In an article published on Aljazeera, Solomon Ayele
Dersso, a senior legal scholar and an analyst on
Africa and African Union affairs, avers that the
lesson from the Gambia for African countries is
that “not only should [the opposition and citizenry]
forge unity during elections, but also prepare to
work with regional and international bodies for a
negotiated exit guaranteeing peaceful transfer of power”.
This may be true, but the ouster of Yahya Jammeh also has
another lesson for the continent’s despots: Accountability
is dead.
The facts speak for themselves. Jammeh lost an election
and, after initially accepting his defeat, subsequently chose
to contest it. is was a fi rst. In all other cases of disputed
elections on the continent, the incumbent has from the
very beginning declared himself winner. The Kenyan
experience following the 2007 election as well as that of the
Ivory Coast four years later amply illustrate this.
In the respective cases, both Mwai Kibaki and Laurent
Gbagbo refused to acknowledge defeat. What ensued was
violence, international intervention (military in the case
of Gbagbo) and ICC prosecutions. In Jammeh’s case, the
avoidance of accountability is now presented as a win for
the country.
The deal off ered by the Economic Community of West
African States (Ecowas), the AU and the United Nations
assured the former dictator of “the kind of dignity befitting
a citizen, former president and party leader" -
shorthand
for immunity from prosecution - and allowed him to keep
the loot from his 22 years in power (presumably including
the $11 million — Sh1.14 billion — withdrawn from state
coff ers in his last two weeks in power).
This is the problem with the Gambia transition. It is not a
case of the incumbent losing power and gracefully handing
over power. Rather, it is the legitimisation of the idea that
heads of state who lose power can use their incumbency,
and the implicit threat of violence, as a bargaining chip to
escape accountability for crimes committed during their
tenure. This runs counter to the tenets of democracy. There
should be no requirement for quid pro quos, negotiations
or international interventions. Transfer of power in a
democracy, as former Czech President and playwright
Vaclav Havel noted, should be mundane in a democracy.
However, in the case of African countries, it is portrayed
as an act of benevolence. When then Kenyan strongman
Daniel arap Moi accepted the loss of his chosen successor
or “project” in 2002 (current President Uhuru Kenyatta),
he was hailed as a statesman. Yet he should have never had
a choice in the matter. Similarly, Yahya Jammeh should
not have been allowed to think he somehow “deserved” a
dignified exit. That was up to the Gambian people.
As a Kenyan who lived through the 2007-08 post election
violence, I can appreciate the imperative to avoid
such eventualities. However, it is incumbent on all of us to
consider the lessons that the folks in power draw. If, in fact,
power transitions are to be negotiated between incumbents
and the international community with immunity from
prosecution offered as an incentive to peacefully vacate
office, then that is a dilution of democratic norms, not a
reinforcement of them.
Unfortunately, the AU, which has already committed
itself to the profoundly undemocratic ideal of Head of State
immunity as evidenced by its stance in the Kenyan cases
formerly at the ICC, sees things diff erently. Incumbency is
still perceived as an implicit guarantee of impunity.
With support for Jammeh collapsing, and even his army
chief saying he was not willing to fight to defend him from
the Ecowas forces at his doorstep, there was no imperative
to cut a deal. By choosing that option, the international
community did not secure democracy. Rather it validated
the idea that losing despots can use their hapless
populations as hostages to barter for a guilt-free departure.
As Solomon Dersso puts it, “they can get a dignifi ed exit, if
they allow free and fair elections.”
During last year’s US election campaigns, Donald Trump
was heavily criticised for refusing to state categorically
that he would accept the outcome of the election if he did
not win. Four years hence, he will be up for reelection. If
he loses and rejects the results, does anyone imagine he
would be off ered a cushy retirement package to facilitate a
peaceful handover of power?