Sipho Seepe
no blows barred
Welcoming one into the United States is a towering portrait of the American president. In a sense the prominence and the larger-than-life portrayal given to the first citi-zen underscores his place in the life of that nation. Firstly, the president is a unifying force in the nation. It is a nation of many ethnic backgrounds. Furthermore the bruising electoral process requires mechanisms that institutionalise the incumbent. Partisan feelings yield to patriotism after the election. Secondly, the reality of American politics demands maximum national consensus around a person who wields extensive power.
This fascination with the president and the concomitant patriotism does not degenerate into blind loyalty. The society remains ruthless in its criticism of the president and his entire executive. Within the US Congress, this criticism goes beyond party lines when necessary a development that occurs easily in political dispensations that allow elected representatives to vote according to their personal conviction. It is this shared understanding of the presidency that is at the heart of the US’s ability to override the president’s veto, and to also call for impeachment of the president when appropriate.
Understandably, Africa has had its share of being fascinated with its leaders. These were, after all, leaders who led triumphant revolutionary struggles against colonial regimes. For a people who had suffered under the yoke of oppression, nothing is more gratifying than to see their leaders take their rightful place among leaders of the world. As the challenge of office becomes unbearable, and past achievements recede from national consciousness, these leaders typically start to treat their people with contempt. Sooner or later the importance and fascination with the presidency begins to be imposed from the top. This perverted expression can take the form of revolutionary leaders declaring themselves life presidents a development made easier by having virtually one-party states, of which Africa boasts many. Obsessed with making a mark in history and bereft of ideas, the leaders resort to the construction of meaningless monuments and pursuance of unsustainable schemes and projects.
In short, the fascination with the president may derive from the imperatives of unity, from the need to project and affirm a nation status among nations, but it may be driven also by despots who suffer from delusions of grandeur.
There are times when post-colonial societies participate in mutual self-deception by exaggerating the importance of their leaders. Great leaders do not need to try hard to consolidate their standing in society. Nelson Mandela is one such leader. Even before assuming office he had become an epitome of struggle, and an embodi-ment of the triumph of the human spirit against oppression, and a living symbol of hope and reconciliation. His greatness allows him to be comfortable in the presence of peasants, workers, royalty and world leaders.
Unfortunately, Thabo Mbeki did not come into office with these qualities. His grand schemes and almost ritual flirtation with the who’s who of world business seem to be at the heart of his determination to make his mark in history. Despite all these efforts at name-dropping, grand schemes and adoption of policies that should be attractive to those he seeks to impress, the rest of the world remains unconvinced. Mbeki’s public conduct at home has raised questions regarding his commitment to clean and good governance. The continuing arms-deal saga stands in glaring contrast to prioritising the eradication of poverty and human resource development. The practice of seeing those critical of his government as enemies of the state has led to a lack of trust in his presidency. In spite of (or to spite) Mbeki’s assurance that the economy continues to improve, business declared its lack of confidence by extensive offshore listings. Mbeki’s appeal to dubious statistics regarding employment, during the state-of-the-nation address, provides little comfort to millions facing the economic harsh realities borne out of his economic policies. Since taking over the reins of power direct foreign investment has plummeted by almost 50%. According to BusinessMap, Mbeki’s defensive style has been “a key factor in compounding negative investor perceptions”.
Mbeki’s pursuit of the eccentric ideas on HIV/Aids has done irreparable damage to his image. Although putting a different spin to his article, “Mbeki’s refusal to kowtow has the West lining up to attack him” (The Star, November 20 2000), Baffour Ankomah captures eloquently how Mbeki is presented in the international media. The descriptions include “the president who lets babies die in pain … The president who has declared himself a medical expert who understood his country’s Aids epidemic better than global authorities” (Observer, August 20, 2000); “Mbeki is suffering from a gargantuan persecution complex” (The Times, August 23 2000); “Enemy of the people” (United Kindgom’s Sunday Times, August 27 2000). Some went as far as suggesting that Mbeki suffers from some mental illness. Mbeki’s decision to conflate health emergency with the state of emergency serves to cement these perceptions. These lingering perceptions influence the movement of capital.
In spite of this there is a sense in which the nation participates in mutual self-deception. For instance, many of us are quick to overstate achievements derived from the president’s frequent overseas trips, and to point out that the West is listening to him, that he is the right man to take us to the Promised Land. It is because of this mutual self-deception that many of the newspapers failed to report what amounted to a declaration of no confidence in the launch of the Millennium African Renewal Plan. Reporting on the launch of Africa’s partnership with the rich and powerful nations by Mbeki, Nigeria’s Olusegun Obasanjo, Senegal’s Abdoulaye Wade and Tanzania’s Benjamin Mkapa, Justice Malala (Sunday Times February 4) captures the scenario as follows:
“The hall, which had been packed when Palestinian Liberation Organisation leader Yasser Arafat and former Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres addressed a meeting just before the [African] presidents arrived, stood more than two-thirds empty. Only a handful of journalists had turned up, and the hard-core movers and shakers were nowhere to be seen despite a statement by the 3 000-odd delegates (some of whose personal fortunes could wipe out the national debt of many African countries) recognising their responsibility towards poor nations in general and Africa in particular.”
As we are called to celebrate the formation of the African Union, we should not be deceived by declared intentions. Experience shows that commitments, declarations, and constitutional provisions have not been able to stop African leaders in their quest for un- bridled power.