Changing Governments: Is it for the Good or Worse?

Jacob Waiswa
Peace and Conflict Center
P.O. Box 7062,
Makerere University
Kampala-Uganda
jwaiswa@arts.mak.ac.ug

In Africa, change of leadership arose only when kings or chiefs died. The opening of the continent to the rest of the world through exploration and missionary work opened room for democracy and the different philosophies of governance.

The new philosophies, however, created long-term conflicts with the African governance and organizational arrangement. Until now, conflict in Africa has been linked with the interruption of the traditional sociopolitical and socioeconomic arrangements.

Most regions in African have not coped with the western democracy norm while a few others resist it as inappropriate for Africa. The first phase of the encounter was resistance of the new leadership and governance philosophies as they were spread all over Africa.

Upon rupturing them (original arrangements), the next phase that followed was eventual destruction of African indigenous systems –which leveled the power structure –to begin an era of power struggle between the elitist and traditionalists, the introduction of militarism and coup de tats, war business and, now, politics of corruption.

At all sociopolitical, socioeconomic and cultural transformations fronts, there have been some changes of government in an attempt to test a new governance approach that could wipe out socioeconomic problems –a meeting point for misery in Africa.

Unfortunately, different governments –be it hybrid monarchies, communist democracies, or capitalist democracies have not duly satisfy the needs of the Africans as the very original kingly or chiefly arrangement.

Unlike before, today, those in positions of responsibility make it an agenda to siphon national resources as much as possible to selfishly end up filthily rich –as a symbol of power. Some ideological experiments have proved worst in world history, for example, western capitalist converted Mobutu Seseseko of former Zaire.

At national level, the politics of defection in Ugandan blew up political personalities like Wasswa Ziritwawula, a former NRM Mayoral contender and Al-hajji Nasser Ssebagala recently –who joined the ruling party to eat and got blown to insignificant point. One commentator said that they are where they exactly belong.

Particularly pleasing today, and have made a positive impression upon becoming members of parliament are; Moses Balyeku (MP, Jinja Municipality West) and Al-haji Mohammed Nsereko (MP, Kampala Central) –who despite belonging to a part of self-seekers, have vowed to truly represent grassroots people. It is a legacy in the making the lasts forever for generations to pick from.

But, as many Africans received education in western theories and models of leadership, the western capitalist democracy became the ideal governance system while some African elites opted for a cross-breed between the new and the old (African traditional approaches). President Robert Mugabe and the embattled Libyan president Col. Muammar Gadaffi did the cross-breed while ensuring that the dominant gene was the African one.

That, though, did not save the situation. They became a future target for a reinvigorated spread of western democracy. The challenge to ideological imperialists then was difficulty finding royal agents and candidates for future regimes in Africa that purely thought and acted likes them (westerners).

That meant that fighting the regime in power alone was not enough, but the life of the country after the regime was deposed. The revolution in Egypt had the same challenge –where the revolutionaries were proved best only at organizing successful protests but not to provide better leadership.

While Egypt managed to stabilize politically in many other contexts stability remains a dream even after years of attractive liberation messages by liberators. Dissidents to the current regime in Kampala lament that: while fighting to liberate the country together with the current leaders, they had the best package for the nation.

And that, years later power corrupted those in government when the regime digressed from its formerly evangelized principles of democracy, transparency leadership and the rule of law, and rather made themselves be in the same positions as the same regimes they overthrew out of power by force.

In one case of college politics, discontent about the student leadership was answered by a well calculated coup d’état in which a student a prominent change agitator made an eloquent speech to justify immediate change.

To that assertion, the electorate agreed. It was followed by a call for nominations of able men and women to replace the corrupt leadership, which too was a success. Next on the agenda was setting of new guidelines for the new leadership that included the principles of accountability and transparency.

When work began under the close monitoring eyes of the revolutionaries, they too despite pledging to be transparent and account for utilization, they were not any different. In other words the change did not change anything but provided continuity!

In Africa, the elements of accountability are technical and beyond redress by education –most of the leaders have. When absorbed by power, leaders forget the principles that were a basis for their rise and, eventually, become a disappointment to the nation. Real education can thus be one conducted to government officials while in power rather than before they rise and get the power.