The genocide in Rwanda in April 1994 must not distract from the fact that genocide is a global phenomenon that knows no racial or geographical boundaries. In its modern form, genocide was perfected by the fascist Nazi regime led by Adolph Hitler in Germany from 1933 to 1945. The Khmer Rouge also demonstrated in the killing fields of Cambodia from 1975 to 1979 that genocide could be carried out as efficiently in a different social and political context.

In more recent times the world watched live on satellite television in the 1990’s while genocide was perpetuated in the heart of Europe as Serbia, Croatia and Kosovo became household names for the grimmest reasons known to history. Going back even further, the transatlantic slave trade has been described as genocidal, though the mass murder of millions of Africans over 400 years was more a by product of plunder, exploitation and repression rather than the specific goal of slave dealers and the states that backed the slave trade.

But why does genocide happen? Why do human beings, the so-called most civilised and intelligent of the species that inhabit the planet, turn to mass murder?

In answering this question, the most important point to make is that genocide does not just happen. It is prepared for, consciously executed and is based on reasonably identifiable social, political and economic conditions. What differs is the extent to which these conditions apply or exist, and the degree of preparation by the perpetrators.

The second most important point to make is that genocide is not ‘triggered’ by a single event that pushes the perpetrators over the brink. On the contrary, the so-called ‘trigger events’ are excuses for setting in motion the logical end to a process prepared for well in advance.

Only when the world appreciates the fact of these processes can we collectively identify the signs or beginnings of what is likely to end in genocide and douse the fire before it becomes an all-consuming flame.

In the case of Rwanda, it is a popularly held myth that the shooting down of the plane carrying the then Head of State Juvenal Habyarimana and the Burundian President Cyprien Ntayamira on 6th April 1994 triggered the genocide that followed over the next 12 weeks and left well over 700,000 dead (nearly 10% of the country’s population of over 8 million). Nothing can be further from the truth.

Before the shooting down of the airplane by yet unidentified persons, the social and political conditions had been prepared by various factors. One key factor was the dictatorship established following the seizure of power by General Juvenal Habyarimana in 1973.

Habyarimana ruled in the name of the “majority” and imposed a dictatorship on the entire country. In addition, the official discrimination against the Tutsi minority was so much that within two decades, half a million had fled the country.

The government estimated Tutsis at 9% of the population and restricted them to 9% of jobs and educational opportunities. (Many of the exiles later joined the rebel Rwandan Patriotic Front, RPF). In order to consolidate the hold on power, Tutsi’s were painted as the enemy within (and without), and anyone that did not treat them as such was a sympathiser of the enemy, deemed to be “no better than them” and likely to face the same fate.

This is a classic manoeuvre used by a variety of regimes throughout history to divide society, promote a climate of fear and insecurity, encourage racism, xenophobia or ethnic hatred and mobilise their supporters to systematically suppress and eradicate the so called enemy. The Nazis in Germany used this strategy to near perfection over the period of their rule.

Official discrimination on its own is not enough to involve a significant percentage of the population in mass murder. Hate speech (using crude or sophisticated propaganda) must be deployed on a mass scale, and organised armed bodies of men infused into society to provide the ‘back bone’ and direction for mass murder. Where the prerequisite social conditions do not exist, or hate speech does not achieve the desired effect of involving significant numbers of everyday citizens in mass murder, it still facilitates their acquiescence to genocide carried out by smaller organised units of killers.

But even hate speech must have a clearly identifiable target to lead to genocide. This means that the ‘targets’ must be isolated and identified as systematically as possible. This is achieved by obvious means such as clearly marked or distinct clothing, less obvious means such as identity cards, or crude social stereotyping using race, ethnicity, language or physical appearance etc.

In the case of Rwanda, this had already been pre-facilitated by the Belgian colonialists through the issuance of identity cards based on ethnicity and the classic colonial strategy of creating an artificial elite through which colonial powers rule in countries where colonialists are vastly outnumbered.

During colonial rule, the artificial classification and imposition of a minority elite created the basis for long lasting resentment seized upon after independence by Hutu extremists to build a power base. Similar creation of artificial borders, cynical divisions of ethnic nationalities, imposition of artificial elites and so forth by colonial powers have provided the basis for many conflicts in Africa.

Simply put, genocide has become the method though which organised groups within society, whether based on ideology, race, nationality, ethnicity, religion or language, consciously pursue a strategy of achieving or consolidating power, through manipulating economic, social or political conditions and insecurities to unite significant sections of society behind them and against a real or artificially created enemy whose extermination or repression is promoted as vital to the “survival of the species.”

The main tools are hate speech, use of mass propaganda to spread lies, insecurity and create myths promoting a climate of simultaneous fear and dehumanisation of the intended targets; and the organisation of armed bodies of men in preparation for, or to actually direct, instigate or carry out violence and mass murder. All of these factors and those mentioned earlier are clearly identifiable and if left unchallenged build up to make genocide almost inevitable.

But how can genocide be tackled?

General education and enlightenment, an understanding of social, political and economic issues and of individual and mass psychology will all help to make people less susceptible to manipulation of their fears and insecurities.

However, while sharp economic, social and political inequalities remain a characteristic of human society there will always be a possibility that people will be open to manipulation by those that see such cynical manipulation as their path to power and the trappings that go with it. Interventions by United Nations forces or others may stop specific cases of genocide from playing out, but this cannot be a permanent solution.

In Africa, the legacy of colonialism, serious economic problems, deepening inequalities and ongoing conflicts mean that there is a possibility that an increasing number of incumbent governments or powerful groups could promote religious, racial, ethnic or social differences and conflict as a way of acquiring or consolidating their hold on power rather than addressing the root causes of desperation. History shows that once set in motion conflicts are difficult to stop. How civil society and pro democratic forces tackle the issues is crucial to the future of Africa.

Overall, there is no doubt that the central challenge facing humanity today on all continents is to resolve the inequalities and injustices on which genocide can be built.

* Sankore is on the editorial board of Pambazuka and is Coordinator of CREDO for Freedom of Expression and Associated Rights which focuses on rights issues in Africa.

* NOTE FOR EDITORS: Please note that this editorial was commissioned from the author for Pambazuka News. If you would like to use this article for your publication, please do so with the following credit: "This article first appeared in Pambazuka News, an electronic newsletter for social justice in Africa, Editors are also encouraged to make a donation.

It requires a great deal of political clarity to sort the issues on Zimbabwe and a short message cannot do it in depth. Nevertheless I think it is important to make some clarifications on the question of race and criticism of President Mugabe.

1. It is not proper or correct to allege/imply that [all] black Mugabe critics are in effect supporters of white supremacy.

2. I for example could never be accused of being such a person. I do not need to go into detail but suffice to say that all my life, I have fought and will continue to fight against all manifestations of racism.

3. I have also lived under [and suffered the consequences of the repression of] another undemocratic African government that did not have a land controversy at hand to blur the issues. I have had the unfortunate benefit of seeing journalist colleagues disappear, be jailed, tortured, killed and hounded in to exile in many countries. None of them were supporters of white supremacy. [Ironically, ‘western’ interests supported some of such dictators such as Mobutu of Zaire especially during the cold war]

4. Yes there is an overwhelming need for land reform and redistribution not just in Zimbabwe but also across southern Africa. In truth it should have been done - not in the last two years - but long ago. It can also be done in a civil way without inciting lynch mobs to murder people.

5. The issues in Zimbabwe are not just about minority whites owning the most land and blacks not having access to land. It is also about democracy and human rights, which are universal concepts. Black people are dying of AIDS and Famine in Zimbabwe.

6. Yes there is a reasonable element of racism in the support for anti-Mugabe forces by some white people and western interests. Such interests are clearly identifiable and there is no need to mix them up with those that don’t share their interests. [Descendants of colonial settlers for instance would be happy to hang on to their land under any circumstances and would never have spoken up for human rights of Africans were they not under attack themselves.]

7. While it is true that white people that have not suffered the consequences of slavery, colonialism, apartheid or racism do not appreciate the extent to which race may colour their perception of issues and how this in turn colours how their actions and policies are perceived by Africans. The truth is that not all white people are racists. Some have even fought and died for the anti-apartheid, anti-colonial struggles and the civil rights movement etc.

8. Mugabe need not have waited till he faced growing political opposition to sort the land problem. He could have done it when there was little or no opposition anytime in the previous 20 years. While it is true that some interests will rather ruin Zimbabwe than see land reform, the truth is that Mugabe’s policies are also undermining the Zimbabwean economy.

9. It may seem attractive to some people to imply that because white colonial settlers murdered millions of Africans and violently seized land, the same should be done to them. However although ‘revenge’ may give immense satisfaction, this simply reduces the perpetrators to the same bestial mentality that generated colonial murder and exploitation. [There will never be enough space here to discuss the place of revenge and vengeance in the human psyche and society, if it is appropriate or not, to what extent is it reasonable and so forth.] More importantly if land reform is the objective, it can be done without mayhem. Prior to the last elections Zanu-PF had enough political strength to ensure land reform in a constitutional manner. It is not impossible to do so even now.

10. Finally and to reiterate: It is possible to campaign for democracy and human rights in Zimbabwe and elsewhere in Africa without being a supporter of white supremacy. Note also that:
(1) If you fight the beneficiaries of undemocratic policies by undemocratic means, you loose your legitimacy and moral authority especially if you play on a legitimate cause to selfishly hang on to power and the fall out is that thousands of innocent people suffer the consequences. (2) To campaign for democracy, free expression and other rights in Zimbabwe is not an endorsement of the MDC or its policies.

The fallouts of slavery, colonialism, apartheid and more sophisticated modern day exploitation of Africa can only be solved by more democracy and more human rights, not less. Some racists that were never and never will be democrats will exploit circumstances to hang on to their land. However in the long run, a genuinely democratic Zimbabwe will not accept minority control of majority land, but will address the problem in a non-violent and democratic manner.

The announcement by Zimbabwean government officials that they would pull the country out of the Commonwealth following their continued suspension raised the stakes dramatically, ironically on the eve of International Human Rights Day on December 10. This has serious implications for the organisations capacity to promote human rights in Africa and amongst non-African countries.

If the commonwealth takes no further action, it would appear all a country has to do to side step its authority is to withdraw from it. If however it decides to take further steps against the Zimbabwean government as provided for in its Harare principles, it risks widening the split in the organisation and triggering a spiralling crisis. It is significant that the 14 member Southern African Development Community (SADC) issued a statement on the 10th of December expressing its "displeasure and deep concern with the dismissive, intolerant and rigid attitude displayed by some (Commonwealth) members." The organisation called for “engagement” and “not isolation” saying, isolation “will do nothing to assist the people of Zimbabwe overcome their difficulties".

In this respect, a strong complicating factor is the apparent double standards exhibited by some ‘western’ governments. The idea for instance that any government could float the idea of relaxing sanctions on, or even ending the suspension of Pakistan while simultaneously calling for stiffer penalties against Zimbabwe at the Commonwealth may yet rank in history alongside the worlds biggest foreign policy blunders. Some Asian countries especially India, which is a traditional opponent of Pakistan, would also have watched this closely. Alluding to this David Ellery, writing in the letters pages of the UK Guardian of December 9 2003, stated, “Mugabe is missing a trick. All he has to do is offer to send a token force to Iraq and Blair and Bush will be praising him as a bulwark of democracy and human rights.”

This double standards and what is seen by some African governments as covert support by some ‘western’ governments for opposition interests opposed to land reform has not only strengthened Mugabe’s resolve, it has mobilised his party behind him as well as those African governments that share a similar colonial past.

However, it is important to remember that the central problem as regards Zimbabwe is not the resolution of the problems in the Commonwealth. The central problem is the resolution of the crisis in Zimbabwe. The contradictions in the Commonwealth have long existed and Zimbabwe has only brought them to the fore again.

To many around the world [including within the Commonwealth], the crisis has several sides to it. To some the question is “are you for land reform or not?” To others the question is “are you for democracy and human rights or not?”

These questions have been shaped by the perceptions that to be strongly for land reform suggests uncritical support for the Mugabe government and its policies and that to be strongly for human rights and democracy suggests an uncritical alliance with ‘white farmers’, ‘former colonial masters’ or the opposition as currently represented by the MDC.

This conundrum confirms that as is sometimes the case, the perception is as important as the reality. In this case, key factors behind these perceptions are race and political convenience.

Conflicts that are complicated by race and ideology are often tricky waters to navigate. It is necessary therefore to be courageous and unambiguous in standing by principles that will facilitate consistency. In the case of Zimbabwe, it is time for courage.
It is therefore possible in Zimbabwe and elsewhere, to stand:
- For democracy;
- For the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, association, assembly, and political participation;
- Media freedom;
- And simultaneously recognise the urgent need for land reform and redistribution to correct the injustices of colonialism based on racist oppression, discrimination and exploitation.

It is also principled to stand for correction of colonial injustices and simultaneously demand that the need for land reform and redistribution should not and cannot be used as an excuse or cover to sanction violence and murder. Land reform can and must be carried out but only on a constitutional and equitable basis. This should have been the position of the Commonwealth; this should be the position of the African Union and of the SADC.

It is important to sort out the Zimbabwean crisis now on the basis of clear and unambiguous democratic principles not just for Zimbabwe, but also because the land problem may rear its head in South Africa sooner than many think. If it manifests in South Africa on the same basis as it has in Zimbabwe then the legacy of apartheid, the unresolved issues around race, the economic divide, the sharper role of ideology in the liberation struggle and the size of the country and economy – all will combine to make it far worse than it could ever be in Zimbabwe.

Africans and democratic minded African leaders and governments must not allow perceived ‘western’ double standards to distort their views on democracy. It is possible for President Mugabe to be a former liberation fighter, to have been once democratically elected and to now pursue undemocratic policies. Violence is not necessary to ensure land reform in Zimbabwe. It is also not justified by the fact that colonial settlers used violence and murder to illegitimately seize land from Africans. Had it been determined to do so before it started facing political problems, the Mugabe government could have enforced land reform in a constitutional, legitimate and equitable way at any time in the last two decades.

For this reason African rights campaigners must be steadfast on the question of rights and democracy in Zimbabwe and appreciate the fact that support for democratic principles in Zimbabwe is not the same as endorsing the policies of “western interests”, or any opposition parties or organisations. International rights campaigners and non-African governments must also be clear and unequivocal that in addition to campaigning for democratic principles that they stand for land reform and redistribution as a step towards correcting the injustices of Zimbabwe’s colonial past. If not, they risk becoming part of the problem instead of contributing to the solution.

Given the opportunity, the people of Zimbabwe will make the right choices and these choices will in the long run be consistent with democratic principles, human rights and correcting the injustices of the colonial past on a constitutional, just and equitable basis.

*Sankore is a member of the Pambazuka Editorial Board and is Coordinator of CREDO for Freedom of Expression and Associated Rights, which works on rights issues in Africa. CREDO can be contacted via Pambazuka News or via [email][email protected]

* See the Letters and Comments section of Pambazuka News for letters and debate on Zimbabwe.

As the Commonwealth Heads of Government meet in Abuja Nigeria from the 5th to the 8th of December, many rights related demands will be made on the conference. Considering that 18 of the 54 member countries of the Commonwealth are African a significant percentage of these demands will relate to African countries and Zimbabwe will top the list.

The situation in Zimbabwe is horrific. It is sure to get worse, before it gets better. At present, state sponsored and state endorsed violence is inflicted against anyone and everyone that is opposed to or criticises the policies and actions of the Mugabe led government. This includes the political opposition, civil society organisations and the media. Sadly these are now ‘usual’ characteristics of any country governed by an elite, clique or determined to suppress opposition. The horror assumes even greater proportions with regard to the millions facing starvation and disease especially HIV/AIDS. Many will die slow and painful deaths.

For these reasons, a major demand of campaigners will be that Zimbabwe continues to be suspended from the Commonwealth in addition to a wide range of other suggested actions.

But painful as it is, an important question must be asked. Is the Commonwealth actually capable of promoting human rights in Africa?

It is important to ask this question for two crucial reasons. The first is for rights and pro-democracy campaigners working in Africa to determine if it is a worthwhile strategy to focus their energy and resources on an organisation that in the long run may turn out to be structurally incapable of seriously upholding democracy and human rights in Africa. The second is to determine if the Commonwealth as it presently constituted has exhausted any potential it may have had in the past to be a respected arbiter on issues of democracy and human rights in Africa.

These questions can only be answered by looking at the history, context and evolution of the Commonwealth.

History, context and character of the Commonwealth

The Commonwealth first emerged as an intergovernmental organisation of former British colonies. The term ‘commonwealth’ was first used in the 1920’s to describe Britain and its dominions and led to the formation of the Dominions office in 1925.

The 1949 London declaration modified the Commonwealth to permit Republic status [in the case of India] with the British Monarch as the Head of the Commonwealth. The British Commonwealth was also renamed the Commonwealth of Nations to reflect the new realities in India and other emerging independence struggles. Subsequently 1949 has been recognised as the foundation year of the modern Commonwealth.

Following the wave of African majority rule and independence that began with Ghana in 1957, the 1961 Commonwealth Ministers Conference upheld the principle of racial equality and forced Apartheid South Africa to withdraw from the Commonwealth [and rejoin in 1994 following the end of the last Apartheid regime]

Increased activity led to the setting up of the Commonwealth Secretariat in 1965 and with Secretary General and small number of staff. In 1966 the first Commonwealth Prime Ministers Meeting (CPMM) to take place outside London was held in Lagos, the then capital of Nigeria.

In 1971 the Singapore Declaration of Commonwealth Principles set the framework for some agreements on human rights principles and free trade. The CPMM was also renamed Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting or CHOGM as it is known today. The 1971 decoration was further reinforced by the 1991 Harare Commonwealth Declaration, which defined and strengthened the Commonwealths commitment to promoting democracy, good government, human rights, social and economic development.

In the 54th year of the modern Commonwealth, its 54 member countries across all continents together have a population of an estimated 1.7 billion or roughly thirty percent of the world’s population.

Weaknesses and Contradictions

Not withstanding the transformation of the image the Commonwealth i.e. from a tool of Imperial Britain to an organisation of, apparently, equal nations it has always been undermined by weaknesses and contradictions.

One of these key contradictions is the role of the British Queen as the Head of the Commonwealth, and some of the foreign polices of different governments of the United Kingdom in relation to the Commonwealths goals and principles on racial equality, democracy and human rights.

For instance, while the international struggle to end Apartheid was gathering momentum, [including through the efforts of the Commonwealth Eminent Perons Group] former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher not only labelled the ANC a terrorist organisation but gave tacit legitimacy to the Apartheid government through her views on business and other links with it.

At the present time, this contradiction has again emerged with regard to the UK government’s relations with the Musharaff led government in Pakistan and its policies and actions on Zimbabwe.

In 1999 the year in which the Commonwealth met in Durban South Africa, Pakistan was suspended from the Commonwealth following a military coup and the overthrow of Pakistan’s democratically elected government [led by Mr Nawaz Sharif] by then Army Chief of Staff General Pervez Musharaff.

The Commonwealth decision to suspend Pakistan was based on its 1995 Milbrook Action Programme [for reinforcing the] The 1995 Harare Declaration.

Section B of the Milbrook Programme, “Measures in response to Violations of the Harare Principles” states that:

'Where a member country is perceived to be clearly in violation of the Harare Commonwealth Declaration, and particularly in the event of an unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected government, appropriate steps should be taken to express the collective concern of Commonwealth countries and to encourage the restoration of democracy within a reasonable time frame. These include:

'i. Immediate public expression by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth’s collective disapproval of any such infringement of the Harare principles;

'vi. Pending restoration of democracy, exclusion of the government concerned from participation at ministerial-level meetings of the Commonwealth, including CHOGMs;

'vii. Suspension of participation at all Commonwealth meetings and of Commonwealth technical assistance if acceptable progress is not recorded by the government concerned after a period of two years;'

[and, importantly]

'viii. Consideration of appropriate further bilateral and multilateral measures by all member states (e.g. limitation of government-to-government contacts; people-to-people measures; trade restrictions; and, in exceptional cases, suspension from the association), to reinforce the need for change in the event that the government concerned chooses to leave the Commonwealth and/or persists in violating the principles of the Harare Commonwealth Declaration even after two years.'

Following CHOGM 1997 in Edinburgh, these principles were translated into action against the General Abacha led regime in Nigeria resulted in the CHOGM empowering the Commonwealth ministerial Action Group CMAG to take actions including:

'* visa restrictions on members of the Nigerian regime and their families;
* the withdrawal of military attachés;
* the cessation of military training;
* an embargo on the export of arms;
* the denial of educational facilities to members of the Nigerian regime and their families;
* a visa-based ban on all sporting contacts;
* a downgrading of cultural links; and
* the downgrading of diplomatic missions.'

To quote the Edinburgh CHOGM Communiqué, the Heads of Government further 'agreed that, following 1 October 1998, CMAG should assess whether Nigeria had satisfactorily completed a credible programme for the restoration of democracy and civilian government. They further agreed that if, in that assessment, Nigeria had completed a credible transition to democratic government and to observance of the Harare principles, then the suspension will be lifted; and if not and it remained in serious violation of the Harare principles, Heads of Government would consider Nigeria's expulsion from the association and the introduction of further measures in consultation with other members of the international community as recommended by CMAG. Such measures would include a mandatory oil embargo, a ban on air-links with Nigeria and the freezing of the financial assets and bank accounts in foreign countries of members of the regime and their families.'

Rights and pro-democracy campaigners throughout the Commonwealth would therefore have expected that the same measures would be applied in the case of Pakistan.

However following the terrorist atrocities of September 11, The Musharff regime has positioned itself as a key ally of Britain and the United States. As a result, the Commonwealths suspension of Pakistan exists only in name. Consequently there have been several high level visits between Pakistan and the United Kingdom including visits by Musharaff to the UK in November 2001 and by Prime Minister Blair to Pakistan in January 2002.

It does not take a genius to work out that thus will seriously undermine the Commonwealth especially in relation the role of Britain in the Commonwealth, and sanctions by the Commonwealth against undemocratic governments and for human rights violations.

Since Robert Mugabe was the host Head of State when the Harare Declaration was adopted in 1991, he would not only have worked this out, he has also used this as a weapon in his armoury to reinforce the will of die hard party members by saying to them something along the lines of 'see democracy or lack of it does not matter if you are considered to be an ally of the UK government.'

As the redistribution of land is a main sticking point in Zimbabwe and is very much tied to race and the legacy of colonialism in Africa, Mugabes behind the scenes argument to leaders of African and possibly Caribbean and Asian ex colonies will undoubtedly have played on a shared colonial past to secure empathy. This is regardless of the fact that many leaders of Commonwealth countries will have clearly realised that the Mugabe government is playing on a genuine land grievance in order to divide and rule the country.

Although the British government is aware of this contradiction and has been pushing the Musharaff regime for some progress of democratic reform, the Pakistani dictator has so far fallen far short on what a British Foreign Office Minister described in August 2001 as 'a clear timetable for the transition to democracy in Pakistan by October 2002.'

Can the Commonwealth Resolve the Contradictions?

As the Queen and Prime Minister Blair arrive in Abuja for CHOGM 2003, they should be able to see as clearly as most informed observers that what appears to be a racial and North South divide is emerging in the Commonwealth on the question of Zimbabwe. Already leaders of several African and some Asian countries have indicated that they are unhappy with the continued suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. Some have even specifically pointed out that the Committee of three composed of the Heads of States of Australia, Nigeria and South Africa did not unanimously agree to extend the one-year [March 2002 – March 2003] suspension of Zimbabwe [the leaders of Nigeria and South Africa disagreed with Australia’s Prime Minister] and as far as they are concerned the suspension has lapsed.

If this nascent racial and North-South divide hardens, surely the capacity of Britain to play a leadership within the Commonwealth will not only be questioned, the Singapore and Harare Declarations on which the Commonwealth bases its legitimacy to intervene to promote democracy and human rights will also be seriously undermined. Consequently, the capacity of the Commonwealth to promote human rights and democracy in Africa could be virtually non-existent within a very short period of time.

Will the leadership of the Commonwealth be capable of taking the necessary steps to avoid this? And if not will pro-democracy and human rights campaigners working in Africa still consider it worthwhile to focus their energy and resources on the Commonwealth? Only events in Abuja and over subsequent months can answer this question.

*Sankore is a member of the Pambazuka Editorial Board and is Coordinator of CREDO for Freedom of Expression and Associated Rights, which works on rights issues in Africa. CREDO can be contacted via Pambazuka or via [email][email protected]

Peace is crucial to sustainable societal development. Although some cynical students of history may sneer at this generalisation its veracity in the context of Liberia is unchallengeable.

Unfortunately, peace in Liberia is being built on the faulty premise that the physical extraction of one man (i.e. Charles Taylor) from the stage of conflict, a ceasefire, peacekeeping and a power sharing formula ‘acceptable’ (for the time being) to various factions and warlords will lead to a permanent and sustainable peace.

Some actors and observers will argue, that it was vital to first secure the peace and end the suffering and loss of life first at any cost, and then plan further later. No reasonable person will argue with this. But any reasonable person that has followed not just the history of conflict in Liberia, but the trajectory of many failed states will also know, that this formula has been applied to Liberia in the past and has failed tragically.

To recap summarily, the conflict in Liberia is 14 years old. (Thousands of combatant child soldiers have with the exception of brief intervals known no other life). ECOWAS has intervened in the past. Again Nigeria played a leading role. ECOWAS troops were sucked into the conflict. Eventually the country was stabilised – or so they thought. The financial cost of the last intervention to the Nigerian economy is estimated at roughly 12 billion US dollars (some of it ending up in the pockets of corrupt army generals). Other ECOWAS countries spent unknown sums estimated to be not less than several millions of dollars. Again leaders of key factions (Yormie Johnson and Roosevelt Johnson) were extracted from the stage of conflict, again to Nigeria. The part of the old script we have not yet reached is the planned elections, but this is currently being redrafted with new actors in mind. The new ‘agreements’ from the ‘peace talks’ suggest that elections will be held in 2004/2005. Once this happens, the old formula would have gone full circle. Elections will follow, a victory will be declared, at least one faction is virtually guaranteed to disagree with the election results. If the faction appears insignificant, the results will initially stand, but soon become wobbly as soon as the peacekeepers pull out. The faction may then begin to grow again, drawing on large pools of resentment from amongst those whose hopes of economic, political and social and human rights have been dashed.

No one pays twice to see a bad movie. No one would definitely pay to experience a nightmare let alone twice. But why is a failed formula being applied to the same problem? To answer this question, we need to look at what should have been done previously and in so doing answer some key questions.

Firstly, did the past military and electoral ‘victory’ of Charles Taylor and his forces resolve the social, economic and political inequalities and conflicts that triggered the first Liberian war? The answer is a no so resounding that it has swept him from the presidential villa.

Secondly, did the agreement that led to the withdrawal of ECOWAS forces from Liberia after the previous intervention include and ensure the implementation of provisions that would guarantee genuine rehabilitation and reconstruction, respect for fundamental rights and in particular freedom of expression, press freedom, and the rights to association, assembly and political participation. The answer again is a no so resounding that a continuous hail of gunfire, wailing and sorrow has followed it. Despite the reluctance of Nigeria and other ECOWAS countries the calls from the Liberian people (a captive audience caught in the crossfire on the stage of conflict) have dragged ECOWAS forces back to the stage for a repeat intervention.

THE CASE FOR A ‘MARSHALL PLAN’

The approach of the governments of the West African Sub-region and the African Union leadership displays a lack of holistic understanding of the dynamics of resolving war and conflict through development. All armed conflicts or wars, especially those that last for several years and spread in concentric circles, usually leave behind seriously, if not completely devastated societies especially at the epicentre of the conflict. (Although most wars differ in their scale, intensity and nature of prosecution.) This was largely the case in Japan and Germany following the Second World War (and to a lesser degree other European countries and the Soviet Union), South East Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia), Afghanistan (USSR invasion of 79-89), The Balkans, Iraq from the first gulf war to the second, and is certainly the case in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia/Sierra Leone etc.

War is a massive destroyer of society and its productive forces. The specific consequences and aftermath of war or conflict in a country or region depends on: the causes and roots of a conflict (economic, political, religious, ethnic etc); the size and population of a country/region; its homogeneity or diversity; contending parties and the size of their social base; their fire power; the nature of victory or stalemate; the forces waiting in the wings to capitalise; available natural resources; previous levels of industrialisation; the extent of the destruction of human and other resources; and very importantly, the amount of planning and resources put into reconstructing the society, rehabilitation of combatants and victims etc. Where the conflict or war has been caused or exacerbated by inequalities and exclusion, repression or mass murder of significant social formations, issues of rights and political participation become even more crucial to rebuilding those societies.

In the case of Liberia, the attitude of the regional governments, at least those not involved in the conflict, has merely been to ensure some sort of peace which amounts to scarcely more than a continuation of the conflict by less violent means, and then hope that the problem goes away. ‘It’ did not go away in Cambodia, Afghanistan, The Balkans or Sierra Leone where conflicts were left half resolved and simmering. Instead ‘it’ paved the way in those theatres of conflict, for more extreme forces waiting in the wings to inflict even more pain on already mortally wounded societies. If the problems caused by the consequences of the devastation of war were resolved in Japan, Germany and much of Europe (to the extent that large scale armed conflict has been so far neutralised), it is because there was a Marshall Plan that absorbed the forces of conflict, paved the way for their rehabilitation and funded the reconstruction of society. This is what not just Liberia, but all the conflict zones of Africa need. The billion-dollar question, literally speaking, is who will pay for this? Following World War Two, morbid fear of the potential spread of communism propelled America to underwrite the reconstruction of Europe and Japan.

In the case of Africa, this writer argues that morbid fear of a steady concentric spread of conflict should act as the propellant for the African countries, especially the bigger and richer ones, to act. The funds spent on potentially endless cycles of peacekeeping are better spent on peace building. African countries are not very rich - but they are rich enough for Nigeria to have spent 12 billion US dollars in its first peace keeping intervention in Liberia. How much will a Marshall Plan cost? No one knows unless it is actually costed. Prioritisation can then be effected.

What will the Marshall Plan do? For one, the physical reconstruction of schools, hospitals, homes, roads and vital infrastructure such as water, electricity and communications. It will facilitate: the re-emergence of the educational system; the healthcare system; a financial system; rehabilitation and skills training centres for soldiers and militia especially child combatants; rehabilitation of internally displaced persons and refugees; reconstitution of the judicial and justice system, institutionalisation of rights and an end to impunity. These will constitute a start.

THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY

But who will preside over planning and the allocation of resources. Should this once again be the exclusive preserve of warlords and factions whose hunger for power is driven by the desire for control of the state apparatus and the countries resources? Certainly not. While political realities cannot be ignored, the reconstitution of civil society, the professional associations and trade unions for medical personnel, teachers and other key sections of society and economy must be a priority. Will it really be possible to successfully rebuild Liberia’s healthcare system for example without the organised and democratic participation of its health workers in the process? Will it be possible to rebuild the justice and judicial system without the democratic participation of what is left of Liberia’s Bar Association? What of the role of journalists in rebuilding the media which was at once marginalised and appropriated by the Taylor regime? Only by involving civil society in the policy shaping and decision making process can democracy be institutionalised. The warlords and factions will not like this. But either ECOWAS ensures this, or more armed conflict and regional instability is only round the corner. More importantly, the myth that armed conflicts in neighbouring countries are of no concern to other governments has been punctured. At the last count, the major regional conflicts in Africa have each spread to or drawn in at least three or four other countries.

And to ask the cynical question. What is in it for the more industrially advanced nations? The events of the past few years provide a self-evident answer. Failed states are a threat, and not just to their immediate neighbours. The capture of failed states by extremist forces as in Cambodia, Afghanistan, and as almost happened in Sierra Leone also lead to massive refugee issues and potential destabilisation of regions.

To be sure, many governments both non-African and African may not be enthusiastic to support the emergence of a society which may question the nature of their own rule. Massive public spending and entrenchment of democratic values to end marginalisation, lift the standard of housing, healthcare, education, ensure political participation, access to justice and defence of rights have been caught up in the quagmire of politics. This is the case even in more advanced countries. But there is no other choice in the long run. Failure to implement these will in the long run, create again and again the social, political and economic conditions that have led to continuous cycles of conflict. To put it crudely, bands of armed and jobless, uneducated, unskilled, homeless, hungry and angry young men will at the very least be drawn into crime sooner or later. At worst they are ready armies for potential warlords prepared to subvert peace and stability in a bid to control states and resources.

It is also not politically or economically viable to plan for peacekeeping without planning for peace- building. The lack of a clear development based exit plan will either lead to indefinite peacekeeping with the peacekeepers being seen sooner or later as an occupying force, or the establishment of a ‘peace’ similar to a fragile sheet of glass soon shattered into pieces by the slightest pressure. DRC, Somalia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, almost Cote D’Ivoire and many more. How many years, how many countries and how many lives will it take for African governments to realise that ceasefires, peacekeeping and power sharing will never be enough.

* Rotimi Sankore is Coordinator of CREDO for Freedom of Expression and Associated Rights an international NGO focussing on rights issues in Africa. CREDO can be reached at [email][email protected]

* Please send comments on this editorial to [email protected]

Most Nigerians, many Africans and interested observers all over the world are watching the April / May 2003 Nigerian general elections with anxiety. This anxiety is not misplaced. The 2003 election is the country's second attempt by an incumbent civilian government at organising elections and possibly a transfer of power. The last attempt in 1983 ended in rigging, violent conflict and chaos, and paved the way for a return of brutal military rule during which human rights were ruthlessly suppressed, the media persecuted and the right to democratic political opposition 'criminalised'. Military regimes have ruled the country for twenty-nine out of its forty-three years of independence from British colonial rule since October 1960.

Beyond the fear of a possible return of military rule lies a greater fear that the elections could generate conflict so intense and violent that the country may break up along religious and ethnic lines. It is impossible to describe such a scenario except to say that it would be a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions especially for Nigerians and the West African sub-region. If the conflicts in Liberia and Sierra Leone with populations of 3 million and 5 million respectively have combined to unsettle the sub-region over the last decade, a similar level of conflict in Nigeria with an estimated population of 120 million will bring the sub-region to its knees. This is no exaggeration. An estimated ten to twelve thousand people have died in religious and ethnic 'skirmishes' in the past 4 years of 'peace'. The 1967-70 Nigeria Vs Biafra civil war that erupted when the Igbo ethnic nationality attempted to secede following a pogrom against them triggered by political conflict, a coup and counter coup cost over a million lives making it joint fourth in all time war casualty figures behind the last two world wars and the Korean War. Nonetheless, such conflict is not completely unavoidable either now or in the future.

But why and how has Nigeria come to teeter on the brink of the abyss? And how can it pull back from it? An analysis of the 2003 elections against the background of Nigeria's political history is imperative here.

On the surface, the ongoing electoral process appears to satisfy one of the key conditions for democratic elections namely the existence of a multi-party democracy. Thirty political parties now 'officially' exist in the country and between them produced about three thousand candidates for the April 12 elections, and nineteen presidential candidates for the April 19 presidential elections.

In reality, while the existence of the parties represents a significant step towards democracy, their participation in the elections is just short of being farcical. This is mainly because twenty four of them were granted official existence by a legal victory of a coalition led by radical lawyer turned politician Gani Fawenhimi, and have had barely three months to prepare to fight a general election against three other parties which have been in power at local, state and federal levels for four years. This is further underlined by the fact that most candidates only emerged from party primaries with roughly a month to go to the elections. In addition, they have had to fight a series of administrative and financial obstacles placed in their way by the electoral commission.

Against this background, it is not surprising that with the exception of a few individuals, the most visible candidates for all levels of office are either ex army generals or officers, their civilian associates or incumbent political office holders. In a political culture where 'misappropriation' of public funds by government officials is seen as necessary to 'secure' the future of ones family and associates, only individuals, groups and their associates that have had the opportunity to 'secure' millions or maybe even billions of petro-dollars can afford to comfortably run election campaigns based largely on the purchasing power of candidates rather than any clearly defined political ideology or programmes.

'Financial thuggery' and the 'money-tisation' of politics are however not enough to secure support and potential victory even in an impoverished society. In the absence of any ideological differences or meaningful political programmes, most members of the political elite have also turned to ethnic and religious chauvinism in a desperate attempt to secure votes. As a result, fault lines have emerged along ethnic and religious lines and mainly in support of the three previously existing parties the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which is the ruling party at the national level, the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) which has produced several incumbent governors in mainly Northern states, and the Alliance for Democracy (AD) which has also produced several incumbent governors from the Yoruba speaking South West of the country where it draws its main support.

Consequentially, the General Muhammad Buhari led ANPP in spite of its inclusive sounding name is now seen as the party of the largely Moslem Northern part of the country and the protector of the interests of the Hausa-Fulani-Moslem ruling elite. Although the North is more culturally and ethnically diverse than it appears to casual observers, the commonly spoken Hausa language of the majority, and the adoption of Moslem Sharia law by many State Governors in ANPP controlled states has reinforced a monolithic Hausa/Fulani – Moslem image, and attracted to the ANPP Moslem fundamentalists desperate to secure official footholds which may end up balkanising the country along religious lines. This image has been reinforced by the results of the legislative elections held on the weekend of the 12th of April, which saw the ANPP make gains in the North at the expense of the PDP.

The ruling General Olusegun Obasanjo led PDP, which in the past has postured as the secular party of the ruling elite of all ethnic nationalities and religions, has reacted to the manoeuvres of the ANPP by simultaneously trying to retain its secular image, while also appealing to the ethnic sentiments of the Yoruba speaking South West region of Obasanjo. His Vice President Abubakar Atiku, an influential Northern Moslem politician, has also tried to outflank the ANPP in the North by promising that the Presidency will be 'rotated back' to the North after Obasanjo's second term. 'Rotated back' to the north being a reference to the need to assuage southern political interests by granting Obasanjo two terms in compensation for the annulment and death in custody of MKO Abiola, the winner of the June 12 1993 elections perceived as stolen by the northern ruling elite that has dominated the country's military and political elite for decades.

The AD appears to be the loser in the widespread shameless appeal to ethnic nationalism and religious sentiment. The party has split into two factions, the dominant faction arguing for the party not to present a presidential candidate and calling for support for Obasanjo on ethnic grounds, the other faction appearing to dither on the issue. Having ceded its ethnic base to Obasanjo in order to stop the supposed greater evil of 'Northern domination' allegedly represented by the ANPP, the AD is in real danger of being eclipsed from the political stage by its apparent lack of any distinct political ideology, programme or national leadership. Again the legislative elections seem to bear this out. The AD lost seats to the PDP and was only able to retain all its national legislative seats in Lagos State out of all the six South Western states it previously dominated.

Going by the results of the legislative elections in which the ruling PDP won 181 and 60 seats out of the 360 and 109 in the House of Reps and Senate respectively, the PDP seems set to retain the presidency. However, the legislative results may serve only to crank up the desperation in the battle for the presidency and governorship positions in the 36 states - and with desperation comes violence. At present, at least half the political parties have rejected the results of the legislative elections alleging rigging and other irregularities. General Buhari has demanded a rerun of the national legislative elections in some states, and threatened to resist by force if necessary any attempts to steal the Presidency. General Obasanjo has responded by stating he is constitutionally bound to put down violence and protect lives and property. Observers and monitors appear divided on the smoothness and credibility of the elections. The Commonwealth, Catholic Church and others have reported some violence and irregularities that the electoral commission has partly agreed to and promised improvements. Others such as the leadership of the Union of Journalists claim the national legislative elections have been largely free and fair, in apparent contradiction of newspaper reports.

In order to win the presidential elections, a presidential candidate must win at least 25% of the vote in two-thirds of the 774 local government areas, in addition to winning the overall majority nationwide. This is to ensure that the President has support across the country and does not represent one ethnic nationality or region. If no candidate achieves that, there will be a run-off on 26 April. However the absence of any distinct programme or ideology between most of the parties means that while the leaderships are happy to engage in national and inclusive sounding rhetoric, their supporters are engaging in more sinister rhetoric which stops just short of hate speech and incitement. The situation is further complicated by the existence of armed ethnic militias and vigilante groups, some of which may be used by desperate politicians to intimidate opposing voters, enforce irregularities or violently protest against results they disagree with.

However, and as with many countries with presidential systems of government, the legislative voting patterns do not always accurately reflect or predict those for the executive positions. This is partly because elections for executive positions are more personality driven in addition to incumbency factor, party affiliations, religion, ethnicity, other demographic considerations, and ideology or programmes where they exist. Some incumbent State governors, deputy Governors and state party leaders have also decamped to other parties and further muddied the waters. National leaderships of parties may also sway voters in the state executive positions. In the Igbo speaking largely Christian Eastern part of the country for instance the All Progressives Grand Alliance led by Oxford educated former Biafran rebel leader Colonel Odumegwu Ojukwu may try to appeal to 'Biafran' sentiments to secure at least some governorship positions even though there are eight Igbo Presidential candidates out of nineteen. In the oil rich Niger Delta States, opposition candidates will also try to portray some incumbent governors as 'errand boys' of the older parties dominated by other ethnic nationalities interested only in exploitation of oil resources and not the welfare of the Niger Delta people. In some of these states, the potential for violence in the struggle for resources is alarming. In this respect, the State House of Assembly elections in May is also a cause for concern.

In the midst of all this gloom and despair, some of the parties that may have cut across the descent into bigotry may be overwhelmed by the combination of corruption and an appeal to primordial instincts. These include the National Conscience Party (NCP) with its motto of “Abolition of Poverty” and led by Gani Fawenhinmi, one of the country's leading human rights lawyers and its most imprisoned and persecuted political activist.

NCP's emphasis on the need to “abolish poverty” by reviving the collapsing economy pinpoints the precise reason why the struggle for power and control of resources may well degenerate into violence. Although there are no reliable statistics, unemployment is believed to rise dramatically every year. This is reflected in the rise in violent crime, white-collar crime, wide spread corruption, decimation of a well educated middle class and the collapse of the heath care system, public transport, public power supply, lack of housing and a rising state of insecurity. For many people, the main source of income is government related jobs and contracts. The ruling elite also has little faith in industry and secures its future through political office and contracts. The situation is so bad that Nigeria's position as the worlds 6th largest producer of oil does not insulate it from fuel scarcity and long gas station queues caused by collapsing refineries. To tackle these issues means the ruling elite must question the legitimacy of its own rule and hence the eagerness to blame it on the elite of the other ethnic nationalities or religions and by extension pose as 'defenders of the faith'; or to claim as with some Sharia leaning politicians, that “godlessness” is to blame for all the social and economic problems and that strict religious regimes will put everything right.

Not surprisingly, elections featuring such levels of desperation have led to rules being thrown out of the window. The electoral commission has officially conceded six million cases of multiple registration or fraudulent registration of voters out of a total of 61 million registered voters. This has happened mainly in party strongholds affiliated to the older three parties and suggests organised gerrymandering and pre-election rigging. In addition, publicly owned but state controlled media at the federal and state levels have been used by incumbents as personal or party propaganda outlets. Other contestants have been frozen out of the media completely with many having to make complaints to the National Broadcasting Commission and electoral commission. The use of public infrastructure and funds by incumbents to support their campaigns have also raised the stakes with opponents complaining bitterly and principled public media journalists or civil servants being persecuted. [CREDO is involved in projects addressing how the abuse of the publicly owned media and election campaign finances affect democratic rights including the right to political participation.]

In other words, the stage has been set for a showdown over the results of the presidential elections and to a lesser extent the results of the state house of assembly election in May. Ultimately, whether Nigeria descends into anarchy or not will depend mainly on the scale of victory of the supposed winners of both elections, the level of restraint of the supposed losers, and the capacity of the ruling government to draw as many of the opposition parties as possible into a government of 'national unity' designed to 'preserve the country' and the rule of the existing political elite.

But even if the elections do not produce violence on a scale that leads to the disintegration of the country, it will only be a postponement of the day of reckoning. The retention of power by the PDP, or a transfer of power to another party without a change in political direction that addresses the violation of social, economic and political rights will not solve the problems that have created the current levels of poverty, despair and desperation. Without meaningful change, the economy and social infrastructure will continue to disintegrate and sink, human rights abuses will increase as the government will sooner or later be drawn into curtailing the rights to freedom of expression, association, assembly and political participation in a bid to preserve itself in power. Unless any of the existing parties or an emerging one is able to rally the country around tackling underdevelopment, unemployment, the collapse of healthcare, housing and rising crime the struggle for resources and survival will become more and more reflected along primordial lines of religion and ethnic nationality leading to a rise in ethnic cleansing or fundamentalism. Having seen off naked military rule, the next task of Nigerian civil society must be to tackle the issues that are preventing the growth of genuine democracy and socio-economic development. The consequences of failure mean that in this case failure is not an option.

* Rotimi Sankore is Coordinator of CREDO for Freedom of Expression and Associated Rights an international NGO focussing on rights issues in Africa. CREDO can be reached at [email][email protected]

* This article was written before the April 19 Presidential elections.

* Please send comments on this editorial to [email protected]

* Recent editorials by Rotimi Sankore:
- DEFINING AN AGENDA FOR WOMEN’S RIGHTS IN AFRICA (http://www.pambazuka.org/newsletter.php?issuedate=2003-03-20)
- PUBLIC BROADCASTING - ELECTIONS, DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN AFRICA (http://www.pambazuka.org/newsletter.php?issuedate=2003-02-20)
- FATWA'S AND DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS: THE TIME TO INTERVENE IS NOW (http://www.pambazuka.org/newsletter.php?issuedate=2002-12-05)

NIGERIAN ELECTION LINKS:
All Power, No Ideas
http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/1004.cfm
NIGERIA - A Country Study
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/ngtoc.html
Newswatch
http://www.newswatchngr.com/
Nigeria – Allafrica.com
http://allafrica.com/nigeria/bydate/
The Big Issues
http://www.africa-confidential.com/
The Guardian
http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/
The Importance of Nigeria’s Elections
http://www.cdd.org.uk/
The Nigerian elections
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,935052,00.html
The Vanguard
http://www.vanguardngr.com/
Q&A: Nigerian elections

A key index for measuring the march of civilisation in any society is its comprehensive recognition of, defence and promotion of women's economic, socio-cultural, civil, human and political rights. By this measurement, all human societies so far have failed to achieve full civilisation. The only difference is that some have failed more spectacularly than others, and some have been more successful at disguising their failure with sophisticated deception.

The above is by no means a harsh judgement. The reality remains that in most societies and across all time women remain the most consistently discriminated against and exploited section of society. Wherever a higher or sharper form of discrimination has existed whether on the basis of race, nationality or religion, women have been doubly exploited both by members of their own race, class or nationality, and by the exploiters of their race, language group or nationality. This must end sooner rather than later if humanity's claim of being civilised is to have any real meaning.

Every year, the 'world' celebrates international women's day on 8 March. In numerous countries, many women are not even aware of the date. In most countries, this means seminars, workshops and lots of speeches - mostly for campaigners and the elite. There is nothing wrong with these. However we must go beyond mere commemoration and utilise this date in two ways. Firstly as an opportunity for an annual review of the progress made towards securing the institutionalisation of women's rights on a universal basis. And secondly as an opportunity to involve everyday women - and men - in the process of strategizing on ways to eliminate all remaining forms of discrimination against women.

But in order to make progress towards sweeping away the obstacles to the full emancipation of women, we all - men and women - must appreciate the framework that upholds this unjust discrimination, be prepared to take it down, and construct the basis of a new society. In Africa the underdevelopment of the economy and reign of mostly undemocratic governments - due to internal and external reasons - rests like a heavy burden on the back of rights issues in general. This underlines the fact that women's rights cannot be developed and secured in a sustainable way in isolation from the general development of society and human rights. In other words, the more democratic and economically developed a society, the more the rights of women are likely to be advanced.

But a developed economy and greater rights awareness are only enabling factors, not decisive ones. Two examples will suffice. For instance, since the inception of the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1979, successive American administrations have refused to ratify it since the Carter government signed up in 1980. The current government of Afghanistan on the other hand ratified CEDAW on 3 March 2003. Also, many Asian countries such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia have produced female leaders with ease - unthinkable in the US or some more developed European countries. These show that while higher levels of economic development and 'democracy' facilitate better educational and job opportunities, higher incomes for individual women and therefore more individual freedom, women collectively will remain discriminated against until the social, economic and political frameworks that sustain such discrimination are dismantled. In this respect, the universal link between the role of conservative political and religious leaders in restricting women's rights is too strong to ignore.

As with most problems, formal and informal education and enlightenment are vital to finding solutions. The strategic goal of such education and enlightenment must be to enable exploited women in particular to see the big picture, to ask the awkward questions and most importantly to provide the answers. Why are women discriminated against and exploited? Who benefits from this and how can it be ended? What structures and mechanisms sustain this discrimination and how can they be nullified? Fear and ignorance are the biggest obstacles in the way of the exploited. Once they have been removed, previously insurmountable problems shrink progressively until they no longer exist.

In order to understand the basis of gender inequality it is vital to appreciate unequivocally that the basis of all institutionalised discrimination and inequality is to facilitate the exploitation of allegedly unequal persons. This is the basis of racism, slavery and all discrimination based on colour, language group, nationality, religion, class - or gender. Just like the myth of racial superiority, the myth of male superiority has been woven to serve one purpose – that of exploitation. Exploitation can manifest itself in many forms: economic exploitation for slavery or cheap labour in the home or in factories; political exploitation which denies the exploited their full rights to political participation; social exploitation which suppresses and ignores the views, opinions and aspirations of the exploited.

Whether in highly industrialised or less industrialised countries, the average woman in a family or relationship faces the same fate. She is expected to wake up, clean the house, get children ready for the day, do the cooking, the shopping, washing, have little or no opinion on the big issues, and sacrifice her career and aspirations. Just to remind her who is the boss she is likely to be subjected to threats, some intimidation and in some cases occasional or regular beating for emphasis.

Although personal aspiration, education, profession, income and social status make a difference to the circumstances of women in relationships, a defining factor is always the level of enlightenment of the male partner or family members. But it is not just individual men that benefit from this shameful state of affairs. Societal discrimination against women leaves them open to unequal pay for equal work, low paid jobs or stereotypical jobs and positions such as secretaries, teachers, nurses and shop assistants. These lead to only one conclusion. Not only is there a clear profit motive for denying women equal rights, there is also a clear social motive i.e. the artificial creation of an underclass based on gender and coerced into playing the role of helpers and assistants.

It is therefore vital to see the big picture. Although most men benefit from the status quo, not all men are misogynists and the major battle must be to change society as a whole. Significantly, the suppression of women's rights could not and cannot be sustained without the invention and implementation of both formal and informal control mechanisms. The mechanisms for social control and discrimination against women have ranged from the blatant to the subtle. For example, the denial of the rights to vote and to seek political office, denial of property and inheritance rights, imposition of spouse approval for bank loans, travelling passports and so forth, to outright denial of citizenship rights i.e. denial of the right to transfer citizenship to children as was the case until recently in Botswana, or to transfer citizenship to spouses as is the case in Nigeria. The tacit support of the law and 'culture' for violence against women inside or outside the home, marital rape, the 'stigmatisation' of rape victims etc are deliberate and cynical mechanisms for sustaining exploitation of women.

Women are also generally groomed for a life of subservience. They are indoctrinated within most families and communities to defer to men (not on the basis of intellect but gender), to have lower aspirations and expectations, and to acquire certain 'female skills' in preparation for being 'given away' in marriage. (Male children on the other hand are groomed for leadership in society.) In some societies, women who do not or are reluctant to adopt the name of the families they marry into are negatively described as 'feminists'. This logic confers 'legitimacy and respect' on married women and subtracts the same from women that are not. But despite these injustices, society has made a little progress from the era when assertive or 'troublesome' women were simply branded 'witches' and burnt at the stake or stoned.

Nevertheless, not enough progress has been made and humanity will still be considered far from attaining civilisation until the progress is swift and measurable against targets. A simple reason for this is that it is not only women that are negatively affected by discrimination against them. A UN population report in the year 2000 concluded that every single minute of everyday a woman dies as a result of pregnancy related complications. That is over half a million preventable deaths a year. Aside from the fact that it would be intolerable to a male dominated society for there to be a preventable cause of death of men on this scale, the loss to society of potential geniuses and innovators is astounding, except of course to those that by some twisted logic genuinely believe that women are inferior beings.

The HIV/AIDS epidemic currently sweeping across Africa is also cutting down millions of women in their prime. Although HIV knows no gender or social barriers, women are biologically more vulnerable and women of lower income and social status are paying a higher price than most. The reasons are economic as well as social. Some may disagree, but the reality is that the removal of social safety nets by naked commercialisation and liberalisation policies imposed by international financial institutions has left many women in Africa in an economically desperate situation.

While unchecked commercialisation has tripled or quadrupled prices of rent, transport and other social necessities, liberalisation has tied many economies to 'international' currencies and priced goods way beyond the income of most people - especially women whom in contemporary society the world over earn lower incomes. This has altered power relations in ways that leave women open to social and economic abuse.

For instance, women in relationships in which they are largely dependent on men are in no position to demand that their unenlightened male partners use condoms even when it is clear that they may have been engaging in unsafe sex with multiple partners. For example, the large number of migrant workers in South Africa mirrors this problem. The Apartheid socio-economic policy of migrant labour camps meant that tens of thousands of men travelled to work for long periods during which not a few engaged the services of sex workers. Many women are themselves forced into this by lack of education, poverty and the primitive drive to 'survive'. Inadequate education on HIV/AIDS ensures high infection levels. The men then travel back to their families where wives dare not refuse unprotected sex and when the infected become pregnant, the children also become victims.

The obstacles preventing gender equality in Africa are enormous but not insurmountable. As the most exploited of all continents through over five hundred years of slavery and colonisation, not to mention decades of several forms of dictatorships supported by internal and external forces, Africa needs all its human resources to develop society to the minimum level necessary for a dignified existence. To achieve this, general and specific issues need to be addressed and a clear agenda defined for the institutionalisation of women's rights in Africa.

GENERAL ISSUES

* Mass education and enlightenment: This means countering deeply established prejudice through the introduction of rights issues in general and women's rights specifically into formal educational systems. Informal channels such as the media and other public education avenues must also be utilised. The average person accepts society as they are born into it until education or confrontations with sharp decisions change their outlook.
* Constitutional and legislative reform: Immediate ratification and localisation of all international and regional conventions and treaties covering women's rights. The immediate review of constitutions to ensure that they fully reflect women's rights, and repeal of all anti women legislation.
* Judicial and law enforcement reform: An overhaul of the judiciary, legal system and law enforcement agencies to ensure that all issues relating to women are specifically covered and reviewed to reflect full and uncompromising respect for their rights. This must also include the retraining of judicial and law enforcement personnel, and the appointment of more qualified women into the judiciary and law enforcement agencies.

SPECIFIC ISSUES

* Violence against women: Every single form of violence against women to be specifically legislated against with emphasis of the obligation of the state to prosecute such cases without placing the burden of pressing charges on women. Special emphasis to be placed on violence in the home and rape. Law enforcement agencies and personnel to be retrained and prosecuted for failure to press charges and enforce the relevant laws.
* Health rights: An increase of health budgets in relation to health issues specific to women such as maternal mortality, mother to child transmission of HIV, cervical and breast cancer etc. Budget increases to be measured against World Health Organisation standards of expenditure per head. A strong emphasis on health awareness and preventive healthcare.
* Reproductive rights: The right to family planning, safe sex and enlightenment on the benefits of child spacing.
* Political rights: Full political participation rights including the rights to vote and be voted for, women quotas for elective and appointed public offices, the creation of women's affairs ministries and so forth.
* Economic and Employment rights: The right to equal pay for equal work, the right to maternity leave, the recognition of women as principal breadwinners and concessions that go with this such as tax breaks etc. Equal access to bank loans and credit and legislation outlawing workplace discrimination.
* Social and cultural rights: All forms of social discrimination and anti women right practices to be identified and outlawed through firm legislation. E.g. discrimination based on marital status or maternity. Discrimination reinforced by religion and 'culture' to be specifically targeted for enlightenment campaigns.
* Inheritance and property rights: Full rights to property especially in relation to inheritance from parents and husbands without the interference of family members to disposes women.

These ten points are not exhaustive, but must be the minimum acceptable standards. For these basic objectives to be achieved the issues must also be taken up outside the framework of rights organisations. Women at all levels must be involved, and be supported by community based organisations such as market women associations, their professional associations, trade unions and student unions. In more democratic countries, pressure must be placed on all political parties, the legislature and judiciary and in less democratic ones directly on the government. Networks must be established at national levels established to harmonise strategies. Timetables, targets and review dates for reform must be set in order for it to be both measurable and effective. March 8 every year should be a good date for such reviews.

* Rotimi Sankore is co-ordinator of CREDO for Freedom of Expression and Associated Rights an NGO focussing on rights issues in Africa. CREDO can be contacted via [email][email protected]

* International Women's Day: See the Women and Gender section of Pambazuka News for more stories.

* Send comments on this editorial to [email protected]

* CREDO and Fahamu are developing an advocacy training programme for African women. Interested organisations and persons should kindly contact CREDO and Fahamu on issues they would like to see covered at [email][email protected] and [email][email protected]

The history of public broadcasting in Africa in relation to elections, democracy and human rights can be mostly summarised in six words, "abuse of power by incumbent governments". This may seem harsh, but this is the truth.

From Egypt to Zimbabwe, Gambia to Ethiopia and in almost every country between the four points of and centre of Africa - North, South, West, East and Central Africa - most governments have converted the power of public broadcasting to the abysmally selfish motive of sustaining themselves in power - indefinitely if possible.

Were this to be of no consequence to the social, political and economic development of African countries and the continent as a whole, this observation could be considered an exercise in intellectual ball juggling. However given the unrivalled power of the broadcast media to shape public opinion, its continued abuse by numerous African governments can be likened to the use of a dis-information nuclear option by governments against their own people.

How has the abuse of the broadcast media by these governments been used to damage the development of Africa and what can be done to end it? The first and most blatant indicator of the abuse of public broadcasting in Africa is its now infamous description as 'state broadcasting'. 'State' radio and television are often seen as one of the prizes of capturing power.

The dangerous consequence of this is that public radio and television are seen as a means to propagate the opinion and agenda of governments or the state to the exclusion of the rest of society. In the 'state' controlled media, the interests of the state are merged with that of the ruling regime, and its leadership. The interests of the leadership in turn become the 'public interest.' The 'state' media is therefore used to, and sees its role as that of promoting the interest of the state, the ruling party or regime and its leadership - all of which have become indistinguishable from each other and the 'public interest'. Going by this, any opinions or events that may be opposed to or embarrass the 'state' are often not transmitted by the state broadcaster since this is assumed not to be in the interest of the public, i.e. state, i.e. leadership of the ruling regime.

The clearest manifestation of this can be seen in the role of the 'state' media during most elections in Africa. The ruling party and its candidates are given wall-to-wall coverage, and everything good that happens is attributed to them with the possible exception of sunrise. The opposition on the other hand are excluded from or allocated the minimum coverage possible, which is almost always bad news. In the present world context of the "war against terrorism", legitimate activity of the democratic opposition could even be portrayed as "terrorist activity". Even paid or sponsored election campaign advertisements are not guaranteed airtime and have been considered subversive. We saw this happen in Zimbabwe and again to a lesser extent during the recent Kenyan elections in December 2002.

Most opposition parties complain bitterly only because they are victims of such abuse. However, their philosophical perception of public broadcasting is no different from that of incumbent governments.

The primary implication of denying the legitimate and democratic opposition appropriate visibility to the public via equitable access to the public broadcast media is the lack of a level playing field for competing political ideas. This applies not only to elections, but also to in-between elections when the 'state' media bombards the public with a constant stream of subtle and overt propaganda.

The secondary implication of this is that anything that is perceived as being of possible help to the opposition is censored by the state controlled broadcast media. Censorship as we know, leads to lack of accountability, and lack of accountability reinforces dictatorship. In countries where the private or independent print media is located mainly in the cities, or where income and illiteracy limit their scope, the broadcast media becomes the eyes and ears of most of society. Since government with the exception of FM stations with limited reach largely controls the broadcast media, state control and abuse of the public media is bound to give governments an unhealthy capacity to control the flow of news and information. Such control lends itself easily to the manipulation of public opinion and thus society.

For instance, where there is an impending famine and tens or even hundreds of thousands are facing mass starvation, as is presently the case in southern Africa and the Horn of Africa, news of this is censored. In other words, the public is denied the benefit of advance warning, knowing the causes of this, and debating potential short and long-term solutions in the public broadcast media. The lack of a collective sense of impending disaster and the opportunity of collective preparation for it means the first that the public knows of a famine is when it has actually hit them.

But state censorship is only fully effective when backed with the full force of the levers of power. This means the subversion of democracy and in particular freedom of expression and opinion by means of manipulating public broadcasting is necessarily followed by the suppression of human rights in general, and media freedom in particular. This highlights the fact that media freedom cannot be secured in isolation from other pillars of democracy such as the right to freedoms of association, assembly, political participation and rights to be free from discrimination and persecution.

It is therefore not out of place to posit that an open and accountable public media, which is guaranteed its editorial independence and facilitates equitable access to all shades of opinion in society is vital alongside other factors, to the sustenance of democracy.

In order to achieve this several specific steps must be taken.

Firstly, civil society must campaign unrelentlessly for the appointment process of boards and senior editorial and management staff of the public broadcast media to be removed from the control of executive arms of government. This campaign must involve all sectors of society, the professional associations, trade unions, NGO's and so forth. The body overseeing these appointments together with parliament must also reflect this diversity.

Secondly, principles of editorial independence and the protection of journalists from political persecution for refusing overtures from political interests must guide parliamentary oversight. This editorial independence must go along with the media's obligation to promote accountability in both the public and other sectors of society.

Thirdly, media freedom must be guaranteed for both the print and electronic, private or independent media.

Fourthly, freedom of expression must be a constitutionally protected right that cannot be curtailed arbitrarily. Civil society must also make it clear, that for the political opposition to be accepted as legitimate, it should also sign up to these principles and not just oppose the government opportunistically.

With specific regard to elections, certain principles are essential and must be institutionalised in respect of the public broadcast media:

- Guaranteed equitable access to publicly owned broadcast media for all political parties.

- A commitment to voter education with respect to the voting process, venues, times, political parties and candidates.

- A limited number of brief and free slots for electoral campaign broadcasts be given to all political parties to outline their programme and candidates at relevant levels of government. This will ensure that at least all parties and candidates are given the equitable visibility necessary for genuine democracy.

- A ceiling on the fees to be charged by all broadcast media for any additional election campaign broadcasts.

- A ceiling on the total number of election campaign broadcasts that any one political party and its candidates can run over the period of the campaigns. This will prevent the outright buying of the elections by parties backed by richer members of society.

- No discounts to any one political party for paid election campaign broadcasts.

- A code of conduct and ethics regarding what is appropriate to run in an election advert or campaign. This will also cover incitement, hate speech, defamation and other standards agreed in advance by all parties.

- No turning away of campaign adverts of any party to the advantage of other parties.

- The rights of reply and correction for candidates that may have been defamed.

- That the publicly owned media must not to be used by incumbent political parties to attack other political parties, and that ruling parties in particular not undermine the editorial independence of the broadcast media.

- Guarantee of the safety and security of journalists, editorial and management staff, and media houses that exercise the right to editorial independence.

- Fair, balanced and equitable news coverage of political party campaign activities especially during news broadcasts. This should include distinguishing between government activities and campaigning.

- An agreement on fair, balanced and equitable coverage of election debates.

- No broadcasting of speculative results that may truncate the will of the electorate and lead to conflict or violence based on electoral disputes. Any results broadcast should be based on results obtained from polling stations and agreed by agents of all parties present. Also, that coverage of disputed results not be broadcast in such a manner that is inflammatory and could lead to violent conflict.

Significantly, these requirements for the public broadcast media to be able to play its role in facilitating democracy are not unique to Africa. Some of these and more are currently applicable in many countries around the world including in Africa. However, many countries around the world including the majority of African ones are yet to institutionalise these and other principles not outlined here. The institutionalisation of these principles is one of the urgent tasks facing African civil society and there must be no delay.

But this is not a task for African civil society alone. The African Union must prove its relevance by not only adopting these principles, but also ensuring that its member states implement them.

* Sankore is Coordinator of CREDO for Freedom of Expression and Associated Rights an international organisation focussing on rights issues in Africa.
* Send comments on this editorial to

The fatwa issued a fortnight ago against the ThisDay Journalist Isioma Daniel by the Deputy Governor of Zamfara State in Northern Nigeria has far-reaching implications beyond the immediate threat to her life, press freedom, and the controversy surrounding Nigeria's hosting of the Miss World beauty pageant. Before going further, it is important to declare an interest in the matter. I am a journalist by training, and have campaigned for press freedom, freedom of expression and human rights in general all my adult life. I have also lived and worked in Nigeria, campaigned against military dictatorship, and in the past wrote a column and features on current affairs for ThisDay Newspaper. This 'admission' does not in anyway disqualify me from commenting on this issue, quite the contrary. I may also add, that although my professional judgement is that portions of Isioma's article were controversial, the fatwa against her is completely out of order.

What are the implications and significance of the fatwa beyond the immediate issues?

Firstly, it is important to recognise that the issuing of a fatwa by an elected politician represents a dangerous political phenomenon. That is, one of a nascent dictatorship based on a fusion of religion and the state (in a section of a secular country). This phenomenon began with the passing of death sentences by stoning against allegedly 'adulterous' women in the name of religious law. In all cases, not a single man responsible for the pregnancies or babies used as evidence against the women was indicted. The failure of the Nigerian government to intervene decisively to halt these blatant miscarriages of justice permitted the phenomenon to expand its jurisdiction to cover press freedom, freedom of expression and the arbitrary and extra-judicial imposition of death sentences on other citizens.

Secondly, by first concentrating its initial attacks on the alleged promiscuity of women, e.g. unwed mothers and beauty contestants in a largely chauvinist society, this phenomenon was able to employ a divide and conquer tactic, and also cloak the potential danger of its spiked fist with a glove of dubious morality. We have not heard that the Zamfara State government (or for that matter the Nigerian government) is opposed to the giving away of teenage girls into marriage. This in turn, highlights the inequalities in Nigerian society in general and the country's constitution in particular. For instance, the present Nigerian constitution written by the last military regime, and accepted by the incumbent civilian government, denies women many rights including the right to confer citizenship on their non-Nigerian husbands through marriage, a right taken for granted by Nigerian men. A senior government official once justified this on the logic-defying basis that women are “easily carried away by emotion” and may end up conferring Nigerian citizenship on foreigners in exchange for love.

Thirdly, by advocating a legal and institutional framework which aims to restrict the movement and activities of women, and deny them their economic, social and political rights, Zamfara and other states advocating similar laws will by default literally 'bury' half the problems of their states in relation to unemployment, provision of education and so forth in one stroke. The other side of this of course, is that society is denied the benefit of half of its skills, talent and productive forces. It is significant that high unemployment and deepening poverty in some states have provided armies of unemployed and desperate youth easily converted into raging mobs by cynical manipulation of some religious and political leaders.

Fourthly, the violent protests orchestrated by political and religious opportunists and the issuing of the country's first ever political fatwa could be interpreted as a testing of the waters, and a show of strength by potential demagogues to see how far they can go without being challenged by secular and democratic forces, or even other Islamic leaders.

It is necessary to point out here that the problem is not with Islam. Christian fundamentalists in the United States for instance have regularly attacked and even killed doctors running family planning clinics and women attending them. Despite carrying out these acts of violence with thinly veiled and tacit support of right wing religious and political leaders, no one in their right mind can allege that the problem is with Christianity. To further emphasise this point, women in predominantly Muslim countries such as President Megawati Sukarnoputri in Indonesia, Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, Tansu Çiller in Turkey, and Begum Khaleda Zia in Bangladesh have emerged as democratically elected leaders. In 'conservative' countries such as Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under the Taliban where democratic rights are suppressed, elections are not held - never mind the emergence of women leaders.

Within this context, the problem of invoking religion and narrow interpretations of religious morality to suppress democratic rights can be seen more as a device by members of ruling elites or opposition groups to build social and political support for their political agendas, rather than as a strictly religious problem. This problem is only religious to the extent that at best, it reflects the undemocratic interpretation of a religious school of thought. In order to stop such undemocratic schools of thought from gaining political ground and suppressing democratic rights, the time to intervene is now.

Individuals, whether public officials or private citizens, cannot be allowed to commit crimes with impunity in the name of religion which otherwise would not go unpunished. Calling for the arbitrary murder, execution or assassination of anyone is a crime regardless of if it is done in the name of religion.

If the Nigerian government is not to create a dangerous precedent, the Inspector General of Police must at the very minimum commence investigations into the statements and actions of the Zamfara State Deputy Governor Mamuda Aliyu Shinkafi.

Nigeria's President Olusegun Obasanjo and all democratic and judicial institutions of the Nigerian government must also go beyond opposing the Fatwa, and reaffirm unequivocally the supremacy of all constitutional and democratic rights over any pronouncements by any person, whether public office holder or private citizen. These rights include media freedom, and the fundamental rights to opinion, free expression, association and life.

In addition, the Nigerian government must recognise and affirm that it is not the place of the government or private individuals to punish the media for errors or the content of news reports, features or opinion articles. Any redress sought must be through the judiciary, or through an independent ethics or complaints body not appointed by or dominated by the government. The media cannot play its vital role of sustaining democracy through holding the government and powerful individuals to account if the government or private citizens can arbitrarily arrogate to themselves power to punish the media.

To fully appreciate the consequence of not acting now, we must ask the question: What would have been the consequence for democracy and the unity of Nigeria if Isioma Daniel and the publisher of ThisDay Nduka Obaigbena had been murdered by zealots carrying out the exaltations of the Zamfara State Deputy Governor? What would have been the consequences for the West African Sub Region of a chain of events which could have led to widespread religious and ethnic conflict in a country of one hundred and twenty million people? Without a shadow of doubt, failure to halt 'politically' motivated rights violations at the starting blocks, often have devastating consequences for society.

* Rotimi Sankore is Coordinator of CREDO for Freedom of Expression and Associated Rights
* Send comments and views for publication to

Background Information:
On the 16th of November 2002, Isioma Daniel wrote an article on the Miss World beauty pageant published in ThisDay, a Nigerian national newspaper. In the article, which addressed the controversy over Nigeria’s hosting of the pageant, she suggested that the prophet Mohammed would have probably chosen a wife from the participants. The article attracted complaints from Muslims and protesting youth torched the Kaduna offices of ThisDay in Northern Nigeria. Over two hundred lives were lost in the protests, and churches, mosques and other property were destroyed in attacks and counter attacks by Muslims and Christian youth. The federal government had to deploy the police and army to restore peace, and imposed a curfew for some days.

The Newspaper publicly apologised for the article, and explained that the Editor had tried to remove the offending sentences, but failed to do so due to technological difficulties. The publication emphasised that it is not anti-Muslim and has several Muslims in top management positions. Some Muslim leaders accepted the apology and called on fellow Muslims to do the same. But some other Muslim leaders refused to accept the apology, and supported the Fatwa issued by the Zamfara State Deputy Governor Mamuda Aliyu Shinkafi. The potency of the fatwa was undermined by the fact that it was opposed by the country’s leading Islamic body the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs and some prominent Muslim scholars on the grounds that the writer and the publication had apologised, and that the Deputy Governor does not have the authority to issue fatwa’s. The Nigerian federal government also opposed the fatwa and press freedom groups in particular condemned it. However, the Zamfara State government, which was the first Nigerian State to introduce Islamic Sharia law, has not withdrawn the fatwa.

Isioma Daniel has fled the country.

Related Links:
* Nigerian Sharia state holds firm on fatwa

* Soyinka blames federal government
http://allafrica.com/stories/200212020458.html
* Fed Govt Nullifies Fatwa
http://allafrica.com/stories/200211300099.html
* The truth behind the Miss World riots
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,850959,00.html
* Sultan Wants Perpetrators of Kaduna Riots Punished
http://www.thisdayonline.com/

Black history is increasingly being celebrated in Europe and the Americas. In the United States and the United Kingdom especially, specific months of the year - February and October respectively have been officially set aside to celebrate or commemorate Black History month. On the African continent itself, the celebration or commemoration of Black history is yet to enjoy the same status or significance it does in the diaspora. This is possibly because Blacks in the diaspora are under greater psychological pressure to fill the void in their history and assert their social worth as equals to non-Blacks. It is important to clarify here, that 'Black' in this write up, is used in its 'narrow' sense to describe people of African descent or identity, as opposed to its broader usage in say the United Kingdom to describe non-white persons of African, Asian or other distinctly non-white origins.

It is also necessary to stress here, that African descent and identity are of equal value. This is an important clarification as there are now hundreds of thousands or even a few million persons who may be able to trace their ancestry to Europe and Asia, but identify themselves firmly and unshakeably as Africans, and must be accepted and respected as such. (Some Africans argue that those not of African descent that exhibit a settler or colonial master mentality should be excluded from this definition. Whatever the merits or demerits of that position, it is the subject of another debate entirely)

Why celebrate black history?

Many people of various 'races' including Africans, especially those that reside on the African continent often wonder what is significant about Black history that necessitates its celebration or commemoration in the diaspora. Why for instance is it not important to celebrate White history? A school of thought advocates that it is absurd to suggest that White history is not already celebrated. After all, European history takes up a large chunk of the history syllabus of secondary schools and institutions of higher learning not just in Europe, but also in much of Africa and Asia and wherever else European colonialists reached in their quest for riches, slaves and colonies to exploit. Even non – European history is taught from a largely European worldview. European and more significantly African children are taught for instance that Mungo Park the European explorer discovered the river Niger. The subliminal suggestion being that Africans lived around the river, and utilised its resources for centuries but never 'found' it. Any responses to exam questions, which contradict this imparted wisdom leads to failure, and failure is equated with ignorance or at least, the inability to learn. By default, African children have been taught since colonialism, that Africa has no history. But again, why is all this of any significance? Why is there an increasing desire to assert that people of African descent and identity have a history, hence the celebration of Black history.

The answer lies in the potential of history to influence or control the perception of self worth of individuals, countries, continents and peoples or 'races'. No history equals no achievement. No achievement equals no pride. No pride equals no dignity and no dignity equals an inferiority complex. The reverse of this process, a rich history, many achievements, cause for pride and dignity may not result in a superiority complex, but certainly does not lead to an inferiority complex. An inferiority complex, and lack of self-belief as any psychologist will confirm, leads to lack of motivation, which in turn results in underachievement.

Conventional history and wisdom has it for example, that most if not all the great advances in and contributions to science, technology, industry, social and political organisation were made, and are still being made by non-Black people. In other words and in one sentence, the great strides in civilisation have been largely attributed to Europe and those of European descent. Africa (and Africans) in contrast, has been portrayed as the “dark continent” of savagery and barbarism that needed to be 'civilised', and in contemporary times is perpetually in need of support and handouts to save it from descending into the abyss of anarchy, hunger, disease and poverty. This image has a negative effect on Blacks in the diaspora, and somehow has provided the philosophical justification for slavery, colonialism and possibly, the incredible refusal of western governments at last year's world conference on racism, to accept that slavery was and is a crime against humanity.

The consequences of these are grave and raise many questions that demand answers. Why, is race an issue? Because there is racism. Why is their racism? Because there is discrimination. Why is there discrimination? Because it rationalises exploitation. Why is there exploitation? Because some people benefit from it. If you are said to be inferior, your life cannot be worth the same as that of someone superior to you. If your life is not of equal worth, then it is expendable, or at least exploitable and you can be a source of cheap or even free labour, hence slavery – hence Apartheid which as we all know, institutionalised gross violations of human rights, and was established to be a crime against humanity. If apartheid is a crime against humanity, why not slavery?

Slavery and colonialism played a great role in the erasure and marginalisation of African history. We know today, that history is told from the worldview of the 'conquerors'. If the Nazis had won World War 2, for example, world history would be told differently. The consequences of slavery, have therefore included decades of mis-education, Africans not to excel, but to service the clerical and administrative ranks of colonial governments, as most Black south Africans were denied the same standard of education as Whites in order to perpetuate an underclass of ignorant millions with nothing but a life of slavery to look forward to.

What is there to celebrate?

The celebration of black history in the diaspora, can therefore be seen as an attempt by Black people to show that they had a history before slavery and colonialism that they have contributed to the march of world civilisation, that Black people have and can make giant strides and are therefore not inferior. This poses the strong possibility of instituting self-belief, improving motivation, and restoring dignity, which after all is a key human right.

In the entire history of humanity - both written and unwritten - only Africa and Africans, have been subjected to centuries of full-scale slavery and colonisation followed by being the battle ground of cold war politics. No continent or people could have survived the forced removal for slavery, of over three hundred million of its people - mostly youth, followed by ruthless colonial exploitation. If Europe were to suffer the same fate today, and lost three hundred million people in their prime to slavery, had borders artificially broken up and redrawn to lay the basis for conflict, suffered colonial exploitation, and cold war interventions that created and sustained dictators of the likes of Mobutu of Zaire, it would resemble Africa today. Conversely, if Africa had the dubious benefit of millions of unpaid slaves to build up the continent over centuries, it would have led to an accumulation of wealth and capital just as was created in Europe and America, which created the basis for the industrial revolution.

If we agree that the main aim of slavery was the economic exploitation of slaves, it is easy to appreciate the fear by American and European governments and corporations that the admission that slavery is a crime against humanity will leave them open to massive claims of compensation, which is a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that the accumulated wealth of their countries owes much to slavery and colonialism.

The myth of racial superiority is built in part on promotion of the falsehood that Africa was civilised by Europeans. On the contrary, it is widely acknowledged today by the greatest scientific minds of all races that Africa is the cradle of human civilisation. What is not widely acknowledged is the implication of this on world history. Some people argue that there is no need to duel on the past - that we need to look to the future. This is wrong. We must dwell on the past because the contemporary mis-understanding of history serves to promote the myth of "white supremacy" and facilitate racism and gross violations of human rights. No serious person today underestimates the importance of psychology in anything - even in sports. If all available evidence suggests that Africans and "Blacks" have contributed nothing to human civilisation, the myth of racial superiority will remain and with it racism and the psychological damage inflicted on many people of African descent and identity.

If contemporary history did not recognise the contributions of past Greek, Roman or Chinese civilisations to human development, the perception of their place in world history today would be different. Similarly, what would be the reaction if two thousand years from now, if the contributions of Albert Einstein, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and other Jews to human civilisation were denied, or the contributions of countless and nameless Japanese persons to the development of science and technology? There would be a void in the history of these peoples and nationalities. Of course, not all of Africa attained the level of sophistication of the ancient civilisations of Egypt, Nubia or Ethiopia, or later the social and political organisation of Mali, Benin or Ghana "Empires". The same applies to China or Europe at the height of ancient Greek civilisation or the Roman Empire. Alongside advances existed backwardness. The Romans for instance had the barbarians alongside them who dealt them severe blows.

It therefore amounts to falsification of history not to clearly and openly acknowledge the contributions of "Black" and African civilisations and persons to human development. Contemporary accounts of popular history therefore need to be corrected. For instance, papyrus [paper], alphabets and ink, which are pillars of education, were used in ancient Egypt which contrary to the Hollywood version of history was at the time a "Black" civilisation. It is also historical fact, that the libraries of Egypt were torched by invading Roman armies of the Caesars during the decline of the ancient Egypt, which alongside its age, explains why most written ancient Egyptian History is lost. At the height of Roman civilisation, shorthand was famously taught in Rome by the African Tiro who opened a school to teach the scribes of the Roman Senate.

Similarly the fundamentals of modern mathematics were taught to Greek scholars by "Black" Egyptians who worked with fractions, algebra, geometry and the value of Pi which were all deployed in the construction of the great pyramids hundreds of years before Greek civilisation and Isaac Newton. To this day, modern science is unable to crack the wonders of the ancient pyramids of Egypt, which remain the best showcases of ancient African architecture. In medicine, it is widely assumed that Hippocrates a Greek is the father of modern medicine hence the Hippocratic oath but this is wrong. Imhotep of ancient Egypt is now acknowledged as the father of modern medicine. The symbol of the medical profession - a winged staff entwined by serpents - was the insignia found on his temples two thousand years before Hippocrates. His ancient temple was a centre for experiments in anatomy, surgery and pharmacology.

To appreciate all this, the history of civilisations has to be placed in context. The ancient African civilisations of Egypt, Nubia and Ethiopia existed from around 2600 BC, the Chinese from around 1600 BC. By comparison, the City-states of Greece only came into existence around 650 BC and the Roman Empire around 149 BC. With the possible exception of the Chinese who only stumbled upon other civilisations around 126 BC the general pattern was that the Romans borrowed ideas from the Greeks who in turn had borrowed ideas from the Egyptians. It is therefore not very surprising, that a lot of modern thinking is attributed to the Greeks especially through thinkers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. It is also generally not known, that the Greek/Macedonian Army of Alexander the Great only reached Egypt over two thousand years after the pyramids were built and that Greek scholars had previously come to learn in Egypt. The rise and fall of civilisations also complicates much of history. For instance, the once great British Empire has shrunk while it is difficult to believe that the USA did not even exist a mere 300 years ago.

"Black" contributions to modern civilisation

In modern times, it is generally assumed that the inventions that have accelerated the growth of science and technology have been by "White" people. This perception exists in Africa, as well as in Europe and America where people should know better. But how are most people to know when the popular versions of history are misleading?

A variety of some popular everyday applications invented by "Black" people include: the railway signal; lawn mower; gas burner; automatic refrigeration system; traffic signal/traffic lights; fountain pen; motor used in engines; overhead conducting system for electric railway systems; vending machines that deliver tickets and return change to customers; and automatic street-sweepers. Other complex devices include the first lubricator or oiling device used for industrial machinery that allows machines to remain in motion while being automatically oiled. [The term the "real McCoy" refers to a question asked by buyers who wanted to know if the machines on sale were the "real McCoy" - after the maker Elijah McCoy]; the first automatic refrigeration system for long haul trucks which today allows the preservation of food in transit. This was, in turn, adapted to a variety of other carriers, including ships, railway cars, and aircraft. A self-starting gasoline motor; the railway telegraph that allows trains in motion to communicate with stations; and the carbon filament used in electric lamps. "Black" people also introduced medical innovations such as open-heart surgery and the blood bank. Most of these examples with the exception of the blood bank and open-heart surgery are over a hundred years old and exclude contemporary developments or other areas of human endeavour such as academia, art, literature, sport, music and so forth.

In other words, if presented correctly, history shows that racial superiority, which rationalises racism, is a myth. If all races are equal, then there is no basis for racism and economic exploitation just as there never was any basis for slavery and colonialism beyond greed. The correction of contemporary understanding of Black history has massive implications for people of African descent and identity, in relation to racism, human rights, dignity and self-respect. In other words there are serious sociological, psychological and political reasons for correcting the wrong perception of, and for celebrating Black history. It is not a White versus Black argument, its an argument for equitable recognition of the contribution of all peoples to the development of human civilisation.

*Sankore is Co-ordinator of CREDO for Freedom of Expression and Associated Rights. Send your comments to and we will consider them for publication in the Letters and Comments section.