With Africa getting so little out of the commonwealth and the legacies of colonialism, Ronald Elly Wanda suggests Africans should rethink their commitment to this institution.

Since the statute of Westminster that stipulated the formation of the Commonwealth in 1931, the purposes; benefits, representations and agency as well as the so called ‘rewards’ of the union have remained issues of contestations. This year’s Commonwealth’s Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) to be held in Kampala, East Africa, rekindles this interest. In this edition, Wanda revisits the old debates and concludes that Africa needs to rethink its membership.

Every two years, fifty three heads of states belonging to a voluntary union known as the Commonwealth, (that lacks an official charter or a written constitution) gather at lavish hotels- that money can buy, in former and current British colonies, with the aim of discussing “common interests,” which often do not feature or entertain the needs of the most important person of all – the ‘common man’. As a Commonwealth citizen, the common man, (petty bourgeoisies’ and political elites asides), accounts for almost 30 percent of the total global population. Of the 1.8 billion Commonwealth residents, almost half continue to live below the poverty line, which the UN defines as living on less than a dollar a day. While at the same time, two thirds of the world’s HIV/AIDS cases and maternal deaths take place in countries subscribed to the Commonwealth, where it is also noted that more than half of the world’s 115 million children without education are to be found.

Last year, Uganda, according to the country’s foreign affairs minister, Sam Kutesa, was “blessed to be hosting the CHOGM (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting) and in particular, welcoming her majesty Queen Elizabeth of England”, who is also head of the union.

In Uganda, President Yoweri Museveni’s ruling party, the National Resistance Organisation (NRMO) since coming to power in 1986 has devised a strategy to distance itself explicitly from pro-mwanainchi (citizen) policies that promote social and economically redistributive justice, each and every time it has been made aware of capital mobility. The government’s handling of CHOGM preparations is a case in illustration. NRMO leaders have reoriented party policies towards the interests of any ‘real’ or imagined mobile fraction of capital, yet again at the expense of the hardworking Ugandan mwanainchi. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sam Kutesa said that 65 billion Uganda shillings were allocated for CHOGM activities for this financial year in addition to Ush37b for completion of State House. The meeting, according the government, is expected to attract around 3,000 to 5,000 visitors to Uganda and is expected to cost the poor Ugandan tax payer around Ush102b.

It is abundantly clear, especially for those who live in Uganda that times are increasingly hard for wanainchi (the common man) in today’s Uganda which exist on the periphery of an international economy that is staggering under the afflictions of a prolonged recession- recently demonstrated by the ongoing collapse of the American mortgage industry.

Is it not surely time for us to start questioning the viability of the Commonwealth? Given the negative historical facts that it represents? The union is an amalgamation of former as well as present British colonies, and as such is representative of the British Empire. As Africans are or ought to be too aware, we suffered and continue to suffer a great deal of pain caused by the plights of; slavery, then imperialism, colonialism, globalization and now commonwealthisation. All of these planks were dedicated to the sole objective of the brutal extraction of Africa’s wealth to Britain and at the same time the erosion of the African human dignity.

So, as today’s local imperial agents -President Museveni and his regiment entertain her majesty and “friends of Uganda” to the best of what the pearl of Africa has to offer, isn’t it high time we questioned the essence and representation of this imperialist institution? We need to look with suspicion at imperialist agents such as Museveni- the so called “darling of the west” for their real motivation in promoting anti-wanainchi and neo-liberal agenda at the expense of the common man in Uganda under the auspices of privatization, structural adjustment, market liberalization and foreign direct investment. All of which have harmed and continue to subject the common man in Uganda in abject poverty, whilst the Ugandan government posits its fictitious and impact-less 6.4 percent economic growth.

Uganda is capable of attracting foreign direct investment that has no colonial strings attached to it, China et al is one such example. That said, the rapid integration and enlargement of the East African Community ought to be a lauded affair not only for the countries concerned but for the whole of Africa, because it is the hard but necessary beginning for the unification of a sustainable Africa. From this connection, it is thus foreseeable that cultural imperialism perpetuated by Britain and culminated by its agents through its pet project the Commonwealth will be a thing of the past. For, the commonwealth has served only one primary purpose, that of presenting Britain as structurally superior and continuing the exploitation and extraction of the common man’s wealth to Britain. It is high time we valued the real common man by doing away with this demeaning institution.

*The writer is a political scientist based in London

*Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Referendums are the indulgence of governments who are confident that they will not loose. Such was the July referendum in Uganda, writes Ronald Elly Wanda, who says that the vote served as notice of President Yoweri Museveni’s candidacy for the impending 2006 elections. Wanda expresses concern at the undemocratic nature of Ugandan politics.

Since the dawn of political thought the question “who should rule?” has been a recurrent issue of argument and debate. More recently in East Africa, the referendum held on 28th of July in Uganda rekindles this interest. In the referendum the Ugandan electorate were asked to choose whether the state adopts a multiparty political system or continues with the existing mono (movement) arrangement. The result, as expected by the government was an overwhelming yes. According to the Electoral Commission chairman Dr Badru Kiggundu, 92.5% balloted yes whilst only 7.5% objected to altering the system. Understandably, without more ado, the opposition camp fittingly cited that the outcome was partly due to the fact that a large number of the 8.5 million electors stayed away from the 17000 polling stations.

As far as referendums are concerned, it is fair to say that governments tend to utilize them only when they are confident that they are in a strong position to win them. For instance in Britain, Tony Blair indefinitely postponed a planed referendum on the EU constitution, fearing defeat after it was clear that the French and Dutch nationals had rejected it. Five years ago Museveni, unlike Blair, knew that he would win when he petitioned Ugandans with the first referendum. As expected voters at that time again “overwhelmingly” rejected multi-party politics in favour of continuing with the President’s "no-party" system, the electoral commission then reported that 91% of voters favoured retaining the National Resistance Movement as the country's political system.

The purposes of the referendum for movementism in 2000 were as much the same as the now concluded referendum on multipartism. Only the ranks have been changed and the referendum question reversed. Thus they were a mere quantitative and not qualitative exercise; their real intentions designed to systematically marketise the “Kisanja project” (Museveni’s third term campaign) in time for the March 2006 presidential elections. Although the National Resistance Movement-Organisation (NRM-O) government would have Ugandans believe that the referendums were a result of yielding democracy, the reality is that external factors played a far more significant role. Furthermore, neither referendum had anything to do with enhancing the democratic franchise, in spite of the fact that the methodology employed (referendum) and the apparatus used (ballot vote) replicated a commotion in a liberal democratic system.

Democracy

Today only a few people in Uganda would admit to thinking that democracy is a bad thing. Nonetheless, the emergence of more than one recognised political grouping and the appearance of multi-party politics, as is the case now in Uganda, is not necessarily the same as democracy. There is thus a hazardous tendency to call a system ‘democratic’ simply because the incumbent government (in this case, NRM-O) says that it is.

A quick perusal of the history of democracy illustrates that it is a procedure that takes time. It also took time for a mature liberal democratic state such as England to realise democracy’s fruition. During the 17th century prior to the so called first democratic revolution, elite groups in England, regarded democracy as a threat to be overcome, and not a prospect to be encouraged. Indeed not so long ago in the 1940s the unrepentant imperialist Sir Winston Churchill when about to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire went on to confess that: “democracy was the least efficient form of government but that every other form was worse”.

In Uganda, as has been the case in almost all corners of Sub Sahara Africa, the process of democratisation has been unfairly pushed by international financial institutions (IMF, WB, WTO as well as the donor community) in order to fulfil their own agenda of “opening up Africa” to the global economy.

The result is best summed up by a key Nigerian political scientist Professor Claude Oke in 1993 when he said: “What is being fostered in Africa is a version of liberal democracy reduced to the crude simplicity of multiparty elections. This type of democracy in the least emancipatory especially in African conditions because it offers people rights they cannot exercise, voting that never amounts to choosing, freedom which is patently spurious, and political equality which disguises highly unequal power relations.” This is exactly what President Museveni is doing by reengineering the constitution to permit his third term candidacy and secondly by holding a meaningless referendum.

In order for democracy to be realised in Uganda, it must firstly be allowed to naturally evolve and secondly the law must be respected by all (including the President himself) as it is a key essential aspiration for democratic ideals. Decisions ought to be taken by the people. This means that:
- The mass of the people should have some say in what they are going to be, and not just told what they are as the July referendum did;
- This say should be genuinely theirs and also not manipulated by propaganda, misinformation and irrational fears; and that
- It should to some extent reflect their considered opinion and aspirations, as against ill informed and knee-jerk prejudice. Democracy being an evolutionary process, a democratic political culture ought to be encouraged and militarism discouraged.

Political culture

In Uganda since political independence in 1962 one finds that domestic socio-economic and political problems have been responsible in attracting military elements into usurping national political power. Indeed in the country’s last coup de tat in January of 1986, the incumbent president was seen as a political saviour whose NRM machination delivered Ugandans from a corrupt, and inept Dr Milton Obote’s UPC (Uganda People’s Congress) government. Resultantly, militarism has and continues to play a significant role in Uganda’s post –independence political culture. For instance the defence budget was $44m in 1991. It went up to $88m in 1996 and rose again to $155m in 2003. It was estimated at between $193 to $203m last year alone. According to tangible sources the cost of defence amounted to around 23% of the public administration to 20-23% of total expenditure. This is money that should have been better spent elsewhere, eradicating poverty and providing education and other rural developments.

Constitutionalism

Thus the process of democratisation in Uganda will continue being severely hindered unless the political culture of militarism is dismantled and the rule of law respected. NRM-O’s deliberate incapacitation of Article 105(2) of the 1995 Uganda constitution - that limits presidential terms to a maximum two five years, thus precluding Mr Museveni (who has been a continuous tenant of Nakasero State House since 1986) from contesting the March 2006 general elections - should serve as an indication of the President’s candidacy for the impending 2006 elections.

The Musevenisation of the Ugandan constitution should be condemned by all not only because it is undemocratic but also on the grounds that it is insincere. The long-term ramifications for Ugandans are that any future president might use this same clause to personalise constitutions to suit their individual needs- at the expense of the Ugandan mwanainchi (citizen). This is selfish and dangerous for it is the law that defines our responsibilities to the state and vice versa. Therefore it is also the law that provides for and defines the good of society. By contrast, the democratic justification of political power is essentially legalistic, being based on the legal idea of a contract.

Mr Museveni and his strategists have revised the terms of the contract (constitution) in the absence of the Uganda electorate, subsequently infringing the state/citizen contract. President Museveni’s has to a degree served Ugandans well but his quest for an extension is undemocratic and as such the preservation of the status quo sadly means that inhabitants of the “Pearl of Africa” may sadly never experience the pleasure of seeing an incumbent relinquishing political office voluntarily, thus rendering a coup inevitable.

* Ronald Elly Wanda is a political scientist based in London, United Kingdom.

* Please send comments to [email protected]

April 27 was Freedom Day in South Africa, a national public holiday to remember the first democratic elections held in the country eleven years ago. Celebrations took place country wide under the theme ‘Building a South Africa that Truly Belongs to All’. Ronald Elly Wanda visited South Africa last year. Here he reflects on his experiences and concludes that the country has a long way to go before it belongs to all of its people.

Earlier last year I was ill-fated for I missed an opportunity to meet up with some of Africa’s contemporary divas at Hammersmith’s world famous Shepherds Bush Empire (formerly Apollo theatre) in West London. Amongst the divas assiduously imported from rhythmic South Africa were two of my favourites; culturally electrifying Yvonne Chaka Chaka and politically inspirational and poetically soothing Miriam Makeba, the woman whom perhaps every right-thinking African school boy at some point tunefully fell for. Noticeably absent was Brenda Fassie owing to her poor health, she died three months after the event. She will be sadly missed by all who enjoyed her ecstatic and care-free style of music. The festivities were hosted by Republic of South Africa’s London consulate to honour the country’s 10th anniversary under Black rule and as a democratic state.

January of 2004 saw my first visit to South Africa or Azania, a place chock-full of political history and also social ills resultant from the devilish apartheid system. I had other prior rendezvous in Durban and later in Johannesburg, but as a political spectator I couldn’t resist the temptations of comparative politicking to try and weigh whether what the English professors have painted in their thrilling lectures and engaging books was actually anything closer to reality. I am not implying that what the armchair professors have reported are entirely wrong, but that it is sometimes qualitatively functional to hear the story from those who actually went through it. After all, Simeon Strunsky the essayist perhaps had me in mind when he remarked that “people who want to understand democracy should spend less time in the library reading Aristotle and more time on the buses and in the subways”.

My journey from London Heathrow to Johannesburg had been a fat circus right from the start. Day one, I missed my flight, due to Expedia’s (the internet travel agents) late communication to Virgin Atlantic who subsequently mishandled my E-ticket, not to mention the usual airport pressures.

Having spent a soporific night under the inept hands of Virgin Atlantic, I arrived at Johannesburg as scheduled. I was swiftly welcomed by the wonderful southern comfort (the weather not the drink!) that made me forget all about the horrible wintry English weather that I had left behind for the pitiable London inhabitants. Johannesburg airport’s layout, capacity and organisation are impressive and capable of giving one a counterfeit impression of having arrived in Amsterdam, Berlin or Venice and not geographically south of mother Africa.

Johannesburg, commonly referred to as the ‘city of gold’ is Azania’s biggest commercial centre; it is largely white and quite well to do. My stay at Sandton district was necessitated after a lengthy exploration that left me exhausted and disappointed in failing to find a place to stay in Johannesburg amongst “abantu” (people).

The neighbourhood of Sandton city (formerly Down-town) where I briefly resided boasts about everything that Soweto does not. Large and spacious houses, public parks which are not accessible to the general public, shopping malls, corporate headquarters, hotels and a large tax base to support ample amenities and services. Sandton city’s residents are predominantly white but one can find a few and occasional blacks who are considered better - off aka “Rand-lords”.

I didn’t have to walk very far from my transient residence to notice the huge electrified wall fencings that were supervised by Sandton’s very own police force. They reminded me of London’s city police, who keep watch over London’s fiscal constituency and are known for their brutality against ethnic minority communities. For a minute or so onward, I permitted my mind to wonder what it would have been like for me as a young black person or for that matter a black South African or just a black African caught by these largely white “heavy weaponry carrying” police force. Word has it that during the Apartheid regime the white dominated police force here when dealing with black people, were known to have employed a policy of “shoot first then ask questions later”. How times have changed, I thought to myself.

As elsewhere in Africa, the changes in South Africa came after a long and bruising fight by the people. Through liberation struggles, the working class, black women and the student movements amongst other groups of people fought a bitter war to liberate black people from the slaving system of apartheid. The outcome in South Africa was that Nelson Mandela in 1990 was released having spent 27 long years in prison, South Africa had its first ever democratic election that saw black people voting for the first time in 1994. Expectedly and unsurprisingly, Mandela and the ANC (African National Congress) won the elections overwhelmingly and Mandela became the country’s first democratically elected president. Having served his full term he was succeeded by the country’s vice president Thabo Mbeki in 1999, whose mandate got renewed in the middle of last year by the South African electorate.

Eleven years on, it is often common to come across books and discussion papers written by European and American armchair professors of African politics on how well South Africa is doing. I mean you walk into a library or a political or social forum and all you will see is; “The End of Apartheid”, “The fall of Apartheid”, “The politics of Apartheid”, “Mandela”, “Waiting: the White South Africans”, “The concise History of South Africa.”

I might upset some readers, but I am of the view that there were many concessions made in the run up to the political transition of 1994. Mandela and other leaders who led the liberation struggle abandoned the “real” fight for the people, that of social justice and equality of opportunity. For instance, the laws in South Africa today are formally ‘colour-blind’ and in some cases even promote affirmative action in favour of black people; however from what I saw in Soweto, and in Durban, the country remains an inequitable society. United Nations research has also categorised it as still amongst one of the most unequal in the world. Indeed, not so long ago a government minister was quoted as saying: “South Africa is sitting on a social time bomb”, clearly reflecting the concerns of the majority of poor black South Africans.

It is clear that the ANC has abandoned its core roots and energy - the poor people. The ANC party was born socialist but later adopted capitalism and endorsed the neo-liberal agenda, whose fruit we know is exploitation of the people. The ANC’s economic policy emphasis on market liberalization and tight government control on spending has meant that the working class and poor who are mostly black South Africans have to bear the cost of its conservative economic policy.

I recall one prominent South African panellist during a seminar in London that I chaired, noting that: “Post Apartheid policy makers drew all the wrong lessons from ‘international experience’, and hence have prepared to amplify rather than correct apartheid capitalism’s main economic distortions”.

The compromises made by the ANC government since 1994 has not delivered higher living standards and its systematic ideological conversion has pronounced many people who are already poor into further poverty. My former tutor Professor Heather Deegan in her book “The Politics of the New South Africa” agreeably notes that: “When it comes to education, the legacy of apartheid is still evident in many places. Many children continue to study under the tree, in dilapidated buildings and without appropriately trained teachers. Some schools are hollow shells without even the most basic equipment and few textbooks.”

For if we are to truly judge whether present day South Africa is democratic or not we need to look at the primary essence of democracy. The essential aspirations of democratic ideals are that decision ought to be taken by the people. Secondly, this means that the mass of the people should have some say in what they are going to be, and not just told what they are. Thirdly, this decision should be genuinely the peoples; it should not be manipulated by propaganda, misinformation and irrational fears. And fourthly it should to some extent reflect the peoples considered opinions and aspirations. In my view none of the above tenets are apparent in present day South Africa. This is because the only way we are going to fully realise democracy in Africa is when collectivism prevails, in other words a government by the people for the people.

In this light, it is easy to comprehend the argument of two amongst many of Mbeki’s critics, Professors Dani Nabudere and Patrick Bond – who have articulated that the persuasive powers of the World Bank and IMF - are partly to blame for the fact that a decades old liberation movement disappointed its constituents entirely reasonable aspirations within months of coming to state power.

The exchanges I received whilst in Soweto were enough to make me defend the view that the poor men and women in the townships have got no reason to be cheerful - in spite of ten years of Mandela and Mbeki neo-liberal regimes. For the poor are still poor and the Rand-lords as in Sandton are still getting richer. The liberation struggle ought to continue, free enterprise ought to be dejected whilst collectivism encouraged in order for Africa to fully realise egalitarianism. After all in terms of natural resources Africa is the richest continent in the world. Why are its inhabitants incessantly in poverty?

* Ronald Elly Wanda is a Political Scientist based in London, UK.
[email][email protected]

* Please send comments to [email protected]