e_Paper, Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Opinion 13
A dictator by any other name
Leaders like Mugabe and Biya make a mockery of democracy
DT
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2017
What explains the longevity of the likes of Robert Mugabe?
• Ziauddin Choudhury
There are currently eight
heads of governments
in the world, all of them
in Africa except two
(Cambodia and Kazakhstan), who
have been ruling their countries
for more than 30 years.
One, Paul Biya of Cameroon,
has been in power for over 42
years. They rule countries which
are officially democracies and,
believe it or not, they do have
periodic elections.
What explains the longevity
of these dictators who rule in the
garb of democracy? Are they really
darlings of their people? Are they
sustained by manipulation of their
constitutions, corruption of the
institutions, or both?
Unfortunately there is no
single answer to their longevity,
as each leader has his unique
characteristics and approach to
manage his survival. One thing
common among them is their
desire to retain power at all costs.
All of these pseudo-democratic
countries hold elections for the
highest office (as well as their
so-called legislatures). These
elections are officially contested
by opponents of the ruling party,
but they are routinely trounced
by the party of the president in
power.
In Cameroon, for example,
People’s Democratic Movement
(CPDM) was the only legal
REUTERS
political party until December
1990. Numerous regional
political groups have since
formed. But Biya and his party
have maintained control of the
presidency and the National
Assembly in national elections, by
manipulating elections.
In Equatorial Guinea, President
Obiang was elected to a seven-year
term as president in 1982 (after
securing power in 1979 through a
coup); he was the only candidate.
He was re-elected in 1989, again as
the only candidate.
In subsequent elections, he
allowed other parties to nominally
contest the elections. Nonetheless,
he would be elected president
term after term (each for seven
years) with votes nearing a 100%
for him.
Zimbabwe’s legendary
President Mugabe (prime minister
from 1979 to 1987, president since
1987) ensured his iron grip over
his country through constitutional
amendments that combined the
roles of head of state, head of
government, and commander of
armed forces in one.
His party ZANU-PF ensured
his election each time through
voter intimidation and rampant
corruption that Mugabe himself
spawned.
Champions of the masses
In all of these countries, including
those not cited in the examples,
the rulers rule and exercise total
control through the political
parties they spawned, and
legislators who overwhelmingly
belong to the government party.
The rulers create a vast network
of mutually supportive institutions
that range from the army through
police, government bureaucracy,
and often the judiciary. Yet, the
irony is that a majority of the
leaders in these countries came
to power on the shoulders of the
people who once welcomed them
as liberators and champion of the
masses.
Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe
was an anti-colonist political
activist who first fought for
independence of his country (then
Rhodesia), and later against the
white minority regime of Ian Smith
who had declared independence
of Rhodesia unilaterally and
had formed a white-dominated
government.
Mugabe was able to end white
minority government of Ian
Smith after years of struggle,
much of which was through
leading guerilla warfare against
In a true democracy,
institutions operate
as politically neutral
entities. They serve
people, and not a
political leader or
party
the regime. In 1979, Mugabe was
elected as prime minister with
huge popular support when the
government of Ian Smith, under
pressure from neighbouring South
Africa, agreed to the participation
of Mugabe’s party to participate in
the elections.
His party ZANU-PF became
the people’s party. But the story
of Rhodesia (which he renamed
Zimbabwe) would soon be
different from then on.
In a few years, Mugabe would
use his huge popularity to change
the constitution of the country to
converge three different offices,
prime minister, president, and
commander-in-chief of the army
into one, and assume those
powers.
His party would soon be the
only major political power in the
country. He and his supporters
would hound out any opposition
to him or to his government
through intimidation, abuse of
power, and bribery.
Following the creation of
a unitary state in 1972, Paul
Biya became prime minister of
Cameroon in June 1975. In 1979, a
law designated the prime minister
as the president’s constitutional
successor.
The president that time (Ahidjo)
unexpectedly announced his
resignation in November 1982, and
Biya succeeded him as president
of Cameroon. Since then, he has
remained president after winning
several seven-year terms after
forcing an obliging legislature to
remove term limits for presidency.
He is in his 42nd year as president.
One leader to rule them all
We can go on and on to analyse the
causes of longevity in each of the
cases of the long lasting heads of
states/governments existing in the
world today, but the conclusion
would be somewhat similar.
Each has used their rise to
power on shoulders of popularity
and each had succeeded to
manipulate both people and their
constitution to have an iron grip
over their rule.
Some may have begun their
career through a military coup,
and later legitimised their
ascendancy to power through
“managed” elections.
But others used their name
and fame either as liberators of
their countries or over-throwers of
unpopular regimes to perpetuate
their rules by manipulating the
constitution.
A common theme running
through these long-lasting regimes
is emphasis on their need to lead
their country in its fight against
perceived “enemies” of the
country, domestic and foreign.
They also portray themselves
as emancipators of their people
from poverty, and as leaders of
economic progress.
The parties they formed
became their cheerleaders and
poster bearers of these images.
The leaders also ensured that their
parliaments are packed with such
loyal supporters.
Gradually, they also packed
other institutions of the country
with acolytes of the leader. When
all institutions are populated by
loyalists to the regime, common
citizens have no recourse but
to accept dispensations from
the office holders of the regime,
whether elected or unelected.
Elections in these regimes
become farcical, as a system
corrupted by greed and power only
lead to further perpetuation of the
regime, because the elections are
not free and unfettered.
Using democracy to absolute
power is not an unknown
phenomenon. History is replete
with such examples. What is
often forgotten, however, is that
a leader’s personal desire to hold
a permanent grip on power also
leads to undesirable or unforeseen
consequences.
History is full of such sad
consequences. The Paul Biyas or
Mugabes of the world may have
longevities even they may not
have thought of, the likes of them
came to horrific ends in their
own continent. Democracy may
be abused for a short period, but
a people cannot be abused ad
infinitum.
In our country, we restored
democracy after two decades
of struggle. We have had five
elections since 1990, a few of
which, notably the last, could
have been managed in a more
transparent manner.
But at least we are not
abrogating people’s right to
choose. We still have officially
a multi-party system, and we
have hopes that the system
will be allowed to operate in an
unfettered manner in the next
election.
What we do not know however
is the extent to which opponents
will be allowed to exercise their
right to mobilise people to their
cause.
What we do not know is the
extent of freedom our institutions
such as election commission,
police force, and bureaucracy will
have to operate and exercise their
roles in the elections.
In a true democracy, these
institutions operate as politically
neutral entities. They serve
people, and not a political leader
or party.
There is a hairline difference
between the quasi-democracies
of the world and other true
democracies. This difference
comes from the will and desire
of the leaders who lead their
countries.
A democracy can be bent only
if the leaders are bent. We hope we
can avoid this. •
Ziauddin Choudhury has worked in the
higher civil service of Bangladesh early
in his career, and later for the World
Bank in the US.