During the early 1990s there was optimism over the “ new generation” of leadership in Africa. This optimism was soon concluded as premature as this “new generation” of leaders went back to the old ways of the independent leaders. That is because most of them resorted back to some form of dictatorship rather than having multiparty elections. This obviously was not only a disappointment to young Africans aspiring for a more liberal governance but was also devastating to the North. But this disappointment soon shows its true face as the double nature of the liberal agenda” writes Tina Mbachu

African leadership: It’s a family affair?

Maybe not. But one still has to admit that the current and past leadership on the continent needs to make way for the younger ones. There seems to be an underlying understanding that in order to be one of those leaders, certain prerequisites apply; mainly to be in your 50s and have accumulated some vast amount of history dating back to the days of independence. Excuse me but a leader with a dated mentality will not exactly do good, though i am sure some of them have.

During the early 1990s there was optimism over the “ new generation” of leadership in Africa. This optimism was soon concluded as premature as this “new generation” of leaders went back to the old ways of the independent leaders. That is because most of them resorted back to some form of dictatorship rather than having multiparty elections. This obviously was not only a disappointment to young Africans aspiring for a more liberal governance but was also devastating to the North. But this disappointment soon shows its true face as the double nature of the liberal agenda.

Lets take Cameroon as an example. The leader, Paul Biya has been the leader ever since I could remember, about twenty years now and more. And yet he is deemed by the West as a democratic leader. Why is this? Mainly because he is a proud supporter of the liberal market. Cameroon’s five year development plans are concluded with consultation from the World Bank and IMF. This has left most of the enterprises within the country in the hands of foreign companies, mainly French companies. With IMF’s  religious beliefs in privatization, the poor are becoming poorer and the industries are dying. And yet Biya’s reign remains unchallenged by the west.

Aside from all of this, if one is to consider the manner in which he rules: changing the constitution and adding to his terms in office, spending a six month vacation with his wife; who by the way has also developed this love of skin bleaching that blagues most African women these days, past and present. Anyways, within the entire nation his strongest opponents stem from the anglophone population who benefit the least from any development policy he proposes, while the Anglophone population seems contempt to have him as the head of state.

Although Biya’s abuse of power was non-violent, it does not make it more acceptable than any other African leader, like Mobutu, who has abused the power given to them for their own benefit.  The “new generation” of African leaders of the 80s and 90s obviously have failed their own people in delivering any kind of development. Yoweri Museveni of Uganada, Paul Kagame of Rwanda, Meles Zenewi of Ethiopia, and of course J.K.Rawlings of Ghana soon added to that list. Although the latter doesn’t belong in the same category as the first three listed. All of this is to say that these individuals became leaders of their respective countries because they were supposedly devoted to fostering democracy. Now what one sees is the abuse of power for the neglect of the people.

Now, lets consider someone as Mugabe. He too is a dictator who has been accused to be against his own people, though this is highly contested. Maybe less so than Biya’s neglect of the anglophone population of Cameroon. The case of Mugabe is of course much more intense given the UK’s and USA’s agenda to destabilize the country and promote its liberal agenda as it tries to achieve land reforms. Within this context overt attacks from the media and NGO’s supported and paid for by the west (both in and of Zimbabwe) have assisted in de-humanizing Mugabe. Putting each citizen against the other. One is pan-African and has a different view of who is an African while the other beliefs in an Utopic universe where two opposites work besides each other. All of this aside, it is not debatable that Mugabe has used up all the power he had, and consequently his agendas will gain very few support.

It also comes down to the issue that even though some African leaders are clearly dictators hiding under the guise of free trade and all of that fair competition language, the West has chosen where to intervene in the name of human rights and where to be silent. This not only demonstrates the other side of liberalism but also demonstrates which African leaders are big belly seekers.