Madagascar: A Coup Or Force Majeure?
Soyombo Opeyemi
3 April 2009
From Mauritania to Guinea and from Guinea Bissau to Madagascar, is it yet far-fetched to speak of renaissance of militarism in Africa?
Perhaps, it is. After all, neither Mauritania, Guinea nor Guinea Bissau ever pretended to be a democracy. But now to Madagascar, where there appears to have been a semblance of reasonable civil rule since 2002.
Gen. Didier Ratsiraka, after a coup in 1975, became the Head of State of the Indian Ocean island and consolidated his rein in power till he, like other dictators in Africa, bowed to the democratic wind of the 1990's by introducing reforms which though were largely superficial. After a brief spell outside power (1993-1996), he was re-elected as president and remained in power till mid 2002 when a combination of local and international pressures forced him to give up power. Marc Ravalomanana, a full-blooded civilian, had declared himself president following his victory at the 2001 December polls, which the former president disputed.
In parenthesis, had the Kenya and Zimbabwe manipulated elections preceded the 2001 elections in Madagascar, Marc Ravalomanana, in spite of victory at the polls, would have been pressured to accept the new contraption in African democracy- more chairs at the government table!
Now, how come an experienced Marc Ravalomanana, who rode the crest of a wave of local and international acclaim in 2002 and re-elected president in 2006, was so easily dislodged from the government house by a military-backed callow youth, Andry Rajoelina, who is constitutionally barred from such an exalted office, having not attained the age of 40?
According to press reports, the new Head of State accused his predecessor of misspending and undermining democracy. Marc Ravalomanana shut the opposition radio and television stations in January and in the demonstrations that followed, security forces killed about 25 opposition supporters. This incident polarised the military and weakened its support for the government. But perhaps, his greatest political undoing was his government's lease of a large portion of citizens' land to a South Korea company for agricultural purposes. This cost him popular support because the poverty-striken Malagasies have cultural ties to their land.
I have ruminated over the events in Madagascar with a view to drawing a line between a military coup or force majeure. For me, the killing of unarmed opposition supporters during a demonstration is completely inadmissible; that alone constitutes a constitutional crisis if not a break-down because Marc Ravalomanana swore to an oath to defend the constitution and no portion of that protocol of union permits the slaughter of a single citizen except in execution of a court order. I am here concerned with the sanctity of life which remains inviolable no matter the degree of provocation.
Yes, those slaughters by Ravalomanana implied the (temporary) breakdown or suspension of the constitution and the military was right to refuse orders from the president. And as if to confirm that collapse of the constitution, Marc Ravalomanana, upon resignation, chose to hand over the reins of government to the military directorate rather than the president of the Senate. Andry Rajoelina came in during a constitutional breakdown and the military pledged its loyalty. The Constitutional Court had no option but to tow the same line in order to restore constitutionalism.
Perhaps too fantastic an argument by an apostle of inviolability of life, but the point here must not be lost on any tyrannical or dictatorship-inclined Head of State in Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa. The murder of citizens involved in a constitutionally-guaranteed action such as the right to protest, at best, amounts to high treason- wilful infraction of the constitution is akin to betrayal of your own country- and, at the worst, constitutes a breakdown of the constitution, in which might can become right- as witnessed in Madagascar. The Madagascar military must therefore be commended for being on the side of the people by revolting against the violation of citizens' rights by President Ravalomanana. With this line of thought, what took place in Madagascar should be regarded as a force majeure- a regrettable interlude in the process of nation building- and life must move on from there!
But to the extent that we regard the killing of Madagascar citizens, for which the President must take responsibility, as constituting a high treason- and for practical purposes, this is a preferred line of thought- the political events in the Indian Ocean island must be regarded as a coup d'etat. But how would a President Marc Ravalomanana have been punished for the murder of innocent protesters?
No clear-cut answer can emerge here because it all depends on the political culture of the country involved. The Watergate scandal, for instance, that cost Richard Nixon the presidency of the United States could never have caused a stir here in Nigeria or anywhere in Africa. And the 'mere' love affair that almost torpedoed the Clinton presidency could not have attracted the attention of anyone in Nigeria or Africa except newspaper cartoonists.
Now the theories: Andry Rajoelina should have gone to courts by way of mandamus to compel the police to arrest and arraign the trigger-happy security officials for murder. This should have been backed up with demonstrations demanding for the resignation of the president and calling on the country's legislature to remove the president on a charge of high treason- the killing of unharmed protesters.
Opposition should also have gone to court on the closure of its radio and television stations and possibly on the leasing of citizens' land for commercial purposes. On the land issue, opposition could also have brought governmental activities to a standstill by calling for boycotts, strikes, etc, until government is forced to reverse the policy. Again, Madagascar opposition should have accepted the referendum canvassed by the deposed president in order to determine the true feelings of the people.
And if members of the National Assembly were true representatives of the people, they should have- in concert with the Constitutional Court- impeached the president in order to pave way for his trial on a charge of high treason. The president of the Senate would then have replaced him pending new elections.
The implication of a military-backed coup is that the military will continue to play the role of godfather in Madagascar politics. This is antithetical to democracy. The military must, alt all times, subordinate itself to constituted civil authority. Perhaps, Africa nations may also provide lands for officers to engage in agriculture and share the profit with the State in order to reduce barracks boredom, which plays a major role in military adventures in politics.
The Africa Union must get the proposed Africa Standby Force on ground immediately and amend its charters in order to deal with a situation like Madagascar's. Such a force would have stormed Antananarivo to ensure the change of government followed the process laid down by the constitution. It is time the AU moved beyond mere suspension to direct intervention.
South Africa: Zanu (PF), MDC to Meet On Impasse
Business Day (Johannesburg)
9 July 2008
Posted to the web 9 July 2008
Karima Brown
Johannesburg
ZIMBABWE's ruling Zanu (PF) and the two factions of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) are expected to meet today for talks on a way out of that country's political impasse.
The meeting was confirmed by African National Congress president Jacob Zuma, who was informed of it by Harare's diplomatic representative in Pretoria, Simon Khaya Moyo.
"The Zimbabwe ambassador to SA informed me that a meeting will be held between two representatives of Zanu and the two groups within the MDC," Zuma told Business Day.
Moyo was part of a group of diplomats who had lunch with Zuma in Pretoria yesterday.
Zuma urged the parties to "put the interests of Zimbabweans" above their narrow political considerations.
"The elections were discredited, but we do need some political arrangement that needs to take into account that both parties have a role to play in the reconstruction of Zimbabwe," Zuma said.
ANC deputy president Kgalema Motlanthe and secretary- general Gwede Mantashe will also meet their counterparts in Zanu (PF) today in Zimbabwe.
While Zuma has publicly backed President Thabo Mbeki's mediation efforts he has not missed an opportunity to highlight shortcomings of the process managed by Mbeki.
Leaders of developed countries at the Group of Eight summit in Japan have called for tougher sanctions against President Robert Mugabe and his regime. The ANC would discuss targeted sanctions, and be guided by the Southern African Development Community and African Union, Zuma said.
"Two questions need addressing in any resolution of the crisis. The first is that the interest of the country must be paramount, and the second is that the margin in the elections was not that big. This means that both the MDC and Zanu (PF) have support, and they will have to find a way to deal with that in any future arrangement."