The case of Ivory Coast highlights the cost of letting one man's ambition trump the democratic rights of the people, writes Ayman El-Amir The recent presidential election crisis in Ivory Coast is symptomatic of the state of governance in developing countries, particularly in Africa and Asia. It begins with seizing power, whether by a military coup in the name of saving a troubled nation, or by winning power in dubious elections that purport to ensure stability and continuity, usually of the incumbent president. To shore up power and give it a veneer of legitimacy, a political organisation of loyalist beneficiaries or favour-seekers is set up to feign a national political movement. It unfailingly wins legislative elections, usually through fraud and bribery, and exercises control over legislation and constitutional manipulation. Alliance with the military is a crucial factor since autocracy's most effective means of persuasion is the barrel of a gun. Then you need a propaganda machine of handsomely paid media staff that understands that they owe their positions to political allegiance more than to professional integrity. These are the tools dictators need to assure lifelong continuity in power, in the name of the people of course. They control and move all the marionettes on stage to give the appearance of independent, active and working democratic institutions. To top it all, the president is the supreme commander of the armed forces. The degree of sophistication in stealing power and retaining it varies from country to country, from regime to regime. Some share power with the military, or win elections by fraud and control of appointed election commissions that certify the results while ignoring the ruling of courts that cancel elections in some districts. Yet others amend constitutions through the vote of a fake legislature elected by fraud while some have no apology for ruling by raw military power. In Yemen, for example, a loyal parliamentary committee is now considering an amendment to one article of the constitution that would eliminate the limitation on the number of presidential terms to make it open-ended, just as was the case in Algeria when parliament scrapped the two-term limitation in 2008 before the expiry, and then re-election, of President Abdel-Aziz Bouteflika for a third term in 2009. Tunisia also amended the constitution in 2008 to delete the provision on the age limit of a presidential candidate so that President Zein Al-Abideen bin Ali could run for a fifth term and win. Egypt was the precursor of constitutional amendments to open the way for the president-for-life tradition when it removed the limitation on presidential terms in a 1977 constitutional amendment. In order not to appear as self-serving manipulations these amendments are usually garnished by added provisions, like reserving a quota for women, allowing for multicandidate presidential elections, reducing the voting age or increasing the number of seats in parliament to accommodate more appointed loyalists. What happened in Ivory Coast's presidential election last month was as brazen as it was bizarre. The sitting president, Laurent Gbagbo, who had been in power for the past 10 years, refused to concede to his opponent, Alassane Ouattara, who, according to the Independent Election Commission, had garnered 54 per cent of the popular vote. He simply declared himself the winner and swore himself in. When in the ensuing row the chief of the armed forces, General Philippe Mangou, declared his support for the losing president it became clear that the sinister alliance between political power and the gun and the tank was at play again. This endemic curse, in addition to tribal conflict, has plagued most African countries since their independence. However, the African Union and a number of major world powers, including France, the Ivory Coast's former coloniser, refused to honour Gbagbo's claim and imposed sanctions. Match-maker Thabo Mbeki, former president of South Africa, failed to strike a compromise similar to the power-sharing arrangement he forged in Zimbabwe two years ago between loser-cum- winner President Robert Mugabe and his opponent, former Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai. Such raw deals, as losing President Gbagbo would have welcomed if it ensured his continuity in office, leave a bitter taste for tribal followers who resent a stolen presidency and a compromise that turns a loser into a winner. South of the Sahara Africa has fared reasonably well in terms of reformed governance, despite some open wounds in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia and a potential conflict in southern Sudan. The African Union (AU) has taken a bold and difficult step in deciding to deny recognition to any government that comes to power by military coup to replace a legitimate, freely elected government. It has not done so well in trying to inculcate good governance, particularly in the northern sub-region that remains largely autocratic. Building political institutions and commitment to true democratic ideals remains an elusive goal. It is ironic that South Africa, the only democratic country in the region, owes its tradition to the apartheid era. With very few exceptions, the only prevailing tradition in the continent is that ascendancy to power is a cherished, lifelong vocation among ambitious politicians and military leaders. African countries, however, are still lagging in terms human rights, including the right to peaceful assembly, the right to form political institutions and the right to free and fair elections. Legislation, enforcement and monitoring mechanisms are lacking mainly because the governments in power evade commitment to universal standards. African leaders can be blamed for a great number of power abuses that have retarded their countries since the early days of independence. However, Western powers are not completely free of responsibility. While all of them claim to uphold the universal ideals of human rights, some put their own interests above these ideals and even manipulate unstable situations to their own advantage. When vital Western interests are at stake in any situation, Western ideals take a back seat. These countries usually weigh the pros and cons of a certain situation and are prepared to turn their heads the other way for self-interest when elections are rigged, opposition leaders are incarcerated or peaceful demonstrations are violently suppressed. They turn a blind eye to extended martial and emergency laws which are mainly used as a tool to persecute the opposition and seem to accept the arguments posed by autocratic governments that all these extraordinary measures are taken in the name of counter- terrorism and in the interest of their powerful allies. To their credit, however, many African countries are cautiously pushing the envelope. The AU mediation team must have found Laurent Gbagbo so intransigent and bent on stealing the presidency with backing from the military, even at the expense of inciting a civil war that they decided to recommend consideration of military intervention to resolve the situation. Not only is Gbagbo's claim outrageously wicked but the threat of a civil war in a country that was ravaged by one during the preceding decade is too costly for one man's ambition. The Ivory Coast situation is too grave to paper over by compromise. And this time, there is a near Western consensus that Gbagbo should not have his way. What is now needed is to show the same resolve when elections are stealthily rigged, when emergency laws are used to maintain the power and interests of one man and when constitutions are compromised to secure a lifelong presidency.
