I remember growing up hearing ‘Africa will liberate Zimbabwe’ a song by Bob Marley and the Wailers. The first stanza of the song reads like this:
 
Every man gotta right to decide his own destiny
And in this judgment there is no partiality
So arm in arms, with arms 
We'll fight this little struggle
'Cause that's the only way 
We can overcome our little trouble
 
What was implanted in my head and heart at the time was the chorus “Africa will liberate Zimbabwe” not knowing the full lyric until much later. However, it spurred my interest in Zimbabwe, and was catalyst in writing my Master's thesis on a comparative analysis on agricultural development in Nigeria and Zimbabwe. The song is even more powerful when you pay close attention to the entire lyrics. It aptly captured the situation and mood of Zimbabwe at the time. One would better appreciate the song when you see some documentaries and interviews of events leading to independence. Listening to an important interview granted by Mugabe in anticipation of gaining independence in 1976, illustrated the tenacity of Zimbabweans for a hopeful and bright future. At the time, Mugabe seemed like the thoughtful man who would take his country to the expected future. For example, when he was asked of his role in an independent Zimbabwe, Mugabe declared “for myself, I see a role assigned to me by my people, my party first and foremost. Whatever my party asks me to do I do it”. That was Mugabe in 1976 before he captured the state and the country as his personal kingdom while squandering the hope and the future the people fought for.
 
Immediately after Mugabe became the president of Zimbabwe in 1980, things took a different turn from his proposed servant of his people for freedom and pursuit of equality, democracy and progress. First, Mugabe put aside the goal of liberation –freedom, equity and land distribution and embarked on the suppression of opposition through threats and elimination. One high profile example was several attempts on the life of Joshua Nkomo. The veterans who fought for the independence as guerilla armies were not spared. After years of neglect and little or no result from their agitation for land distribution and pension, the veterans became Mugabe’s biggest critics. Their grievances were met with ridicule and coercion. Mugabe dismissed and called them “armchair critics”. He ruled and ruined the country with an iron hand, of which Mahmood Mamdani aptly observed, “There is no denying Mugabe’s authoritarianism, or his willingness to tolerate and even encourage the violent behaviour of his supporters”. Mugabe has not only ruled by coercion but by the strong support of his inner circle including his ousted disgruntled former vice-president Emmerson Mnangagwa whom with the military leaders led by the Army commander, Constantino Chiwenga orchestrated the current coup. 
 
Despite his age, Mugabe tried to hold unto power ‘with his dead cold hand’. On November 22nd, 2017, Mugabe finally sent his resignation letter three days after refusing to resign during his first public statement. His letter was read by thespeaker of parliament to a special joint session of the assembly, which had convened to impeach Mugabe, aged 93 after 37 years of rule. The resignation brought jubilation and celebration in Zimbabwe. Caution is called for no one knows what the future holds for Zimbabwe. Is this an end of an era or just a continuation of the same pattern?
 
So far, the situation has been peacefully managed and for the sake of the beautiful country, I hope it remains so. The question arising is, why now and where were these people in the past decades? The only reason we are witnessing the current event is because Mugabe is 93 years old and since he is not an immortal being, his demise is inevitable, which explains the struggle for power between Mugabe’s second wife Grace and Emmerson Mnangagwa. Grace with her husband Robert Mugabe took Zimbabwe as their kingdom of which power must be transferred to the member of the family – the wife in this case. This was not a hidden agenda. Before the sacking of the Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa the catalyst for the current situation, Grace Mugabe had spoken in public that her husband should name a successor, while pivoting herself as the one. On the other hand, Mnangagwa viewed himself as the right heir to throne having helped Mugabe’s hold to power and pillaging of the country. The sacking of Mnangagwa who felt entitled to take-over for his loyalty towards Mugabe paved the way for Grace's possible succession to the throne. This is what led to the silent coup. It was a power struggle for another state capture and nothing to do with the welfare of Zimbabweans and the beloved country’s fate.
 
What is currently going on in Zimbabwe is not different from some African countries. We have Kenyatta the son of the first president of Kenya as the president of Kenya. There is Kabilla of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Togo has been ruled by father and son duo for 50 years. In 2015, the country voted in Gnasssingbe for a third time. Gnassingbé is the son and immediate successor of Togo’s fifth president—Gnassingbé Eyadema. There is also President Ian Khama of Mauritius. If one follows current political analysis, there is likelihood that Zuma’s ex-wife Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma may be the next president of South Africa. Cases of political dynasty that guarantees a family member replaces another differ from one country to another. For example, one cannot compare the case of Grace Mugabe whose only credence to power is marrying Robert Mugabe to Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma who began as an anti-apartheid activist and have been in government since 1994. The case remains; that most family transfer of political power in Africa is not by merit.
 
Also, political dynasty is not peculiar to Africa nor is it dominant in the continent, the USA for example, in recent time, had the Bushes. There are similar patterns in South Asian countries like the Philippines and South Korea. These countries had their own father son leadership, but they were not immediate as there were some time gaps. They were also based on actual election competition and not a staged imposed or inherited pattern obtainable in some African countries. So, we hope that the people see the ouster of Mugabe as a lesson that the emperor has no clothes, and no one is invisible. There is nothing wrong with political dynasty as long as one gets to power by merit in a free and fair competitive election. 
 
As of the time of this writing, the ZANU/PF party has ousted Mugabe as the party leader and negotiation is still under way to determine who to takes over from him.It is very likely EmmersonMnangagwa will replace Mugabe. One thing for sure, there is no evidence that any of the interested parties have the interest of Zimbabwe and its people. Power grabbing persists while Zimbabwe and Africans in general are yet to liberate itself after more than half a century of independence. For how long would this power struggle at the expense of the country and its people continue so that Africans can freely building their countries. As we wait for the next phase of Zimbabwe, we hope that whoever takes power will preside over a free and fair election and the winner will free Zimbabwe for real this time around so that the country could fulfill its destiny.
As Bob Marley continued …
 
No more internal power struggle;
We come together, to overcome, the little trouble
Soon we'll find out who is, the real revolutionary
Cause I don't want my people to be contrary
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

​In the TV comedy program “Whose Line Is It Anyway,” performers create characters, scenes and songs 
on the spot and compete over who has come up with the most humorous skit. Democracy in many African countries looks like improvisational theatre, where various political actors are scrambling and 
scampering to see whose performance of the borrowed democracy is more comic. The problem is that 
the actions and non-actions of these figures grossly affect these countries’ citizens.

The end of apartheid and emergence of democracy in South Africa coincided with a new wave of 
democracy in many African countries. After two decades, these African countries are still 
struggling to stabilize their democratic institutions, while citizens are yet to gain any 
democratic dividends. The 2016 Afrobarometer survey from 36 countries showed that the majority of 
African citizens have low trust in  their democratic process. This is because democracy has been 
reduced to merely an election competition.

In 2016, 18 African countries held a general election, while in 2017 there are at least 9 major 
elections. Among these are Rwanda, Kenya, Angola, Liberia and Democratic Republic of Congo. The 
dynamics of democracy in Africa make one question the type of democracy Africans are implementing. 
Whose democracy is it? How is the democratic process that is introduced to a country compatible 
with and adaptable to the needs of the people? Simply put, where is the social contract in African 
democracy? Let’s examine the some key countries scheduled for major elections in 2017.

On August 7th, Rwanda’s sitting president, Paul Kegame, won election for a third seven-year term by 
98.63 percent, in what he called a “formality.” There was no serious opposition as any potential 
opponent is disqualified. Shall we call this democracy? Kagame has transformed the war-devastated 
country, bringing in the much-needed stability and socioeconomic progress that has made Rwanda one of the success stories of Africa. But Kegame rules as an authoritarian through a controlled 
election process. He has promised gradual relaxation of law and a restriction of opponents from 
political participation going forward. We will have to wait and see whether he will follow through 
with this promise. The bottom line is that the majority of Rwandans are happy with their leaders. 
Compare Rwanda, an authoritarian democratic country with a developmental approach, to countries 
like Liberia.

After completing her full two terms as president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf is expected  to  hand  over 
 power  to  whomever  wins  the  election  in  October  2017.

Currently there are four major contenders, led by former international footballer George Weah. 
After two civil wars that devastated the country, Liberia’s return to democracy has enjoyed 
relative political stability. Ellen Johnson has garnered a lot of international praise and 
accolades, including a Nobel Prize for Peace in 2011 for her non-violent activities for women’s 
rights and for navigating Liberia from civil war and the Ebola epidemic. Despite this recognition 
and a high growth rate, the country’s poverty, literacy and access to healthcare remain as major 
challenges. Even though Liberia scores higher in democratic ratings, its socioeconomic index is 
very low. This does not mean that the low socioeconomic performance is because of democracy, but it 
persists despite democracy. The few remaining authoritarian countries in Africa – Zimbabwe, 
Eritrea, Uganda, Cameroon - are not doing well either.

Since humans are not angels and Plato’s proposed system of philosopher-kings is an out-of-reach 
Utopia, democracy is viewed as the best political system for us flawed humans. Evidence from the US 
and countries of Western Europe has shown that democracy can work. But it remains a big challenge 
in some countries. There are many factors that could explain the  problems facing the new wave of 
democracies since the 1990s. I attribute the challenges of the democratic process in Africa to the 
way it was exported or imported in these countries. On the one hand, the West, led by the EU and 
the US, exports democracy in many countries just as structural adjustment program were exported – a 
one-size-fits-all method that does not recognize local characteristics. On the other hand, African 
authoritarians also tend to import one aspect of democracy – election processes - to gain favor and 
legitimize their perpetual hold on power. This behavior is drawn from an erroneous assumption that 
has been institutionalized as truth - that African traditional institutions and values are not 
compatible with democracy. Hence,  the  perceived  need  to  eliminate  or ignore local 
institutions and the social contract when introducing democracy has continued to sustain
neo-patrimonialism. The consequence is a political system that breeds more chaos, suppresses its citizens, lacks accountability and thrives on mismanagement of public goods.

We forgot that the modern Western democracies do not all operate in the same way. Each country 
adapted organically to its own local structure. For example, the US became a presidential republic, 
which was seen as most suitable for its context. The UK operates under parliamentary monarchism 
that allows it to retain its old and cherished traditions. On the other hand, Switzerland is a 
direct democracy that allows autonomy to municipalities and cantons. Until countries began 
promoting a type of democracy that emphasizes local context and structures within a social 
contract, as has been done in the EU and elsewhere, democracy will continue to erode many 
developing countries, especially in Africa.

 ​I attended a talk by Vishwas Satgar ─ ‘The Crisis of South African Democracy: The Challenge to Civil Society and Transformative Politics’ hosted by the Development and Governance of Watson Institute Brown University on April 26th, 2017. It was a well-articulated discourse on the political economy of South Africa, which is of great interest to me given my current work in the same area. Meanwhile, I will focus mostly on how the South African politics of which the speaker called Zumafication is a reflection of the growing global politics of nationalism/populism. Satgar did not explicitly define Zumafication but from his analysis it implies the rise of Zuma and how he captured the ANC through populist rhetoric and rallying. Having captured power he purged out every threat and used state power to scourge those who fight against his corrupted tendencies. The talk was richly interconnected to the global politics of past few years, and there were no end of questions and insights from the audience on each problem of state capture in South Africa and the current political climate. Given all that has been going on since Zuma got into power, I wondered how long the ANC tripartite alliance would hold. In my 2011 paper, published just after Zuma took power, I argue that the onus is dependent on the ability of the oppositions especially the then newly established Congress of the People (COPE) and Democratic Alliance to mobilize and form a strong opposition, or the country will remain a one party dominant system, making democracy vulnerable.  Zuma has continued to use his populist facade persona and rhetoric to gain some mass support while exploiting the political capital of ANC and gap in opposition. Obviously a new force – state capture has taken over South African political discourse. Whether this will transcend race and lead a mobilization that would be impactful in the next presidential election in 2019 will remain to be seen. One thing for sure South African state has been captured.

If I have learnt something, it is the complexity of human nature
If I have learnt something, it is to understand the differences in us
Sometimes I wonder what makes nature; nurture or us?
Must it be one? We can find in ourselves many features
When I look deeply into myself, I see a lot of contradictions
It is the same in everyone, but in different degrees and directions
How can someone claim to help and steal from you at the same time?
And be vexed towards you for not showing appreciation
Even when he has it all and you only have a dime
How can someone hold you down and ask you to be grateful?
How can you understand when there is something gainful?
Maybe I am the foolish one, of cause there is always something
Something to gain - power, money, ego and authority, stretching?