In Ivory Coast last year, incumbent president Laurent Gbagbo’s rejection of the victory of his political challenger, Alassane Ouattara, led to a four-month standoff that brought the country to the brink of renewed civil war. Hundreds of thousands were displaced, and thousands were killed. Last spring in Nigeria, following news that incumbent president and southern Christian Goodluck Jonathan had won the presidential contest, anger in northern states originally directed at the ruling People’s Democratic Party mutated into religious and ethnic violence that left an estimated one thousand people dead.

Yet, for Americans, elections are a good thing. They define democracy. In school, American children learn about the gradual expansion of suffrage to almost all citizens. Americans also think that elections are decisive, which means that, at least in theory, if a candidate wins office by one vote, he or she wins. But there is a deeply ingrained respect for the rights of losers—and a recognition that they might be the winner next time. Americans are not keen on power sharing, even if a poll is close. Instead, the losers wait for the next election and try again.

This willingness to relinquish power and wait patiently for the next election is rooted in shared American values and well-developed civic identities (in spite of current divisions in Congress). Further, there is the expectation that elections in the United States will happen—no matter what. It is well known that during World War II, Americans did not postpone elections, and there were elaborate arrangements to allow those serving in the armed forces to vote. Accordingly, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to a fourth presidential term, defeating New York governor Thomas E. Dewey. But few probably remember that presidential elections were also held on schedule in the United States during the Civil War, with Abraham Lincoln defeating General George B. McClellan. The contest was real: Lincoln thought he would lose.

Hence, it is no surprise that, in the postcolonial era, official U.S. policy in Africa has been to do what it can to promote free, fair, and credible elections. In Nigeria, for example, the United States has contributed millions of dollars toward elections since the restoration of civilian government, mostly in support of Nigerian and American nongovernmental organizations working to make elections meet international standards. In Ivory Coast, the Obama administration provided generous support to the United Nations as it organized the November 2010 elections.

However, unlike the United States, many African countries are profoundly divided, with longstanding grievances, weak institutions, and nascent, if any, national identity. This is compounded by the preponderance of “winner takes all” politics. When losing an election means losing access to patronage, competitors are willing to risk anything. They will mobilize divisions within society, whether ethnic, religious, or regional, to protect their access to state wealth and power. An abundance of unemployed and often uneducated youth is a particularly destabilizing force, easily manipulated by politicians seeking to intimidate or attack rivals.

Some observers have suggested that in the African context, the emphasis on elections is an example of Western cultural imperialism, of the West’s imposing its value system and political practices where they may not be appropriate. Critics will argue that for elections to work there must be a sense of national identity, the rule of law, a certain level of education, and sufficient economic development to allow voters to make a free choice and not feel beholden to their boss, patron, or ethnic leader. These prerequisites are incomplete in much of sub-Saharan Africa.

The trouble with this argument is that Africans themselves wholeheartedly embrace elections as a way to express their will. Indeed, in Ivory Coast the electoral turnout was unprecedented: at least 80 percent of registered voters cast their ballots. In Nigeria in 2007 and 2011, turnout was low—because of the widespread perspective that elections would not matter and a fear of violence. But, in the past, turnout has been high. In fact, given the opportunity, Africans are likely to vote with enthusiasm.

So, if Africans embrace elections, who are outsiders to say that they are inappropriate? The discussion of “Asian values” more than twenty years ago advanced the notion that despite countries’ economic progress, “cultural” barriers to democracy and elections existed in such places as Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand. Yet look at where many of these countries are now: there is little question they are more democratic than during the height of the “Asian values” debate. They are not perfect democracies, but then neither is the United States, France, or the United Kingdom.

Further, alternative models of governance in sub-Saharan Africa are less attractive than admittedly defective democratic ones, particularly over the long term. The most common alternative has been military rule, where the military comes to power to “clean up” a “mess” made by civilians. But military rulers often hold on to power as long as they can and become progressively more oppressive. Hence, in Nigeria, the mild regimes of Yakubu Gowon and Murtala Muhammed were ultimately followed by the alleged kleptocracy of Ibrahim Babangida and the savage oppression of Sani Abacha. And, with one short civilian interregnum, the military kept power for a generation, all the while proclaiming that it was “restoring” democratic rule even as many of the colonels became rich.

And, despite the gloom of Ivory Coast and Nigeria, there are numerous examples of successful elections. Ghana is remarkably similar to Ivory Coast in its divisions, yet it has had a series of successful elections. Liberia was a victim of “big man” politics for years, yet the election of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in 2005 was seen by Liberians as credible, and the 2011 polls look promising. There is also South Africa, where every election since the end of apartheid in 1994 has been regarded by international observers and South Africans themselves as legitimate.

So, rather than succumbing to Afro-pessimism, what should Africa’s friends do to promote democracy and free, fair, and credible elections? Western democracies should continue to support African civic organizations that are working for credible elections, the rule of law, independent judiciaries, and democracy. These organizations often operate on a shoestring, limiting their capacity, but in some countries (Nigeria, for example) they have strong grassroots support. Western donors should provide political and material assistance to African judiciaries as well. For example, the international community should not hesitate to speak out about the intimidation of African judges or juries. On the practical and concrete side, when international donors supply word processors to a court, they assist in speeding up the judicial process—and the delivery of justice. This reinforces the rule of law.

When governments are involved in election rigging, the international community should disapprove publicly and withhold official expressions of congratulations to the victor. In the same vein, outside democratic governments should be leery of supporting “governments of national unity,” which enable “big men” who have lost credible elections to stay in power largely because they are willing to resort to violence. Governments of national unity in Zimbabwe and Kenya have done little to promote democracy or to resolve fundamental political issues. (They did reduce—though not eliminate—the violence in the short term.)

These steps are not dramatic, nor are they glamorous. For Americans, it may be uncomfortable to acknowledge that their ability to influence the growth of democracy and the rule of law in Africa is limited. It is Africans who will build both, in their own ways and with their own visions. Democracy was not built in a day in the United States. Likewise, it may take some time for Africans to develop the institutions necessary for smooth democratic transitions. But they will do it, and the United States should continue to assist in the small ways it can.

Authors: John Campbell is a Ralph Bunche Senior Fellow for Africa Policy Studies and Asch Harwood, Research Associate, both at the American think-tank, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Markets and Democracy Briefs are published by CFR’s Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy initiative. They are designed to offer readers a concise snapshot of current thinking on critical issues surrounding democracy and economic development in the world today.

Aid agencies are getting some food and medical supplies through, but many of those dying and at risk are in areas deemed too perilous for the aid agencies to operate in. The Islamist al-Shabaab movement is active in these areas and does not want Western or Christian-based organisations operating there. Aware of the hostility of the West towards it and the role of the USA in encouraging Ethiopian involvement in the Somali conflict, the movement sees any Western role as aimed against it. So the complex politics of the conflict and the actions of one movement in its own interests are endangering life.

Aid has been pledged by Britain and other Western countries and in larger amounts by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. But it just can’t get through to where it is most needed.

When the rebellion began in Libya, Benghazi was a centre of opposition to Gaddafi and he pledged and prepared to crush the opposition violently. His forces moved from Tripoli to Libya’s second city with the intention of using all possible means to wipe out dissent.

The West and the world acted. At the behest of the USA, France, Britain and other NATO members, resolution 1973 was drawn up by the UN Security Council to allow the use of ‘all necessary measures’ to protect Libyan civilians from the wrath of their leader. This was interpreted as a carte blanche for a major British and NATO air assault which destroyed Libya’s air defence infrastructure, weakened its military power and to directly attack Libyan government units and armour.

The operation has been costly and it has saved lives – thousands of them. In June, the UK ‘s Ministry of Defence announced that the operation had cost £250million – the cost could reach one billion pounds by the time the transitional authorities have complete control.

The second-in-command of the British air force, Air Chief Marshal Sir Simon Bryant, has said that coming on top of operations in Afghanistan, the Libyan mission is placing a ‘huge’ demand on Britain’s resources. In June, the head of the UK’s Royal Navy Admiral, Sir Mark Stanhope, wondered how sustainable the current military operations were, saying the Government would have to make ‘challenging decisions’ if the Libya mission lasted more than six months. We’re now in the seventh month and the Western forces are still involved in Libya.

Once the current phase of the conflict ends it is inconceivable that the British will just walk away. The chief of Britain’s armed forces and army chief, General Sir David Richards, publicly rebuked the navy chief saying the operation would be sustained as long as necessary. But for how long and in what way in coming months.

So, the decision was made and is being sustained to save Libyan lives. Yet, despite Britain being at the head of Western donors in helping to combat the famine, it seems to have accepted that an armed rebel group can dictate where and to whom aid is delivered. Far more lives are at risk daily in the region than during the Libyan conflict’s most violent phases. During his visit to Mogadishu in mid-August, Britain’s International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell MP said ‘The stark fact is that in southern Somalia the situation is deteriorating by the day. We could face deaths on a similar scale to those seen in 1991-2 if we do not act urgently now. This is a race against time.’ But he then admitted that more security was needed to protect humanitarian workers. The British government says UK support offered to Somalia to since July now amounts to £54million. But how effective can it be when the large parts of the country are off limits to aid groups and the weak Somali government?

Britain has established military links with Kenya – carrying out live-firing military exercises, army engineering projects and other military-related activities every year. The United States has military facilities at Mombasa. There is a basic infrastructure there that could be used for a humanitarian security operation – not an operation to support a government, secure resources or fight any one group – but an operation to protect and enable the distribution of aid to the hungry, sick and dying. Kenya has indicated it wants some sort of security buffer in Jubaland in the south to prevent insecurity and Islamist militias moving south towards its borders.

So why has there been no suggestion of a Western or British military role in getting the aid through and saving lives? Are Somali lives worth less than Libyan ones? A cynic would say that Somalia has no oil and so is not as important as Libya and that saving lives is not a part of the equation.

When the United States, Britain and its allies invaded Iraq, the justification was security – Iraq was accused of having weapons of mass destruction, of repressing its own population and of being a threat to regional security. No one is suggesting that WMD are part of the equation in Somalia, but the denial of life-saving aid is the worst form of repression or brutality towards your own people and the situation in Somalia is a major security threat along the Indian ocean littoral and to neighbouring countries – notably Kenya and Somalia. The piracy problem off the coast of Somalia, northern Kenya and spreading up towards Yemen and out towards Indian Ocean Islands is serious. Kenya is experiencing growing insecurity in the northern areas bordering Somalia – whether as criminal insecurity as in the cases of recent murder and kidnappings of tourists or the threat of insurgency spreading into Kenya.

New Africa Analysis asked General Sir David Richards and the UK’s department for international development to respond to these growing security and aid questions, but none was available for comment.

The 2012 presidential candidate for the opposition Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP), Julius Maada Bio, on the campaign trail in the SLPP heartland of Bo in the Southern Province in September with his supporters, crossed swords with stalwarts of the party in power, the All People’s Congress (APC). The new SLPP presidential candidate was injured in the process. In retaliation, the APC’s local headquarters was razed to the ground.

There were heated arguments over who was responsible for the violence. But the Independent Investigation Panel, headed by Awoko newspaper publisher Kelvin Lewis, found that the APC, SLPP and the police were partly to blame for the confrontation. While the APC and SLPP were culpable, the police were just incompetent – abjectly failing to nip the violence in bud. The media, too, were equally responsible because of their irresponsible use of language and lack of ethical probity, the Panellists found.

Valentine Esegragbo Melvine Strasser was the world’s youngest head of state when, at just 25, he and his military colleagues usurped power in Sierra Leone in 1992. Yet, since he lost power his country has treated him like a nobody, giving him no support emotionally, financially or physically and leaving him facing a life of poverty.

The government in Sierra Leone often talks at length about how it wants to focus on reconciliation between the different parties, bringing people closer together. How can this happen when people who were once such important personalities and drivers of progress are pushed to one side and forgotten about?

Strasser joined the military at 18 and served his country in Liberia and against the rebels of the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone. Some argue that at just 25 he was too naïve and didn’t possess the skills or knowledge to deal with the mechanism of government.

Despite his unfaltering loyalty to his country, Strasser has had a far from easy life. After spending several tough years living and travelling abroad, he moved from a position of complete power to a fallen man who faced unfortunate and stressful events over which he had no control. He has even faced rejection from his erstwhile military colleagues.

Who could have imagined that after four years serving his people this change in fortune would leave a previous head of state alone and facing poverty? Some say that it is obvious that the present government should step up to the mark and provide Strasser with the necessary help and support accorded former heads of state.

Just a small amount of financial support, medical care, and recognition of his contribution to progress would at least show some respect to one that served the country in the past; it would also go a long way in the country’s healing and reconciliation process.

Nevertheless, Strasser sees the positive side of life and acknowledges that the youth are the future. Although he no longer has a lot to offer financially, he is still willing to give his time to help people in his community better themselves. When New Africa Analysis spoke to Strasser it was very clear that he has firm views on what needs to happen for the country to make progress.

It is clear that his change of circumstances have deeply affected him as an individual, both materialistically and physically. Although you will still find him profoundly interested in Sierra Leonean politics, as well as in what is happening elsewhere around the world, you can still see the emotional scars that have been left behind after the harsh way he was rejected by his colleagues and successive governments that have failed to accord him the status of former head of state.

When Strasser lost power he was metaphorically thrown to the wolves and stripped of all the trappings of power. He was left to fend for himself and find whatever work he could, without the luxury of vast reserves or properties to support him. Despite the harsh treatment meted out to him, he remains positive about what he can do for his country. He believes that with his help, his community will flourish and, despite limited resources, continue to grow and move forward to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

The grandees of the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) have plumped for Julius Maada Bio as the party’s candidate for the crucial presidential election scheduled for the last quarter of 2012. It was a choice that was not expected when the SLPP convention began at the end of July. But after last-minute behind-the-scenes horse-trading, 238 of the 600 or so delegates at the convention voted for Bio.

There are those who might not like this, but horse-trading is part and parcel of the cut and thrust of politics and the democratic process. Bio himself acknowledged this when he said in his acceptance speech: ‘…we celebrate the outcome of our collective endeavour here tonight as a win-win for internal party democracy; not as a personal victory for any individual. The true winner tonight is the SLPP, the only truly democratic and national political party Sierra Leone has ever known.’

Now it is up to Bio to show the party faithful that he can lead them to victory in 2012. This, of course, will not be an easy task. He has a past that could stand him in good stead or work against him. Bio was one of the Young Turks that overthrew the All People’s Congress (APC) government in 1992 – and, for sure, APC stalwarts, whose party is currently in power, will do all they can to halt Bio’s march to the presidency.

Indeed, last year there was talk of investigating executions carried out during the period Sierra Leone was under the National Provisional Ruling Council (NPRC), of which Bio was a member. The matter was shelved, but there is suspicion that it would now be revived in an attempt to forestall Bio’s presidential ambitions.

This, naturally, has not been lost on SLPP supporters. They argue that Bio was merely in charge of the information department when the executions took place and that he was not privy to the decision by senior members of the NPRC. In any case, the argument goes, the NPRC was recognised internationally as the de jure government in Sierra Leone and as such it could have acted within the law.

Bio, obviously, must be well prepared to deal with any such investigation. The SLPP hierarchy will make sure of that. The party has taken a conscious decision to pick Bio as its presidential candidate because, even though he had antagonised some members of the SLPP, they know that his credentials could make him a formidable force against the APC.

He is relatively young and as such has the backing of many disaffected Sierra Leonean youths. But the problem with this is that he could have his work cut out in trying to rein in these young people who tend to get too restive during the hustle and bustle of the political campaign. Violence is always just beneath the surface when the paths of supporters of the SLPP and APC cross.

However, these are early days. The campaign is going to be a long, hard slug and it would sorely test the democratic process in Sierra Leone. But, in the final analysis, the leaders of both the APC and SLPP owe it to Sierra Leoneans to ensure that the country does not degenerate into chaos.

Gaddafi is only the second sitting head of state to have an ICC arrest warrant issued against him. His arrest warrant came on the 100th day of NATO’s operations in Libya, after airstrikes eased the siege by Gaddafi’s forces on key opposition strongholds. The only other arrest warrant that had previously been issued for a sitting African leader was for the Sudanese president Omar al- Bashir who is charged with genocide in Darfur.

Although Gaddafi’s warrant has been issued, sceptics are warning that he could still cling on to power. But what if NATO together with the UN managed to capture Gaddafi and bring him to the courtroom in The Hague? It could have made the way for peace talks in Libya and it would also send a strong signal to all other despots: they would not even be able to hide in their own countries. Unfortunately, it is not that easy. For instance, the ICC issued a warrant for al-Bashir’s arrest over two years ago yet he still remains in power. Critiques of the new trend of prosecuting leaders often point to Sudan. Al- Bashir managed to avoid being arrested by travelling to countries that do not recognize the Rome Statute that created the ICC. The situation in Libya is not likely to be less complicated. According to the ICC it is national authorities that are responsible for arrests. Securing arrests has proven difficult for the ICC as it has no police force and relies on member states to enforce arrest orders.

Now as the UK together with the US and France alluded that they are prepared to agree to a political settlement in Libya that would see Gaddafi remain in the country after giving up power, the ICC is worried the Libyan leader could escape prosecution. However, it is now uncertain whether the National Transitional Council (NTC), who have been recognised by several Western countries as representatives of the Libyan people, are backing the proposition. Although they have previously stated that Gaddafi could remain in the country provided that he resigns, they recently claimed that this is no longer an alternative. ‘We made a proposal, but the deadline has expired. The offer is not valid anymore,’ said NTC leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil. The NTC proposal had a two week deadline.

Is the change in stance by the Western-led coalition a divergence with the ICC or could this be the best approach to end Libya’s struggles? The ICC has fired back on the NATO countries, stating that under ICC warrants a new government in Libya would be required to arrest Gaddafi. ICC spokeswoman Florence Olara stated: ‘Any negotiation or deal has to respect UN Security Council Resolution 1970 and the ICC’s decision.’ The UN Security Council resolution 1970 states: “The Libyan authorities shall co-operate fully with and provide any necessary assistance to the (international criminal) court and the prosecutor.’

Comparing Gaddafi with Bashir, who had his arrest warrant renewed, there is nothing that suggests that either heads of state will stand trial in the near future. Despite Bashir’s warrant he is still able to travel to friendly states which have refused to arrest him.

He visited China, a country that is not a signatory to the ICC statute, on the 28th of June. Since the court issued its arrest warrant, President Bashir, who is facing 51 charges for crimes against humanity and genocide, has been able to visit countries including Eritrea, Egypt, Libya and Qatar.

He also went to visit Kenya, which signed the ICC treaty, but refusing to execute the warrant of arrest that the treaty obliges signatories to perform. Gaddafi like al-Bashir certainly has a case to answer for human rights abuses, however not everyone agrees that issuing an arrest warrant was the right way to solve the situation in Libya.

The African Union, wanting to reach a peaceful transition of power in the troubled nation, has expressed concern that Gaddafi will only intensify the civil war as he knows that leaving Libya or handing over power could result in a potential prosecution in The Hague.

The AU announced that the ICC’s decision undermines their efforts to bring peace to Libya. However, NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen argued that the court’s move highlighted ‘the increasing isolation of the Gaddafi regime.’

So will Gaddafi, like Bashir, manage to avoid prosecution? Firstly, his assets in most countries are frozen and it could be difficult for him to take the Libyan people’s money abroad to live a life in luxury. There has been a rapid development in the world over the last decade with a decrease in exit opportunities for wanted dictators. If Gaddafi gives up power now, he has in practice very few countries to escape to.

While Bashir is making new friends abroad, most recently with Chinese president Hu Jintao, Gaddafi seems to be running out of overseas associates. The Arab League has recognized the opposition as Libya’s ‘appropriate authorities’ and has also had member states such as Qatar participating in NATO’s operations in the country.

Although al-Bashir like Gaddafi has to refrain from travelling to countries that recognize the ICC, he is not threatened by any of the above circumstances.

So, how can the ICC make Colonel Gaddafi’s arrest a reality? The United Nation’s mandate is only open to military use for the protection of civilians. If NATO is to enter Libya and arrest Gaddafi, it will probably require a new resolution. It would also require ground troops, something that the coalition countries are against.

The African Union has expressed their dismay against Gaddafi. As the organisation has condemned NATO-led airstrikes on Gaddafi’s forces, experts warned that many leaders of the pan-African body could refrain from public calls for Gaddafi to go. However, the head of the AU’s mediation team on Libya, Mauritania’s President Abdel Aziz, announced in the beginning of June that Gaddafi’s departure had become essential as ‘he can no longer lead Libya’.

This was the first time a head of state on the AU panel has made such a direct public call for the departure of the Libyan leader.

Paul-Simon Handy, of the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria, said: ‘Clearly more and more African heads of state feel they can openly express their dislike of Gaddafi.’ He added: ‘The façade of unity that the AU often likes to show on such issues is cracking.’

The new decision by the UK, France and the US was made as they realised that no country wants the responsibility or trouble of hosting Gaddafi. Not even ‘pariah’ regimes in Sudan, Zimbabwe or Belarus. The ICC’s indictment of Gaddafi for alleged war crimes made exile an even less likely option.

Friendless and with the world against him it could only be a question of time before Gaddafi’s fall. Many are not convinced that the ICC arrest warrant will do any good, a notable exception is Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC prosecutor, who announced the arrest warrant for Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam and Libyan intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi. He stated: ‘Libya is not a state party to the court’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute but it is a member of the United Nations. Therefore, according to Resolution 1970, the Libyan government has an obligation to implement the arrest warrants.’

At the end of the day, it is up to the Libyan people to decide what will happen to Gaddafi if he gives up power. Former UK foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said: ‘This isn’t about the British position or the NATO position – it’s about what the Libyans themselves want and can live with.’ He told BBC Radio 4 Today programme: ‘It is their country and it is their future. If they can live with a situation where Gaddafi remains in the country but is deprived of power then it is none of our business to say that is unacceptable.’

By Ingvild Vetrhus

John Vidal, the Guardian’s environment editor, stated in his article ‘Famine we could avoid’ that ‘Aid agencies and governments have known for almost a year that food would run out by now. But it is only now, when the children begin to die and the cattle have been sold or died that the global humanitarian machine has moved in, with its TV shows, coordinated appeals and celebrities.’ This all seems too familiar.

Eastern Africa has for a long time been a target for Western television, and it was just here, in Ethiopia, where famine caused the death of over a hundred thousand people in the ‘80s, that Western media developed a controversial reporting style. When Michael Buerk from the BBC crossed Ethiopia’s borders in ‘84, he produced a broadcast that showed dead bodies and a three-year-old dying in her mother’s arms, the first of its kind. According to Lilie Chouliaraki, the author of the book The Spectatorship of Suffering, the broadcast became a defining moment for future reporting leading in two ethical directions. One was that it motivated Bob Geldof to arrange the successful Live Aid concerts which raised £50 million in aid. As well as confronting the audience about the reality of a world divided into rich, poor, dangerous and safe areas, it triggered people to take action. On the other hand, she claimed that it was ‘criticized for this same shock effect: for perpetuating a stereotypical view of Africa as a continent of death and war; for turning suffering into a spectacle for consumption in the mega screens of the Live Aid concerts; for ultimately bringing about compassion fatigue among audiences: ‘no more pictures of dying African children, please.’ In other words, the media effect turned the suffering children into some sort of entertainment, often referred to as ‘horror porn.’ In such reporting there is the risk of ‘othering’ the victims of famine and the population of Sub-Saharan countries, making them appear helpless and unable to care for themselves. Chouliaraki argued that this stereotyping news reporting created a template for future coverage of African disasters.

We still see images of starving children representing ‘the stereotypical way the West views Africa and Africans – as helpless victims running around naked and covered in flies,’ according to Natasha Elkington from Thompson Reuters. Starvation in Africa is not newsworthy until media organisations capture footage which resembles the images from the Ethiopian famine twenty years ago. Despite Africa’s rapidly economic growth, it seems like Westerners view on Africa remains unchanged since ‘85. What is the reason behind this?

NGO’s have over the past 30 years played a significant role in the delivery of aid to Africa as a result of Western donors’ lack of trust in governments on the continent and fears of corruption. The donors use NGOs to channel aid which have led to competition for funds. Many NGOs have claimed that because they have to prove that there is a need for money, they have to feed negative images of starving children to donors and the media in order to get the funding. How can we change this?

According to a study by the Columbia University’s Journalism Review, the ten most read news publications in the US in 2010 published 245 articles about poverty in Africa whereas just five brought up the continent’s gross domestic product growth. As poverty rates in Africa have been decreasing drastically together with the death rate of children aged under five years, clearly Africa is showing that it is capable of looking after itself?

Africa is ‘among the world’s most rapidly growing economic regions,’ according to the McKinsey Quarterly. Hence, many African countries should be able to contribute to the current crisis in the Horn of Africa. Ghana with some 1.5 billion barrels of oil and an economy that increased by 23 per cent in the first three months of 2011 is one of them. Also big economies such as South Africa and Nigeria should be able to assist their fellow African countries with aid as two of the strongest economies on the continent. No African country outside from those affected by the drought have donated aid for famine relief in the Horn of Africa except from North Sudan and most recently South Africa, which has pledged to donate £100.000.

It is difficult for international organisations to provide aid to Somalia, which is the country hardest hit by the disaster. It is ranked as by far the most corrupt in the world. The widespread corruption also affects relief industry. Last year a leaked UN report revealed that half the food aid to Somalia ended up with local UN staff and Islamist organizations. The reality is that there are forces that have made themselves rich on food supplies, among other things, to sell food on to a higher price.

Furthermore, the Islamist organization Al Shabaab, which controls a number of areas in the country, has long refused international organizations, such as the UN Food Programme, access to bring aid into the country. It is therefore important that African countries take action as it may be easier for them to reach the ones in need. What happened to ‘African solutions for African problems’?

One example of a local solution can be illustrated by the Somali Diaspora which makes a vital contribution to the country, including the daily fundraising operations by Somali television channels, such as the London-based Universal TV. The African Union is also taking action despite claims of ignoring the famine and is stepping up security to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches the ones in need. The AU’s mission is on the ground where it is working together with international humanitarian relief organisations to bring health care and water to local communities. However, more efforts are needed in order to cover the estimated £300 million needed according to UN officials to help the victims of the drought. There is a remaining 40 per cent of this figure left to fund.

Media coverage of Africa is misleading and portrays a helpless continent that is fully reliant on aid. The truth is that the continent is very rich in natural resources. Africa has everything it takes to survive without aid and assistance. The obstacles are incompetent governance and ineffective assistance industries that prevent the resources from benefitting the whole population.

The African NGO You are the Revolution stated on its website: ‘Africa… It’s where the world is growing. It’s where the world is changing. Africa doesn’t need more aid, or another hand out alone. We have the resources necessary to meet the world eye-to-eye. Most of Africa reels under oppression but has vast potential, both in its people and natural resources. Good governance is rising and new technologies being embraced making it a lure for investors and trade. It’s time to see Africa another way, as an unshackled continent.’

Jonathan Glennie from Christian Aid argued in his book The Trouble With Aid: Why Less Could Mean More for Africa, that Western governments’ aid assistance to Africa often mean more poverty, worse basic services and damage to already weak democratic institutions. A request for more aid means that the pressure for action that would really make a difference for Africa’s poor is not heard. He claimed that instead of doubling aid to Africa, it is now time to reduce Africa’s aid dependence so that countries can develop their economies and taxation systems. This way, African countries will also be able to help a neighboring country in times of need. According to Yash Tandon, the author of Ending Aid Dependence, African Governments could decrease their dependence on foreign aid by focusing on jobs and decent wages, create a domestic market and own their domestic resources, reduce the resource gap, create institutions to invest in national savings, and restrict aid to national, democratic priorities.

Africa is attractive for international business investment. Business investment may be the only and most effective way out of persistent poverty. A change of discourse about aid to Africa is necessary to prevent disasters such as the famine in the African Horn from happening in the future and prevent new horrible images of starving children. IV

Ouattara was inaugurated Saturday 21st May 2011 as president following a bloody crisis caused by his predecessor’s refusal to concede election defeat. ‘The time has come to renew the founding values of our beautiful Ivory Coast, and to reunite Ivorians,’ he said at a ceremony attended by African leaders including Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan and Burkina Faso’s Blaise Campaore, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, President Nicolas Sarkozy of former colonial power France.

‘Let us celebrate peace, without which there can be no development,’ said Ouattara, 69, who took the oath of office on May 6 – four weeks after former president Laurent Gbagbo was captured for refusing to cede power following the country’s November 2010 elections.

An apparent 2 billion people tuned into Britain’s Royal Wedding Celebrations on Friday 29th April, watching Prince William and Kate Middleton tie the knot in what was said to be an ‘understated’ and yet elegant and glamorous affair. While it is difficult to get true figures as to the economic costs and benefits of the wedding, predictable displeasure was voiced by UK taxpayers and media as to exactly who would be footing the bill.

Not to be outdone, South Africa’s very own showman head of state, Jacob Zuma, decided to organise a wedding for his daughter Duduzile, for her marriage to businessman Lonwabo Sambudla. Seemingly equally glamorous, the tastes displayed were perhaps less elegant than decadent, with 12 Lamborghinis in the procession rather than boring old limousines, and the pre-wedding party, hosted by wellknown club owner Kenny Kunene, sporting scantily clad women lucky enough to have champagne drank right off their bodies. No Pippa Middleton style praise for these ladies’ fashion sense then.

The Zuma ceremony was reported to cost R3 million. While undoubtedly the president put on a good show, pipping Britain to the spectacle by holding the ceremony 6 days earlier on the 23rd April, any similar gains in the economic or national pride stakes are difficult to see. Displeasure might be voiced by the South African taxpayer too. With Duduzile having 21 siblings, if Jacob Zuma decided to throw a royal wedding for all of them, the cost (including for Duduzile) would come out at R66 million. That’s just a fraction above the reported R65 million Zuma was said to have spent on renovations to his house in Nkandla. Add to this the annual cost of supporting Zuma’s wives, said to be R15.5 million, and there is cause for concern. Zuma spokespeople have in the past claimed that the president’s spending is a personal malter, and is largely self-funded. In this case, the above spending of R83.5 million must mean that the president earns a huge amount.

However, according to figures from parliament, the president earns R2 .25 million a year. The surplus of R81 ,25 million is quite impressive, and means that as well as his duties as president and efforts as political entertainer, Jacob Zuma must be a canny investor and businessman to be earning that kind of money while the rest of the country is recovering from recession, and recent reports from Stats SA showing a 25% unemployment rate in the country. Carrying on the theme of the royal Zuma bloodline, it was reported recently that Duduzane Zuma, Jacob Zuma’s 28 year old son, was soon to become South Africa’s youngest billionaire (presumably, then, that means he will have to pay for his own wedding?).

Clearer and more thorough arguments have been made elsewhere as to the invidious nature of what has been jokingly dubbed ZEE – or ‘Zuma Economic Empowerment’ – in a cynical twist on the country’s intended policy of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). With over 50% of black youth unemployed, and presumably without Duduzane’s pension or share options, the plans to empower the previously powerless are presumably either on hold or are just not being made a priority by Zuma’s ANC government.

Making a comparison with another country with an equally controversial and showmanlike leader is illustrative. Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi is not only his country’s Prime Minister, but is also one of its richest people. Like Zuma, he courts controversy with his various affairs with women (unlike Zuma, he doesn’t marry them), apparently shady business deals (also involving various court and corruption cases) and even shadier business connections (wry parenthetical comment excluded for safety reasons). However, while Zuma’s South Africa faces an unemployment rate of 25% and per capita income of US $10000, Italy can hardly be said to languishing in relative poverty, with its unemployment rate at 8.3% and per capita income at US $31 ,000, Italy’s CGI or ‘redundancy fund’ also ensures that the unemployed get money to ensure a social safety net in order to meet their basic needs.

The moral of the story, in a story with few morals, is that there are those who try to distract their populations from their plundering lifestyles with showmanship and illusion, but there are certain conditions beyond which it is unbearable for a suffering people to take it any more. While British citizens and taxpayers may well complain about funding the weddings and lifestyles of their royals, it  is true that they generate at least some tourism revenues for their country. Without implying that Zuma and his familiesm various business interests do not bring in foreign investments into various mining and other concerns, it is not a cynical question to ask just how much of that is actually seen by South Africans outside of Zuma’s magic circle and the various investors in their companies. It is cynical how there is so much wealth in the country and it is simply lining the pockets and Lamborghinis of the few – South Africa voted against that sort of arrangement in 1994, and its citizens are in no mood for going back.

When opposition leader Kizza Besigye joined with Museveni as part of the rebel army that helped to oust first idi Amin in ’79 – after a brutai regime that had caused the loss of as many as 400,000 Ugandan lives – and then Miiton abate in 1986, they fought side by side.

Now, some 25 years on – all of which have gone on under the military dictatorship of President Museveni – and Besigye’s opposition to his erstwhile friend has grown stronger than ever, Now, it seems that Besigye is more determined than ever to see Museveni go the same way as his predecessors.

Since the disputed elections in February – the third time Besigye has challenged and failed to overthrow his opponent – he has been arrested four times, received severe beatings and has even been temporarily blinded in one eye as a result. Besigye was partaking in ‘walk-to-work’ protests – set up to challenge the rising cost of fuel and food – at the time of his arrests and many Ugandans have spoken out against the brutality of Museveni’s response.