One of the most troublesome features of post-colonial Africa is the apparent near inability to establish and protect values in the systems that give us and guide the leaders we get. The exceptions are few and do not always inspire confidence that they are absolutely foolproof.
A country that seems to have got things fairly right over 10 or 15 years will suddenly – but very deliberately – change course and do the stupid thing. We are so often haunted by the stupid thing, whatever it might be.
If a ruler has been given qualified credit for redeeming and turning his country into something respectable, nine times out 10, the honour will make him completely drunk, and in the mirror he will see Churchill, Jesus, Iron Man and his face all in one.
From then on, if nothing trips him to bring him down flat on his face, he will probably not rest until his country truly and unequivocally sinks back into the sewer where he found it.
He has obstinately decided to forget the values that were his reference when he was still doing the right thing. Instead of those values, he now sees the fate of the nation expressed through only his person.
If we do not establish and respect values, we are very unlikely to ever respect rules and principles. We shall always be inclined to serve only our selfish self-interest, governed by the instincts of the jungle.
Might is right. Power is right. Wealth is right. These are the sort of cynical clichés you hear in societies where enlightened values have been abolished or heavily discounted.
Otherwise, why would Burundi’s president Pierre Nkurunziza be so confident about the correctness of his current folly?
Otherwise, why would Rwanda’s leadership, which so bitterly attacked the West for its indifference when that country was disintegrating in 1994, also be so hostile when the West now shows concern about the direction the country is taking?
Otherwise, why would a man indicted by an international court for election-related crimes against humanity be paraded as a messiah for election-related good neighbourliness between nations?
If we had internalised any solid values around the subject of obscenity, why would supposedly intelligent radio station proprietors and their programme presenters wait for government communications officials, or Cabinet ministers, or the President of the republic, or the courts, to decide for them whether the boundaries of decent debate and criticism had been grossly and repeatedly violated by a talk show guest on their air waves?
If we want a measure of power, or money, or freedom of expression, do we gladly acknowledge that there are other citizens who may rightly want the same things?
Do we want these things in the cause of a better society, or do we want them simply as tools with which to humiliate our fellow citizens?
As politicians campaign towards February 2016, there is a message that I hear again and again. In essence, presidential candidate Amama Mbabazi’s team says Mr Museveni’s past election victories were typically aided by massive vote rigging.
Because Mr Mbabazi was part of Museveni’s winning political machine, he knows how things were done and are likely to be done in 2016. So he knows how to counter the mischief, protect his vote and win against Museveni.
If we concede that Mbabazi has inside knowledge about the technicalities of NRM vote shenanigans, I hope we are not obliged to assume that Mbabazi’s knowledge automatically translates into (him) getting enough votes to win in 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment