In the Ivory Coast former president Laurent Gbagbo, deserted by most of those who propped his regime, is holed up in a bunker under his home. Only a handful loyalists surround him, hoping against hope that some miracle would save them and their master, but in the process committing crimes against humanity which he will, in the fullness of time, be asked to answer for. He knows, unless he has become totally delusional, that he does not stand a chance in heaven of coming out of there and reclaim his former powers as the president of the republic.
The world has recognised his rival Alassane Ouattara as the legitimate winner of the presidential poll held last November. Gbagbo, in spite of world consensus on this issue, has refused to cede power. The result has been the resurgence of civil war which last year’s polls set out to end.
One can only surmise that Gbagbo’s defiance is a result of bad advice. His circumstances are now more complicated than they were on the day he refused to accept the results of the election. Now, even if by some dint of fortune he emerges from that bunker alive, there are many things he would have to answer for. Because of his ill-advised stance, thousands of people have died, most of them at the hands of brigands loyal to him.
No country is now prepared to offer him asylum because that might invite the ire of its own citizens who most likely are also fighting dictatorship. In the new world outlook few leaders, even in Africa, would like to associate themselves with leaders who have been rejected by their own people.
The humiliating picture a few years ago of former Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein being pulled out of hole surely must haunt anybody who thinks he can hide away from justice forever.
In Libya Colonel Muammar Gaddafi chose war instead of capitulation when his people revolted demanding the civil liberties they have been denied for more than four decades. Who advised him to follow the path he took? It seems clear that he got his advice from his sons who have singularly enjoyed the fruits of their father’s rule. For some reason Gaddafi thinks that he can come out of it all alive and continue from where he left off.
But this has become well nigh impossible. Not only is world opinion rallied against him, but he has also run out of allies both in sub-Saharan Africa and in the Arab world. He will also be made to answer for the crimes he has committed against unarmed civilians.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Gaddafi could have left a legacy had he acted differently. In spite of everything else, Gaddafi had used billions his country earned from oil revenues to develop his country. This fact is indisputable. Gaddafi survived on a bloated ego. He wished to show to the world what he had done for his people in terms of infrastructural development. He meant this to disguise his darker nature which made him to accumulate a personal fortune running into tens of billions of dollars while his people starved.
It turned out, when he moved around the world saying that he was a devout Moslem, deep down he was not. He was paying millions of dollars to American women to dance naked in front of him and his clan.
With good advice he could have instituted the changes that his people demanded or, better still, he would have relinquished power and retired a true “benevolent dictator”, respected by his people. But his legacy is all gone now. In its place is the story of a man who built a nation and cynically destroyed it.
Africa is replete with dictators who have failed to recognise their moments to achieve greatness and have had inglorious ends to their lives.
There have been exceptions though. Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere is a good example. His reign was not the greatest in the world because he experimented with ideologies which failed to move his country forward. But he was able to recognise the time he had to live. Now, in spite of everything, he is considered one of Africa’s greatest statesmen.
Nelson Mandela too knew that after successfully leading the transition from apartheid to democracy he had to step down after only one five-year term in office. He too is considered one of the world’s greatest statesmen of all time.
The same cannot be said of Malawi’s Hastings Kamuzu Banda who sought to die in power and used youth militias called the Young Pioneers to achieve this by bludgeoning into submission those who sought change. When he died, a centenarian, for the world it was a joyful riddance.
The world has refused to grant Zambia’s Kenneth Kaunda the same status it has given Nyerere and Mandela. In the 27 years of his rule, he had run his country into the ground and was stoutly refusing to let go. He had also created his own legacy by helping all of southern Africa’s liberation movements. But all that was destroyed by his failure to recognise just the moment when he had to let go.
Events of the past two weeks have shown that the world, particularly the southern African subcontinent, has lost its patience with our own President Robert Mugabe. That the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) Troika summit held in Livingstone, Zambia was a turning point in the way the Zimbabwean story will play out from now onwards is not in dispute.
But what is important from now onwards is the question of who is advising him. The diplomatic furore that arose after that summit gave us some insight into how his think-tank works. From the insufferable Jonathan Moyo spewing vitriol against a foreign head of state to mere civil servants writing newspaper editorial to buttress an ill-conceived reaction to the Sadc Troika’s chastisement, it was all on the table to see. It is obvious his advisers like him to hang on, but what effect will this have on his legacy?
