AU threatens critical voices

The political environment in Africa is changing. African leaders have finally agreed to abandon the Organization of African Union (OAU) to form a new body, the Africa Union (AU), that will have more influence on member states than its predecessor.

The launching of the new AU in Durban next week will introduce new organs that will deal with what African leaders have identified as major problems facing the continent, such as violence, poverty and other problems.

This changing political environment poses a new challenge for African civil society to ensure the protection of human rights and freedoms that the new political landscape threatens.

Bad governance, corruption in government, lack of transparency and accountability, which resulted in the alienation of many governments from their people: these are some of the common features in many African states. Coupled with these is despondency and repression of opposition and critical voices. The denial of space for opposing views and despondency that often results in economic and social instability has often resulted in political violence that has characterized the continent’s politics for almost last half of the 20th century.

Several African countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, the Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Senegal to mention but a few have experienced military coups while several others have gone through major political crisis. It is claimed that the AU will correct these continental faults by having structures that would deal with these problems.

Central to the formation of the AU is the desire to improve the economic conditions of the continent through the New Economic African Partnership (Nepad). Whether this will be achieved is subject to debate, but what is however certain is that human rights will suffer and space for engagements will be narrowed, further alienating the state from the people. History has shown that the introduction of Economic Structural Adjustments Programmes, under the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB) in most African country has resulted in increase in attacks on labour movements and opposition. Governments have also shut out critical voices and become less accountable and transparent in order to please the multinationals. It is critical to ask whether the AU will manage to facilitate economic systems that are fair and just, particularly for the continent’s poor. Also critical is the need to question some of the grand plans to put in place a continental justice system whose stated aims will be to maintain ‘stability’ and ensure justice. It may be argued that some of the provisions that the Constitutive Act provides such the African Court of Justice and the Standing Peace Keeping Force will only further repression of opposition and critical voices. The repression will enable powerful countries such as South Africa and Nigeria, which are leaders in advocating the formation of AU, to gain access to the resources of the poorer countries without opposition.

The AU will have the power to send peacekeeping forces into member states whenever there is a civil or political unrest. Previously, these peacekeeping troops have been used to protect narrow economic interests. For example, the Zimbabwean government, which is involved in the Great Lakes conflict, has been accused of looting the resources of the Democratic Republic of Congo in the name of peacekeeping. The real motives of South Africa’s military involvement during the aborted coup in Lesotho were exposed to have been a cover to protect its economic interests at Katse Dam.

Like the Structural Adjustments Programmes, Nepad is by far not a home brewed solution. It depends on western governments and institutions for financial backing. This will open the floodgates for influence from western governments that are increasingly moving to the right of the political spectrum. The argument by the Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi that Nepad is inviting racists and colonisers back into the continent is worth taking into consideration. Locally, many civil society organisations and activists have echoed this argument.

The AU’s objectives are far-reaching. They range from achievements of greater unity and solidarity between the African counties and the peoples of Africa to the protection of the rights of the African people.

The Nepad document assumes that the creation of the AU will result in protection of human rights. Yet, governments which will form the AU are responsible for human rights violation and bad governance, most of them through doing that as result of Structural Adjustment Programmes that Nepad is now legitimising. It also needs to be stated that some of these governments have committed some of the hideous human rights violations while receiving support from influential Western powers. What is clear to many people is that there is a need for mechanisms through which the civil society can protect itself from state abuse.

The AU takes on board governments with severe problems of governance and long records of human rights abuse. The only country that the AU excluded is Madagascar simply as a result of the confusion that is happening regarding last year’s presidential elections.

The Republic of Congo, Angola and Zimbabwe to mention but a few have all been accepted into the AU despite outcries of human rights violations and bad governance. This raises questions about the standards on which good governance and human rights abuse are based as far as the AU is concerned.

It is doubtful that the AU’s will be in a position to deal with the problems that face the continent. If despots and corrupt governments are part of the new AU, it means the organisation has a level of tolerance for them, or there are no mechanisms to deal with them.

Protection of the rights of the people cannot be achieved through governing structures alone. Civil society has to play a major role to insure that the rights of communities and individuals are protected. But the AU, even before its launch has already shown that it will not entertain civil society participation and has co-opted those some.

Diary

Local government workers strike enter fourth day

The government has deployed military troops in Durban, KwaZulu Natal, to stop municipality workers who are on strike to interfere with the cleaning of the city. Around the country at least eight people have been injured and about 100 were arrested in a strike that has entered its third day. This is according to the Sowetan newspaper of July 5 2002. The charges against arrested protestors range from damage to property, contravening Road Traffic Act, and causing a health hazard.

The South African Workers Union embarked on a national strike after wages negotiations with the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) collapsed.

SABC news boss leaves

The South African Broadcast Corporation (SABC) news head, Barney Mthomboti, has left the national broadcaster citing political interference as the reason for his resignation. According to the Sowetan (July 4 2002) and Citizen (July 5 2002) newspapers government officials visited the broadcaster to express their concern about coverage they receive from the public broadcaster. The government is reported to be unhappy with the screening of Grootvlei Prison videotape that showed corrupt prison officers selling drugs and guns to inmates and also arranging sex between inmates.