of the postings can be found on the blog haba na haba. The protests began to 'trend' on Twitter - South Africa before they made the news headlines. Ordinary Malawians had proceeded to tweet directly to BBC, Anderson Cooper, CNN, and Sky News during the course of the day to ensure that international attention would be brought on the demonstrations. By day two, Malawi protests began to 'trend' as a hot topic on Google. The online community engaged directly with programs like BBC- Have Your Say (BBCHYS) and France 24, acting much like a watchdog to ensure that the international media was going to cover the protests and was going to cover it with accuracy.

This revolt was unprecedented for Malawi. Malawi has historically had a reputation as a peaceful country. It is a country that has enjoyed relative peace within its borders since its liberation struggle and subsequent independence in 1964. Even during Malawi's attempts to topple the regime of the infamous dictator Kamuzu Banda, during the 1993-1994 protests for multiparty state, there was relative peace. Banda who ruled the country for the 30 years as a dictator, finally conceded to the will of Malawian calls for multi-party rule as the protests against his regime grew, and held a national referendum. He stepped down peacefully, conceding defeat in the election, and assisted in ushering the transition where he could. According to the 2010 Global Peace Index  by the Institute of Economics and Peace, Malawi continues to be the second most peaceful country in Africa (Botswana being the first) and 39th in the world out of 155 countries. Being a country that has not seen war or wide scale violence within its borders, Malawi has also been a haven to refugees from troubled countries like Mozambique and Somalia. It is also host to Zimbabweans escaping Mugabe's reign. Malawi has been long known as the "Warm Heart of Africa" due its friendly people, tranquility and rustic appeal. It is a country where virtues like tolerance, non-violence, humility and community ("I am because we are") are encouraged through the four cornerstones of the nation, 'unity, loyalty, obedience, and discipline'. Hence, when a group calling themselves, 'Concerned Citizens' which comprised of civil society, the opposition, NGO's and citizens called for a national day of peaceful protest, this was what was intended and expected (Read: Malawi's Peace at Test). Malawians were not initially calling for 'democratically' elected Mutharika to step down. They wanted a change in the attitude of his administration. Attempts had been made by the opposition to engage with the Mutharika administration prior to this, but many Malawians felt that the administration had not adequately addressed concerns. A diverse group of Malawians, including professionals, students, laborers, rural and urban dwellers, and opposed political parties (collectively known as the 'Red Army'), all joined forces to air their grievances and to let it be known to their government and the larger world, that they wanted their concerns to be addressed.

President Bingu Mutharika had had a prosperous first term and was rightfully given much credit for moving the country forward economically. During his first term he had many successes in which Malawi was called the fastest growing economy. The GDP of Malawi had grown at an annual rate of about 7% (peaking at 9.8% in 1998), Malawi became a food donor nation (proving food Aid to Zimbabwe), FDI increased and the Kwacha remained stable. He was touted as an inspirational and democratic leader by many. He was also regarded as a welcome change after the unpopular Muluzi administration that many argued ruined the country’s economy. During his second term however, many argue that his political and economic ideology began to become more distant from that of the population. Malawians in general began to have grievances about the downward growth in the economy characterized by lack of forex and fuel. Other grievances that the anti-government protestors wanted to bring attention to were:  increased media regulations for newspapers and national radio/TV; a series of unpopular bills that Malawians claimed eroded checks and balances; Mutharika's increasingly close relations with the Mugabe regime; guaranteeing academic freedom and reinstatement of university of Malawi lecturers, an unpopular flag change who's implementation the public felt they were not involved in; the government consolidation of power through the injunction bill and other laws, including the general  direction the country was heading. These grievances were the highlighted in a 15 page petition that Concerned Citizens  say they they presented to the President via the City councils. It included  in 20 actionable points some which were printed in the national paper, The Nation on July 18th. The Pro-government group also highlighted their concerns on the same day in The Nation paper.

The immediate precursors to the protests were the forex and fuel crisis and the diplomatic row with Britain that resulted in the loss of budget support. Earlier in the year diplomatic tensions grew when a cable from Chocraine-Dyet, the British Ambassador, was wiki-leaked. Dyet had expressed concern to his government over Mutharika, accusing him of being 'intolerant' and of being an 'autocrat'. Accusations that Malawians on the ground were already making due to the change in direction that they felt they were witnessing in a once popular administration. Mutharika felt these accusations were unfounded and declared Dyet persona non-gratia, ordering him to leave the country within 48 hours and asking the UK to send a replacement. Subsequently, a diplomatic row began between Malawi and its former colonizer that resulted in UK ordering the Malawi ambassador to UK to leave (including revoking (arguably) the most coveted invitation - the wedding dinner party for popular British royals 'Will and Kate'). More importantly for Malawians, it resulted in UK cutting aid (budgetary support) for Malawians. Other European countries like Germany (perhaps in solidarity with the UK) followed suite. The World Bank also denied aid to Malawi citing budget problems. The Malawi government than began to take austerity measures that included increasing taxes on the poor (via taxes on bread, flour and milk etc...) and on newspapers. It also included the unveiling of a new aid-free 'zero deficit' budget (ZDB). This budget proved to be unpopular by many Malawians though, and was further compacted by unprecedented fuel and forex shortages. Malawian frustrations continued to grow. They were however not able to air their frustrations due to an unpopular 'injunctions bill' which sought to remove the ability for citizens to 'arbitrarily' get injunctions against the government and the introduction of a fee-for-protest that government said would cover government resources during protests. Civil society argued that protesting against the economic woes was a right and not a paid privilege. Due to debates over the 'right to protest' brought about by injunctions, it was not clear on the morning of the planned protests if they would actually occur. 

When the stories were first being broken by international media, they left much to be desired by Malawians due to misinformation some were providing. Part of this information, understandably may be due to communication from professional journalists on the ground being limited due to an order for them to stop reporting abut the protests. Since a number of issues had led to the protests, singling out one issue was not seen as an accurate analysis. Malawi's protests were about the economy and governance (Read: Economic Situation Analysis). Some newspapers reported that Malawi was on strike due to the stoppage of foreign aid by Britain and that Malawians were protesting for commencement of foreign aid alone which is an explanation too simplistic to explain the situation. However, it is important to note that many Malawians do not want to be dependent on 'dead Aid' as an economic policy. They support a 'trade not aid' agenda but they just do not agree that the new ZDB should be sudden or reactionary. Instead, they were calling for it to be strategically and proactively planned over time so that it doesn't hurt the economically vulnerable. In response to the growing problems, Malawians felt that the president had not addressed the issue adequately. Of particular was discontent was the reaction to the fuel crisis that was affecting the bottom line of small, medium and large businesses. It was also affecting dinner plates as maize mills, fishing boats etc... also rely on fuel. With regards to the fuel shortage concerns, Malawians were being told by MERA (Malawi Energy Regulation Authority) to 'get used to it', rather than being given measures MERA was taking to address the shortages which would have been more palatable. Malawi's concerns were and are largely economic at their base - bread and butter issues that don't fall too far from the bread and butter issues that were facing north African countries. A clear difference was that Malawians, at the time were not largely calling for Mutharika to step down until much later in the protest since he is not a dictator and is legitimately serving his term. Closer to home, a country that had watched the economic demise of 'Great Zimbabwe' under the hands of Robert Mugabe, was afraid to see the same happen to them. There was a genuine fear by some in Malawi that that Mutharika was trying to turn Malawi into 'another Zimbabwe' economically (Read: analysis from Zimbabwe standard). It was economic woes that made protesters frustrated but It was the failure for peaceful dialogue and /or measures (governance) being taken to address the economic crisis that made ordinarily passive Malawians take to the streets. Governance issues were brought about because Malawians felt their economic issues were not being addressed adequately - the sleepy giants had risen.

On the day of the protests, Red Army Malawians wanted to make sure that their voices were heard and make clear their grievances. The demonstrations began largely peaceful with people posing for photos in their 'Red Army' gear and singing the national anthem (see: photo and video footage of protests on haba na haba). Some even took to South African style Toy-toying.  Initially, most Malawians were not calling for Mutharika to resign (he is not a dictator after all but was democratically elected and Malawians wanted to see Mutharika serve out his term (some still do). They wanted their concerns to be heard and to be dealt with. As the day progressed however, and protestors clashed with the police because they were allegedly met with 'extreme force' by the police, more demonstrators began to call for his resignation and /or impeachment and become agitated. They waited to hear Mutharika address the nation in his public lecture (that was planned for the same day), but many felt that the issues they wanted to hear in the lecture were not addressed on the first day which lead to more frustrations. Additionally, many of the leaders of the protests were not available to direct the progression of the protests (some had been allegedly arrested, and the whereabouts of some members of the official opposition where unknown). Without proper direction and with aggression by the police, and pro-government supporters holding their march simultaneously, the peaceful protests then began to get increasingly violent.

Prior to the violence, amongst the major international media, there was a single story on Aljazeera that acknowledged that the protests would occur. There was no coverage on the websites or taglines (at bottom of broadcasts) of BBC, CNN, SKY or South African based e-news. Once the protests turned violent, there were reports from Reuters, an hour show on BBC, and coverage on Al Jazeera, BBCHYS, BBC, enews, and lastly CNN. It is important to note that Sky news does not appear to have covered the story at all on either day, and enews only covered it once Reuters had covered it on day two.  Al Jazeera appears to be the first of the big broadcasters to have the protests covered as part of their headline news, including live footage. What is also notable is that most news outlets get their news from the same sources, so if an organization like Reuters provides misinformation, this information is spread ten times fold. This is why it is important for Africa to have news broadcasters like e-news exercise more agency in selecting stories that are relevant to them. As an example, the events in Malawi would have a direct impact on South Africa so it would be in their best interest to cover any disturbances in neighboring countries first, and not with everyone else. e-news has an opportunity to fill a gap in the reporting of issues concerning Africa and in the approach to reporting about Africa.

Of particular concern was that when the 'peaceful protests' for sound economic policies and good governance were not being covered until they turned violent. The message behind the protests began being obscured on international news between fevered attempts to capture the death tolls.  No doubt, Malawi’s protests were probably seen as 'normal African political unrest in a turbulent African country' and not deemed newsworthy until violence occurred. They also seemed reluctant to report protests as long as they were peaceful - it doesn’t sell newspapers nor attract viewers. Once lives were being lost however, the wider media picked up on the story because it may have fit in to the more comfortable newsworthy stereotype 'death caused by political unrest in violent Africa' which is more suitable for their bottom line. Some went as far as reporting that Malawi wanted to topple their 'dictator', Mutharika which is a comfortable narrative (particularly after the Arab Spring) but an incorrect one. These claims prompted some in the Malawi online community to start defending their estranged leader against the onslaught of foreign misreporting - One person on twitter that was part of the red army tweeted that " they are reporting that Mutharika is a dictator ... Mutharika is not a dictator" .

The Malawian online community at first was solely was working frivolously to get the protests covered by sending information about the protests to journalists from BBC and France 24 that asked for it as its own journalists faced challenges in reporting the protests. They then started working frivolously to get accurate information covered. At one stage, when BBCHYS allegedly reported that there was 'Xenophobia in Malawi', appalled Malawians around the world posted "there is no Xenophobia in Malawi" on their Facebook wall (prompted by online newspaper The Malawi Voice's Facebook Page) until BBCHYS - Facebook made an official statement denying that they reported misinformation (Read: Malawi Voice article on Xenophobia in Malawi). Instead, they reported that an Asian Malawian caller concerned that Asian owned shops were now being looted had said it during the broadcast of the BBC show. From most accounts though, the shops that were targeted were those of close business allies to Mutharika and people that Malawians felt had unfairly benefited from business relationships with the president. In addition, the cars and houses that been burned down also largely those of pro-government supporters. Malawians also took to offence when the news outlets began referring to the protests as merely 'riots' a word that denotes anarchy. Hence, implying that Malawians had decided to get up and start looting the country out of anger and to protest through destruction rather than first seek dialogue. As the violence grew, most Malawians on both sides of the political spectrum began to discourage the violence (from protestors and police), looting and destruction that occurred.

For two days, pent up frustrations from both pro-government and anti-government supporters were released on the once quiet streets in Lilongwe, Mzuzu, Karonga, Blantyre, Zomba, and Dedza in unprecedented nationwide protests. On the second day protests continued in Lilongwe and  Blantyre, albeit less violent. It is surprising that in a nationwide violent protest of 14 million, 'only' 18 reported deaths occurred- this may not have been the case in another nation faced with a similar situation. It is important that reporting of the protest in Malawi occurred, but media must take heed to report with accuracy as opposed to pre-written narratives about African riots, dictators, and causeless violence. Furthermore, not much credit (if any) has been given to the contribution of technology during what some have dubbed the 'African Fall'.  During the Arab Spring protests, too much credit was given to the same technologies. There is something to be noted in the way international media may approach the way they source information about sub-Saharan Africa. Whilst technology penetration has not reached the same extent as other regions, there has been an evolution in sub-Saharan Africa with regards to disseminating information. Many were not looking at the impact of the online community (individuals and organizations) were having or considering if cellphone messaging played a role like they did in Kenyans political unrest a few years back. A much richer analysis on the role of technology on information and democracy in Africa would be warranted because technologies are changing grassroots organization in sub-Saharan Africa as well. With increasing media outlets online, they have access to people on the ground, which has been beneficial in some of the reporting on the Malawian events, but more can be done in this era to ensure that African protests, weather pro or anti-government are covered - and are covered accurately. Case in point, there was probably more press on Malawi's problems with Mutharika in the past few years, than there was on Malawi’s success with Mutharika during his prosperity years.

Africans Revolt in the Middle East: How Egypt's Revolts Won't Impact Africa

The narrative of Egypt’s protest by the west has been void of Africa and void of an analysis on its implications for Africa. Egypt is often cited, together with South Africa and Nigeria as the strongholds in Africa. In fact, Egypt was instrumental in the creation of the African Union (AU) and its neighbor Tunisia, is home to African institutions like the African Development Bank. Yet, it appears that the narrative surrounding the peoples revolts in North Africa (Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt) are being covered as if they bear no consequence or effects for African nations in the continent that they belong to. It is certainly appreciated that the revolts will have effects on Middle Eastern countries like Jordan and Yeman, but it should be appreciated that we cannot pretend that it does not affect Sub-Saharan Africa. We can certainly not expect current African leaders to make bold statements about the revolts in Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt because it has consequences for many their own leaderships. In fact, the African Union has stood in the background as they meet at the 2011 African Union meeting and continue to discuss the fate of another dictator, Gbagbo. Instead, we are confronted with a string of CNN experts on Middle East that have been summoned for a political analysis, but have yet to hear CNN (or any other major network in the US) inquire about the African Union’s position on the revolts or any opinion on what this means for the rest of sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, there has been no mention on how these revolts will affect its immediate neighbors, Sudan and Libya. Sub-Saharan African countries have many historical, political, cultural, and economic similarities with the North African countries (including a shared land mass), yet there is the continued popular western tendency is to separate North Africa from sub-Saharan Africa. This sentiment manifests in the types of narratives and coverage we are hearing from the western media and politicians about the revolts.

The perception that somehow Africa is a homogenous continent and that all Africans are Black, Christian, or non-Arabic, non-Muslim is an underlying assumption used in denying North Africa's connection to the rest of Africa. The other factor centers on an unwillingness to attribute ancient Egyptian civilizations advancements to the continent of Africa because of the euro-centric belief that there were no advancements in Africa by Africans prior to European contact (hence, North Africans are not African). The argument is that North Africans have ‘Middle Eastern” cultures, but at what point does “middle eastern culture” simply become “North African culture or African culture in the North Africa?”.  The current social construct of the Middle East has been inconsistent, irrational, and problematic for many. North Africans should be able to claim a double heritage of being African countries with Middle Eastern heritage. It is possible for a continent to have multiple cultural groups in it.  As an example, the East Asian country of China and the south Asian country of India are both in Asia but have different cultures but share some similarities as Asian countries. Similarly, the countries of Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Morroco, may have ‘Middle Eastern’ cultures, but also have strong African roots that are similar to countries like Sudan, Nigeria (which both have a large Muslim populations), Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Kenya. Egypt and Sudan's histories have intertwined for years. Instead of trying to separate the continent, we (particularly, the west) should allow space for duality for these countries. We should be looking at North African and Middle Eastern cultures as having the same cultures as opposed to trying to separate North Africa from sub-Saharan Africa. Whether one likes to admit it or not, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Western Sahara and Sudan are African countries and their histories are part of the history of Africa.

The practice of western governments supporting African dictators is not unique to North Africa, it has happened in many African countries. In the age of internet and Wikileaks though, its harder for them to deny propping up dictators. Particularly, those that do not have the support  and interests of their people. Egypt and Tunisia are not the only African countries that suffer high inflation and unemployment under dictators. This is happening in other countries throughout the continent like Zimbabwe, Gabon, and Senegal. The difference is the west tends to think that African people, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, only revolt because they can’t get along with others from a different religion or ethnic group (“tribalism”). Africa’s problems are not only about race, ethnic groups, or ‘tribes’- economic injustice is usually an underlying factor that takes form in ethnic tensions. Africans across the continent struggle for economic a political justice and this plight is not unique to North Africa. Africans all over the continent are seeking fundamental changes. The events in North Africa will have consequences in Africa (See: Fire in the Arab World: A real lesson for African politicians).  In fact, according to political scientist Alemayehu G. Mariam, Ethiopia’s government has issued a complete blackout on coverage of the Tunisian riots to its public for fear of it spreading to its borders. One wonders if this year will mark a second revolution for many African countries - a peoples' revolution where all the people of Africa will take back their countries from dictators and send them packing to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia seems to be a popular destination for dictators. Another infamous African dictator, Idi Amin, went to Saudi Arabia to seek refuge just like Ben Ali did, and this is the potential destination for Mubarak. So when Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali left power, the revolution was not just a Middle Eastern story, it was also an African story. As noted in an article by Alemayehu G. Mariam, “The Tunisian people's revolution should be an example for all Africans struggling to breathe under the thumbs and boots of ruthless dictators.” Similarly, the revolt about economic injustice is an African story. 

So as the African Union meets in Ethiopia this week to discuss events on the continent, two of its long standing leaders may not be represented. African leaders are already dealing with the repercussions as they sit to discuss the current protests in Gabon. Already, we are seeing revolts of over 5,000 people in the Gabon revolts that started Tuesday, January 25th, 2011. In  surprising move, the opposition leader, Mba Obame declared that he is the winner of the contested 2009 elections and is the legitimate president.  During the 2009 election, there were riots in Gabon over the election results that soon died out. Obame this week cited Ivory Coast and Tunisia during a rally, saying "history was on the march". In this case though, it is clear that Obame is the figurehead of the revolts and that it may not be a grassroots movement but a politically led one. Other African Presidents like Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal have stated that he is not worried about a revolt occurring in his country because he would be able to suppress it. Nevertheless, there is evidence that African leaders across the continent are paying close attention to the events in North Africa because it has real consequences for Africa. However, coverage of the revolts and its effects have not been inclusive on its impact on sub-Saharan Africa even though Egypt is in Africa.

It was interesting to hear CNN’s “Facts about Egypt” being reiterated by CNN presenters that included a historical accounts of Egypt void of colonialism. CNN reporters are repeatedly citing that Egypt’s economy was under “foreign control” until 1953. By ‘foreign control’ they are indirectly referring to colonialism and are clearly glancing over the effects of foreign economic control over and neo-colonialism had on Egypt’s economy. True, it is not the only reason for wealth not trickling down to its masses, but my argument here is that one cannot just ‘glance’ the fact that the period of foreign control they are referring to  was colonialism, and colonialism is a part of the history and legacy in every African country (including Ethiopia, albeit not being colonized). When anti-colonial struggle were being fought on the continent, it was the people of the African continent that worked together to overthrow imperialism on the continent. It was not a Middle Eastern anti-colonial movement that came in to liberate North Africa; it was African people living under similar conditions jointly seeking self-liberation.  Not acknowledging Egypt’s colonial legacy or its connection and leadership in the continent robs Egyptians of their history in a subtle but meaningful way. Africans have long struggled for freedom over several years. The forms of governments that are in power in contemporary Africa have their roots in colonialism and the African experience. The North African revolts need to be analyzed given richer insight inclusive of the African historical experience.

African Presidents Step Down, Pack Up, and Head Home to Retire!

Since Independence from the undemocratic rule of the colonial governments, many African countries have gone through less than five presidents over a time span of roughly, 50 years. It is very rare that an African leader decides to step down, pack up the state house, and head to their village to retire. They tend to die in office (naturally or via assassination), fall victims to coups, or escape to foreign countries due to imminent threats on their lives. The recent events in Ivory Coast surrounding Laurent Gbagbo’s refusal to step down is the most recent example of an African leader clinging to power undemocratically, but it also touches on the wider issue of the unwillingness of many African Presidents in African democratic and non-democratic countries to admit defeat and/or step down. African leaders have had a poor record of stepping down over the past few years. Notorious leaders that are holding on to power today include Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe), Yoweri Museveni (Uganda), Omar Bongo (Gabon) and Hosni Mubarak (Egypt). In fact, the situation is so dire that a Sudanese businessman Mo Ibrahim, has offered a monetary incentive for African presidents to peacefully leave office as an incentive for relinquishing power when their time is up through the Mo Ibrahim Foundation. The Mo Ibrahim Foundation has been trying to rebrand Africa through influencing good governance and through rewarding sucessful leaders with an award and money. For many, stepping down poses the risk of being held accountable for past deeds, primarily for ‘disappearance’ of opposition leaders and public funds. When handing over power to someone outside one’s own 'kitchen cabinet', political party or ethnic group, or geographical area, many African leaders know that they need to appoint someone that will not persecute them for their misdeeds whilst in office. Usually, this encourages and establishes the use of coups as a guaranteed or proven method of handing over power. Otherwise many African citizens have to rely on 'waiting' for the often long and protracted death of a dictator. Africa's longest dictator, Bongo, ruled Gabon for 42 years.

There are however, a few African Presidents or dictators have managed to step down peacefully. Notably, these were Jerry Rawlings of Ghana, Nelson Mandela of South Africa and Kamuzu Banda of Malawi. When Nelson Mandela stepped down as President in 1999, after five years as President, he set a precedent in South Africa for Presidents from that country, to continue to step down. Since Mandela, we have seen a succession of Presidents in South Africa after the dictatorial rule of the apartheid regime. In stepping down, he sent a message to the African and International world leaders South Africa was going to continue down a democratic path. Likewise, he showed African citizens in various countries that their own leaders should be able to step down. With few skeletons (if any) in his political closet, it was easy for Mandela to step down. He had no ‘disappearing’ opponents or ‘disappearing’ public funds during his presidency. In the case of Jerry Rawlings, Rawlings took power by means of a coup and ruled as a dictator, from 1981-1992. During this time, he liberalized politics, held elections, was elected in a 1993 fair general election, re-elected in 1997 and retired by 2001 when his term concluded.

In the case of Malawi, Kamuzu Hastings Banda was Malawi's first President but after elected to office, he consolidated his power, had a long and brutal reign but still stepped down after he agreed to a referendum that was held 1993. Banda is touted as one of the worst dictators in Africa in the terms of brutality and acquired wealth yet, despite the nature of his regime, he stepped down after a referendum that ended three decades of totalitarian rule. When Malawi’s Catholic Pastors issued a pastoral letter highlighting the abuses they saw in the country by the Banda Regime in 1992. This was followed by a call towards multi-party state in the same year by Chafuwka Chihana. The Muslims in Malawi joined forces with the Catholics and other Christian groups to work towards change. University students at University of Malawi also began to call for change resulting in the temporary shutdown of the university. The Malawi Army, who may have been the only force in a position to organize a coup during his reign, also appeared to be serving the interests of Malawian law and order and did not attempt a military takeover of power. Through Operation Bwezani, they disarmed his network of unofficial security, the Malawi Young Pioneers, in a peaceful disarmament process. This was followed by referendum in 1993. When Malawians voted for change to multi-partisim, Banda, in spite of his hegemony (which included 33 years of rule), did not try to cling to power. He stepped down after he was stripped of power and helped newly emerging opposition parties and the church through the transition in preparation for the country’s first general elections. It is important to note that Banda was tried for the Mwanza Four murders, where four opposition leaders were killed in 1965 but acquitted due to lack of concrete evidence and his advanced age. Banda, like Rawlings, lived peacefully amongst his people after their presidencies.

Although Malawi’s situation may have some different dynamics since Malawi has negligible ethnic and religious divisions, has had no wars, and a series of civilian presidents, the presence of which may compound political situations in other countries; the case of Malawi may stand as an example to other countries with dictators like Banda that peaceful transitions are possible even after extended periods of dictatorial rule (See: Video on Malawi's Peaceful Transition) . Since Banda stepped down without resistance, Malawi has seen two Presidents in since 1994, and the sitting President is also expected to step down as well. It is important to note that both Malawian Presidents have made attempts at extending their rule thorough the introduction of a third term, but these constitutional amendments have been successfully quashed through constitutional means in Malawi parliaments. Malawians are not prepared to go back to extended or life Presidents like that had under Banda. Malawi's current President, Bingu Mutharika has indicated that he plans on stepping down. As the current chair of the AU, he has also been vocal in encouraging Gbagbo to step down.

Although, the majority of African leaders cling to power, we need to closely examine the exceptions to this rule so that we don’t brand or lump each country unfairly. Also, so that African leaders and citizens see that stepping down is an option and is possible. Mandela, Rawlings and Banda all stepped down without their own resistance albeit having different lengths of rule and/or operating different societal conditions. Mandela did so in a newly democratic country backed by a new constitution; Rawlings began to introduce democratic principles after his coup, adopting a more democratic constitution and setting the stage for him to withdraw; and lastly, Banda did it whilst operating under a completely undemocratic and totalitarian country shroud with political controversies. Hopefully, Gbagbo, his supporters and the Ivorian people, can learn from these recent precedents regardless of what political stage they are in. One also hopes that when their own terms are up or when faced with defeat, the now vocal African leaders that are currently calling for Gbagbo to step down, follow suit by packing up, going home, and returning to their own mansions in their village. 

** To add to the list of presidents that have stepped down in Africa, I would like to add that Julius Nyerere also stepped down in 1984. See: http://www.nathanielturner.com/juliuskambaragenyerere.htm 

The Truth About Corruption in Africa

The concept of "corrupt Africa" has been a central theme permeating all sectors of the African world from the private sector to government. In fact, it is generally agreed by Africans and Non-Africans that corruption is a problem in Africa that often times seems insurmountable. Most people in the world in Africa and outside of Africa have internalized the legend of the corrupt African leaders. I call it legend here, because like a legend, the concept of the corruption in Africa takes on this form as it is often not objective, nor is it always completely based on the facts.

The majority of Africa's citizens are against corruption. Africa's citizens have been told repeatedly by the Western leaders, the World Bank, UN and other independent non-governmental organizations that corruption is the major reason for their not getting more programs, business, development and/or more loans. They have also been told that their leaders and their officials have an uncanny predilection towards white collar crime. So today, Africa's everyday citizens support anti-corruption candidates in elections and continuously long to get rid of corruption in their society. Almost all elected African leaders now run on a platform of stamping out corruption within their government. They understand that African people are tired of corruption and want to see change in this area. Corruption committees are formed and charges are filed against low profile citizens. On occasion, higher ranking government leaders, particularly from the opposition, are also brought down on corruption charges. Many African countries are making strides towards fighting corruption. According to Nigerian finance minister, Ngozi Ojonjo-Iweala, the data from the World Bank shows that there has been a decrease in African levels of corruption in recent years, but this is not often talked about in popular media. In spite of any efforts made to combat corruption or the levels of corruption, in 'Brand Africa', corruption is a word that has become synonymous with Africa.

Whilst I agree that corruption exists at different levels in Africa, it must first be stated that corruption is not something that is uniquely inherent to Africans and African leaders. Second, that there are different levels of corruption that exists within a country and continent. Third, that corruption doesn’t is not strictly an internal affair. Finally, that my arguments are not meant to absolve the responsibility that African countries should take for their own actions.

A large part of place branding requires follow through - one must certainly clean their own house in order to tell visitors about their clean house and in order to invite them in. I also think we should consider that not everyone else's house is clean but that this doesn’t deter them from trying to shape a 'clean' or positive image. For example, certain levels of corruption exists in US, but the US government doesnt make it its sole objective, nor does it stop them from marketing themselves to the world as a country thats relatively free from corruption. No country is free from corruption. True, rebranding African countries shouldn’t consist of a series of empty promises otherwise it diminishes the brand, but what is key is to draw out the positive and accurate realities of a nation as a basis. In other words, African countries and its citizens should not be blindly accepting and internalizing corruption as an automatic part of their brand, hence culture, without considering the reach and depth of the corruption or rethinking the validity of the label.

Corruption happens every day, all over the world at different levels but African corruption is always mentioned as a factor inherent to Africans. As if somehow, Africans are more morally corrupt than inhabitants of other nations. Other nations or leaders are often citing the example of African corruption as part of the 'Africa Problem'. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, noted in a speech at the TED conference, that it is not often mentioned but one needs to consider that African leaders do not act by themselves when corruption occurs. There is involvement from someone in the host country. Often, when large some of monies are being smuggled out of Africa, there is a law being violated in recipient country. Nigeria’s government has now put together a task force together with the World Bank that is slowly recovering African money that is being held illegally in foreign bank accounts (See: Okonjo-Iweala's TED presentation).


In reading the book, 'African Culture & American Business in Africa: How to Strategically Manage Cultural Differences in African Business' by Emmanuel Nnadozie which is a guide for American businesses doing business in Africa, Nnandozi notes that the oft cited reason of 'corruption' as a valid hindrance for companies and countries not being able to invest in Africa in fact, is not legitimate. He notes here that the BRIC nations of Brazil, Russia, India, and China are ranked high on corruption indices but still benefit from favorable international business and trade relationships. Yet, in the case for Africa, the same  foreign companies or countries will cite corruption as the reason that businesses hold back investment in for Africa. It is clear through this, that the perception of corruption in Africa is not positive and that double standards may exist here.

In addition, the data I found for the Transparency International's Corruption Index 2009 and Nation Master's 2009 further corroborates this analysis. From this data, it can be noted for example that Russia, Brazil and China rank the same or above countries like Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Burkino Faso, Senegal, and Ghana on the corruption indices, respectivley. Yet, there is a tendency by non-Africans to refer to African countries always being more corrupt than any other region. There is also tendency for Africans to believe the legend of the corrupt Africa without needed scrutiny. In fact, it is interesting that in the Transparency International data, it indicates that although regionally, both the Middle East/North Africa and the Newly Independent countries in East Europe (Russia, Georgia, Belarus etc...) where more corrupt then African countries, Africans actually perceived themselves to be the most corrupt of all regions. In contrast, the aforementioned countries perceived themselves as less corrupt than African countries when in fact they were more. Whilst the variables they use to define corruption by these two organizations may come in to question, the general patterns we see from the surveys show that the popular legend of the corrupt African country is not true for all African countries. It also shows that the perceptions of corruption in Africa are higher than the realities. These poor perceptions mean that some level of brand management is needed by individual nations for internal and external customers to view their brand as less corrupt hence lowering current negative perceptions.

Many countries outside of Africa have problems with corruption. Corruption is not unique to Africa. Although the levels and frequency may vary, if other countries can manage their 'corruption' brands in spite of their own internal corruption issues, so can African countries. They do need to follow through on consistency though so that anti-corruption is not just an empty promise. I think there is a need for Africans in Africa and abroad to reevaluate where countries realistically stand on factors like corruption. There is also a need not to streotype all African countires by taking the measure of corruption in one country and applying them to all the African countries. On certain issues like corruption, we should pull out the positives for each country, and then work from there to project accuracy if we are going to manage our places and products, and this may take a certain level of Afro-optimism. It may also mean debunking the legend of African corruption.