“No, No, We Won’t Go”: Why Some African Presidents Refuse to Retire.

The phrase “No, No, we won’t go” was chanted back in the 1960s. It came to mind as I read a piece in the Economist (March 15-17, 2008) about debates currently taking place in Cameroon on Presidential Term limits. The title of the piece is “Another President who won’t go” (p. 49-50). The Economist reported that on February 24th and 25th violent protests broke out in Douala, Cameroon commercial capital in response to Cameroon’s President, Paul Biya’s hint that “he might stay on for a third term of another seven years.” President Biya has presided over Cameroon for 25 years. A new constitution which came into force in 1996, limits the President to only two terms. For the 75 years old President “not to go”, the constitution will have to be changed to allow him to stay.

Aside from reporting about the Mayhem that followed the President’s hint and about the weakness of the opposition parties challenging the ruling party nothing is said to enlighten readers about why the President of Cameroon won’t go. This phenomenon is not endemic to Cameroon.[1] To understand this phenomenon, the hold on power, one has to put it in the proper context.

Old men of Africa, most of whom are in their late seventies or in their eighties have ruled for over two decades. Most of these Rulers have come to power on the heel of independence with the blessing of their citizens. Having one of their own with no clear tie and in opposition to the colonial power that ruled the country was hailed by one and all. Expectations ran high. Rulers and subjects had great hopes for their countries and at the beginning it looked that way. But then the hope dashed, the expectations were not fulfilled. What went wrong?

To be “scientific” one need to examine a country by country experience. This clearly is not the place. Two excellent books. “The Fate of Africa, From the Hopes of Freedom to the Heart of Despair: A History of 50 years of Independence” (2005) by Martin Meredith and “A Continent for the Taking: The Tragedy and Hope of Africa” (2004) by Howard W. French provide a clear picture and documentation of many a tragedy.

In this space what may be instructive is to show that the “hold” on power is to be expected. Data compiled by Banks[2] gives information on the ruler’s tenure for almost all countries in the world over the period 1815-1999. When this data is combined with the Freedom House rating of freedom over the period 1973-2006 (a range from 1 to 7: 1 is free and 7 is not free) a clear picture emerges. Consider the following nine African countries: Botswana, Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritius, Mozambique, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Botswana is rated as FREE with a score of 2.0; since 1980 it had two turnover of rulers. Cameroon has a rating of 6.0 (not free) with one turnover of power since 1980; Ghana gets the FREE label (score 1.5) with two turnover of tenure in 1981, 1984 although no change in tenure for 1990-1999. Kenya as classified as partly free with a score of (3.0) although it shows no change in tenure since 1978. Mauritius id FREE with 2.0 score and since 1980 had experienced two turnovers in rulers, in 1982 and in 1999. Mozambique is given the score of 3.5 as partly free with turnover in 1986, but no change in the period 1990-1999. South Africa gets a score of (2.0) with three turnovers over the period 1980-1999. Uganda is classified as partly free (4.5) with no turnover in ruler’s tenure over the period 1990-1999 although it shows four changes from 1980-1989. Zimbabwe had one change in 1980 and Mugabe’s tenure is 28 years and counting.

These examples highlight one of the fundamentals behind the “no go” phenomenon. FREEDOM with all its ramifications is the most significant factor in determining the staying power of a ruler. Freedom is much more than simply conducting an election. It involves the guarantee of political rights (electoral process, political pluralism, and participation) and civil liberties (free and independent media, freedom of assembly and open public discussion, rule of law and individual rights). Few of these rights have been met in many Sub-Saharan Africa countries despite the fact that elections are held, opposition parties participate but the outcome somehow is seen to be preordained. The present Ruler either “win” not “fairly” and squarely the opposition either attacked, silenced or jailed (see Howard French).

One needs to give details about what goes on before and during an election many African countries. There is a saying that “power corrupts”. This is true when one looks at executive tenure in undemocratic regimes as well as in some of the world democracies. The election for the office of President in the US, runs in the billions and more often than not it costs the contender millions of dollars in out-pocket, (not to mention the wear and tear the candidate undergo). Look no further than the rate of return on the investment reaped by Presidents and ex-Presidents. This return is much valued when a ruler is transformed from the status of an ordinary citizen with modest means to the status of a “mogul” with the nation’s wealth under his/her sole control. It is ironic that the Governors and ex-Governors would show no indignation at the outright “abuse” and “blunder” of the wealth by a ruler in a state where the phrase “no, no we won’t go” is heard. Exposing this abuse by insisting that the “net worth” of a ruler be revealed for his/her admission in the world community would go a long way in changing the behavior of those rulers who wouldn’t go.
[1] Remember what happened in the presidential election in Kenya and now it is Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe to orchestrate a win in the run off election for President.
[2] Cross-National Time-Series Data Archive, Copyright (c) 2001 Arthur S. Banks.