Twenty years after Live Aid Sir Bob Geldof will take his charity music show to the stage again in multi-city concerts scheduled for Paris, Berlin, Rome and Philadelphia. Tajudeen Abdul Raheem is amazed that 20 years after Live Aid events like these are still being planned and executed without visible participation of Africans. The whole process, he says, is “like trying to shave someone’s head in their absence”.

Sir Bob Geldof (aka Saint Bob) on Tuesday ended speculation about staging a repeat of his 1985 Live Aid concert that raised global awareness about Famine in Africa. The successful re-release last Christmas of the record ‘Do they Know its Christmas time’, 20 years after the original release, fuelled speculation that Live Aid could be repeated in 2005.

Further pressures for this restaging had to do with the politics that led to the prominent role Geldof played in instigating Blair to set up his Commission for Africa (CfA). The CfA report committed the British government to making Africa a centre-piece of British Chairmanship of both the EU and the G8 from next month.

A number of campaigns by NGOs and development lobbyists in the UK culminating in the yearlong ‘Make Poverty History’ coalition are also contributing to shaping the British agenda.

The symbolism and propaganda value of these orchestrated coincidences were just overwhelming. The NGO world, but the very big international ones in particular, are more and more media-driven. Therefore packaging misery and targeting critical national and global events have become necessary tool kits for massive fundraising. In that context it was difficult to see how Geldof could resist the pressure for ‘another show’.

Despite initial declarations to the contrary the announcement Tuesday showed how Bob, despite being the global face of this humanitarian effort, is also driven by its opportunistic dynamics. The campaign has been so successful that even if he had refused to cooperate they would have manufactured another media saint to front it. It has become a global brand for sleek missionary activity on Africa. And there are plenty of mega stars and their publicists and assorted moguls of the entertainment industry who will do anything to harness the global good will and market that such a huge concert bring. Just as it is difficult for any big name to say no to Bob so it has become impossible for St Bob to say no to ‘one more time’.

The compromise show that may still be regarded by many as Live Aid 2 despite it being launched as LIVE 8. Despite the fact that it will bring together all the big names in Western music the concert will not be just about music and charity. Geldof and his colleagues, learning from both their two decades experience of doing charity and criticisms of opponents of Aid, have come to accept that charity (while still important as human demonstration of empathy and solidarity) is not the way forward for helping Africa. This is a very important shift. LIVE 8 will focus on the G8 leaders meeting the same week as the concert is being held in London and other 4 Western cities; Paris, Berlin, Rome and Philadelphia. In Britain the organisers are hoping that they will be able to mobilise a million protesters to converge on Edinburgh to demand an end to poverty in Africa, fair trade, debt write off and more aid for Africa. Similar protests are supposed to take place simultaneously in all G8 countries.

As one of those people critical of aid-addicted Africans and the Western aid pushers what can I possibly have against the proposed concert, especially the shift to some form of direct action? I welcome the shift and salute the courage of those building this solidarity movement for Africa. In particular shifting the debate away from aid may help to recover some of the loss of self-respect and attacks on the dignity of Africans consequent to constant negative images of starving Africa in order to extract Western sympathy. It may help to stop seeing Africa and Africans as victims but agents of our own fortunes and misfortunes, even if often in collaboration or collusion with others. More importantly the shift should help focus on the structural linkages between our mass poverty and the riches of the West. So pervasive has been the humanitarian disaster ideology about Africa that many westerners do not know that critical components of their computers, mobile phones, jewellery, motor cars, museums, and many of their day to day comfort items began life in Africa as precious metals and raw materials. While all these mental shifts are both desirable and necessary I cannot help being troubled by the processes of engagement. Even good things can be done in the wrong ways.

How is it defensible that 20 years after Live Aid and all the sea changes that Africa and the rest of the world have witnessed these activities are still being planned and executed without visible participation of Africans? It is like trying to shave someone’s head in their absence. Who are the big or small African artists, Musicians, cultural workers, etc, involved in this concert? Did they ask Hugh Masekela and was he too tired? Did Miriam Makeba say she was too busy? Is Fela Kuti unable to break an engagement? Where is Baba Maal? What about Yousou Ndor? What of Yvonne Chaka Chaka or Angelica Kidjo? Where are the Congo Musicians? We can go on and on. Could there not have been a symbolic African venue for this multi-city concert? Surely even if many African countries do not have the facilities South Africa does have the infrastructure to broadcast to the whole world?

Even the wider anti-poverty campaigns essentially use Africans as colourful canvasses to legitimise the narratives. They are wheeled on and off as the propaganda demands.

These omissions are not because of ignorance but the result of a mindset that “infantilises” Africans and cannot trust Africans to do anything for themselves including even telling the world where our shoes are pinching us. That’s why you see so many well-fed foreign ‘experts’ and increasingly their junior African partners getting huge sums of money to do poverty assessment and workshops across Africa. We are not even experts on our own poverty. Africans are the only people doomed to be perpetual students of their own condition and further condemned to be perpetually taught by outsiders as experts, consultants, activists, defenders or spokespersons!

It is a repackaging of the ‘white man’s burden’ ideology. The only way we can reverse this colonial mindset is for us to relearn the Uhuru spirit of doing things for ourselves and unlearn the mental slavery that makes us so vulnerable to outsiders.

Statistically, head for head, there are probably many millions more poor people in both India and China yet no western power dares suggest that they will create a commission for India or China. While India is seen as being able to solve her problems China is now even more feared as a serious global power.

Neither the Chinese nor the Indians will want to be invited by others to seek solutions to their problems.

No amount of marches in Europe and global concerts for Africa will end poverty in Africa if Africans are not marching in their millions demanding and enforcing pro poor and pro people policies and governance from their own governments and institutions. We cannot be spectators in our own affairs.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa. ([email protected] or [email][email protected])

* Please send comments to [email protected]

On the occasion of Africa Day, Tajudeen Abdul Raheem argues that Kwame Nkrumah’s famous dictum that “the independence of Ghana is meaningless without the total liberation of Africa” is still true today. “While then it was regarded as the utopian wish of a romantic Pan-Africanist, in the face of today’s dual threat of re-colonisation and rapacious globalisation, those words should be made the opening sentence of the national anthem of every country in Africa.”

I wonder how many readers knew that yesterday, May 25, was Africa Liberation Day. Do not be ashamed if you did not notice it. I am not sure if many noticed the day either in many African countries and among different African Diaspora communities.

In years gone by the Day used to be marked officially by several governments and unofficially celebrated by many groups in Africa and the Diaspora. Now there are only scattered activities by people who have not given up on the belief that ‘A different Africa is possible’.

It is a day of solidarity with the various struggles of African peoples for justice, equality, human dignity, freedom, unity and liberation. It was founded in 1958 (April 15) and called Africa Freedom Day, as a result of the first All African People’s conferences called by the indomitable Osagyefo, Kwame Nkrumah.

Nkrumah is the foremost Pan-Africanist of all times, a fact remembered and honoured by Africans world wide who voted him ‘Greatest African of the Millennium’ in a BBC poll in 2000, despite orchestrated campaigns by supporters of other living or dead claimants.

The two conferences of 1958 were called by Nkrumah as Prime Minister of newly independent Ghana, to show solidarity and plan strategies for the total liberation of Africa from colonialism. Those conferences brought together the few independent countries of Africa and the representatives of nationalists groups and liberation movements from across Africa and a few observers from the Diaspora. Frantz Fanon was there with the Algerian Liberation Movement against French Colonialism, FLN, and it was in the second of those two conferences that the charismatic Patrice Lumumba was introduced to the world three years after he led Congo to freedom. He was later assassinated in a grand conspiracy between erstwhile colonial interests and local reactionaries, aided and abetted by complacent UN and global powers namely US, France and Belgium. Does the story not sound too familiar more than four decades later? How times have changed but somehow, remarkably, remained the same when it comes to the exploitation of Africa’s resources and oppression of Africans.

When the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) was formed in Addis, May 25 1963, Africa Freedom Day became Africa Liberation Day (ALD) as a symbol of the resolve, commitment and support of all Africa for the total decolonisation of the continent.

As ‘the winds of change’ blew away colonial rule from most of Africa it dug in in the former Portuguese colonies of Guinea-Bissau, Angola, Mozambique and through settler colonialism in apartheid South Africa, occupied Namibia and Ian Smith’s Rhodesia (Zimbabwe since 1980). Consequently ALD became synonymous with solidarity with these struggles and the near total support and solidarity that they enjoyed among all Africans at home and in the Diaspora and lovers of freedom globally.

Unfortunately while Africa was united against apartheid and colonialism the same could not be said for the struggles against the neo-colonialism that turned independence into a new form of dependence and oppression of African peoples. The same leaders that were giving support for the liberation of South Africa were busy stifling the aspirations of their own peoples for real independence and an end to neo-colonial power relations. While Africa was united against colonialism it was divided in the face of neo-colonialism and internal oppression by fellow Africans.

Instead of independence from colonialism developing into meaningful cooperation to advance concrete Pan Africanism and an all African union and government, the agenda shifted to the elite maintaining power in the various artificial states bequeathed by colonialism. Increasingly it became power for the sake of it in one state after the other. Consequently Africa became more vulnerable for the cold warriors, unequal international power relations, debt crisis, etc.

As Africa became a byword for the poorest cousins of the rest of the world there is no surprise that the enthusiasm for Africa Day disappeared in many countries. There was also triumphalism after the successful defeat of apartheid in South Africa in 1994. All Africans and friends of Africa were genuinely euphoric that South Africa became free in our life times. Somehow it was wrongly felt that Africa had finished its liberation wars. The OAU even officially closed its Africa Liberation Committee based in Dar es Salaam! But even in South Africa itself the end of apartheid, as important as it was, became the beginning of a new struggle for the majority of the people to fully reclaim their dignity and control their society. The agenda of liberation cannot be finished, it will only change from one generation to the other.

Nkrumah’s famous dictum that ‘the independence of Ghana is meaningless without the total liberation of Africa’ is still true today and even more relevant. While then it was regarded as the utopian wish of a romantic Pan Africanist, in the face of today’s dual threat of re-colonisation and rapacious globalisation, those words should be made the opening sentence of the national anthem of every country in Africa.

In the past few years Africa has been returning to the drawing board of Pan-Africanism. The new African Union with all its contradictions and the various struggles within and outside it represent an advance from the past while we seek further clarity and decisive action towards the future. It offers a wider scope for all Africans to be part of the solution instead of just complaining about the many problems.

Instead of constantly enumerating what this leader or that leader is doing wrong why don’t you ask yourself what, no matter how small, you are doing as an individual, a member of an organisation, part of a community, your profession and in whatever station you are, to advance the cause of Africa and the dignity of the African. We all can do something or do nothing.

As we say in the Pan African Movement: ‘don’t agonise! Organise!’. Just a thought: if people are no longer connecting to the historical inspirations for Africa Day why don’t we agitate for a proclamation of an African Union Day (July 09) as a symbol of our commitment to make Pan Africanism relevant for our times and the younger generation?

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa. ([email protected] or [email][email protected])

* Please send comments to [email protected]

A current corruption crackdown by Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo has been met with cynicism by some sections of the Nigerian public, who have questioned the motives of the president. In this context Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem remembers a humourous incident involving the president, some protestors and a new passport.

A couple of years ago President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria was the chief guest at Uganda's independence celebrations. As to be expected the Nigerian high commission in Uganda held a reception for him and invited the Nigerian community in the country to lunch
with the president.

For most of my time in Uganda I was in the unusual position of being one of the 'prominent Nigerians' in the country. Even when I could not go to the country during the military dictatorship the high commission was still kind enough to consider me worthy of being invited to meet all kinds of delegations from Nigeria. Their attitude was quite different from that of the Nigerian high commission in London with which I had only public demonstration and picketing engagements with throughout the same period.

What passes for the Nigerian community in Uganda is actually mostly West African citizens resident in the country. Since Nigeria is the only West African country with diplomatic representation in East Africa and Central Africa its high commissions or embassies serve as a West African diplomatic mission. For me that is the clearest proof, if any is needed, that Pan-Africanism is common sense. It is not only desirable but cost effective, efficient and pervades all our lives consciously and unconsciously among our peoples and between our states - both deliberately but often out of necessity.

The only obstacle is our artificial states created to serve other people's interests. They are illegitimate in the lives of many Africans. They often demonstrate their presence through the numerous inconveniences they can put in the way of their citizens. Many of them are so insecure about their existence they try to proove their independence and sovereignty in everything, including declaring themselves independent of the truth!

At the Obasanjo reception there was a group of 'Nigerian Boys' (mostly serial adventurers in transit in search of greener pastures) carrying placards protesting against exorbitant fees for acquiring the then newly introduced computerised Nigerian passports and the long bureaucracy in getting them.

Obasanjo, speaking after the lunch, in a mixture of standard English laced with Yoruba accent and the more universal Nigerian Pidgin English, in the spacious grounds of the High Commissioner's residence, confronted the demonstrators directly. He assured them that he was not trying to make money for the government of Nigeria through a hike in money paid for passports. He said the hike in the fees was due to the high standards of technical design of the new passports, which cost more to produce. It was computerised with a requirement for fingerprints. All these were necessary not just to catch up with the latest technology but because according to the President "I am tired of being a 419 President".

419 is a decree passed by a military government in Nigeria meant to punish people who are engaged in advance fees fraud on contracts allegedly awarded by Nigerian governments, its agencies and parastatals. Any user of the Internet will now know that there is nothing Nigerian about these scams anymore. All kinds of fraudsters from other countries in Africa through the Middle East and other parts of the world have joined in usually claiming to be sons, daughters, wives, concubines, etc, of one big man or the other who recently died but left the putative relative the secret code to huge sums of money which he/she now wants to pass through your account!

The original Nigerian scam was straight-forward. It played on the corrupt ‘contractocracy’ (government of contractors by contractors and for contractors that the country had become). The perpetrators usually claim to have secured a huge contract from the ministry of defence, national oil parastatals or a big person in the central bank. They will then quote fantastic figures to a recent contract that they
have secured. However there will always be a snag, some cogs in the greasy wheel that have to be oiled. Someone needs to be 'given something' so that the monies can be released quickly. That is where, if you are a bent greedy person yourself, you will be roped in. They will suggest you help with x amount of money to speed up the process and bingo, you can laugh your way to the bank.

Obasanjo was candid with his audience and explained how he had met two young men in Yola prison - where he was imprisoned by Abacha - who had given him tutorials on how 419 worked. He always also expressed his indignation at being informed of Nigerians in prisons in very distant shores he had traveled to. Therefore the computerized passport was part of the government's strategy to control the access to the passports which were previously available to the highest bidder. I am not sure if computerisation has changed anything. The President believed that the new passports were difficult to forge.

Trying to be more Catholic than his Pope, the high commissioner went further than his boss by stating that the new passport was "impossible to forge". In the crude frankness that Obasanjo is famous for he looked at his Uganda representative with bemusement that made all of us listening laugh. He retorted: "Mr Ambassador, it is difficult but not impossible - nothing is impossible for a Nigerian.” Even the placard bearing demonstrators fell about laughing and threw away their placards. Obasanjo was being realistic about the ingenuity and the negative creativity of his compatriots, but still determined to be one step up fighting the corruption (perpetrated by a few) that has become a bye word for the country.

His current anti corruption crusade that has already claimed two ministers and also the dismissal of the inspector general of police recently are part of this war against corruption. It may not end corruption but hopefully bring about some fear and sense of shame that may make the Nigerian elite to think twice before plunging into the national treasury. It is a long way from reversing the culture of graft in public office but the spectacle of seeing the former inspector of police in handcuffs being matched into a courthouse may send signals that no one is untouchable.

This week another trial began of the former federal minister for education, Prof. Fabian Osuji (definitely no connection with the more noble British Fabian Socialists), the former president of the senate (the third in line in the country) and other top officials of the education ministry and some national legislators. The minister had allegedly bribed members of a subcommittee of the national assembly in order to get his ministry's budget passed without alteration.

Many Nigerians are very cynical about the trials, the timing and the motives of their president. I am no admirer of Obasanjo and his “I-know all” executive insecurities but the baby and the birth water should be separated. The fact that all thieves may not be caught should not mean that those caught should not be punished. The law may not catch up with all lawbreakers but there must be certainty that those caught will be punished according to the law without any fear or favour.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa. ([email protected] or [email][email protected])

* Please send comments to [email protected]

Tony Blair (B.Liar to his enemies) is set for a third term after moving his New Labour Party so far to the right that it is almost indistinguishable from the opposition Conservative Party, writes Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem. His three-term reign, to the puzzlement of African leaders under international pressure to show commitment to good governance by stepping down after two terms, is bad news for ethnic minorities.

Next Thursday, May 5, is general election day in Britain. Barring a very dramatic shift through a last minute change of mind by millions of voters, the governing Labour Party will be returned for another term in office.

The election has been dogged by a number of clouds of uncertainties that may not have anything to do with a fundamental difference between the Labour Party and the main opposition Conservative Party. In fact the biggest problem for the Conservatives is that under Tony Blair (those who cannot stand him call him TORY B-LIAR!) his New Labour has outdone the Tories in their reactionary politics and policies, whether on immigration, law and order or the economy.

The second opposition party, the Liberal Democratic Party, is more distinguishable from the other two by a wide barge on key policy alternatives, but unfortunately these nice people (as they are generally believed to be) are undermined by the undemocratic ‘first past the post system’ that advantages the two main parties. Both Labour and the Tories are beneficiaries of a disproportionate distribution of seats in parliament as a result of having their core voters concentrated in key regions, thereby gaining a majority of seats even without a substantial majority of the popular vote. Unless proportional representation is introduced across the board (not just restricted to European Elections as at the moment) it would be difficult for any third party to make a breakthrough in Britain.

So the voters are forced to decide between one set of Tories and another one. Personality and presentation assume more influence in such a situation. British politics is significantly being Americanised and emptied of substantial ideological differences and political cleavages that may make it pointless choosing between either of the two dominant parties.

The outcome of the election is not a foregone conclusion in many of the marginal constituencies and among different kinds of disgruntled groups. First among these are natural labour voters who are disappointed in Tony Blair's arrogant leadership and toadyism to Bush - especially over Iraq and other foreign policy summersaults. The media and Labour politicians often disingenuously talk of those angry about Iraq as if they are all 'disaffected Muslims'. Muslim British are not the only section of the society that feel betrayed by a Prime Minister elected to serve Britain who chose to be foreign secretary of the USA! The issue has not and will not die away until Blair is no longer Prime Minister.

Second, ethnic and racial minorities feel that Labour has abandoned them as a key constituency in favour of pandering to increasing xenophobia and racism in the wider society. They can point to a raft of immigration and asylum seeking laws further compounded by panic draconian legislation on terrorism that directly or indirectly victimise Black and other ethnic minorities. Instead of leading by principle Labour has allowed the conservatives and their cheer leaders in the largely rightwing media of Britain to lead on these issues. In fact they are in some kind of grotesque competition on these and many other issues for the dubious title of 'The Nastiest' party of Britain. The Conservative leader, Michael Howard, used to have a virtual monopoly on this but successive New Labour Home Secretaries from Jack Straw through David Blunket to the current burly beast, Mike Reid, have done their nastiest best to close the gap.

So bad has Labour shifted to the right on these issues that a former ‘Leading Nasty’, one of Margaret Thatcher's Bull terriers, Norman Thebit, was briefly cast as a Liberal Democrat during the debate on the Terrorism Bill in the House of Lords. Even he could not help drawing attention to the unusual role Labour forced him into. For a man who spent all his political career bashing miners, challenging ethnic minorities to pass the cricket test or jump on their bikes or haranguing the public to accept police state diktats it was a big irony that even this uncompromising law and order grandee felt Labour had gone too far in its crusade against 'terrorists'.

The ideological convergence of the leading parties and the frustration by Labour voters about Tony Blair has generated fears that the turn out could be low. The educated guess is that a lower turn out may punish Labour but be good news for the conservatives.

I am just glad that I will not be in Britain and have not applied for the controversial postal ballot. Where I would have voted is one of those constituencies where even a dog wearing Labour's colors will be elected. In any case many Black voters tend to vote labour when they vote. However, under Tony Blair not a few are reconsidering this historical loyalty. Already in many London constituencies Black, Asian and African voters are switching locally. Like other voters tactical voting may be the means through which anger at Blair and particular war mongering MPs (including the mixed race MP for one of the London constituencies, Oona King) will be punished. There may not be many spectacular upsets but there may be a few symbolic 'enough is enough' messages to Bush's friend by this weekend.

If the Labour lead turns out to be much lower than predicted his tenure at No. 10 may be brought to a quicker end soon. But whatever the size of the majority, Blair is on his last term - despite the fact that there is no term limit in Britain. Among the Ekisanja supporters of President Museveni in Uganda for example (and also other Presidents in Africa toying with extending their rule) there must some confusion as to why a PM who has no limit on his terms is pledging not to run again while they are busy trying to get a president whose terms are constitutionally limited to stand again.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

The wider civil society movement have to stop behaving like missionaries whose motives because they are allegedly doing ‘God’s work’, states Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem in connection with recent events in the AU’s Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC). Civil society has to hold itself to the same standards of accountability and transparency they demand from governments.

It was not unexpected that this column of last week on the orchestrated election of the Nobel Laureate, Wangari Mathai, as the President of the AU’s Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC) would generate so much private and public responses, especially on the internet. It is both an indication of the growing seriousness attached to African initiatives and African institutions but also proof of the global village that the world has become in the age of interactive multi media and new information technology. I have always been open about my enthusiasm for the Internet, even as I support many of the anti-globalisation causes! E-mail is one of the most democratising aspects of globalisation.

The responses are varied but can be broken down into two broad categories. Those that are in the realm of ‘to be expected’ and those that are more nuanced and proactive. The intriguing thing is that both aspects were often cohabiting in many of the responses. So lets deal with what should be more familiar. One, ‘why are you attacking Mama Wangari?’

My position is not about Wangari or any of her bureau members as individuals (many of them are well-known to me) but a defence of a fundamental principle of separation of state roles and civil society roles and obligations. Nobody will argue with a trade union organisation that replaces its general-secretary when he or she becomes a minister or a member of parliament. If a Minister is similarly elected as head of a trade union the government will expect the person to leave. Wangari is in the same situation at the moment and she can still make a choice since her appointing authorities have failed in their duty to know the difference between the two positions.

Two, I did not seek to denounce Wangari as a leader who originated from civil society and is still critically important to that constituency, but she has had a change of jobs and we should not blur the lines. It is important for civil society to have allies in government but government should not swallow it up. It is rank opportunism to think those lines do not matter simply because the current beneficiary is someone we respect and value. As one of my respondents pointed out she would have risen more in principled public estimation if she had done one of two honourable things open to her: refuse the post because of her government position or resign from government due to her commitment to the new post. By doing neither she has diminished herself and her standing.

The more nuanced responses are many and most of them share my concerns but give different mitigating circumstances. One, there is a pragmatist group that argued that ‘this is a done deal’.

Though civil society is part of governance it cannot and should not substitute for government. Therefore it must avoid any action that confuses both theatres of struggle. Two, some argue that what happened was legal and within the rules. Let me just stretch their limited imagination to remember that slavery, colonialism and apartheid were codified in laws of the day. Did that make them acceptable?

Three, one person even suggested that it was ‘backbiting’ to speak out after the event. Does this mean that we should only speak about an event only during the act itself or when we are physically present? If this dubious standard is applied to all public discourse we shall not have anything to discuss since most of the issues, decisions and life changing policies that affect us are taken outside of our purview and many, even outside of Africa. Does that mean that we have no rights to complain and should just bear our victimhood as a fait accompli? There is no statute of liberty on justice and none should be imposed on accountability.

Four, others argue that Mathai was the best choice because the other options being pushed by AU bureaucrats presented a worse case scenario. This is begging the issue. The AU could not have put guns to the heads of those present (even though they paid their bills) if a few people had voiced their opposition openly in the assembly instead of largely grumbling and agonising privately. Maybe the AU would have seen sense and taken them more seriously. The fact that Wangari was appointed in absentia, ‘unanimously’ meant that some of those present (who had strong reservations) did not, or were unable to follow the logic of their own convictions. I appreciate the fact that some of those present did not have speaking rights. Many others were even attending the forum for the first time and were on a learning curve that was too steep! They were required to make decisions about what they did not know. That ignorance strengthened AU bureaucratic manouvres.

Five, another person even suggested that the newly crowned Madame la Presidente ‘had no time to waste’ stating that she been given a great job to do and implying she is so busy that she should not be diverted by these debates. I can only say that even a good thing can be done in a very wrong way. And this is one of them. That kind of language coming from people who are supposed to be defenders of civil society exposes the lack of willingness by our leaders both in civil and political society to be accountable to the people they serve. Is civil society not supposed to have more democratic credentials than governments?

The whole process further exposes the orchestrated confusion between NGOs and civil society. While NGOs may be part of civil society they are not ‘The’ civil society. Unfortunately because of donor-driven agendas and mercenary activism, NGOs in Africa are now passing for civil society hence the new distinction between CSOs and CBOs! The former is dominated by middle class counter elite claiming to speak for the constituencies more ably represented by the latter.

However the more successful NGOs become the more integrated they become into national and international and multilateral structures of power. They move from advocacy into incorporation and cooptation. There is nothing wrong in people moving from civil to political society and vice versa or making a similar journey to the private sector. However the actors in the various sectors must be clear about the lines even when osmosis is desirable.

African NGOs and the wider civil society movement have to stop behaving like missionaries whose motives cannot be questioned simply because they are allegedly doing God’s work. We have to hold ourselves up to the same standard of accountability, transparency, level playing field and due process that we harangue our governments to uphold.

What happened at the ECOSOCC Interim General Assembly was clear: It was a stich up. Does this mean nothing good will come out of it? I am an optimistic political activist who, like Bob Marley, "may fight and run away but live to fight another day.” Therefore even if Wangari does not resign the interim ECOSOCC institutions should not be ignored. Maybe out of this fudge we could salvage an ECOSOCC that will work together and independently with emerging structures of the AU. It is not yet Uhuru therefore wherever we are and regardless of which side of the debate we fall, we should maintain interactive vigilance and challenge this largely AU-chosen representatives of CSOs to deliver to the diverse constituencies they are supposed to represent. They ought to be CSO representatives in the AU, not AU agents among Civil Society.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem says the appointment of Nobel Laureate Wangari Mathai to the Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC) of the African Union represents a dangerous conflict of interest as she is already a Kenyan government minister. Wangari should either quit as a government minister or reject the ECOSOCC position, he argues.

Many of us who are optimistic about the African Union do so not because of some naïve utopianism that ignores both the objective and subjective realities of Africa that may militate against the realisation of the renewal of faith in the noble ideals of Pan Africanism. We also do so not just as a defensive impulse against the more fashionable industry of Afro-pessimism. Our optimism is based on the concrete reality of our lived experiences and the brutal reality of the condition of many Africans today, both on the continent and in the Diaspora. These have made Pan-Africanism a precondition for our survival instead of it just being a dream. And some of us will even go further to assert that we need our dreams and we need to accelerate the process of their realisation because those who have no dreams to live for and work towards will suffer nightmares. And Africa has suffered enough nightmares!

The African Union did not emerge from a vacuum. It is the result of a critique and audit of our performance or lack of it in the four decades of the existence of the Organisation of African Union (OAU). The organisation was useful in building African consensus and mobilising our peoples against colonialism all over Africa and also in fighting Apartheid and settler colonialism in Southern Africa. Sometimes our frustrations at the way colonialism metamorphosed into neo-colonialism and dictatorships in many countries make us forget some of the positive contributions of the OAU towards our collective good, including it being the single most important diplomatic and political forum for all of Africa. Only Morocco has ever left it.

The Constitutive Act of the AU sought to correct some of the mistakes of the OAU charter in order to make the new Union more responsive to the needs and challenges of our time. It is different from the OAU in many important respects. It is potentially a more people-friendly Union. The OAU was an organisation of leaders and operated as such for most of its existence even when the leaders no longer represented anybody but themselves and their yes men or women.

The AU now seeks to be people driven and it has institutions to guarantee that. For instance, the Commission of the African Union is unique among all Multi-lateral institutions today in not only guaranteeing full participation of both men and women but in enforcing it. It has gender parity of five women and five men as its members. Of course the battle will not stop there because this practice is yet to percolate the whole of the emerging institutions of the AU. However since the principle is guaranteed and enforced at the highest level, hopefully it will only be a matter of time before this good example spreads downwards.

By far the most potentially democratic and democratising institutions of the Union are the Pan African Parliament and the Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC). The Parliament offers an historic opportunity for Pan-Africanism to stop being the exclusive preserve of the Presidents but a matter for all of us with a prospect for popular accountability through elected representatives. Unfortunately for the first five years it will only operate as an advisory body. The hope is that after this interim period the need to have a more permanent and powerful parliament with real overseeing powers and an effective check on the executive will recommend itself. One important area of reform when the protocol comes up for review could be the way in which the MPs are chosen. They should not be elected by indirect elections in national parliaments but should be elected directly by all Africans in all the countries they may be. This may transform all Africans into effective political players and no longer 'aliens', as is the practice at the moment.

The other institution which should be complementary to the Parliament in guaranteeing people power in the AU, with even bigger potential, is the ECOSOCC. In the past it was difficult for civil society organisations, NGOs, private sector groups, professional associations, etc to have access to the OAU. But the ECOSOCC envisages that most organisations and even individuals will have equal access to the AU and contribute their quota to the development of Africa. Like the Parliament it is also advisory for the time being.

The interim General Assembly of the ECOSOCC was launched in Addis Ababa last week. The Nobel Laureate, Wangari Mathai, was elected as the President of the Assembly along with other officials. She is a very popular person with an unflinching commitment to democracy and the ordinary peoples of Africa.

As an admirer of Mama Wangari I should be jubilating at her appointment but I am not because there is a potential for conflict of interest in her appointment that will undermine the credibility of the ECOSOCC. She is a minister in the NARC government of Kenya. It is not correct that a serving minister is put at the head of an institution that is supposed to be a people's forum. I can see the argument of visibility, clout and personal influence that may have weighed heavily on the minds of those who orchestrated her nomination, in absentia. But it is a wrong precedence. It sends wrong signals about the readiness of the AU to embrace civil society as an independent partner. We should not keep quiet because she is a much-loved 'one of us'.

Tomorrow it could be any other minister or government person and what would we say then? When governments manipulate elections, public opinion, and so on, we rightly shout and we should not maintain culpable silences because some of our own friends and colleagues are the direct or indirect perpetrators.

The AU bureaucrats have had an undue influence on the process of establishing the ECOSOCC, which risks making the institution a mere adjunct to the AU.

Another issue that shows the unwillingness of the AU to deal straight has to do with the role of the diaspora. The mission, vision, and strategic plan of the AU recognises the diaspora as the 6th region of Africa in addition to the five regions on the continent itself.

The Chairperson, Alpha Konare, is particularly focused on this yet in the ECOSOCC process the Diaspora has been represented by those chosen by the whim of the AU officials. Even at the launch of the General Assembly the few diaspora persons there were mere observers. This is partly due to the unresolved political intrigues around an acceptable definition of 'diaspora'. Some people want it to mean the historically dispersed Africans across the world especially North America, the Caribbean and Europe. Others focus on the more contemporary dispora of Africans directly from the continent, relative new immigrants in the diaspora. A sensible compromise should not be an either or debate but an inclusive arrangement that recognises the claims of all Africans and people of African origin wherever they may be. The AU should not dictate to Africans whether in Africa or in the diaspora.

Self organisation is the hallmark of civil society. A situation whereby the AU decides who the leaders of ECOSOC will be through manipulation of delegates and representation does not augur well for a union that wants the people to be involved as legitimate stakeholders. The Shenanigans at the launch of the ECOSOCC General Assembly would have made the former Stalinist countries very proudly nostalgic that their methods of 'democracy from above' continues to have appeal even without the need for a political party and cadres!

If the AU and its collaborators, co-conspirators and power worshippers in civil society who have brought about this unnecessary situation cannot see their opportunism one hopes that personal integrity and political consistency would dictate to Mama Wangari to either quit her government post or reject the ECOSOCC position. I have no doubt that she truly wants to help galvanise support for the fledgling ECOSOCC and the AU but all things considered I do not see how She can do both with good conscience.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

The people of Zimbabwe go to the polls today in a parliamentary election that should tell us something about the power balance in the country that was once a bright star but is now a metaphor for broken dreams and a continuing nightmare both for its people and other Africans.

The 'something' may not be a lot because I do not think that this election will give us an adequate reading of the real state of things. The government sees only victory and the opposition envisages an unfair defeat.

The stand-off between the main opposition, Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), and President Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and the consequent pariah status of the country has paralysed the country for almost a decade now.

It is impossible to think of a final peaceful settlement or a way out of the impasse with Mugabe still at the helm of affairs. As I argued on a CNN interview yesterday the septuagenarian ex-Comrade is no longer part of the solution but central to the problem.

However, we all have to banish thoughts of hoping that the old man would do the decent thing and step aside for the sake of his party, country and people. His rhetoric on the campaign trail and belligerent tones do not indicate that Uncle Bob is for turning. He has developed a siege psychosis, grandiose paranoia and neo-fascist mentality which make him see all opponents whether within his party, the government or in the country, as traitors. He believes he is Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe is his. Having been in power for 25 years, Mugabe and his cohorts cannot imagine themselves ever losing power.

Therefore, ZANU (PF), at least the president's main faction of it, will do whatever is possible (both thinkable and unthinkable) to 'win' this election. Intimidation, brazen bribery, manipulation, and whatever tricks in the books of electoral brigandage have been deployed to ensure only one outcome - ZANU (PF) victory.

But this victory will be at an even greater cost this time given the level of dissent in recent months at the very heart of the ZANU (PF) elite itself.

Mugabe is not just fighting 'the MDC kids' but also many of his formerly loyal 'good boys' and veteran geriatrics, including former ministers and top commanders. While the party may lose a few seats to its latest ex-ZANU opposition, this may not be enough to unsettle the regime because they may not translate into more seats for the main opposition, MDC.

The MDC is likely going to hold on to its support base despite all the stratagems of Mugabe's storm troopers and routine violence and intimidation from both the state and its freelance militias.

The European Union has already declared the election a sham. The US government has also been blowing hot on Zimbabwe. Quite ominously both SADC and the AU have not been too vocal beyond expressing pious hopes that there will be free and fair elections and making an appeal to both sides to give peace a chance.

African leaders are really on a tight rope over Zimbabwe because of the racialist overtone of the issues. None of them want to be seen as agents of the West and White interests. Many of them (like other Africans), who may not necessarily agree with Mugabe, are however convinced that the land issue needed to be addressed. So whatever they do, they are damned. But all these have no impact on Zimbabwe. Indeed the more Europeans and Americans make a noise about Mugabe, the better for him to be casting himself as a Pan-Africanist David against Imperialist Goliath, and his domestic opponents, both MDC and non- MDC, as puppets of the West.

For Africans, both on the continent and in the diaspora the one-sided spectacles help make us either more understanding or ambiguous or apologetic (as many have become) towards the old man. On the other hand, MDC's links with largely white farmers and its popularity with anti–Mugabe Westerners make it suspect to many Africans.

There is a very strong hangover of cold war era ideology watered by contemporary Western inconsistency and brazen hypocrisy that makes many Africans instinctively suspect any African leader liked by the West while adulating the one that is hated by them.

Even those who look at the mass base, especially organised largely black working class, urban poor and progressive middle class support for the MDC, are also wary of its ambiguity on a number of key issues about the economy and reconstruction of Zimbabwe after Mugabe. There are fears that an MDC led by Morgan Tsvangirai will just be an imitation of the tragedy of yet another populist trade unionist, one Frank Chiluba, in neighbouring Zambia.

However, there is a principle that should guide all of us about Zimbabwe or any other country for that matter - the supremacy of the will of the people, freely expressed, without let or hindrance. If they choose puppets or dimwits, it is their right to do so and they will have another opportunity at the next election to change their minds. It is a right that cannot and should not be ceded to or usurped by a self-serving elite for its perpetuation in office. No leader or party owns the people. Voting wisely is as important as voting unwisely if they so choose!

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

The former Pop Star, of Boomtown Rats fame, Bob Geldof, (also known as Sir Bob or Saint Bob) is not a very popular man in some very powerful quarters in Uganda these days.

Nothing new in that because even in the Irish republic where he was born and in Britain where he made his Pop name and was later Knighted by the British Queen - not for his Pop Music, but for inspiring the Band Aid appeal that caught global attention in 1984 in response to the Ethiopian famine - he is not universally popular.

He has earned a well- deserved reputation for being a loud-mouth (and here I should declare a potential personal conflict of interest because my mouth does not often have a stopper), rubbing people the wrong way and ruffling all available feathers in his crusade against hunger, debt and poverty in Africa.

I have had occasion to observe that he sometimes appears to be crying more than the bereaved. It is easy to be taken over by the cause and sometimes that may lead to the precipitate road of the end justifying the means. If there is a Guinness Book of Records entry for using expletives without caring whether it is president or prisoner, diplomat or peasants, that are listening, Bob Geldof should be a runaway winner. It is part of his stock in trade. Sometimes the theatrics stand in the way of the message he has which makes many to accuse him of either insatiable individualism or petulant exhibitionism. I have had one or two run-ins with him where it was bull for bull . But his publicity tactics have worked well for him because whatever he says often gets global attention.

And so it was typical of him at the launching of the Blair Commission for Africa report two weeks ago to send a verbal missile in an aside about President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and his worst kept secret attempt to tinker with the constitution of Uganda and lift the restriction on two terms for the presidency so that he could stand again. Ekisanja (as the self succession bid is known in Luganda) has now reached global media. Thanks to Geldof asking Museveni to move off the state lodge!

Not unexpectedly the Ekisanja supporters have been up in arms decrying his impertinence: how dare he interfere in our sovereign affairs? What does this foreigner, a musician for that matter (some say with angry disbelief, as if musicians should have no political views), know about Uganda to be asking Mzee to step aside?

The uproar culminated in an obviously orchestrated demonstration by supporters of the President last Monday condemning Geldof’s brash pronouncement. While they were at it they also had non-diplomatic words for the British government for meddling in Uganda’s affairs. The UK High Commissioner to Uganda has been grumbling rather too loudly of recent and also a recent statement by a British Foreign Office Junior Minster voiced concerns about Uganda’s transition to a genuine multi party democracy.

According to newspaper reports there were many placards and slogans on display. They were broadly nationalistic, anti imperialist, very Pan Africanist, anti neo-colonialism, etc. But one in particular caught my attention: It said ‘yes to aid but no to foreign intervention!’

While Bob Geldof may not be surprised (and would have been disappointed if people were indifferent to his remarks) at attacks on him, I am not sure how he would react to a planned demonstration today by anti-Museveni, anti-third term and opposition supporters or activists in his support. They must be hoping they can enlist his support as a veteran global publicist for their local cause. In addition to Bob’s crusade to feed starving Africans the Ugandan opposition is adding delivery of democracy too! The bad news is that only recently Geldof in yet another choreographed outburst openly said he was tired of being regarded as ‘Mr Bloody Africa’.

The banner that said ‘yes to aid but no to intervention’ exposes the self-inflicted humiliating contradiction confronting many African leaders. They expect foreigners to build their roads, feed their people, construct their stadiums and hospitals but at the same time they want to assert their independence. Uganda under Museveni is typical of this disease. The country is talked up as a success story, though it is fast losing its shine to new ‘miracles’ like Mozambique. Yet its budget and development plans are more than 50% dependent on foreigners. How sustainable is this in the long run? No doubt the country has seen some economic growth under Museveni’s laissez fair economics but real development is still very much elusive. But it is a country that has now become an Aid junkie.

It will be ridiculous for those who are paying the piper not to want to dictate the tune. After all those who attended the Ekisanja demonstration must report back to those who provided them with the logistics, facilitation and the sodas that followed their successful mission to Parliament Avenue. As it is with individuals so it is with states and between states where the stakes are much higher.

But African governments would like to eat their cake and keep same. They want to serve imperialism and serve their people even when the logic of the relationship is one of cat and mouse. They steal their peoples’ money and head for European and American banks with them and yet they want to be independent of Washington, London or Paris! Many of them have signed away the national economy, without referendum or even perfunctory consultation, yet when it comes to some very narrowly defined convenient political issues like our obligation to continue to choose them (or vote without choosing as some have described it) they suddenly declare the people are sovereign. What kind of sovereignty and selective empowerment is this that does not allow you to decide the way your national resources are managed or mismanaged? If the people are too backward to decide how their economy is managed why do you need their voice in determining how they should be governed and by whom?

They go to the IMF/World Bank without consultation. They fight wars without consultation but when they have problems with their donor-masters then they remember sovereignty, self-determination and Pan Africanism. Otherwise they are proud to be seen with their powerful friends from Europe and America. It is like wannabe Africans –Americans who only remember they are Black when they are in big trouble. Remember OJ Simpson? Now look at the pathetic Michael Jackson and his trial for paedophilia. Suddenly Rev Jesse Jackson is his spiritual counsellor.

This Ekisanja militia of Uganda of today or their cousins across the continent in similar battles to sustain ruling regimes are mere pawns in a cynical manipulation of the population to perpetuate personal or class rule. Where were those now carrying the banner of non-interference when Uganda and Rwanda tragically fought against each other, three times, in the DRC and both Presidents and their executive entourage traveled to Auntie Clare in London to settle their differences!

They did not listen to their own peoples, even their own cabinets, let alone neighbours or other Africans, but as soon as London called they were off like good boys. Why? Because Clare Short was in charge of DFID and was dishing out millions of British taxpayer money to Uganda and Rwanda. They even claimed that Clare was a mutual friend of theirs. But the same was said of Lynda Chalker before Clare and I am sure now both governments have ingratiated themselves to the DFID boss, Hilary Benn! But the dependence on outsiders (and external leverage in our affairs) is not just on the part of governments but is fast corroding our civil society at all levels especially in these days of donor-driven professional NGOs, MONGOs (my own NGO), NGI (Non Governmental Individuals), etc.

Yet we proclaim independence and demand sovereignty. Like Wole Soyinka challenged Late Sedar Senghor of Senegal, the apostle of Negritude: ‘A tiger needs not proclaim its Tigeritude’. You do not claim independence and self-determination but earn it by self-reliant actions and trusting your own people to decide the economic, social, cultural and political direction of their polity. It cannot be a tactical tool used when it is convenient.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

Last Friday the British Prime Minister's Commission for Africa report was published amidst fanfare, even bluster and brave talk about 'new beginnings' and 'great opportunity.' The reaction has generally been mixed whether in Africa or globally, including Britain itself. This is largely because Africa and her momentous challenges have never lacked focus but have always been short-changed when it comes to concrete action to realise the often declared good intentions.

As someone who has been critical of the Commission as an unnecessary project; a waste of time, energy and money that could have been put to better use; and a diversion from what Africans are doing and want to do for themselves, there is not much in the report to make me lose my scepticism. It has actually triggered more questions.

In its description and analysis of the problems it has nothing new to say and modestly makes no pretence to do so. It is a good summary of what we already know. Perhaps it is in some of its recommendations that some tactical if not strategic shifts can be discerned. I say tactical because both the analysis and the suggested solutions are essentially still within the same neo-liberal, market-only ideological hegemony of these times.

It is still seeking to adjust Africa to global forces despite timid recognition in sections of the report that trade liberalisation, privatisation and the donor-driven market mantra have hugely contributed to the collapse of infrastructure, social lives and caused great deprivation in Africa. Just like we had dubious notions of 'adjustment with a human face' to offer palliatives for the atrocities inflicted on victims of IMF/World Bank SAP policies in the 80s, the Blair Commission may turn out to be offering us 'globalisation with some human faces'.

But even in these there are doubts as to the concrete action that will follow the 100 or so recommendations. I don't think anybody believes that all the recommendations will be acted upon, but a number of key ones will remain a focus of action. They include increases in aid, debt cancellation, trade distortions that prevent fair trade, corruption, good governance, peace and security and others.

Out of these even fewer may emerge dominant. Aid will remain very high because it will satisfy the instant gratification of 'wanting to do something’ and doing it now. Yet doubling or quadrupling aid is not the issue for as long as Africa and other poor countries are trapped in the structural iniquities of trade. The truth also must be told that some countries in Africa, especially mineral or resource rich ones like Nigeria, DRC or Angola, do not need aid - they need a functioning government. Indeed all of the countries will be better off with fairer trade than any volume of aid. Aid will only strengthen the hands of the new missionaries of Western NGOs and humanitarian interventionism in Africa.

There will be a lot of talk about reforming the unfair international trade and financial system but when the crunch comes self interest of the richer countries may not allow any serious movement.

Debt cancellation for all may become more fashionable in the discourse but debt relief with conditionalities may turn out to be what will be achieved since the US government is not likely to support the necessary reforms that may mean it is not able to punish its enemies and reward its friends. Yet universal debt cancellation will give every country an equal chance of a fresh start.

The other issues that may get more money thrown at them will be support for regional and sub-regional institutions including the African Union, especially on peace and security issues. This may not necessarily be due to any new commitment for lasting peace in Africa, but because they are cheaper and politically less volatile for Western countries whose governments are not willing to risk the lives of their citizens in 'far away' places like Africa. It is a return to praetorian functions at a multi lateral level. Otherwise why is the new love and admiration for Africa's role in peace and security issues not extended to include our right to self-determination in economic issues and how we govern ourselves?

'The taste of the pudding' the English say 'is in the eating.' Therefore it is in the national and international action that the Commission's report is able to provoke that will make critics like myself to either, (happily) eat humble pie or claim victory in saying 'we told you so'.

Even on the day of the report itself the omens were, contrary to the 'feel good about Africa' spin of the sponsors, not all good. For a report that took the bold step of acknowledging that there was nothing African about corruption and admits that it is systemic and has both African and non African actors and perpetrators it was very ironic that its activities were held at the British Museum, a place that has been a major beneficiary of looted historical and aesthetic assets from all over the world but especially Africa. Tony Blair could have shown some genuine remorse and willingness to really change things for the better by handing over some of these stolen treasures as a symbolic gesture that business will not continue as before.

And this for me is the core of the matter. The Commission's report will get more buy-in if Britain leads by example instead of sermonising and lecturing the rest of the world on being good or fair towards Africa. It can race fast to meeting its own Millennium Development Goal target of 0.7% of GDP as a contribution to global aid. At present it is hovering at around 0.4% and hopes to reach 0.7% by 2015! So why set new targets if you cannot reach existing ones?

The Museum of London may be a depository of looted historical treasures but the city of London itself is a major player in the systematic looting of Africa: direct theft by companies and corrupt African leaders, money laundering, fictitious transactions, etc. Britain can show real leadership by being the first country to implement the recommendation of the report that calls for repatriation of such looted funds to the countries they were stolen from and also punishing businesses, banks and finance houses that aid and abet bribery and corruption in Africa. If Britain can do this, a course of action that it does not need the support of anybody to embark on, it can then challenge other countries to follow its good example.

This leads us to the challenge of all challenges that the report faces. It is based on the assumed influence of Britain this year as the country heading both the EU and the G8 countries. But that influence will itself depend on how credible Britain is. Thus the personal standing of Mr Tony Blair cannot be divorced from the matter. It is no secret that he suffers an enormous international credibility deficit as a result of his uncritical support for Bush, who has so far given him nothing back in return. His credibility may improve if Bush could help him out on this subject, but we cannot hold our breath. So who will listen to Prophet Blair in his new missionary activity in Africa?

Even the British people who elected him and his party and may well do so again (there being no reasonable alternative) no longer trust him. His credibility among the Africans he now wants to save, is even less. For some time President Thabo Mbeki, The Renaissance Man of South Africa, was a close ideological soul mate, but the relationship fell apart both over unrealistic pressures to be a poodle to Blair in Zimbabwe and disappointments over NEPAD. Nigeria's Mr Know All, General Obasanjo, who also liked to see him as a chum, is more circumspect again due to hurting knees from KNEEPAD and Western reluctance and British lack of co-operation in getting Abacha's stolen Billions. To many African leaders Blair is viewed either with suspicion or incredulity or both. Many are wont to question his interest in Africa, the Messianic tone and his perceived. For Blair therefore it is not just that the prophet has no honour in his village - even outside his village nobody trusts him.

There are a number of spins around the report, which I find most disingenuous and which risk the backlash that overkill salesmen or women get from wary customers. One, it is constantly dropped on you that a majority of the 17 commissioners are Africans. This is supposed to confer African ownership on the report. Do they not know that the majority of the colonial officials and the slave captors and buyers before them were Africans?

Two, attention is also drawn to the fact that two serving African leaders participated in the Commission. Someone should tell Blair that signing up to good intentions has never been an issue with our leaders - action is where the challenge is. Many of them will jump at any opportunity to show a grateful nation that their Dear Leader is respected internationally and has friends in Washington, Paris or London! The same leaders signed up to the AU and NEPAD and somehow managed to forget to mention that when the call came through from 10 Downing Street. What is the point in agreeing on the vision, mission and strategic plan of the AU and accepting NEPAD and yet rushing to sign up to another report? It is like being invited to your own funeral. Many of these leaders will still say yes whenever another call comes through from some other do-gooders, especially from outside Africa.

Finally, this year is presented as a 'Make or Break year.' Does that mean that any African who wakes up on 1st January 2006 would have made it? In spite of all the apocalyptic scenarios a majority of our peoples will still be alive that day and going about their survival in the best way they can and I bet it will not be because of Blair's commission.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to

The relationship between many Africans and their governments is only comparable to the disillusion, distrust and suspicion that become the permanent bodyguards of a man or woman who has been jilted too many times.

If care is not taken such a person may not have any successful relationship again even when he or she meets the genuine person. The weight and hang ups of the past are such that they becloud the present and threaten future relationships. The alarm Bells are on 24/7 patrol singing: ‘not again’ or ‘once bitten twice shy’ or any other lyrics that warn against trust and building confidence. Just assume that the current relationship will end in the same bleak alley of past ones, do not raise your expectations and do not expect much. This defensive prop becomes a permanent shield against any disappointment.

Consequently potentially good and rewarding relationships are not given room for nurture and development. However as no human being is an island to himself or herself we are doomed to trust and take risks in sharing our lives with other people because without doing so whatever we may tell or convince ourselves about, our lives may never be complete.

Governments, like partners, are necessary evils. What can you do without them and what can you do with them?

How many Africans will run towards the police, the army or any of our security agencies when they are in trouble? Most of the time we are running away from them because if they are not the source of your problem you may compound your problem by running to them! That's why many Africans talk about ‘The Government’, ‘’Those in power’ or ‘The regime’, instead of ‘Our government’.

The alienation is not just against the coercive organs of the state. Even the civil arms of our governments are as anti people as their security counterparts.

Some years back I was amused by a friend, Dr Patricia Daley, who is a Geography Don at Oxford University (one of only two Black Africans who are full faculty members) when she asked me about the population of Nigerians in the United Kingdom. Apparently in the Census figures she was looking at at the time there were only 150, 000 Nigerians in the Queen's own country! I could not resist laughing because anybody familiar with the demography of Africans in Britain will know that even countries with a much smaller population in the UK than Nigeria (Uganda, Ghana or Sierra-Leone for example) will easily notch up that number and still be counting. So I told her maybe that was the number of Nigerians in Peckham or Dalston alone!

But what the figure showed was that many Africans even though part of Britain's ‘visible minority,’ were absent officially. Even our embassies cannot tell you how many of their citizens are resident in the United Kingdom or any country in the world for that matter. In some countries they do not even know what the actual population is anyway.

Many of these émigré Africans are directly or indirectly running away from their governments, therefore why should they go and register at their embassies or high commissions that they are there?

However Africa is changing and changing for the better and should and would continue to do so in spite of challenges here and there. This process requires new ways and cultivation of new attitudes in dealing with our governments and in the way our governments deal with us. There are good governments in Africa. There are reforming governments in Africa. Bad governance is receding even if at snail speed in some countries.

Look at the recent events in Togo. Baby Eyadema has been forced by sub regional and African consensus, to step down. Two weeks ago I wrote arguing that the military coup that led to him succeeding his could-not-have died-sooner dictator father, should and would not stand. There was no clairvoyance in that certainty. It was based on the good wind of change going across Africa. Because Africa was united in saying ‘No’ the rest of the world had no choice but to follow our consensus.

A few years ago this would not have been possible. Now that it is we should recognise it and work towards making this good practice standard practice. There is no point sniggering at it as many are doing. If we continue to see an unchanging or unchangeable Africa we are both undervaluing our democratic struggles and short charging our gains. Togo shows a new resolve on the part of Africans to enthrone constitutional rule in Africa. Even if Baby Eyadema is to be elected president after the transition it would have been done under the constitution, not military fiat.

We should not be timid or coy about praising our governments when they are doing well. We cannot build and institutionalise responsible government in Africa if we continue in the destructive culture of ‘Us’ and ‘them.’ Confrontation and condemnation should not be our first and only tool of engagement. We should seek co-operation where possible, embrace collaboration when desirable and embark on confrontation where and when necessary. These tactics and the strategies they demand need not be mutually exclusive. All of them are useful and necessary in building sustainable democratic societies and political communities that are at peace with them. We just need to deploy them where and when most applicable, or simultaneously at times.

Too much of our activism, especially in these days of professional foreign-controlled, donor-driven, materially -rewarding NGOism is too skewed in favour of oppositionism instead of positive engagement with our governments and institutions. You need to ask why European and American governments and charities should be arming you, aiding you and building your capacity to confront your own government? Why are they not building the capacity of Africans living in their own countries to be effective citizens where they are? Why should Africans or people of African origin in these countries be marginalised while they are promising you heaven on earth in Africa? Dependence on foreigners or their money will not build Africa. ‘Rome’, they say, ‘was not built in a day’, but the Romans were there and willing to build it.

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to