But many Senegalese were disappointed because they thought that Wade, himself a long-time opposition politician before he finally won the presidency in 2000, should have behaved better given his own political experience. But he somehow atoned for his initial recalcitrance by accepting defeat when voters plumped for Sall, 50, in the run-off on March 26 when most of the other 12 candidates in the first round backed Sall.

In February’s first round Wade fell short of a majority, polling only 34.8 per cent while Sall came second with 26.6 per cent.

The groundswell of opposition to Wade ensured that if he had attempted to rig the poll in his favour it would have been obvious that something fishy had gone on and this would have led to more violence in the only country in West Africa that has never had a military coup. The threat of more violence could have informed the decision of Wade to concede defeat to Sall who held several ministerial positions under Wade before becoming prime minister.

Senegalese voters have bucked the recent trend in Africa where aged politicians still rule the roost. For instance, when 74-year-old Rupiah Banda lost the presidential election in Zambia in September 2011, the winner was another 74-year-old, Michael Sata, who had challenged for the position three times before.

A month later, in Cameroon, President Paul Biya, 78, was re-elected for another seven-year term. By the time he finishes this current term he would be 85 and would have been in office for 36 years.

During the election campaign in Senegal, Sall promised that, if elected, he would shorten the presidential term to five years from the current seven, and enforce the two-term limit. This is a promise that the people of Senegal would want their new leader to keep. In Africa, where politicians of a certain age abound, there is a need to build a new community of younger leaders to take on the challenges of the 21st century.

According to a widely reported idea, Jacob Zuma may have acted just in time to save himself from being challenged by Malema at the ANC’s upcoming meeting and hundredth birthday at Mangaung, due to take place in January. While this is a matter of debate, as in the ANC’s hierarchical arrangement Malema would not technically have had the authority to do so, given Malema’s outspoken reputation such a performance would not have come as a surprise. As things stand, the ANC, and Zuma by his actions, have been praised for removing a bugbear to many, including the party itself. Whites were put off by Malema’s purported exploitation of racial tensions, business and markets by his calls for nationalisation, and the international community and South Africa’s allies for his lambasting of their journalists (the BBC’s Jonah Fisher) and denigrating of their allies (Botswana). With political anger rising, and tangible economic problems such as a downgrading of the country’s credit rating over fears of instability in its key industries, the presidency has acted prudently if a little late in dealing categorically with Malema’s ill-discipline.

However, Zuma may still find himself chewing bitterly on his own earlier words. In 2009, the South African president praised Malema as a potential ‘future leader’ of the ANC and the country. While it remains to be seen whether Malema can stage a comeback, there is a lot of foresight in media reports that the rise of Malema is a symptom reflecting deeper realities in South African politics. South Africa is one of the most unequal societies in the world, a statement for which countless statistics can be found on the internet and elsewhere – to cite one example, its Gini coefficient of around 65 places the country is in the top five most unequal societies in the world – sadly, along with its close neighbours Botswana (63) and Namibia (70). For all its historically real and currently apparent sympathy with the poor, the ANC has not been able to narrow this gap since coming to power. Simply put, Malema managed to tap into the frustrations of the poor and give them something to believe in. That he was undone by his own confused mix of personal wealth, corruption, and miscalculated offence does not make the problem go away.

South Africa’s current leading politicians have a history of struggle behind them, and see themselves as the guardians of the liberation struggle in the country’s young democracy. Yet, these selfsame politicians have been decried for creating a corrupt system criticised for its cronyism, in a political alliance which, combining communists, black nationalists and free market thinkers, amongst others, has tried to be all things to all people – as long as they pledged their support to the ANC – and yet has not managed to liberate the approximately 50% of the population living in poverty. That this poverty affects black South Africans to a disproportional extent, and is to a large extent still affected by the system of Apartheid, is certainly true – but as a repeated statement of fact this holds little comfort for the starving.

What is striking about this system is that it seems to have become all-consuming – the same old politicians struggle for power at the top, with alliances shifting and backs scratched one day only to be stabbed the next. Young leaders such as Malema find themselves part of this monolithic ANC system, and all too often become tainted by the kind of corruption facilitated by power. Given the on-going power and leadership struggles, distorting the channels of communication for those citizens looking to the party for leadership, those who have a message for the disaffected which strikes a chord will find themselves listened to. In the most recent incarnation, this has meant embracing a populism which is dangerous not only for its content, but for its hollowness.

For Malema is not the first to reach out to the poor of the country by preaching populism. His own mentor President Zuma, now trying to clean his hands of the whole affair, came to power in 2009 to a large extent by reaching out to the poor, and claiming that he would fight poverty and inequality. Malema took up the poisoned chalice, and took the populism to the next step by calling for nationalisation and decrying imperialism. Zuma was either subsumed into the economic realities of the country and the markets, or cynically and not without guile accepted the fruits of the votes of the poor, but left behind the populism for pragmatism. Malema ostensibly stayed on message, at the same time exposing the dualities in the ANC not only to many South Africans to whom it was obvious that the country’s leadership was made up of strange bedfellows, but arguably even to many across the world who now see that the long-ruling party and indeed the country itself is riven by disagreement.

It has been said that one of the goals of politics is to ‘give voice to the voiceless’. Leaders and ex-leaders in the country’s leadership structure have capitalised on this fact, but the voiceless are still there, passed over in silence for now while ‘business as usual’ continues. Malema’s voice may have lacked the critical wisdom needed to guide the country, but until all South Africans are able to lift themselves up and experience equality, they will be listening for signs of hope. At a time when the country feels let down by its leaders, people may just feel that they need another hero.

Notting Hill Carnival has been celebrated every August Bank Holiday since 1966, and has always been about celebrating the freedom of the Caribbean people. The popularity that the Notting Hill Carnival has shows the growing solidarity across all communities, ethnicities, ages and races. The mere mention of this festival is a celebration for people and for freedom the world over.

In our August issue we report on the Somali drought and ask: has the Western perception of the African continent changed since the Ethiopian famine in the 1980s? As images of starving children are being broadcast over the world, the Western media is making it seem like Africa cannot handle the crisis. Yet it can, as the most progressive region in the world full of rich resources and with a powerful African Union. With better governance and more effective assistance industries, the region would be capable of finding African solutions for African problems, and the external aid the NGOs are appealing for would not be needed at least not complete dependence on it. Measures should be taken by economically growing nations as well as the African Union to enable this to happen.

We also tell the story of Sierra Leone’s former Head of State, Valentine Esegragbo Melvine Strasser, who despite leading the country and showing his loyalty for four years, was pushed aside and left in poverty after the military coup in ‘96. The Government in Sierra Leone has been talking about reconciliation. We ask how the country can achieve this, when people who were once such important personalities and drivers of progress are forgotten about and left to fend for themselves. Continuing the Sierra Leone story, we also reviewed the book ‘From SAS to Blood Diamond Wars’ by Hamish Ross and Fred Marafono MBE, which details the exploits of the latter author, a Fijian ex SAS soldier who became involved in the Sierra Leone civil war. His role in the conflict was initially as part of the South African private military company (PMC) Executive Outcomes. We discuss how the book paints a more balanced view of PMC’s than was evident ten years ago, as governments are now accepting the positive roles such private companies can play in conflicts.

The Global Law Intelligence Unit of Allen & Overy assessed the legal issues surrounding the development of the new-born Republic of South Sudan. The key question is around the status of Sudan’s debt claims and existing contracts entered into with the Republic of Sudan in respect of the resources of the South. There is pressure on the north to let the Republic of South Sudan walk free of debt as the new state is very fragile and is facing numerous obstacles on the way to becoming a functioning nation, however there is also a strong will to resolve these issues.

Our focus is also on Nigeria, looking at the problem of the recurring violence in the northern states due to the Boko Haram fighters, a Nigerian Islamic terrorist group who seek the imposition of Sharia law. Efforts so far to quash the violence have been unsuccessful. There are signs of the group’s increasing sophistication, with regard to its capacity to manufacture improvised explosive devices, and evidence of sponsors both within and outside the country. There appears to be no respite to the attacks, and experts continue to identify new factors to the chaos, which threatens to erode national cohesion and stability.

It is doubtful that leaders with these histories would have the capacity to mediate sensitive situations in order to uphold the democratic process. If the African Union wants to rectify these issues, be relevant and create greater credibility then they need leaders with vision, and commitment to promoting the values of democracy. It is clear that the recent uprisings in the continent demonstrate a strong desire for change and democracy, and if the AU cannot represent its citizens effectively in this regard, then the people will demand an organisation that can do this. What is needed now is for the AU to reappraise its policies and take some decisive action to be on the side of the people and of democracy, and hopefully end the bloodshed in Libya.

Elsewhere in the continent, Signs of a more improved democratic process were seen in the recent elections in Nigeria, where Goodluck Jonathan has been given the mandate of the people to rule the country. NAA discusses how this more peaceful and fair election was in vast contrast to the corrupt elections of the’07 poll. There is discussion as to whether Goodluck’s victory signals the end of the ‘Zoning Agreement’ within the ruling People’s Democratic Party to rotate the Presidency between candidates from the North and South of the country. The post-election violence mostly in the north of the country probably reflects a frustration over that region’s loss of power. Jonathan has held onto power in a country with a strong and growing economy, and Nigeria now has a chance to regain a stronger position in the continent. In terms of thinking about the way forward, he now needs to take the opportunity to utilise this optimism to engage, unite and develop the country to fulfil its political and economic potential.

In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak appeared on state TV Friday evening 28th January, dismissing his cabinet, praising the security forces for their handling of the demonstration, and dangling the prospects of a negotiated settlement in peace following clashes between tens of thousands of demonstrators and security personnel.

A dusk to dawn curfew was imposed, but it was ignored by many protesters, who remained in the streets well after dark. Sounds of gunfire could be heard in downtown Cairo after dark.

Reports say former head of the International Atomic and Energy Agency Mohammed ElBaradei, who had joined the protestors seeking to lead them, was prevented by the authorities from leaving a mosque after Friday prayers. He is thought, according to International Crisis Group, to have been briefly detained. The entire country faces severe unrest with street protests building in opposition to the regime.

‘His detention has no credible basis. It also will not serve Egypt’s interests at this critical juncture’, says Crisis Group President Louise Arbour. ‘In a situation as tense as this, repression and abuse can only further inflame the situation. Rather than resort to repression, the authorities should heed demands of the population for dramatic political, social and economic transformation.’

But what sort of change is possible within the present situation? Egyptians want freedom, plain and simple. It is unclear whether that lofty goal is within reach, but the protesters it seems are willing to pay a price for change. Many hundreds have been arrested and the number of those killed is rising.

Until now, the Mubarak regime has been successful dividing a weak opposition, and controlling the population through the threat of force. That situation seems to have changed. The protests have widened, including broader sectors of society especially among the youths. The momentum it seems is on the side of the protesters. If more Egyptians shed their fear and join the call for President Mubarak to go, it is hard to see how the regime could survive. And, if Mubarak goes, the same way as Ben Ali of Tunisia, who will fill the void. Finding an ordered change in the seeming disorder that is unfolding is quite a challenging prospect.

As the situation in both countries unfold, Tunisian president for 23years Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, fled the country to exile in Saudi Arabia, after concessions to demonstrators and the opposition failed to pacify.

In Sudan, we report on the referendum, which will likely result in the south’s independence, but unresolved disputes and population shifts will continue to require the attention of the international community.

In the west of the continent, in Ivory Coast, mounting desperation in the camp of former President Laurent Gbagbo is becoming more palpable with each erratic about face. And his increasingly brutal attempts to intimidate both his own people and the international community into accepting him means that the window of opportunity for an amnesty is closing fast.

However, we argue, delay can be dangerous: If Gbagbo is able to continue his siege past January there is every possibility that the desperation of his predicament, and the bloody whisperings of his retinue will prompt him into the kind of action that would re-start a full blown war. The position he now finds himself in is not sustainable, and soon there will be few options left to him but to try and remove Outtara completely. The UN, the French and ECOWAS have the resources to prevent this, and they must act now.

Departing the political agitation in west, north and west central Africa, we also look into the rather pathetic situation of fleeing Zimbabweans seeking safety and greener pastures, in the rainbow nation South Africa, who are now being asked to return home. They are been pelleted from all sides; by members of the communities they live in, and the police who left them helpless in the storm instead of protecting them.

With the imminent commencement of a state-sanctioned programme to seek out and deport Zimbabweans that were not regularized before the government set deadline, the potential for mayhem is worse than ever. Add to this the coming South African local elections, when few politicians are going to support a non-voting and unpopular section of the populace, Zimbabweans have much to fear in 2011.

Leaders from Benin, Cape Verde and Sierra Leone, alongside Kenya’s Prime Minister Raila Ondinga (representing the African Union) arrived in Abidjan yesterday, but despite a day of frantic scurrying between president elect Alassane Outtara and ousted ruler Laurent Gbagbo, they were unable to come up with a compromise.

Nigeria currently holds the rotating chair of the ECOWAS commission and as the economic powerhouse in the region it is widely expected to provide the bulk of any personnel dispatched to Ivory Coast. But despite a resolution passed by the group on Christmas Eve, that threatened the use of force if Gbagbo did not stand down, yesterday’s discussions are not thought to have developed this course of action any further.

Gbagbo retains the support of the country’s military. However, it is uncertain if he would be able to command their loyalty when his cash flow runs out as the squeeze on his finances tighten.  Gbagbo then, may not be as strong after all as he is made to be now.

But scepticism about ECOWAS’ ability to bring peace by military means may also reflect an attitude on the part of observers that seems to take for granted that any attempt by African states to intervene is doomed to failure. It is a similar assumption that preceded South Africa’s World Cup, and one that has to be overturned.

This is an opportunity for ECOWAS to prove its critics wrong, and to show that problems originating in Africa can also have their solutions in Africa. The region’s heads of state have been unanimous in their condemnation of Gbagbo, and in their support of Outtara, and as ECOWAS has already threatened force if he does not step aside, this is a vital opportunity for the commission to build its credibility and establish itself as a guardian for freedom and democracy in West Africa.

Some scepticism is inevitable: In the past a lack of follow through on ECOWAS resolutions has seriously undermined the efficacy of the group, harming its reputation in the long run. But now things are different: More economic inter-dependency means that a stable and successful Ivory Coast is vital to the fortunes of its surrounding states, and a break down in democratic process could be unsettling for other emergent democracies.

For ECOWAS, then, the situation in Ivory Coast is both an opportunity to revamp its image in other parts of Africa and the rest of the world, and also to establish itself as a powerful and effective force for social change, capable of protecting the civil rights of all of its citizens. All eyes will now be on Nigeria, as the world waits for the next chapter in this much delayed electoral saga.

Not that I’m suggesting that Focus is under threat. But the World Service’s focus might be: The BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, has warned that the Corporation as a whole has to save £500m, of which £330m will come from efficiency savings. He made clear that the BBC World Service – described by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as ‘Britain’s greatest gift to the world in the 20th Century’ – will have to bear its portion of those cuts.

And Thompson, in greater need of cuts than ever, is now in position to be more brutal in slashing Bush House’s English and 31 foreign language Services than ever before. Earlier in the year, as the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition put the screws on the BBC over the licence fee, the Director General decided to do a deal under which the Foreign Office would no longer give £275m a year to the World Service in grant-in-aid. Instead, the BBC would bear the full cost of the Bush operation.

By Keith Somerville, Senior Lecturer in journalism at Brunel University.

But if a country’s own army has sealed its borders, and its own government has expelled the international press, one has to wonder how effective any sanctions might be, and whether those on the receiving end would even be aware of their enforcement.

The 15 members of the UN Security Council held urgent consultations after the Ivory Coast’s Constitutional Council declared the results of last weekend’s run-off presidential election to be invalid. As expected, they urged the two parties involved: Alassane Ouattara, who the independent Electoral commission announced on Thursday had won the contest with 54.1% of the ballot, and incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo, to seek a peaceful resolution.

The Constitutional Council rejected the results announced last Thursday afternoon on the grounds that, by Ivorian law, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) established to conduct the ballot had failed to deliver the outcome within the three days required. The Council’s decision is hardly surprising, considering that whilst the IEC is composed of members from multiple political parties, the Council is formed of those loyal to Gbagbo’s regime.

Vincent Hugeux , a journalist for French weekly, L’Express, told news agency France 24 that ‘Gbagbo is profoundly attached to the idea that he is the only rightful candidate to be President of the Ivory Coast’ and added, ‘[his] strategy has been to control the endgame of these elections through the Constitutional Council.’

The problem is that whilst the UN has reiterated its somewhat tired lines, insisting that leaders, ‘honour their commitments to respect the results, and address their complaints through the legal procedures and resolve their differences peacefully,’ it does not seem to have taken on board that events currently unfolding in the country have developed from a failure of the institutions designed to ensure that the election results are accepted.

It is true that Gbagbo’s supporters have been piling the pressure on Ouattara: past Wednesday night and Thursday morning eight people were killed outside the two candidates respective offices.  Gbagbo’s ruling Ivorian Popular Front (FPI) party immediately denounced the electoral commission’s verdict, even physically ripping the vote count from the hands of the IEC as they tried to announce the results.

But to which authority are the leaders supposed to defer in order to maintain peace? Is the UN, from a distance, and without a firm and unequivocal position, encouraging the two men to flaunt their country’s constitution? And furthermore, can stability emerge from a scenario whose outcome must result in either the IEC being revealed as fraudulent, or the Constitutional Council’s decision being overturned?

It is not a clear cut case of, ‘the votes are in, so accept them.’ The fact that Gbagbo’s supporters have repeatedly tried to delay the results is inconsequential, because their goal was always to establish the legality of their claims of fraud at a later stage. It is undeniable that the IEC was late in delivering the result, but it is hard to understand that the Constitutional Council somehow had within its powers to reject those results. It doesn’t seem like common sense to hold an entire state to ransom over a single day and hand victory to a clear loser.

The situation took a surreal turn on Saturday 4th December when both candidates announced their victory and were sworn in: Ouattara disclosing who would comprise his cabinet, whilst Gbagbo named Gilbert Marie N’gbo Ake, Dean of Abidjan’s main university, as prime Minister. The African Union (AU) dispatched former South African President Thabo Mbeki to the country to try and broker a deal between the deadlocked politicians.

Gbagbo’s refusal to stand down has been widely criticised by the international community and rightly so.  The UN’s representative in the country, Young Jin-Choi has endorsed Ouattara’s victory, whilst the French, the US, the EU and the IMF have also recognised his right to the presidency.

The AU has previously been criticised for failing to take a strong hand in similar situations, and Mbeki’s involvement in Zimbabwe when he was still President failed to provide a solution there. The Ivory Coast then presents an ideal opportunity for the Union to exercise its mandate to intervene when the situation threatens peace and security.

But Mbeki’s approach, favouring conciliatory terminology and advocating the two parties enter negotiations could be viewed as giving off the wrong signals: Gbagbo has lost the election, and appealing to him for reason might be seen to be, at least partially, endorsing his claim to victory.

The power sharing deal that was implemented by the UN in Kenya during 2008 is an example of how in the past politicians have used the threat of violence to undermine the effectiveness of the voting system; holding their own people to ransom until fears over stability force observers and governments to capitulate turning election losers to winners, making them pivotal in the power structure that emerges.

Mbeki, with the support of the UN and the rest of the international community, now has to take a strong stance in denying Gbagbo the opportunity to remain in any position of power, because to do otherwise would set a precedent in West Africa that says leaders can circumnavigate the electoral system through sheer obstinacy and use of thuggish threats. Essentially, Gbagbo has no right to challenge the results, but by including him in negotiations it is giving a platform for him to legitimise his grievances along constitutional lines. Now is the opportunity to utilise the AU’s peacekeeping powers and allow it to become a fundamental institution to the protection of democracy on the continent.  Gbagbo stands no chance against an AU or a UN united in support of democracy.